CJ Morgan said "Lawrence Auster ... is a notorious lunar right wing racist with links to organisations like Stormfront. Not exactly a credible source on the subject of Islam, old son."

Auster on racism: "I describe my own view as moral racialism, meaning a belief in one's own race and the rightness and necessity of defending it, combined with a belief in the moral law."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012031.html

"A moral racialist is one who thinks that race matters and who cares about the survival and well-being of the European peoples and their civilization, but who subjects his concern about race to an objective moral standard and rejects immoral racialism."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009452.html

Auster on Stormfront, 2003: "When I first got my computer a few years ago I checked out the various far-white sites like StormFront and National Alliance... some intelligent things I agreed with, I listened. But as I got a sense of the evil place... combined with the sheer monotony of their invocation of hate, I dropped them."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001646.html

I don't think Auster is the most knowledgeable source on Islam. But, in regards to the true nature of Islam, he is in accord with the most credible source - Dr Andrew Bostom:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985&page=0#142709

I can't, however, refute your contention that Auster is "lunar" so I await your "credible source" that Auster is a "notorious lunar ... racist". I've been reading Auster's blog for a few years without noticing any strange behaviour so I can only conclude I haven't been reading on full moons, old son.

Fractelle <Eventually new migrants adopt the culture of their new country. It can take a generation or two.
Also from Pelican <It is the children of today that will shape the new face of multi-culturalism in 30years time not their parents of today who are more set in their ways.>
How do you then explain that the bombers in London were 2nd generation muslims.
The Jews in Germany never showed any sign of intregrating with the Germans.
Also the animosity between the two tribes in Rwanda went back to the 1950s, it obviously never stopped being there despite the passing of 60years.
History is awash with bloody massacres between different non intregrated groups in countries around the world whether they be religious or ethnic. Some of these groups lived together in peace for a while before these killings erupted. Don’t forget this country is only 2hundred years old and mass immigration is relatively new. Except in the case of mass white immigration(colonization) which resulted in the near extinction of the other existing race.

Leigh, I agree totally with your posts. Written with your usual clear sighted commonsence take on things.

Bring it down to the reason for the burqua.
It is to prevent other men seeing their wives, daughters or sisters.
That is what it is about.
Why they have such a hangup I have no idea, it just seems to be a lack
of maturity and indeed an insult to other men.

Now in view of Sydney's experiences with moslem gang rapes maybe that
gives a clue to why they enforce it on their female relatives.

This thread seems to have left the point issue. The issue is not the hijab, I hope nobody disputes Muslim women have the right to dress in the hijab. The issue is the buqua, a covering (usually black) from head to toe, with mesh to see through. This is a form of female dominance. It is not the overall Muslim religion that enforces the burqa, it is fundamentalist Muslims who enforce this form of garb on their women. Little men with big ideas. That is why it is wrong, and Sarkozy wants to change that dress intolerance in France. More power to him. The problem of course is the women themselves, they are so brainwashed by the dominant male that it will take another generation to finally have this filthy practice of male fundamentalism changed.

BS it is just the men. Fundamentalist Muslims are women too and in their households women are just as active and perhaps even more so in educating the children in the traditional conservatism. In a dysfunctional system all derive some advantage from things remaining as they are. How else can it be explained why in countries like the US or France, where individual rights are fiercely protected and law enforcement is readily available, that Muslim women and men maintain and promote, traditions that (to us) are limiting and self-defeating?

Feminist thinking doesn't explain everything and in some cases it just muddies the waters even more.

Sometimes we as a community have to be very forthright about the things we hold dear to us that are non-negotiable and we would if necessary fight for (not that it would come to that in this case). It is frivolous to convert this into a feminist issue, especially over clothing and it is even sillier to sit back Pollyanna-like hoping that 'education' and time will make things things turn out right.