French Burka Ban

[darkendless]

To what degree though do you think religion should be private?

That I don't have to see religious symbols or dress in public.

NOTE: please don't take this as me bashing Islam, its not about Islam at all but religion in general.

 

[Madhuri]

The end so far is that the judge in a court room is not allowed to wear religious symbols.
In this case a burka or a traditionel muslim head dress counts as a religious symbol.

The judge is not allowed to wear religious symbols? That's an interesting conclusion to national debates.

Well I guess that this fits into secularism more, in that any governing body is not supposed to show bias toward any particular religious group. If a judge or the prime minister went out of his/her way to show his religious point of view then the people under him/her may feel that bias will occur. It is always better that the governing entity be a symbol of neutrality.

 

[Madhuri]

That I don't have to see religious symbols or dress in public.

But why is that disturbing?

 

[darkendless]

The judge is not allowed to wear religious symbols? That's an interesting conclusion to national debates.

Well I guess that this fits into secularism more, in that any governing body is not supposed to show bias toward any particular religious group. If a judge or the prime minister went out of his/her way to show his religious point of view then the people under him/her may feel that bias will occur. It is always better that the governing entity be a symbol of neutrality.

Like our idiot prime ministers of the past who laugh off social issues such as same-sex-marriage?

 

[lunakilo]

That I don't have to see religious symbols or dress in public.

NOTE: please don't take this as me bashing Islam, its not about Islam at all but religion in general.

The good old "freedom from religion"

 

[Badran]

I got rid of it for you. It's weird that it does that. When you make a post next time, check at the bottom of the writing space to see which icon is chosen before submitting the text.

I'll do that, may be i press on it by mistake. Thanks for helping me out.

 

[Madhuri]

Like our idiot prime ministers of the past who laugh off social issues such as same-sex-marriage?

Amongst other things...like going to war with Iraq despite the majority of the population being explicitly against it.

 

[lunakilo]

The judge is not allowed to wear religious symbols? That's an interesting conclusion to national debates.

Well I guess that this fits into secularism more, in that any governing body is not supposed to show bias toward any particular religious group. If a judge or the prime minister went out of his/her way to show his religious point of view then the people under him/her may feel that bias will occur. It is always better that the governing entity be a symbol of neutrality.

It has the interesting side effect of effectively banning muslim women who wish to wear head dresses from becomming judges though...

 

[darkendless]

But why is that disturbing?

Its not really disturbing but unecessary and can lead to provocation. Look at Freemasonry (not a religion i know) who don't display it other than on a small ring or necklace.

 

[England my lionheart]

It has the interesting side effect of effectively banning muslim women who wish to wear head dresses from becomming judges though...

In the UK Crown court Judges wear Wigs so they would still have a head covering

 

[Badran]

We live in a country where same-sex-marriage is still mocked and ignored by politicians. Would you really put it past the "racist" Australians to ban the Burqa?

Its a popular position that Islamic dress is incompatible with our social values and our culture.

I hope that Australia has better things to do than bother with what people wear in public.

I understand, so its more like that you expect people to keep their religion private by their own choice. If so i would understand that.

That I don't have to see religious symbols or dress in public.

NOTE: please don't take this as me bashing Islam, its not about Islam at all but religion in general.

Thanks, I understand you're talking about religion in general of course.

If what i concluded in the first part of the post is a correct understanding, then i'd have no problem with you expecting or hoping that people do that on their own. Though i would ask why does it bother you at all?

 

[Madhuri]

It has the interesting side effect of effectively banning muslim women who wish to wear head dresses from becomming judges though...

Yeh true, this is a tricky one.

You know, if I were the person to decide this, I would allow a level of leniency such as letting a female judge wear a hair veil.

Then the nature of the work would decide on whether that person gets jobs or not, rather than the law.

 

[Madhuri]

Its not really disturbing but unecessary and can lead to provocation. Look at Freemasonry (not a religion i know) who don't display it other than on a small ring or necklace.

Perhaps we should hope to move our society into a culture that is more accepting of diversity rather than hide our identities due to our narrow mindedness.

I guess the one situation I can see this being a bad thing is between people who have negative feelings toward particular religions. But should we bend our laws in favour of the twits in society? Because then things will never change for the better.

 

[Badran]

It has the interesting side effect of effectively banning muslim women who wish to wear head dresses from becomming judges though...

I was just about to say that i would at least understand them requiring judges to not wear religious symbols, until of course i read your post here, i can't believe i missed this.

Well i guess in my opinion they either distinguish between religious necessities and between other religious symbols that the person wears because of other reasons, or they should drop that idea altogether.

 

[darkendless]

I understand, so its more like that you expect people to keep their religion private by their own choice. If so i would understand that.



Thanks, I understand you're talking about religion in general of course.

If what i concluded in the first part of the post is a correct understanding, then i'd have no problem with you expecting or hoping that people do that on their own. Though i would ask why does it bother you at all?

Yes exactly. My reasoning is to prevent such things as Islamaphobia. If people don't know then they can't be provocative because they don't know what to use to provoke anything.

What bothers me is in your face religious people. I'm highly offended by people comming to my door to give me pamphlets about Christianity. I feel if religion was private, less people like me would be offended by people arrogant enough to think I need their religion (I hope this all makes sense).

 

[Nooj]

That I don't have to see religious symbols or dress in public.

You don't have to see it if you don't look.

Seriously though, a country that bans its citizens from wearing religious symbols in order to make some people feel better isn't somewhere I'd like to live.

 

[Madhuri]

Yes exactly. My reasoning is to prevent such things as Islamaphobia. If people don't know then they can't be provocative because they don't know what to use to provoke anything.

What bothers me is in your face religious people. I'm highly offended by people comming to my door to give me pamphlets about Christianity. I feel if religion was private, less people like me would be offended by people arrogant enough to think I need their religion (I hope this all makes sense).

That annoys me too, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to ban religious expression in public. If those people coming to your door legitimately becomes harassment, then you would have the opportunity to stop this through our legal systems.

 

[darkendless]

Perhaps we should hope to move our society into a culture that is more accepting of diversity rather than hide our identities due to our narrow mindedness.

I've come to the conclusion that you cannot force this on people. Australia will never ever be accepting of foreign culture no matter what politicians say. I'm not trying to have a rant here, i'm just telling what I think and that is that we tolerate it rather than accept it and we only tolerate it because we have to.

I guess the one situation I can see this being a bad thing is between people who have negative feelings toward particular religions. But should we bend our laws in favour of the twits in society? Because then things will never change for the better.

They never will anyway. My proposal to make religion private removes provocation because even the fundies can't find targets to provoke.

 

[Nooj]

I've come to the conclusion that you cannot force this on people.

But you can force people into not showing their religious affiliation ala crosses or hijabs?

 

[darkendless]

That annoys me too, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to ban religious expression in public. If those people coming to your door legitimately becomes harassment, then you would have the opportunity to stop this through our legal systems.

If anything was to go legal about it then it would become us targeting christians the same was France is targeting muslims though right?

I say ban it in public to prevent all the nonsense associated with people shoving religion down each others throats.

I also think it would remove the racism issues we have here. I've been smashed on this forum for referring to gang violence perpetrators as a "muslim gang." If they weren't wearing religious symbols I wouldn't be able to make remarks like that which are both truthful and potentially offensive and neither would anyone else.