Did nobody else pick up on Alchemist's call to ban public expression of religion?! And replace it with what? The public expression of non-religion?

But how do you define religion? I've heard so many say that its an ideaology that professes a belief in a god/gods. Thus Bhuddism is not a religion.

Problem is, I and a lot of other people disagree. Atheism can be a part of a religion. Secular Humanism is a popular atheistic religion (read the secular Humanist manifesto), as is Bhuddism (when you go to a temple to worship a statue and bow/"wai" very high to a monk, its a religion).

I think a more appropriate call would be to ban the public expression of "worldviews". This is a much more broad term and puts all of the "religions" of the world on equal footing. The problem in this is the blatant affront to the freedom of speech and religion we prize so highly in Australia.

I think the right to convert is just as important as the right not to be converted. Both principles have to be upheld if we want to avoid becoming like the many other countries that have banned this.

Oh and btw Alch, how about you take your own advice? If you want to live in a country that bans the public expression of religion, why don't you move somewhere that already does? Say for example North Korea? China? Oh, such free, tolerant parts of the world.

Yng

YngNLuvnIt. Both china and Nth Korea are religious, communism, humanism, atheism are all religions, secularism is an acceptance of all religion. I follow no ism, yet accept you can't understand anything beyond your fantasies.

People with "worldviews" are normally open to change, their views change as understanding unfolds before them. Unlike monotheists, locked into repetitious dogma their entire lives.

Maybe I should've said, ban the public expression of repetitious violent dogma, i.e. monotheism.

“I think the right to convert is just as important as the right not to be converted.”

Only if the desire for conversion is expressly wished for by someone, not badged, instilled by stealth, lies, force and violence as exhibited by every monotheistic belief since their inception. After all your converting people to violence, fantasy, war, dysfunction, the disembowelling and destruction of every society your ilk enter.

Presently, no country or social system has evolved beyond controlling ideologies. Australia would have the best chance of providing a good example to the rest of the world, if your ilk would leave. Your so obsessed in your desperate desire to enforce your righteousness, you neglect the planet you live on, destroying it along with all its inhabitants.

The time will come, when you may have to decide whether your an Aussie, or just another peace of cannon fodder for the god of war. All monotheistic beliefs suppress women, children and non believers. Name the many countries banning religious expression.

Mercurious, any follower of gods a threat to the society they grew up in, if it doesn't exclusively follow god. Just curious, did you live in Nth Malaysia, Borneo, Sabah, West Papua, rural provinces of Indonesia, you'll see real violent monotheism in action there.

Popovich,

Your reference to the John Stone paper in this months Quadrant is a key reference will certainly stir the issue up, as it should be. It should be precribed reading for all those interested in this subject,including govt policy makers.

His paper gives a good summary/definition of the problem, and suggest ways in which Australia could handle the solutions.

His point that we have to take all or any refugees from anywhere in the world, if the UN organisation says so,(without any vetting by us), is particularly disturbing.

As John Stone said I thought J.Howard gave a categorical assurrance, "that we will say who comes here". Appears that that is not the case at all.

Mercurious
While you may not be a 'historian' as such, you are quite capable of using the inductive method of deriving conclusions based on all available facts. Were this not the case, then you would have little to say about anything.

Such facts as:

-He has a web site which states Jews are subhumans.
-He distributes pamphlets which make the same claim.
-He often is found addressing rallies ranting about 'subhuman' Jews.

A valid conclusion based on these facts would be "This_man_hates_Jews"

Lets look at the question of "Holy Men". I don't think you would need to ask too many people, or examine much information to discover that legally 'reasonable' people would take a dim view of a persons 'holiness' if they observe that his conduct panders to that aspect of human nature which they categorize as our 'lower nature' or.. 'lusts of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life'.

Indian holy men are renowned by their self_denial. Such was the case of John_the_Baptist. This is the very reason he was considered "Holy".. the meaning of the word is 'set apart, pure' etc.
Budhism is based on 'denial' of these common fleshly appetites.

Now.. my problem with Mohammed.

-He surrounded himself with females, including underage.
-He declared 1/5th of all war booty was his.
-He used revelation to AMPLIFY his opportunities for female conquest and stifle/limit those of his followers.
-He used 'revelation' to shut his nagging wives up.(threatening that just as Allah had given them to him, Allah could also replace them at the drop of a hat.)
-He murdered.
-He tortured.
-He accepted lying as a means to an end.
-He happily accepted genocide of men and boys and the enslavement of women and children as a solution to a "Jewish problem".
-He drove out, taxed out, or intimidated out the Jews of Khaibar.
-He raided caravans, killing people.
-He stole other peoples goods to feed his 'gang'.
-He was nice to his 'gang'.

He is called 'holy' by Muslims but do the facts support this conclusion ?

BigMal

If the government does not have a policy of in PRACTICE determining those who come here based on the 'values compatibility' then we are in the same position as the early Aussie diggers were where the massive influx of Chinese to Australia during the gold rush was based on treaties that the British had with the Chinese government, which was based purely on the self interest and greed of the Crown.

This lead to increasing anger among the diggers who could see their identity being eroded by the boatload and the very real possibility of them becoming adrift socially and culturally with the impact of these large unmanaged influxes.

The government of the day, being subject to the Crown, sought to enforce the immigration policies by force, and to subjugate the wishes of the diggers with the gun barrell.

This led to one of the first examples of the assertion of Australian nationalism in the riots of LAMBING FLAT where the Chinese were driven out.

What many fail to realize is that this had nothing to do with relative inferiority or superiority of culture and race. (though many probably did hold such views) It was plain and simple a struggle for cultural and linguistic integrity and survival in the face of policy which could only have one result if left unchecked.

Given how the Chinese reacted (JUSTIFIABLY SO) to the invasion by the British, and the Opium wars, inflicting social disintegration on the Chinese populace for the sake of British profits..we can see why people react like this to challenges to their cultural integrity.

The BOXER REBELLION was against 'Foreign Devils' (British and other whites) why ? Simple... they saw their culture being eroded by the 'large influx of British people' who enforced their presence AND their socially destructive opium policies at the point of a gun.

Australian Diggers had just as much right to drive out the Chinese as the Chinese had to try to drive out the British, and for the same reasons. Xenophobia ? :) nah.. REAL LIFE

Sorry for the error Snout,
Here’s the correct link:
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=12448

Islamists and extremists are not represented here just as the KKK, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson etc. are often generally regarded as the ‘wackos’ of Christianity. To vilify all Muslims is similar to calling all Christians as Fundamentalist or perhaps as "Happy, Clappy” twits. You can’t generalise – you need separate religion from culture and groups from communities, even if they may have cause and affect on each other.

The Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis “believes the advent of Islam in a sense was a revolution which only partially succeeded after long struggles due to tensions between the new religion and very old societies in the countries that the Muslims conquered. He thinks that one such area of tension was a consequence of what he sees as the egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine. Lewis believes that "the equality of Islam is limited to free adult male Muslims," but according to him "even this represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents." - Wikepedia

“According to scholars such as William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad was both a social and moral reformer in his day and generation. He claims Muhammad created a "new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men."” - Wikipedia

Radicalising all Muslims only serves to force many to react forceably or some to retreat, mariginalised and ostracised - thus destabilising society further. This can only serve well for the purpose Bin Laden and his cohorts are striving.