If the Burka is banned in France, shouldn't Nun's outfits be banned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lion_of_judah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lion_of_judah

Guest
Like the French President was saying how the Burka should be banned because it’s a symbol of oppression. But if you ask a Islamic woman, she’ll tell you that it’s a symbol of her faith, etc.

But nuns to wear a nun outfit, I forget what it’s called. And she would also say she wears it to show that her life is to God, etc. Just like the Islamic women.

So if you’re going to ban the Burka in a free country, shouldn’t the nun’s outfit be banned also?
 
Isnt it a “democratic” society?

Then it’s free in my book. 🙂
 
The term would be a Muslim woman, or Muslima. Nuns now days wear anything from modest street clothes to the habit. But I haven’t seen a nun in a habit in years other than on EWTN. Around here the nuns do not wear them.

Anyway, as I understand it the ban is on all religious symbols in public schools. Not sure how many nuns work in public schools? It does seem they were targeting all hijab.
 
A “nun’s outfit” is called a habit.

If a Muslim woman wants to be covered, and she does so as her religious belief she should be allowed to dress as she sees fit.

Franciscan Priests, Hasidim, Orthodox Jews in Yarmulkes, Sikhs and Amish all dress differently for religious reasons. That’s one of the good things about living in the United States, we have freedom of religion.
 
A nun’s habit does not hide her face in public.

A nun is not married nor is she seeking marriage.

A nun is a nun by her own free will and choice and represents a voluntary sacred vow.

A burka, which covers the face as well, is not worn voluntarily and is nothing more than an outward sign of Islamic male oppression. Moreover, ALL women are supposed to dress that way under Islamic Sharia law. A Moslem woman may say it is a symbol of her fath, but she says that under duress, knowing that any other answer will result in a beating or other abuse from her husband, father and/or brothers.
 
So the nun is not obligated to wear the habit in public?

Which I guess thats what the real question is. 🙂
 
So the nun is not obligated to wear the habit in public?

Which I guess thats what the real question is. 🙂
No one said that and you yourself know that that is a false statement. If you want to have a sensible discussion, stop posting things you know are false.
 
Like the French President was saying how the Burka should be banned because it’s a symbol of oppression. But if you ask a Islamic woman, she’ll tell you that it’s a symbol of her faith, etc.

But nuns to wear a nun outfit, I forget what it’s called. And she would also say she wears it to show that her life is to God, etc. Just like the Islamic women.

So if you’re going to ban the Burka in a free country, shouldn’t the nun’s outfit be banned also?
I agree with your point, but will qualify it somewhat. In general, any country that espouses religious freedom and individual liberty shouldn’t be banning anyone’s outward sign of religious faith, Muslim or Catholic.

That said, France does not enjoy a constitutional guarantee of religious liberty and freedom of expression like we do in the US. There is a strong “statist” element that runs through French politics which puts the state ahead of the individual. From that standpoint, the French are certainly more comfortable setting defining limits on what is acceptable within French culture.

While both Islamic head coverings and habits are both outward signs of religious observance, there are significant differences in their cultural and societal message and that’s what France is certainly addressing. I don’t agree with it, but certainly understand it.

Specifically, the history of France is interwoven with the history of the Church. While Nuns are a dwindling site on the streets of France in the 21st Century, they are an intrinsic part of French culture and history. The symbolic message sent by religious women wearing a habit is well within the cultural mainstream (at least historically) for French Society.

Conversely, women wearing Islamic headwear represent a much different cultural message. For many, particularly in the west, female Islamic headwear is viewed not as a sign of faith and piety, but one of gender-based oppression and the wholesale mistreatment of women. It’s symbolic of the second class status many feel Islam accords it’s women. Secondly, it’s a sign of cultural separatism. Whatever the motivation for wearing traditional Islamic dress, it is likely viewed by many in France as a deliberate rejection of traditional French culture and a desire to avoid assimilation and maintain the culture of their traditional homeland. This is certainly a threat to the traditional French view of themselves.

I’m certainly not endorsing the French position, but can understand it. This is what happens when there is no guarantee of individual liberty. Heck, we have enough trouble keeping the government out of our private faith lives even with a Bill of Rights.
 
Isnt it a “democratic” society?

Then it’s free in my book. 🙂
Since when does a “free” country tell people what they can and can’t wear in public? I don’t care what they call themselves, the people are hardly “free” if they are being told what they can and can’t wear.

What is the difference between Iran telling women they MUST cover their faces, and France telling them they must NOT?

~Liza
 
A nun’s habit does not hide her face in public.

A nun is not married nor is she seeking marriage.

A nun is a nun by her own free will and choice and represents a voluntary sacred vow.

A burka, which covers the face as well, is not worn voluntarily and is nothing more than an outward sign of Islamic male oppression. Moreover, ALL women are supposed to dress that way under Islamic Sharia law. A Moslem woman may say it is a symbol of her fath, but she says that under duress, knowing that any other answer will result in a beating or other abuse from her husband, father and/or brothers.
i think it should be banned for that reason and also for the fact taht her face is hidden… and who knows what else may be hidden in the folds…

i mean, if someone wanted to rob a bank, what a great disguise… (as long as he shaves… :D)

also, i’ve heard it cn interfere w/ driving…

but mostly women should not be forced to wear it… or under duress…
 
I live in a city called Bradford in the UK which has about a third Muslim population so you will see a large number of berkas in certain areas of town. There is a large difference between the berka and the hijab which is purely a veil. I would have no problem with women wearing a veil and nuns wear a veil, which could be compared to the Hijab worn by Muslim women. The berka takes away female identity and therefore women do look like criminals and “the living dead” but I think banning the berka would just cause more religious division. We’ve already had race riots in this town so on the grounds of religious tolerance I would not prohibit. It is important to note that as a Christian here I try not to judge on appearance which admittedly is difficult if the appearance is severe, however, a woman could be internally oppressed rather than overtly oppressed. I can’t just judge female oppression on clothing. I feel that the contraceptive pill is also a more harmful form of oppression so that is how I deal with it. I also say a prayer for every woman I see wearing the berka as I worked with Muslim immigrants and one woman who wore the berka asked me to pray for her. I’ve liked the couple of women I met that wear the berka, called Khadija and Riffat.
 
I I feel that the contraceptive pill is also a more harmful form of oppression so that is how I deal with it. I also say a prayer for every woman I see wearing the berka as I worked with Muslim immigrants and one woman who wore the berka asked me to pray for her. I’ve liked the couple of women I met that wear the berka, called Khadija and Riffat.
how is the b-control pill oppressive?

i don’t belive in it but oppressive… wouldn’t have been my 1st choice of adjectives…

just wondering…

it would SEEM that the b-control pill would give “freedom”… but we all know how certain freedoms can actually be bondage…

bondage to sin being the worst of all…
 
**how is the b-control pill oppressive? **

i don’t belive in it but oppressive… wouldn’t have been my 1st choice of adjectives…

just wondering…

it would SEEM that the b-control pill would give “freedom”… but we all know how certain freedoms can actually be bondage…

bondage to sin being the worst of all
I think you answered your own question.
 
how is the b-control pill oppressive?

i don’t belive in it but oppressive… wouldn’t have been my 1st choice of adjectives…

just wondering…

it would SEEM that the b-control pill would give “freedom”… but we all know how certain freedoms can actually be bondage…

bondage to sin being the worst of all…
If a woman takes the contraceptive pill she oppresses her inner femininity and makes herself infertile. Some contraceptive pills are similar to testosterone supplements. So this is a form of female oppression in the West.
 
When’s the last time a nun wearing her habit carried out a suicide bombing ?
 
When’s the last time a nun wearing her habit carried out a suicide bombing ?
I had hoped that the level of discourse in this thread wouldn’t degenerate to this level.

There are certainly instances where terrorist bombings have been carried out by women, perhaps wearing traditional Islamic dress. However, I do not believe that is the justification for the French government’s directives on the matter. I suspect you knew that already.

Here’s some recent commentary from a French politician, just to re-center the discussion:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6539336.ece
A group of 58 MPs from the Left and Right called on Wednesday for parliament to react to the phenomenon of women who are adopting what they called oppressive head-to-toe Islamic dress that “breaches individual freedoms”.
Luc Chatel, the Industry Minister and government spokesman, supported the MPs. “If it were determined that wearing the burka is a submissive act, and that it is contrary to republican principles, naturally parliament would have to draw the necessary conclusions,” he said.
Asked whether that would mean legislation, he replied: “Why not?”
The new debate over Muslim dress is reviving passions that surrounded France’s 2004 law banning religious headcover in state schools. André Gerin, a Communist MP, led the motion for an inquiry, calling the burka and niqab “a moving prison” for women.
 
France was once known as the Church’s Eldest Daughter, the country where Islam was stopped. To make comparisons between a nun’s habit and Islamic attire is pretty sad.
 
France was once known as the Church’s Eldest Daughter, the country where Islam was stopped. To make comparisons between a nun’s habit and Islamic attire is pretty sad.
That goes to the historical and cultural significance of the Church in French History, however the state of the Church in France now is pretty dismal from what I read.

The issue isn’t about which religion is more historically authentic, it’s about the freedom of individuals of any faith to publicly attire themselves in clothes that communicate their faith.

I fully understand the French politician’s reasoning. They have been in the business of picking cultural winners and losers for decades. The OP’s point goes more toward the notion of religious liberty. A society’s tolerance is best measured by it’s tolerance for those things it doesn’t like, not those it does. While I would somewhat agree, particularly from a western standpoint, that Islamic headcoverings are indicative of women’s second class status in Islam, I would be reluctant to support any government’s decree that certain religious symbols are somehow off limits, particularly in a country supposedly based on democratic principles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top