A Philosopher's Blog

France’s Burqa Ban

Posted in Ethics, Law, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on April 12, 2011
Women wearing burqas in the street

Image via Wikipedia

France imposed its “burqa ban” yesterday. This law does not, of course, specifically ban burqas. Rather, it bans people from covering their faces (presumably mimes get a special exemption). However, it is understood that the law is, in fact, specifically targeting Muslim women.  Interestingly enough, Muslim women in France generally do not wear burqas. Rather, they tend to wear the niqab. There are also relative few Muslim women in France who engage in the practice at all.

The main motivation for the law seems to be Sarkozy’s desire to do something to improve his dismal approval ratings. By appearing tough on Muslims he, perhaps, can counter the growing appeal of the right. His military adventures in Libya also seem calculated to that end.  Obviously enough, this reason hardly justifies the law.

The main stated justification for the law is that it is intended to protect Muslim women from oppression. The idea seems to be that Muslim men in France force women to wear the veil. As such, it is a sign of male oppression. This line of reasoning has been used to win over support on the left in France.

This does have some appeal. After all, Islam does not have the best track record when it comes to the treatment of women. It is also the case that some Muslim women are forced to cover themselves against their wills.

However, the law does not  merely forbid forcing women to cover up. Rather, it also outlaws appearing in public while covered. While the fine and jail sentences for forcing someone to cover up are greater than those to be imposed on those who are caught covered up, it seems reasonable to question the claim that this law is aimed at protecting women from oppression. A law aimed at protecting women would, it seem, only punish those who forced women to cover up. Women who freely chose to cover themselves should, one would imagine, be exempt from such punishment. After all, a person who chooses to dress in a certain way would not seem to be the victim of oppression-even if others might not approve of her choice.

While many Westerners probably assume that Muslim women must all be forced to cover up, this is not the case. Some women apparently do this by choice and regard the right to do so as protected by the Western notion of freedom. While some might be skeptical about whether the choice is actually free, it does not seem unreasonable that some women would, in fact, freely decide to cover up in this way. After all, if some women are willing to freely expose lots of flesh in public, then it seems no less unusual that some woman would want to cover up much more.

Some people might argue that women who cover up too much and those that cover up too little are all victims of male oppression and are not really making free choices. While it is reasonable to believe that social and cultural factors impact dressing behavior, it seems unreasonably to claim that all these women are incapable of choice and are mere victims of the patriarchy. In any case, to force someone to dress or not dress a certain way because of some ideology about the patriarchy would also seem to be oppressive as well.

It might also be argued that just as there are laws against being completely naked in public, there should also be laws against being completely covered. After all, a woman cannot walk the streets of France with only her eyes covered, so why should a woman be allowed to do so with only her eyes exposed? Both, it could be argued, create public distractions and violate the general sense of proper dress.

While this might have some appeal, this justification would require having laws against anything that created a distraction and anything that went against the general sense of proper dress. This, one might suspect, would justify a far too broad range of laws.

As a final point, there is also the religious aspect. While many scholars of Islam contend that covering up is not actually required by the faith, this mode of dress does seem to be an expression of faith. To ban it would thus seem on par with banning Orthodox Jews and Catholic nuns from wearing their distinctive clothing in public. Such bans would clearly be attacks on religious freedom and hence the ban in France should also be regarded as such.

While I am not religious, I do recognize the importance of the freedom of faith and its expression. While there can be legitimate grounds for limiting such expressions (like banning human sacrifices), when a practice does not create harm, then there seems to be no real ground for banning it. As such, the ban in France seems to be completely unjustified and also an infringement of both the freedom of choice and the freedom of religion.

While some might point out that some Muslim countries do not allow such freedoms, my easy and obvious reply is that these countries are in the wrong and we should certainly not want to be like them.

(Shameless self promotion: 42 Fallacies)

Enhanced by Zemanta

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 am

    Virginia has an anti-mask law:

    § 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.

    It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.

    • Asur said, on April 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm

      Anti-mask laws such as this just seem common sense to me; that they catch burqas in the mix doesn’t matter a whit.

      If a good law is put in place for a poor reason, it’s still a good law.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      Is that aimed at Islam or bank robbers? Interesting how they have to lay out so many exceptions.

      • T. J. Babson said, on April 13, 2011 at 9:17 pm

        I think the original target was the KKK.

  2. T. J. Babson said, on April 12, 2011 at 6:21 am

    State Codes Related To Wearing Masks


  3. Magus said, on April 12, 2011 at 8:13 am

    One cannot own a copy of Mein Kamf in Germany, nor sport a swastika.

  4. Magus said, on April 12, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Multiculturalism is a sweet poison. Tastes like grape Kool-Aid and kills the drinker.

  5. Magus said, on April 12, 2011 at 8:18 am


    I’m assuming you’re also against the laws in repressive Muslim cultures that force women to wear burkhas. Or is that just “their culture”?

    The women in France who wear Burkhas may actually think that women should be forced to wear burkhas–not just have the option.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm

      I’ve never been a cultural relativist. Relativism collapses into subjectivism and that collapses into moral nihilism.

      Women should not be forced to wear burqas. Islamic countries tend to have horrible track records in regards to the treatment of women and they need to correct that. Not only on moral grounds, but because treating half the population as second class people (or worse) is an incredible waste of talent.

      If the women think that women should be forced to wear burqas, then they are wrong. However, they should still have a right to wear their religious attire.

      • Asur said, on April 13, 2011 at 8:09 pm

        “Relativism collapses into subjectivism and that collapses into moral nihilism.”

        Amen to that. I throw up a little in my mouth whenever I hear people take subjectivist stances in the lofty name of Tolerance — I can’t stand that crap.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm

          Subjectivism actually undermines tolerance. After all, claiming that everyone should be tolerant assumes that what people should do is not a subjective matter.

  6. Magus said, on April 12, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Another problem: Islam in many areas in France is so repressive to women, they do not have a choice but to wear the burkha, and women have so little voice under Islam that they cannot complain about being forced to wear it by their husbands.


    “But this generation’s influence was starting to fade, and in the unlovely satellite suburbs where many Muslim immigrants settled, or – to be more accurate – were dumped, a new kind of identity began to emerge. Today, virtually cut off from mainstream society, the populations of many of these places have become hostages to virulent strains of radicalism. Women who refuse to wear the hijab, and, increasingly, the burka, are intimidated and brutalised by gangs whose ideas about female emancipation are on an exact par with those of the Taliban.”

  7. T. J. Babson said, on April 12, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Mike, have you by chance had any Palestinian or other Middle Eastern women in your classes? Talk to them. Even here in the U.S. they are bullied by Muslim men and live in a state of semi fear. This is especially true if they are secular in their outlook.

    I am certain that in the no-go zones in France, where even the police are afraid to penetrate, the women live in absolute terror and are forced to wear the burqa.

    • Magus said, on April 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm

      The appologists for Radical Islam are mind-bending. Imagine if a conservative Christian in the States even uttered: “I won’t let my wife work. She has to be a stay-at-home mom.”

      Yet barely a peep about what goes on over hear and around the world with Muslim women. The right to wear a piece of cloth is more important.

      Also, Mike’s assertion that this is the same as a nun’s clothing is wrong. yes, they are both cloth; no, the circumstances under which they must be worn are not the same.

      Reason #124 I’m not a Progressive.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 13, 2011 at 2:09 pm

        I am morally opposed to the oppression of women, regardless of who is doing it (Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever). Islamic countries that continue to oppress women are acting wrongly and also harming themselves in the process. They need to step up and do what is right or they will continue to reap the consequences of their misdeeds.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      I have. I also have Muslim friends. Of course, they tend to be academic types and hence a bit less inclined to bully or be bullied. Some people seem to sincerely want to practice what they take to be an aspect of their faith. This seems on par with some Christian women wanting to dress modestly.

      I’m fine with people doing this by choice. But I am against people being compelled or bullied.

      • Noah Benzing said, on April 22, 2011 at 1:58 am

        For all your talk that’s a colossal fail for you to think that you have “Muslim friends”. If they are really your friends then they are not Muslim. Have you even read the Quran? Muslims are not allowed to have non-Muslim friends, they operate with all non-Muslims through Taqiyah.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 22, 2011 at 11:08 am

          Can you cite the specific passages of the Koran that forbid Muslims from being friends with non-Muslims?

          • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 8:15 am

            “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” — Qur’an 5:51

            “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans…” — Qur’an 5:82

            “The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” — Qur’an 9:30

            “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

            “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.” — Qur’an 47:4

            “Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” — Qur’an 98:6

            • frk said, on April 23, 2011 at 9:23 am

              A brief sample from the following article that I kicked up out of Google dust awhile back. I believe the search words were Muslim friends non friends

              “Important Note: In Noble Verse 60:13 above, Allah Almighty said “la tatawallu qawman”, which literally means “take not as allies a tribe (or a community)”, which further proves my point that “Awliyaa” in the Noble Verses above is meant for “alliance” and not personal “friendship”.


              It’s the same old blah-blah over translation that’s heard every Sunday in many Christian churches. Every word is chosen and analyzed to support an idea. It’s like forming your opinion and looking for evidence to support it later. It’s definitely not science, because, well, it’s religion. . . The texts and their supposed sources create second-and-third-and-fourth-hand arguments over translations from languages that themselves have been evolving over time.

              Trust ye neither the sacred texts nor the men who preach from them for both are designed by (fill in the blank) to create discord among men.

          • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 9:38 am

            From Islam Online, a site to which many Muslims turn for guidance:

            Is it permissible for us as Muslims to stay in the houses of non-Muslims, and is it permissible for us even to pray in their houses?.

            Praise be to Allaah.

            It is permissible for a Muslim to stay in the house of a non-Muslim in the sense of buying it or renting it, and he has to purify it of whatever may be in it of the traces of shirk and sin such as haraam images, and impure things such as alcohol and the like.

            With regard to staying in a non-Muslim’s house as a matter of hospitality and friendship between them, that should not be done except in cases of necessity when there is no alternative, because of the general meaning of the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Do not be friends with anyone but the believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2395); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

            And he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A man will follow the way of his close friend, so let one of you look at who he takes as a close friend.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (4833); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood and elsewhere.

            It says in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bood:

            i.e., he should think long and hard about the one whom he takes as a close friend. If a person’s religious commitment and character are pleasing, he should take him as a close friend; if his religious commitment and character are not pleasing, then he should avoid him because he will inevitably be influenced by him. End quote.

            With regard to praying in the houses of non-Muslims, there is nothing wrong with that if the spot where he is going to pray is clean and there are none of these images or statues that they venerate or worship in that spot, because of the general meaning of the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “The earth has been made for me a place of prostration and a means of purification, so wherever a man of my ummah is when the time for prayer comes, let him pray.”

            Narrated by al-Bukhaari (323), Muslim (810).

            So the entire earth is a place of prostration and it is permissible for the Muslim to pray there, except in cases for which is evidence that they are excluded, such as graveyards, bathrooms and camel pens.

            See the answer to questions no. 13705 and 140208

            Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Tamheed (5/227):

            Al-Bukhaari narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas used to pray in curshes if there were no images present. Ayyoob, ‘Ubayd-Allah and others narrated from Naafi‘, from Aslam the freed slave of ‘Umar, that when ‘Umar went to Syria, one of the prominent Christians made some food for him and invited him to eat, and ‘Umar said: We will not enter your churches or pray in them because of the images and statues in them.

            Neither ‘Umar nor Ibn ‘Abbaas objected to that except because of the statues in them. End quote.

            If the place where one wants to pray is free of statues and the like, and the spot is clean, it is permissible to pray there.

            And Allah knows best.

            Islam Q&A


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

              Confucius also says to not be friends with those who are not like you (that is, those who are not virtuous).

          • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 9:47 am

            Plenty of evidence for those who want to find it. From Islam Online:

            Is it permissible to give Zamzam water to a non-Muslim person who is sick?.
            12/12/2010 03:10:06 PM GMT

            I have a family friend who used to be in a coma, Alhamdulillah he is out of the coma but is handicapped. They are a trustworthy family, I would just (more)

            I have a family friend who used to be in a coma, Alhamdulillah he is out of the coma but is handicapped. They are a trustworthy family, I would just like to know whether or not it is permissible to give some Zam Zam water to them.

            Praise be to Allaah.


            The believer should not make friends with anyone but a believer and he should not take as a close friend anyone but a monotheist (haneef), because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food except one who is pious.”

            Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2395); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

            Making friends with disbelievers has a negative impact on the believer, because he may be influenced by some of his religious customs or it may lead to a weakening in his heart of the principle of befriending or supporting believers and disavowing disbelievers (al-wala’ wa’l-bara’), or he may fail to denounce in his heart this person or those who follow his religion, because of frequently mixing with them and getting used to them.

            Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on mixing with kaafirs and treating them kindly in the hope that they might become Muslim.

            He replied: There is no doubt that the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allah and disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

            “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

            al-Mumtahanah 60:4

            “You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself”

            al-Mujaadilah 58:22.

            Based on that, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel love in his heart for the enemies of Allah who in fact are also enemies to him. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

            “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

            al-Mumtahanah 60:1.

            With regard to the Muslim treating them kindly and gently in the hope that they will become Muslim and believe, there is nothing wrong with this, because it comes under the heading of softening the hearts towards Islam. But if there is no hope of that, then he should treat them as they deserve to be treated. This is discussed in detail in the books of the scholars, especially the book Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him). End quote.

            Majmoo‘ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (3/31)


            There is nothing wrong with giving Zamzam water to a sick kaafir for the purpose of healing, or with treating him if one is a doctor, or with helping him if he is sick and in need, or with visiting him when he is sick. There is nothing wrong with any of that, especially if there is the hope that this will soften his heart towards Islam or if that kaafir deserves it because of some previous kindness that he showed, or other praiseworthy purposes.

            It is proven in al-Bukhaari (2276) and Muslim (2201) that Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) treated the chief of a tribe who had been stung by a scorpion with ruqyah by reciting al-Faatihah, and he recovered, and his people were mushrikeen. There is no doubt about the sanctity of the Qur’aan, and that treating a kaafir with ruqya by reciting Qur’aan is a more serious matter than simply giving him Zamzam water to drink or as a remedy.

            It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (13/34): There is no difference of opinion among the fuqaha’ that it is permissible for a Muslim to treat a kaafir with ruqya, and they quoted as evidence the hadeeth of Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) quoted above. The point here is that the tribe with whom they halted and from whom they sought hospitality, but they refused to give them any hospitality, were kaafirs, but the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not object to him doing that. End quote.

            For more information please see the answer to questions no. 6714, 12718, 129113.

            And Allah knows best.

            Islam Q&A


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm

              This would seem to indicate, assuming that this is actually the true and correct interpretation of Islam, that Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims provided that the non-Muslim is a a monotheist (so Christians and Jews would be okay) or there is at least a possibility that the person’s heart might be “softened to Islam.”

            • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 3:02 pm

              Friends, maybe, but you’d better not make a grab for his fries…

  8. Adam P., Jr. said, on April 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm


    I thoroughly enjoy your blog and I just enthusiastically bought your kindle book. Don’t think I’ll let you get away with any of the 42 fallacies one I’ve read that!

    Keep up the great stuff.

  9. frk said, on April 23, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “Plenty of evidence for those who want to find it.”

    I think I’ve read that statement before. Someone was trying to convince me that evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Oh, wait! Maybe they were trying to convince me that creationism is a lie and evolution is the truth.

    Since it’s just a rehash of the same ol’ same ol’ about mistranslations and misinterpretation mixed with the best translation available and usually mediocre interpretation based on that good translation, I’ll quote myself from April 23 9:23 above:
    “Trust ye neither the sacred texts nor the men who preach from them for both are designed by (fill in the blank) to create discord among men.”
    To put it in simpler terms: God (Allah, Yahweh, whoever) gives His Word to man. Man understands the word as best he can (being man and subject to man’s limitations) and records it. As the record gets around in all those years before the printing press misinterpretations, mistranslations and downright lies creep into the text. What you end up with is something so riven with contradiction that it’s virtually meaningless. Ever plaly that game in elementary school where a simple sentence was whispered into the ear of the first girl in Row A, she whispers the message to the next child in the row, and by the time the message reaches the last child in the last child in Row F the sentence has become a garbled mess?

    Note: Let’s see, there were Muslims among the slaves who we brought here before the Constitution was signed, and there are over 2 million Muslims in America as I type this . They’ve managed to carry out this friendship act for over 200 years!That’s one heckuva an act to follow. I’m shocked that more Oscars and Emmys don’t go to American Muslims.

    • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      No Zamzam water for you, frk…

    • T. J. Babson said, on April 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm

      And you may want to quietly dispose of your copy of “Three Cups of Tea.”

      When 60 Minutes was finished with superstar philanthropist and U.S. military adviser Greg Mortenson on Sunday night, the author of Three Cups of Tea—a 2006 bestselling memoir of adventures and good works in Afghanistan and Pakistan—was in a million little pieces.

      Correspondent Steve Kroft reported that key anecdotes in Mortenson’s inspirational narrative—which launched him as a humanitarian folk hero, attracted $60 million in donations to his nonprofit Central Asia Institute, and personally earned him millions of dollars in book royalties and lecture fees—appear to have been fabricated. (Click here to watch the full report.)


      • Michael LaBossiere said, on April 24, 2011 at 12:53 pm

        Fortunately, I never bought a copy.

        • T. J. Babson said, on April 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

          I did, and some friends of mine paid $1000 a plate to have dinner with him.

      • magus71 said, on May 30, 2011 at 10:44 am


        Just found this post of yours. I’ve been fighting against Mortenson’s lies since I deployed. My instincts told me almost instantly that he was lying, but the academics here were falling over themselves trying to get people to read his books. His book was pushed on us by military commanders over the books by experts in history, warfare and Islam. This is the honest truth: Mortenson is a large reason we will lose in Afghanistan.


        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 30, 2011 at 4:12 pm

          I’ve learned to match my skepticism to the degree to which a book or idea is pushed. Sometimes, a book matches the push, but often not. I am also wary of any book pushed as the “key” to a culture or situation.

          Interestingly, the “book fad” seems to be something fairly universal. People seem to latch onto works that have a superficial appeal (like the Secret) and seem to explain everything. But, like all things that are too good to be true, they tend to be just that.

    • frk said, on April 23, 2011 at 6:33 pm

      That reminds me. I think I need to buy a new baptismal water heater.
      Never read the book. Didn’t see the show. So you know more about it than I do.

  10. eric said, on May 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    “A law aimed at protecting women would, it seem, only punish those who forced women to cover up. Women who freely chose to cover themselves should, one would imagine, be exempt from such punishment.”

    But you’re assuming that a woman would turn in a man she is married to, or a group of conservative Muslim men in her community, if either were her reason for wearing the burqa. Have you considered what that might do to her reputation/well-being in a Muslim community? “Women who do not respect the hijab and their husbands deserve to die,” said Hassani, who leads Friday prayers in the city of Urumieh, in Iranian Azerbaijan.

    • Asur said, on May 5, 2011 at 2:57 am

      That’s an excellent point.

  11. Parker said, on May 29, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Just love how most men and non-muslim women try to justify prejudice and stupidity with the ‘women oppression’ card lol YES, there are many cases where PEOPLE are forced to do something out of fear. Isn’t taking away a your right to choose a form of oppression? Not all Muslim women are forced to do anything they don’t want to. YES, we are allowed non-muslim friends (oooh watch out I might be faking), so stop quoting verses to support YOUR argument & try Googling, copying & pasting the other side of the story. Geez, I’d rather people just say ”I hate Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Gays”, than try and persuade others to join their ‘in-the-closet’ hate speech. Oh, may God bless America and no-one else. Hope that gets me a ‘don’t-bomb-me-please’ coupon 😉
    Micheal, your blog was very balanced and logic. God bless logic too.

  12. T. J. Babson said, on May 29, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Proof by induction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: