Terror attacks in Sri Lanka

[Ziggy Stardust]

A series of at least 8 coordinated suicide bomb attacks on hotels and churches in Sri Lanka have killed at least 200 people and injured another 400, including at least 27 foreign nationals (American, British, Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, and Portuguese confirmed at the moment). At the moment, nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. The authorities surely have some information they have not yet released, because following the bombings there have been a series of raids on houses (one of which led to another explosion that killed three police officers) and 8 arrests.

Sri Lanka has been fairly peaceful since the end of its civil war back in 2009; though the elections of 2015 saw some sporadic (non-organized) sectarian violence and an attempted coup. There are clearly still tensions in Sri Lankan society, but there has not been wide-spread organized violence in the country for years. These attacks don't bear the hallmarks of the type of violence perpetrated by Tamil nationalists during the civil war (the Tamil Tigers carried out many bombings and targeted attacks, but never explicitly targeted foreigners or religious targets, they had fairly secular goals). A large scale coordinated suicide bombing of hotels (targeting foreigners) and churches (targeting Christians) sounds more like the workings of Islamic terrorist groups, which heretofore had been essentially unknown in Sri Lanka. It's possible this was perpetrated instead by the Buddhist nationalist group Bodu Bala Sena, which has been increasingly radicalized and emboldened by militant Buddhist extremist groups in Myanmar; however, it isn't clear what would cause them to jump to such an extreme level of violence against foreigners and Christians, when their past activities have mostly revolved around anti-Muslim protests and riots.

The death of American and Chinese nationals, especially, almost ensures a strong international response to this. I expect we will learn more soon, and in the next couple of days would not be surprised to hear some terrorist organization claim responsibility. If this really is the workings of a new Islamist group (or a new cell of an existing one), it is a worrying sign about the continued spread of radical Islamic terrorism.

Here is CNN's live update feed as the story develops:

https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/sri- ... index.html

Here is BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-48002165

And here is Al Jazeera:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/ ... 57452.html

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's a nice pretext for more Muslim bashing/distraction from the Mueller probe for Trump, all wrapped up in one. Yeah, I'll be shocked if he doesn't jump on this.

My thoughts are with the victims.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Remember the last time some idiots with more ideology than sense caused major trouble for the world, and that gave us not only WW1 but also WW2...

[Ziggy Stardust]

So ISIS today claimed responsibility for the attacks, though it seems more likely it was the work of more local cells that were radicalized online.

On a side note: You know, I find it a little ironic how little attention this is getting here. So many members of this board were up in arms at people for being upset about the fire at Notre Dame, smugly whining about how people should save their energy to be upset about more substantial things. Well, here's a more substantial thing, and all of those people are nowhere to be found. If they had any credibility, they'd be interested in discussing this. You people know who you are, you miserable, hypocritical toads.

[mr friendly guy]

To be fair there hasn't been that much info on this event. Only yesterday did I find out some Islamist group whose previous highlights was defacing Buddhist statues has been implicated.

This is obviously going to strengthen the hands of 5hise who favour an us vs them narrative, with them being Muslims and us being everyone else.

[mr friendly guy]

More people have died in a raid by security forces

BBC comes first on the search, although its being reported elsewhere

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48074702

Sri Lanka bombings: 15 die in blast during raid on suspected hideout

Fifteen people including six children were killed in Sri Lanka on Friday when suspected Islamist militants blew themselves up in a raid, police said.

The raid occurred in Sainthamaruthu, near the hometown of the suspected ringleader of the Easter Sunday attacks that killed at least 250 people.

Gunmen opened fire as troops attempted to raid a house, police said.

Three men set off explosives, they added, killing the children and three women. Three others died in gunfire.

One civilian was caught in the crossfire and died, according to police, while a wounded woman and child were taken to hospital.

Footage shown on state television showed charred bodies inside the house, one cradling a rifle. Explosives, a generator, a drone, and batteries were also visible.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-29/ ... s/11053284

Sri Lanka bans face coverings and closes Catholic churches after Easter bombings
Posted about 9 hours ago

Muslim women have been ordered to stop wearing veils in public and Sri Lanka's Catholic churches have been closed as the country imposes strict security measures in the aftermath of the Easter suicide bombings.


Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the Easter suicide bombings, which were aimed at churches and hotels and killed more than 250 people.

President Maithripala Sirisena also banned all kinds of face coverings that may conceal people's identities.

The emergency law, which takes effect from Monday (local time), prevents Muslim women from veiling their faces.

The decision came after the cabinet had proposed laws on face veils at a recent meeting.

It had deferred the matter until talks with Islamic clerics could be held, on the advice of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Its a tough call given cultural sensitivities.

[The Romulan Republic]

A heavy-handed, needlessly draconian and punitive reaction which punishes entire religious groups for the actions of a few extremists, which will do little or nothing to help prevent more attacks (Muslim extremists don't need face veils to commit acts of terror, and can find other targets than Catholic Churches). This is only going to piss off both Muslims and Catholics, and probably lead to more violence as each group blames the other for their loss of rights.

This looks like someone's desperate posturing to appear tough and make it look like they're taking decisive action, rather than actual decisive action.

[wautd]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-29/ ... s/11053284

Sri Lanka bans face coverings and closes Catholic churches after Easter bombings
Posted about 9 hours ago

Muslim women have been ordered to stop wearing veils in public and Sri Lanka's Catholic churches have been closed as the country imposes strict security measures in the aftermath of the Easter suicide bombings.


Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the Easter suicide bombings, which were aimed at churches and hotels and killed more than 250 people.

President Maithripala Sirisena also banned all kinds of face coverings that may conceal people's identities.

The emergency law, which takes effect from Monday (local time), prevents Muslim women from veiling their faces.

The decision came after the cabinet had proposed laws on face veils at a recent meeting.

It had deferred the matter until talks with Islamic clerics could be held, on the advice of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Its a tough call given cultural sensitivities.

The burqa and niqab is part of the culture in Sri Lanka? Or is it a relatively new practice due to the rise of wahhabism and its religious fundamentalist extremism? In case of the latter I don't see much issue with showing intolerance towards an intolerant ideology that justifies the attacks in the first place.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't agree with the practice of the niqab, much less the fucking burqa. But if people choose (really choose, not are forced by their male relatives, and some do choose) to wear them, then what right do or anyone else have to say that they should be banned? It certainly isn't out of concern for the women who wear them- all it does is effectively bar them from any public space, unless they're prepared to give up their religion under duress. The only reason for these bans, as you say, is to show intolerance toward the ideology- that is, to persecute the practitioners of religious beliefs that you disagree with by relegating them to the status of second class citizenship. That makes you, by your own admission, a bigot who is opposed to freedom of religion and expression if it offends your personal sensibilities, or is practiced by a group you despise.

There is also zero connection between the niqab and the "ideology that justifies the attacks". I'm not kidding. Its a long way from "believes in wearing a niqab" to "believes in murdering people". The one does not automatically lead to or necessitate the other. The two are not synonymous, unless you simply take the view that all Islam (or all conservative Islam, at least) is terroristic. Which, again, is the position of a religious bigot.

[Broomstick]

That makes you, by your own admission, a bigot who is opposed to freedom of religion and expression if it offends your personal sensibilities, or is practiced by a group you despise.

Freedom of religion, like all rights and freedoms, is not unlimited. There's no way in hell, for example, modern society is going to tolerate a revival of Aztec religion incorporating human sacrifice, as one example. If a religious sect not only advocates violence but actually engages in mass murder why should they be tolerated? Not I said SECT, not a religion as a whole.

There is also zero connection between the niqab and the "ideology that justifies the attacks". I'm not kidding. Its a long way from "believes in wearing a niqab" to "believes in murdering people".

Once upon a time there was no connection between swastikas and butchering million of people, but one bloodthirsty group welded that association onto a symbol that, prior to that point, and in some places still today, had an entirely different meaning.

Because the rabid nutjobs who not advocate blowing people up but actually blow people up are also associated with the sorts adopting the more extreme forms of "modest" Muslim it's causing problems for those who aren't murderous shitheads. Sorry about that. I'm not convinced banning them is going to work, either, but since one of the reactions to this sort of terrorism is a desire for the authorities to be able to identify people at all times and track them, people who cover their faces are running into a problem.

Wanting to prevent mass murder is not inherently bigotry. Neither are all rules that impact freedom of expression.

[wautd]

But if people choose (really choose, not are forced by their male relatives, and some do choose) to wear them, then what right do or anyone else have to say that they should be banned?

Using the same logic you can allow KKK robes in public too. After all, Ku Klux Klan members choose to wear their uniforms too.

It certainly isn't out of concern for the women who wear them- all it does is effectively bar them from any public space

By hiding their identity they are already barring themselves from public space.

unless they're prepared to give up their religion under duress. The only reason for these bans, as you say, is to show intolerance toward the ideology- that is, to persecute the practitioners of religious beliefs that you disagree with by relegating them to the status of second class citizenship. That makes you, by your own admission, a bigot who is opposed to freedom of religion and expression if it offends your personal sensibilities, or is practiced by a group you despise.

Ah yes, because when you think about the ideology behind the burqa and niqab you think about its great tolerance or its respect towards basic human rights. Am I a bigot because I hate nazism too?
Religious freedom isn't limitless, and an ideology that doesn't respect religious freedom doesn't deserves respect.

There is also zero connection between the niqab and the "ideology that justifies the attacks". I'm not kidding. Its a long way from "believes in wearing a niqab" to "believes in murdering people". The one does not automatically lead to or necessitate the other. The two are not synonymous, unless you simply take the view that all Islam (or all conservative Islam, at least) is terroristic. Which, again, is the position of a religious bigot.

I think terrorism is one of the logical end stations of intolerant and fascist hate ideologies like wahhabism. If that makes me a religious bigot then so be it

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty sure its not just Wahhabism that practices the Niqab. And the lame dodge that "they're already barring themselves from public space by not wearing what I say they should wear" is just that- a lame dodge. You know full well that there is a difference between wearing something that covers your face, and the state literally forcing you to choose between your religious beliefs and PHYSICALLY EVER LEAVING YOUR HOME. And if you can't see the difference, you are frankly too stupid to bother conversing with.

And the long-overused comparison with Aztec sacrifice doesn't work, Broomstick, for the very simple reason that wearing the Niqab (if voluntary) does not require harming anyone else, or taking anyone's life. It imposes on no one's freedom or rights except, arguably, those of the person wearing it. Who suffers a far greater loss of their rights if they are effectively barred from ever leaving their home.

That's how freedom works- the only way it can work. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as doing so doesn't impose on anyone's rights. Allowing the Niqab doesn't. Human sacrifice does, as does banning the Niqab.

Edit: Also note that, for your other analogy, I have real problems with Swastika bans (or at least absolute ones) as well. Not because I have anything but contempt and loathing for Nazis, though I'm sure someone on this board will use this post to say "TRR is a Nazi" the next time they want to debate my a straw man of my character rather than my arguments. But because the symbol DOES predate the Nazis, it is a symbol of various religious groups who aren't Nazis, and allowing the Nazis to claim that symbol in perpetuity, to the exclusion of all others, is essentially giving them a victory, surrendering to them a piece of culture that they stole, and discriminating against the other traditions that use it in the process. And because if you ban the symbol, they'll just appropriate a new symbol and use that instead, like the metastisized cultural cancer that they are.

[wautd]

Pretty sure its not just Wahhabism that practices the Niqab. And the lame dodge that "they're already barring themselves from public space by not wearing what I say they should wear" is just that- a lame dodge. You know full well that there is a difference between wearing something that covers your face, and the state literally forcing you to choose between your religious beliefs and PHYSICALLY EVER LEAVING YOUR HOME. And if you can't see the difference, you are frankly too stupid to bother conversing with.

If they choose to shield themselves from society by hiding their identity then I see no reason for society to do the same.
Or are you saying that their husbands don't allow them to leave the house without wearing a burqa or niqab? Even more reason to ban it then.

That's how freedom works- the only way it can work. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as doing so doesn't impose on anyone's rights.

So you would also allow people with balaclavas in public, if they claim that their religion demands it?
Do nudists have the right to walk naked where ever they want?
Freedom of what to wear in public never has been absolute, anywhere. A mosque has the right to ask it's visitors to take out their shoes, but a society also has the right to ask for some clothing norms.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty sure its not just Wahhabism that practices the Niqab. And the lame dodge that "they're already barring themselves from public space by not wearing what I say they should wear" is just that- a lame dodge. You know full well that there is a difference between wearing something that covers your face, and the state literally forcing you to choose between your religious beliefs and PHYSICALLY EVER LEAVING YOUR HOME. And if you can't see the difference, you are frankly too stupid to bother conversing with.

If they choose to shield themselves from society by hiding their identity then I see no reason for society to do the same.

In short, you believe by your own admission that if a person does not conform to your values, your fashion sense, your ideals, that they are and deserve to be othered, un-personed, shut out from society. You think that you or the government have the right to tell a woman what to wear, just as much as the men who dictate that they must wear a niqab or a burqa do.

I don't have to see someone's whole face to treat them like a human being. I do not need to see someone's face to know their name, their identity, and that they are a person. There is no fact or logic to your position- only bigotry, and flimsy excuses for it.

Hell, why not make them sew a yellow star to their clothes? Or I guess, in this case, a crescent. And if you think that comparison is unfair, that its hyperbole- remember that genocide never starts with genocide. It starts with othering. With un-personing. With making a group of people second class because of who they are.

Or are you saying that their husbands don't allow them to leave the house without wearing a burqa or niqab? Even more reason to ban it then.

Why? So that they'll be forced to stay at home, with no escape whatever from their abusive husbands?

If their husbands don't allow them to go out, or compel them to wear the niqab, then those husbands should be prosecuted for domestic abuse, just the same as any other husband who tried to confine his wife against her will or force her to conform to his views. But banning the Niqab won't help the women. Its not intended to. Its intended to other them, to unperson them, and you should at least have the guts to fucking own that and not pretend that you're advocating it for their own good.

But that's not what I was talking about, no. I said it quite clearly: if a woman chooses to wear a niqab or burqa as part of her religious belief, she should not be forced to choose between her religion and her rights as a person and a citizen by someone who thinks that he has the right to dictate how a woman dresses.

So you would also allow people with balaclavas in public, if they claim that their religion demands it?

Absolutely, barring places with specific security concerns like military bases, or people who wear them in the commission of a crime.

Do nudists have the right to walk naked where ever they want?

I live in a country where multiple provinces have legalized women going topless in public, even if most people probably aren't aware of it.

Full nudity I'd prohibit, but more on public health grounds than appearance. Bare asses and crotches on every seat is unhygenic.

Also, nudity is not a part of hundreds of millions of peoples' religious practices.

Freedom of what to wear in public never has been absolute, anywhere. A mosque has the right to ask it's visitors to take out their shoes, but a society also has the right to ask for some clothing norms.

This is a straw man. I am not claiming it is an absolute- I am saying that unless you can show a demonstrable infringement on peoples' rights that outweighs the infringement of a ban, people should be free to do as they choose. Its really that simple. That is the only just basis for a society, the only one that does not lead inexorably to despotism.

Though I will also note that "We've always done something in the past" is not, never has been, and never will be a valid argument for continuing to do it.

[wautd]

un-personing.
With making a group of people second class because of who they are.

Ironic because that's exactly the point of the niqab and burqa. Un-personing women by erasing their identy. Treating them like second class humans and property that need "protection"

[The Romulan Republic]

un-personing.
With making a group of people second class because of who they are.

Ironic because that's exactly the point of the niqab and burqa. Un-personing women by erasing their identy. Treating them like second class humans and property that need "protection"

And barring them from being able to leave their homes will only increase their vulnerability and isolation. This isn't hard to understand.

Stop pretending that this is for their own good. I almost liked it better when you admitted straight up it was out of hostility toward their religion. At least that was honest bigotry, without, as Mr. Lincoln put it, "the base alloy of hypocrisy."

[K. A. Pital]

TRR, a person against religion can be genuinely convinced that getting rid of some rituals is actually for the benefit of women who are denigrated by such traditions. Why is wautd “pretending”?

Barring people from walking around can increase the vulnerability of some, but help others simply because it is impractical to hold people under house arrest because they cannot go out in a burka.

I am just trying to think impartially on this matter. Religion is not good, we do know that. Getting rid of it or softening it by removing more stringent ritualistic demands can be a viable strategy for secularization. Of course, a lot of other things need to happen as well to liberate women, but this religion which you defend, itself offers them very little hope.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, a person against religion can be genuinely convinced that getting rid of some rituals is actually for the benefit of women who are denigrated by such traditions. Why is wautd “pretending”?

Because he made it quite clear from the outset that his primary motivation was hostility to their beliefs, not concern for them. He has outright said, using frankly rediculous analogies and equivalencies, that he feels that they deserve to be barred from society if they wear something he disapproves of, because them wearing it is to him equivalent to being barred from participating in society (which should be absurd on the face of it).

But if he truly does feel that it is to their benefit to force them to either give up their faith or be excluded from all society to the point that they will be prosecuted if they leave their homes, then he's frankly an imbecile who is just engaging in a modern-day version of "the white man's burden", claiming that his cultural imperialism is for the victims' own good.

Barring people from walking around can increase the vulnerability of some, but help others simply because it is impractical to hold people under house arrest because they cannot go out in a burka.

I am skeptical that men fundamentalist enough to forcibly confine their wives would care about that.

I am just trying to think impartially on this matter. Religion is not good, we do know that.

That is actually a pretty large assertion to expect to be taken at face value, without argument.

Getting rid of it or softening it by removing more stringent ritualistic demands can be a viable strategy for secularization. Of course, a lot of other things need to happen as well to liberate women, but this religion which you defend, itself offers them very little hope.

Do not try to shift the topic to "TRR defends conservative Islam". I am not a Muslim of any variety. I do not share their beliefs. I am not arguing for the rightness of their beliefs, because the rightness or wrongness of those beliefs is to me irrelevant to my argument. I don't need to believe in their faith to believe that the principle "All people are created equal, and should be equal under the law" applies to them. It is the people, and the law, that I am defending, not the faith.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, but you do realize the law can be different in different nations?

In one you can get fined for wearing a burqa, in another you can get fined or killed for crossdressing.

Law offers us very little guidance.

[wautd]

TRR, would you defend KKK members to wear their ridiculous robes in public too? I mean, you can pretty much use to same arguments you used to defend the niqab/burqa.
And you call me a bigot? Ironic considering wahhabism's views and practices about ex-muslims, gay people, non-muslims and muslims of other sects. If you expect me to shed a tear for all those fundamentalist extremists complaining about being on the receiving end of intolerance then good luck waiting

[wautd]

All people are created equal, and should be equal under the law" applies to them.

Agreed, and in my country it's not allowed to hide your identity in public. Which is why it would be fucking stupid to give religious fundamentalists more rights than everybody else

[Broomstick]

Pretty sure its not just Wahhabism that practices the Niqab.

No, it's not, but as I said, the more extreme sects are linked to women who are more covered up. As others have pointed out, in many places this is a NEW practice, not a longs-standing tradition, and it's linked to influence of the extremists.

And the long-overused comparison with Aztec sacrifice doesn't work, Broomstick, for the very simple reason that wearing the Niqab (if voluntary) does not require harming anyone else, or taking anyone's life. It imposes on no one's freedom or rights except, arguably, those of the person wearing it. Who suffers a far greater loss of their rights if they are effectively barred from ever leaving their home.

The problem is NOT the peaceful, Allah-loving woman who genuinely desires to wear cover as an expression of her faith. The problem is that allowing people to cover up not only can be but has been used to get suicide bombers into an area and kill people. Yes, that sucks for the harmless woman seeking to dress as she feels appropriate, but society is not going to tolerate faceless assassins.

Hell, I can't step into a bank in the middle of winter without a request to remove hat, scarf, and sunglasses - it's not because anyone is being mean to me and demanding I freeze in winter, it's because too many people have used those (and hoodies, and balaclavas, and so forth) to disguise their appearance when robbing banks. "Your face must be visible to enter this area" rules are not automatically made to target peaceful Muslim women, they're made for the safety and security of all.

Now, are there rules made specifically to target Muslims? Yes, there are such things made out of spite. But not all rules that impact the religious fall under that category. For a few more: there are problems between turban-wearing Sikhs and rules about helmets. Hanging brightly colored "ornaments" on horse buggies is offensive to the Amish, but they are required to hang orange safety triangles off the back of their buggies anyway. The rules about head gear and high-visibility markings on slow-moving vehicles weren't made to target those groups, but they do affect those groups. In some cases - protective headgear and Sikhs - an argument that no one is being hurt is makes sense. In others - Amish buggies and their markings - the argument is that the greater good/safety is served by the rule and the exception is made because these are NOT ornaments but safety markings. (The Amish normally ban photographs of human faces as well, but have been known to make exceptions that are strictly for identity purposes or security).

So here's the litmus test: is the specifically targeting Muslims, or is it serving a general purpose and just happens to affect Muslims more than some other groups.

Edit: Also note that, for your other analogy, I have real problems with Swastika bans (or at least absolute ones) as well.

I do, too. Context matters.

Not because I have anything but contempt and loathing for Nazis, though I'm sure someone on this board will use this post to say "TRR is a Nazi" the next time they want to debate my a straw man of my character rather than my arguments.

You know, you really are sounding paranoid with that statement. I agree that some posters do seem to target you, but you're getting to a point where you're second-guessing motivations to (IMO) an unhealthy degree.

[Broomstick]

In short, you believe by your own admission that if a person does not conform to your values, your fashion sense, your ideals, that they are and deserve to be othered, un-personed, shut out from society. You think that you or the government have the right to tell a woman what to wear, just as much as the men who dictate that they must wear a niqab or a burqa do.

While you were not addressing me in that paragraph, I do feel compelled to answer it.

The government already enforces a dress code on everyone, and often more so on women. If anything, it's gotten less restrictive in the West, not more. Very few places allow people to wander around naked. Doing so most places will get you picked up by the police for a welfare check at the very least. Sure, there are topless beaches and nudist colonies, but they're designated as such, they're exceptions and not the rule. But in most places yes, people, men and women alike, are required to wear a certain minimum of clothing.

So please don't pretend there are no rules whatsoever.

The question is not "can society regulate a dress code" but rather "what dress code does this society have?"

If I were (very hypothetically) to visit Saudi Arabia even though I'm not Muslim I'd be required to cover up almost as much as one of the native women and could be subjected to penalties if I fail to do so. I would require a male relative escort (which would be difficult, given how few relatives I have left of any gender). I would not be allowed to drive. If I did ever visit Saudi Arabia I would obey these laws not because I agree with them but because I know that fighting against their society while in their society would be futile.

I don't have to see someone's whole face to treat them like a human being. I do not need to see someone's face to know their name, their identity, and that they are a person. There is no fact or logic to your position- only bigotry, and flimsy excuses for it.

I don't have to see a person's face to treat them as a human being in a polite manner - indeed, when I'm running a cash register at work I often interact with Muslim women wearing everything from a simple headscarf to full on only-her-eyes-visible robes. But then, they're only shopping for groceries and toilet paper and aspirin. And since Muslims in general don't buy alcohol I don't normally have to ask them for ID (there are a few other things requiring it, but I can't recall these women buying them. And there were those two young Saudi men who were buying pork and alcoholic beverages for a couple weeks, but I assume they were sampling forbidden fruit and got it out of their system. I knew they were Saudis because they used their passports for proof of age to buy the vodka, bourbon, etc.)

But there are other circumstances where asking people to fully identify themselves is now the accepted norm. A Muslim woman doesn't want to reveal her face to get on an airplane? Guess the family is going to have to drive to their destination. (Although in fact such woman could request a female security officer and an area screened from the public for the ID and security check, so no, they are NOT banned from air travel.)

But, again, there's a problem that a full cover can hide a LOT of nasty things - knives, guns, acid, suicide vests. Or hide the gender of a male attacker. It really is a security problem, even in places like Saudi Arabia where covering up is a long-standing norm.

Hell, why not make them sew a yellow star to their clothes? Or I guess, in this case, a crescent.

Hardly required when their mode of dress is already distinctly different. The Jews in the Third Reich were required to wear the yellow stars because they didn't stand out sufficiently for the bigots - how dare those Jews look like everyone else!

The Muslim cover is NOT imposed by others, it's imposed by some parts of Islam, which are all too often trying to impose it on everyone else. Frankly, I'm far more concerned with women who don't want to cover up who are being pressured to do so.

Do nudists have the right to walk naked where ever they want?

I live in a country where multiple provinces have legalized women going topless in public, even if most people probably aren't aware of it.

"Topless" is not nude. Are men allowed to walk around in public without pants?

Full nudity I'd prohibit, but more on public health grounds than appearance. Bare asses and crotches on every seat is unhygenic.

The public good test - yes, I'd agree that there is much unhygienic in bare bottoms on public seating.

Also, nudity is not a part of hundreds of millions of peoples' religious practices.

Er... naked sadhu in India might have a different take on that....

Question: How does Israel, which is smack in the Middle East and also has a significant Muslim population, handle this issue?

[Broomstick]

I am just trying to think impartially on this matter. Religion is not good, we do know that. Getting rid of it or softening it by removing more stringent ritualistic demands can be a viable strategy for secularization. Of course, a lot of other things need to happen as well to liberate women, but this religion which you defend, itself offers them very little hope.

I have to largely agree with you on this one, although I do feel that some religion serves a useful purpose in some circumstances for some people. But I'm with you that the more extreme ritual demands on people are harmful.

There's even some concession on that by many religious people, even those with pretty demanding requirements (see the concessions made by the Amish for public safety, as one example). My preference is to engage people and come to an accommodation everyone can live with rather than strong-arming people into compliance, but there are circumstances that might require the strong arm.