But Steven surely you can find a way to "challenge" these religions without being obnoxious? A man of your intelligence can surely manage that.

Can one be both European and Muslim?
The question is absurd.There are already European Muslims living useful and law-abiding lives. There are also some who are not useful Muslims who are giving every muslim a bad name. They should be got rid of. Those who demand the conversion of everyone to Islam should be deprived of citizenship and deported because they are purely trouble-makers.

socratease

Pericles: I am not corroding Western society - its corrosion is coming from two sources:

1. ITSELF - its postmodernist nihilism, cynicism and relativism, loss of sense of what is important, of belief in the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly.

2. ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION AND NON-INTEGRATION.
Islam wants not to share but to BE the world. It wants huge social and even formal legal power over the individual in areas Westerners regard as matters of conscience and individual rights. It is incompatible with CORE Western values of tolerance, free inquiry, creativity, hard work, enterprise.

In 2007 Gregory Clark wrote "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World". In his review of this, under the heading 'The Culture of Prosperity', Wolfgang Kasper writes (at
http://www.cis.org.au/policy/winter08/kasper_winter08.html ):

“All-important shared cultural values can erode or be lost if too many immigrants with persistent Malthusian mindsets join in only to exploit the comforts of a wealthy host country. The result may be the same if kindhearted multiculturalists remove the pressures on newcomers to adapt to the needs of productive life in Australia. The necessary integration does not require that immigrants give up their cuisine or festivals, but they must adopt fundamental values such as the commitments to self-reliance and to save and invest, as well as a respect for the fundamental rule of law, which also implies shunning violence.

“The naive suggestion … that world living standards could and should be raised by mass migration from the third world to the first, simply overlooks what a valuable but vulnerable asset a shared culture is. Our forebears created valuable cultural capital by inculcating in us the value of responsibility, effort, and honesty towards all, not just our own tribe. Such cultural capital is a highly productive possession, which every new generation must cultivate and conserve by not distributing its rewards to all and sundry. The do-gooders who want us to share this possession with all comers remind me of young children who invite the whole street to share the contents of their parents’ fridge.”

Majority of muslims are terrific, but we never hear from them. Look at Pakistan 80% culturally muslim only yet image far more severe. Does not take many. Swiss mineret vote I think 90% non-practising and many voted in favour of the ban as it is not culturally appropiate for them either. The Islam Useful Idiots are only supporting the religous extremist and not the majority. Many moderate and non-practising say they battle the useful idiots and extremists, so two enemies.

Lucy,

When I read some of your posts I wonder. Are you yanking my chain or are you being serious. I shall assume the latter - for now.

Firstly I am glad you are no longer conflating racism with attacks on religion. One of the most poisonous aspects of the RRT is that it does precisely that.

Can I challenge beliefs without being "obnoxious"?

No.

For the simple reason that to the true believer ANY challenge to their beliefs is regarded as obnoxious. To some extent obnoxiousness will always be in the eye of the beholder.

Is the ABC's "Chaser" program "obnoxious"?

Of course it is. It's one of the things the viewers liked about them. Should they have been taken off the air for that?

You write that the purpose of the RRT was "to keep a standard of decency and civility in public discourse".

This sounds so grand. I mean, who could be against keeping public discourse "civil".

The trouble is that once you try to LEGISLATE civility in public discourse you open the way to censorship by lawyers. Most people cannot afford to fight a law suit. Threaten them with legal action and they will fold, apologise, agree to remain silent, forever hold their peace, etc.

There is even a name for censorship by lawsuit. It's called SLAPP, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. See eg:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SLAPP%27s_in_Australia

The RRT places a powerful weapon in the hands of SLAPPers. Well funded special interest groups can use it to intimidate people into silence.

The drafters of the RRT understood this. The Islamic Council of Victoria certainly understood this. So did the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. And, what's more, Lucy, I suspect you understand this and that your protestations that the RRT is not censorship are just a wee bit disingenuous. I don't believe you are nearly as naïve as you come across in your posts.

“I have no problem with Christiantiy...”Pericles

“Srebrenica, for example, saw the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II", and was conducted by your lot [Christians], on purely religious grounds.” Pericles

“If you look closely at some of the anti-Muslim posts on this thread...” Lucy Montgomery

Its OK Pericles to be a Christian basher and/or an apologist for Islam. There’s nothing to be ashamed of being an apologist of Islam. We believe in the freedom of expression.

Pat Condell sums it up nicely in this youtube presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs&feature=relate