Let's see if you can pass the hypocrisy test

[Ferretball]

Animism is not monolithic, as it is a word used to describe a variety of pagan faiths. There are many animists in Sudan. Sudan is an Islamic state.

In some rare varieties of animism, a woman will go out into the streets, topless, and burn the flesh of a slaughtered chicken, to appease the spirits. She then is known to spend the rest of the day topless, as tradition is known.

Here's one catch - going topless in the Islamic state of Sudan can earn you a nasty physical punishment, as the practice is banned.

So here's the problem. Here we have a woman who is not legally allowed to practice that part of her faith and culture in regards to what she may or may not wear in public. Her state of dress is offensive to the powers that be and the larger culture. And she is banned from doing so.

Does this sound at all familiar?

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

I personally think it is wrong for France to ban hijab, and I think it is equally wrong for the Islamic government of Sudan to ban animist women from going topless.

What do you think?

[Serenity`]

Hmmm... but in the West state and religon are seperate, so women are free to wear and do what they want.

And Sudan is an Islamic state, so women have to respect the laws and dress according to them.

Peace,

Zeinab.

[Serenity`]

And anywayz there shouldn't be a ban in France on Religious symbols because citizens of the country should feel free and their rights should be respected.

But a thought just came to my mind. If you were non-Muslim and living in Sudan and people didn't allow you to dress how you wanted, then no-one will really be respecting your right as a citizen and your right to religious freedom.

Interesting ...

Peace,

Zeinab.

[Ferretball]

Hmmm... but in the West state and religon are seperate, so women are free to wear and do what they want.

And Sudan is an Islamic state, so women have to respect the laws and dress according to them.

Peace,

Zeinab.

How does separation of church and state mean that women can wear what they want? This is an illogical statement.

[Bollywood_Hero]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

You make a good point. The short answer to your question would be yes.

The topless bit is not specifically introduced to contrevene a religious belief. Burning a chicken is okay. The topless bit is part of the islamic law and would be there regardless of wheater there wasa that practise or not.

[asifnaqvi]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

I personally think it is wrong for France to ban hijab, and I think it is equally wrong for the Islamic government of Sudan to ban animist women from going topless.

What do you think?

Yup! U did make some sense here Ferretball !

Since u admitted that ban on hijab in France is illogical, i should take some responsibility on part of muslims that we sometimes do tend to show irrational behaviours towards the freedom of opinion of individuals.

Mind u , sudan is not an a very literate place,so comparing sudan n France is not logical either. ppl out there do believe in spirits n they re` somewhat supersticious in nature.

[Ferretball]

The topless bit is part of the islamic law and would be there regardless of wheater there wasa that practise or not.

The no hijab bit is part of French law. Are you saying that Islamic law is better than French law?

[Ferretball]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

I personally think it is wrong for France to ban hijab, and I think it is equally wrong for the Islamic government of Sudan to ban animist women from going topless.

What do you think?

Yup! U did make some sense here Ferretball !

Since u admitted that ban on hijab in France is illogical, i should take some responsibility on part of muslims that we sometimes do tend to show irrational behaviours towards the freedom of opinion of individuals.

Mind u , sudan is not an a very literate place,so comparing sudan n France is not logical either. ppl out there do believe in spirits n they re` somewhat supersticious in nature.

Alright, let me take it a bit further. Is it okay for Iran to ban women from going topless, even if that woman might be going topless for religious reasons?

[Guest DjibrilCisse]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

TThe woman walking around topless is doing something that wouldnt be permitted under Islamic law.

However, by wearing a scarf, a woman isnt violating any of the laws or rules of christianity

Edited September 4, 2004 by DjibrilCisse

[Ferretball]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

TThe woman walking around topless is doing something that wouldnt be permitted under Islamic law.

However, by wearing a scarf, a woman isnt violating any of the laws or rules of christianity

But she's violating the rules of France.

[Serenity`]

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

TThe woman walking around topless is doing something that wouldnt be permitted under Islamic law.

However, by wearing a scarf, a woman isnt violating any of the laws or rules of christianity

But she's violating the rules of France.

Well now she would be.

[asifnaqvi]

Alright, let me take it a bit further. Is it okay for Iran to ban women from going topless, even if that woman might be going topless for religious reasons?

I am getting ur point ferettball !

(plz identify that u r a sis or bro, since i feel somewhat irritated if don`t know to whom i am addressing to)

Actually what u r demanding from us ,has got nothing to do with the religion.but u re` demanding a fair equal attitude from us the muslim societies.u r justified in doing that too.

I must admitt that if i am demanding lifting of hijab-ban,then u r quite justified in ur argument that non-muslim women should get the freedom to wander in muslim societies without a headscarf.i wud`t be advocating vulgur dresses though.

[Serenity`]

Alright, let me take it a bit further. Is it okay for Iran to ban women from going topless, even if that woman might be going topless for religious reasons?

I am getting ur point ferettball !

(plz identify that u r a sis or bro, since i feel somewhat irritated if don`t know to whom i am addressing to)

Actually what u r demanding from us ,has got nothing to do with the religion.but u re` demanding a fair equal attitude from us the muslim societies.u r justified in doing that too.

I must admitt that if i am demanding lifting of hijab-ban,then u r quite justified in ur argument that non-muslim women should get the freedom to wander in muslim societies without a headscarf.i wud`t be advocating vulgur dresses though.

Your right asifnaqvi and i totally understand his point too, i was trying to say it in my 2nd post.

Peace,

Zeinab.

[asifnaqvi]

Your right asifnaqvi and i totally understand his point too, i was trying to say it in my 2nd post.

Peace,

Zeinab.

Sis Zeinab !

Some how, we the muslims ve` revealed to the non-muslims that we re` short of logical point of view n re` extremist in nature. we do need to wash out this stained image of ours by blowing a fresh wave of open-heartedness n some elasticity towards non-muslim cultural traditions.

I just hate to see some female foreigners wandering in shalwaar-qameez in my country pakistan with the fear that if they did`t dress like that,some extremist mullahs might be attacking them.

wassalam.

[Shia Shahid]

Of course Islamic law is better than French law. French law is based on a Haraam atheist system.

And no, I do not think a woman should go topless, that is just part of common sense not to do that. Some people have rituals so primitive and disgusting that they don't even care if other people might be offended by it. I don't think it happens in Sudan though.

Islamic law would ban it, because it is indecent and because it violates other people's rights, namely the right to live in a morally clean Islamic society and the right not to be publicly exposed to disturbing images (and children could get traumatized too, if it was public). Those rights are something muslims can understand... and it makes sense when Muslims are the majority. If that animist woman wants to do that, she would be better off doing it at home or not living in an Islamic state.

Remember, in an Islamic state the laws are all out in the open for anybody to read them and talk about them. Nobody censors the laws. Furthermore, the laws are in the Qur'an, hadith, and fiqh books, even reading one sura of the Qur'an could tell you that it's wrong for women to go topless, so ignorance is not an excuse.

That's not intolerance towards non-Muslims, it's protecting people's right not to be exposed to disturbing images wherever they go. If women were allowed to go naked in the streets, it would violate the rights and moral sensibilities of Muslims, and in an Islamic state to boot! Now how's that for hypocrisy?

Edited September 4, 2004 by Shia Shahid

[Guest DjibrilCisse]

Ferretball, what would happen if a schoolgirl in the US went to school topless?

[Shia Shahid]

They'd get arrested. Well first, they'd get some kind of office referral, then a mark on their permanent record, then get arrested for public disturbance, then get suspended for indecent exposure. They might go to jail for a few days, depending on the state laws. This is how it worked in every American school I've ever seen.

But some people cut it awfully close... :sick:

[wahashimi]

Salaam Alaykum,

Actually Ferretball you are completely wrong.

First and foremost, this French Law, has mis-interperated what Hijab is, and clumped it with Christian Crosses etc.

So in the very outset, the law france has passed is illogical. It is equivalent to having a shaven head and banning people from shaving their own heads of hair, because it is a religious symbol and/or it is a symbol of neo-naziism, are buddhists in france also forbidden from coming to school with shaven heads?

If they did pass such a law, first thing that would be encoutered is that the law is flawed and incorrect, because the law has not defined what that thing in actuality is.

So no it is not like a woman going topless in Sudan. Nothing like it at all.

When the law was considered regarding headscarfs, they should have first and foremostly defined what a headscarf in reality was. The fact that so many politicians have said it is oppression, it is a religious symbol, it is a terrorist symbol, from the very outset this shows that they have not understood what hijab is, I would like to see what BOOKS of Islam they used to get this definition of what hijab is to pass this law.

As they have incorrectly defined what hijab is, their law is incorrect and flawed in absolute totality,hence yes french law in this case IS inferior to Islamic Law.

If I was the ruler of a western nation, and suddenly decided to ban hip-hop clothing (the chains, the clothes, the caps, the rings etc) because I said it was a symbol of gang violence in the USA, and that also, it would put pressure on other black kids in USA school to dress similary and hence get involved in gang violence and drugs, and would increase racial tensions, that is what the equivalent would be.

Similary, if I decided to ban black trench coats, as they were a symbol of the trench coat mafia, and could encourage young WASPS and non-WASPS alike to join extreme groups in which they go around USA school shooting fellow students and teachers, it would be the same situation.

Finally, the law is france is NOT like Islamic Law or the Sudan situation, because this law they have passed contradicts THEIR OWN FRENCH LAW, in the freedom to practise one's own religion.

Wearing a cross is not practising the Xstian faith, show me where in the holy books of Xstianity this says so?

However, wearing Hijab and wearing Turbans for Sikhs, IS part of practising their faith, it can be defined and found within their holy books and the tenents of their beliefs.

So in closing, yes in this situation Islamic LAw is far superior than French law, because Islamic Law doesn't contradict itself.

Wasalaam

[Ferretball]

I must admitt that if i am demanding lifting of hijab-ban,then u r quite justified in ur argument that non-muslim women should get the freedom to wander in muslim societies without a headscarf

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not arguing that Muslim societies should allow non-Muslim women to not wear a headscarf. I'm arguing that if Muslims vehemently oppose the hijab ban in France, then they should vehemently oppose the TOPLESS ban in Sudan.

Of course Islamic law is better than French law. French law is based on a Haraam atheist system.

LET THE WORLD HEAR THESE WORDS! ANNOUNCE IT TO EVERYBODY! HALLELUJAH!

Okay, I'm glad that you admit to this, as you are being honest and consistent. However, it shows the true nature of Islamic fundamentalists: intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted, and governed by an "I'm-right-and-your-wrong" philosophy, when they condemn America and France for the same thing. Is it any wonder that the French don't trust you?

And no, I do not think a woman should go topless, that is just part of common sense not to do that.

Hundreds of millions of people beg to differ. Remember, people come from different cultures and backgrounds.

Some people have rituals so primitive and disgusting that they don't even care if other people might be offended by it.

You mean like the hijab? The French hate the hijab because they view it as offensive. They view it as offensive because they believe it is a primitive and disgusting ritual, and they hate the fact that Muslim's don't even care that other people might be offended by it.

I don't think it happens in Sudan though.

The Islamic government has been known to whip animist women who go topless in the streets.

Islamic law would ban it, because it is indecent and because it violates other people's rights, namely the right to live in a morally clean Islamic society and the right not to be publicly exposed to disturbing images

French law bans hijab, because it is sexist, offensive, and it violates other people's rights, namely the right to live in a secular society and the right to not be publicly exposed to sexist, brazenly religious, and disturbing images.

Those rights are something muslims can understand... and it makes sense when Muslims are the majority.

Those rights are something the French can understand... and it makes sense when the French are the majority.

If that animist woman wants to do that, she would be better off doing it at home or not living in an Islamic state.

If a Muslim woman wants to do that, she would be better off doing it at home or not living in a secular state.

Remember, in an Islamic state the laws are all out in the open for anybody to read them and talk about them. Nobody censors the laws. Furthermore, the laws are in the Qur'an, hadith, and fiqh books, even reading one sura of the Qur'an could tell you that it's wrong for women to go topless, so ignorance is not an excuse.

Remember, in a secular state the laws are all out in the open for anybody to read them and talk about them. Nobody censors the laws. Furthermore, the laws are in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, the legal books and case laws, and enscribed in the various Journal officiel de la République française, even reading one sentence of the Constitution could tell you that France is a secular state and reserves the right to make its own laws to uphold it. And reading the Journal officiel will tell you that Muslim women are not allowed to wear hijab in public institutions. Ignorance is no excuse.

That's not intolerance towards non-Muslims, it's protecting people's right not to be exposed to disturbing images wherever they go.

That's not intolerance towards Muslims, it's protecting people's right not to be exposed to sexist, anti-secular images wherever they go.

If women were allowed to go naked in the streets, it would violate the rights and moral sensibilities of Muslims

If Muslim women were allowed to wear hijab in public schools, it would violate the rights and moral sensibilities of the French.

and in an Islamic state to boot! Now how's that for hypocrisy

and in a secular state to boot! Now how's that for hypocrisy?

[Thunderbolt of Logic]

Of course Islamic law is better than French law. French law is based on a Haraam atheist system.

French Law, like U.S. law isn't atheistic, there are no law which state there is NO God, they are secular governments where NO state religion is proclaimed, big difference.

Being neutral on religious matters, doesn't mean there is no belief in god.

[Ferretball]

First and foremost, this French Law, has mis-interperated what Hijab is, and clumped it with Christian Crosses etc.

So in the very outset, the law france has passed is illogical. It is equivalent to having a shaven head and banning people from shaving their own heads of hair, because it is a religious symbol and/or it is a symbol of neo-naziism, are buddhists in france also forbidden from coming to school with shaven heads?

Who cares? The only reason they added Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps was to give the law an air of objectivity and unbias. Any idiot can tell you that the law was, for all intents and purposes, aimed at stopping Muslim girls from wearing hijab. If you attack the letter of the law, you ignore the word, something which many Islamic scholars would remind any student.

The fact that so many politicians have said it is oppression, it is a religious symbol, it is a terrorist symbol, from the very outset this shows that they have not understood what hijab is, I would like to see what BOOKS of Islam they used to get this definition of what hijab is to pass this law.

Well, there is some truth to it. Many Muslim girls are FORCED to wear it, for some girls it is a RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT, and for the past 30 years the hijab has become the de facto symbol of political Islam, which the West likes to refer to as "terrorism". According to their Western secular definition (and remember, in France it is THEIR definition that counts), hijab is thus a symbol of oppression, a religious symbol, AND a terrorist statement. If that is not how Islam views it, then too bad. Muslims who preach balls and bluster about autonomy and resisting foreign influence need to realize that the rope swings both ways.

As they have incorrectly defined what hijab is, their law is incorrect and flawed in absolute totality,hence yes french law in this case IS inferior to Islamic Law.

As I said before, it is the French, not Muslims, who get to define what hijab is. What's true in Iran isn't true elsewhere.

On another note, I could claim that since Muslims have incorrectly defined freedom, liberty, and tolerance, words commonly tossed around by Muslims describing hijab, that Sharia is inferior to Western Law.

If I was the ruler of a western nation, and suddenly decided to ban hip-hop clothing (the chains, the clothes, the caps, the rings etc) because I said it was a symbol of gang violence in the USA, and that also, it would put pressure on other black kids in USA school to dress similary and hence get involved in gang violence and drugs, and would increase racial tensions, that is what the equivalent would be.

Similary, if I decided to ban black trench coats, as they were a symbol of the trench coat mafia, and could encourage young WASPS and non-WASPS alike to join extreme groups in which they go around USA school shooting fellow students and teachers, it would be the same situation.

If I was the ruler of a Muslim nation, and suddenly decided to ban women from going topless bacause I said it was a symbol of licentiousness, obscenity, and promiscuity, it would put pressure on other animist women to do the same, and get involved in violent resistance, and would increase religious tensions.

Finally, the law is france is NOT like Islamic Law or the Sudan situation, because this law they have passed contradicts THEIR OWN FRENCH LAW, in the freedom to practise one's own religion.

Where in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic does France give religious freedom precedence over preserving secularism and culture? Furthermore, even if it did condradict their own laws, so what? That doesn't change the fact that what France is doing is by word the same thing that Sudan does. Similarly, I could make the case that "no compulsion in religion" contradicts Islamic law regarding modesty for non-Muslims.

However, wearing Hijab and wearing Turbans for Sikhs, IS part of practising their faith, it can be defined and found within their holy books and the tenents of their beliefs.

However, going topless and burning chicken flesh IS a part of practising some animist faiths, and it can be defined and found within the tenets of their beliefs.

[Ferretball]

C'mon, it's been a few days and no one's responded. Someone please try to disprove me.

[Abdulhujjah]

^

People ignore posts for two reasons, coz the post is correct and cant be refuted, or because they have seen that u are wasting their time. In your case its the latter :)

[Ibrahim110]

Asalaamu alaikum,

Banning Hijab is because France is acting against religious expression.

Banning women from being topless is because Sudan is acting for modesty, not because they are in hatred of other's religious expressions (at least from the Islamic point of view)

Remember the modesty for the Muslimah's is the same as for everyone else. Allah (swt) has only determined one modesty, and that is what is modest, period, not what mankind think is modest, because the Creator knows better than we know ourselves, so whose law is better suited to be ruled by?

Islam is already the cure to all of society's problems, therefore altering these laws at all causes an imbalance in the society, brings forth injustice, gradually degrades the society over time, until the creations take matters into their own hands, disobeying the perfect laws. It is very much like an ailing patient doing surgery on their own self, only in this case the society is the patient.

The true Islamic government does not impose religion, however it does impose social laws to keep injustice from arising in society, and these laws are none other than according to the Creator, and the Creator alone, and indeed He knows best and is Most Just.

Fee Iman Allah,

Ibrahim

[Thunderbolt of Logic]

Islam is already the cure to all of society's problems.

Hitler said the same thing about facism, and Stalin the same about communism, all despotic forms of government run under tyranny can claim the same.

The true Islamic government does not impose religion

With the exception that under Sharia law, any muslim who becomes an apostate, faces the death sentence, any kaffir who attempts to prostelize a muslim also faces the death sentence.

So much for the fantasy of the religious tolerence of Islam. Your fantasy Islam, has more holes in it then a dime store collander.

Edited September 9, 2004 by Thunderbolt of Logic

[qutb]

Hitler said the same thing about facism, and Stalin the same about communism, all despotic forms of government run under tyranny can claim the same.

Does that include George Bush's claims about democracy saving the world?

Just curious?

q

[Ferretball]

Banning Hijab is because France is acting against religious expression.

Banning animist women from going topless is acting against religious expression.

Banning women from being topless is because Sudan is acting for modesty, not because they are in hatred of other's religious expressions (at least from the Islamic point of view)

You're half right. Islamic law absolutely HATES paganism, and going topless, while considered immodest in the eyes of Muslims, is also symbolic of pagan beliefs and practices. If Islamic law is free to hold idolaters and pagans in contempt, then why can't French law hold Islam in contempt? Banning topless in this case is not just about modesty.

Furthermore, who's to say that the Islamic notion of modesty holds precedence over the French notion of elagitarianism. By their standards, hijab is very immodest. It creates just as much a stir in French society as topless women create in Sudan.

Remember the modesty for the Muslimah's is the same as for everyone else.  Allah (swt) has only determined one modesty, and that is what is modest, period, not what mankind think is modest, because the Creator knows better than we know ourselves, so whose law is better suited to be ruled by?

So Islam is right and everyone else is wrong? So only the Muslim definition of modesty is the correct one?

This reads straight out of Fascism for Dummies.

The true Islamic government does not impose religion, however it does impose social laws to keep injustice from arising in society, and these laws are none other than according to the Creator, and the Creator alone, and indeed He knows best and is Most Just.

Same with this one.

[DerFeldMarschall]

I don't think you can draw exact parallels between the two situations you presented. Women going topless in a society may be deemed a threat to the moral fabric of society and may be offensive to the vast majority.

Legally, the primary justification of the hijab ban is to enforce seperation of church and state. However, if you've ever discussed this or viewed the responses of French people on online discussion boards, you will find that the majority of French people support it because they believe it is opressive to hijabis.

The first case involves a government imposing a ban for the protection of society at large. The second case is involves the state curtailing your rights, telling you "we know you are being oppresed, even though you don't agree."

Your point is well taken though.

[Gypsy]

Banning animist women from going topless is acting against religious expression.

You're half right. Islamic law absolutely HATES paganism, and going topless, while considered immodest in the eyes of Muslims, is also symbolic of pagan beliefs and practices. If Islamic law is free to hold idolaters and pagans in contempt, then why can't French law hold Islam in contempt? Banning topless in this case is not just about modesty.

In the end, as in every democratic nations, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

[salman1]

This has nothing to do with religious freedom, but with modesty. Would george bush allow naked republicans to run for senate :P

[kadhim]

Animism is not monolithic, as it is a word used to describe a variety of pagan faiths. There are many animists in Sudan. Sudan is an Islamic state.

In some rare varieties of animism, a woman will go out into the streets, topless, and burn the flesh of a slaughtered chicken, to appease the spirits. She then is known to spend the rest of the day topless, as tradition is known.

Here's one catch - going topless in the Islamic state of Sudan can earn you a nasty physical punishment, as the practice is banned.

So here's the problem. Here we have a woman who is not legally allowed to practice that part of her faith and culture in regards to what she may or may not wear in public. Her state of dress is offensive to the powers that be and the larger culture. And she is banned from doing so.

Does this sound at all familiar?

So my question is, if it is wrong for France to ban hijab, is it okay to ban women from going topless?

I personally think it is wrong for France to ban hijab, and I think it is equally wrong for the Islamic government of Sudan to ban animist women from going topless.

What do you think?

What possible societal danger is there in the simple matter of a woman covering herself up more? Basically every civilized society in the world forbids women from going topless in general public. That is because there is a real utilitarian reason for it. There is no reason to ban women wearing extra clothes. (Unless you believe that fornication and adultery are essential parts of French culture, and that hijaab is a danger because it threatens these "institutions.") You know full well that there is no comparison between these two cases.

[Ferretball]

head scarf = ethical, modest, normal, Mother mary is seen in a scarf and mother Tereesa wore a headscarf nuns wear headscarfs.

Topless

= unethical, immoral, illegal All over the world, Basically walking porn, Attracting males towards commiting rape and provoking harrassment.

Religious freedom is good,but when Hindu ladies were burned alive with their husbands as part of their religion it is obvious that there should be a limit.

That's just your opinion. The French, however, view it differently:

head scarf = sexist, misogynist, overtly religious, abnormal, obnoxious, offensive

going topless = beautiful, natural, legal in most of the world, a religious symbol for some

And nice try comparing burning your wife alive to going topless.

I don't think you can draw exact parallels between the two situations you presented. Women going topless in a society may be deemed a threat to the moral fabric of society and may be offensive to the vast majority.

No, you can't draw exact parallels, but the similarities are close enough to be an indicator of hypocrisy. And women wearing Islamic headscarves in French society may be deemed a threat to the moral (and secular) fabric of society and is most certainly offensive to the vast majority of French (as polls have indicated).

Legally, the primary justification of the hijab ban is to enforce seperation of church and state. However, if you've ever discussed this or viewed the responses of French people on online discussion boards, you will find that the majority of French people support it because they believe it is opressive to hijabis.

There's other reasons too. Hijab is seen as a sign of a rising tide of fundamentalism, which is considered to be a grave threat to their society.

The first case involves a government imposing a ban for the protection of society at large. The second case is involves the state curtailing your rights, telling you "we know you are being oppresed, even though you don't agree."

The second case, in addition to being a government imposing a ban for the protection of society at large, involves the state curtailing your rights, telling you "we know you are being immodest, even though you don't agree."

In the end, as in every democratic nations, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

The hijab ban passed almost unanimously, by a democratically elected government. French public opinion also indicates that 83% find hijab obnoxious and offensive, 78% support the ban, and 55% of French Muslims ALSO support the ban. In the end, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

Furthermore, if America democratically elected to kick the Muslims out, make them wear I.D. cards, and/or put them in internment camps, would it be okay? In the end, as in every democratic nations, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

his has nothing to do with religious freedom, but with modesty.

When you ban someone from doing something, even out of modesty, it is a violation of religious freedom. And virtuallly every Muslim opposes religious freedom for pagans.

Basically every civilized society in the world forbids women from going topless in general public.

Not true. In most European nations and in half of America, women going topless is perfectly legal.

[kadhim]

Not true. In most European nations and in half of America, women going topless is perfectly legal.

I don't think so. There may be designated "nude beaches" and that sort of thing, but a woman will still get arrested for walking topless down the street in Paris, Rome, or London, despite the liberality of the attitudes there.

And even in places where the legislators have lost their minds and legalized such behaviour, the number who actually take advantage of such laws is basically nil. Why? Because even the skimpily clad women of today realize that there are some limits, and that certain parts of their body should be covered. Whether they admit such or not, the behaviour patterns tell the story. Ultimately, women know, at least subconsciously, that they're worth more covered.

[Ferretball]

Not true. In most European nations and in half of America, women going topless is perfectly legal.

I don't think so. There may be designated "nude beaches" and that sort of thing, but a woman will still get arrested for walking topless down the street in Paris, Rome, or London, despite the liberality of the attitudes there.

Incorrect. Sometimes, a women will be arrested for going topless in Paris, if someone even BOTHERS to file a complaint, but the charges are soon dropped once the officer realizes that cultural custom does not correlate with law. The same is true of Rome (I've been there myself, and I've seen a few topless women).

Then of course there's the rest of the country.

Whether they admit such or not, the behaviour patterns tell the story.  Ultimately, women know, at least subconsciously, that they're worth more covered.

Then why for 99.99 percent of humanity's existence did human females go topless? Why are 1/3rd of the population (lower India, subSaharan Africa, Australia, New Guinea, Southeast Asia) is going topless on a regular basis?

Also, I'd like to see my other points addressed.

[Ferretball]

head scarf = ethical, modest, normal, Mother mary is seen in a scarf and mother Tereesa wore a headscarf nuns wear headscarfs.

Topless

= unethical, immoral, illegal All over the world, Basically walking porn, Attracting males towards commiting rape and provoking harrassment.

Religious freedom is good,but when Hindu ladies were burned alive with their husbands as part of their religion it is obvious that there should be a limit.

That's just your opinion. The French, however, view it differently:

head scarf = sexist, misogynist, overtly religious, abnormal, obnoxious, offensive

going topless = beautiful, natural, legal in most of the world, a religious symbol for some

And nice try comparing burning your wife alive to going topless.

I don't think you can draw exact parallels between the two situations you presented. Women going topless in a society may be deemed a threat to the moral fabric of society and may be offensive to the vast majority.

No, you can't draw exact parallels, but the similarities are close enough to be an indicator of hypocrisy. And women wearing Islamic headscarves in French society may be deemed a threat to the moral (and secular) fabric of society and is most certainly offensive to the vast majority of French (as polls have indicated).

Legally, the primary justification of the hijab ban is to enforce seperation of church and state. However, if you've ever discussed this or viewed the responses of French people on online discussion boards, you will find that the majority of French people support it because they believe it is opressive to hijabis.

There's other reasons too. Hijab is seen as a sign of a rising tide of fundamentalism, which is considered to be a grave threat to their society.

The first case involves a government imposing a ban for the protection of society at large. The second case is involves the state curtailing your rights, telling you "we know you are being oppresed, even though you don't agree."

The second case, in addition to being a government imposing a ban for the protection of society at large, involves the state curtailing your rights, telling you "we know you are being immodest, even though you don't agree."

In the end, as in every democratic nations, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

The hijab ban passed almost unanimously, by a democratically elected government. French public opinion also indicates that 83% find hijab obnoxious and offensive, 78% support the ban, and 55% of French Muslims ALSO support the ban. In the end, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

Furthermore, if America democratically elected to kick the Muslims out, make them wear I.D. cards, and/or put them in internment camps, would it be okay? In the end, as in every democratic nations, it is the majority that decides what is in and what is out.

his has nothing to do with religious freedom, but with modesty.

When you ban someone from doing something, even out of modesty, it is a violation of religious freedom. And virtuallly every Muslim opposes religious freedom for pagans.

I would like to see these points addressed. The statement about topless women was done, but the rest were ignored.