The Burqa in America

Wake up people. Stop trying to make Islam into what you want it to be. To hell with the multi-culti "sensitivity" crap! What a bunch of kettle-cooking frogs! If Muhammed's followers were were running the show, you'd be decked in black from head to toe with no say in the matter. The Hijab, Burka, etc. are an in your face display of Islam's disdain for Western culture. They WILL NOT integrate in our world. For you erudite dopes who still think Islam is a "religion of peace," go home, pull down your shades, turn off the lights, sit in a chair, and shut your big mouth. It'll be the first right thing you've said all day and everyone around you will be better off.

During the 1950s and '60s it was still customary for women to wear vails on the hats. Not just a few women pulled those vails over their faces.

It was not a law, nor a religious requirement, but I do recall women making a reference to Paul's declaration in 1Corinthians 11:3-10 that in a show of respect for her husband a woman will cover her head.

In the '70 the style turned to a little piece of vail immovably attached to the hat or pined in the lady's hair with a small flower arrangement. By the end of the '70 the styles had changed along with the life expectancy of a marriage.

I think about the dumbest thing a US citizen can do is pass a law based upon the fickled styles of women, even when it is a voluntary and legally meaningless sign of respect.

If a woman's husband requires her to cover her face, she has just as much a right to become a single parent head of household as any other fickled broad of style in the U.S. does.

Dumb question, simplistic premise. Go into a French Quarter in Canada, and they have laws against signs in English. These folks are as strict about preserving their culture as we are about preserving our liberties.

Would I want a little boy wearing a Burqa to go into the bathroom with my daughter? Do I want an actor who is expressing himself outlandishly, to promote a gay movie, walking down the school hall partially dressed?

We only lose common sense if: we lose morality, and we start to set the rules for everyone from some central federal location.

Sally Quinn, adultry hurts a family, and a person's spirituality, much more than any style of dress.

Next time you want to debate whether a Muslim woman is oppressed, go up to her and see what she has to say.

Sorry for the Mistake.

If anyone hear thinks that "democracy is Illegal" in the Quran, then first find a verse that addresses that, and then we can discuss it. There are some seriously ignorant, and ridiculous comments here. People who do not understand the Beauty of Islam , and base their views of it off of Islamic Extremists are making wrong accusations. The only reason a Burqa is demeaning to Westerners is because they fear the fact that it's liberating for the women who wear it. Next time you want to job whether a Muslim woman is oppressed, go up to her and see what she has to say.

There are times when it's necessary to identify the person, it's at these times when they should be prohibited for reasons of security.

To all the spiritual leaders out there be it muslims, catholics, jews, hindus, buddhists, who impose dress codes and other materialistic ideas really
do not have a true understanding and have lost the purpose of their own religion.

Religion is about getting in contact with our inner being and that mindset promotes humility in recogniizing that we are all individually one person in a world of 6 billion, thats it, nothing more. The world continues on without us when we are gone. None of us are more important than the other, and none of us really know more about our purpose here than the other. No one has the right to impose their beliefs, ideas, religious interprations with force and abuse, which is how all these dress codes have been imposed on women in any religion. Religion and spirituality, have nothing to do with how we dress, and what we eat.

Sarkozy had it all wrong and in the French arrgant manner, thinks he has the right answers to everything. If he had ever questioned himself about the wisdom of banning a type of woman's clothing that excessively covers one body (burqa), while not commenting about another type of a woman's clothing that excessively reveals one's body(bikini), he may have arrived at the right answer.

The issue on the burqa is not the wearing of it, but its mandatory imposed use on women. If a women chooses to wear a burqa of her own free will, then we should respect this as we would any other.
I am appalled by seeing Arab men walking in shorts, sandals and a tshirt while his while is dressed completely in black in
sweltering temperatures.Zarkozy instigated this law for this purpose only. He is trying to protect the rights of young women. there is no doubt that women in Arabic countires are treated as second class citizens.
Furthermore why do Arab countries not respect North American dress codes when we visit their countries. If our women have to abide by their religious dress codes, then they should abide by our dress codes
in North America.

BURQA HIJAB CHADER
This is not a matter that discuss by a Social and Developed country president.
This is freedom of religious belief.If any body will make a forum that who will wear the cloth:Mostly says I will, Some say I will not. then what you will do, You will enforce them to wear cloth.Let it be religious faith.

Burqa in its present form and shape is not narrated by Islamic commentaries but it developed itself by different cultures and societies in different parts of the muslim world.The burqa you see in different videos from Afghanistan is quite different than of Arab burqa and the hijjab currently in fashion in Europe and North America.To me any curb on the Hijjab is against the civil liberty........I will quote,Mr chopra as saying that if Mini skirt is ok let Hijjab be allowed for the muslim women if they want to wear.

Burqa in its present form and shape is not narrated by Islamic commentaries but it developed itself by different cultures and societies in different parts of the muslim world.The burqa you see in different videos from Afghanistan is quite different than of Arab burqa and the hijjab currently in fashion in Europe and North America.To me any curb on the Hijjab is against the civil liberty........I will quote,Mr chopra as saying that if Mini scert is ok let Hijjab be allowed for the muslim women if they want to wear.

As far as I know, the only laws regarding dress in the US are that one's clothing must cover one's privates when one in out in public.
I don't see it as a double standard to require Americans to obey the laws of other couyntries (including public dress codes) when we are there, while sumultaneously extending the liberties of our country to others while they are here.

I dress as I please, including halters and Daisy Dukes in the summer, and string bikinis on the beach. I would not tolerate anyone telling me that I MUST cover up, so why should a woman who chooses to cover up be told that she MUST reveal herself?
With the exception of picture ID, I see no reason that anyone should have to unwillingly reveal her (or his) face to the general public.

As for whether or not they cover willingly or under compulsion of their husbands, that's not really an issue. I know women whose husbands forbid them to wear trousers of any kind because of a Bible verse that says women ahould not put on that which pertains to a man - these women are not permitted to wear slacks, jeans, capris, or shorts. Should skirts be legally banned because some women who wear them only do so under compulsion from their husbands?

One question raised by the burqa controversy is: To what extent does invoking a religious belief permit behavior otherwise prohibited? For example, can I wear a tee shirt on which appears Kill All The Filthy .....s? Can I enter a bank wearing a full mask? Can I carry a concealed bomb because I claim my religion requires it? Can I drive 5 miles per hour on an expressway because I claim my religion requires restrained behavior?

Clearly the answer is, Not all otherwise illegal behavior can be allowed. But who shall decide? It seems that it has to be the courts.

Currently, women throughout America enjoy the right to dress as they wish, given some limitations, under the law. Muslim women in America also have that right.

Therefore, it is their choice to dress as they please. If a Muslim woman choses to remove her veil that is her decision. If she decides to keep it on because she believes; and this is the point that all those who've commented thus far have missed, if she believes that she is following her religion by only allowing her husband, blood relatives and other women see her face, then she is making her choice.

It is not the place of non-Muslims to say what Muslim women can and cannot wear. Muslim women are not going around demanding that bikini clad women on beaches cover themselves, are they?

When you are a member of a particular religion you have the right to speak on its behalf because you believe in its doctrine, no matter how you interpret its teachings.

When you're outside of the religion you don't have that right because you neither believe in it nor understand its doctrine.

Someone who is illiterate can run around calling people to illiteracy because he/she feels its the key to happiness. But what does he/she know about the happiness of a literate person? Nothing.

In conclusion, there are women who feel it is perfectly normal to wear a bikini on the beach. They were born and raised that way. And there are women who would never be caught dead in a bikini. They were born and raised that way.

Forcing women or men to dress a certain way in America is currently against the law. Therefore either the law would have to be changed or deport all Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Nuns, Priests, Rabbis and anyone else who doesn't conform to the "ideal" dress code and life would be "perfectly homogeneous".

Western imperialism has many faces...

The conservative and "modest" dress required of women in Iran is the entombment of wemen who are still alive.

The Iranian rulers are psycopathic old men feeding on the blood of young women. The novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker was fiction, But, it turns out once again, truch is stranger than fiction, in the Vampire-ocracy of Iran.

This a public relations disaster for Islam. It is becoming more and more a quasi-political movement, lead by sneaking and conniving old men, seeking, by any means, to target and torment the flower of youthful womanhood.

What good are women, except to bare the human race to the next generation? But for this one attribute, I suppose to be a woman in Iran is worse than even being a Jew.

We see our American female reporters in Islamic countries covering their heads with scarves. This they do in accordance with those countries' religious (thus secular) laws.

When an Islamic woman comes to our country and becomes a citizen or even just lives or visits here, why should they not follow our customs and laws? Why the double standard?

And to allow them to have a driver's license photo taken while wearing this head and face covering is ridiculous! Who the heck could identify a person when that person's face is covered? Bet I couldn't wear a mask and have my driver's license photo taken!

Dear Sir
Burqa is not a part of Almighty Allah's teachings. No where in Holy Koran it is written that females ought to put on tent like clothes. It is the myopic view of the Muslims that they have compelled the poor lady to use that Burqa. If given the choice no lady will ever use it. A religion full of love and affection has been twisted by males for their benefit. Let the males of this religion sue and see to them the evil and hardship hidden in it. We are moving fast towards individual’s freedom of speech and his/her will to live as they like under given social norm. But to deny a female her right to live freely is a crime against humanity. Some one or the other has to take an imitative to liberate the poor ladies from this barbaric dress, be it President Sarkozy or someone else. Let us put in our bit to give freedom to the females of Islam

As an American woman, I do not welcome the Burqua in my country. It is a symbol to me of oppression - I do not understand why a woman should have to cover up her God given appearance in the name of modesty, while men do not have to for some unknown reason. I believe the women who want to wear the Burqua should be able to stand up to vigorous debate as to why they want that, and should not put others down for voicing strong objections to this form of "dress". They have the right to wear whatever they want, but they also have an obligation to their fellow women and men in America to understand the strong cultural objections that many people here have when they see a woman covered up like that. I don't think government should legislate dress, but instead should ensure that women's freedoms are protected. There should be a lot of free and open debate on this subject in schools, blogs, etc. Young Muslim women need to be exposed to different ideas on this subject, and should learn to deal with vigorous debate and challenge on the subject. Free choice is only possible if done with plenty of information on available choices and alternative lifestyles. If a woman does not want to wear the burqua but feels coerced to do so , countries need to provide plenty of safe houses and social support to her so that she can leave the coercive environment safely. I am concerned, though, that my point of view seems to be a bit unusual, and that more people seem to simply talk about the need to given women freedom to wear what they want. Women must have freedom, but unfortunately there is a history of countries and communities imposing the burqua on women and oppressing women. You cannot simply whitewash that fact.

A lesson for Sarkozy from history.

When Mustafa Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, wished to ban the wearing of burqa he simply issued an executive order to that effect. The next day his advisors notified him that none of the women complied. He asked his secretary to issue what he called an “addendum” to the earlier decree. This addendum stated that prostitutes are excluded from the ban. The next day all women dropped their shrouds, even the prostitutes.

I think that a garment which covers the eyes is not a good idea since it is a safety hazard. On the other hand, covering one's head is something done by many communities, by Jewish men, by Sikh men (this is a requirement only for men - so are Sikh and Jewish men oppressed?), and by many Christian brides. I do not know the reason for covering one's head, but it seems to be a custom in many communities.

My recommendation is, "Let us not go into hysterics over the topic". In the Turkish parliament, an elected woman member who chose to cover her head was not allowed to be seated. (Turkey has recently - in 2008 - decided to ALLOW women students in universities to cover their heads if they wish.) Earlier, when a ban on head covering was instituted in Turkey, many women students, forced to choose between uncovering their heads and interrupting their education, committed suicide. See the novel Snow by Orhan Pamuk. How many people inveighing against the Burqa aware of such incidents? These are complex matters and there are no simple answers.

This question was asked with too little context and too little background information. Most Americans have no idea what Islam teaches about modesty for both sexes, and the wide range of proper Islamic dress worn throughout the Muslim-majority world.

You needed to explain that the burqa is worn only in parts of central Asia (mostly Afghanistan and Pakistan), not in Arabia, not in North Africa, not in Indonesia or the Indian ocean countries. You needed to explain what the Niqab is, and that French President Sarkozy was referring primarily to it although he said "burqa". You needed *pictures* to show what the various types of Islamic female dress look like.

People need information on a subject so that they can form valid and useful opinions on that subject. Most Americans don't have that information. Why ask for an opinion that is probably meaningless when you haven't provided the information to form a meaningful opinion?

We are in America live as an American as for the Burqua it represents repression and disgust but it is their choice. But in America if for reasons of security or such it is asked to be removed, remove it or it should be banned. Most normal religious clothing does not hide the identity of person, the potential of a suicide bomber etc, but let's not foget there is nothing normal sane or good about Islam. If they do n't like it that way here or France go back to a Muslim country and enjoy all their freedoms........

It is a garment as offensive to Americans as the chains of slavery and the confederate flag.

Women who wear the Burka are not free.

If their pesonal belief allows the Burka, it will also allow honor killing.

If they don't want everyone in the family to be free, they need to stay home.

As a Muslim male, I can tell you that there is no valid reason for a woman to be forced to cover her face. No woman wishes to cover her face. We should ban it outright.

However, Muslim women often cover their hair by choice. That, we should respect and allow.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Mr. Sarkozy’s argument against the niqab was that it is NOT ordained by any religion, and it does separate women from the larger society. I would further add that this Zorro-like wrap facilitates crime and sexual immorality. Most of the prostitutes who work in the Pyramid district of Cairo arrive at their dens wearing niqab.
The niqab and other forms of veils such as Hijab are political and cultural statements that are meant to say “We are better than you and we reject your culture”. Why else would the Islamists pay large sums of money to public figures such as movie actresses and news anchors to wear the Hijab and the niqab? Or why the Islamists in Iraq threaten non-Muslims men with death if their women do not wear the veils?
Not only the niqab but also the Hijab should be outlawed in Western societies because of the above reasons and because a baseball cap and a turtle neck would be as Sharia compliant. If that was the real purpose for wearing those shrouds.

In my view the issue about burqa is more related to dressing codes and symbolism than to laws of the land about religion or freedom of speech.

First, I love this country because we are one of the most free if not the most free in the world, but I have news to you. Our government can and do regulate ways to dress properly in certain circumstances.

For example, there are counties where regulations indicate how short could be a short pant wear by girls and boys attending public schools. They could add to that regulation how long is permitted the pant or robe to be wear in the school (adios burqa in these schools). Also you cannot go to a trial room dressing as you wish unless you don’t mind to be declared in contempt. And we are not talking here about covering your face. So, no prohibitions, but some regulations exists and are enforced.

Second, there are not many regulations about symbolism in dressing, but there are reasonable and accepted reactions to the way people dress in certain circumstances or places. For example, it is not advisable today to dress a shirt with a big swastika on it and walk into a Jew museum or a black community center. Employees will call 911, security guards will show their guns and the public will dive to the floor. Hey, these are human reactions that are not punished by any law. IMO, the person with the swastika will never win if he/she sues the museum or the center for discrimination or other reason.

Finally we do not need more laws to deal with parents, sisters and brothers that force a minor or a young adult to wear dangerous or ridiculous customs all the time when in public. Today, with the laws as they are, if you know that your neighbor is forcing his 13 years old daughter to wear everywhere she goes a gorilla custom that covers all her body except for the eyes, more likely authorities will pay a visit to their home. If the father contends that it is because their belief in the King Kong religion, things may get a little more complicated to declare abusive treatment, but this is already happening with blood transfusions and other similar issues.

There are many factors that should be considered in this debate. First and foremost, the US and France have very different notions of what 'secularism' means and how it should be applied in society. America was founded as a nation built not on ethnic lineage, but of one against the overreaching tyrannies of a controlling foreign sovereign AND as a nation of religious tolerance and freedom. Though France's population has markedly changed in the last few decades in terms of ethnic composition, it is still a nation that was founded for the French people. Though this may seem like an archaic view, most nations are not cultural melting pots like the United States. Though the French also have strong notions of person liberties and freedoms, the basis for the rise of our respective governments necessarily leads to differing views on the practice of religion. (And lets not forget... The U.S. Constitution owes great French thinkers like Voltaire for much of its bite)...

Just a quick take on the splits:

The Court is clear in its interpretation of the First Amendment and Establishment Clause. Its two biggest concerns are (1) preventing Federal and State impediments on the freedom for one to practice his religion as he sees fit AND (2) preventing the government from establishing/supporting one religion over another. The Courts apply the strictest scrutiny to any legislative act that falls under one of the two aforementioned Constitutional values. To pass a law banning or limiting the use of burqas, the law would have to be necessary for the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

This high standard tells us two things: (1) Americans believe that Federal, State, and Municipal governments should not meddle with an individual's religion and how he chooses to interpret his religion AND (2) there exist circumstances where it may actually be necessary to ban or limit one's ability to practice his religion as he chooses. For example, you wouldn't be able to side step anti-narcotics laws if your priest told you the only way to salvation was through doing a line of cocaine off of the back of a prostitute while engaging in intercourse with him. The Court would hold that a State's health and safety interests in its citizens are SO compelling, that an individual's religious freedom will be subordinated.

In the context of a Burqa, I think it would be tough to make the argument that a burqa is a per se threat to the safety and security of others. As a few other folks have wrote, a person could easily hide a gun or a bomb in loose articles of clothing such as a trench coat. And if on the spot facial identity is a concern, just think of our friends in the great States of Minnesota and Illinois during the winter time; would the government be able to ban folks from protecting themselves from the literally blistering winter winds (i.e. wearing a ski mask)? Would the government be able to prevent citizens from wearing surgical masks (however irrational it may be) to prevent the spread of whatever new h1n1 bird flu the media is causing a buzz over? Based on that rationale alone, it would seem that anti-burqa laws of that nature would not pass judicial muster.

However, that does not mean that a State's DMV must issue an ID/License to someone who refuses to expose her face for the picture! Or if there are regulations that say anyone that is hired as a police officer cannot wear a burqa while on duty (b/c it would limit her ability to effectively act), that would be perfectly fine too. Simply put, the laws of our great land will never allow the government (by any of its arms) to question whether one is right or wrong in his interpretation of his religious beliefs. In the same way, I think its completely fine for people to come to a personal conclusion as to whether a woman is properly or improperly following the laws of Islam (I would encourage it). Heck, there isn't even anything wrong with engaging in a friendly conversation/debate questioning a woman why she wears a burqa in the first place! Since that is the case, no matter how irrational and oppressive the burqa might be, the government cannot ban burqas simply based on the determination that it is a tool of dominance by barbaric controlling men.

The French do not have the same view on the protection of religion. The government is one of super-secularism. If France had a pledge of allegiance, it would not contain the term "under god"... I highly doubt that public money is allowed to go to the funding of textbooks, transportation costs, etc. of religious schools (that practice is acceptable in the US)... and I also highly doubt that religious organizations receive the same tax benefits/sheltering that mega-churches in the U.S. NEED to exist. This is not to say that the French do not believe in religious freedom; France is just more willing to impede on religious freedom when it threatens the objectivity and neutrality of its government AND, almost as important, when it moves to destroy the French culture and cohesion.

As an American, I always had a difficult time understanding that concept. Many Americans find the view to be arrogant and racist. I didn't truly understand the French rationale behind until I went to Paris for the first time a few years back. I notice an unusual number of interracial couples where the man was black and the woman was white. And of course, since it was France, they, like any other French couple, where very open with public displays of affection. The most amazing part, NO ONE CARED AT ALL. As progressive as the United States may be, I notice when white men look at me with disgust when I am with a white woman (I am a Bangladeshi American, and was raised a Muslim to boot). The moment where I realized that interracial mixing seemed to be encouraged (let alone not frowned upon), I finally understood the French rationale for subordinating individual religious beliefs in the name of secularism and national identity: their form of democracy places a higher value on the continued existence of their way of life over ANY religion. And as a democratic sovereign, I think it is completely legitimate for their government by their people to make that priority. The French could care less if the population is genetically a mix of Algerians, Senagalese, Ivory Coast, and heck even English, all they care about is the continuity of the language and its traditions. Under the French analysis, a burqa is a highly divisive tool of oppression that may one day threaten the objectivity/neutrality of government... but most of all, it goes against the principle of one distinct French population by literally putting up barricades to the assimilation of all French Citizens. In its super-secular approach, the idea is that these religious divisions necessarily lead to the stratification of the population. And when there are separate populations, the inevitable result is a group of second class citizens.

The most amazing aspect of the difference in the US and French rationales... they both reach for the same goal. Truly fascinating!

Just a little bit about myself -- I was born and raised in NY to conservative Bangladeshi Muslims. My family has become increasingly conservative in its religious practice... though they did not observe the practice before, I know have a few aunts (and occasionally even my own mother) that wear hijabs (traditional head covering). It bothers me to no end. I think the hijab and burqa are culturally arab and have nothing to do with the religion itself. I do believe both are signs of oppressive male dominated societies. After 8 years of deconstructing my religious beliefs, I consider myself a Muslim in name only just to respect my parents.

Burqa must be prohibited in USA and in the non-Muslim countries, because:

1) a terrorist or a criminal could hide under it easily.

2) the USA forefathers drafted the constitution giving freedom of expression or choice, but they did not know the terrorism could strike USA. Now we know it, and therefore need to amend the constitution to that effect. As new threats are known, new amendments must be adopted quickly, else USA will suffer.

Alsp note that per Koran, democracy is illegal.

I find women's religious garb, such as the burqa and nuns' habits, repulsive. But that's just a fashion statement, and I will just have to live with my own prejudice. Historically, of course, they antedate the sects that impose them. They go way back before monotheism. They are, in fact, pagan vestiges from times when tribes were the highest form of social organization. But that makes them no more pleasing to the eye. These costumes are offensive, however, when they are dangerous, as when driving, and when sitting in front of you at the movies they're worse than cell phones.
Many would say that they are offensive when worn by non-believers to mock the sect that prescribes them, but that's okay. They certainly make me wonder about the sanity of wearer, and the burqa in particular comes close to being equivalent, from a security point of view, to a ski mask, so it may legitimately be single out for special treatment in public settings. As for the head scarf, there are babushkas everywhere.

This concept of "faith" used by conmen and the feebleminded to enslave believers and the gullible is just an extention of the dangers expounded by Sinclair Lewis in his well known but reviled novel, "Elmer Gantry".
The very existence of nature is the strongest affirmation of the existence of God yet religious leaders shy away from using our enviroment to introduce us to God, choosing rather to agonize over the "mysteries of faith" therby ensuring our continued blindness.
We see the Creator daily through his works and through the senses we are given but are led astray by our modern day pious "Elmers" who hold out one hand in greeting and the other for money to fund their veiled lifestyles.
One needs only to engage the media to find daily articles on theft, corruption, sexual abuse of minors and others by our so-called religious leaders. They are not in the minority!
The Mother Teresa's and Billy Grahams are very, very few and far between.
Once again evil has triumphed and this international news organization is undertaking to sponsor/support
this self-serving and malicious dogma whereby "P.T. Barnum's flock " are separated/fleeced from their earnings for the benefit of the few.
Sno' wonder church attendances are falling!
Jesus was so correct in chasing the money-changers from the temple and we must take our lesson from that!

Women can wear anything they want in public as long as it does not violate laws regarding lewdness, etc... However, we all know that in the tiny majority of Muslim women who wear a Burka in the USA, almost all are forced to wear Burka's either directly by their families (father's, brother's and even mother's), or institutionally by their particular sect of Islam. I think women should have the right to wear it except in places wear their faces for reasonable reasons need to be seen (work, airports, schools, etc...), but I also think that parents and institions should be prosecuted for forcing women to wear it.

From Wikipedia

"History

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran."

And capturing the essence:

"Thanks alot! Oh, if only YOU and all men were compelled to wear this thing! Then, I'm sure it would be banned as inhuman...what's lawful and reasonable for one would seem entirely different if others were compelled to live with the consequences also...

Why not start wearing your own burka today in solidarity? Go ahead, we're waiting...

Posted by: educated | June 25, 2009 "

Tolerance is a necessary component to a free state. But tolerance must be moderated by common sense and common decency. There are some practices bearing the imprimatur of religion or culture, that are so egregious they should not and do not meet the standards of tolerance in a progressive nation.

The wearing of the burqa is not, in and of itself intolerable. But the burqa represents a culture of inequality that America should not condone.

We are moving to an era of one world. Yet, respect for boundaries and borders is still a part of our reality. Now is the time to decide which principles American freedoms are defined by and which ones stand in direct opposition to the democracy we cherish.

To argue that women are free to dress provocatively in America is a specious response the complex issues surrounding the burqa. Provocative dress is moderated by private and sometimes public policies. There are very few women who have an unalienable right to wear a bikini to work, school or to a fine restaurant. Certain clothing choices are restricted, if not by federal law, then by protected policies.

The burqa should certainly be subject to those same policies. As a garment capable of concealing far more than a woman's modesty, it should, in fact, be illegal in some public and private places. I don't remember very many Americans expressing outrage when school children were banned from wearing long, black overcoats on school property after the Columbine shootings.

It would fly in the face of American freedom to directly craft a law prohibiting the wearing of such a garment anywhere within the United States. But I think we can, and should take a firm position against what the garment stands for, the isolation and dehumanization it imposes and the all too real threat it could potentially conceal.

Should America outlaw it? Probably not. But we should vehemently and aggressively defend any business or institution's right to prohibit it. We should not permit it in our public buildings or on our mass transit systems. We should not allow it to be sold in our stores. And we should make it eminently clear that any woman living in or visiting the United States who does not wish to wear it will be supported in that choice and protected from coercion, punishment or violence if she renounces it. Anything less than that is tolerance at the expense of ethics, freedom and public safety.

"Please America, there are some changes we don't need to accept, this is one."

The right of individuals to wear whatever garb they want in public, as long as it meets basic modesty and safety standards, is not a "change" to American life. It is a basic PRINCIPLE of American life.

As long as a woman is willing to show her face when doing things like boarding airplanes and cashing checks, and if she does not drive with obstructed vision or in other ways endanger basic safety, she should be permitted to wear what she likes.

Edited version of my post, correction of a couple mistakes.

On whether there should be a law against the burqa in America...it seems everyone believes that we have two choices: either allow it according to law or prohibit it. Furthermore it seems everyone is positing reasons for and against as if the conversation concerning such proceeds in this fashion in America and there is no other way to think about the problem--and especially as if no other route exists other than allow the burqa by law or prohibit it.

But I sense something different in America. Certainly it would be more difficult to prohibit the burqa in America than to allow it. But no one reflects in this situation it seems on the fact of just how much America celebrates individuality and that if the burqa were not prohibited still there would be a problem--in fact perhaps more of a problem than if we Americans were to prohibit it according to law.

What I mean is just look around you in America, just notice what the women wear and the open ways they have with members of both sexes. The women wearing burqas in America are in an environment virtually contrary to the burqa whether it is prohibited by law or not--and precisely for this situation existing we can expect much tension and who knows what harm will befall Islamic women in America in such a situation. What I mean is we have an Islamic woman coming home one day or trying to leave the house a little less than "perfectly dressed" (according to Islam of course) and one hell of a battle ensuing between husband and wife and predictably we can expect the woman to be carrying the black eye which...will be all but hidden under the burqa...and we should not be staring at an Islamic woman anyway...

What I mean is are we sure allowing the burqa in the U.S. is better than prohibiting it? If allowing it are we sure that is the safest solution? Do we at all care if an Islamic woman in the U.S. wanting to be a bit more free and like the typical U.S. woman finds herself beaten down at home? Will we say "that is certainly between husband and wife in this regard, for that is their religion"?

I apologize if I am in the minority, but I have to go with the position of just abolishing the burqa, cause the pain all in one stroke, and if there are any Islamic people in the U.S. who dislike the law they can move to France. Sorry! How could I resist that Joke?! So much for me being serious and caring about the matter. But in such situations we should avoid jackasses such as myself. Just use your own damn conscience and apply some brainpower. Even a jackass can sense the right position on this problem.

No burqa in the U.S.

On whether there should be a law against the burqa in America...it seems everyone believes that we have two choices: either allow it according to law or prohibit it. Furthermore it seems everyone is positing reasons for and against as if the conversation concerning such proceeds in this fashion in America and there is no other way to think about the problem--and especially as if no other route exists other than allow the burqa by law or prohibit it.

But I sense something different in America. Certainly it would be more difficult to prohibit the burqa in America than to allow it. But no one reflects in this situation it seems on the fact of just how much America celebrates individuality and that if the burqa were not prohibited still there would be a problem--in fact perhaps more of a problem than if we American were to prohibit it according to law.

What I mean is just look around you in America, just notice what the women wear and the open ways they have with members of both sexes. The women wearing burqas in America are in an environment virtually contrary to the burqa whether it is prohibited by law or not--and precisely for this situation existing we can expect much tension and who knows what harm will befall Islamic women in America in such a situation. What I mean is we have an Islamic woman coming home one day or trying to leave the house a little less than "perfectly dressed" (according to Islam of course) and one hell of a battle ensuing between husband and wife and predictably we can expect the woman to be carrying the black eye which...will be all but hidden under the burqa...and we should not be staring at an Islamic woman anyway...

What I mean is are we sure allowing the burqa in the U.S. is better than prohibiting it? If allowing it are we sure that is the safest solution? Do we at all care if an Islamic woman in the U.S. wanting to be a bit more free and like the typical U.S. woman finds herself beaten down at home? Will be say "that is certainly between husband and wife in this regard, for that is their religion"?

I apologize if I am in the minority, but I have to go with the position of just abolishing the burqa, cause the pain all in one stroke, and if there are any Islamic people in the U.S. who dislike the law they can move to France. Sorry! How could I resist that Joke?! So much for me being serious and caring about the matter. But in such situations we should avoid jackasses such as myself. Just use your own damn conscience and apply some brainpower. Even a jackass can sense the right position on this problem.

No burqa in the U.S.

When I was in college, we had a young woman there who was a member of the Nation of Islam. She didn't wear an Afghan-style burqa, but she did wear robes and cover her face when she was around men. When she was in the dorms, she dressed "normally". It was difficult for her to get around, eat, etc.

I don't mind head scarves. In fact, seeing the Iranian women fighting for their freedom while wearing head scarves and chadors is rather inspiring. (And frankly, if I was an Iranian woman out there in the streets, I'd be covering my face, too!) It's just that the chador/burqua/abaya is so... restrictive.

As for hiding things under it... well, I've heard a Roman Catholic nun say that she could easily hide a machine gun under her habit.

No , there should not be any Laws against women wearing burqa . We believe in freedom of women and their rights to dress themeselves as they like it , from bikini to burqa . Unlike the French we are more freedom loving people . God bless America.

No , there should not be any Laws against women wearing burqa . We believe in freedom of women and their rights to dress themeselves as they like it , from bikini to burqa . Unlike the French we are more freedom loving people . God bless America.

Oh, if only YOU and all men were compelled to wear this thing! Then, I'm sure it would be banned as inhuman...what's lawful and reasonable for one would seem entirely different if others were compelled to live with the consequences also...
Why not start wearing your own burka today in solidarity? Go ahead, we're waiting...

Banning the burka does nothing to eliminate male dominance, really (would it end fundamentalist Christian male dominance to ban long dresses for women? Would it end male dominance among the Amish to forbid their women to wear caps?). It just convinces fundamentalist Muslims that the government is out to get them.

And no, the burka isn't always forced on women by men. Sometimes it's forced on younger women by older women. Culture is complicated, and gender-related oppression tends to be complicated too - not just evil men vs. helpless women.

This is America. Where practical and security considerations require showing one's face, it should be done. But otherwise, let women wear what they please. Where women are the "victims" of sexist traditions, the general atmosphere of freedom and the influence of other independent women will have a far, far more powerful effect than a governmental ban.

Cultural and especially religious change very, VERY rarely comes about as a result of top-down, heavy-handed government action.

Anybody can wear a burqa--but they'll need to remove it for their photo ID to get a driver's license, passport, company ID, etc. And be ready to show their face when in the workplace, airports, driving, using their credit card. We ALL do.

But otherwise, sure. Wear a burqa . . . or tattoos, lip rings, 2-foot blue mohawks, ski masks, leprechaun hats, whatever.

Are you living in the real world? Or a protected, wealthy environment where you go to nice cocktail parties, and your kids elite schools, and all you know are other well-educated, respectful, polite folks. Come down to earth a bit and visit our other world...I cannot believe you defend the burka! How would your precious cocktail parties flow, if all the women guests were wering them, your children's school's, your workplace...go ahead, tell me!
I suppose you willingly allow any heinous practice and its expression in our public places...Is there any practice you would ban? For Heaven's sake! We forbid every inhuman thing, from cock-fighting, dog-fighting, protect every species, protect children and ban drugs that may harm...yet clothe this practice in religion and everyone it all for it. Most of these commentators will not be running into hordes of women such as these on their streets as so feel quite comfortable with the occasional apparition...Thanks alot all you high-minded folks...You are safe knowing you won't have to really live with the consequences...

THIS is how pathetic this column has become? To ask questions regarding something that would NEVER pass constitutional muster merely to get lunatic fringe responses? What's tomorrow's "hook" headline?

ACTUAL CRUCIFICTIONS? GOOD OR BAD?

How sad that with all the REAL issues facing us, this tripe is what our ON FAITH team comes up with!

The burqa has no place in America and yes, I think it should be banned.

And I am an extremely liberal feminist.

AREDANT: "Lets see what happens when I try to wear a ski mask everywhere I go. Hey, it's a free country right?"

You CAN wear a ski mask pretty much everywhere you go... until you enter an establishment, such as a store or home where they are not permitted by the owners of those places... If there are municipal city-wide bans, I am not aware of them..

bcass05: "The burqa pictured could easily hide a male with an automatic rifle."
So could a fashionable long coat or a baby stroller.. weak argument.

BEEBOPAREEBOP:
"I would come down on the side of banning the burqa. The security risks are real"
What are the security risks? That faces are concealed? like with motorcycle helmets, ski masks, scarves, hoodies, etc? We do not ban any of those.

KTHHKEN: "This is just one of many steps in the secularists plan to remove all religious garb and symbols from the public square"
I'm not sure about France, but here in the U.S. I am not aware of secularists trying to rid religious garb and / or religious symbols from the 'public square'
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'public square' If you are referring to walls and property of government buildings, then yes, I am against the display of religious creeds and symbols on them. If you are talking about 'in public', as in publicly in view, as in a church sign, or private business or residence, billboard, etc. No, I am not against those. There's a big difference. As for garb, I really don't care what a person wears as long as it adheres to common contextual decency standards. If a woman chooses or even feels compelled to wear a Burqa, or Sari, or skorts, a habit, or plaid dancing skirt in public that's fine with me.

The whole subservience issue is another and separate matter altogether. The Burqa may be the obvious manifestation of a religious sexist obscenity, but it's is not whether or not we 'allow' Burqas that will change that. That problem must be addressed at the core, not merely at the symbolism.

"or any other secularist (pagan)state "

Hmm, instead of 'pagan' why don't you go ahead and say what you really mean; 'Infidel'.

From a proud secularist who respects all people's right to worship, or not, however they see fit, as long as they don't drag me or my kids into it, or use government buildings as their own personal graffiti walls to mark their turf.

Lets see what happens when I try to wear a ski mask everywhere I go. Hey, it's a free country right?

If young men in this country are allowed to wear their pants hanging down below their behinds, then women should be able to wear whatever they like. Perhaps a few laws protecting banks, and airports, stating that women have to show their face to officials (females) if asked. Other than that, let them wear what they want.

This is a red herring issue.

This is just one of many steps in the secularists plan to remove all religious garb and symbols from the public square.

If this passes it will not be that difficult of a leap for France or any other secularist (pagan)state to then say we will ban the wearing of any religious garb in public that represents a religious faith which holds one or more views that are in opposition to the state view.

So don’t be surprised when they ban the wearing of religious habits by Christian nuns or religious brothers and sisters, priests roman collars (catholic or episcopol) in public because that is the symbol of the Christian faith which is teaching views that are in opposition to that of the state.

Then the state criminalizes the religious who refuse to comply. The devil is indeed devious, and it amazes me how many people around the world have their eyes wide shut as this is happening.

This is a repeat of what happened in the French Revolution, and the Masonic Revolution in Mexico (1810-1928), soon it will be all throughout Europe and the US won't be far behind.

I agree with BCASS05 and individuals who accept that it makes women constrained by a hideous garment. Besides, while I find Middle-Eastern women often very pretty, I don't think of engaging in inappropriate behavior with them.

certainly we should ban the burqa. right after we ban the ball-cap. everyone should dress the same. all the time. possibly in brown shirts with egyptian symbols on the sleeves...

The burqa is not a religious symbol. The burqa should not be generaly prevented by law as it is part of the individual freedom.
However there are situations where it can be prohibited e.g. in court or in exams or for security reasons..etc. There should be an open discussion in order to convince the burqa women to abandon it. This way we can get rid of the burqa or at least to reduce the number of women with burqa to a minimum.

At issue here is not religious freedom or individual freedom., rather it is public safety. If the public good requires it, then religious freedom and personal freedom have to give way. This is long established Constitution doctrine.
It is quite plain from both experience and reasoning that the public safety is jeopardized if individuals can go in public with their face covered.

At issue here is not religious freedom or individual freedom., rather it is public safety. If the public good requires it, then religious freedom and personal freedom have to give way. This is long established Constitution doctrine.
It is quite plain from both experience and reasoning that the public safety is jeopardized if individuals can go in public with their face covered.

First of all the burqa is not required by Islam. Those sects that require it are principally interested in the subjugation of women. And so they are raised to believe that this is the normal requirement of women under Islam when it is merely the obscene misogyny of some clerics.

While, frankly, people are free to wear whatever they like, any commerce could legally refuse entry to persons so clad on the basis that these women cannot be identified by witnesses if anything untoward occurs (to anyone on the premises including the burqa clad women).

Concerned business owners should ban the entry of burqa clad women. Of course the ACLU will react.

While liberty and tolerance of religious beliefs (no matter how ill found) may prevail in liberal society, the burqa should never be permitted:

-in schools
-in government offices (by employees or visitors)
-when voting
-when appearing in court (including as a spectator)
-when driving

While it is popular to champion for personal freedom here in the US, this is not France. The french have a very different history and culture than do we in the US. Europe has a far older set of established traditions and identity that we cannot understand and it is not our place to tell them what to do and think. No wonder they call us arrogant.

Yes..ban it in public places..I dont want to be shot by some one covering themselves. I could care less about religion or political correctness..all I am saying is there are enough nut jobs as it is lets not have one more way to enable them.

i dont want to freak out every time I see someone fully covered walking on the street.
Islam or constitution has no role in my opinion its just for my personal safety sake.

The question of the burqa is much like that of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM or female circumcision), a practice, which we deem illegal that is done under the auspices of religion but has to do with culture and neither is it mandated by the Quran. It is used as a control device and we oppose it in every way. Why not do the same with the burqa?

The question of the burqa is much like that of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM or female circumcision), a practice, which we deem illegal that is done under the auspices of religion but has to do with culture and neither is it mandated by the Quran. It is used as a control device and we oppose it in every way. Why not do the same with the burqa?

The question of the burqa is much like that of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM or female circumcision), a practice, which we deem illegal that is done under the auspices of religion but has to do with culture and neither is it mandated by the Quran. It is used as a control device and we oppose it in every way. Why not do the same with the burqa?

The question of the burqa is much like that of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM or female circumcision), a practice, which we deem illegal that is done under the auspices of religion but has to do with culture and neither is it mandated by the Quran. It is used as a control device and we oppose it in every way. Why not do the same with the burqa?

I am nearing the end of Infidel, by Aayan Hirsi Ali - a Dutch parliment member who grew up as a Muslim in Somalia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia.

I know that two weeks ago, I would have defended the burka as an individual choice. Her book - the story of her life - has changed that opinion. She talks at length about the impact of liberal tolerance in the Netherlands on the insularization of immigrants. I definitely consider myself liberal, yet was challenged to deal with her facts - that the subjugation of women in Islam is the norm, not the exception - and the impact that has had on Muslims as a whole as they move into the modern world.

Think of what your opinion on the burka is - then read her book. Incredibly thought provoking.

This is the Land of the Free, people. We don't ban anything unless it involves gays or rec drugs. Come on!

The old saying goes - When in Rome, do as the Romans do" fits here - The burqa needs to stay home where it's accepted, although forced(I'm led to believe). If one wants to wear it to a private function where it's allowed or in their home, apt, yard etc, go for it - but not out on the streets, or in the public, on a bus, in a cab - NO it is not and should not be Accepted - Please America, there are some changes we don't need to accept, this is one. We're "divided" enough as it is, why bring in and allow another stick that will break the camels back? - If you come to America to be a part of America, be a part, blend in, assimilate.

Kennyg51 wrote:
"I see where this could be a very touchy subject. First of all, not all Muslim women wear burqas and if it is not a garment commanded in the Quran then why should it be honored for those Muslim women who choose to wear it? Also if we choose to honor the burqa for those women who chose to wear it, how would they verify their identity when they have to go into places that require a pictured government issued ID card? Would special stations have to be set up so they could unmask themselves so to speak and who would then be allowed to verify their identity?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kennyg51 zeroes in on the precise questions this issue evokes.

I don't know enough about the Quran to say whether headcoverings for women are required, but clearly the full-body coverings must be religiously optional if some women wear them and others merely cover their heads.

So, if a religious obligation can be satisfied with a less extreme option, I think the U.S. is not trampling anyone's rights by saying that, to get a license, to drive a car, to take money out of the bank -- in short, any activity that necessitates the display of the face -- a citizen must be willing to show her face and be photographed.

That does not mean she can't maintain her modesty -- a requirement, I believe, in the Quran -- by wearing a headscarf. Surely, we aren't going to start telling Jewish males in this country to take off their yarmulkas. But the fundamental issue here is that the U.S. is a free and open country that demands the respect of its national stance from its citizens, whether they are immigrants or descended from a long line of American settlers.

This means that, if you want to be a participating member of the society, you need to be identifiable by your appearance.

In many Muslin countries, men legally act on behalf of their wives, daughters, sisters, etc. In this country, however, we don't do that. If a woman wants a job, she goes and interviews for it. If she wants a driver's license, she goes and applies for it. If she wants to be a lawyer or teacher or doctor or engineer or oceanographer, she goes and becomes one. Etc., etc., etc.

So, since patriarchy is not the dominant social construct in this country, foreign men and women cannot expect to apply all of their cultural rules to their new society. And, since their holy book can be accommodated without use of the local customs they left behind, they need to be willing to meet America partway -- to modify their personal practices as befits the new society they now occupy.

Ban the burqa! It is not by choice that Muslim women wear these archaic and debasing burqas but by power hungry Muslim men who treat their women worse than dogs. They chose to come to our country and I suggest they Americanize and embrace their new home instead of trying to change it to be like their tyrannical and mysogynist homelands. It is a disgusting practice and should certainly be banned in schools, at least. Separation of church and state - now, let's see it! Religion has no place in schools. These "macho" idiots are merely afraid of the power of women and try to quell and silence them in any manner possible.

BCASS05 - I totally agree and well said!

While personally I don't like burquas, I think, in general, people have a right to wear clothes or express themselves the way they want. Democratic governments should not infringe on such freedom of expression except where it infringe on other's right or put the pulic in danger. For example you cannot yell FIRE in a theater and cause panic when there is no fire. Governments should not and cannot ban the burqa in all circumstances, except where it can idenfity harzads in specific circumstances. Some might say a burqua can hide a rifle, but so can a trench coat, and any clothing can hide a hand gun, but we don't force people to go naked.
On the other hand, a woman may need to undo her burqa mask to show her face for identification when going through security check point. Or a teacher may not wear a burqa because her coleages need to see the person taking care of the students is really who she is supposed to be.

Men and women can wear just whatever they want in public (keeping in mind local decency laws etc). You want to wear a burqa, wear a burqa.

For what should be obvious reasons, how children dress in schools should be decided by local school administrations.

The French leader is being hypocritical in banning religious clothing for women, while preaching to other countries to be more tolerant and democratic. This very topic seems more appropriate during the Bush-Cheney regime, when civil liberties were often trampled or the days of the Crusades, when anything associated with the Muslims was conidered the enemy of Christianity.

Fortunately in the era of Obama, tolerance is being more widely promoted in this country.

The US is already considering separate schools for boys and girls because we think hormones play a role in the intellectual growth of teenagers. How can we question the ethics of another society that is doing the same thing? I don't know if I agree with either solution, but I do agree that garb should be discussed in schools and perhaps there is some need for compromise.

It is very harsh to expect a young person to make a quantum leap for a strange civilization, but surely there is a need to respect the culture by showing your face in some public settings (like school).

The reason they want to ban it in France is because some radical Muslims beat women who they see in public without their proper attire.

The mainstream media will mostly leave that out of their reporting on the topic and Obama will not mention it either, but it is a fact.

Ban it.

If it's the woman's CHOICE to wear a burka, she should wear one. I don't think, however, that many make that choice of their own free will.

If I had it to do again, I just *might* do the burka thing myself. Men can be so... leering and just plain rude about any woman walking by.

But while the discussion of banning articles of clothing is with us... I suggest that we ban those oversized, falling down pants and shirts that kids wear these days. If you're worried about safety, no one even looks twice at these anymore. A burka in the US tends to draw a lot of sideways glances, all the way to flat out stares.

The goverment should not be banning any item of cloth that people under their free will is willing to wear. In America, women are not forced to wear burqas and if they decide to wear it, allow them. We all know that since 9/11 tolerance towards muslims are at an all time low, towards their religion,cloth and so on. Banning Burqas will not bridge the divide but make it larger.Soon, if the goverment is allowed to do this, what is it to stop them from banning something else?
If Burqas is a part of their religion than leave it alone. We are not forcing them to wear it or not to wear it,let them choose.
We know that in some places women have no choice but here in America, we should allow them to make the choice if they want to wear it or not.

bcass05:

The burqa pictured could easily hide a male with an automatic rifle. It is not a garment commanded in the Quran but rather a demand placed on women by mysogynist clerical conservatives.
----------------------------------------
So can trench coats, baggy pants, etc.
Where I would ban the burqa is in ID photos, such as driver's licenses.
I work at a university, and the female Saudi student ID's show their eyes, and nothing else. I'm sure the university doesn't want to pick a fight and get sued, but I have to try not to laugh when I see only someone's eyes in an "ID" photo.
When you move to a country, you have to adapt yourself, at least somewhat, to that society's ways. That doesn't mean they can't wear a burqa. It means they can't wear a burqa in gov't. ID photos.

beth8:

Sarkozy is absolutely right; the burqa is a symbol of slavery and should be banned outright and immediately.
------------------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The first amendment clearly protects a Muslim woman's right to wear that ridiculous bathrobe in public.

Obama is showing his ignorance here. No woman chooses to wear a burqa. Only 9 years ago, women in Afghanastan were not required to where burqas and they didn't. They dressed just like American women, often showing a lot of skin.

The Taliban takeover forced women to wear burkas. Almost overnight, these muslim women went from having freedoms to being subserviant. (They used to be allowed to go to school and have important careers, too). Their fathers and brothers force them to cover themselves from head to toe. If they disobey, they get a beating, if not death.

Obama, like many other Americans, believes wrongly that muslim women have been dressing like this from the dawn of time. They haven't. He believes women choose to walk around with cloth draped over their faces so they cannot see. They don't. Burqas are an outrage - a blatant form of discrimination against women.

I'd like to know what Michelle thinks. Maybe Miss Sexy Arms should submit to wearing a burqa for a day and then report her experience to her hubby.

An absurd question.

Banning the burqa is a violation of free speech and expression.

There is nothing to support the banning of the burqa in American tradition, law or even English common law, from which we draw many of our legal traditions from.

The French are exposing their rare, but horrible, tendency to be racists when they want to or when it's convenient. I notice they don't demand that Catholic nuns drop their habits, which in some orders only expose the face.

If some criminals are adopting the burqa as a cover for their activities, the police and general public will figure this out pretty quickly.

Suggesting that burqas are better for hiding explosives than a black trenchcoat seems to be the kind of argument I'd expect in a drunken dorm room hallway bull session.

I'd like to see people just try to act and think more responsibly and reasonably on these kinds of issues, but I guess as long as there is a Fox News, we can expect the worst from everyone.

Believe me, I wish we could get these women to check their ridiculous get-ups at the border. However, this is America - we can't just ban clothing, especially when it's not a trivial fashion statement but the expression of someone's religious beliefs.

This kind of thing is best handled socially and culturally. At some point, these women or their daughters will get tired of sticking out - of looking like bizarre, old-country peasants and witches compared to their more assimilated neighbors. They'll get tired of hearing jokes and TV skits making fun of their backward ways. More importantly, they'll get used to the fact that there are no religious police here to beat them for showing their faces in public, and will discover that they can have their husbands hauled off to jail for doing so.

It takes time for people to change. We should encourage these women to exercise their rights, not outlaw them for their dress.

This is a question fraught with complexity. As a society, we value religious tolerance, but we also value gender equality. What to do when someone chooses to exercise religious beliefs that to not include gender equality? They are free to do so of course.

In my opinion, though, belief and action must be distinguished. We are generally free to believe what we wish, but not always to act as we wish. Freedom of speech and/or religion eventually bumps up against a compelling interest on the part of government/society to regulate action. Thus, obviously, one is not free to blow others up even though it his religion demands it. The rub is determining where the line should be drawn. Complicating this is the seeming arbitrariness that would result if we allow face-covering clothing in winter, but not a burqa.

I would come down on the side of banning the burqa. The security risks are real, and in our society seeing the face of the person with whom we deal is a core aspect of personal communication. I am sensitive to arguments against this position, but at some point, society has a right to draw a line on behavior. On the whole, the burqa does not belong here.

I see where this could be a very touchy subject. First of all, not all Muslim women wear burqas and if it is not a garment commanded in the Quran then why should it be honored for those Muslim women who choose to wear it? Also if we choose to honor the burqa for those women who chose to wear it, how would they verify their identity when they have to go into places that require a pictured government issued ID card? Would special stations have to be set up so they could unmask themselves so to speak and who would then be allowed to verify their identity?

TedL04

The United States has always professed to respect differences. Banning the wearing of burqas, is contrary to that principle and should not be considered but we should discuss why it is contrary to our principles.

Sarkozy is absolutely right; the burqa is a symbol of slavery and should be banned outright and immediately.

It's about time someone called a spade a spade instead of cowering in fear before imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs.

I don't agree with Sarkozy most of the time, but he's right on about the oppression symbolized by the burqa. I wish Obama, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkle, and other world leaders would have such courage and backbone.

Forbidding clothing, is and should be illegal. Part of the burka is religious principal/cultural identity, part personal choice, part, desert wear.
As anyone who has lived in winter in a really cold windy state, like North Dakota. ski-masks, hats, bulky clothing are practically a necessity, could easily hide identities, weapons etc.

However, wishing to have and use photo ids, passports, drivers liscenses are not a right. When being conceiled. Neither is to not be looked at with suspicion when fully conceiled.

Burqa's should be banned in the U.S. for national security reasons. Although I think that the burqa makes women subservient, that should not be the basis for declaring them illegal. Terrorists or criminals can hide behind the burqa----that's reason enough to ban them.

"Is this a private religious matter or a public/government one?"

As with most things, it it a private matter until it becomes a public/government matter.

For example, walking around inside one's home naked is a private matter; walking around outside of one's home naked becomes a public/government matter.

"Is the burqa welcome in America?"

Right now, it apparently is; I have seen many individuals walking around DC in burquas.

However, the first time a burqa wearing individual walks into a crowd in an American city and blows himself/herself up, it will quickly become less welcome.

I have mixed feelings about the burqa. I am not Muslim and I do not want to hinder anyone's religion, but if it is a religious practice, then why don't all Muslim women wear one? Also if the burqa is one that covers everything but the eyes, how would one identify that person? There are a lot of government buildings where a valid ID has to be shown before one can enter. Would they have to set up a special station off to the side to protect the women's identity while officials verify their who they are? I can see that this can be a very touchy subject and one that really needs a lot of thought.

The burga is a type of clothing imposed in fundamentalist Islamic countries on their women as a form of paternalistic control. Covering up the entire person is like imprisonment! Does any rational person really think that the burga is worn by choice? The woman in a burga might as well live in a monastery or stay home. Neither France nor America should put up with fundamentalist practices - America is a free country and a burga is a symbol of oppression. Burga wearers should stay in their religious authoritarian societies.

On what basis would a ban on burqas be done ?
Views that it constitutes coercion, or something else many people don't like ? Views that a ban will help protect the welfare of the burqa wearer ? Whose views ? People differ widely in what they might think is coercion, or otherwise objectionable.
Apart from some very limited constraints on burqa wearing like government photo IDs, or public safety (I'm stretching to think how that is possible- perhaps in some job settings), or similar restricted circumstances, it seems to me any kind of ban would be an attempt by some to limit constitutionally protected freedoms of expression. France is somewhat disappointing in their upholding of individual rights. On the other hand, they have recognized that there are certain individual freedoms which should be constrained for the greater good. Case in point, they have campaign financing which is publicly funded. This came about from several egregious abuses in campaign financing in the 80s and 90's. In the US,
we are still struggling with a Supreme Court that is reluctant to agree to campaign finance restrictions since they are viewed as free speech. But the country has been unwilling to pass a Constitutional amendment. There is currently before Congress a Fair Election Now Act which allows congresspeople to opt for public fiancing to meet private donations at a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio.
http://74.125.95.132/custom?q=cache:SWm4f40rymMJ:www.moneyandpolitics.net/researchpubs/pdf/Campaign_Finance.pdf+france+campaign+financing&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=pub-7922041267279453

Yea, and the next thing we ban are bikinis, G-string's, and edible underwear. As a general rule, banning clothing is idiotic.

I don’t believe burqas are worn for religious reasons. They are worn for cultural or even criminal reasons.

It is very rare for me to see full cover in the New York subways, but when I do, typically, it is worn by men. (Giant sneakers. Big, hairy hands. Men.) I've also spent a lot of time in the Balkans, and full cover is fairly rare even there; however, men have been known to wear it while robbing banks.

If people (men or women) want to wear full cover in the privacy of their homes, or in wide-open public spaces, that’s their right.

But I don’t believe they have any right to wear it on a subway or bus, or in an airport, or while testifying in court or posing for a driver’s license photo, or for that matter, while driving a car.

Our laws have always recognized that there are reasonable times and places for certain things.

Whether religious or not, it is a private matter, in which the State is barred from interfering on Constitutional grounds. Whether wearing a burqa comes under free exercise or free expression, the First Amendment kicks in if the government tries to tell a citizen she cannot wear one.

France is not restricted in this manner, and moreover values shows of cultural homogeneity far more than the US does.

By the same token, the State should extend protection to women who choose not to wear the burqa, headscarf, or other tokens of faith that their family or local community may think are required. It cannot command co-religionists to show respect or liking for people who reject these things - whether it is the coverings a Muslim faith community might consider modest, or the wig or head covering an ultra-orthodox Jewish community mandates for its women, or whatever you like. It's a balancing act - by the same token the State is debarred from insisting that a congregation relax its requirements for participation in its activities. I don't know the current state of play in the Catholic Church, but when I was growing up in the 50's priests would refuse communion to women without a hat or veil, or even hats or veils that they thought did not meet the spirit of that dress requirement. And that act is also protected under free exercise.

Although religious articles of clothing are not banned in America, clothing which masks the identity of individuals is illegal - eg.: KKK attire and other clothing allowing anonymous criminal acts.

The burqa pictured could easily hide a male with an automatic rifle. It is not a garment commanded in the Quran but rather a demand placed on women by mysogynist clerical conservatives.