Horus;

Keith Windsshuttle encapsulates what you suggest here quite well in a published article in Quadrant magazine Jan 07; Be it a rather long article.
Excerpt here; http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=1878#comments

Frank..close indeed.

The only area of possible disagreement now might be in the area of the subjective value judgement on what is 'dangerously unnaceptable'.

Lets use the issue of Islam (as its my usual grazing ground) as an example.
Based on Professors Israeli's assertion about 'Muslim critical mass' and the dangers therein, lets state what he is not saying first.
-He is not condemning "all" muslims.
-He is not suggesting there no wonderful compassionate, kind Muslims.
-I don't see him suggesting that Muslims in a country should be deported, detained, harmed or marginalized in any other way than they already marginalize themselves.

What he is saying is that based on his observations and considerable research, there does come a point where the 'radical' end of the Muslim population becomes more than a little bit dangerous.

There would be 2 reasons for this.
1/ -the bigger the overall population, the more 'radicals'.
2/ -The more radicals, the more likely are threats of violence.

Clearly, based on sound observations of our own (Australia) if our foreign policy conflicts with the radicals views on "Infidels invading Muslim lands" (lets not consider Iraq here, because the same applies to Afghanistan and even Spain which is still considered 'Muslim land') Then they will see this as a call or justification to wage literal war on Australia.
We have 13 men in Melbourne and 11 in Sydney who appear to confirm this observation.

My conclusion is probably where you and I will not only be on a different page but a different chapter.
I would halt completely any Muslim migration to Australia UNLESS they are able to do the following:
a) Publically repudiate specific verses of the Quran. (23:5-6 is one)
b) Agree that Mohammed interpreted the 'fight them' verses in the Quran in 'aggresive terms' and swear an oath of alleigance to Australia and that they would fight and kill if neccessary any Invader (specially Muslim) should they be called on to do so in the name of national security.

Even if they did, I'd prefer a halt to Muslim Immig.

David,

When we debate the notion of 'unacceptable danger' in the context of immigration, how quickly protagonists raise Islam and the Middle East (the 'grazing ground' as you call it). Islam has no monopoly on religious-inspired violence. However, we often overlook the fact that more 'unacceptable danger' consists in Muslims versus Muslims than Muslims versus other religions (violence between Christians and Christians is not entirely unknown too).

Be that as it may, from the perspective of Australia's national interests we could just as readily look at Indonesia. With about 170 million Muslims - which makes it the biggest 'Muslim nation' and being a much closer neighbours it is of special interest to Australia's future. There's no problem with applying the 'critical mass' thesis to Indonesia. Would you say that there is more danger in 'radical Islam' in Indonesia than in Iraq? If not, why not?

Furthermore, the Christian population of Indonesia is about the same as the total population as Australia (c 20 million). What do we know about how the Christian population are faring in mainstream Indonesia?

Taking the argument a little further, why is there no threat to Christianity from Bangladesh which has a greater mass of Muslims than Iraq? Or from India? Or China? Or Turkey? Or the UAR? Or Morocco?

Did you know that less than 20% of Arabs are Muslim? Why are we fixated on the Middle East when we talk of Islam?

I wonder too why people continue to assert that Islam - as a generic belief system - is a threat when it is clear that there are any number of Muslim nations that pose no threta to us?

I think I must agree with you that we are not only on a different page but a different chapter when you call for a ban on Muslim immigration.

I think HUMAN culture is bad for this country.
Please take your philosophical disagreements elsewhere you stinking monkeys.

Frank Gol,
Frank I always thought that GOL stood for “ Gollum “.
Now I’m convinced of it -you’ve clearly been hiding in cave playing with your ring for the last few decades.

“What do we know about how the Christian population are faring in mainstream Indonesia?”
“Why is there no threat to Christianity from Bangladesh which has a greater mass of Muslims than Iraq? Or from India? Or China? Or Turkey? Or the UAR? Or Morocco?”:

What planet have you been living on? [ROFL! ]

“Did you know that less than 20% of Arabs are Muslim?”

What comic did you read that in? [ ROFL! ]

I’ll leave him to you David

Fortunately, neither Boazy nor his cohort of less talented (but rather more hateful) acolytes will ever be in a position to influence Australia's immigration policy directly. As the article's author suggests, it's inevitable that economic globalisation and climate change will cause people to migrate around the globe in higher numbers than ever before. Of course this threatens the economically privileged and those who adhere to outmoded religious ideologies, but they'll get over it eventually - while continuing to bleat plaintively about an apocalypse that won't actually happen.

Oh, I think FrankGol made a simple typo: it's less than 20% of Muslims who are Arabs, rather than the other way around. His point about there being disproportionate emphasis on the Middle East by the Islamophobes is still valid.