Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Kitten Bukkake
More on topic: Here is a GREAT reason why this womans religious add-on beliefs (something added after the doctrine was laid down) shouldn't have been respected. Makes me rethink some things. If respecting their 'religious right' to wear a burka overrides the rights of hundreds to live, I think that it is selfish and petty to continue with the practice. I know it's just a few sour jerkoffs that are using the burka as a suicide bomb outlet, but it's not like they are ruining it for anyone. The burka is controlling, abusive and exceptionally outrageous, hailing from some cultures that are simply out to control women and others that find it acceptable to cut off a womans ears, hair and nose FOR SIMPLY LEAVING THE HOUSE (see this months Nat Geo).
Religion is supposed to enrich lives, in what way is the burka enriching for ~52% of the population? I guess it's pretty enriching even in places with universal suffrage, allowing for malignant thought processes like the one Deck just barfed up to flourish in many parts of a country (bible belt). |
A key point in the burqa debate is that to ban women from wearing it is identical to force women to wear it. It is a removal of their personal liberty to wear what they like.
I don't exactly see how that article relates to the topic of extra license to the religious. Since she's a suicide bomber, concealing her identity is not important prior to the act, since people will find out who she is afterwards. A woman is no less able to stage a suicide bombing event simply by wearing a robe.
In cases where identity confirmation IS important, e.g. at the behest of a police officer performing checks on drivers or when applying for personal documents or loans, I can see the need for the religious rights to be trumped by other concerns, but not in this particular situation the article describes.