Jews, Muslims on same side

Remove all ads!

Perhaps you are correct about California etc. But it was comments from US expats that I've heard.

Perhaps the "superior" or otherwise is the key term? There is no "superior" in multi-culturalism, since all are valued and encouraged. It is also true to say that there are very intolerant areas in Australia, but they are intolerant of people from anywhere else, including interstate.

Anyway as for the laws that were described above, I have found it interesting that a religious tradition that can only affect the personal life of those who practice it, has been made illegal. That hasn't happened in Australia yet. I wonder what would happen if such laws were made here even against indigenous Australian traditions and cultural values.

 

I don't think that will ever happen in Australia, as it would mean for either to discriminate or change their fundamental principles from "negative" to "positive" (or from "positive" to "negative").

I think Tal put it perfectly. There are generally two ways to deal with the religious problem and get rid of the historical links with a state and a religion. In the case of France, the first daughter of the church, complete separation from state and church and complete neutrality of the state in religous affairs. The state isn't even allowed to ask you what religion you have. Don't even think about politicans in office talking about "god" and stuff.

Given the history, making a clear cut and pull separation through seems the best way for European countries to me. At first, it was a clear statement answering to domestic religous quarrels, you may be catholic, you may be protestant, the state won't give a **** about that. It worked fine. The British way for example is nearly the opposite: They keep the state entangled with religion up to its neck, yet they grant everyone the right to show off their religion.

 

Hmmm. I think that there are too many issues here and some cling to only a few.

When I say "a religious tradition that can only affect the individual" I mean like, believing in the Trinity, being vegetarian, eating kosher or being circumcised. These things cannot hurt a person who does not ascribe to the belief system itself.

As for the cross or covering the face, I think that you are right, but outward expressions of religion are not the whole picture. Besides no matter what you wear you are making a political and cultural statement.

How do we define excessive? "Different", "other", "foreign"?

What I find amazing is that ritual slaughter (kosher/halal) is such an affront that it has to be made illegal?! How could that possibly bother a person who does not follow the religious tradition. All it is is a different method of slaughtering an animal. What is so offensive in it? (Of course vegetarians may disagree as may Hindus, but they are not the majority in Europe.)

How can circumcision be so bad that it must be banned? A friend of mine needed it for medical reasons, and he was glad for it. Should it be banned? This is obviously debateable but nobody asked me for my feelings or opinions when my son was in the intensive care unit as an infant (premature birth), the doctors knew what they were doing. I don't think that it matters what others think if I get my son circumcised. My own sister was not really consulted over her son's circumcision. She was simply told that where you live in Central Australia, you'll need it done. No problems. (We are not Jewish).

I guess that it also boils down less to "religion" than it does to "other". A person wearing "western" clothes in some parts of Pakistan is going to be noticed no matter how much of an atheist he may be. Should the Pakistani government make "western" clothing illegal because it makes such an overt political statement of who you are? Should "western" foods like KFC or Pepsi be banned because they are an affront to the way things are done in Pakistan?

There are many things that could be banned or tolerated, it depends on how personally insulted you are by them. My point is that some things can't be taken personally if they are not part of your person belief system.

So if the state is meant to be neutral then why make laws banning religious practices? This I think was the main reason for the thread in the first place.

 

Well, the meaning of "illegal" in this case is interesting. It is illegal to slaughter an animal according to that ritual. It is not illegal to import meat like that, eat it, sell it and offer it in a restaurant. Granted, it has to be imported, but then again, there's lot of food importet anyway. And the "shock" part doesn't come from the "ritual". It just that the law demands that an animal is killed as fast as possible and as "human" as possible, without causing avoidable pain to the animal. That also involves traditional slaughter practices, not necessarily "religous based" ones, just the way it has been done since anyone can remember. Adieu traditional ways. It bothers people who don't want animals to suffer and want that the cows are happy. As I said, as import is easy, an infringment of freedom of religion is not given. (You could argue, that in Australia, the kosher meat may have to have a much longer distance to travel before it gets to a consumer as in Europe to get in a country where the slaughter that way is forbidden).

Well, I am outing myself, I am circumcised for medical reasons too. So.... forbidden ? Huh ? (That with the sexual pleasure is not true. I have great sexual pleasure.) Or are you talking about that in Africa spread tradition of mutilating little girls, so they can have no pleasure in sex and be "good" wives ?

I think that argumentation is wrong. As it is allowed and easily possible to eat kosher, the comparison with the Pepsi-ban doesn't fit. But on the other hand, the Pepsi comparison may fit in the way, is that Pepsi produced in Pakistan or has it to be imported ?

I guess that it also boils down less to "religion" than it does to "other". Maybe true to some extend. Maybe that's mainly just a prejudiced reflection ?

I think that argumentation is wrong too to some extend. Why banning, as I already mentioned, that you can actually get kosher food with no problem. So what the fuss ? Banning religious clothing in public schools only seems natural to me. I mean, having religious clothing not banned ??? Huh ??? If your in rome, you do as... In the cases of teachers, it is out of question, that a teacher wearing a crucifix is just not right. I have a constitutional right to public education free of charge and religious neutral. It is my personal freedom, my right, explicitly granted in my federal constitution. The state has to grant it to me. It belongs to our old rights and liberties.

 

This is the thrust of the original post, and my point entirely. Australia is not like that. There are some schools in Sydney that are almost totally populated by migrants of Islamic background, the girls tend to wear scarves though not all of them. The government now should go and ban the scarves and the girls left uneducated? Or they have to simply "conform" to the public when they are the majority. I thought democracy was, "by the people for the people." At a minority of muslim students school I could understand them banning the scarf but if 490 of 500 students are muslims then what's the "logic" of banning it. If foreigners are going to be so offensive to a nation because they dare have a different tradition or culture, then why accept them in the first place? Keep the nation and the state racially pure and culturally clean and there won't be a problem.

The Pepsi vs kosher example is exactly similar in opposite directions, that is why I used it. Kosher is allowed, so long as it's not done. (Humane? Killing an animal for food = inhumane vs humane? I'm gonna eat it! What difference does it make if its done kosher or not?) Oh, ok, sounds like Iraq under Saddam, yes voting is ok, so long as it's not done...

BTW, I'm not Jewish.

 

And that's where my "your Anglo-Saxons" (again, that's a cultural term) came in. You can't take the legal code of Australia and put in on any given European country (except the UK) and expect that the ways are the same. Again, those ideas and ways to handle the religion thingie have been developed long before a substantial muslim population was there. It was coined at solving the protestant jumps on a catholic throat as soon he sees one problem. And it showed to be very advantagous to have a society based on freedom (poor rhetoric, but I can't help it). So, it has been that way and there is no rational reason visible to me to change it. And going Anglo-Saxon is can never be the solution.

Then I don't get where you get the idea from that muslim girls would be left uneducated. It is also a fundamental principle of civil law to try as hard as possible to have anyone getting at least a basic education. Going to school is mandatory. It seems to me, you are assuming that if girls couldn't wear scarves they wouldn't go to school. Can you back that up ? I think it's the opposite, that the education-success of them gets better. Why do I think that ? As you living in larger muslim communities, you are surely aware that it is mainly a problem among them and that the various flavours and mentalities and ethnicities of them get them picking at eachother and stamping muslim girls with no veil as whores. That is particularly annoying when its about muslim girls who come from a muslim flavour who actually do not wear veils, as you surely know.

Culturally clean ? Racially pure ? What are you talking about. What are you projecting from where ? Australias past Tal mentioned ? Why do you think that foreigners would be thought of as offensive because they are from a different culture ?

That one I don't get. I am not from the animal-right activists side. I could care less, yet I see that vegetarians and animal-right acitivists (you know, those who get school mensas to have always a "vegetarian dish" as option) are quite the fashion and totally hip and tend to vote a lot. But then, what is so worrysome and annoying about the place a cow was slaughtered ? Why would it bother you.