Thor,

To suggest that I endorse, countenance or am in any way ambivalent to the acts or threat of violence against women is deeply offensive. There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to commit acts of violence against women (or men for that matter).

Although how you got that from my comments I can't be sure: my point was (and remains) that protection by the term "freedom of speech" seems to apply only (as Rebecca's piece gently suggests) to a group of people on one end of the spectrum at this point, and can be exclusionary of anyone deemed to be "un-Australian". Who gets to decide who that is? As I recall it, I did not suggest that 1) it was okay to incite terror; 2) it was okay to be violent towards women.

My examples were intended to illustrate that point: that a freedom-of-speech argument extends to protect those with a minority view on one side of any "buzz" issue in the current context. If you want to re-examine the argument I ran, let's put it a different way: is it really okay for anyone to advance a racial stereotype that that race finds offensive, and where do we draw that line?

Spendocrat:

"Killers or people who advocate killing can be born out of any culture, race or religion."

They may, yes, but it happens that 98% of terrorists are Muslims. How do you explain this?

"They may use their religion to justify their acts, this does not mean the religion is to blame."

Then what is to blame, if not the religion? Terrorists regularly tell us that they are 'fighting for Islam' - and in fact, the koran supports this view. The koran is full of incitements to fight and oppress the 'infidel' (thats us!)

Koran 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers”

Koran 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

" I know as little about Islam as I do about Catholicism, but I do know they are very similar fundamentally"

If you know little about either religion, how can you possibly make this claim? In what ways are Catholicism and Islam alike?

" in that you can find teachings in either to justify just about any foolish act. "

We are not referring to 'foolish acts' - we are discussing people who are convinced that they have the right to murder anyone who disagrees with them politically and morally. When was the last time anyone claiming to act in the name of Christianity hacked somebodys head off and posted the video? Or cut someones throat in full public view because the person had said something he disliked? Or carried out terrorists attacks killing thousands of innocent people?

“All peace is a result of war”

Freedom must be defended with eternal vigilence - peace is usually the result of defeating ones enemies, not appeasing them.

“98% of terrorists are Muslims. How do you explain this?” It would be incredibly arrogant of me to claim to have an answer to such a complicated question. To blame Islam, of course, would be more than arrogant, it would be ignorant and moronic. Next.

“Then what is to blame, if not the religion?” I dunno...you?

Seriously though. There’s no one thing to ‘blame’. It's a vast complex culmination of factors, far too involved to even touch on within 350 words. And please don’t try to claim that the Koran incites violence any more that the Bible, you’re embarrassing yourself. What the Islamic consider ‘infidels’ aren’t any different to what Christians used to consider ‘heathens’. Of course western religion and culture is more advanced in this respect nowadays (although you may not know it looking at some of these posts), and therefore has less people interpreting this sort of thing literally. Maybe some education is the answer.

“When was the last time anyone (in the name of Christianity)…. carried out terrorists attacks killing thousands of innocent people?” This made me laugh. There's a mountain of history here, but I assume you’re looking for something recent…geez, I’m almost embarrassed to break this to you…there’s been this war going on, you may have seen it on the news…it’s already resulted in at least 10,000 innocent deaths – far more than any Islamic terrorists have managed.

Ok so war technically isn't terrorism, details details. You can’t deny Bush evokes God quite often in relation to war. But if you believe the problem is Islam, what do you suggest? There are over a billion of them out there…most of them obviously don’t follow their religion that closely, because by your logic they should be out killing all the infidels, right? But no…they just seem to be going about their peaceful daily lives, not hurting anyone…weird.

There was a time when the blame for the ills of society was placed on a popular race/religion…I think it was in the 30s. You might wanna read up on it, see how it went.

Muslim terrorists say they are inspired by their religion and that it is their aim to create a 'worldwide caliphate'. I believe them.

Obviously most Muslims choose not to follow this doctrine, yet many do support the actions and beliefs of Islamic terrorists. Muslim madrassas teach hatred for the west and the glory of murdering 'infidels'. The 'clerics' preaching hatred and intolerance have moral authority within the Muslim world, and they have large audiences, as we saw in Australia recently.

" ..Koran incites violence any more than the Bible,"

The NT is the relevent 'Bible' to Christians - where does Jesus incite violence or hatred? The growth and evolution of the Christian religion is in shocking contrast to that of Islam.

In the 10 years that Mohammad lived in Medina, he either sent out, or went out, on 74 small assassination hit squads, raids, battles, or full-scale wars like the Tabuk Crusade (AD 630). After Mohammed's death, Islamic rulers embarked upon 1,500 years of conquest and subjugation through invasion and war. How do Mohammed's actions measure up against those of Jesus?

The Iraq war as an example of Christians killing Muslims - the war may very well be wrong, but this is not a question of killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims. This is not war of invasion to convert unbelievers and colonise their land.

I suggest that radical Islam be regarded in the same light as Nazism - a cancer on the world. Every country has the right, as a duty to its own citizens, to give preference to immigrants whose culture will permit integration. I dont wish to see the European/UK scenario happen in Australia, although the bombing of a police station by Lebenese Muslim gangs have brought us closer to it.. If keeping this situation out of Australia means offending Muslims, so be it.

One last point - if a country is obliged to make new laws in order to restrain the behaviour of immigrants, then the country is better off without those people.

Whoa.

People have managed to turn a discussion about PC into a discussion about Islam and terrorism and what have you.
Please, people, put down the Hickery sticks. I've read many forums, although I haven't posted on many, and I do detect some grudges. I'm sure that if I put some of you in the same room together, some eyeballs might be popped. Scary.

About PC. A long time ago, it was a force for good. I'm half Asian, so I've had to deal with some racist slang against my mother and myself. PC helped to change that quite a bit. People are more polite and more understanding.

But now it's gone way too far. "Personhole"? I think these PC people have too much time on their hands. They go after everyone.
Also, I detect some degree of double standards. PC people will harass you if you make an off-colour comment on ethnic people, but they won't bother if you insult a white person. As someone who is half white, I don't think that's a good thing. PC has gone too far. Too far!

Oh and thanks to Rebecca for a good article.

You are correct, Thieving Magpie. I meant to post about PC and ended up posting about radical Islam. My opinion is that bigoted language - ie, calling people 'niggers', 'wogs' etc, should be socially unacceptable, but not illegal.

Good quote from Theodore Dalrymple:

'Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to'.