The Dutch have banned the burka. A small step toward the liberation of women, at least in Europe. And yes, it is that, despite their no longer having the "freedom" to hide their faces.

Good for them! I hope that they can ban other religious symbols too, like priest's robes, crucifixes, and the Star of David.

A burka is not a religious symbol. It's an article of clothing. Certainly nothing in the Quran requires it. You seem to be making a major category error here.

If Christians covered their faces with a cross, or Jews with the star, or if priests' robes covered the face in public, I'd be in favor of banning that as well.

"A burka is not a religious symbol. It's an article of clothing. Certainly nothing in the Quran requires it. You seem to be making a major category error here."

Yeah. And the religious police, and the angry muslim males, and their husbands don't have anything to do with their clothing choices. Right.

Those muslims who go around gang-raping european women for being "improperly clothed" have nothing whatsoever to do with this either, I'm sure.

What the Dutch are reacting to is not the oh-so-innocious "article of clothing". It's the sex-terrorism plaguing their continent. Removing the burka through law is one way they are attempting to keep their women from being bullied into submission.

In general, and in the long run, I'm sure banning random articles of clothing is a bad idea. But what do you do when schools in highly muslim areas have half their class covered up, and the rest of their women being assaulted and threatened?

Hmm. File this under "I can't take a hint". I originally thought you were opposed or something. It doesn't seem like you're too opposed under the circumstances.

Should read more carefully.

How do you rate a yarmulka?

Banning an item of clothing is kind of like banning
freak dancing. It may make people feel good,
but i'm not sure it addresses the problem.

We are facing the fundamentalist wars, where
evangelical extremists, christian identity freaks,
polygamist mormons, muslim extremists are trying to
kick off the next armageddon.

How do you rate a yarmulka?

It doesn't cover the face, which is fundamental to human communication, Anonymous Moron.

We are facing the fundamentalist wars, where
evangelical extremists, christian identity freaks,
polygamist mormons, muslim extremists are trying to
kick off the next armageddon.

Yeah: because it's those darn Catholics and Baptists who are building nukes for Jesus Christ, and who cut the heads off of people who disagree with them.

How Libertarian !

Next thing you know they'll be banning other religious customs, like polygamy!

(On a more serious note, there really does seem to be some rather interesting parallels between polygamy bans and burka bans.)

I'm all in favor for using state power to tell people how to dress. Women should not be allowed to wear sneakers with pantsuits. Young men should not be allowed to wear baseball caps backwards. And all fat people should wear mumus.

So Rand is all in favor of using state power to ban
clothing.

BTW responding to a question by calling someone Moron
or Moonbat, really says something about your character
and upbringing. Did you mother teach you the
M word?

I agree with the naysayers here. There's no legitimate reason to ban the wearing of a burqa or other concealing wear in public. For example, should they also ban costumes that cover the entire person (say a Mickey Mouse costume, for example) or clown and mime makeup? It certainly is not important that people be "able to see and identify each other clearly" especially to promote some bogus cause like "integration and tolerance". If law enforcement needs to see someone's face in order to identify them, that's a different story and there's probably already means to do that. And wearing burqas could be real dangerous when operating motor vehicles.

I think it's reasonable for schools to require that their students leave their faces uncovered when in the classroom. The teacher has a reasonable need to communicate with the student which is obstructed by any sort of face covering.

I read about Palestinian terrorists who dressed in burkas to avoid the IDF. Sounds like a good idea to avoid the Dutch, French and British police. Yes, let's help keep women hidden from view. They don't need an identity. Those burkas hide the bruises from the beatings they get at home quite well.

The more I read these anon posts the more its looking like another political group or country is using this site to spew their anti-American propaganda. Every once in a while I read some of awkward wording presented by anon and it seems like someone that doesn't speak English and/or is just grabbing little factoids out of a pre-canned list of talking points. He repeatedly hammers on the same phrases and illogical points designed to illicit some type of response. It is like someone who wants to convince us that the sky isn't blue and they just keep calmly saying, "the sky isn't blue" over and over. Either a)you look like a monster for banning or berating b)just give in and admit it isn't blue so they will shut up c)cause you to spend time and energy debating their obviously fallacious point of view in lieu of discussing a talking point that might enlighten someone enough to produce a tangible result.

Providing any type of acknowledgment to their posts or attempting to deal with them directly is going to be about as helpful as pouring water onto a grease fire. It's only going to be make their ambitions grow. I'd says either ignore them by just completely talking around their posts in hopes it will burn out on its own. Or snuff it out completely by banning or deleting their posts.

I keep wondering if those disagreeing about the banning of burkas, as "religious items", are just upset about not being able to burn crosses in others' lawns.

A small step in the right direction. A few more that might help, not necessarily in this order; ban halal slaughter, ban construction of new mosques, start enforcing the laws about incitement to commit various crimes, and deport known radical clerics who aren't citizens of the country concerned. Preferably to Israel. They'll know what to do with them; apparently Europeans and Americans no longer do.

Henry Kissinger now says it's not possible to win in Iraq:

WaPo -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday. ... In a wide ranging interview on BBC television, Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors including Iran if any progress is to be made in the region.

Kissinger is only the latest to accept the reality that this war, judged by many combat experts to be ill-conceived from inception and subsequently bungled to an extraordinary degree, is unwinnable. Of course, there's always the obligatory rejoinder that we 'cannot leave right away' or Iraq would 'descend into civil war and chaos.' Hear that soldiers, sailors, and marines? You can't 'win' according to Kissinger -- and a bunch of other people -- but George Bush is going to let sectarian militias use you for target practice anyway. Putting aside the tragic consequences for our brave service people in harm's way, and their families and friends, what are the stakes, according to the White House, if we do not prevail in Iraq?

Bush 2004 -- "[Zarqawi] and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well."

Bush 2005 -- "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

So the terrorist themselves agree that if Bush can't win in Iraq, that they've beaten him and us, and won the epic struggle of civilizations?

George Bush in Salt Lake City, September 2006 -- "Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the Third World War is raging in Iraq. It would come as news to the No. 2 man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, 'the place for the greatest battle.' ... If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities. The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq."

That "Iraq Is The Central Front In The War On Terror," and that head radical goons like Osama bin Laden agree, was no brief rhetorical statement by any means. It was affirmed endlessly by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and a host of other administration mouthpieces, pundits, and GOP lawmakers for three years running, with George Bush leading the charge.

Over and over the Bush-Cheney Administration, helped out by their Rubber-stamp Republican drones and assorted right-wing media borg have assured us, reminded us, and at times arrogantly scolded us, that all is well, that "Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror," that we have to win over there, or we'll be fighting them here, and that the fate of civilization depends on victory in Iraq.

Over and over, mostly from the safety of a corner office ensconced in wealth and privilege, draft dodging chicken-hawks portrayed war critics who did swear to defend our nation as traitors, gleefully smeared combat vets as cowards, and applauded the intimidation and muzzling of high ranking military experts who expressed even a shred of concern over the unfolding neocon catastrophe in Iraq.

Over and over intelligence was spun, excuses were made, deceptive soundbites were crafted and handed down to the right-wing media machine. Over and over We the People were told that the insurgency was waning, that great progress was being made, that there was light at the end of the tunnel, that things would improve in another six months.

It would be cheap, it would be quick; it would be Mission Accomplished.

Through it all to this day, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars evaporate like morning fog while morgues and trauma care wards full of dead and maimed Americans are quietly stacked away by the same despicable operatives who claimed to support the troops.

If the President was being truthful about the significance of Iraq to the war on terror and the stakes therein, doesn't it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?

Josh,

I note that you write a comment and get a response that has nothing to do with topic. Instead, you get the latest talking point discussion. Your point was made and validated.

Please Leland, feel free to burn a cross if that's your thing. Freedom of speech is wonderful.

"For example, should they also ban costumes that cover the entire person (say a Mickey Mouse costume, for example) or clown and mime makeup?"

I hate mimes.

Some e-tard thinks this is about Iraq. Said e-tard can't seem to stay on topic.

"A few more that might help... ban construction of new mosques..."

I agree that this would be a good step. But it doesn't really do much to solve the problem, does it? After all, there are all those _existing_ mosques to worry about. I suggest closing those as well.

There's another problem that just occurred to me--by banning traditional clothing like the burkha, it makes it harder to identify Muslims, and of course that is the last thing we want to do. So in addition to banning the clothing, the state should introduce some kind of identifying mark that they are all required to wear, like a patch on the front of their clothes. Perhaps a crescent moon?

Kevin, the real issue is that no Western country needs or wants a society within a society, a millennium out of date. Especially not one that indulges in random violence whenever they feel like it.

We need to make them feel unwelcome, and we need to stop pandering to their mediaeval prejudices.

And the difference between Muslims now and Jews in 1930s Germany is that German Jews didn't, as far as I know, blow up crowds of women and kids in subways and buses. This time the enemy within is for real.

I'm not impressed with the cheap shot.

"Kevin, the real issue is that no Western country needs or wants a society within a society, a millennium out of date. Especially not one that indulges in random violence whenever they feel like it.

We need to make them feel unwelcome, and we need to stop pandering to their mediaeval prejudices."

I agree with you completely. There are lots of examples where groups of people have undermined the greater society. And you are absolutely 100% right that we "need to make them feel unwelcome" in our society. The way to do this is by banning their clothing and their religious institutions, and making it clear who they are so that the general public can recognize them. I'm not proposing curfews, at least not yet. But if they do not leave of their own accord, then curfews are a good next step. And if they don't leave after they have been made to feel unwelcome, then maybe it will then be time to round them up and do something about them.