Boaz, for a minute there, in your point 2, I thought you were talking about George W Bush. Substitute "God" for "Allah".

"2/ The example of its founder who clearly showed that 'pre-emptive' attacks on those suspected of forming alliances against him and political assassination/murder are quite legitimate.

One can only conclude that taken together, we have a group which has as its foundation principle:

To make pre-emptive attacks against those who are cursed by Allah, deluded and away from truth, who are never to be taken as friends, and who by nature are hated by Allah, because they, by nature are against Allah's religion and are thus scheming by default how to destroy Allah's people."

I dig that Irving sought to separate issues of citizenship, a legal classification, from responsibility, a moral value.

The discussion that follows calls into question the secular value of tolerance-- a highly loaded term with practical limitations built into its definition, ie. the moral currency earned by people/groups/nations that go out of their way to "tolerate" other people/groups/cultures/nations, the hierarchy of authority this entails, and the network of expectations that now burden the "tolerated" party.

In the context of religion-- Beneath the rhetoric of tolerance, Islam, Christianity and Judaism ultimately know their God is better, and everyone else is going to hell. Extremist faith only dispenses with the jargon, and with it the aspiration of peace (a relatively valuable concept nonetheless...).

It is a shame Irving could not separate moral judgment from terrorist acts, and not only because it implicitly fortifies the state with moral righteousness it does not deserve. Islamism is the political deployment of Islam, and while bombers, network leaders and heads of state talk a rhetorical game of faith, the core issues are geopolitical, historical and economic. Religion is a great way to forge group identity and mobilise people, regardless of the truth of respective religious belief systems. Educated folks of faith should be able to see when their beliefs are being deployed for political ends, as the Archbishop of Canterbury demonstrated on 23dec. Islamic community support for acts of war/terrorism is real but it comes from material conditions, real occupations, real deaths, real poverty.

So if the ultimate issue is whether these strands can be separated and sufficiently identified under analysis and in retrospect, we need only look at Irving's article and the discussions that follow (incl. mine) to see how individual issues such as citizenship, moral responsibility, tolerance and terrorism function co-operatively, in the end, to kick someone's arse who doesn't agree with you, with the word or the sword or the acetone peroxide. No matter how politely you put it.

Merry Xmas/Asalammualaikum.
L.

What Luke said!!

Looking at the moral responsibility issue.
Most Immigrants I have met or know move to other countries are not there to try to undermine the system. They are there to be a contributing member of society and they are willing to do what ever it takes to do it.
Having lived on four continents I can speak from experience.
Where the system is flawed is the monitoring and structure.
The governments should not hinder your progression by putting up different rules for different. For example if I had technology available to me that can give a better and cheaper service for mobile phones to all Australians, I am not allowed to implement it until I am a citizen. It is not discriminatory, it is narrow-minded.
The criteria for citizenship or working Visa’s should be updated and enforced.
English being mandatory, education levels, etc maybe even an exam. After the exam there is pledge of allegiance, and the ceremony is over. Canada, US, UK, Germany, and others do it.
Not everyone needs to know the difference between rugby union and league. Realistically they should be able to read street signs, know what the legal drinking age is, know the national anthem, and have respect for local customs, laws and religious practices.
I believe if you violate those citizenship rights within the first 5 years, it can be revoked.
If you move to a country and you can bring in technology, knowledge, new ideas, or all and in doing so, create opportunities, jobs etc. This is a good thing. Applying as a refugee is really counterproductive as the lower paid jobs will be swallowed up by people who will work for less than half the amount.
This will create a problem. This creates a rift in the economy.
All systems are open for some type of abuse …
Close the gaps and let’s move on.

Sundog has an utopian view of morality... teach migrants English, explain to them our rules,... and all is good...

That I agree could work for "Most Migrants" - unfortunately the remainder minority is definitely undermining our system, and no amount of policing is going to change that.

A full awakening and a vigilant awareness of this particular minority group are what is required to stop the propagation of this political system - disguised as a religious faith - which feels SO morally superior to the rest of us.

Their agenda is to impose their values on all the non-believers (in their system) because their moral values are the answer - they believe - to all our economic and social ills.

A country cannot survive for long when this cancer is spreading and left unchecked and untreated.

Not to worry Coach, John H has been recruiting extra ASIo staff, and more to come. Purpose? To monitor both the Chinese and Muslim communities. Perhaps you could ask that their use of language be monitored also. Although it will be anyway so don't panic.

Could I refer this quote from Martin Niemoller for your consideration :

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

At what stage will you and others like you try to speak up on behalf of others?