BOAZ_david,

I agree that “a 'human' cannot be separated from their ethnicity and culture,” and that one’s “identity is derived FROM their culture”. But I disagree that “It is from these things they have their 'human' identity”.

I do not, as you suggest, believe “that there is some definition of 'humanity' out there for us all”, but I do believe that regardless of what historical cultural meaning system enculturates us, that there are aspects about us all we share in common and for which the term “human” suits just as good as any other might.

Ask yourself (1) whether it is any less difficult to ‘define’ one’s identity in a cultural sense, and (2) what makes us, all of us, different from every other creature on earth.

I’m confident you’ll agree that something we all share in common is our specific communicative capacity, and the fact that our relationship toward death is such that we are the only creatures on earth who bury the dead and have a ‘cult of graves’.

There are universal ethical implications in this sociolinguistic communicative capacity, and in this relationship to death: selfhood, the right to be heard, the duty to listen. We don’t need an immortal soul for such things.

I couldn’t care less what one’s conception of the ‘good life’ is, so long as it is first and foremost grounded in such ‘human’ traits, rather than particular ‘cultural’ traits such as a national identity, or one’s being Muslim or Jewish, or Sunni or Shia.

If we let our particular customs be the ultimate standard and measure of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, then surely we’ll be in a state of war forever. But if we let what we all share in common be the ultimate standard and measure of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then all of our particular, conflicting ‘customary’ standards, will then be subject to a more universal standard.

Jesus aspired to such standards, one’s that did not discriminate on the basis of peoples cultural differences, etc. But in claiming that a transcendent God exists he unjustifiably claimed there is an objective purpose in life.

Here, Here FrankGol (Regarding Leigh posts)- Fantastically said. An astounding applause from over here.

Well, it takes one to know one.

Ena
You say that women in this country can wear any damm thing they like. Does that mean that some of them could dress up like the Klux Klux clan and walk freely around the streets. After all its only clothes and clothes dont cause any harm according to you. No matter that they wear the uniform of people who want the extermination of black people.
Why should I tolerate the wearing of the Hijab when it symbolises the same thing for me as the robes of the Klux Klux Clan symbolise for the black people.

If I saw someone dressed in Ku Klux Klan garb, I'm afraid I would assume they were going to a fancy dress party.
You need to understand Sharkfin, that the white sheets of the KKK were only worn when the members were about to do something illegal and wished to disguise themselves. The hijab and the burkha are worn all the time, not as disguises to hide from the police, so the two things are not the same. The members of the KKK generally dressed in normal western clothing when they were going about their normal business, you know- not lynching blacks.
If you are going to draw analogies, its a good idea to make them appropriate.
Wearers of the veil wish to make public their religious beliefs, wearers of the KKK costume wished to keep secret their association with a racist and illegal gang. Do you see the difference?

Regarding the Burkha

I believe we as a nation should set limits to the extent religious and cultural dress can conflict with other values, such as eye to eye contact, social interaction etc.

There is no reason whatsoever (except that it might annoy a small minority of people) why we cannot decide ourselves what those limits are.

Any cultural attire or religious symbol which links back to ideas or behaviour which are cruel, inhumane or barbaric, should not be allowed by law.

Swastika's are technically 'legal' (correct me someone if I'm wrong) but they are also repulsive due to the historical associations of Genocide.

In the Migration Act, Public Interest Criteria 4001 (as it relates to Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958) and 4003 of the Migration Regulations require particular consideration, gives the Minister the discretion to decide what is or not in the public interest as follows:

"acting in a way likely to be insensitive in a multicultural society, eg. advocating within particular ethnic groups the adoption of political, social or religious values well outside those acceptable to Australian society"

I put it to all of us, that a Burkha is not acceptable on the following grounds.

They are symbolic of a number of specific acts which degrade women and Jews in particular. How ?

They symbolize

a) The Genocide of Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe by MOhammed
b) They symbolize his taking of (among others) the wife of a man he had tortured, after killing her husband. (Kinana, Jewish chief at Khaibar)
c) They symbolize the brutality of the Taliban in more recent history.

I suggest that only 'mild' symbols of Islam are acceptable in the Australian cultural landscape. Hijab would be ok, but nothing more.

The above will cover those migrating to Australia, but we should also legislate to cover those born here