Social division and tribalism based on religion - sounds good, pretty much the opposite of, God forbid, how it would be if we were invaded by China.

Toni, I am very concerned about those fellows wearing dog collars, they are not wearing a tie! I feel it's just not safe to go out at nights with these non conformist on the streets. The government should do something about it, after all its just common sense. I don't want to be seen as being too harsh, but I do believe crucifixion for the first offence is warranted. If for no other reason than to protect the little children. I am sure I have CHERFUL'S agreement on this, do I have yours?

Toni Lavis,

The Catholic Nuns, are viewed as a non threatening, relic of a reformed christian religion.

The fact that a country is secular, is all the more reason to not bring in a religion
that comes from countries that are governed by radical imams.

The Hijab, scarf etc are regarded as threatening in secular countries that do not want
government handed over to weird priests who kill people who dont become muslim.

Isis,Al Queada,Hamas, the Taliban, have used those robes and garments as a political
killing uniform. Dont blame me and people who no longer can view people wearing the
symbols of the muslim killing groups without suspicion.
Much as people wearing a swatstika as a tacky fashion statement on a handbag would be viewed with suspicion.
You can argue about their right to wear it, but you cant stop people associating it
with the mass slaughter in World war 2 no matter how harmless the person wearing it may be.
The muslim garments have been flashed across our Tv and computer screens, with Isis and terrorists screaming death threats. The perception of these garments will be forever associated with those images in peoples minds.
And why wouldnt they be?
No scarves and black sheets here thank you.

I dont understand the covering of hair on the head. Pubic hair, yes.

Prince Harry Goes Nazi
Friday, June 10, 2011

In 2005, just two weeks before Holocaust Memorial Day, Prince Harry figured it was a good idea to turn up at a "colonials and natives" costume party dressed as a Nazi. British tabloid the Sun published a photo of the prince wearing a swastika armband and a desert uniform similar to those worn by Erwin Rommel's German Afrika Korps. with "I'm very sorry if I have caused any offense, to you know who" the Prince said in a statement. "It was a poor choice of costume, (two sizes too big) and I apologize (the kaky uniform clashed with my ginger hair)." He probably should have taken tips from his scandal-free brother Prince William who reportedly wore a homemade outfit representing, Daffy Duck.

//Dont blame me and people who no longer can view people wearing the
symbols of the muslim killing groups without suspicion.//

Men wearing hijabs? I don't think Muslim extremists are into cross-dressing, dude.

I can't help but blame you. You actually seem to be genuinely afraid of people's hats. I've seen cowardice in my time, but that is truly pathetic.

//The muslim garments have been flashed across our Tv and computer screens, with Isis and terrorists screaming death threats.//

Show me a single link to a single terrorist wearing a hijab, and I won't think you're a drooling halfwit.

//I dont understand the covering of hair on the head.//

Aside from the obvious practical value in protecting oneself from the sun, I don't see the point of hats either. And yet there are many situations where people wear hats that serve no obvious practical purpose, simply because it is the done thing and that is what is expected of them. Why do women wear silly little hats that don't offer any sun protection to horse races? Nobody knows, they just do. And if they were to show up without their silly little hat, it may be perceived as a faux pas.

When my Mum was younger, women all wore hats to church - I recall her telling me how much she hated it when she was little. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law it was a requirement that women cover their heads in church. It said, "women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord." That wasn't changed until 1983. Not exactly ancient history.

So as little as 40 years ago, the Catholic Church - not some weird heathen religion, but the largest Christian denomination in world (and also Australia) - took the view that covering the head for the sake of modesty was important. Head covering was unanimously practised before the Reformation, and the Protestants were also in favour. Luther and Calvin both called for women to wear head coverings whilst in public worship. It wasn't until the 20th century that the practice started to die out. Some Protestant denominations like the Plymouth Brethren and Anabaptists still maintain the tradition, as do some Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Are you going to tell them all how to dress themselves as well?

The Biblical basis for the practise is 1 Corinthians 11:5, which for most of the history was interpreted in favour of head covering during worship, and is presumably where the Muslims got the idea in the first place. But this quaint belief you seem to have that head covering one's head for modesty is some wicked, alien practice that only those dreadful foreign heathens get up to is complete and utter bollocks. And at the end of the day, who cares? Christians abandoned the tradition, Muslims didn't, but since covering your head doesn't hurt anybody.... what's the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering

Surely it can't just be because it's something Muslims do, and thus must be banned? Muslims also eat, drink, breathe and sleep. Should we ban all those things because they're things that Muslims do? That's about how much sense your argument makes.