but look as much as I dislike religion and superstition, we need to allow people the freedom to practice them as they wish as long as they are doing no harm to others.
So is it to much to ask that women be allowed to wear any clothing they like, whether that be a nuns veil or a hijab or summer dress?
I mean that's not even really religious rights, that's just basic personal freedom.
Yes fine, but when it comes to people demanding that businesses or public areas like airports provide prayer rooms and that bosses give people time off to pray three times a day or that canteens or shops must provide Halal food, that is where religion starts to intrude on others.
If a small number of people want to demand that the rest of us cater to their practises then I think we need to draw a line at that.
As long as the clothing does not conceal identity that could be used to commit a crime.
Burka, niqab, and anything else that does not show their face, should be banned, as I have said many times for safety reasons.
We have never had that in Australia.
Nuns have never covered their faces, and not only nuns wore headscarves, over their hair.
Many women have worn them, even just coming out of hairdressing salons, through the years.
Headscarves don't bother me, but covering faces does.
Christians are being beheaded overseas, VC, so I don't appreciate you putting them in the same category.
As I keep reminding you, Christianity, is the foundations of this country.
Here is the way I look at, we are a free country, with religious freedom.
airports can provide prayer rooms if they want, and a canteen can serve halal food if it wants, If customers are demanding something, it's generally good business to provide it, that's not a religious intrusion, it just a business responding to demand.
No one demands that food processors are halal, it's just an option they have if they want to supply a certain part of the market.
Whats the safety concern with the burka ?
Mostly I agree , but if businesses choose not to cater for a few employees who want special rights to pursue their religion, then that is the businesses right.
Experiences of other countries show that when the Muslim population gets large enough they start agitating that people start conforming to their desires like introducing Sharia law. We have already had a few incursions in that regard, and it's something that should be completely rejected by a secular society.
People could use them as a cover to commit crimes.
Just to remind you......
While the Australian legal-political tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth of America and the United Kingdom, it too was built on solid foundations””starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.
At the time of British settlement in Australia, Christianity formed an integral part of the theory of English law and civil government. In his seminal work, A History of English Law, Sir William Holdsworth expressed the traditional view of the close relationship between Christianity and the common law:
Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England, and therefore is to be protected by it; now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to dissolution of civil government.
While the penal colony of New South Wales was established in 1788, English law was not recognised until the passage of the Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp.). This Act determined that all laws and statutes in force in England at that time were to be, as far as it was possible, applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land.
When the English common law was transplanted to Australia, the supreme courts of the colonies were empowered to decide which English laws were applicable to Australia.
It was at that moment that Christianity was included in the law of the land.
The place of Christianity in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the Supreme Court of NSW in the case of Ex Parte Thackeray (1874). The reception of these principles was perhaps best encapsulated in that case by Justice Hargrave, who famously commented that:
We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” … this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by [Sir Edward] Coke and [Sir William] Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law….
It has been said that a people without historical memory can be easily deceived by false and destructive philosophies. Although undeniably diminished and rarely acknowledged, the Christian religion has an enduring role in the Australian legal-political system.
In these days of political correctness and cultural relativism, it is always good to be reminded of our Christian heritage, which still permeates most of the present laws and socio-political institutions of this democratic nation.
To state this obvious fact is not to be ‘intolerant’ but to simply stress an undeniable truth.
How were all other crimes in Australia ever committed before the Burqa comes along? Ski masks? Clown masks?
Come on man.
That's like permitting businesses and buildings to not have to put a ramp for those in wheelchairs. Not saying religion is like a disability... but businesses and developers can argue theres only ever one or two wheelchair bound, and on some premises, no one with a disability will ever go there etc.
Even the US Navy permit their Muslim recruits their prayer time.
Being disabled is not a choice, being religious is.
People can practise their religion in their own time and with their own resources, not anyone elses.
How do you know they don't make arrangement with the employer to come in earlier or leave later to make up for times spent during the day in prayer?
Being disabled is not a choice, being religious is.
Not really. You didn't choose 99% of your current beliefs. You just picked them up from society, parents, peers.
If a baby is born into a radical Muslim family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized. When the baby becomes an adult, the chances of understanding that he is living someone else's beliefs, are slim. If he does find out, the chances of him trying to change his beliefs are even slimmer.
If a baby is born into a prosperous, modern, Western family, he has no idea he is being hypnotized. We have a slightly better chance at changing out beliefs because there's less fear involved, usually.
Maybe but there is no onus on secular society to foster religious beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?