Steel, Very sporting of you to respond to so many.

I’d be surprised if anyone disagrees that there is a dress code in Australia, enforced by disapproval and eventually by the law.

Why does it exist? I suggest, not in order to oppress anyone but because modesty is generally valued. I suggest that, although no two people are likely to agree on exactly where to draw the line, it is a good thing to maintain the distinction between what sights and behaviours belong to the private realm and what are appropriate in the public realm. This isn’t oppression, it’s common sense.

Does it apply only to women? No, according to the law itself. In fact? Harder to answer. Men are often enough disparaged for wearing tight trousers, and brikkies' bums always get a mention at such times. Still, the issue seems more one of female exposure. Why, I can’t tell you. My guess is that it’s part of the general primal ritual and it is well understood that men’s appreciation of their environment is largely visual. Some idiots see underdressed women as signalling immediate and general availability, and some idiotic judges have been known to agree with them. However, these men are regarded as oafs, or worse, not as righteous upholders of the law. Cf Sharia Law.

Is there a hard line? There was a very sympathetic article in Melbourne papers recently about a female streaker of some time ago. Years ago, when she streaked(?), she was probably prosecuted. She was running around naked at the MCG. From recollection, she wasn’t beaten up by bystanders taking the law into their own hands, or later beheaded or stoned.

Do you think there should be no virtue of modesty – no observance of a distinction between private and public? I think it helps us manage our lives, especially in a community setting.

ena, I like your point about the rich "inflaming the poor" with desire. Usually, the virtues have a positive point, and are not just playing defence.

Pax,

Dear Fractelle....

you said:

"Is there not a single Christian who can look at their own religion objectively and note that women are not regarded as equal to men - in both the Old and New testaments."

This is worthy of a whole thread by itself.

There are many assumptions and dimensions to the ideas contained in your statement.

1/ You are pre-defining 'equality' in a specific way.

It appears you are saying it must mean males and females only differ by their reproductive hardware, but in every other respect they are identicle.
This is clearly not the case. The simple fact that females have the babies, should be the most obvious major difference. We blokes just goto the bank and make a deposit... the interest accrues and bingo..new person after 9 months... then, be virtue of your 'design plan' you have been provided with 2 glands which give the very best start in life to that new person. The bonding...the nurturing..the comforting.. its all bound up in what you 'are' as a female.

So, I prefer to use the term 'complementary' when it comes to the genders.

2/ You assume that the world has always been as it is now, and that just because we are not living in villages where the distinct possibility exists of a raiding party from 'our enemies' coming over and killing we blokes, and taking you women as booty.

The rule of nature is 'survival of the fittest and strongest' The rules we currently live by, 'rule of law' are only ultimately enforced by that first one. 'brute force'.

The concept of 'equality' trotted out by feminists is really a very naive one.

SYMBOLS... HEADSCALVES...CROSSES.

Now.. if I rock up to.. hmm lets say Lakemba Mosque with a very large CROSS printed on my front and back, does anyone doubt that some folks might find this a tad offensive? Doing nothing more than just standing there. If I waved an Auzzie flag at the same time.... hmmmm I hope you get it.

Headscalves are just as 'symbolic' to me.

DIDN'T FINISH THE THOUGHT.. sorry..

Fractelle..

"just because..... 'raiders, booty etc'..." (continues here) you seem to think it never was that way or could be again.

Don't ever look to Christians (or any religious mob) for a socialist/marxist/determinist-psychological view of male/female identity.. we utterly reject such ideas.

I believe the concept of male female roles in Scripture (O.T./N.T.) are quite wonderful.

The difficult parts of the NT, about women being silent in meetings, is really not that big a deal. There are 2 views on this, it was for cultural reasons, (but this is negated by Paul linking it to creation)
or it was for theological reasons.
I hardly think Paul was saying "Women must not engage in social intercourse with men" because Paul actually wrote personal things to women in the Church. So... while the actual service might not have any females speaking publically, after the service they can go for broke.
In ours, we often have females sharing up front, and I suppose one could justify this by the example of a female evangelist sharing her exploits, as Lydia or Priscilla (converts of Paul) would have done in their house churches.

For a large number of Australian Muslim women the scarf symbolises power, presence, liberation. They choose to wear it and are not forced to. The reason it is liberating is because Australia is a non-Muslim country and to wear such a visible symbol of Islam is to "come out", in much the same way as a gay person does when they decide they they can longer live a life feeling ashamed of who they are. It is also a strong statement of power - I am not afraid to wear it, I am not of afraid of what you think, we are here in your parks, on your beaches, in your affluent suburbs, in your country towns and coastal villages and you will have to accept us.

Stickman, CJ: I never said this text wasn’t problematic in isolation. In fact, I keep saying the opposite. The principle drawn from the passage which Fractelle quotes (1 Corinthians 11:3-10), is qualified in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

“..neither sex can boast over the other because the sexes are interdependent…Verses 11-12 demonstrate that Paul would utterly reject the notion that women are inferior or lesser human beings….Women are created in the image of God, and men have no greater worth because of their God-given responsibility to lead”.

“Those who focus only on verses 11-12 effectively shut out verses 3-10. It is a mistake to exclude either teaching; we must hold them together as Paul did”.

(http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2820)

Verses 11-12 are the great equalizer. As a woman and a Christian, the lesson is not to adopt a “feminist” distortion of Paul’s teaching, rebel over my God-given role, or encourage a blurring of the genders (through dress, manner or assuming authority). Submission in 1 Corinthians is that of man AND woman to God. Not patriarchal, but monotheist.

This passage is concluded with a warning: 1 Corinthians 11:16:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God.”

logic: take note. The Bible is not reliant on the powers of human “interpretation”. There is only ONE meaning, a revealed meaning, understood in the totality of scripture. However, there is a plurality of Churches. Certain practices, such as the ordination of women, do not sit comfortably with this passage, thus there is a division of opinion within the Church. The ordination of homosexuals, when applying the same passage, has the potential to create schism. This passage needs further support from other biblical writing before applying to a modern context.

I am not doing PR for Christianity. I would simply encourage a deeper understanding of the Bible and this is not going to be achieved by latching onto the passages which are problematic for feminists or bleeding-heart lefties, or by glossing over them.

"For a large number of Australian Muslim women the scarf symbolizes power, presence, liberation. They choose to wear it and are not forced to. The reason it is liberating is because Australia is a non-Muslim country and to wear such a visible symbol of Islam is to "come out", in much the same way as a gay person does when they decide they they can longer live a life feeling ashamed of who they are. It is also a strong statement of power - I am not afraid to wear it, I am not of afraid of what you think, we are here in your parks, on your beaches, in your affluent suburbs, in your country towns and coastal villages and you will have to accept us."
Posted by DJS, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 9:44:54 AM
______________________________

HELLO?...................YOO-HOO?..is anyone listening??

No of course not.

Katieo and your ilk;-you can write a decent speech I'll grant, but all you people are doing is trying to score points. Did ANY of you register the above post...? NAH!!

Because the whole point is to prove that you are RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG!

Here you have someone telling you WHY she wears her scarf proudly,-and you ignored it!!

" I don't care if you can see it on the shelf; the computer says we haven't got any" !!

Forget reality,-just strut your stuff...........