Here is the link to the ALA's manifesto.

http://tinyurl.com/qf2uauo

It does read a bit like all things to all men but it makes a good start.

It is not "merely because of their religious background" -- it is because of their religious beliefs AND their actions.

Islamic theology makes it very clear that the only proper relationship between Muslims and infidels is one of supremacy and underdog, of master and servant, of "best of people" and "lower than animals" (according to the Quran). Perhaps our Muslim lovers (Yuyutsu) here could point out exactly where Muslims treat non-Muslims as equals? Has anyone noticed what is happening in Malaysia and Indonesia?

As to "presumption of innocence", Muslim theology has no concept. Non-Muslims are by definition guilty of the horrible crime of "disbelief" which condemns them to sadistic torture by Allah herself in the afterlife and third-class status in this life.

The idea that "the vast majority of Australian Muslims are law-abiding" is meaningless. Substitute 'Australian Muslims' for any other term or group and the same could be said (except for maybe 'criminals'). The vast majority of left-handed, bald japanese are law abiding.

All Australian Muslims have no problem with the hate and violence in the Quran. They also will not condemn the evil deeds of Mohammad, so attacking others, plunder, rape, torture, murder, enslaving men women and children are not really wrong, it only depends on who is doing it to whom. Thus, by definition, all Muslims adhere to an extremist ideology.

As far as I know, athiests, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc will all condemn these vile deeds, no matter who does them. Only one religion is intellectually corrupt, making morality relative to who does it.

Note also that these refugees and immigrants did not stand up for the rights of non-Muslims in their own countries, neither did they fight the so-called extremists, so why should we think they will resist evil, when evil is inherent to their beliefs? Do foolish Westerners ever wonder why the so-called "moderate" Muslims can't win over the extremists? Perhaps it is because the extremists have the Quran and hadith on their side.

Oh yes, Muslim immigration has gone so well in other countries, so lets bring a million of them to Australia!

Dear Kactuz,

You claim that: "All Australian Muslims have no problem with the hate and violence in the Quran."

Do you know them all? How many of them did you ask?

Yes, I'm aware that the Quran allows them to lie to you - but to proceed from that and conclude that *everything* they say is the opposite, like in the synthetic "island of liars", is a major logical fallacy.

It may well be that your understanding of the Quran is the correct one, historically and scientifically, that it truly reflects the evil intentions of its authors (although Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not one of them!), but does it truly imply that all Muslims like it and have no problem with it?

You assume, on no real grounds, that Muslims are not humans, because had they been humans then they would be struggling with the violent ideas of the Quran. I believe that most of them DO struggle and do have a problem with the Quran, at least with some parts of it, and find themselves suffering a very uncomfortable conflict.

Fortunately, Muslims, including our very own Grateful, can now resort to Sheikhs and Imams, especially of the Sufi tradition, which interpret the Quran differently and non-violently. You could make a scholarly claim that they are wrong, you could even claim that they aren't real Muslims and wrongly consider themselves as Muslims, but why?

Sure, some Muslims are violent and dangerous - and they should be killed, but I suspect that your true motivation is not the protection of your body, nor even of your property, but rather the protection of your decaying culture; that you would like to force everyone to assimilate because you realise that your own culture is neither attractive nor spiritually fulfilling enough to entice people peacefully.

Yutsie: Fortunately, Muslims, including our very own Grateful, can now resort to Sheikhs and Imams, especially of the Sufi tradition, which interpret the Quran differently and non-violently. You could make a scholarly claim that they are wrong, you could even claim that they aren't real Muslims and wrongly consider themselves as Muslims, but why?

Yes I read & saw on TV the very grateful moslems at their conference on singing the Australian Anthem. Very interesting, eh.

Let me illiterate my earlier post;

A great number of well known moslem imams & moslem spokespersons, in Australia & all over the World, have expounded many, many times, "There are 'no' moderate moslems. There are only moslems."

<I should imagine that would also translate to, " There are no 'radicle" moslems," only moslems," equally.>

It's understandable that the ALA should want to tell us what liberty means, but its manifesto statement about liberty, on my reading, focuses pretty much on why liberty is a preferable term to freedom, giving these reasons:

(1) People have different ideas about what freedom means
(2) Liberty means the absence of coercion
(3) Liberty is absolute
(4) Laws in a democracy can limit freedom

The problem here is that we can substitute freedom for liberty, or liberty for freedom, in any of these assertions without any empirically useful change of meaning (see, in relation to (4), http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-13-number-6/democracy-does-not-ensure-liberty; https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-democracy-and-liberty).

Reason (3) is particularly problematic, whether you infill it with liberty or freedom. The idea of a prescription being absolute carries a hint of Kant’s categorical imperative, which might be interpreted in this context to mean that if liberty is absolute for me, I should want it to be absolute, i.e., unconditional, for everyone. This does not sit well with limiting absolute liberty to people within particular historically contingent national borders, nor with identifying groups or classes of people to which it does not apply.

I don't think it matters. We all know what we mean by liberty or
freedom and we will only be arguing about semantics.