GZ Tan: "You think Exclusive Brethren refuse to participate in democracy but (strangely) can influence democracy?

Are EB actually magicians that threaten freedom and democracy?"

Unfortunately, it seems we need to add (wilful?) ignorance to offensiveness and bigotry in GZ's repertoire of defects. Exclusive Brethren don't allow their members to vote, but they seek to influence the electoral process by secretly funding political advertising and lobbying MPs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren for a full description of the sect and its skulduggery.

Amongst other religious absurdities, the EB require their women to wear headscarves in public. As it happens, our Boazy is a member of the closely related Open Brethren, yet he chose to claim above that the headscarf is symbolic of Islam, and illustrated it with a litany of negative quotations carefully gleaned from Islamic texts.

Again, I think it's quite reasonable to ask him to explain how the symbolism of the headscarf is so different for Muslim and EB women. As for your 'straw man' demand - I think that religious zealots of any description are threats to "freedom and democracy", whether they be Christian, Muslim or Calithumpian nutters.

GZ: "Have you been to a psychiatrist?"

Not lately, but it could be advisable for you to seek some help - your Islamophobia seems to be getting the better of you.

CJ Morgan,

You ought to worry about your defective and skewed reasonings:

1. Anyone, any organisation can secretly or openly fund political advertising or lobby MPs. You can do it if you have the money, time or ability. Do it legally, you may succeed in getting what you want. Do it illegally, your attempts may backfire and you end up in jail. So what's your problem with Exclusive Brethren exercising a right to influence politics? Are you being undemocratic?

2. You can report to police right now about any illegal activity EB might have undertaken. Obviously all you possess is prejudice, innuendo, irrational and exaggerated fear.

3. Any organisation, religious or otherwise, has every right to require it's member to wear a headscarf or uniform as a matter of policy or belief. It may be "religious absurdities" to you, but not to them. Disagree with the requirement? Then try changing it or quit the organisation.

Earlier your wrote:
<< ...it seems that the practice of Muslim women wearing headscarves is somehow threatening to various people...>>

Rubbish !! The author's frauded assumptions aside, all the posts suggest that no one here thinks (a) a headscarf, or (b) the practice of wearing a headscarf, is THREATENING. You've got yourself a strawman.

What is threatening is the ideology behind the headscarf - the religion ISLAM itself.

The scarf merely symbolises the Islamic threat. When we see more and more headscarves around us, we know that the oppresssive force of Islam is increasing with an expanding Muslim population.

Even if Exclusive Brethren members were to wear exactly the same headscarf as Muslims, so long as people can tell them apart from Muslims, then EB headscarf is a NON-ISSUE. Who cares what they wear !!

Go count the number of Islamic states around the world, then tell us how one day EB will trump them all one by one. I am sure your illogic can provide the argument you need.

btw, you have failed to provide the slightest proof that Exclusive Brethren is a bigger threat to Islam.

Now back to EB-phobe...

Pericles.. I don't believe I was 'wrong' on that. I think we had a communication glitch where I failed to provide sufficient information to fill out the picture. Ok.. I failed. Happy now ?

CJ. sorry.. I did answer.. "In my head" but not here.
Ok.. the EB scalf is nothing more than the headcovering that most Brethen of yesteryear wore, (whether exclusive or open) and that some Christian ladies still wear in other traditions.

In 'principle' it is an attempt to fulfill Pauls injuction in Corinthians about attire in Church. But then, we could look at other angles on this. (in the case of the EB)
1/ It symbolizes their particular (and often peculiar) understanding of practical Christianity today. Such as.. no email, no internet, no Tv (in most cases) So, thats the historical accrued meaning to the wider community.
2/ It could also be 'seen' as a symbol of very tight social control of members, the splitting up of families and a lot of trauma between family members.
3/ Strong discipline in the Church (EB) I'm guessing here, but I doubt any EB woman would be accepted into fellowship without a head covering.

Happy now ?

If I may revisit my original point. The Islamic headscalf is symbolic of "Islam" at it's fundamental level. The EB head covering is also symbolic of Christian teaching at its fundamental level. In the case of the EB, I believe they have added meaning which is outside Scripture. Muslims are not, they reflect the Quran/Hadith/Sunnah. There is no need to ascribe historical atrocities to the Islamic scalf, they are already present at the symbolic and historical roots.

Thanks Boazy. So the Muslim headscarf symbolises fundamentalist Islam and the EB headscarf symbolises fundamentalist Christianity?

I'll go along with that, but I'd further suggest that they are both worn by women to affirm their acceptance and membership of strongly patriarchal, anachronistic religious traditions that have a common putative root. So why is it that some people feel threatened by the hijab, but not apparently by the EB headscarf?

Perhaps it's because of their extreme antipathy to Islam - whether this is on theological grounds (as appears to be the case with Boazy and fellow travellers like GZ Tan), xenophobia, or for political reasons. It's an unfortunate fact that people are as free to hate each other in our society as they are to wear what they like, or believe what they like.

Personally, I feel sorry for those who feel threatened by others' superstitious beliefs and who rail on about them in forums such as this. As long as people stay within the law, I really don't care what silly beliefs they follow or what ridiculous clothing they wear. Such is the nature of a liberal democracy.

I am concerned, however, at the level of vitriol that emanates from Islamophobic members of our society, who take every opportunity to try and rabble-rouse the latent racism in our culture in order to spread their messages of hatred and division. Yes, there are a few Muslim lunatics who receive an undue amount of media attention, but their audience among their peers is minuscule compared with the increasing receptiveness of non-Muslim Australians to Islamophobic hate-mongering.

Like I said before, I'm far more worried by men wearing ties than women wearing headscarves.

CJ Morgan,

Still, you asked: << So why is it that some people feel threatened by the hijab, but not apparently by the EB headscarf? >>

I cannot believe this. Do you actually understand my posts? The answers are already there, Islam is a proven threat, EB is not !!

If I have "extreme antipathy" due to theological grounds, being xenophobic, or politically motivated, whatever, then shouldn't I be railing against each and every belief system? Why do I attack Islam, and Islam alone?

Get this clearly in your head. I say, Islam is the ONLY belief system that threatens freedom and democracy because it has the ideology and steadfastness. All it needs now is a critical mass of Muslim population.

I fully accept people are free to wear what they like, believe what they like. But people are also free to counter a threat and identify a falsehood. Afterall, Islam was only a hoax to begin with. A hoax that got out of hand.

I have the impression some self-righteous individuals like you can sit back and allow a hoax to slowly take humanity back to medieval era.

And stop dishing out disingenuous rhetoric like : "I'm far more worried by men wearing ties than women wearing headscarves."

If you have evidence against some men wearing ties then report to the police. Your innunedo serves no practical purpose whatsoever. When men who wear ties remove their ties, change into sportwear, pyjamas, swimwear. Do you then also worry about men with no ties, who wear pyjamas or sportwear?

What kind of phobia are you?

Classic.

>>I don't believe I was 'wrong' on that. I think we had a communication glitch where I failed to provide sufficient information to fill out the picture. Ok.. I failed. Happy now?<<

Your admission of failure, Boaz, would be more convincing if you also demonstrate some understanding of where you failed. Because later in the same post you say:

>>If I may revisit my original point. The Islamic headscalf is symbolic of "Islam" at it's fundamental level.<<

No, Boaz, it is not.

I thought we had agreed - implicit in your admission of failure - that there is not, and cannot be, any "fundamental symbolism" in a headscarf, a swastika, a hammer and sickle or - as you point out - a cross.

But you continue with your nonsense:

>>There is no need to ascribe historical atrocities to the Islamic scalf, they are already present at the symbolic and historical roots<<

I thought you had agreed this is not the case?

>>Ok.. I failed. Happy now?<<

Your insistence on continuing this argument long after you have lost it, is evidence, if only you were able to recognize it, of your unrepentant rabble-rousing habits.

But whether or not you do realize this, it would be sensible in future to confine yourself to arguments that have some consistency and logic to them.

Fat chance, I know, but it had to be said.