Since we are a secular society, and have every intention of remaining so, with due separation of Church and State, every individual's primary allegiance should, indeed MUST, be to the State (ie to the Nation of Australia). Anyone or any organisation of persons not willing to strenuously apply and conform to this primary allegiance should not qualify for Aust citizenship, nor a residential visa of any kind, and should be considered only as a visitor (if on holiday or a business visit) or else either as an alien or persona non grata - with relevant limits on stay and mobility.
Such an allegiance provision should and MUST apply to all seeking residence, including refugees and asylum seekers who seek temporary protection or any other form of residential visa.
To do less is to damage and weaken the established fabric of our great society and nation, with inevitable detrimental consequences.
Everyone may deserve a reasonable chance to demonstrate such allegiance, but with second and third chances strictly limited.

We also offer and try our best to ensure freedom of religion and of religious practice, but this can not and must not infer or confer precedence over allegiance to the nation, its Constitution and its laws.

Nation first, religion a long-way second (and keep God out of it altogether, please).

We appear to be shaping up as a 'soft target' as a nation, and it is well past time that we got 'real'.
Without wishing to be 'phobic' about anything, I sense that we are treading a fine line with our strenuous commitment to multiculturalism, and need to take greater heed of where we may be heading - particularly with regard to specialised religious-education institutions and 'special' provisions for persons and workers of particular ethnic or religious groups or 'identity'.
(Unfortunately this may also apply somewhat to special provisions for our own indigenous people - for if one makes exception for one group, then why not for all?)
All Ozzies, one nation, one credo.

As for Bosnia, I thought Serbs and Serbia were the primary protagonists.

LOL (whatever that means) Susieonline.

Then your premise appears to be, that it is OK to prejudge individuals according to their group memberships, provided that their membership is voluntary, and not culturally acquired?

I am sorry, but I can not accept that. To begin with, it presupposes that all extreme views can not be culturally acquired through family insistence, or that members who have culturally acquired views are not free to think for themselves, and to leave an organisation which propagates extreme views.

Of course, your position does have some validity with Islam, because Muslims do believe that any person who is a Muslim apostate should be murdered. So, I will grant you that small point. Although such a position could conceivably also apply to Nazis and KKK members who leave those organisations and become critics.

On the basis of "Equality", that sacred moral principle, so beloved of the social climbing socialist brahmin caste, what applies to one group of people must automatically equally apply to another. If it is fair to prejudge individual Nazis, KKK members, and One Nation supporters according to their group associations, then that principle must apply to everybody else. Or the entire moral principle is invalid. It is immoral to advocate a moral principle which only applies to the people you like, and which can be disregarded with the people you despise.

Could you please tell me which Major branches of Islam are not as extreme in their views as the KKK and the Nazis, in that they believe in female equality? The separation of church and state? That ecclesiastical law should not trump secular law? That spreading Islam by violence and terrorism is unacceptable? That apostates should not be murdered? Or that Muslims are one thing, and every other person on planet Earth is something else?

Because if such major Muslim sects exist, then I will give them a free pass.

Looking forward to your answer

your obedient slave

LEGO

cohenite

Its difficult to imagine any woman wanting anything to do with islam but then women are strange cattle at the best of times. Maybe its just the less attractive ones who welcome the opportunity to cover up. A woman I knew years ago had everything going for her except in the face. Her approach was to promote her good features (and she had no shortage of those including brains). Worked for her and she never had any problems meeting men she liked (no she wasn't loose). My guess is that islamic women & those in favour of gurkhas / hijabs are not exactly Miss World candidates. The little bit one sees doesn't suggest the rest is particularly photogenic. Now lets see the feminist do-gooders start screaming crap :) :) :)

I must agree with the rest of your comments however, its clear that islamic idealogies conflict with every other on the planet, they will never, or more to the point, they CAN never integrate. My biggest concerns however are the birthrate & the problem we will encounter when the shia / sunni / wahabbi factions stop fighting each other and start on infidels. At least one source has already noted that is inevitable.

"Cohenite you have made your racist position on the subject of Islam very clear.
Even a 'fool' like me can see that..."

Islam is NOT a race.

What else do you see?

In addition to the list already provided I would seriously consider banning any tax or legal benefit given to religions. I would also get rid of any exemption religions have from not being covered by any discrimination acts remaining after the Abbott government gets in and the worst government in Australia's history is booted out.

No, you are right Cohenite, Islam is a religion not a race. I apologise.
I will change that sentence to say 'bigot', which means a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than their own views, such as on religion, politics, or race.

Like Christians, followers of Islam take the meanings of their holy book in different ways.
Not ALL consider everyone else as infidels, and most live peacefully and happily in Australia, with no thoughts of a mad 'takeover' that some radical Muslims do.

I totally agree that tax concessions should not be given to ANY religious organisation here in Australia. I believe they already have plenty of funds for themselves to spread the 'good' word.

As for your excitement at the thought of Abbott getting in after September, I would watch what I wish for. He is a religious bloke who may well advocate for more religious tax reforms and dispensations than you may want!

"I will change that sentence to say 'bigot', which means a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than their own views, such as on religion, politics, or race."

This is the point.

I support an individual rights based secular democracy. In such a society all religions are free within the usual contraints governing criminal, commercial and political parameters.

Religions to a greater and lessor degree prescribe individual rights. Islam more so than any other.

Opposing a prescriptive ideology which seeks to get rid of the social structure which gives it the freedom to exist is not the same as islam wanting to perpetuate its creed at the expense of everything else.

As for:

"Not ALL consider everyone else as infidels, and most live peacefully and happily in Australia, with no thoughts of a mad 'takeover' that some radical Muslims do."

I'm sure the same can be said about catholics; but their religion and its structure has to wear the blame for what has happened in its name. Maybe then some change and progress will occur.

There is no internal impetus in islam for it to address the monstrous acts done in its name; so external pressure needs to brought.

Until those "peaceful", moderate muslims come out and decry their religion as many christians do then your description of "peaceful" muslims is delusional.

Have you seen many muslims leaders supporting gay rights, female liberation or indeed equality of women?

No. Islam uses our freedoms to press its anti-freedom beliefs.

To deny otherwise is to deny reality.