In response to:

Philadelphia's Burqa Crisis

arpiem Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 9:30 PM
I agree with everything you say except the part about separation of church and state, which exists nowhere in our Constitution.
Bondman60 Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 3:17 PM
The only thing the constitution prohibits is the establishment of religion by the state. But the other rights in the Bill of Rights demand that we be able to identify by sight other people. Examples: witnesses and defendants in court, accusers, etc. Face it, the idea that a person can completely hide their appearance from others at all times and without exception does not work in our constitutional republic.
Vieteravet Wrote: Feb 23, 2013 1:35 AM
But that letter, if you read it, was to assure the Baptist chuch that the government would not infringe on the rights of the church! Not visa-versa.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 9:51 PM
It does appear in the letters of Thomas Jefferson, a fellow I would not dismiss too lightly.

Philadelphia, the city where I live, has quietly and unassumedly become the capital of the Western world as regards female Islamic garb as an accessory to crime.

First, a tutorial on Islamic coverings, all of which tend to be called veils in English but fall into three main categories. Some (the abaya, hijab, chador, jilbab, or khimar) cover parts of the body, especially the hair, neck, and shoulders, but reveal the face and identity of the woman; some cover the face (the yashmak) but show the body shape; and some hide the whole body, including the identity and gender of the...