CJ Morgan - How is saying the Muslims are a handsome people racist. I could have said they were repulsive and ugly. Its the fundamentalism of the religion I dont like. There are few ugly races in the world most races have nobility and handsomness. The dignity of the human being shines through.

My whole purpose in writing these posts is to promote intermarriage betwen the races in Australia as I see that being the only way to unity and peace in the long run. But I cannot accept my children marrying into a religion that will opress their freedoms. So the point I am making is that in the case of the muslims it is the religion standing in the way of intregration.

Strayan-Thats rich! Saying that I'm trying to control what women wear. The muslim religion wins hands down on that one. I'm saying I object to women being told what to wear.

What is it with human beings and silly hats and headdresses. The silly hats the bishops and cardinals wear in the christian church is another example, then there's the silly turbin the Indians wear on their head because of religion. Then the jews with that silly little cap on their heads. Then theres the silly fez worn by the Turks is that connected to religion too or just a national dress?
I always say beware of people wearing silly hats and headdresses on their heads when its not for fun. The scary part is these people are serious.

Muslims represent about 1.5% of all Australians and as Muslim connotes ethnicity and origin as well as faith, there is a great deal of diversity among the 300,000 or so Muslims in Australia. Yet it is Australians (the other 98.5%) who are responsible for setting the social and cultural stage for integration.

If faith is the source of identity, then in order to “validate Muslim as an Australian identity”, an Australian Muslim's allegiance needs to be to the country first, and the ideology second. Will fully-integrated Muslims agitate for theological reform and distance themselves from radical Islam? Will they “out” the extreme teachings of their imams? Are they willing to become partners in counter-terroism?

The government could provide “help for self-help”, at the taxpayer’s expense, or the generous donor who has just provided $600,000 for the new mosque in downtown Parramatta could step up to the plate.

While I appreciate Khan's suggestion, it is going to be very difficult to justify the costs unless the public sees that this will provide effective, grassroots counter-terroism measures, is good public policy, or is indeed socially responsible.

Lack of integration and the alienation of a whole political/religious group, eventually finds an outlet in violence, however, as Cronulla demonstrated, both Muslims and non-Muslims will jump into the fray.
Disaffection of youth, particularly young men, is not a Muslim phenomenon. It is something that society at large is concerned about. Conversion to Islam is not the solution Australians crave.

"Islamophobia" is how Muslims describe the culture-war we're involved in, and anyone who wishes to participate in this dialogue from the western side is labelled an Islamophobe if they are critical of Islam.

Khan writes "Islamic women are denied a voice".

Before we see Muslims integrated, a major cultural revolution within Muslim society needs to take place, one that allows criticism of Islam and a voice for women. In the meantime, compromises are being made within our institutions, and the result is not integration, but the emergence of Muslim special interests.

Dear BOAZ_David and ‘the slow end of the racist bandwagon’

Assuming that you have read the whole article:

- close your eyes for 10 seconds and shake your heads
- open your eyes and read your repulsive comments….

In case you don’t throw up, go get some HELP

Reading this whole sorry thread has reminded me of why I no longer bother posting on threads relating to Islam. I normally just let the ranters go, in the hope that they won't contaminate non-Islamic threads. Doesn't seem to work though....

Dear Sad Saed :)

mate.. let's get real here.

1/ "Which" of my words are 'repulsive' ? I actually REPORTED words.. many of them..
a)Yours
b)TimesOnLine's

2/ Please show me which of my words mention 'RACE' ? and can hence be described as 'racist' ?

I encourage people to engage with the arguments raised in your article.. I do so myself..by discecting 2 comments which appear to be contradictory, and I'm then declared repulsive, likely throw up when I re-read them etc.? (sounds like the beginnings of an inquisition to me :)

This would make a fascinating psychological study Saeed.. how
a) I can provide a differing but analytical scrutiny of an opinion piece
b) How others (namely you) can then use all manner of innapropriate terminology and verbal slurr to denegrate not only what I wrote, but me also.

I still don't 'get' how you can say that youth need 'non religious' help (which is a non racist statement) but in the next breath 'we' should help the 'Muslims' which is clearly a racist statement. I don't mean it is racist in a really nasty way, I mean it simply takes 'race' into account in considering policy. But even that's incorrect.. because "Islam" has nothing to do with 'race' and everything to do with 'religion'.

Do you follow me here ?

I sense a lot of racism, hate and intolerance in your words.. is that the case? See.. we can all play that game.. just drag those volatile words out at the drop of a hat for anyone who disagrees with us. One problem though.. 'water off a duckies back' to me :) because my weapons are 'argument, fact and reported fact'.

By all means take issue...but with those things..not with 'me'.