Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (47)
Public nudity or near nudity and outrageously lewd behaviour on Main Street in the cold light of day might bring the constabulary into play. Of course all kinds of questions arise as to how nude or lewd you are allowed to be. These are questions that Western societies have wrestled with for a long time, and it is true to say that what you can get away with now would have shocked our forbears.
On the other side of the coin, I doubt whether in the history of mankind there has ever been a mandate to restrict the extent to which people can cover up when in purely public places. Widow’s weeds never caused a stir. And quite right too, you might concur. In the normal course of daily life the law has no business telling anybody to partially disrobe.
Here’s the rub. If society brings the law into play to restrict the extent to which people can cover up in public it has to be derivative of other broader laws put in place to protect society from serious harm. Overdress laws cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Not in our tolerant and free Western societies they can’t. Thus Nice and other French towns which are attempting to ban the so-called burkini predictably find it tough going.
The argument is made that Muslim women must be protected from a medieval patriarchal oppression which forces them to cover up. Unfortunately, if asked, that Muslim woman on the beach in Nice, forced to partially disrobe by the police, would say that her choice of garb that day was hers and hers alone. Without the benefit of mind-reading how can we insist otherwise?
Of course oppression can be insidious, working its way into the minds of the oppressed so that they come to regard their subservient status as normal. We might believe that this has happened to many women in Islamic societies. If so, little can be done about it short of Muslim women rising up like latter-day suffragettes. There are already laws on the books preventing one person from harassing and threatening another.
By the way, the woman on the beach would also deny that she is a small part of the Islamic campaign to push sharia law; and, in this case, in the very place in July where 86 people were killed and many more injured in the name of Islam. It is shameful on its face, but she would deny having a political motive. Common sense tells us otherwise, but that doesn’t help.
What we have at the moment in France and Belgium and in other European countries is a lot of huffing and puffing with no end product worth a tinker’s cuss. Trying to ban items of clothing is tokenism at best. And it’s easily turned around into a charge that it is an Islamophobic attack on the freedom of Muslim women.
Uncomfortable introspection is required. Why, really, is wearing the burka, hijab, niqab, or burkini an affront to French values? In truth, it is not in itself. I am sure that there are numbers of people in France, as elsewhere, who for one reason or other wear unusual clothes. What really is an affront to French and all Western values is a religion which preaches supremacism, intolerance and violence and which, by so doing, threatens public safety and, ultimately, the peace, security and stability of the state. If this threat were cloaked in anything but a religion it would have been countered long ago.
Islam as a religion is a Trojan horse — the best ever devised — inside of which is a political and societal ideology inimical to Western values. Uncomfortable action is required. This action does not start with banning outward symbols of Islam. That action is tenable only if Islam, as it is currently practiced, is itself outlawed. The case for doing so would have to be made. But that would not be too hard. The very scripture itself and the mayhem it is creating around the world is conclusive evidence enough.
I should be clear. There is nothing amiss in people wanting to go on worshiping a prophet called Muhammad and a god called Allah. That is religious freedom and should be protected. But you cannot countenance insurrection simply because it is cloaked in religion. It is worth again, and again, repeating the extraordinary and confronting words of President el Sisi of Egypt; words which must thoroughly confuse apologists for the religion of peace:
“That thinking – I am not say ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants –that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!”
If it is good enough for President el Sisi, it should be good enough even for the limp-wrists that occupy power in Western democracies. The “corpus of Islamic texts and ideas that have been sacralized” threaten our existence. Exactly what must Islamists do besides encouraging and committing murder and mayhem before action is taken at source? We are not dealing with an obscure cult. We are dealing with millions upon millions of people inside Western democracies wedded to an antagonistic and supremacist ideology. It is passed on through schools and mosques in every major centre of population. If it is allowed to continue to metastasize it will take over.
Terribly sorry, old boy, we should say, but you just can’t continue expressing open allegiance to an ideology which is intent on our destruction and subjugation. To wit, this kind of thing in your scripture just isn’t on:
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve that ye may be on a level with them. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back to enmity then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend or helper from them (The Koran 4.89)
You have the option, we should emphasise, of openly embracing our values of equality, tolerance and freedom under the law of the land or of keeping shtum or of leaving. But discordant messages contained in much of your scripture, which strike at the foundations of our civilization, can no longer be broadcast in mosques, schools or anywhere else.
Or, of course, alternatively, we can be saps and accept our fate and begin saving up to pay the jizya. Feminists might want to notch down their stridency. Homosexuals and the sexually confused might want to consider aversion therapy.
Its a uniform. There’s quite a lot of stylistic freedom but it’s still a uniform.
The interesting fact is that the dress style of fully covered was initially implemented by the Beduins centuries ago to allow their women folk to do their toilets out in the open desert without the embarrassment of being watched by all sundry as they did their numbers 1 or 2’s. And then I also recall an observation by a family friend when working in the Middle East when he wondered why arabs, in kaftans, occasionally lowered themselves on their haunches in public – he discovered, one he obtained binoculars – that they were defecating.
People who live in the desert under the thrall of Islam would need to adopt appropriate clothing to minimise feelings of ’embarrassment’.
Makes you wonder what customs other nomadic, hunter gatherer tribes had in this respect.
In any case the necessity for keeping one’s identity secret for toilet purposes is not needed in the West; of course it would still be necessary if one preferred to live the nomadic tribal existence in the Middle East.
I look despondently around our western world, all the time wondering what the Hell is happening. What are our so called leaders thinking? I can only conclude that they are snivelling cowards and traitors to us and our hard won way off life. Do they hate themselves us much as they appear to hate me and my way of life that they pretend to champion?
I find it faintly amusing that there is so much hyperventilating about marriage “equality” for gays – and absoluetly none over marriage “equality” for Muslims. If one is a human rights issue, why not the other?
Many commentators are good at pointing out the problem. Nobody has yet espoused any feasible solution apart from violence, inevitable submission, or legalisms that exist in la-la land.
Perhaps if we started to re-educate our society about Christianity there might be a coherent public response to Islam. But I guess that will never happen either because we are too enlightened.
I agree with your 1st paragraph (in fact, I’ve made that same point several times), but as for the 2nd: why would I want to swap one superstition for another ?
The jihadis understand it very well – indiscriminate violence, even the threat of it, works very well for them. The western populations are terrified of it.
I believe that if you don’t provide a superstition for the mass of people, they’ll elect one or swallow which ever one is promoted the most. In the West, the current one is the cult of equality and Marxism in various guises as pushed by mainstream media and academia.
I used to think along your lines but now I figure that we just have to go back to what was once good enough. It wasn’t perfect (none of them are of course) but least it was ours and we could work within it.
I’m sorry but I really can’t make head nor tail of that. Are you suggesting that we enforce a re-embrace of a pottage of superstition commonplace enough before the Renaissance because it seemed to work in keeping Islam at bay ? Well, it kept the tigers out of London, too.
Actually, the current main Western pottage is Green – various leftoid bolt-ons are simply opportunistic. [That’s how the evolutionary process works :)]
Yes, that’s what I’m advocating. Reinforcement of a pottage of superstition with a moral code for how to live, reproduce and ultimately to strive to leave the place in a better position than when you found it. It worked in the past, whether it can work in the future remains to be seen but something needs to fill the void left. Hedonism and materialism are clearly dysgenic. Just look at our birth rates. Given that trend, you’ll get Islam anyway. So what’s worse? A reversion to *traditional* Christianity or adoption of Islam?
And yes you’re right, we have a pottage of Green superstitions including most prominently anthropogenic global warming (with leftoid bolt-ons)
🙂
Judaism is as barbaric in its statements towards non-Jews as Islam, but the adherents of that religion go about practising their religion in quite a different way. There are some choice quotes from the Talmud, arguably the most important book in the religion, available on the Internet. Do some research, read these and compare to what you’ve heard from the Koran. It shouldn’t be a surprise, they’re from the same dysfunctional region of the world, in fact you’d be easily mistaken for thinking they’re from the Koran, just replace Jew with Muslim.
Judaism has not inspired the mass slaughter of innocents, the hijacking of airplanes, the shooting of the Olympic athletes, genital mutilation of women or decapitation of prisoners against the Jews or non-Jews. Those”barbaric statements” you refer to were the response to the millennia of the genocidal persecution the Jewish people were the subject to by both the Christians and the Muslims. Besides, if you wish to be pedantic, the Christian Bible, which is the translated Torah is the logical source of a lot of barbarity. This fact did not interfere with the Jewish and the Christian ability to distinguish right from wrong and to be clear at the extent of taking such precepts literally.
Note that I didn’t specify the Torah here, I specified the Talmud, which unless I’m mistaken is the Judaic equivalent of the Sharia and Haddiths of Islam. I also understand that different sects favour one over the other.
And Let’s be honest: Judaism has inspired its fair share of zealots (a word associated with a particular sect of Judaism) though not as openly barbaric in modern times.
[Some people, e.g. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, would argue this as I’ve read somewhere that 80% of the Bolshevik first Soviet were ethnically Jewish and disproportionately represented amongst those who ordered, oversaw and conducted the murder of Christian Russians and Ukrainians during the Russian revolution.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War as a case in point.
Judaism HAS inspired genital mutilation: of boys. Why single out female genital mutilation as a particular evil? Jews also object to the outlawing of any genital mutilation on religious grounds.
I’m not letting Christianity of the hook, and I’m not religious myself so don’t have a dog in the race. If you have a list of hateful, supremacist and barbaric passages from the Christian bible — or any other major religion for that matter — please feel free to post them for comparison. Now, I’m hardly a scholar of Judaism, nor Islam for that matter, but I’ve yet to find anywhere in the Christian bible (new Testament at least) these kinds of proclamations, and they don’t look good or any better than what I’ve seen from the Koran:
A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat.
— Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348
When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.
— Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156
To communicate anything to a non-Jew about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the non-Jews knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.
— Libbre David 37
Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.
— Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L
Let’s face it: people don’t like bankers, and banking has been a traditional role of Jews throughout history since usury was against the religion of both Christians and Muslims. It’s also illegal in Judaism unless the debtor is a non-Jews. Bankers being expelled from approximately 109 locations throughout a 2000 year history sounds a little less dramatic than a blameless persecuted minority’s suffering at the hands of everyone who hated them for no reason. It’s like the Leftist victim-hood industry. Of course there were victims of pogroms who were targeted due to their religious associations, there always are and always will be, and it’s truly sad that those people get caught up in the violence. It’s also far from unique. What can you do though, multiculturalism…
I am unwillingly getting sucked into a discussion akin to a medieval ones , whereby an eminent Rabbi was obliged to publicly defend his faith from being condemned by a no less eminent opponent.The outcome of such a discussion was never in doubt and one of the participants would end up being roasted or otherwise executed. There are no prises for guessing which one could it be. This exercise in eloquence and polemic skills was not very popular amongst Rabbis. Imagine that.
If my opponent has a problem with the Jews – I am all right with this. I feel neither entitled to be loved because I am a Jew, nor I am worried about being disliked in Australia for the same reason. I would be worried if I’d have such an opponent in Russia or in Saudi Arabia.
Nevertheless, let me repeat myself: The quotations , which have been arbitrarily presented, was a reflection of a sheer desperation and , yes, anger of the Jewish people at the treatment they were receiving. All, I repeat all of these anger statements, had been in misuse for hundreds of years if not longer. To use them now as an evidence of the wickedness of the Jews is like the use of the other anti-Semitic canards – blood libel, deicide, spread of the bubonic plague etc. I do not wish to prevent anyone from having an open debate on any subject but I thought that long ago we have come to conclusion that the Earth is round, the Jews did not kill Christian babies for Matzot and we did not kill Christ. At least that is what The Pope said.
Besides, Christianity and , probably, Islam had derived their ethical and moral standards from the very same Jews my conversational partner seem to be bent on maligning so studiously. Well, There’s quite a body of such a literature – Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example…
But , seriously, if the Jews are so bad in treating the non-Jews – how The Commandments appeared? It might be news for you but Christianity founders, who took His body off the cross, grieved over Him and went on to spread the message across the globe were the Jews one and all? That the man you call Jesus Christ was a Jew and never called Himself nothing else? That the woman who gave birth to Him was a simple Jewish girl Miriam? That The Golden rule of morality was formulated by the great Hillel long before it was attributed to anyone else? And you think that several phrases said in anger outweigh all this? Well, Sir, if you believe that, you will believe anything.
The male circumcision, which you call a genital mutilation, was introduced for health reasons, to prevent collection of the smegma under the prepucium, which, in the desert conditions led to phimosis and paraphimosis – two very painful and dangerous inflammation of the penile area around the glans penis. It is now a sign of a Covenant with Almighty, that is true but it still has health benefits , which are widely recognised by the non-Jewish parents. There are no such benefits in female genital mutilation.
The long list of the Bolsheviks and Commissars of the Jewish origin is, unfortunately , long and is a source of a shame and remorse for all Jews. In his remarkable in its depth and evenhandedness book “The history of the Jews” Paul Johnson aptly coined a definition for such Jews -“A non-Jewish Jews”. These people, however brilliant and devoted to their chimera of the “Socialist haven” on Earth had rejected Judaism as irrelevant to the class struggle. More than that – they persecuted Judaism alongside of all existing religions and many committed atrocities in the name of the Marxist utopia. All of them were clearly and loudly condemned and many were cursed by their families, their communities and their Rabbis.
Last, but not least. Bankers. Oh, those bankers, those bloodsuckers. Everyone hates them.These Jewish bankers, however, were presented as though it was their natural greed, the inbuilt Shylock complex, which had driven them all to rob the poor. However, when one would remember that the Jews were not permitted an entrance into any guild, any profession including working the land but only handling money – where else would you go?
I will not continue this discussion , because I have said all I wanted and have no desire to convince the convinced.
I also apologise to Peter Smith for deviating from the subject of his, as usually, succinct and passionate , article.
Those are fairly well known lies about Jewish texts; non-existant books in a couple of cases.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html
And about the bankers and usury – adultery was also banned for Christians and Muslims. Would the OP like to argue that this is the reason Jews had to do it for them?
Thanks for both replies. I’ve taken the link on face-value (as I had taken the original quotes). I’m somewhat confused though as “a propos” has stated that the koran-like statements in the religious books of Judaism are the result of persecution, yet gary@erko states that they’re fairly well known lies. I would add that it’s not fairly well known and it’s not fairly well known that they’re lies. Most people, including myself, have been utterly ignorant of what’s written in the holy books of Judaism. I’m also ignorant of how what’s written as law there has been interpreted through time and the process that is used to rule on new interpretations.
I’d also like to point out that scholars of Islam say that the barbaric things in the Koran are a reaction to the persecution of Mohammad and his followers in the early days, so we can’t really judge the latter parts of the Koran that deal with Jihad etc. They also say that those Muslims committing atrocities are non-Muslim Muslims or some other such justification. What’s more, Christians historically have been one of the most persecuted religions on the planet and in the middle East that remains so, but whatever has befallen the Christians hasn’t lead to a change in the cannon in favour of reactionary violence. Papal bulls calling for revenge against the conquering Muslims (Crusades) don’t really count because that’s not in the gospels.
So, aiming to get back on topic, my point in raising the ideologies from Judaism is that I’m trying to draw a comparison between ideologies. At times and places in the past, the aggressive proselytising, supremacist nature of Islam wasn’t a problem for the surrounding non-muslims, but the mere fact that the ideology is codified as sacred truth has meant that the situation changed depending on 1) who’s receiving the ideology and 2) the focus of the Imams giving it.
Now, some barbaric things are coded in the Christian Bible and the Talmud and Torah and for the most part haven’t lead to the kind of systematic savagery we’ve seen in Islam. Is that a consequence of the people giving and receiving the message? Is the problem with Islam or with certain Muslim cultures? Is it a religious issue or a race issue or a combination of the two?
However, fixing the Islam issue in the West will not resolve its terminal decline.
It’s curious that you think I’m convinced on this matter though. To quote @apropos, “To use them now as an evidence of the wickedness of the Jews is like the use of the other anti-Semitic canards”. It looks like you’re saying, in short, “You’re an anti-semite for raising this”. This is a straw-man argument — how have I given evidence of the wickedness of the Jews? Who defines what is and isn’t anti-semitism? Who defines what is and isn’t racist? Who defines what is and isn’t an Islamophobe? How and why are these accusations levelled at people? (Refer to current articles on Quadrant). Are Jews acting out on these rulings in large scale at this point in time? I’m ignorant of such behaviour. Could they at some future time and place? Well, that’s a more interesting question and as I admitted above I no knowledge of the legal traditions of Judaism. I intend to study this more though.
To gary@erko: Perhaps you can enlighten us with a comparative analysis of the preconditions for conducting and the consequences of usury and committing adultery (hell, why not throw in Sodomy as well).
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t female genital mutilation entail a removing of the outward part of the clitoris?
Comparing a clitorectomy with foreskin removal even before considering their spiritual and social purposes shouldn’t be considered worthy of anyone’s serious thought.
Right?
Perhaps you’ll also grow accustomed to the social and spiritual purposes behind clitorectomy. Just give it time, another few generations contact with Islam.
Given
1) we don’t live as nomads in the desert
2) we have modern sanitation to avoid and medicine to treat the kinds of ailments that circumcision was said to alleviate
3) we understand the life-long damage and potential medical risks (e.g. infection) that chopping-off pieces of a baby’s genitals cause
consideration of the social and spiritual purposes of circumcision isn’t worthy of anyone’s serious thought.
Right?
The male counterpart of clitoridectomy would have to be amputation of the entire penis, not just foreskin removal. The aim of it after all has to be removal of any possibility of female sexual pleasure, and thereby to control female sexual behaviour.
Islam merely inherited this barbaric practice as baggage dragged along by the (largely African) tribes it conquered and/or converted.
There is a hadith somewhere so I have heard, that quotes Mohammad as saying “there should not be much cutting” – whatever that might mean.
–
And there was a Western Enlightenment and a Jewish enlightenment, which changed attitudes considerably. So acarroll’s statement, and yours are both correct. Jewish political attitudes today are as complex and as varied as you can get, and this in itself has much to do with the various pogroms and holocausts that have happened over the millennia. Even regarding those who established the ‘state’ we now know as Israel: there were religious Zionists and there were hard core communists. The Soviet Union fully supported Israel in its inception, but then became turned on by other minority groups when Israel started relying heavily on the USA. The leading thinkers in the iniquitous Hamburg school, which I mention below, were largely Jewish and they fled to America, wisely, or they would have ended up in the concentration camps with the 6 million Jews who were exterminated. Jewish attitudes to the Palestinians and the West Bank Jewish settlements are also very divergent, and I’m talking about within Israel, not only here and in America. Look at the people and organisations that advertise in our Australian Jwire, talks given by that hideous Michael Kirby, for instance ( I notice that the same ad doesn’t show up in The Spectator or The Australian).
The Jewish people have some of the sharpest minds in the world today, and that too has been forged by adversity. The Talmud, if one were to think of a predominant theme, is about adversity, and adversity does funny things to humans: certainly it sharpens you, but it can also make you over sensitive to apparent adversity suffered by other minority groups (despite blatant victim card mentality) or it can mould your Netanyahus and your Ariel Sharons (I’m all for the Sharons of the world).
p.s. Dear acarroll,
You may, understandably find this very personal and equally disgusting, but my father (a Christian) cut off the foreskins of all three of his children, not as part of some weird fundamentalist desert Christian sect, but because, as a doctor, he considered it far more hygienic. I assume anyone silly enough to read this has finished breakfast.
p.p.s My sister Philippa was left untouched, intact.
Peter Smith suggests that Islam is already ( and forever should be) ‘against the law ( of any free western democracy) … This is the solution
“This action does not start with banning outward symbols of Islam. That action is tenable only if Islam, as it is currently practiced, is itself outlawed. The case for doing so would have to be made. But that would not be too hard. The very scripture itself and the mayhem it is creating around the world is conclusive evidence enough.”
So ban Islam just as we ban slavery … not because it hides behind the mask of religion – but because it is an outrage against all humanity. If the left side with Islam, they side with the existential enemies of the state … and thus themselves become traitors. They also side with a massive abuse of all we know as humanity through freedom of thought.
Sadly, they are more to be pitied than laughed at. Especially the women.
They have been brainwashed and oppressed since birth, many also suffering genital mutilation. Now THAT really is child abuse.
Kept in ignorance, with limited education, they develop something like the Stockholm Syndrome.
Islam is incompatible with freedom, either freedom of religion or freedom of thought.
What is the answer for Australia? No more muslim immigrants, and programmes to encourage those here to leave, for a society that better meets their requirements.
The alternative? Submission.
Excellent article and a clear presentation of the pros and cons. My suggestion for a workable compromise is as follows, until a sustained and polite campaign of education about which Islamic values should not be tolerated in Australia does its work.
1. Muslim women should be free to wear what they choose, and it should be assumed that they have chosen thus.
2. All forms of facial identification required by Australian law should mandate the removal of all head covering for a full face photograph.
3. All places where security checks are required, such as airports, should require removal of any head covering to enable proper comparison with required documents.
4. All places where covered faces are a security threat, such as banks, will require uncovering for the period of entry.
5. All requests by police or other authorised officials for identification shall require removal to facilitate correlation with licences or ID cards.
In this way, Muslim women are catered to in terms of their modesty, while removal will be infrequent and short. Obtaining licences and passports is not compulsory, so the truly devout can maintain full coverage 24/7.
(It should be noted in passing that full coverage is not in the Koran, but a tradition that grew after Mohammed’s death, following on from a requirement for certain women to cover up in his tent only. Argument against full body coverage is therefore not anti-Islamic or anti-religious (and therefore open to 18C), but merely argument against an outdated middle-eastern custom.)
I would add 6., to bar driving or riding a motor vehicle or riding a man-powered cycle when wearing a Burka or Niqab, or any face covering that limits vision in any way.
The feminists of the West have a strange attitude towards Islam and its treatment of women. Muslims mutilate the genitals of female children, women who are raped can be executed for bringing dishonour to their families, and women are definitely second class citizens under Islam, and yet the feminists never protest. But, of course, if Tony Abbott looks at his watch while a woman is speaking, the feminists are incandescent with rage.
On second thoughts, feminism has some characteristics in common with Islam. Feminism is based on hate, and a belief that anything is permissible in the quest to remake society to conform with ideology.
Time to get over the debate: the science is settled and this insidious virus is threatening our lives and way of life.
Every concession generates the next one as they use the weakness of free choice and reasonable behaviour against free choice and reasonable behaviour. They can cover their women in a tent, beat and mutilate THEIR women, insist on halal food and be offended and violent against nudists, gays, apostates and … well just about everyone they decide is today’s target.
The answer is to set the rules (oops, we have) and then apply them (oops, we do not) with no exceptions. Children who cannot comply with school rules are dealt with as delinquent children and their parents fined until they are destitute. Parking laws outside of mosques are enforced (but have the riot police standing by). Harass them with freedom.
Ban the (Tony) Burqua from all government buildings (including Centrelink), prosecute polygamists (they do so in Utah!).
We either civilly resist now or get used to random terrorism and sex-crimes as part of the Australian way of life until they are strong enough for the very uncivil guerilla war our desk generals are entirely unprepared for and incapable of fighting.
The issue for me is the fact that the burqa is a relatively recent expression of Islamic obedience. Fair enough, you might say. However, its popularity is growing (at least that is the impression) among Muslims living in non-Muslim nations, and one then has to wonder why. My belief is that the burqa is being used as provocation and to assert Islamic culture in a passive-aggressive manner. The more that non-Muslims are alarmed or suspicious of the burqa, the more will appear on the streets.
The ‘burkini’ would be considered outrageous in any country where that prescriptive warrior code called Islam holds the majority of the population in thrall. So I would guess that it is only permitted by the powers that be within western Islam because of popular demand coming from Muslim women. This sort of thing would never be permitted in Muslim majority countries, so I would say that it represents a major concession on the part of the western Islamic clerics. As such, it is to be welcomed, and the French authorities who oppose it have got rocks in their heads IMHO.
History shows that when an authoritarian edifice starts to crack, those cracks will likely deepen and spread.
Congratulations Peter! This is one of your finest articles, presenting and arguing an awkward dilemma brilliantly. The following link might be of interest for people who are dismayed over the fact that all political leaders are kowtowing to Islam. Here is an exception.
https://youtu.be/SaJHckKzUU4
(It is a great shame that some readers irresponsibly appropriate the commenting facility for arguing over their pet notions with complete disregard for the article.)
Peter starts well but nuns off the rails when he implies the burkini is a trojan horse. I’m not sure whether he wants to ban it or not. He fails to make the distinction between beachware and streetware. There can be no objection to dressing up at the beach, and if beachgoers are to be quizzed as to their religious, political or moral reasons for their garb, we have lost our minds. If you don ‘t agree you may be convinced by one of the world’s strident critics of Islamist expansion, Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2016/09/isis-imposes-a-partial-ban-on-burqas
Your comment is quite unfair to Peter, Geoffrey. If he left you wondering whether he advocates or opposes the banning of the burkini, he has presented the issue well. It is a very awkward conundrum. The salient point is that the burkini is yet another surreptitious means of enhancing the acceptability of the “peaceful, non-threatening religion of peace”. Daniel Pipes also appears not to appreciate this obvious fact.
Geoffrey, I don’t think I suggested that the burkini is a Trojan horse; a Trojan hoof maybe. Islam purporting to be only a religion is the Trojan horse. I don’t go along with all of Daniel Pipe’s views. He seems to think, mistakenly, that Islam can be reformed. I agree that it is problematic to prevent people overdressing. Overdressing would not be a problem if we outlawed the current practice of Islam in mosques and schools and elsewhere within our western democracies. Of course they can do what they want in Saudi Arabia and in other Muslim countries.
I’m too sexy for my Shi’ite!!
Western Islam’s underbelly is most likely to be found in its education system. Islam teaches its own innate superiority, and that it will one day rule the whole world. That is nothing short of child abuse, and should be banned.
BUT if only for the sake of even-handedness, that is only possible within the framework of total abolition of all religious education, and a return to the original idea of ‘free, compulsory and secular’ as advocated by Sir Henry Parkes back in the 1880sin NSW. Christian schools avoided that, as could Islamic ones in future, unless ‘free, compulsory and secular’ is universal and rigidly adhered to.
As the Islamic clerics are now apparently counting on Muslims overtaking non-Muslims purely by out-breeeding them, by their own calculations they will not have long to go before they have significant pockets of local population, and a realistic perspective of Australia eventually becoming an Islamic country.
Christianity is responsible for all of our Western freedoms and progress. We don’t need to be even handed. Islam is a blight on humanity. Christianity is a boon. Christianity is an integral part of our civilisation and in my view should be taught and honoured in all public schools.
Peter,
“Christianity is responsible for all of our Western freedoms and progress… should be taught and honoured…” Agreed, up to a point. But there are a lot of people around who might question or dispute that, me included. After all, the ancient Ionian Greeks had a pretty good ‘freedom and progress’ run before Christianity even appeared.
“Islam is a blight…” Agreed
Arguably, the history of Christianity (as in the Christian Church) has been a bit like a matinee down at the old picture show: Main feature- The Sound of Music support: Frankenstein.
If you don’t believe it, I suggest you read a bit wider in Pre-Reformation history. The Medieval Church was largely a cesspit, and attracted rent-seekers as a cowpat attracts blowflies. They flocked to it all over Europe, generating some classic power struggles. (There have been two Popes called John XXIII; ‘Good Pope John’ and the other bloke, (Bad Pope John) airbrushed out. But I digress.
It is just that I think the politics of it all will likely be easier if we are not seen to be hobbling Islam while giving Christianity the inside rail.
But on that, as on everything, I try to keep an open mind.
Ian, in support of Peter’s claim, one has to remember that, until the Enlightenment, the vast majority of individuals in the West were Christian. Every single aspect of their lives was shaped by Christianity: structure, order, belief, architecture, art, conduct, family, guilds, business practise, diplomacy, guilt, conscience, repentance, restitution, hierarchy, primogeniture and the list goes on from the least important aspect of day to day life, to the most important. Western Civilisation was Christian, not atheistic, not Muslim, not Communist, not Hindu, not anything other than Christian.There was not ‘agreed, up to a point’, there was no half measures and whether or not atheists dispute it or not, does not change what has been and what has changed for the worse.
Post Enlightenment (should be called ‘After drawing the curtains’) you have quite a different story and the undermining had begun, and in earnest in the Twentieth Century and finally switching off the lights in the Twenty First Century cheered on by the ABC, CNN, SMH, HRC, UN, the EU, the current Victorian Gov. President Obama and his mate Hillary, Black Lives Matter, Get Up, the Greens (all over the world), half the Liberal Party, 83% of Labor and the current Ayottolah of Iran, the past few Ayottolahs of Iran and every other blinking Muslim and his dog. I’m afraid I fully agree with Peter, except I don’t think the fightback against Islam will come via Christianity: I think it will be an Eastern European driven blood-bath.
Warty:
Noted.
But where SPECIFICALLY was I wrong in my post (above) of September 7, 2016 at 10:20 pm?
It is more that you are focusing on the Church per se (and even that is in accurate, in that there was no ‘Christian Church’ post reformation and prior to the Reformation it was the Holy (not holy) Roman Catholic Church, but I’m nit picking there. But it is the focus on the church bit, which introduces rivers of murky water, particularly when one examines some of the Renaissance popes, who’d be behind bars today. Nevertheless Christianity, belief, devotion, prayer and the desire to depict Biblical stories, and characters, produced a wealth of art and devotional music that enriched a civilisation. I don’t know if you’ve ever spent five, ten or minutes looking at the Pieta in St Peter’s basilica: as you probably know, you need no interpretation, you need no guide explaining what it means: it simply takes your breath away, and you can’t tell me there’s a single sculptor, anywhere in the world, capable of such a work of art: it is an inspired piece of work. Forget the ‘history of Christianity’ bit, because it depends on who is doing the retelling, and it depends on what the reteller is focusing on. The day to day aspects of living Christianity, as it would have been for Judaism, and their brilliance (beyond compare) lay in the awe inspiring Rabbinical scholarship and volumes learnt of by heart and debated and discussed, enriching minds and uplifting whole communities. But the good stuff, the brilliant works being the glue that held civilisation together, and is only now being dragged down by influences you and I are deeply opposed to, e.g. Marxist and neo Marxist ideology. The whole thrust, post scientific age, has been to drag the spiritual down to a materialistic level, so that those unspiritual can claim to understand and then ridicule. It has reached the point where defenders of faith, spirituality, transcendence etc may as well be whistling in the wind.
The point is . . . not to examine ‘the Church’ but to talk about the heritage of Christianity, the tangible things you can see, particularly when you travel through Europe. The intangible is fast disappearing.
Frankenstein was the scientist, by the way, not the monster.
Mention Frankenstein and people straight away think ‘monster’; or ‘the mind behind the monster’. Frankenstein in a way, is indivisible.
I never said otherwise. (BTW I own the original on DVD featuring Boris Karloff. Still one helluva movie.)
I was fortunate enough to see the Pieta shortly after it was restored following the amendments to it that were made by Laslo Toth with his hammer. (That Hungarian’s name has an immutable place in the history of art – though I believe he had acquired Australian citizenship, and there was public confusion as to which of the two nations was entitled to claim ownership of him, as both were reluctant to.)
It is indeed a magnificent piece of work from one of the world’s greatest artists. But unfortunately, like a helluva lot of classical religious art, it is merde d’un taureau if you take my meaning. It is not just because Mary is depicted as a youthful woman, about the same age as her crucified son – no doubt endless debate about the significance and symbolism of that – but because it deliberately cultivates illusion, misperception and therefore misunderstanding in the mind of the viewer. Public crucifixion was intended by the Romans to instil fear, impotence and mass resignation to their rule on the part of the subject peoples of the Empire. It was absolutely brutal, barbaric and ruthless. Though not terribly elaborate – hanging the victim up on tree was sufficient; never mind dressed timber – it produced a slow and agonising death. Death when it eventually came was not due to loss of blood: that was minimal. It was due to cramps, in turn brought on by oxygen starvation of the muscles, which went into spasm and inescapable contraction as a result. If you have ever had a leg cramp, you will know what I am talking about. But crucifixion induced cramps in most if not all of the skeletal muscles simultaneously.
I have never seen a crucifixion painting which had clear intention to convey any such message to the viewer. Every one that I have seen is mired in the Christian idea of sin and redemption, often overlaid with a goodly shellacking of pathos. Beauty and inspiration can be found in all of this, but despite the religious overtones rather than because of them.
(If you want a genuinely electrifying religious experience, join a group of hymn singers, or better still, one that is into repetitive chanting.)
IMHO in the entire canon of western art, there is no finer painting than Renoir’s Afternoon of the Boating Party, which simply shows a group of young men and women out to have a few drinks together in a pavilion by the bank of a river. Its message is all to be found in studying the lines of sight of the participants.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/reverse-assimilation-the-muslim-takeover-of-europe/
Ian, you are employing the modern mind (not an altogether surprising outcome, seeing you live in the 21st Century) but all this cerebral stuff is not what the Pieta is about, or Michael Angelo’s David for that matter. It is about the beauty of the piece (and art then was not cerebral) the compassion, the pathos, the unquestioned love of mother for son. My wife, an artist and an art teacher for some fifteen years, was well aware of the incongruity regarding age, which you pick up on, but when confronted by (the now fenced off) real thing, could only speak about the experience, and being a woman, the range of emotion was greater than mine. For me it was simply beautiful and the extraordinary medium (sculpted marble) enhanced the purity and therefore the message: a definite spiritual experience.
I sing. The last choir I belonged to was the Sydney Welsh, so I agree about the transcendent experience of singing in a choir, but there are more than one way of experiencing being uplifted, none of which has anything to do with your discussion of crucifixion and cramps and so forth (all part of your denunciation of the realism of the Pieta (I presume). Really, that is all pure ‘Enlightenment’ reasoning stuff and not relevant to the topic of Christianity and the impact of Christianity on society. Truth in that sense has nothing to do with scientific accuracy, in fact such precision puts one into quite a different area of mind (as I alluded to above). Your comment: ‘the Christian idea of sin and redemption, often overlaid with a goodly shellacking of pathos’ is simply an attack on your interpretation of Catholicism, which switches the topic to one of theology, again cerebral, and not something either Peter or I were talking about. One would need space for a lengthy thesis to get into that area, but again off topic and not one I’d be willing to defend, as I have rather different views about sin, confession, redemption etc.
Unfortunately,there was no ‘reply’ button at the end of your comment.
Sorry: In the post below it should be Luncheon of the Boating Party
http://www.phillipscollection.org/collection/boating-party
Even in order to justify mysticism of any kind, from Holy Trinity to the wackiest New Age stuff, one has to use reason. It is the foundation and bedrock of everything: and I speak from the viewpoint of a musician and composer as well as a scientist.
Think about though. What could be weirder than the bikini? A very strange garment indeed. There is something especially prudish about a bikini. The burkini is modest and resembles the old-fashioned bathing costumes favoured for both men and women under the influence of Christianity in Victorian times. It looks alright and is not actually offensive.
What is offensive to many people is the other extreme, full-frontal nudity. Ask my wife. She was unwillingly confronted by the sight of a completely nude fat white male displaying his dubious virtues at the door of the changing room of the local swimming pool recently. Public nudity is a form of exhibitionism and is usually offensive to all except the perpetrators.
Which leaves us with the peculiar pair of garments favoured in Australia, the bikini, and budgie smugglers. Mostly the contents of the latter are about the size of a budgie and therefore ridiculous. If larger, the result is usually fairly off-putting. The bikini remains however an ungainly, usually ill-fitting garment that is neither here-nor-there. The burkini is in every way superior in my view, and I hope it catches on.
Ian, just to quote a well know musician and composer, who argued that religious experience need not be ‘justified’ by reason: ‘If you want a genuinely electrifying religious experience, join a group of hymn singers, or better still, one that is into repetitive chanting’. I’ve forgotten his name, but he was right on the money there.
Definitely. Right on.
😉