Sickening violence highlights urgent need to protect faith

[lizardley]

Sickening violence highlights urgent need to protect signs of faith, just don’t suppress others in doing so:

"HORRIFIC reports of an attack on a Catholic professor in Kerala, India, have dramatically underlined the need for religious tolerance. Assailants cut of the hand and right arm of Professor TJ Joseph following accusations that he had defaming the Prophet Mohammed. He had been on his way back from Church.

"However Conservative MP Phillip Hollobone’s recent bid to ban the Muslim veil in Britain raises questions that are uncomfortable to answer. How can we try to ban the burqa and niqab while remaining an effective voice in the struggle taking place to defend Christianity, such as the ongoing attempt to defend the right to display the Crucifix in Europe? Wouldn’t that make us hypocrites?

“And before you cry the two are not related, there is no comparison in the dilemmas, it is apples and oranges, answer this: Aren’t both the burqa and the Crucifix public signs of religious heritage? The bottom line is we must protect our Christian heritage, but we should not attempt to do so by suppressing the religious and cultural freedoms of others. If we do how can we criticise oppressive regimes for the self same behaviour? We must protect our rights and the rights of others…”
scobserver.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/protecting-signs-of-faith/

 

[itrytofight]

Sickening violence highlights urgent need to protect signs of faith, just don’t suppress others in doing so:

"HORRIFIC reports of an attack on a Catholic professor in Kerala, India, have dramatically underlined the need for religious tolerance. Assailants cut of the hand and right arm of Professor TJ Joseph following accusations that he had defaming the Prophet Mohammed. He had been on his way back from Church.

"However Conservative MP Phillip Hollobone’s recent bid to ban the Muslim veil in Britain raises questions that are uncomfortable to answer. How can we try to ban the burqa and niqab while remaining an effective voice in the struggle taking place to defend Christianity, such as the ongoing attempt to defend the right to display the Crucifix in Europe? Wouldn’t that make us hypocrites?

“And before you cry the two are not related, there is no comparison in the dilemmas, it is apples and oranges, answer this: Aren’t both the burqa and the Crucifix public signs of religious heritage? The bottom line is we must protect our Christian heritage, but we should not attempt to do so by suppressing the religious and cultural freedoms of others. If we do how can we criticise oppressive regimes for the self same behaviour? We must protect our rights and the rights of others…”
scobserver.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/protecting-signs-of-faith/

I can agree with that, the problem is getting both sides to respect the other while maintaining the right to spread the good news without it resulting in blood shed.

 

[humble_maid]

Peace,

I agree that we must do something to protect christianity; however allowing the right for islamic women to cover their faces is not the same as allowing crucifixes in public places. As one commentator stated on the issue of the crosses is ‘that it is not an imposition of religion but an invitation.’ While covering one’s face is not an invitation, nor an imposition it brings up the question of national protection.

In the western culture only thieves or dubious people cover their faces in order to conceal their identity. The practice of covering one’s face should not be permissable in our culture; furthermore in some islamic states, women are free to show their faces. It is not a law. This is an attack on our democratic system to snuff out all that is christian and replace it with a religion of fear and submission.

Here is a quote from the link:

"Prior to launching his Face Coverings (Regulation) private member’s bill Mr Hollobone spoke in the Commons on the issue.

“In my view and that of my constituents, the niqab and the burqa are oppressive dress codes that are regressive as regards the advancement of women in our society,” he said."

 

[Teelynn]

Peace,

I agree that we must do something to protect christianity; however allowing the right for islamic women to cover their faces is not the same as allowing crucifixes in public places. As one commentator stated on the issue of the crosses is ‘that it is not an imposition of religion but an invitation.’ While covering one’s face is not an invitation, nor an imposition it brings up the question of national protection.

In the western culture only thieves or dubious people cover their faces in order to conceal their identity. The practice of covering one’s face should not be permissable in our culture; furthermore in some islamic states, women are free to show their faces. It is not a law. This is an attack on our democratic system to snuff out all that is christian and replace it with a religion of fear and submission.

Here is a quote from the link:

"Prior to launching his Face Coverings (Regulation) private member’s bill Mr Hollobone spoke in the Commons on the issue.

“In my view and that of my constituents, the niqab and the burqa are oppressive dress codes that are regressive as regards the advancement of women in our society,” he said."/quote

I can agree with this wholeheartedly…and especially in the times we are living. National security has to be addressed. I don’t think we have the right to ban burqa’s because they are oppressive and backward for the rights of women, but western society definitely has the right to do so to keep it’s citizens safe.

 

[smithm29]

This is an attack on our democratic system to snuff out all that is christian and replace it with a religion of fear and submission.

That’s a pretty big hyperbolic leap. A woman covering her face attacks democracy and Christianity and replaces it with fear and submission? I would hope that both of those things are strong enough to handle a fringe group.

Not long ago, a report was issued in the UK about bowling alleys. The report suggested that bowling alleys needed to do something to stop children from going down the lanes and getting caught in the equipment that picks up the pins. Even though this has never happened before, the chance that it could is just too much, and bowling alleys should spend the money to build the safety feature.

The burqa and national security is pretty much the same thing. Right off the top of my head, I know of no bombings or attempted bombings in the west by women with their faces covered. The argument is merely meant to stoke nationalistic fears.