Jump to content
IGNORED

Burqa ban in Australia on the cards


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.84
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ?

Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ?

Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ?

What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings?

This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly

There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  230
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,941
  • Content Per Day:  0.92
  • Reputation:   2,003
  • Days Won:  14
  • Joined:  02/08/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Wearing the burqa is not = to the cross on the neck. As far as religion, if you can not wear the cross you do not lose your religion. Do they? It is a man mad law.

Wearing the burqa means that one can not tell if it is a man or a woman that you are meeting either on the street or in a car. What a fantastic disguise it can be.

When all the other nationalities came to the west they were assimilated into the community. Why do these refuse to become so? This is a new phenomenon. They use to dress as they did in which ever country they went. This appears to be a defiant act mostly by the men. They will not let the women be seen. As I said ( perhaps cynically) a great way to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.84
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

And again I ask, why should the right to practice your religion as you see fit, be conditional on the degree to which you have assimilated? If rights are conditioned on assimilation, they are not rights at all.*

*read previous post before replying, I HAVE made an exception for certain scenarios....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  230
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,941
  • Content Per Day:  0.92
  • Reputation:   2,003
  • Days Won:  14
  • Joined:  02/08/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Where is the right of religion drawn? For whom? The nudist who says it is his religion, the cannibal, or the other odd rituals that are considered a religion? or are these in some respect customs and in the desire for control considered religion? Having the head covered with a kerchief is one thing having the body in fully cover is another, it is control over woman, ask them in Iraq or Iran where the Taliban insist on it. It is not safe for the woman or the average citizen as I said how do you know it is a woman under the burqa. What a way for the terrorist to enter the country, as a woman. Probably a major concern for the government too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.84
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Where is the right of religion drawn? For whom? The nudist who says it is his religion, the cannibal, or the other odd rituals that are considered a religion? or are these in some respect customs and in the desire for control considered religion? Having the head covered with a kerchief is one thing having the body in fully cover is another, it is control over woman, ask them in Iraq or Iran where the Taliban insist on it. It is not safe for the woman or the average citizen as I said how do you know it is a woman under the burqa. What a way for the terrorist to enter the country, as a woman. Probably a major concern for the government too.

I am not scared of them... too many people are suggesting that I am driven by fear but from your post it reads as if you are the one afraid of terrorism facilitated by full face coverings.

There are obviously restrictions on the freedom of religion, but I think a blanket ban on all full face coverings is going too far. Just because you find it oppresive, doesn't make it so for them. Why should it bother you at all if someone decides to cover their face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ?

Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ?

Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ?

What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings?

This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly

There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!).

Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others?

Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.84
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ?

Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ?

Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ?

What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings?

This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly

There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!).

Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others?

Just curious.

More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. :noidea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  36
  • Topic Count:  102
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  44,011
  • Content Per Day:  8.23
  • Reputation:   23,022
  • Days Won:  81
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

I am not scared of them... too many people are suggesting that I am driven by fear but from your post it reads as if you are the one afraid of terrorism facilitated by full face coverings.

There are obviously restrictions on the freedom of religion, but I think a blanket ban on all full face coverings is going too far. Just because you find it oppresive, doesn't make it so for them. Why should it bother you at all if someone decides to cover their face?

What if... Your child was abducted by one dressed this way. What chance would you have in finding even if surveillance was available? For this practice to be sanctioned anyone could use it to their benefit toward anonymity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ?

Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ?

Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ?

What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings?

This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly

There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!).

Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others?

Just curious.

More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. :noidea:

That's an interesting statement. Wouldn't the "security scenario" include everywhere except for the home of the individual?

Just curious.

As for the American response. Not everyone believes as I do, so you can't really say all americans feel this way. Yeah I know, you didn't say all americans, but I got the point. I actually believe I'm in the minority where this issue is concerned. And to be totally honest, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if they're allowed to keep their face covers. I do believe however, the issue of national security will come up because of these things. You can take that to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  955
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  11,318
  • Content Per Day:  1.84
  • Reputation:   448
  • Days Won:  33
  • Joined:  12/16/2007
  • Status:  Offline

Candice would you accept Beany being treated by a doctor that didnt wash her hands and looked at her through a back full face mask ?

Would you accept her being taught by a teacher that never showed her face so the children couldnt understand what they were doing worng ( since young children take about 50 % of meaning from facial expression ) ?

Would you be happy to hand her over to a masked person if you used a nursery ?

What about taking her to a birthday / clebration party where the rest of the adults were all dressedin full black face coverings?

This is NOT about religeous freedom as even muslims agree that there is nothing in the koran that states they need to cover the face or the hands etc only the hair and to dress modestly

There are a few scenarios where a full covering isn't appropriate, I totally agree. I would support banning them in those cases only, but not a blanket ban... It doesn't matter to me that the koran doesn't state they should be covered... they want to be covered as an expression of their faith and they should be able to, with those obvious exceptions (please let's not make out as if I haven't acknowledged them!).

Allowing some to express their faith while placing restrictions on others?

Just curious.

More that I want people to have the right to express their faith as much as possible without restriction. It's not that some get the right and others don't, but that we all get the right, barring those health / security scenarios where it is inappropriate. Why should the government interfere beyond those scenarios? I'm really shocked at the American response here, I thought that as a nation you generally hated interference of personal religion by the government, but it appears you only hate it when it comes to your own faith. :noidea:

That's an interesting statement. Wouldn't the "security scenario" include everywhere except for the home of the individual?

Just curious.

As for the American response. Not everyone believes as I do, so you can't really say all americans feel this way. Yeah I know, you didn't say all americans, but I got the point. I actually believe I'm in the minority where this issue is concerned. And to be totally honest, I'm not gonna lose any sleep if they're allowed to keep their face covers. I do believe however, the issue of national security will come up because of these things. You can take that to the bank.

Nope, I don't think security is threatened by people wearing a full covering in public, but I would hestitate to allow them into ... banks etc. But I agree, people will try to use national security as a way to get the full face coverings removed. The real issue however is that our government views all religions as equal. So this isn't about the government intruding into islamic dress, it's about the government intruding in private religion. As far as the government is concerned, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.... this is setting the standard for how much interference is permissable. And I don't like it in the slightest. Since the government packages all religions together, it stands to reason that if I want to keep the right to exercise my own faith publically, I have to do that at the expense of allowing others to do the same regardless of their religion.

Why is no one flipping out about this?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies

×
×
  • Create New...