You seem to get caught up in the detail and end up missing the point.
1) If you are banning the Burka for security reasons, then the law has no reason to specify the Burka and not all the other possible items (helmet, balaclava, scalf hat and glasses). It could simply state that the face must be visible at all times when in public.
2) If you are banning the Burka on the basis that it is a religious symbol, then all religious symbols should be banned. However, you cannot then claim to be a truly free country, since you have effectively banned freedom of expression. You'd then also have to ask yourself whether actively choosing not to wear religious symbols is as much a "religious" symbol as anything else (or at least one of supposed moral superiority).
3) If you are banning the Burka in an attempt to curtail the abuse of Muslim women, you need to ask yourself why the banning of the Burka would make any difference.
On your second point, I fail to see how this relates to the Burka? Almost without exception, all religions are invasive. They all claim to be the one true word of god and impart a duty on its followers to spread the word. I also fail to see anyone, other than Muslim hardliners, condoning any such "invasion". Are you arguing that they can come here, but only if they're like us?
In summary, I can see only a couple of logical arguments for the banning of the Burka:
1) For security reasons; but I would ask what are you so afraid of? Of course, it would be fair to argue that the rules covering wearing of helmets etc in banks should also apply to the Burka.
2) For moral reasons (i.e. Itpro's argument); but I would ask whether such implied moral superiority in not wearing religious symbols is any different from the supposed moral superiority by those wearing religious symbols?
3) You simply don't like the Burka; which is something I couldn't logically argue against. In that case I would ask why it bothers you so?
|
|