Wearing of Burka

[Pabmusic]

...So no wonder it is extremely hard for anyone to argue with them over anything...

It's why Richard Nixon was so awkward, I suppose.

Then there's Unitarians...

[By the way, to the extent that I have any religious influence, it's from (wait for it) - Quakers and Unitarians!]

[scottycelt]

I've worked with a number of Quaker organisations over the years and always found them and their members to be very easy people to debate with because they are so clear about that they hold to be important about the topics that we have discussed.

Well I'm only quoting what's on the official Quakers UK website.

I'm sure that you are right and most of them are very, very nice people though I suspect they are just like other humans, really.

Come to think of it, you and I could become Quakers, amsey ... now, there's a thought!

[french frank]

but their belief is that there should be no fixed set of beliefs.

So no wonder it is extremely hard for anyone to argue with them over anything.

They have constructed for themselves no ''fixed set of beliefs" (is that wrong?) But they do believe in freedom of conscience which may well put them at odds with formalists and authoritarians.

[amateur51]

Well I'm only quoting what's on the official Quakers UK website.

I'm sure that you are right and most of them are very, very nice people though I suspect they are just like other humans, really.

Come to think of it, you and I could become Quakers, amsey ... now, there's a thought!

It would be a struggle for me scotty because they're so patient, but that may not be a bad thing for me to learn ... in the long run

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I am a Quaker.

[scottycelt]

They have constructed for themselves no ''fixed set of beliefs" (is that wrong?) But they do believe in freedom of conscience which may well put them at odds with formalists and authoritarians.

No, not necessarily wrong.

The trouble is that you then end up with people in the same club believing in nothing or absolutely anything?

Additionally, if there is to be 'no fixed set of beliefs' why be so sniffy about formalism and authoritarianism?

If Quakers find themselves automatically at odds with formalism and authoritarianism then they do have some fixed set of beliefs, even if it is only in a negative sense.

Significantly too, the very mention of Richard Nixon tends to disprove the contention that Quakers are noticeably 'nicer' than the rest of us.

PS ... I naturally exclude EA from the last sentence!! :laugh:

[french frank]

The trouble is that you then end up with people in the same club believing in nothing or absolutely anything?

They almost certainly have the same general outlook on life, as well as certain customs, which brings them together

Additionally, if there is to be 'no fixed set of beliefs' why be so sniffy about formalism and authoritarianism?

I'm not sure who was being 'sniffy' - it was a plain statement of fact. Putting personal conscience before fixed beliefs can put someone at odds with others who put fixed beliefs before personal conscience.

If Quakers find themselves automatically at odds with formalism and authoritarianism then they do have some fixed set of beliefs, even if it is only in a negative sense.

Hmmm... (and I didn't say 'automatically' but 'may well').

[Tony Halstead]

I am a Quaker.

I am a Unitarian, and in my youth used to be a Unitarian lay-preacher who 'doubled' as an organist.

[scottycelt]

They almost certainly have the same general outlook on life, as well as certain customs, which brings them together

I'm not sure who was being 'sniffy' - it was a plain statement of fact. Putting personal conscience before fixed beliefs can put someone at odds with others who put fixed beliefs before personal conscience.

Hmmm... (and I didn't say 'automatically' but 'may well').

'Sniffy' was probably a lazy and inappropriate word and, in any case, I was not referring to you!... 'opposed to' then ... is that better?

Yes, I did say 'automatically'. I don't think there is any 'may well' about it. I assume by 'freedom of conscience' you really mean 'freedom of belief' ?

Members who voluntary belong to 'formalistic and authoritarian' clubs all have freedom of conscience, they simply share core beliefs and if any of those are later found to clash with personal conscience a member can then elect to leave the club. The shared core beliefs are the very point of the club in the first place.

So anybody who says a club should have no fixed beliefs will automatically find him/herself at odds with a club which does have fixed beliefs and therefore that person would be most unwise to join!

That is not to get involved in the rights and wrongs here, just, as you might put it, a plain statement of fact!

[french frank]

Yes, I did say 'automatically'. I don't think there is any 'may well' about it. I assume by 'freedom of conscience' you really mean 'freedom of belief' ?

There was a 'may well' about it in that I said "freedom of conscience which may well put them at odds..." I don't imagine that they will 'automatically' be at odds with others, in the way that some people here seem to be 'automatically' at odds with others on every damn political issue that's raised here. And, no, I don't think that conscience and belief are the same. If one needs to explain what 'conscience' means, it is a spontaneous response within the individual that some things are 'right' and other things are 'wrong'.

So anybody who says a club should have no fixed beliefs will automatically find him/herself at odds with a club which does have fixed beliefs and therefore that person would be most unwise to join!

No! I don't think that Quakers, for example, are saying "We don't think that we should have fixed beliefs" (so join us if you don't have any fixed beliefs either). They are people of a particular feather who come together: they may or may not agree, completely and utterly on particular points, with those who are more formulistic in their beliefs. In one case there are those who feel instinctively that something is wrong - and it would be against their personal conscience to transgress; in the other, there are people know it's wrong because it transgresses certain fixed or doctrinal (taught) beliefs.

[amateur51]

Do Quakers wear the burqa then? :erm:

[BBMmk2]

Hush now ams! Just as well your not at my school!!

I am glad that some boarders, think that this Judge is correct. Courts are a secular institution, and so people whose religious belief come into conflict with this principle, should adhere to this.

[ahinton]

I cannot help but wonder how scotty would respond were the issue about the wearing of the q'ilt...

[ahinton]

Do Quakers wear the burqa then? :erm:

No; Q'aqas wear the burker, ams.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A circuit Judge said he cannot preside over a case, if the defendant is only showing her eyes? Is he right in saying this, or could this be a religious point of view that should be respected, at the risk of the right defendant being taken by another person?

Is this the same story as that which arose in Australia last June, Bbm? If not, the response of the Muslim community to that case is useful here:

Islamic groups yesterday came out in support of Mr Costello, saying they supported magistrates asking women to remove their face covering if there was a reasonable question of security or identification.

Mr Saggers told the magistrate the woman, 27, was from Saudi Arabia and said: "I have not seen her dressed in any other way.''

Mr Costello then proceeded to sentence the female student, without requiring her to remove her face covering, more commonly called a niqab when it reveals the eyes.

Islamic Council of Queensland president Mohammed Yusuf said he opposed any blanket law requiring women wearing burqa or niqab to show their face, but he said the Islamic council would not object to a magistrate asking a woman to remove her face covering if there was a reasonable question of security or identification.

Mr Yusuf said individual cases could be handled with sensitivity, with the woman taken into another room for identification by a female police or court officer.

Yasmin Khan, president of Islamic community festival Eidsfest, said magistrates should be able to ask women wearing a burqa or niqab to remove their facial covering in court.

"Where justice and security are an issue women should identify by at least showing their face, to identify the person who has been charged,'' Ms Khan said.

She said another person could falsely pose as an accused person by wearing a face covering.