The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
gerrandesquire
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The French ban on wearing veils must be enforced without religious prejudice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
gerrandesquire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,913 times Debate No: 15926
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

This week the French ban on wearing veils in public came into force and already Muslim women have been arrested for not uncovering their faces, perhaps so that lecherous Gallic kafirs can drool over the sight of their bare countenances and, possibly, undress them with their eyes before mentally raping them. [1]

Fair enough, you might say, French sexual perverts should be allowed to fantasize over women of all faiths, and over women of no faith at all – Islamic women should not be singled out. That's why the ban on wearing veils applies not only to Muslim women but to everybody. [2]

So, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination, as well as cracking down on Muslim women wearing niqabs, the French police should stake out churches where weddings are held and if a bride arrives wearing a veil, they should pounce on her as she steps out of the limousine, bundle her to ground, arrest her and haul her virginal Christian arse off to jail.

That way, the French authorities could rightly assert that the French ban on the veil is being enforced without religious prejudice.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
gerrandesquire

Con

-The French ban on wearing veils must be enforced without religious prejudice

I would like to thank Brian for opening this deeply serious and invigorating debate for discussion. My position would be that it is impossible to impose a ban on wearing veils without religious prejudice.

I would like to provide some definitions in the beginning.
Prejudice:
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
3. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
4. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
(http://www.answers.com...)
re•li•gious (r -l j s)
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.
n. pl. religious

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

//This week the French ban on wearing veils in public came into force and already Muslim women have been arrested for not uncovering their faces, perhaps so that lecherous Gallic kafirs can drool over the sight of their bare countenances and, possibly, undress them with their eyes before mentally raping them. [1]//

Yes, they can. So thus, to avoid this serious defilement of a women's dignity, vandalizing her property(ies) and degradation of her honour, the French ban should not be imposed. But if one were to impose ban, it would be impossible to do so without religious prejudice. This is explained in my arguments.

//Fair enough, you might say, French sexual perverts should be allowed to fantasize over women of all faiths, and over women of no faith at all – Islamic women should not be singled out. That's why the ban on wearing veils applies not only to Muslim women but to everybody. [2] So, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination, as well as cracking down on Muslim women wearing niqabs, the French police should stake out churches where weddings are held and if a bride arrives wearing a veil, they should pounce on her as she steps out of the limousine, bundle her to ground, arrest her and haul her virginal Christian arse off to jail.//

I have two concerns with this arguments.

No. 1: Bridal veils are never completely opaque/ obscure. Her face is almost completely visible. So any mental activity involving her face and a man's - *imagination* can still take place in the safe little confines of one's mind.
http://www.google.co.in...=

But more importantly, even the bridal veils have a religious significance.

No. 2: One can never assume that the arse they are hauling off is virginal. This is just presumption.

//That way, the French authorities could rightly assert that the French ban on the veil is being enforced without religious prejudice.//
This is rebutted in my arguments.

Argument:
1. The veils are worn only by the Muslim women on a daily basis : Since only the Muslim women wear a full face veil as a compulsion on a daily basis, any ban on it would affect these women the most. It will be religious prejudice on any count.

Let us take an example. Imagine, if you will, a family consisting of a father, a brother and a 16 year old daughter. Now the father passes a law banning wearing of short skirts by anyone in the house. Though it isn't specified, it is pretty obvious that if the brother (or the father for that matter) isn't a cross-dresser, the law was made for the daughter. Though even the brother cannot wear the skirt, since he never had the urge to, it still applies almost wholly to the girl.
Similarly, even though no one, not even the brides would not be able to do so now, this would still be religious prejudice for muslim women since it applies almost exclusively to them

2. Even the wedding veils have religious underlinings:

http://www.chabad.org...
"… The Torah continues to say that Moses' face was so bright with holiness, no one dared look at him. He had to wear a veil whenever he spoke to the people in order to filter the divine glare.

This is also why a bride wears a veil. The souls of both bride and groom are in an elevated state under the Chuppah (marriage canopy), as they are about to unite as one. In the bride, this elevated state is more revealed. She radiates a special holiness; the divine presence ("Shechinah"), the feminine aspect of G-d, shines through the face of the bride.
This light is so intense that it must be veiled, just as the light emanating from Moses' face had to be covered. Holiness needs privacy…" (Jewish reason)

http://bellydancingdiva.com...

… Veils are worn by Judaic, Christian and Islam religious adherents. The Virgin Mary is always shown veiled, and there is a liturgical feast of the "Veil of our Lady." Nuns wear veils, white during probation, dark once vows are taken, or other colors depending on the order…"
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to Gerrandesquire for accepting this debate, I should like to respond to her arguments as follows:

"1. The veils are worn only by the Muslim women on a daily basis : Since only the Muslim women wear a full face veil as a compulsion on a daily basis, any ban on it would affect these women the most. It will be religious prejudice on any count."

This is true, the law was clearly designed as a tool to persecute the sizable Muslim minority in France. However, this only reinforces my argument: the high-profile detention of Christian brides under the law would heighten the absurdity of the legislation.

"2. Even the wedding veils have religious underlinings:"

Indeed, and that's why the law should be enforced without religious prejudice - hauling blushing brides off to jail would cause outrage in the general public and the law would have to be either scrapped, or amended to openly discriminate against Muslims - which would, rightly, expose the ultra-right wing Jewish French president, Nicolas Sarkozy [1} as actively anti-Islamic.

Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gerrandesquire

Con

//This is true, the law was clearly designed as a tool to persecute the sizable Muslim minority in France. However, this only reinforces my argument: the high-profile detention of Christian brides under the law would heighten the absurdity of the legislation.//

But this wasn't your resolution at all. Your resolution was that the ‘French ban on wearing veils *must* be enforced without religious prejudice. And you were pro on the subject.

//Indeed, and that's why the law should be enforced without religious prejudice - hauling blushing brides off to jail would cause outrage in the general public and the law would have to be either scrapped, or amended to openly discriminate against Muslims - which would, rightly, expose the ultra-right wing Jewish French president, Nicolas Sarkozy [1} as actively anti-Islamic.//

But that is the point. They cannot be hauled off without religious prejudice, because even the wedding veils have a religious significance. This was explained in the previous round *with sources*. So, even that would be religious intolerance to a degree, since the ban would have religious underlinings. That would make Nicolas Sarkozy an actively anti-Islamic, and non-actively anti Jewish, Judaic and Christian. And a little bit of Anti-Hindu.

I would urge the voters to vote Con.

Thanks to Brian_eggleston for this enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Always interesting stuff in Brian's debates. I've learned quite a bit from them.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
This is great!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
brian_egglestongerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is a choice for women to wear or to not wear a viel, and focibly removing there beliefs by doing this is wrong. But all personal conviction aside, I do like gerrandesquire's arguments better.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestongerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, you needed to argue for discrimination or how it was not religious for the others
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
brian_egglestongerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had execelent conduct and good arguments. I felt that Con did not do as good of a job as Pro. Just because one group is affected more than another, does not mean that group is directly targeted. Example would be anti-theft laws in the US do not directly target blacks, even though the statistics show that they are targeted more for this.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 5 years ago
mcc1789
brian_egglestongerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not feel the law is right. Women should not be forced to veil themselves, but this does the opposite and forcibly uncovers them. I know for a fact that many women in such cases will not go out if forced not to be covered by niqabs. I realize there are cases the uncovering of a women is necessary, to verify identity for instance, but this law is not aimed to do that (which could be conducted with female police officers for instance). The ban should not be enforced whatsoever.