Foxy,

And you still don't question the motives of a Muslima in a hijab complaining about her work colleague wearing a tiny cross? Muslima wins by being supported by the illiberal appeasers. So the quiet Christian woman loses and becomes a victim of oppression and just has to live with it, uh? How come Muslima still gets to wear the hijab?

So do you think the Muslima is presenting contempt for Christianity?

And what did you think of the Danish psychologist's report?

Hi Foxy & Constance,

Surely if one person is allowed to wear religious-oriented clothing or jewellery, then so has every one else ? End of. If someone wants to wear a Star of David, or a crucifix, or a Chinese character for 'good luck' or 'long life', or an image of Ganesh, or a hijab, they should be able equally to exercise that right ?

And anybody objecting to that right can be charged with harassment, or discrimination, or inhibiting someone's right to freedom of expression ?

Meanwhile, while we fluff around about trivia, surely it's ideology we should be concerned about ?

Joe

The story of the cross sounds as apocryphal as the rest of constance's guff. Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, so why on Earth would a devout Muslim be bothered by a cross?

Of course, if the "school lunch lady" was at all like the delightful Constance, then perhaps the issue of the cross may have occurred, not because of the cross, but because of the person wearing it? Or perhaps it didn't and she was just doing a Constance-impression and trying to stir up trouble.

Either way, I can't see much point in taking Constance's post seriously.

Dear Constance,

In this country all Australians are free to follow
any religion they choose, so long as its practices
do not break any Australian law.

Australians are also
free not to follow a religion. Religious intolerance should be
unacceptable in Australian society. Therefore your story
about the Muslim woman's demands regarding her work colleague
is simply an illustration of a very unwise decision that could
have had much more serious implications had the work colleague
taken it further and complained to the
company's Human Resources Manager or sought legal advice against this type of
discrimination. We do have laws in place that protect people
against discrimination on the basis of race, and creed.

Dear Loudmouth,

Nothing more to add.

Dear Is Mise,

My husband's best friend had a Marist Brothers education.
From stories we've heard - Marist Brothers were a more
liberal order then the Christian Brothers. So well done
to you and yours! My father was educated by the Jesuits.
And our two sons started their education in private
Jesuit-run schools. Both preparatory and high schools.
However - we took them out in high school
due to the realisation that
sport was playing more of a major role in their education
then were academic subjects and also they were learning
the wrong values. Bullying was the norm. But what was also
worrying was that -
They were learning that it was allright
to do anything it took to "get ahead," and were missing
out on being taught "real basics" like respect, loyalty,
and a sense of fair play.

We wanted our children to grow up with clear values
and a real code to live by and - with a different mentality
from the "Me" mentality of modern culture. Of course they
were being taught these values at home, but they were
not being re-inforced at school. Both boys ended up
graduating from university - both are successful and happy,
and are decent human beings. We are very proud of them.

Dear Constance,

What do I think of the Danish Psychologists Report?

It is quite a concern. Psychopathic people and
behaviour are found within all cultures and religions.
And it is important to make a note of the author's
past history.
Unfortunately the Danish Psychologist has a history
of anti-Muslim polemics. His articles - including the
one you cited all deliberately disparage Islam and Muslims.
His eugenics theories lean towards "Nazi-style propaganda."

His work is posted on disreputable sites (Jihad Watch, Death
to Islam, et cetera). He is not published on any reputable
sites and it makes sense that this sort of "scholar"
would attract Islamophobes who are forced to resort to -
in order to continue their anti Muslim hatred.

Having said that - I still read the article and found that
it merely confirmed the author's past reputation was well
deserved. Instead of exercising scrupulous caution the
author was anything but objective. As a psychologist he
should have been conscious of his own bias and at least
attempted to be as objective as possible. His biases should
have been kept out of his research and interpretation.

The ethical code of the discipline requires that psychologists
be intellectually honest and that they attempt to be aware of
their own values and not allow these values to distort their
work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and
not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories;
that they not manipulate data to prove a point; and that they
not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

No objectivity was strived for by this psychologist.
His work cannot therefore be taken seriously.

Once again Crag shows his ignorance

<<The story of the cross sounds as apocryphal as the rest of constance's guff. Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, so why on Earth would a devout Muslim be bothered by a cross?>>

Well, Craig, here might be one reason --because fundamentalist inclined Muslims are opposed to all forms of physical depiction of the holy and in Saudi even places associated with Muslim holy figures have been destroyed <<[the] wahhabist sect... perceives historic sites and the veneration of the prophet as encouraging sinful idolatry>>