Ideally, religious and traditional stupidity should go away naturally, with go governmental interference, as the nations of the world progress. However, while governments should leave the innocent stupidity alone, they should act against the unjust and hateful stupidity. Excessive body covering for women is an unjust religious edict, and governments should act against it. The same arguments should apply to the so-called moral values. If a moral value tramples some people's human dignity and rights, I would not have the patience to let it go away naturally over centuries; there the human world needs revolution over evolution.GW: Yes, we do, and I told you why I think we do. Simply put, it is for the common good of humanity. All countries should have a ban on covering the face in public, not just Germany. I think all people should have a right to see the faces of others while in public. This is good practice for identification, communication, social harmony, and in some cases safety over the short and long run.I agree that nobody should have his/her face covered. But I do not agree that this must be a law. To change people's values should not pushed too hard. There are also a lot of moral values that many people adhere to, but are not put in a law.
Response to GdB
GdB: Then you did not read the link I provided. The link is that in both cases it is symbolic policy.
GW: I started scanning the link but it was too long and complex to waste my time on it. If the reason for the ban of minarets was purely symbolic, then I agree with you that the ban was wrong.
GdB: What do you think? That the streets in Europe are crowded with Muslim women in burqa? In Switzerland, where I live I have never seen one. It is pure symbolic policy.
GW: No, I don’t think that the numbers are high. If they are low, this has no bearing on the correctness of a ban but it would make adjustment to the ban easier. I saw a woman in a burqa in the mall the other day; this was in a Southern US city.
GdB: I agree that nobody should have his/her face covered. But I do not agree that this must be a law. To change people’s values should not pushed too hard. There are also a lot of moral values that many people adhere to, but are not put in a law.
GW: I disagree. This should be a law. What criteria do you use to decide if a moral rule should be enacted into a law?
GdB: You have not understood one word I wrote. Try again.
GW: I have understood every word you wrote, but only agreed with about half. Try again to be more persuasive.
Response to Loist
L: I could go slong with a law that said the face must be visible in public at all times.
GW: We agree on that point.
L: But as I understand it, the law bans the hijab or head scarf. An Islamic head scarf does nor cover the face.
GW: I think you are mistaken on the facts here. As I understand it, the proposed German law would ban only clothing which covers the face.
L: Though it is not unheard of, it is relatively rare even for Islamic women to have their faces covered.
GW: Yes, it is rare in western countries and only common in a few countries in the entire world.
L: I have no objection to a general ban on covering the face. It would be difficult to enforce, however.
GW: I think it would be easy to enforce. If a law enforcement officer sees a person with their face covered in public, then the officer would “write a ticket" (similar to a traffic violation). The penalty could be a fine, like $75-100 per day. Gradually, the fines would reduce the violations.