WheN in RomE..?
BATTLES over religious symbols in Britain continued when a Christian woman took on British Airways over her cross necklace and a Mu–slim teaching assistant defended her stance on wearing the veil.
Rifts over veil threaten British race relations
The debate has amplified in the week since British leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw appealed to Mus–lim women to remove their veils to improve face-to-face communication and prevent separate cultures from taking root in Britain.
Britain’s Race Minister also waded in, saying a 24-year-old Mus–lim teacher who refused to either remove her veil while teaching young children or to work with men, breached sex discrimination rules.
In this latest incident, the teacher,.. was suspended after complaints from parents that their children could not understand her, especially as many had English as a second language.
The school principal that suspended Mrs… reasoned she did not wear a veil when she was interviewed for the job and face-to-face communication was essential for teaching English as a bilingual support worker.
.. defended her veil as a moral necessity and said to deny her the self-respect and dignity it afforded was discriminatory against Mus–lim women.
…. “She should be sacked. She has put herself in a position where she can’t do her job. She is denying the right of children to a full education … she is taking away the right of men to work in schools.”
His comments came as about 60 Mus–lims demonstrated against Mr Straw, calling him a “Christian fascist”.
Veils are designed to cover or hide a person’s face.
For what purpose?
Faces can be covered to hide a person’s identity.
Can you differentiate between a man and a woman when their face is covered by a bandana, ski mask, panty hose, or veil?
These women belong to a religious group hell bent on destroying the free world.
Fact.
Terrorists have disguised themselves as women to hide their suicide vests, ammunition, and manly faces from security cameras and the people they intend to blow up.
My first question:
Can we afford to practice idealistic utopian tolerance if it means perhaps supporting terrorists’ evading detection?
My second question:
Is it reasonable to posit that in the U.S. or Eurabia for that matter, that by and large, immigrants should abide by our customs, our laws, and speak our language?
From a sociological perspective, some claim the veil is oppressive, while others say it is liberating.
Women, who emphasize modesty, assert that they would rather cover themselves than to dress like modern “Western” women, who prance about (without a shred of any self respect) half naked and provocative…only to be leered at by strange men, whistled at like a dog, or to be seen as a sexual object.
Western society has been accused of an epidemic of pedophilia, rape, sodomy, murder, group sex, violence against women and a total lack of respect for women or relationships.
Fact.
Our culture allows pornography to proliferate as a multi billion dollar “industry” despite its ill effects.
Magazines on newstands which are basically soft porn are in full view of children.
My third question:
Is there any validity to those observations about our culture?
Are some female head and body coverings more restrictive than others?
The Hij–ab is a head scarf that usually is worn for religious reasons. They can be in different colors.
The Cha–dor is a large black shawl that covers not only the hair but entire body. 
The Bur–qa is a large robe that covers the entire body, including the head and face, with a mesh covering over the eyes, so the woman can see through the mesh and breathe. 
My last question:…for now……
Complex issue, is it not?
What say y’all sweet readers?
Others analyzin and ponderin:
thirdworldcounty, TheDumbOxon Madonna., PlancksConstant
October 17th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I say that yes, western culture has indeed been corrupted, and it has been corrupted by “progressive liberals” because so-called progressive liberals have no morals. Having said that however, I believe the teacher in question actually lied during her interview because she didn’t wear anything on her head at the time of the interview, thus making it seem as though she wouldn’t be wearing a head covering while she taught. Lying in an interview is definitely grounds for firing someone.
I have no tolerance for the burka, or any of the other sheets they wear to disguise themselves. You are right in that terrorists can indeed hide a lot under those things. They should not be tolerated in this country. If Islamic women insist on wearing them, then they should have to stay at home. A lot of people would say I’m being unfair. So I am and you know what… I don’t care. I would far rather be unfair than dead!
October 17th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
A teacher who cannot openly communicate with her students is not a true teacher. A true teacher puts her students first and as she didn’t wear her veil during the interview, it appears that it was more of a political statement then a religious one.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I love it! Trying to lecture through a veil.
“Rmbly mimbl fromfk.”
“Teacher, could you repeat that?”
“RMBLY MIMBL FROMFK!”
October 17th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Apparently in Britain its illegal to wear a hoodie in a public building (ie. a shopping mall or subway terminal) because it makes it too hard to identify people with the crime cameras. Yet the full female head scarf is so important to these Muslims, they’re even allowed to wear them for drivers licence photos!
October 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
All along I suspected that the women who wore those things were bald or ugly as sin. But then I suppose the answer to that question is to be found in the same book as whether or not Scotsmen wear anything under their kilts -in short -we won’t know as long as they insist on wearing them -Burkas and kilts alike.
Gee, this raises questions about how airport security handles traditional (flying?) nuns -you could really hide a lot of dangerous stuff under those habits
October 17th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
[...] In America you should have the right to be any religion you want and drive a taxi. But if your religion doesn’t allow you to pick up customers…..I hope Louie isn’t your boss. Angel previews part of the British mess [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Moose-limb women have the right to wear whatever they want… and society–employers, law enforcement, common folks like you and me–has the right to discriminate against her based on commonsense safety and the fundamental rights of others to not associate with them.
No sirt, no shoes, no service. Veiled face? No entrance. This way to the egress… Don’t let the door hita ya where… you get the drift.
Pack this on top of companies like Electrolux (ina St Cloud, MN plant) and Dell giving special priviledges to Moose-limb workers so they can stop the production lines to pray to their Devil in a Pink Dress (Clintoon has a lock on the Devil in a Blue Dress), and the trend toward dhimitude just keeps rolling along.
“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide”–James Burnham
October 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
“…pedophilia, rape, sodomy, murder, group sex, violence against women and a total lack of respect for women or relationships.”
This also happens in the middle east my dear! I would argue it happens MORE in the middle east, but all of these things are exposed (for the most part) in North America and Europe (it’s not Eurabia yet!) while they are almost always hidden in the middle east.
I would argue that the more closed a society is..the LESS exposed it is to these things, the more it wants them! It’s a strange paradox, but it’s just the way it is.
As soon as Saddam was removed from power…guess what became the biggest industry in Iraq? The buying and selling of pornography. They couldn’t wait to get it! Also, alcohol is banned in every Islamic country, yet Muslims I meet here in Canada who come from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc always say “oh, we always knew where to get booze”
October 17th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Thank y’all for the inputs to this post…disturbing questions and complex solutions?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Meat Puppets?…
Look closely in the mirror to see just who it is the Democrats are laughing at when they or their supporters publish material or make charges of the kind mentioned above, and do so in full confidence that by pulling such “strings” they can change y…
October 18th, 2006 at 12:04 am
If two more cents are needed…
Cultural habits are part of an entire social reality that includes economic and political ways of thinking and behaving. Traditional (let alone radical) Muslims cannot tolerate a democracy or the idea of toleration itself.
Liberals will be the death of us all, if they get their way, and they don’t even have the brains to know that they’ll be the first to go if the Moslems get theirs…
D. Ox
p.s. I’ve no idea why the tb’er doesn’t work Angel–it’s above my pay grade!
October 18th, 2006 at 12:17 am
SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE KKK HEAD DRESS???
HEY..JASON OF FRIDAY THE 13TH FAME WORE A HOCKEY MASK..AND FREDDY OF ELM STREET WORE, WHATEVER THAT WAS….GET MY DRIFT…COVERING YOUR FACE COMPLETELY WORKS VERY WELL IN THE HORRORS OF LIFE AND MOVIES, MAYBE THE MOOOSSSIES ARE TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING….
October 18th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Just like the libbie set has taken “freedom of expression” to the extreme that they run about in a state of disrobement, Islam has taken being conservatively dressed to a far extreme.
There must be a middle ground. Women should be able to dress attractively without looking like hookers, or like a tent.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Not only brainwashed, but they can lie, too. She didn’t think it needful to wear the veil when interviewed for the job, but suddenly it was needful when she had the job? Suuuuure! Riiiight! I believe her! LOL
Maybe the Brits will finally get a pair, huh? ‘Bout bloody time, too!
October 20th, 2006 at 10:23 am
If I may share another perspective as to why someone like Jack Straw might feel called upon to address the subject of the veiling of females in British society: There is another reason why this is a problem. It has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. It has nothing to do with conforming, fashion, or racism. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the individual wishing to live separately from the prevailing customs in observation of their religious beliefs - for example, the Amish in America are greatly respected, though they deliberately reject dress norms, electricity, telephones, modernity. Here’s what the problem REALLY is:
It is deeply offensive to the most fundamental feeling of people in free societies to see other people openly oppressed. We know it happens in various ways to many people in many places, including our own - but when it happens it upsets us. To see degradation of another human being worn publicly and held up as a virtue of some sort is simply sickening to us.
(So, by the way is Paris Hilton and her ilk - who have no excuse whatsoever, their degradation being entirely self-generated rather than culturally imposed).
It may be a cultural norm elsewhere to mutilate the genitals of little girls, and considered a virtue; that is not the case here. The custom must be observed elsewhere, not in this society. It may be a cultural virtue to sell off daughters in marriage to strangers, but that is not the case here, and it becomes something that people must do in private -not on the street. It may be a cultural norm for men to have four wives - but polygamy is unlawful here, and disgusting to the majority of citizens. People may freely engage in this sort of arrangement elsewhere. It may be perfectly acceptable to beat one’s wife (wives) or kill one’s daughters (”Honor” killing, I believe the term is) but here these things are crimes - assault and murder. They may not be practised, accepted and excused here.
Imagine if you will some reversal of experience regarding the veiling of females: what if people, for religious reasons, wore men’s clothing designed to expose the testicles, that women’s clothing bare the breasts? Would we not all find this appalling? If you were forced to see it on the streets or in public transportation or to know your children were exposed to it in schoolrooms from their teachers, would you not, finally, no matter how much you wish to be sympathetic and tolerant, say something?
The dehumanization of women is obscene to us. To deliberately throw it in the faces of one’s neighbors does more than separate - it’s offensive. If you are in our countries, you are free to act as you wish in your homes - something that is not the case, I believe, in many of the countries that promote the subjugation of women as a virtue. If people are going to emigrate to free societies, they must understand that they are guests and conduct themselves accordingly, at least in shared public life. Or, live elsewhere. I cannot help but wonder what it is that attracts immigrants to places for which they have such contempt. Please, be happy, perhaps somewhere else.
Jack Straw finally said something. It’s worth listening to. If it is unacceptable, perhaps it would be better, and people would be happier, occupying some country whose customs towards females are more in keeping with their comfort zone.