Hyroglyphx writes:
You don't see what is happening though? You are happily trading liberty for security. Sure, a crazed Muslim could hide explosives in a burqa, bet then again, they could also hide explosives in a backpack too.
They might also be concealing their identity under the burqa, but they could achieve the same thing by wearing an assortment of masks, none of which is illegal.
You are left with the only other option, which is to ban Muslims. And that's the real goal, isn't it?
I abhor Wahabbi Islam just as much as you, but these dangerous precedents threaten liberty and actually creates more fanatics. They want to be martyred so they can feel justified in hated the West. Why give them a reason? If we go down this path, we inadvertantly create more enemies.
Our rights are affected in all laws, including the civil rights laws. We don't have the right to choose who we employ or who we rent to, etc. We don't have the right to go naked down the street or carry a concealed pistol in most states. A burga may be more dangerous in some respects than a concealed pistol.
I've been focusing on the danger element of this. Others have cited the civil rights element where Islam allows a man to wear a t shirt while his woman must wear the burga. I wonder how that would fly if Christians required women to wear these things in 105 degree weather while the man goes side by side in a t shirt and shorts.
I wouldn't advocate banning Muslims any more than the nation of Israel does. There's hundreds of thousands of them happily in Israel, but they are subject to the laws of the land. I understand there is a bill on the table in Israel to ban burgas there, somwhat like what is in France.