Muhammed was a bandit leader, whatever sophistry Islamic apologists attempt in defence of the ideology, they cannot avoid that basic truth. The Crusaders were not true Christians, those Buddhists in Burma who are inciting violence against the Rohinga are not true Buddhists, however the members of IS who slaughter, rape and torture their victims are simply imitating Muhammed.

Islam is inimical to liberal democracy.

As to multiculturalism, all democracies are intrinsically multicultural, it's not an end in itself and we certainly don't need a doctrine or institutions to support the concept.
Multiculturalism is not now, and never will be any government's business.

Dear Rhian,

Peter Costello pointed out in his book,
"The Costello Memoirs," that "Outside
Australia's Indigenous People, we are
all immigrants or descendants of immigrants..."

Australia's immigration experience is also a broad
one. Originally it was Anglo-Celtic but after
World War II our immigrants came increasingly from
other parts of the world and in recent times the
groups are even more mixed. All of these immigrant
communities have made successful contributions to
this country. We have been very fortunate in this
country.

What has made us successful thus far has been our
institutional framework that preserves tolerance
and protects order so that we can all celebrate and
enjoy diversity in food, in music, in religion, in
language, and in culture. And we could not do that
without the framework which guarantees the freedom
to enjoy diversity.

Therefore as Costello states - "there is one law we are
all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by
Parliament under the Australian Constitution."

We are asking all of our citizens to subscribe to a
framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.
They are not optional. People coming to this country
are asked to subscribe to certain conditions.
Anyone who has a strong objection to any of these
conditions should not come to Australia.

Ultimately, it is important that people know that there
is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether
they acknowledge its legitimacy or not.

Dear Shocker,

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th
the public discourse surrounding Islam have
predominantly focused on condemnation.

We have seen that press releases that are
emotional displaying fear and anger have the
best chance of getting the media's attention.
Not only that but the least representative messages
from "fringe groups," get the most attention.

For example, Muslim organisations put out many
messages condemning terrorism in response to nearly
any incident but these press releases receive little
media coverage.

Radical groups who put out angry and emotional messages
get the media attention.

Therefore to the newspaper-reading and TV watching public the
impression is that Muslims care little about condemning
terrorism and are over-sensitive to Islamophobia.

This in turn convinces anti-Muslim organisations
(and their readers)
that they're right and that Muslims are trying to advance
Islamic Law under the guise of political correctness.

It would be intelligent (and mature) if consumers of news
could keep a healthy scepticism when reading articles or
watching reports about Islam fundamentalism
- and what arises out of specific
social and cultural conditions in those trouble-spot areas.

Muslim Communities globally could also inject much more
emotion into their condemnations of terrorism.

Hi Foxy
Yep, I agree with pretty much all of your last 2 posts.

Hi Shockadelic
The actions of the Crusaders were not compatible with the tenets of Christianity. But they believed that what they did was not just approved, but actually demanded, by their faith. So did almost every other Christian at the time. Most modern Muslims are appalled by islamist violence.

Looking at the bible, King David was a bandit and mercenary, Moses was a murderer, Abraham tried to kill both his sons, the prophet Elisha was a child-murderer, and St Paul participated in a lynch mob that murdered Christians. God demanded the genocide of the Canaanites. It’s easy enough to portray Christianity as a religion of violence if you only consider the evidence that supports this view.

"Australia's immigration experience is also a broad one. Originally it was Anglo-Celtic but after World War II..."

So over 150 years of "narrow" immigration is irrelevant to our identity and culture?
During the *founding* era?
Ever heard of "the sensitive dependence on initial conditions"?

"What has made us successful thus far has been our institutional framework".

Poppycock.

What's prevented the recent immigration craziness blowing up in our face "thus far" is the friendly, casual character of "narrow" Australians.
But that easygoing nature is being pushed to its limits.
Hence backlash.

"Muslim Communities globally could also inject much more emotion into their condemnations of terrorism."

They could, but they don't and they won't.
Might offend The Guy Upstairs.

Rhian "It’s easy enough to portray Christianity as a religion of violence if you only consider the evidence that supports this view."

All of your named "villains" were Jews, not Christians (Paul converted afterward).
And the Crusades were centuries ago.
Christianity poses little danger *today*.

But another religion does.
We are alive *today*. We are at risk *today*.
My agnostic homo infidel head could be chopped off TODAY!

If left-handed drivers caused 37% more accidents than right-handers, would insurance companies treat them "equally"?
No, there is a *greater risk*, so they would pay higher fees or be refused altogether.

The utopian fairy tale of "equality" denies the real risks of different population groups.

Onya, Shocky.