Enlightenment Claptrap

Forcing People to be "Free"

Paul Holmes, one of the great liberal lions of our time, wants to Ban the Burqa in New Zealand.  Maybe it's a "short man syndrome" thing but Paul thinks that President Sarkozy of France has it right. 

The French, in overwhelming numbers right through their legislative process, banned them [burkas] in April.  Said Nicolas Sarkozy, "In our country we cannot accept that women can be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity." That says it all, really.
And the legislation simply "forbids the concealment of one's face in public". Which is the objection most of us would have here. It ain't right to cover your face. And it ain't right to try and get on a bus with your face covered up because of some old medieval claptrap. It ain't how we do things. It is, as Sarkozy says, all about imprisonment.

Let's get this right.  In this country, no woman is forced by law to wear a burqa.   They choose to do so.  It was all part of their marriage contract--which, in most cases one presumes, was freely entered into.  But to Paul and his liberal ilk, it is offensive.  Such women must be forced to be free.  Paul knows what is right for them. He knows better.  How inane.

Do we then support the burqa?  Of course not.  It is a pathetic, wicked construct of Islamic theology.  According to devotees of that religion, there is such a thing as a chain of being, and men are at the top.  Less human are women; next come the brute beasts.  The submission of women to men is part of the natural order, in the same way that dogs or lemurs or camels are to be submissive to humans.  Just as a human being can order a dog around and make it perform for him, doing his bidding, so a wife--a mere female--can be ordered and constrained by her husband at his will and pleasure.

Christian marriage is entirely different.  It represents the willing, mutual submission of equals.  The Lord Jesus Christ, equal in being, glory, power, wisdom with God the Father, willingly submitted Himself to the Father for the sake of securing our redemption.  In the same way, wives are to be subject to their husbands, even as husbands are commanded to lay down their lives for their wives.

But we acknowledge we have no God-given power or right to compel Muslim wives to be, or do, or act in any way other than as they wish and choose.   We have, however, a God-commanded duty to bring the Gospel of God's love in Christ Jesus to them and their husbands and children. 

But Paul Holmes has a different view.  He would force all Muslim wives to be free, to live and behave in ways he finds acceptable.  And if they do not?  If they resist?  "Ach, ve have ways of making you conform."

Beware the liberality of a liberal.  Was not Europe set ablaze by a short man who insisted upon liberty, equality and fraternity for all?  By right of his guns and cavalry.  The blood-letting was all in a good cause.