And what of the First Amendment? If you go back and read your history, you'll find that the British did very much the same thing to people like the Puritans and Quakers. This is precisely the sort of thing that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Establishment clause.
Are you saying that the Constitution shouldn't apply to these women as well?
We can certainly agree on the bad points of the clothing and other restrictions placed on these women. But it is not illegal, nor should it be.
The best way to solve the problem is not through force (which rarely, if ever works), but instead by holding out an alternative to their current status. Give them a choice between their current status, and a better, freer one. It takes longer, but the lesson is retained much better.
"the bad points of the clothing and other restrictions placed on these women. But it is not illegal, nor should it be."
First you contradict yourself in the same paragraph by admitting the clothing and situations are "bad" and "restrictive" but say it shouldn't be illegal. It should be since IT IS A DRESS CODE created and ENFORCED BY THEIR MALE MYSOGYNYS male muslim MASTERS WHO PUNISH THOSE females who DON'T OBEY THE (male) rules.
"The best way to solve the problem is not through force (which rarely, if ever works), but instead by holding out an alternative to their current status."
I agree with you on this point.
"Give them a choice between their current status, and a better, freer one. It takes longer, but the lesson is retained much better."
True but trying to "white wash" the root of the prevelant misogyny rampant in muslimhood with a dip in a swimming pool hardly lessens female oppression. So no lessons are learned just old misogynistic rules further enabled.
yours***Give them a choice between their current status, and a better, freer one.****Yours
They have no choice, it is usurped by their religion, purdah and sharia. They are not free, and seek to take away our freedom. As long as they maintain purdah they will have no choice. You just don't get that, or perhaps you do and have no patriotism.
Many American Muslims have had the choice in this country and have refused to exercise it. Now war is on against Muslims and American Muslims must choose their adopted nation or their religion. So far everything you say about them makes me conclude that Muslims in the USA will choose their religion over their adopted nation.You are even willing to bend our constitution in a way it was never meant to be in order to empower that process. ( Yech!)
That makes them dangerous. Muslims are culturally and humanistically challenged.
Freedom of speech, religion, assembly does not give the right to commit sedition agains the USA, as many liberals think. Accepting the culture of purdah encourages Muslims to sedition because they think that our acceptance of public purdah confirms our weakness. And you enable that. Any constitutional right does not give American Muslims a right to lie to the press about their peaceful intentions ( Nod, nod, wink, wink, say no more) and then go about organizing secret madrassas and muslim gangs in the USA. These are the things YOUR thinking enables.
Who do they think they are to impune
the USA for bringing humanistic freedoms to the world through education and culture, and then killing thousands of inni=ocent Americans in cold blood. And who do you think you are to be supporting them, for the time has come to decide which side of the fence you are on. Take purdah yourself and see how you like it. Wear the clothing, walk with them. See how you like sharia law instead of our constitution. I gurantee you will return a strict constructionist!
How can you people double think yourselves into such rampant liberal stupidity:
Of course Muslim Women have a constitutional right to swim in public pools? You can read it between the lines of the Establishment Clause? No wonder Bush wants to stack the Supreme Court with strict constructionists. What wing nut thinking will we see next on bathing Baathists ?