I guess you can order burqas online line now, which makes the image of Pauline Hanson shopping for one a lot less funny
Pauline knew this, which creates a fantastic situation where the head of One Nation was better educated on Islamic cultural sensitivities than someone from the Greens. I'm not one to judge (much) but I'm tipping most of the Greens consider themselves better educated than Pauline on everything but the consistency of flake batter, so that'll come as a bit of a sting to Peter.
I don't like Pauline. I think she's a fear monger, who picks and chooses which facts to believe and has little thought for the consequences of her words and actions. The burqa's a good example: she sees it as a symbol of Islam as a whole. In truth, the practice is followed by a minority, and generally it's attached to the Wahhabi side of things. If you want to talk about how a woman chooses to wear a burqa, it's probably best to avoid the Wahhabis, unless you also want to argue that women in Saudi Arabia also choose not to drive, not to travel without escort (and often a signed permission slip from their father or husband) and willingly get stoned to death when accused of adultery. You're gonna have a bad time. Wahhabism is a textbook example of why religion shouldn't mix with politics. Burqas are a bit of a symbol of this, and as such are problematic. I'm not an advocate for banning them, but when my least favourite (and most amusing) politician says they're problematic and represent an element of a religion that cannot assimilate into Australian culture, she has a point. Freedom to practice your religion is important - but it has to be a choice.
I know christians on both sides of the argument regarding the upcoming plebiscite. I also know people on both sides of the "born this way" debate, or not-debate, depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Or, I guess you could be sitting on the fence, in several metaphors, and be even more certain of your belief.*
Anyway. I think people in the "No" camp have a poor understanding of politics and religion, and that many people in the "Yes" camp are struggling to come to grips with what freedom of religion and respect of other people's culture is supposed to mean. You've read this far, so I'll elaborate.
There are two arguments in particular that keep popping up in the No camp. The first is that marriage equality (not usually referred to as such) is the first horseman, as it were, which represents a downfall of morality in society. If gay marriage is OK, then soon it'll be men marrying goats, or kids, and gays adopting kids.
There's two parts to respectfully debating this. The first is consent, which goats and kids legally can't give, and that's unlikely to change. The second is that if you're worried about homosexuals having kids, you've really missed the boat. Gay couples can adopt. Single people can adopt too. Having gay parents equates to being gay yourself exactly has much as having straight parents makes you straight, going to church makes you christian, or having a degree makes you intelligent.
The second is that marriage is an institution of the church, and should line up with the biblical definition of marriage. "Homosexuality is unquestionably a sin" will usually show up here, too.
Again, two things: Firstly, marriage is a government institution, which is allowed to be practiced by churches and celebrants only with the expressed consent of the government. The lovely Certificate of Marriage that your besties signed as witnesses won't allow you to change your name at VicRoads. It's a wallhanger. You don't go to your pastor for a divorce. Unless, that is, you live in a time or place where the church is in control of the government, which has often ended in crusades, beheadings, ethnic cleansing and general ignoring of human rights. (See: Rome, England, current day Saudi Arabia)
The second part regards arguing about the scriptures. Very few people are properly qualified to do this with certainty. Of course, people should still debate scriptures, just like they should political theory, or tax law. It is a democracy, after all. If you, or someone you know, wants to use bible verses to justify their outlook, that's fine. But remind them to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. What people sometimes forget about the separation of church and state, is that it is as much about the Church not dictating the government as it is about the government dictating the Church. If you enjoy freedom of religion, and your personal freedom in engaging in Christianity in the particular way that you do, then you should probably think about whether or not you should be voting to limit the choices of others. God gave us free will: I'd like to think he expected us to give it to others as well.
For some reason The Age published a story about how "Idiots still climb Uluru". I didn't read it, because... really? That's what needs to be written about right now? It did however get me thinking.
Most Australians respect the wishes of the Indigenous peoples and do not partake in something that causes no physical harm whatsoever to anybody, except that it offends a culture based on spirits, gods, and things that can be in no way measured by science. Keep this in mind when talking to someone who's world view is conditioned by a religion that you do not yourself practice. When right-wing christians claim they will be targeted unfairly and not respected within the debate, they do so because of historical occurrences of being not respected.
I'm not suggesting the ridicule or targeting of the church is on par or any way comparable to violence against homosexuals, or the verbal (or literal) bashings received by people who look remotely moslem on the train. Pain is not comparable, it is measured in only in a very personal sense. So please, tread lightly. We live in a democracy, and part of that is the right to an opinion that goes against broad consensus.
After all, you don't have to be qualified for your opinion to count, you just have to be old enough to vote.
*That's a bisexual joke, but you have to think about it
No comments:
Post a Comment