![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheBronwyn Bishop: wingnut.
Let me see if I've got this straight...
Some people who claim to be leaders of a large group of disparate people...
which claim is either hotly disputed or simply ignored by most of those over whom authority is claimed
... speak their mind.
which is their right
The opinion thus expressed is offensive.
which merely demonstrates to the thoughtful that the speaker is an idiot
Therefore the only reasonable response is to force innocent children to change their dress codesdespite because this dress code is seen as a religious requirement.
Problem: A couple of idiots mouth off.
Solution: force every person who happens to be of the same religion to break harmless practices which hold religious force to adherants.
So, when a fundie Christian says that a theocracy would be preferable to a liberal democracy, the only meaningful response is to ban the wearing of crucifixes?
If a Rabbi denigrates liberal democracy by saying that too many rights are given to Muslims, then all wigs and yarmulkas are to be confiscated?
The scary thing is that there are people *cough*Andrew Bolt*cough* who will think this an entirely reasonable proposition, provided, of course, that it applies only to Muslims. If this sort of thing were suggested for Christians, why, the mere thought is simply an outrage!
Can the UFOs come and take me now, please?
Ms Bishop has in recent days backed the view of outspoken Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos in calling for the ban, describing the wearing of the hijab as an iconic act of defiance."I think it is because a lot of people are thinking about it and I think it's time people stood up to be counted," Ms Bishop told ABC radio.
...
"It has become the icon, the symbol of the clash of cultures, and it runs much deeper than a piece of cloth.
"The fact of the matter is we've got people in our country who are advocating - and I'm talking about extremist Islamist leaders - the overturning of our laws which guarantee freedom."
Ms Bishop said she had no problem with members of other faiths adorning themselves with religious symbols, such as Christians wearing a cross or Orthodox Jews a yarmulke.
"I have no concerns about people who wear a cross or people who wear a skull-cap because I haven't heard any leaders of those communities stand up and say the very fabric of our society should be overturned," she said.
Let me see if I've got this straight...
Some people who claim to be leaders of a large group of disparate people...
which claim is either hotly disputed or simply ignored by most of those over whom authority is claimed
... speak their mind.
which is their right
The opinion thus expressed is offensive.
which merely demonstrates to the thoughtful that the speaker is an idiot
Therefore the only reasonable response is to force innocent children to change their dress codes
Problem: A couple of idiots mouth off.
Solution: force every person who happens to be of the same religion to break harmless practices which hold religious force to adherants.
So, when a fundie Christian says that a theocracy would be preferable to a liberal democracy, the only meaningful response is to ban the wearing of crucifixes?
If a Rabbi denigrates liberal democracy by saying that too many rights are given to Muslims, then all wigs and yarmulkas are to be confiscated?
The scary thing is that there are people *cough*Andrew Bolt*cough* who will think this an entirely reasonable proposition, provided, of course, that it applies only to Muslims. If this sort of thing were suggested for Christians, why, the mere thought is simply an outrage!
Can the UFOs come and take me now, please?
