-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Burqa Poll
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Best burgas are at Steves Fish shop Sturt st Ballarat. Bar none. Steve gets my vote. Good battered steaks too.
rosy3 said:
I was in our local NAB today and saw a sign I hadn't seen before. It had 4 pictures with crosses through them. No sunglasses. No bike helmets. No Caps. No coat hoods on the head. Seems a bit ludicrous if a full face burqa is allowed to be worn in there a but a pair of sunglasses or a Tigers cap aren't.
Interested to know what people think of Pauline's burqa stance and stunt.
rosy3 said:
i have no concerns with people wearing Burqa's or other religious outfits if that is what they believe they should wear.
I think Pauline, as always, was stupid. she says stupid things. most of her views have little substance behind them. people vote for her, and members of her party, because they are not a major party, but she forces all members to vote as she wants- which is what people bag the major parties for. she chooses people to stand for her party who are idiots, and even she realises that sometimes once they are in government.
Brodders17 said:
Don't know about you but I'm a little surprised that religious philosophy of 5th or 6th century muslim world regarding how women should conduct themselves still remains recognised as relevant 1,300 years or so later in modern day Australia. In comparison proponents of dark ages Christianity must be feeling a little aggrieved at the trajectory of some christian women over the last 1300 years or so.
For argument sake can you direct me to that part of the Koran that directs muslim women rather than muslim men to cover themselves up entirely .... on religious grounds?
I voted that anyone should be allowed to wear them. Anything else would be discrimination and/or vilification of one sort or another.
Pauline Hanson was religiously vilified over this. She was attacked purely for wearing a Burqa, something that Muslim women are expected to be allowed to wear without similar vilification. So there. :ner
So why shouldn't non Muslims be allowed to acknowledge our new religious masters?
:don't know
Pauline Hanson was religiously vilified over this. She was attacked purely for wearing a Burqa, something that Muslim women are expected to be allowed to wear without similar vilification. So there. :ner
So why shouldn't non Muslims be allowed to acknowledge our new religious masters?
:don't know
glantone said:
This may be why you get such muddled answers from advocates as to why they should be given special consideration. Many (including Godly George) who were upset by Hansons ham-fisted showboating were claiming that the reason she shouldn't be allowed to wear it was 'she has no religious reason'. Why does the reason matter? Either the garb is allowed or it isn't surely? Appeals to reasoning stray into thought policing don't they?
rosy3 said:
I was talking about the excuse given for wearing it not excluding it. Either you can wear something or you can't. Why should I (or George Brandis or the police) care what your reason for wearing it is? Surely that is getting into the game of thought policing. You can wear it because you 'think' something about iron age sheepherding legends, I can't because I don't 'think' the same. How can you or George or the police ever establish what another person 'thinks' or the sincerity of that thought. That is why all talk of 'legitimate' religious reasons for wearing certain garb is pure nonsense. If you can't (and I agree you shouldn't) wear a motorbike helmet inside a petrol station or a bank then you can't wear a burka, the 'reasons' you might want to don't matter.
rosy3 said:
I understand that logic and agree. I think I was referring to the paradox (or irony - I'm not sure) that in our well meaning efforts to be a progressive modern society obsessively accommodating all we actually end up resurrecting reactionary ways of thinking which we rejected long ago.
KnightersRevenge said:
Why does the reason behind the expectation that a person be camouflaged so entirely that their presence is only discernible by sound emanating from under a fabric shadow matter?
Because only one type of person is expected to be discernible in this fashion. And that person is a woman. And that's why it matters... a lot.
The whole thing about Pauline Hanson's 'stunt' is that if the burqa is such a non issue as some like to make it out to be, why was there such a reaction from the likes of George Brandis? If he believes his own words, then he (and others) would have remained quiet and parliament would have proceeded as normal.
The fact that Hanson wearing a burqa caused such a fuss is proof that people have a problem with it. As it turns out, the very people who argue in favor of the burqa are the ones with the problem.
Funny that.
The fact that Hanson wearing a burqa caused such a fuss is proof that people have a problem with it. As it turns out, the very people who argue in favor of the burqa are the ones with the problem.
Funny that.
gutfull said:
are you calling people who wear the burqa pricks or people who blow up shopping centres pricks? or only people who blow up shopping centres whilst wearing a burqa?
glantone said:
I don't think that was my point. Some people want to claim the reason Hanson shouldn't have been allowed to pull her stunt (Brandis said as much) was because she has no 'religious reason'. This implies that the reason matters. Had Pauline been able to convince someone she 'believed' the correct thing, she can wear it. This is the problem with giving Religious reasoning an elevated status in society. Who cares what you believe? If your 'behaviour' is not in line with the society you wish to be a member of, I don't care how completely you believe your myths and neither should my government nor my police.
Brodders17 you need to get out more , Burka h as NO place in Australia , we are soft and allow anything goes in this country, thats going down hill faster than , a down hill skier on a snow run .
A Prick would be someone who uses the advantage of wearing this *smile* to take advantage of the situation and blows up a building preferably with me not in it .UNDERSTAND..
A Prick would be someone who uses the advantage of wearing this *smile* to take advantage of the situation and blows up a building preferably with me not in it .UNDERSTAND..
