I was interested to read Bishop Robert Forsyth’s comments under the heading “Nile ‘undermines religious freedom’” in the December edition.

The article claimed that Rev Fred Nile said that “the chador ‘worn only by Islamic extremists’ should be banned in public places for security reasons.”

Robert is then quoted as having said such comments “demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the nature of religious freedom in a liberal-democratic society.”

Having reviewed the Christian Democratic Party press releases and the NSW Legislative Council Hansard, I cannot find any record of Fred making a statement that “the chador is ‘worn only by Islamic extremists.’” Having listened to him explain his comments on the matter I very much doubt that he ever said such a thing.

It is true he drew the Police Minister’s attention to the recent attack in the Moscow Theatre by female Islamic terrorists wearing the black Chador with explosives strapped to their bodies.  This seems to be a statement of fact, and it is perfectly reasonable for our Parliamentarians to ask for an investigation into what risk, if any, we face in Australia from similar activities.  It would be remiss if they did not bring up such subjects.  It is notable that Fred Nile was the only Parliamentarian with the guts to bring this issue up.  This is exactly the type of representatives we need, people who will ask questions whether it is politically correct to do so or not.  This is all the more important as the chador (or burkha) continues to be used in terrorist attacks, for instance on Christmas Day in a church in Pakistan, where 3 girls were killed and 14 were wounded.

It is true that the reason others did not bring it up is because it is a political minefield, and maybe Fred might have been politically naive to touch it, but please note that Fred did not, as some media reports have falsely claimed, call for a ban on women wearing a veil.  If he had done this, it would certainly “demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the nature of religious freedom in a liberal-democratic society.” However what he said was far short of this.  In our society we have already accepted that motor cycle helmets are not to be worn in banks, so the extension to restricting the wearing of the chador in certain places, is not so radical an idea.

The members of the Christian Democratic Party may not always get things right, and are bound to be much maligned and have their statements distorted by a generally antagonistic media, but what else can we expect?  Please take everything you read or hear in the media with a grain of salt and give us the benefit of the doubt.  We are honestly trying to represent the broad Christian perspective on as many things as we can.  Reflecting the nature of Christ’s church as expressed here on earth, we come in all flavours, e.g. Uniting, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, and even Anglican (such as myself), so you may not always agree with everything every candidate says.  However, broadly speaking Christians should see the CDP as presenting a better alternative than the mainstream parties. Christians in those parties do a great job, but the benefit we have is that we do not need to compromise and conform to party policy.  There are many forces at work today that wish to restrict the freedoms that we have in this country to spread the gospel, and many forces that wish to see the triumph of a godless lifestyle.

Remembering the great good that William Wilberforce was able to do (after great effort over many years) for British society, Christians should support those who wish to emulate Wilberforce, rather than being quick to criticise.

You have made many good points Andrew, but do we question using the cross as a symbol of Christendom because thousands have misused the image to promote wars and hatred - ie the Crusades, Ku Klux Klan, Sects and Cults etc etc.  Timothy McVeigh’s choice of weapon was a bomb in a truck - should we then question the validity of all trucks.  The recent sniper attacks in USA happened from the backseat and boot of a car - do we consider removing backseats and making cars without boots.  Palestinean youth continue to strap explosives to their bodies to create terror situations in Israel - so should they walk around naked?

Is this not the same with the Chador?  Sure - it has been used to hide explosive in extremist cases, but it is also an important piece of clothing that directly relates to the faith of muslim women - regardless of wether islam is the truth - or not.

I agree with Bhp Forsyth’s comment that the comments of Nile - regardless of wether he mentioned extremists or otherwise - was a profound misunderstanding of the nature of religious freedom in a liberal-democratic society.  To even raise the issue of questioning the removal of traditional religious dress flies in the face of who we are as a multicultural nation.  And the chador is different to a motorbike helmet.  It is the same as asking you to remove your underwear to enter the supermarket.  It goes to the understanding of morality and decency for a muslim woman - as asking you to take off your underwear in a public place would also affect you in the areas of morality and decency.

I for one do not believe the Christian Democratic Party represents the Christian broadview.  Time and time again, we see the CDP embarress the church in the press - in their actions - and in their statements.  And I work in the media, and read a fair deal of their press releases when they arrive on my desk.  They generally ring true with only the evangelical and fundamental protestant understanding of faith.  There is little room for moderate/liberal/catholic/orthodox views in the CDP.

I have no doubt that Nile and Moyses etc et al have genuine motives and desire for better government, and that they work hard to bring morality and ethics to government - for that they should be applauded - but even raising this issue shows a lack of judgement.  As aussies, if we begin to question the right to practise other religions (in their non-violent forms!), then our right to practise religion comes into question.

Praise God that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow - and lets keep praying the light of the world gets brighter.

Mr Amos (along with a correspondent in February’s Southern Cross) claimed Rob Forsyth wrongly said Fred Nile called for a ban on the hijab (veil). Instead, Mr Amos claimed Rev Nile did not question the hijab (veil), but only the chador/burka (full body covering). 

For your correspondent’s information, in the Festival of Light’s Bulletin, dated November 2002, circulated to Anglican clergy, Fred Nile called on readers to ask politicians (i) not only for a complete ban on wearing the chador in public, but (ii) for a ban on the hijab in NSW public schools, and (iii) a moratorium on Muslim migration to Australia. (I can provide a copy of this on request.)

I wrote to Rev Nile to express my concern, because I think these calls are illogical and ultimately counterproductive to the cause of Christ.

If we are to have a moratorium on Muslim migrants, why has Mr Nile not called for a ban on all Irish migrants, both Catholic and Protestant, given that even now there are continuing acts of terror perpetrated by a tiny minority of Irish folk? 

If we are going to ban the Muslim hijab at school, why not also call for a ban on Jews wearing the yarmulke, and Brethren girls wearing head scarves?

If we are going to ban the chador, because it might be used in terrorism, why not also ban the wearing of rain coats and bulky jackets, along with carrying briefcases and backpacks? These too have been used to conceal weaponry or explosives.

In each case, Mr Nile’s call is inconsistent and discriminatory. However the God of the Bible is not a God who shows that sort of discrimination. It does not appear just to legislate against a whole group (e.g. Muslims) because of a minority of terrorists among them, nor against one group (Muslims), without applying the same reasoning to other groups.

Most basically, I believe Mr Nile’s call unintentionally undermines the very freedoms of religion and speech we wish to preserve for Christians (and therefore for others also).

I wish to remain free to speak publicly about why I disagree with Islam, and where I think it is wrong. We recently had a sermon at church on just this topic.

However, if we erode the freedom of religion (expressed lawfully) of other citizens, then we can expect erosions to our own freedom of religion. Conversely, if we want the freedom to practise our own religion peacefully, without threat or constraint, then we also need to defend the rights of others to practise their religion, or no religion. Mr Nile’s inconsistent proposals have done the opposite and could undermine the freedoms we wish to preserve.

In making this criticism to Mr Nile, I also thanked him for his work in serving our community, in the name of Christ. I assured him that I, like many Sydney Anglicans, would continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with him on such matters as abortion, euthanasia, the recent redefinition of �spouse�, and the gay mardi gras.

[Wow, that was inflammatory. Thread closed. - Luke]

[PS. If others want to continue this discussion as per the previous posts that’s fine, just start a new thread.]

I sit on the fence on this one.
Mainly because i see strong reasons for both sides:
1. Muslims immigrating into australia presents many gospel opportunities.
2. Muslims immigrating into australia presents many future civilisation clashes (as now seen on the world stage).

The discerning difference between muslims and other religions/cultures is that they have no regard whatsoever for who they consider to be infidels (that includes christians, jews, buddhists, atheists ie most Australians). This is obviously a generalisation (but only slight). The extent to which they enact their jihadian right is another matter.