and here it is:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22879059-2862,00.html

SIKH students in Victoria have been given the green light to carry small daggers to school under a plan that has outraged teachers and principals.

A Victorian parliamentary committee has also given the green light for Muslim students to wear hijabs in the state's classrooms.

Now we have crossed the line. IF it is ok to take WEAPONS to school in the name of religion.. then all religions and all weapons considered 'important' should/must be allowed. The Malays would use a 'kris' a wiggly dagger type thing.

This is just a further example of the madness that 'difference' is creating.

ALTERNATIVE. Rather than simply caving in to foreign cultures, how would it be, if we simply told them BEFORE they come here that
a) b) c) etc are not, and will not ever, be acceptable in Australian society.

This then of course raises the other issue of 'those already here'..and highlights the lunacy of considering our country 'multi' cultural. We say "As long as they adhere to the laws of the land" wel... last time I checked, carrying a concealed unlicenced weapon, which includes knives is illegal.... why then should the status of such things even be a questio

BD,

More of the same, we can expect more of this crap now we have a labor Govt.

Perhaps if I was a Palestinian I could take an AK47 to school that seems to be part of thier religion

Perhaps if I was Rastafarian I could take joints to school and smoke them at recess, wouldnt that be fun.

Whoever approved this crap must of been smoking joints, brought to you by a Labor government how wonderful.

Oh. My. God!

So an extremely small proportion of Indian kids - adherents of a famously peaceful religion who are required to pray daily for the wellbeing of all mankind - will be taking small ceremonial daggers to school that they're not allowed to use!

Well I don't know about you people, but I am going to lobby for a complete freeze on immigration effective YESTERDAY and am immediately converting to Christianity!

RUN FOR THE HILLS PEOPLE! YOU'LL BE LUCKY TO ESCAPE WITH YOUR LIVES!

PS For learn more about the Sikhs and the kirpan, see http://www.sikhinterfaithvic.org.au/kirpan.htm

It's pretty obvious that this is a concernt for fraidy cats only.

Hi Scotty.. yes.. who knows eh.

BASS HILLS ISLAMIC SCHOOL.. the sequel.

There were thousands of objections to this, 2500+ and 600 or so 'for'... Main objections were on 'planning' grounds, but the 'tone' of the objections included reference to the religious aspect.
The 'pro' group sought to portray themselves as 'ordinary people looking to educate their children'.... here is a comment from one such person.

MARIJANA (supporting construction)
>>This is a prosperous and exciting opportunity for the whole of South - Western Sydney region. Given this opportunity at any other suburb I am sure that they would bounce at such an exciting development and it really is saddening see a minority in the Bass Hill region opposing this great opportunity) want to behave like the uneducated,uncouth,foul mouthed,intimidating, out of control people that they are, that's their problem. They only showed Council and any other interested parties their true colours!<<

CONCLUSION. The 'difference' between communities creates a pressure cooker of seething resentment. One day, one of 'them' (or us) will refuse to pay a bus fare, be rebuked by the driver, go home and tell 'the rest' that they were picked on by 'them' and "Poso/Ambon" will visit us all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=govrPJZ8Y7M

Thanks Botheration - and enlightening link.

It just goes to show how bigoted and racist some people are. They are doing more harm to their cause than they realise.

They misrepresent the truth for their own agenda and instill fear in the minds of their target audience.

And they do this in the name of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost? - how hypocritical is that!

I see that Boazy and his mate in hate Scotty have been doing a fair bit of textual frothing at the mouth over the last couple of days. How nice to see they've found a soulmate in each other.

Actually, I agree that the decision to allow initiated Sikh kids to wear the kirpan under their school uniforms is unwise - but I can't see any great risk from allowing hijabs. They might even mitigate the headlice plague that seems to bedevil most schools these days :)

However, I disagree that these are examples of multiculturalism per se. Rather, I see the issue to be the encroachment of religions into secular public schools where they don't belong. In recent years we've seen Howard's Christian chaplains insidiously introduced, and now we have this Sikh nonsense and the issue of Muslim hijabs in schools.

I think that all overt displays of religions and their paraphernalia should be banned from public schools. It is religions that are divisive, not multiculturalism.

Just so we are straight here.

You cretins dont care if your children go to school with other children that carry knives.

Knowing how emotional children can be, are you saying that sikh children possess more self control than other children?

If so you wont mind me arming my lttle fellows with bowie knives then?

Bugger it, a machete will fit in a back pack, I will insist on it along with all the other bogan parents that our children be armed to the teeth after being initiated in a pig hunt with dogs.

Pig hunting will be our religion of choice and when you leftists say you cant do that we will draw your attention to the other weapon carrying children at school.

Nice one ladies way to start an arms race! fools

CJ Morgan: "It is religions that are divisive, not multiculturalism."

But religion is part of culture.
There's just no way around this, CJ.

I don't see how anybody can defend children taking knives to school, even "ceremonial" ones.
A ceremonial knife could still be used in anger or fear, or to intimidate others, as any knife could be.

If it's merely ceremonial, with no potentially violent purpose, why not make kirpans out of paper, plastic or rubber?
(At least the ones for the kiddies.
"My First Kirpan" by Mattel.)

Why is it one rule for the religious (or more accurately, the "ethnic"), another for the rest?
If Sikhs can wear concealed weapons, so should anybody.
If nobody else can, neither should Sikhs.

It wouldn't matter in a Sikh community in the Punjab.
*Everybody* would have concealed knives.
It would be a shock if somebody didn't!

It matters when those cultural norms are applied elsewhere.
In a culture with different expectations about children carrying knives.

Are 13-year-old Jewish schoolboys permitted to make their own decisions about school attendance (they're adults according to their religion), while the remainder of their class must compulsorily attend school until they're 15?

Consistency never was your strong point Boaz, was it?

I seem to recall that at every opportunity, you will explain to the world how Muslims have to be violent towards Christians simply because a verse in their scripture says so. No deviation, no compromise, it has to be, because the scripture says so. Right?

In this case, however, you studiously ignore the entire rationale for the Kirpan, simply so that you can denigrate someone else's religion. It doesn't seem to matter to you that in doing so you display the duplicity that you have made your trademark.

As I am certain you must be aware, here's Wikipedia's take:

"The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind."

You would also be aware that there have been no incidents of violence in Australia featuring the Kirpan. Quite possibly, because it is not an offensive weapon...

But what is becoming really, really tedious - even more tedious than your pick 'n' mix approach to religious scriptures - is the way you segue any item with the faintest religious connotation into a whack-a-mozzie rant.

I know you won't stop doing it. But I'll be right behind you, pointing out the arrant hypocrisy of your stance..

CJ, perhaps the thread should have been titled "Freedom of Religion the ongoing madness".

I'm not sure that all children will understand the nuance which explains other children being allowed to bring a knife to school for religious purposes and them not being able to bring one for their own purposes.

I'd like to see outward expressions of religion kept at bay in our schools but at the same time I'd rather have kids from different backgrounds mixing in schools rather than being segregated out into religion specific schools. There is no easy balance in that.

R0bert

Boaz,
Thanks for informing us of this latest cultural 'cave in'. One hopes it is only a committee recomendation and their is enough outcry for the Government to shelve it. It should be up to each school committee to decide on school uniforms, not to be told a certain item of clothing must be acceptable. Knives of any description, for whatever purpose definately should not be allowed.

When such decisions are made, and Governments turn a blind eye to FGM, forced arranged marriages, cultural peadapjillia and incest it compromises our own cultural standards.

Scotty,
Don't just single out Labor for stupudity on immigration matters, the Libs are equally so.

Take the last piece of Boaz's post. He makes a vital point. For many decades we have relied purely on word of mouth to give prospective immigrants information about our society. Official info was given only to those who were successfull in getting a visa. They had already made up their minds and committed. Only in the last few months has moves been made to give those applying for a visa information about our culture and society. My last inquiry revealed this material was being printed. I sincerely hope that the new Minister keeps on with this as it it vital that prospective immigrants are adequately informed BEFORE they ultimately decide to come to Aus.

Their friends here want them to come so they will paint a rosy picture and say things like FGM is against the law but keep it quiet and nobody cares and the same with eating prohibited foods, like dog meat or dolphin. Migrants must get the proper information.

.R0bert, I think that allowing a category of kids to take even concealed symbolic weapons into a school is stupid policy.

My point is that we probably wouldn't see this idiocy if the Howard government hadn't insidiously introduced religion into the national education debate, e.g. via introducing the (Christian) chaplaincy program.

The priviileged bureaucratic treatment of one religion over others was always going to provoke protests from adherents of other mythologies on equity grounds. I can imagine that Sikh parents sending their kids to public schools that celebrate Christian chaplaincy might be inclined to encourage their kids to assert being Sikh. Ditto with Muslims.

I say this in the context of having declined in the past week an invitation to attend a morning tea to celebrate the "commissioning" of the Christian chaplain at my youngest daughter's State school. I didn't go because I thought it would be hypocritical, given that my daughter has excluded herself on her own volition from religious education classes.

I've always thought that the former government's blatant promotion of Christianity via the Chaplaincy program would provoke a backlash from those who suffer the God delusion in alternative ways. The funding should have been directed towards secular counsellors, or more teachers and/or teachers' aides.

Shocka - of course religion is an element of culture, but you don't seem to understand that its expression is very dependent on the particularities of the cultural milieu in which it is practised. Islam in Lakemba is as culturally different to its expression in, say Saudi Arabia or Sumatra, as Hillsong Christianity is to Egyptian Copts or Fijian Methodists.

Culture isn't fixed - it's actually both cause and effect. No culture is static, as neither indeed is any religion.

BOAZ CJ Belly Foxy and ... all guys, hello. I am back again after a long break :)
I like to know your idea about multiculturalism. Do you think its possible to have only one culture instead of multi? how can we make it?

Kids are taking very dangerous weapons to school we should not allowe it?
Every one agree?
Good let us ban every religion!
Without it this thread would not need to exist would it?
Now can these things cut? are they truly a weapon? if so no way they should be in school.
A farmer on sale day is not able to have his pocket knife on his belt.
That knife is his every day tool box.
Multi culturism is many different things ,we benefit from it, post war refugees helped us in very many ways.
But I think the real concerns our sometimes bigoted posters share, even with me, is the refusal of some to in any way take on our culture too.
I question the current view that the idea is wrong, but not the view some migrants from some groups not all,are of little worth to this country.
In truth religion is the problem not culture.

Hmmmmmm..... interesting responses.

CJ.. believe it or not.. I'm warming to you :) hahaha.. now that should worry you mate... the thing is.. you expressed the issue well..and correctly. Its not about 'religion' its about law. The simple fact of the matter is.. all culture, and religion, must give way to Australian law. "No concealed weapons".

PERILOUS in the spirit of Surah 33:51 which allows Mohammad to throw out other verses referring to the 'equal/fair' treatment of his many wives, saying

51 You may defer any of them that you please, and you may receive any you please: and there is no blame on you if you invite one whom you had set aside.

Ok.. you are now in the doghouse..and CJ is allowed on the mat at the back porch :) he is closer and you are consigned to the 'outer limits'... why ? because you seem to be obsessed with the idea of me 'hating other religions'

"you will explain to the world how Muslims have to be violent towards Christians simply because a verse in their scripture says so."

My position is this. <<'ISLAM' calls for war against non Muslims in the interests of establishing the rule of Allah">> Now that is not exactly what you said. "Muslims" are a spectrum. Hard liners/Fundamentalists and 'cultural nominal' at the other end. What their faith calls for and what they do may not coincide. But the VALUE SYSTEM which underlies all of them... is outright dangerous as far as I'm concerned.

BOTHERSOME.... (with a nick like that you have to wear it :) like I have to wear 'BOZO') I'll just re-iterate... its notttt about 'how Sikhs regard their dagger religiously' its about "Australian law" mate.

ALJAZERA OZ..welcome back you colorful fellow :)
to respond to your question, I don't see it as aiming for a 'mono-culture' as in 'English' culture. But we should be aiming at a homogenous/well integrated, well assimilated 'Australian' culture which will be the end result of encouraging unity rather than diversity.

Oh what a tangled web we weave
when first we practice (multiculturalism)”

The kirpan issue is not a response/backlash to Howard’s chaplains,
it’s a natural progression from our multiculturalism policies,
and it's to be found not only in our schools, but increasingly across all segments of our ‘multicultural’ society.

[PS :I am reminded of the ‘small knives’ the 9/11 hijackers are said to have used to commandeer their aircraft]

Boaz,"mate" (please, no need to apologise, I've learnt enough about your basic decency to know you wouldn't respect my request re my tag), the law has decided that Sikhs children may bring kirpans to school. The law may be an ass, but it exists. Our conversation, therefore, revolves around its ramifications.

I like your thinking CJ, and Robert, but I dunno. Given we apparently haven't evolved out of religion yet, given we have to have it, I really don't have a problem with religious paraphenalia at school, as long as it doesn't form part of any actual tuition.

Horus wrote: "PS :I am reminded of the ‘small knives’ the 9/11 hijackers are said to have used to commandeer their aircraft"
Really? Is it the completely different religion or the completely different situation that's reminding you? Or is it that you associate Sikhs and Muslims cause they're both darkies? I, by the way, am reminded of the butter knife you used on your crumpet this morning.

Scotty, you're cute. Single?

Dear Botheration,

My goodness ...
I didn't know you were into 'machete' armoured children, and pig-hunts - with dogs? And you think that's - cute?

O.K. now to be serious... I agree that to allow children to carry any sort of sharp objects to school is asking for trouble. Teachers have enough on their hands - without having this extra problem thrust upon them.

I'm also against allowing children to wear what they want (or what their parents may want them to wear) to public
schools.

There should be a dress code on what's acceptable. So that no
child is made to feel 'different.'

Children have enough pressure at school - without the added burden of being singled out because of their 'difference.' The schools should make the rules of what they will and won't accept. And parents can either choose to accept the school's rules, or send their children
elsewhere.

Botheration,
Actually the comment you highlighted was not playing–on race (or religion) it was alluding to the proposition that something which may seem innocuous could be used as an effective weapon (as Foxy said, why add to the woes of teachers).

However , it might be enlightening to know why you have
Rorschach-like visions of “darkies” when you see the terms Moslem or Singhs.Especially since Muslims are all colours of human rainbow and a good number of Muslims and most Singhs, belong to the Caucasian race. I’m sure there must some deep psychological implications in that!

[PS: I may have had some crumpet this morning but there was definitely no butter associated with it – but then, each to his own!]

Botheration.... I didn't see your request about your tag, but I assume you asked me to use it correctly ? :) please send the same message to those who call me 'Bozo' and many other names :) (loony, psychotic,paranoid,xenophobic, insane, armchair nazi and lots of other colorful ones)

You say 'The Law' allowed...... ? What I saw was 'A parliamentary committee gave the green light' ok.. then they ALSO said:

"The inquiry into uniforms found all schools should accommodate clothing or other items that are religiously significant."

FannnnntaSTIC.. now, we Christians will begin wearing large crosses across our chests as the Crusaders wore as they went to slaughter the infidel pagan Muslims... 'religiously significant' and on our backs we will have 732AD..in bigggg BOLD letters.. because that was the 'religiously significant date when rampaging Islam was stopped in its tracks at Tours France.

You "pat pat it'll all be ok" mob.. simply don't get it. Honestly... you don't have the slightest clue about the big picture. All you see is 'Oh.. lets not discriminate, lets nourish and accomodate these various traditions' not realizing, that SOME traditions are as irritating, or confronting as the marching season in Northern Ireland when the Protestants deliberately marched in Catholic areas to rub salt into the historic wound saying "weeee WON.. youuu LOST" every single year since the original battle.

You seem to have the idea that WE don't have any 'irritating, confronting' religious symbols. Sorry.. we do, and if we want to take them up.. wellll you can fill in the blanks.

How about if SWASTIKA's are 'religiously significant' to young German migrants? errrrr.. get the idea ?

Its FAR better to have ZERO specific religious "Look at me I'm religion xyz" paraphinalia at public schools.

I'd like to know what the fine print is about this LAW.. and how the priority is worked out between it and 'carrying concealed weapons'.

Boaz,
I wonder why it is that some people, and Government Committees, think that all aspects of all cultures are worthy of practising and preserving except ours. As I said before, each time we change to accomodate others cultures we compromise our own culture. When our culture is gone it is gone forever. Other cultures will still be alive in the old countries.

Our society is not perfect but in comparison to others it still has a lot going for it.

I trust you 'mexicans' will tell your Government that the proposed changes are not on. People need to be told that this is our country with our rules and if anybody doesn't like what we do then they should not come here or leave. Simple really.

Changes wil occur but they will evolve from the community, not be imposed from 'on high'.

Go on have a whinge white (or olive) men.

The fact is kids are so different to their parents these days that head scarves and daagers being more prevalent than before is a drop in the ocean.

Why did you leave Norhern (or Southern) Europe anyway?

Boazy: "FannnnntaSTIC.. now, we Christians will begin wearing large crosses across our chests as the Crusaders wore as they went to slaughter the infidel pagan Muslims..."

I can't imagine why anybody'd describe you as "...loony, psychotic,paranoid,xenophobic, insane, armchair nazi..."

CJ...... I think I'll put you out there with Pericles (in the doghouse).. did you see Banjo's insightful comment?

"When our culture is gone it is gone forever."

I use colorful speech to get a point across..... Hey.. the Palestinians blew up airliners and massacred Jewish athletes..but today what do people say? "Oh..those poooooor palestinians"... get it ?

You were speaking commonsense in your previous post, now..what I'm doing is following up on the 'religiously significant' rationale ..by showing where it could lead if everyone practiced such an idea.

We could take large crosses to school..and parade them around .... I mean.. there is no end to where 'religiously significant' could take us.

We could have 'Tours day' remembrance and 'Vienna Day' remembrance...
it doesn't end.

It seems you missed my final comment 'zero' religious symbolism in public schools.

Well.. don't worry :) I'll throw you a bone to munch on out there.
When you learn to read ALL peoples posts, you can come back to the mat at the back door.

Boaz, I don't understand why you would blame me for what other people have called you. I'm a teaser, not a name-caller. But, given that you asked, here goes:

To all those who've called Boaz_DAVID Bozo,loony, psychotic, paranoid, xenophobic,insane,armchair nazi etc: C'mon guys. I understand your frustration, and I'm not certainly questioning your accuracy, but does it really help your argument to bandy around these apt but frankly a-little-bit-rude monikers? Please people, play fair.

On other matters, look, I'd love state schools to be completely secular. My original point was simply that there's nothing to be scared of here. Suddenly people are talking about September 11 and concealed unlicenced weapons and swastikas and a "pressure cooker of seething resentment". It's lunacy. You're talking about kids, and you're talking about Sikhs. Has anyone ever met an aggressive Sikh? They're the people who come and help when some drunk white guy is hassling you in the street.

The world is a screwed up place, but this is one problem that I believe we can resolve peacably and sensibly. That's if the citizenry uses their collective common sense and eschews irrationality and thin-end-of-the-wedge thinking and fear-based, hysterical language.

By the way, I wrote to the Sikh Interfaith Council to express my distaste at the sensationalist way the Herald Sun had reported the incident. Here was their reply:

"We thank you very much for your support. You give us strength. Our religion teaches us to respect all religions. I am therefore thankful to your view and your insight [about the] sensationalism the press has been trying to create.

God bless you."

As I said earlier, run for the hills, people.

Bother,
I think you miss the point entirely, this is not a debate about wether or not sikh people are an aggresive culture or not.

Far from it, indeed at my school in Coffs Harbour I was fortunate to be friends with many sikh kids whos parents were banana farmers in the district, I can vouch that more awsome family orientated folk you would not find.

However that said, the debate about children being allowed to carry a dagger to school is about setting a precedent for all children to be armed with concealed weapons.

i.e If one group can carry a weapon or powerful religious symol then why not others.
Here is an interesting site about the Kirpan if your interested. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/paths/Kirpan.html

It is worn lest someone try to make the wearer do somthing against his religion.

You moonbats are always so quick to jump to the left you'd throw the baby out with the bath water.

CJ

It is good that you can see that allowing children to take knives to school is bad policy and an even worse precedent. The point is not whether the Sikhs are good people or not. A concealed weapon is a concealed weapon. Full stop. This is not to suggest that there are sikh kids out there just waiting to stab someone. I am sure that any danger from sikh students is very small.

The issue is that a good law which used to apply to everybody is now being abrogated because a very small part of the community wants special treatment. They have every right to expect special treatment because the Multiculturalists have been telling new migrants for years that you don’t have to change to fit in when you come to Australia.

I’m really tired of the stupid hijacking the debate by suggesting that those of us who are anti – multiculturalism are racists. For the hundredth time, I believe that we would get along far better as a mixed community if new migrants were made aware, and were prepared to accept, that some changes would be required if they wanted to live in Australia. If we let them know that where ‘Australian Values’ and their values clashed, theirs might have to give way we would have far less trouble.

In the end it all comes back to who is going to change in order to accommodate the other. Multiculturalism says that it should be us who changes so that others can retain their cultures and religions. Many of us feel that there needs to be more of an emphasis on migrants changing to fit in with us, rather than the other way around.

>> Culture isn't fixed
One wonders why the Aussie Sikhs and Muslims aren’t prepared to change on that basis. Maybe you could tell them that their cultures aren’t static. The very nature of the request that students take knives to school demonstrates that they view their religious and cultural requirements as being unyielding

Ozzie
Welcome back.
I will answer your question.
Umm I dont really think we need another culture.
Australia has its own culture Oz.
Its called The Aussie Culture.
Its part of why people came here and chose to live here.
Aussies are really ok people . They take heaps and just roll with the punches.
Some mistake their lay back attitude for laziness and lack of culture interests.
However Ozzie the truth is that is the culture- Lay back
Until others start to try to change our ways. Then you might be surprised.
Then the sleeping gaint awakes.
No Oz we love our country just like it is.
What do you think should happen.

Cheers Ozzie
pale

Paul.L, you seem to be developing the somewhat annoying habit of attributing arguments to me that I didn't actually put. I specifically argued that this issue isn't about multiculturalism, rather it's about the insidious reassertion of religionism that occurred under Howard's watch in Australia. And I certainly didn't mention race or racism.

Of course it's stupid policy to allow carrying concealed weapons into schools. But in this case it's not multiculturalism that's to blame - it's because religious beliefs have attained an unhealthy salience in education and other areas of governmental responsibilities during Howard's reign.

Sikhs, Muslims and immigrants of every religious affiliation eventually integrate into Australian society and culture. Invariably it's the immigrants who adjust more, but the host society and culture inevitably change as they accommodate fresh input.

With respect to Sikhs, there are good examples from northern NSW and north Queensland where generations of Sikhs have become well integrated into the local community but have still retained retained strong cultural and religious affiliations. I can't recall any appeals from them to allow their kids to wear concealed ceremonial daggers under their school uniforms. Maybe they always have but haven't told anyone about it?

Undoubtedly Muslims of various persuasions and ethnicities will do the same over a couple of generations. Such is the nature of Australian culture and society. But we need to remove religion once again from any salience outside its own purview. And that would involve its removal from State schools - starting with actively discouraging overt displays of religiosity like chaplains, hijabs, yarmulke, crosses etc.

I suspect that the Sikh kirpan wouldn't be much of an issue at all in such a climate.

Well... Scotty and Paul...even CJ (he is now officially back on the back porch mat..from the doghouse).. both see the real issue here.. and Botheration does not. (Bother..I don't worry about the names ... they make for a colorful exchange)

Its NOT about "Are Sikhs good people" or."Is the Sikh Religion dangerous" is only about ONE...thing "Australian law on concealed weapons".

It is total madness to allow foreign culture to overide Aussie law. If our laws are 'tweaked' and adjusted to suit the current cultural flavor of whoever is shouting loudest...then we are in deep trouble.

CJ.. I appreciate your eloquent expression of "One Nation, One Race, One Culture" in your comments :)

<<Sikhs, Muslims and immigrants of every religious affiliation eventually integrate into Australian society and culture. Invariably it's the immigrants who adjust more, but the host society and culture inevitably change as they accommodate fresh input.>>

Exxxxxxxxactly :) but mine takes less effort to say. Finally we are on the same page and in total agreement :

It must be wonderful to see the world in such simple, black and white, good and evil, right and wrong terms.

The unfortunate part about that is that when you scratch the surface, it is always my black vs. your white, my good vs. your evil, my right vs. your wrong.

The reality is that the world contains a vast array of shades of grey, to the point where - as Boaz will tell you at the drop of a dog-whistle - one man's freedom is another's thought crime.

So here we have a situation where world+dog appears to agree that a kirpan is a "concealed weapon", and that the permission to carry such artifact concealed about one's person is equivalent, seemingly, to permission to carry and use an AK47.

There seems to be a shortage of perspective here, don't you think?

Let's move on an inch or so. Let us all agree, just for the sake of argument, that the carrying of a sheathed, concealed kirpan by a devout, family-loving and innocent Sikh is simply the carrying of a religious emblem as a constant reminder of one's selfless obligation to others.

In what way does this equate to "wearing large crosses across our chests as the Crusaders wore as they went to slaughter the infidel pagan Muslims"?

Are we not overreacting just a teensy, teensy bit here?

I personally have no problem with people wearing the paraphernalia of their religion, whether it is a cross, kirpan, yarmulke, headscarf or veil.

The problem is not with the religion itself, of which there are clearly a vast number, each providing some emotional comfort its own constituency. But when those superficially religious folk start using their own set of beliefs to whack other sets of beliefs, that I find annoying.

I believe that the law in this case has taken the sensible course between the potential for damage caused by a small religious artefact and the sensitivities of a peaceful, family-oriented religious group.

CJ
For you from Wendy at PALE-
How much expereince have you had dealing with Muslim Leaders of Australia- Or anywhere else for that matter?

Come on you can tell us we are all interested to know?

I dont mind telling you our dealings with them.

You are now being addressed by someone who has held a MOU with Muslim Leaders for the last four and a half years.

In short it would be very fair to say they are a lot smarter than our Christian Leaders by a long run.

I am happy to share that much.

They certainly are miles in front considering they will at least talk about cruelty to animals and they acknowledge its their reasonsibilty to ensure animals dont suffer before slaughter.

They do have however an attitude in general which I find of some concern.
Before I share that with you whats your expereince working with Muslim Leaders.
WE are interested to know a bit more about your back ground and interest in this subject.

For Eg Are you Muslim?

Do you work with Muslim People or have many Muslim Friends.

You have made many comments and tend to be angered by anybody seeing large Muslim migration as a threat to their Australia culture for their grand kids.

I am personally interested to hear more about your own involement with Muslim people who came to Australia for a better way of life.


Spoken by Wendy and posted by Taryn.
PS A civil reply is a;ll that is required - Thanks

Pericles

>> Are we not overreacting just a teensy, teensy bit here?

If this was an isolated incident, Pericles, then I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately this is just another example of the minority dictating to the majority how we live our lives. Many Australians legitimately feel that our way of life is being eroded, piece by piece, by the politically correct multiculturalists brigade.

>> world+dog appears to agree that a kirpan is a "concealed weapon", and that the permission to carry such artefact concealed about one's person is equivalent … to carry and use an AK47

Now you are being stupid. A kirpan is an edged weapon with the potential to do real damage. No matter how you want to look at it, that’s undeniable. I personally have a problem with anyone wanting to wear their religious insignia to school. Our “Public” schools are supposed to be secular.

What is most incredible to me is that the cultural cringe brigade( read multiculturalists) regularly suggest that our culture is not static; intimating that there is no such thing as Australian culture. At the same time these cretins are happy to tell us that other people’s cultures are so rigid that we MUST allow them to express themselves however they are required, meaning of course that we should change to accommodate this.

>> I believe that the law in this case has taken the sensible course …

The point for all of us, Pericles, is that this is just another precedent which encourages special interest groups, particularly the migrant lobby groups, to demand special treatment. Ho Ho Ho offends a handful of idiots, and now santas everywhere are banned from saying it. It really is a very short walk to Merry Christmas being offensive, then celebrating Christmas at all. In the end we need to make a clear decision on whether we are going to accommodate every wish and whim of every minority group or whether some things are sacred to us and are not negotiable

Culture evolves Paul, over 100’s of years. Are you suggesting culture is static? How do you reconcile this with history?

You again distort or misrepresent the truth of multiculturalism – don’t be so paranoid.

Of course there is an Ozzie culture, and it is evolving like all other cultures – it’s just that we (Australia) are younger and freer to inculcate the bits from each that makes an Australian society a great place to grow in.

And no, us “cretins” DO NOT tell you “that other people’s cultures are so rigid that you MUST allow them to express themselves however they are required, meaning of course that we should change to accommodate this.”

We have Australian laws Paul – some may want to look up the Australian Law Reform Commission’s web site, they might learn something.

Paul, you seem to get a great deal of pleasure out of calling people cretins, morons, etc – as if you are trying to incite racial hatred.

Grow up, please.

BTW, I am 5th generation Oz from anglo-saxon breeding stock.

Interesting choice of words, Paul.L

>>this is just another example of the minority dictating to the majority how we live our lives<<

Eh? In what way is this "dictating"? You have a small minority of the population asking for a little understanding, and suddenly this is "dictating how we live our lives?"

>>Now you are being stupid. A kirpan is an edged weapon with the potential to do real damage.<<

But it doesn't have to be. A more measured response would be to accommodate the religious requirement in a mutually acceptable form. This argument has been going on around the world for at least ten years http://www.aclunc.org/news/opinions/religious_freedom_and_sikh_school_children.shtml and the most intelligent approach seems to be to require them to be a) blunt and b) sheathed at all times. In this way they become no more dangerous than a whole lot of other equipment in use every day, such as pens, geometry dividers etc.

>>I personally have a problem with anyone wanting to wear their religious insignia to school. Our “Public” schools are supposed to be secular.<<

That, of course, is a horse of an entirely different colour. Objecting to the kirpan in principle is a far more honest approach than concocting a "danger to life and limb" argument.

>>Ho Ho Ho offends a handful of idiots, and now santas everywhere are banned from saying it. It really is a very short walk to Merry Christmas being offensive, then celebrating Christmas at all.<<

Oh, puhlease. What was reported was that Westaff had advised their Santas to avoid "ho ho ho". You will notice that i) nowhere has a Santa been banned from saying it and ii) the company concerned has backtracked at a million miles an hour.

So your progression to banning Christmas falls at the first hurdle: reality.

>>In the end we need to make a clear decision on whether we are going to accommodate every wish and whim of every minority group or whether some things are sacred to us and are not negotiable<<

Interesting use of the word "sacred..."

BOAZ_David and SCOTTY

Why such an hysterical response? Where do you get all this hate and fear from?

Let's consider the facts. Firstly, this 'news' is not fresh news.

Under the Control of Weapons Act (1990) the then Victorian Labor Government issued an exemption for Sikhs who carry kirpans as part of their traditional culture and religion. The exemption was endorsed under the Liberal Government's Control of Weapons (Amendment) Regulations 2003, effective from July 1 2004 "for the purpose of the performance of duties associated with religious observance".

Can you tell OLO how many incidents of violence with kirpans have been committed since 1990?

In what sense would you describe kirpans as 'WEAPONS' (sic) BOAZ?

When you say: "last time I checked, carrying a concealed unlicenced weapon, which includes knives is illegal...", you are right. But as you can see from the Victorian legislation quoted above a kirpan is not defined as a weapon and your wishing it were so won't make it so.

In what sense can kirpans be compared with AK47s, SCOTTY, or with smoking joints at school? It's more authentic to compare kirpans with the large ceremonial pins used to decorate kilts worn at some private schools. I've never known a case of assault from these (shout) WEAPONS. Likewise, the chisels in the woodwork room or the carving knives in the cookery classroom could be deadly (shout) WEAPONS, but let's be sensible.

And in what sense is this a Labor Party issue SCOTTY? The Parliamentary Committee is comprised of 4 ALP Parliamentarians and 4 Coalition Parliamentarians.

BOAZ: "Now we have crossed the line...This is just a further example of the madness that 'difference' is creating." What line have we crossed that we didn't cross in 1990? And what 'madness' are you alluding to: your own paranoia and self-delusion? Take your tablets and calm down.

I am all for religious freedom and tolerance as long as religious beliefs, including religious symbols, do not interfere with the freedom and safety of others.
I can’t see a problem with hijabs or a cross around the neck. There is no danger in those things to others.

But under no circumstance should pupils or adults be permitted to carry daggers to schools or workplaces, in the street or on public transport.

” There are Controls of Weapons Acts in various States of Australia, prohibiting the carrying of a dagger. An Exemption is included where such an article is carried for religious purposes or is part of a religious dress code. ”
I do not agree with this exemption. People who carry weapons DO interfere with the feeling of safety of others even if they do not intend to use these weapons.

” To take away the kirpan from a Sikh is to violate his/her religious freedom.”
Well, that’s too bad- the alternative is that their religious symbol violates the feeling of safety and freedom of others. People involved should be able to come up with some reasonable suggestions that can be acceptable.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise can be made, such as kirpan symbols made of soft plastic- not a bad suggestion from Shocka. I’m not fond of toy weapons either, but I’m more in favour of compromising than of rigidly banning all other suggestions.

Children are certainly not mature enough to be in the possession of daggers.
Whether there have been kirpan attacks in the past or not is, for me, not the point. The point is that all weapons carry a potential danger and the idea people (regardless their race, religion or sex) carry daggers will have the effect that others won’t feel safe around them.

To the ones who mentioned racism; this has nothing to do with racism- I do not care what the race is of people who want to carry daggers and I do not care about their reason for wanting to carry them either. Daggers should not be carried, full stop.

savoir68: "Go on have a whinge white (or olive) men.
Why did you leave Northern (or Southern) Europe anyway?"

We didn't (Most of us, going several generations back, were born here).
And not all anti-multiculturalists are white (Ever wonder what Aboriginals think of multicultural immigration? No, never crosses your mind.) or men.

Australians, black and white, male and female, are concerned about the consequences of multiculturalism.
To dismissively label it as just "white male" resentment is pathethic and lazy.
And even if it were predominantly white men "whinging", don't our opinions count?

botheration: "Horus wrote: 'PS: I am reminded of the small knives the 9/11 hijackers are said to have used to commandeer their aircraft'
Really? Is it the completely different religion or the completely different situation that's reminding you?"

No, it's the fact that prior to 911, nobody considered it a *risk* for passengers to carry small knives on planes!
Just like you are arguing there's little risk in kids taking kirpans to school.
And like 911, all it will take is a kirpan "incident" to change everybody's mind.

CJ Morgan: "Culture isn't fixed. No culture is static."

The Kirpan was made compulsory for baptised Sikhs after a religious commandment given by a guru in 1699 AD!
Over *300* years ago!
Sounds pretty static to me.

Do we still live by the proclamations of William III of England?
Do we still wear powdered wigs and bustle dresses?
If we can move on, so can the Sikhs.
Alternatively, if Sikhs are permitted to carry weapons, so should everybody else.

Q&A: "We have Australian laws"

And each law, which is supposed to apply to everybody, has 100 pages of *exemptions* based on the "needs" of special interest groups.

If we can't write a law without 100 pages of exemptions, then maybe that law shouldn't exist.

To all arguing it doesn't matter about religious symbols in schools, what do you think of Satanists wearing inverted crosses, a symbol specifically designed to show disdain for another religious group, the Christians?

Ban it and we're "discriminating against" Satanists.
Permit it and we're "vilifying" Christians.

Is this ‘debate’ the worst ever? From a news item about re-affirming an existing Labor/Coalition endorsed law about initiated Sikh students being allowed to carry a small, ceremonial sheaved knife at school we've traversed the following miscellany of twaddle:

• ‘madness’ created by ‘difference’;

• predictions of ‘more of this crap now we have a Labor Government’;

• ‘setting a precedent for all children to be armed with concealed weapons’ including weapons like AK47s, marijuana (sic), bowie knives, machetes, children ‘armed to the teeth after being initiated in a pig hunt with dogs’, the ‘small knives’ of the 9/11 hijackers;

• extensions to Christians wearing large Crusader crosses across their chests, young German migrants wearing (shout) SWASTIKA's as 'religiously significant' and Satanists wearing crosses;

• extensions to other (mostly illegal) practices: Governments allegedly turning ‘a blind eye to FGM, forced arranged marriages, cultural peadapjillia (sic) and incest’, eating dog meat or dolphin, Islamic polygamy, predictions of ‘Poso/Ambon’ massacres in ‘a pressure cooker of seething resentment’, cruelty to animals;

• 13 year-old Jewish children free to skip school;

• ill-informed dissertations on race;

• equally ill-informed allegations that ‘all aspects of all cultures are worthy of practising and preserving except ours’, santas everywhere allegedly banned from saying “Ho Ho Ho” and "When our culture is gone it is gone forever", ‘another example of the minority dictating to the majority how we live our lives’;

• the usual array of abusive names for those who disagree – ‘Mexicans’, ‘moonbats’, ‘cretins’ and ‘Why did you leave Norhern (sic) (or Southern) Europe anyway?’

This so-called 'debate' plumbs the depths of ignorance of the existing law, inability to think logically and hysterical scare mongering.

One poster takes us back to the issue of exemptions of the law ‘based on the "needs" of special interest groups’.

The Control of Weapons Act (Vic) allows knives and swords to be carried by the following exempted people: members of the scouts, masons and other lodges, Scottish dancers, martial arts clubs, sporting fencers, theatrical & opera players and the RSL. No problems?

Is there a real issue?

Of course there isn't a real issue Frank, this is a BOAZY thread. Good to see some uncommon sense around here though.

Nice summation Frank. The scouts! Dib dib dib indeed.

High five.

Good point about the scouts- are they allowed to bring their knives to school though?

I've been thinking about this a bit more and when searching for more information about these kirpans, I have the impression that these kirpans do not have to be sharp, and are, in many cases, blunt objects.

If they're blunt then I take back the objection I had because the argument of 'other people's safety' won't stand.
Children use scissors at school- although they don't carry them around with them all day.

I can't see any danger in blunt objects, especially when they can be worn in a safe, secure and concealed manner.

These kirpans are meant to be symbolic rather than functional so bluntness of the blade could be a very reasonable and acceptable compromise.

Dear Celivia,

If you look up "Five Ks - Wikipedia," on the web it tells you that:

"The Kirpan (Strapped Sword) is worn to defend one's faith and protect the weak, reminding one of his or her duty as a Khalsa."

It also states that "All baptised Sikhs should wear a short form of Kirpan (approx. 6" to 9" long) on their body. The blade should be made of iron. A Sikh should never use the Kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it in self-defence or to protect a person in need."

It goes on to say that "Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of Gatka.
This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus that uses circular movements to effectively swing a sword."

I don't have a problem with any of this taking place in religious schools, where everyone is dressed in the same way. And it is in the religious school of your choice.

I do have a problem with this being worn in public schools - where some of the children will be carrying these strapped swords. Scouts don't bring their knifes to school every day, as far as I know. And you can hurt someone with a blunt object, especially one made of iron.

Beautifully put, Celivia.

Time to silence the dog whistles, I think.

Shockadelic..
Yes there are couple of 100% whites around with all 32 of their ancestors 5 generations ago born in Aus... who still look and act almost no different, to illustrate, english counterparts.
But that gives them the right to boss non-Europeans around simply becuse the white Aus policy prevented coloreds in till 40 odd years ago?
Anyway darkies and yellows acting exactly like a white man makes whites loathe them even more for being frauds.

Touche Frank, now I'm outa here. Thanks

Bugsy... here is your rattle :) clearly you need it in your playpen there...

KEY WORDS.....

<<However, a Sikh may use it in self-defence or to protect a person in need.">>

So... following this through, a sikh who sees another kid (lets say his sikh little brother) being bashed at school by 3 other boys..... and he happens to have his kirpan handy... is it not reasonable, given the actual traditions and purpose of this DEFENSIVE weapon... that he may try to use it ?

A lot would depend on his frame of mind.. Did he have a bad day? did some 'white' teacher treat him unkindly?... does he currently feel 'religious persecution' ? Has he been socially ostracized for being 'different' ?

hey... he might be churning with resentment...and his brother is being beaten..and...he has... a KNIFE...... go figure...

Look at the picture of a Kirpan here.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mef.qc.ca/images/kirpan.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.mef.qc.ca/appel-kirpan.htm&h=234&w=350&sz=37&tbnid=26KWnmbeT6llSM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkirpan%26um%3D1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

THE REAL PROBLEM... "religous freedom or public safety"

Its one thing to say "ok...baptized sikhs can wear a kirpan to school"

TO BE consistent. we must also say "Baptized Sikhs can wear their kirpans ON PLANES".. it is the same issue.

NOW THE FUN BEGINS..... Terrorists, posing as sikhs, could easily board a plane and hijack it.

QUESTION.. "Why is 'public safety' more important on a plane than a school yard?"

Sorry..this is purely a political issue and an issue of Australian law.
Notwithstanding the alleged exemptions for Sikhs at the political level, (and the votes such an exemption is intended to buy) I CALL for an absolute ban on concealed weapons in any place OTHER than the place where such weapons are supervised such as scouts and dojo's.

Religious requirements about weapons MUST repeat MUST be subject to Australian law.

'Dogwhistle' ? utter rot..rubbish.

Frank,

We are beholding to you for your blunt (& non-partisan) summation of the case to date:

There's no 'real issue' since, sports aficionados do it, masons do it, even scouts & Scottish dancers do...so, lets all do it, and lets let school children doing it too.

The priciple you've distilled seems to run like this:
If something is already present in some form- (& there's been no recent unsavoury incidents -leastways those the Sunday papers have deemed it profitable to publicize) then there's no danger in expanding its presence further.

But now that you've enlighten us, shouldn't we apply this principle more widely? Golly , think of the money saved & layers of bureaucracy we could slash:
-A lot of customs controls are motivated by 'ill-informed' fears of what-ifs and could-bes -about things that usually never happen, &
- A lot of our medical precautionary measures' are equally as fanciful…

No doubt many sharp people will side with you Frank on this, unreal issue,though I'll wager most of those that do will not have school age children.

BOAZ_David

I don't know why I'm bothering - your post is so spectacularly unintelligent and vacuous - but here we go again.

What is the typical size of a ceremonial kirpan? Was the one in your selected picture typical of the size of ceremonial kirpans?

Can you tell OLO how many times terrorists have posed as Sikhs, boarded a plane and hijacked it using their kirpan?

Can you tell us how many Australian Sikhs have used a kirpan as an assault weapon:
(a) in Australian schools?
(b) on the streets in Australia?
(c) in any other public place in Australia?
(d) anywhere in the world?

Can you point to any evidence, anytime, anywhere where Sikhs have used the kirpan for non-defensive purposes?

What do you mean when you use the expression 'alleged exemptions for Sikhs at the political level'? Are you saying the law doesn't allow exemptions? Have you looked at the relevant law?

And what do you mean when you say (without the 'alleged' this time) by saying the kirpan exemption is intended to buy votes? Who's buying votes from Sikhs with these exemptions? In what seats has this vote buying been carried out? Which particular politicians bought these votes?

David, I don't really expect an answer to any of my questions because you're not a serious scholar or a thinker. Nor do you have a conscience, so unwarranted vilification is OK. In fact, I've concluded that you're essentially a red-neck ignoramus with scores of prejudices bubbling under your skin and a superficial smattering of Biblical knowledge (though I wouldn't be surprised if you use a Concordance to get your quotations).

You excrete racial and religious accusations without proper evidence or logical warrant. Is this because you have a deep psychological craving to create fear and loathing of people who are different from you?

Surprise me - give yourself an early Christmas present. Go talk to some Sikhs and tell them what you've been telling us. Then listen to their gentle response. You might learn something about humility. Now THAT (shout) would be a Christian act.

Horus,

Democracies are fragile, and there's where I prefer to live as opposed to theocracies and other authoritarian states which are brutal and inhumane.

Liberty and personal integrity are the delicate threads that hold democracy together and make it worth fighting for. There are always people wanting to tell us what's best for us and how necessary it is becoming to take way freedom and liberty in the interest of 'safety', 'security', 'the greater good', 'the national interest' and other euphemisms for control.

The would-be controllers can achieve more control by stimulating fear and by persuading citizens to be compliant in the loss of some liberty 'in your own best interests'.

I refuse to be cowed by artificially contrived fear and smear campaigns especially when the scapegoats - the stranger, the other, the outsider among us - are innocent of all intention to cause harm or to damage the democracy they have struggled so hard to join.

I am not averse to laws that really protect us. But in the past decade we have seen government legally but rapidly reduce our liberties and endanger our personal integrity for spurious reasons - like holding on to power for the sake of power. And the saddest thing is that many Australians have been sucked in by a deliberate campaign to make people feel they are at risk and then to feel grateful for the government stepping in to make us safer by making us less free.

People like BOAZ and SCOTTY aid and abet the process by making free with group slander and vilification. You can give away your freedom if you like, but I'm damned if I will.

If Aztecs were in Australia today, I suppose we'd have to let them perform human sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli during recess.

Thinking of the discrimination Aztecs would suffer in our Judeo-Christian dictatorship, it tears my heart out.

Frank Gol
>> Can you tell OLO how many times terrorists have posed as Sikhs, boarded a plane and hijacked it using their kirpan?

Can you tell us how many times terrorists have highjacked planes and flown them into skyscrapers?

In modern risk management we take into consideration
1) The likelihood of an adverse incident
2) The possible damage of an adverse outcome

It is not enough to merely consider the history of kirpan attacks, the possible damage the kirpan could do to a child is of equal importance. When we look at a risk management matrix it is clear that although the chances of an adverse outcome is low, the possible damage could be quite severe. The risk isn’t worth taking and in any case isn’t necessary. The Sikhs have survived so far without carrying their kirpans to school, why do they need a change of law now.

Horus is bang on, when he points out that modern risk management regularly deals with loss possibility, high damage risks by introducing regulations. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. Eg. Do you insure your house? Why? How many people do you know who’s house has burnt down?

BTW. I am very interested in knowing which members of the kirpan cheer squad believe in gun control. My bet is its most of you.

I am not really surprised that you consider opposition to introducing these weapons to ours scools, “racial vilification.” Its typical of the soft lefters, highly unimaginative. This issue has nothing to do with the merits of the Sikhs as a people. It is the abrogation of a simple, sensible law, that no weapons are taken into our school yards. That you and others would consider it some kind of persecution that we don’t want to make exceptions to a perfectly sensible law shows how far out of touch you multiculturalists have become.

Dear Paul L,

Again with the labelling... I'm a "Multiculturalist" as you put it.
But have you read my posts. I agree with you about the Kirpan.

But, what's with you guys, always labelling people who have a different opinion to you. Or is attack, your best form of defence?
I would have thought you'd have more intelligence than to stoop to that.

Shame on you!

Paul.L

You make good sense up to a point. The analogy with house insurance is much more reasonable than Shockadelic's Aztecs who would tear his heart out (the brain would be more difficult to locate).

The insurance analogy is not a perfect fit, but it does suggest that we must be prudent about managing the risk with the kirpan as with other aspects of life. But while no amount of insurance will prevent a car crash, that doesn't mean we must be frozen into inaction, never taking to the roads. Nor should politicians tell us we can't drive cars because they are killer machines.

What is more likely to prevent the terrible consequences of crashes are preparation, education and a strong supervisory presence (police on patrol). Young drivers must be trained to know the lethal nature of speed, wet roads etc. They must know there are sanctions for breaches of the law and that every time they drive they have their lives - and those of others - in their hands.

Young Sikhs are taught respect for their religion and its customary laws by their parents. They would not be initiated without showing a profound understanding of the potential to break the law and cause serious harm with the abuse of the kirpan.

The analogy with the potentially dangerous tools in the woodwork and cookery classrooms comes to mind. We don't ban these dangerous weapons because there is a risk - instead we teach young people to respect their potential for harm and to use them for their intended purpose. We supervise them carefully. We impose sanctions if there is disrespect or tomfoolery.

Can we guarantee there will never be a tragic accident? No! Just as we can't guarantee that a student won't drown on an excursion to the beach. But we don't ban swimming schools; we manage the risk, and teach even more that the sea is great fun but it is also treacherous.

Those who use the kirpan issue as a device to skittle multiculturalism are desperate to find any lame excuse to peddle their monocultural world view.

DB,
you’re showing a picture of a sharp kirpan and I’d be very concerned if Sikhs demanded that their kids bring these to school, but don’t you think that a blunt, smallish kirpan is a reasonable compromise?
If you think about it, a blunt kirpan is of no more concern to other people’s safety than random objects children could pick up from the classroom or playground. Scissors, calligraphy pens, sharp branches, chemicals from the lab, compasses, electrical cables, woodwork tools, etc can all be used as injurious objects that could do more damage than a blunt kirpan that is worn under clothing and in a secure way.

Talking about woodwork, I remember a couple of years ago some boys at an exclusive Anglican Sydney private school made a dildo in woodwork class, then used school ties to bind younger boys with and sexually assaulted them with the dildo repeatedly (75 or so accounts of sexual assault). We can now add school ties to the list of objects that can be a threat to others.

Foxy,
I don’t think it’s a bad thing for (Sikh) children to learn the art of Gatka. My husband teaches karate and there are quite a few kids in the higher grades who have excellent control over their mind and body. These are the children who’ve learned discipline and would only use their skill in self-defense.
Children with karate skills are welcome in public schools.

I agree with Frank that Freedom is not something that most people would want to give up easily. I believe that taking freedom away from people won’t do anything to our safety. If we look the people living under dictatorships or in theocracies- are they saver than the people who live in more liberal countries?
Are women safer in countries where abortion is illegal?
Are people safer in countries where drugs are illegal?
Are homosexuals safer in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

Shocka,
you make as much sense here as you did in the abortion thread.

I still don't see a basis for making an exception to the law on the basis of a religious belief. Why should religion be regarded as a more important reason for something than other reasons which don't happen to have a religious basis?

I don't see that religious teaching should be regarded as a better basis for trusting someone than other structures. I think that we head into very dangerous territory when we start to say "this religion is peaceful so we will trust all members of it in a way that we don't trust others" - should we then except the arguments put forward by some about muslims and have special laws restricting all muslims because some use their holy book as a basis for violence?

The statements I've seen regarding the purpose of the knife suggest that it is there for defensive purposes, other children are not allowed to carry a knife to school for that purpose. According to media reports one Qld student was recently suspended for doing just that in an attempt to deal with repeated physical assaults in and out of the school grounds.

People should be free to practice their religion within the bounds of the law but should not be granted freedoms which don't apply to all in society.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Once again you've summed things up beautifully. I fully agree with your line of reasoning. If you want exceptions to be made for your child, send them to an appropriate school.

Frank Gol,

Wood work and cookery? Frank the kirpan is a weapon; that is the purpose for which it is designed. It doesn’t have alternative uses like a chisel. Whilst there is no doubt that a chisel can be dangerous it is not designed as a weapon, That is a fairly important difference. Another difference is that the kirpan is carried (concealed by the way) all the time. It isn’t just dangerous during woodwork classes when the children are supervised (like a chisel).

>> desperate to find any lame excuse to peddle their monocultural world view.

This is utter rubbish. How is it mono cultural to have laws which apply to everybody. It isn’t monocultural to ask migrants to change their behavior when it conflicts with our codes of conduct. I’m all for people of all cultures migrating to Australia. Only the ignorant and the brainwashed cling to the idea that the choice is between multiculturalism or no migrants at all. All we are asking for is a greater emphasis on fitting into our communities, rather than asking the vast majority of Australians to adapt so that minorities don’t have to.

Multiculturalism is a poisoned chalice. It was bequeathed to us by the hippy baby-boomers who’ve created many of the world’s current problems. Multiculturalism only requires tolerance or adaptation from Aussies. But multiculturalists bend over backwards to ensure that migrants don’t have to adapt or compromise.

Many of us believe that when you go to someone’s home you abide by their rules and customs. Why is there so much resistance to us asking new migrants to do the same. Certainly we are expected to observe the native customs whenever we go overseas.

I don’t have a problem with new migrants carrying on their usual cultural practices, all I ask is that where they conflict with ours they should be the ones who adapt, not us.

Why can’t the Sikhs adapt their cultural practices so they fit in with modern Australian norms? Why is that such an offensive request? After all, people keep telling me cultures aren’t static.

Paul.L,

Which is the more lethal in the hands of violent student, a ceremonial student kirpan or a chisel? Surely the chisel. Likewise, a knife in the cookery classroom is infinitely more dangerous in the hands of someone with bad intent than the typical student's kirpan.

None of these - chisel, carving knife and kirpan - is designed as an attack weapon. 9,999 times out of 10,000 they are used appropriately. The kirpan is designed as as symbol of a peaceful religion and I cannot find anywhere an example of it having being used inappropriately.

So the intended design of these three artifacts is not the issue. If it were, then screwdrivers, chisels and carving knives would be allowed on planes. It's their potential for misuse, to do harm, that's the issue.

While it's true that the kirpan is carried at all times and is concealed, we know that Sikh students are carrying it, so in that sense nothing is concealed because we know where it is. A chisel stolen from the woodwork room concealed from unsuspecting teachers and other students can lead to tragedy.

Australian laws, made by Australian parliamentarians, must be obeyed by all people in Australia. Laws, however, commonly have exceptions to make reasonable allowance for the fact that we are diverse peoples. You'll find exemptions in lots of our laws to cater for exceptional circumstances of people in rural areas, different genders, different income levels, religions, etc. Anglo-Australians benefit from these exemptions. That reflects the Australian way of life.

Your descent into anti-multiculturalism is melodramatic: "Multiculturalism is a poisoned chalice. It was bequeathed to us by the hippy baby-boomers who’ve created many of the world’s current problems." These words reveal a poor understanding of cultural interaction in Australia.

When I invite people to come into my house, I don't expect them to act exactly like me. If I did I probably wouldn't have bothered inviting them in the first place.

As for Anglo-Australians doing all the changing, you ought to get out and meet some migrants. It's just not like that.

As a footnote to all this, I was at a wedding yesterday where the groom and some guests were wearing kilts. One of them showed me that his sgean dhu was plastic as he had been told that to wear a proper one was viewed as carrying an offensive weapon.
So much for respect of culture - it's a one-way street.

Jack the Lad,

Is the sgean dhu a symbol of a Scots religious tradition? Or part of any authentic tradition?

And how about the kilt?

When you say, "So much for respect of culture - it's a one-way street," Ye may have said more truth than ye ken, Jack.

The kilt was in fact invented by an English industrialist from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson, in the early 18th Century. He set out to alter the existing dress of highlanders to make it convenient for workmen.

Kilts were therefore a product of the industrial revolution to bring the highlanders out of the heather and into the factory.

The lowlanders, by far the large majority of Scots, regarded highland dress as a barbaric form of clothing. Many of the clan tartans that Scots people are so proud of because they are reckonend to be 'traditional' were devised during the Victorian period by enterprising tailors who saw a market in them.

See 'The Invention of Tradition' by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger and the BBC Reith lectures by Prof Anthony Giddens (1999).

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week3/week3.htm)

So the English created the Scottish national dress and imposed it on them. That was very noble of the English, eh? Just as noble as the American GM Corporation which let Australians think the Holden was an Australian product.

I think I'll start a new church tomorrow.

The Church of the Saved Innocents.

No woman can use contraception (33% of women already don't, so not too much of a stretch there).

A foetus *must* be aborted if requested by a priest.

Women will be authorised to carry big knives, to defend themselves lest an infidel attempt to "force" them to give birth.

The sacrificial foetuses will be cooked and served at Sunday dinner.
"Praise God for this bountiful meal of bunches of cells!"

If any woman dies during an abortion, it's the work of the Devil.
Her body must be chopped and sliced by the other women with their large knives, then fed to pigs, to free her soul from the Devil's clutches, so she can return to God.

Any children that are born will be called "The Wronged Ones", for surely it would have been better had they been aborted, and never suffered the sorrows of earthly existence.

The children will be required to wear a bleeding foetus symbol at *all* times (even at school), to remind them of the unfortunateness of their existence.

If anybody objects, I'll cry "Discrimination! Oppression!" and sue them for vilification.

I'll also get a tax exemption (so more money to pay our in-house doctor-priests).

Praise the Lord!

Frank, the sgian dhu (black knife - not a pigeon on Alpine slopes) has been part of Highland dress as long as the kilt. It is cultural, not religious.
The kilt in its modern form (fèileadh beag) is, as you wrote, a modification on Highland garb, originally for workers. It was not an 'invention' of an industrialist but, as I wrote, a modification. The traditional Highland garb (Féileadh Mòr)was a long plaid (five feet wide by seven yards long) which was wrapped around in a similar manner to the Roman toga. Could it be that ancient Scots and Picts saw Romans dressed in togas at the various forts along Hadrian's and the Antonine Wall?
The lowlanders had long been influenced by contact with the south and therefore tended to dress like the English.
On another note, the earliest tartan found was from the 3rd Century AD, long before the English even existed.
So while you can say that a Sassenach developed the fèileadh beag, probably copying the tailored kilt, which appeared around 1692, it's a bit much to suggest that the English imposed its wearing. On the contrary, they banned it after Culloden.

Jack the Lad,

I've shown you my sources. Will ye now show me thine?

FRANK... well I've seen blokes wiggle...but you? :) the next time they have a vacancy...I'll nominate you for the part.

Mate.. your mental gymnastics about 'who invented the kilt'... underlines how stupid this whole idea about 'cultural traditions' is in this context..

IT DOESN'T MATTER who invented this or that.. what DOES matter is:

Is this... my tradition? yes...or no. There is no 'time criteria' for something to be a genuine tradition..in fact.. we could start a new religion tomorrow...and add this or that weapon to our 'religious obligations'.. that is how beyond rediculous it is to try to defend Sikhs and their Kirpans.

How brilliant do you have to be to 'get' the following:

1/ Sikhs can carry Kirpans to school
2/ Sikhs can carry Kirpans in King street at 11.00pm at night.
3/ A Sikh attacked in King Street at 11.30pm , by 3 blokes... will of course NEVER use 'whatever he has' to defend himself... he especially wont' use the one thing likely to give him an edge eh ?

Mate.. in the moron stakes you are wayyyy out in front. (I'm referring to the dictionary meaning here :)

What about:

1/ Sikhs can carry Kirpans for religious reasons.
2/ Sikhs who are told 'you can't carry that here' due to 'policy' will sue for religious discrimination.(at AIRPORTS)
3/ Terrorists will quickly adopt Sikh dress and ... you fill in the gaps.

ROBERT.. *exactly* 100% tick for your post.
FRANK D-
All who agree with me "A+" :)

BOAZ_David

You just don't get it, do you? For a while I thought you were a bit of a shrewdy, but I was sadly mistaken. I've decided you just don't get it. And probably never will. Your mind is shut firmly in the empty position.

So when you can tell us all how many incidents of violence with kirpans have been committed since 1990 I think I'll leave you to play in the multicultural playpen while I get on with more productive things.

Watch out for Sikhs with daggers under their belt.

Happy Saturnalia!

Good post, RObert, and I'd fully agree if it wasn't for the fact that Sikhs are, as far as I know, willing to carry the kirpan as a symbol only and that they would agree to carrying BLUNT kirpans.

If people are permitted to carry sharp knives and swords for recreational (fishing, scouting), sport (martial arts), then it seems unfair to me that Sikhs can't carry a safely concealed BLUNT kirpan just because their reason is a religious reason rather than recreational.

Unless I'm convinced that a very blunt kirpans can do serious damage I can't really see a problem with them carrying one.
I do, however, see some practical problems and if these can't be resolved in a satisfactory manner I'll be eating my words-again.

As I said in my 1st post (A+ for that one?) that the community's safety always must come first. But... (back to D-)...
if there is no threat to others' safety I can't see why there could not be some flexibility and balance from both sides.

Is a blunt kirpan carried as a symbol-only really going to endanger others?

The only other religious group I know about to be exempted from the weapons law are the Knights of Columbus, and their (sharp) swords are said to be ceremonial-only (I think).

Frank, 'I've shown you my sources. Will ye now show me thine?' - you only pointed me to one source, a BBC page. Not very reliable.

Refer to the 'Scottish Banner' monthly newsheet. 'The Complete Book of Tartan' by Iain Zaczek and Charles Phillips.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

Happy Solstice.

Jack the Lad

I pointed to two sources, not one:
1. 'The Invention of Tradition' by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger and
2. BBC Reith lectures by Prof Anthony Giddens (1999).
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week3/week3.htm)

You say the BBC page is 'not very reliable'. The BBC is regarded as the pre-eminent world broadcaster and the Reith Lecture Series is one of the most prestigious public lecture series. Only the most eminent scholars are invited to present them. Professor Anthony Giddens would rank among the top two or three sociologists in the UK. Formerly Professor at Cambridge, he is the Director of the London School of Economics. His series of Reith Lectures are now published in book form ("Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives").

How you could prefer the anonymous Wikipedia to the Reith Lectures is beyond ken.
That anyone could rate the Scottish Banner above the BBC beggars belief.

'The Complete Book of Tartan' by Iain Zaczek and Charles Phillips is a lovely book but it can hardly be called an in-depth historical analysis of the origins of Scottish cultural traditions.

'The Invention of Tradition' by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Range is, by contrast, regarded as the authoritative text on the concept of national tradition. Hobsbawm is regarded as "arguably our greatest living historian -- not only Britain's, but the world's." [The Spectator]. Hobsbawm has been Professor at London and Stanford. He is fluent in five languages and reads three others. Not a lightweight.

Having said that, your preferred Wikipedia article concedes my main points anyway. "It was only with the Romantic Revival of the 19th century that the kilt became irreversibly associated with Highlanders, and was subsequently adopted by Lowlanders and the Scottish Diaspora."

There you find reference to Rawlinson the English manufacturer who has claim to being the one who imposed the kilt on his factory workers.

The main point, however, is that cultural and national traditions aren't all they're cracked up to be. And comparing national costume with religious symbols is fraught.

A Happy Solstice to you too.

Here's a turnip for the books!

Jack citing Wikipedia? HO HO HO!

Turning into a "dumbed-down syndromer" Jack?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1180#21555
This has made my Christmas.

I ceased engaging with Jack the Lad once I realised that his brain works differently to ours. Accepted rules of logic and verification of information don't apply with Jack.

Frankly, I couldn't be bothered arguing with anybody who doesn't know what an argument is.

And I remain convinced that Jack the Lad is as short of stature as his nickname suggests :)

Bugsy, I just looked at your link - touche!

This guy's just a clown, and that's a compliment ;)

Why didn't someone tell me to look up Jack's kilt?

oh, that's nothing Frank, the guy also writes fan fiction (under the nom de plume of Jack1488, of course).
http://www.orderofwhiteknights.org/nwr_archive/twr_issue27.html

It's a pity his old nom de plume of JSP1488 on OLO got banned eh?
You only have take a look at JSP1488's (and the obvious sock puppets) comments to see where Jack lives in his head.

Not to worry, you can see him here at:
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jsp1488

I think your ears do stick out Jack, no matter what you say.

I can't believe I had you pegged so early either:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1075#19306

But there you go, I guess I am a product of a 'dummed down edukation systum' after all.
LOLDONGS, you clown.

Thanks for the heads-up, Bugsy.

I missed that sock puppet - so obvious in retrospect.

Loved the Yahoo profile :) He's bald as well as short!

Homophobe, racist, short, nasty, professes to be atheist. Now who does he remind me of? Except for the kilt...

Does he have a thing about gypsies and Jews as well?

I know - our Jack is the ghost of Enoch Powell!

"Turning into a "dumbed-down syndromer" Jack?"

ROFL that made my day, Bugsy!

Frank, Wikipedia can be edited and corrected by other users, the BBC can't. As for the BBC's 'reliability', it is practically an organ of the Labour Party.
Who opened up the loony bin? Bugsy's back offering me a vegetable (a turnip). Maybe that's a representation of himself.
CJ ceased 'engaging ', if that's what he called it, after I outed him as a Green Enthusiastic (trying ever-so-hard) Heterosexual.
Yes Bugsy, you and CJ, dumb and dumber. Next time you meet, turn around and tell him so.
Celivia, why have you joined with the cretins? Won't no-one let you play with them? And "ROFL"? Sounds like you're throwing up.

Jack

Yes, Wikipedia can be edited and 'corrected' by other users, the BBC can't (although there are lots of BBC forums for viewers and listeners).

But it remains the case that Wiki contributions remain anonymous and 'corrections' (and often 'corrections' of 'corrections') imply that various drafts are unreliable. That, in itself, makes reliance on Wiki highly problematic.

The BBC pages I referred you to are transcripts of live broadcasts by an eminent scholar. What is there to correct after the typos have been picked up? The transcripts, as I've said, are now published in book form.

As for the BBC's being "practically an organ of the Labour Party", is it practically an organ of the Conservative Party when they are in power too? The BBC has been the foremost broadcasting organ in the world since its origins in 1922 (radio of course and with Reith was an early boss of the Corporation). It's been the standard setter in TV since 1936.

The BBC World Service is rightly regarded as the authoritative source of news and current affairs in many nations around the world. Wiki is very helpful, but hardly bears comparison with the BBC.

However, nobody's perfect. The London Times back in June reported an inquiry into BBC bias and concluded that:

"although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the corporation was partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion". The BBC had allowed itself to be hijacked by Bob Geldof, Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries through the Make Poverty History campaign.

Hardly Party political bias - 'fair and impartial' was the finding - and certainly not constituting 'an organ of the Labour Party'.

On my frequent visits to the UK (another next year) I wouldn't miss the BBC. It's fantastic.

Wikipedia more reliable than the BBC... S'funny. As is lolsticka. Ah Bugsy, I dig your ouvre.

Frank, the BBC is always left-orientated, no matter who is in government. You are right that BBC is worth watching. Their comedy shows are world-class.

Jack

You're so inoculated against the truth.

You assert X to be the case and then, when compelling evidence shows X not to be the case, you assert Y to be the case.

Then, when compelling evidence shows Y not to be the case, you assert Z to be the case.

Then when you are shown with compelling evidence that Z is not the case, you go back to position X. Haven't you got anything else to do? ...I have, I'm sorry I wasted my time Jack. 'Bye.

Interesting how this thread's evolved. I think that the conversation about the relative epistemological merits of Wikipedia vis a vis the BBC raises all sorts of interesting questions.

I like Wikipedia. As a well educated person, I find it invaluable as a first online port of call if I want to get the general gist of a subject with which I'm not familiar. However, because I've been educated to assess and validate information I'm very aware that Wikipedia is by no means authoritative. For this reason it's essential to cross-reference and validate any claims to facticity contained in Wikipedia entries, preferably by reference to primary sources.

Wikipedia cannot be authoritative because it literally has no 'authors', unlike traditional encyclopediae. I've noticed that there is an increasing tendency for less educated Internet citizens to regard information derived from Wikipedia as reliable, and to regard such information as true without further analysis or investigation. Worse still, this version of knowledge invites its own creation by users whose anonymity may facilitate the exponential propagation of ignorance, i.e. of 'dumbing down' the populace.

What worries me about Wikipedia is that it produces its own version of 'truth' that, because of the scale if Internet communication, becomes widely disseminated. It's scary enough that some of the boofheads here take such information to be true sui generis, but quite horrifying that such people can also participate in the construction of what passes for 'truth'.

Frank,

>> Is the sgean dhu a symbol of a Scots religious tradition? Or part of any authentic tradition?

Its interesting that you hold yourself out as an arbiter of what is, or isn’t, part of an authentic tradition.The issue at hand is weapons in our schools, no matter how you want to dress it up. No religious or cultural considerations are important enough that we should discard such a simple, common sense law.

>> Which is the more lethal in the hands of violent student, a ceremonial student kirpan or a chisel? Surely the chisel

Mate have you had a look at a Kirpan. They are often described as swords and many have significant blade length. Your contention that a chisel is more dangerous is just ridiculous. Kirpans are supposed to be used in active prevention of violence. So they are actually designed to be a capable WEAPON. You cannot say that about a chisel.

Your contention that the design isn’t important, only the potential for misuse, your completely neglecting the fact that a weapon designed to cut or stab a human being has a greater potential for misuse than a chisel.

Melodratic or not I would like to see you refute my contention that multiculturalism is a flawed gift from the baby boomer generation. It’s just as easy for me to suggest that your understanding of cultural interaction is shallow and politically correct.

You may not have social/cultural practices that you would like guests to abide by in your home but I bet you’d wouldn’t complain if you went somewhere “ethnic” that did. Yet you are happy to deny us that same right in our communities.

No doubt there are many laws where exceptions could be made to accommodate a minority. Our children’s safety at school should NOT be one of those instances.

I posed the question about Kirpans to my GP who happens to be Indian
(Hindu - not Sikh). However she was adamantly against Kirpans being carried by schoolchildren.

When I asked her why? Her reply was that children should not be made to be 'different' especially at school, where they will get picked on.

She also informed me that the Sikhs were the 'warriors' of India.
They were soldiers, and were famous for their fighting skills.
That the Kirpan initially was used as a weapon.

Paul.L, & Foxy and others

Please feel free to join in the research.

We're looking for the last time - or any time really - when a kirpan was used as a weapon in an Australian school. Nobody has yet found an instance.

There's a huge reward for the first sighting!

If you can find an example, I'll write to John Howard and say I'm SORRY that he had to put up with Malcolm Fraser's policy of Multiculturalism. Kirpans were rumoured to have been taken into the polling booths in Bennelong, and you all know how that turned out...

Dear FrankGol,

We can argue this matter 'ad nauseum' but I can see that we won't make any progress. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that...

Foxy

In other words, you can't find any evidence to back up the absurd proposition that kirpans have been used as anything but decoration.

Merry Xmas.

Frank, when you stated that your writings were 'compelling evidence', I nearly choked on my porridge. You digressed from the original topic so maybe you were responsible for wasting your own time. Take Foxy's advice.

When CJ wrote he ceased engaging with me because 'I couldn't be bothered arguing with anybody who doesn't know what an argument is', I wondered if he wanted me to use his style of 'argument', ie, when someone offers up an opposing view, CJ spouts out 'boofhead', knuckledragger', 'clown', 'vacuous' and many more little enlightening gems. If that's what he calls 'Accepted rules of logic', how can anyone be blamed for replying in kind?

Glad to have made your Christmas, Bugsy. Must be sad if that's all you have to look forward to. Congratulations on finding my post of an opposite viewpoint. Now, your holiday quiz. Which is my true opinion and which one was I using to play 'Devil's Advocate' to string you along (not for the first time either)? First prize is a turnip (tumshie).

Frank & Jack, I see only one thing for it.

Kirpans at dawn!

(Frank, I'll be your second. Unless I see a few more of those photos of Jack, of course.)

Jack the Lad/jsp1488,

I was referring to your miserable excuses for argument elsewhere, which led me to apply the accurate descriptions of you as a knuckledragging boofhead who can only engage in vacuous sloganeering.

For example, you claimed that the Greens were "Reds in disguise", on the basis of their policies. When I challenged you to demonstrate which Greens policies were 'communist' or 'Red', you pointed to several policy areas but were completely unable to specify in what respects they were "Red". You never did - to you, if it's Green it's also self-evidently Red.

Then in another thread you vilified homosexuals because, among other things, they engage in anal sex - which is also apparently self-evidently "disgusting" and "perverted". Again, when challenged to provide reasons as to why this common practice (which is not restricted to homosexuals) is "disgusting", you were unable to provide any actual evidence. Instead, you resorted to puerile, sniggering innuendo - which is when I applied the apposite descriptors above.

You've since been revealed as a dishonest sock puppet who was banned for troll behaviour here under the user name "jsp1488", and which you're now replicating under the ID of "Jack the Lad". You're a waste of oxygen.

Pathetic comeback, CJ. You and I know that your initial response is to throw abuse when confronted with conflicting views. You've done that with other posters too.
You asked which Green policies were Red. I named some. Then you changed tack, wanting me to prove why they were (self-evidently) Red.
As for your anal adventures, just because you like it that way doesn't mean it's not disgusting. The anus is the end of the intestinal system, used to expel waste. Why you think that it's acceptable to plunge in there is beyond me. People who have had it up there are frequently admitted to hospital for complications arising from the act. If you think that's 'puerile, sniggering innuendo', no-one should turn their back on you.
A Green Enthusiastic Heterosexual (who like his partner to 'take it like a man') - what a joke!

Jack's Guide to Internet Referencing:

Wikipedia: BAD
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1180#21555

Wikipedia: GOOD?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1343#24682

BBC: BAD
(see above link)

Australian Bureau of Statistics: BAD
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1075#19605

Bizarre anti-catholic websites complete with Masonic symbols: GOOD
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1075#19737

White Supremacist websites: VERY GOOD
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1075#19382

Using the excuse "I was just playing Devil's Advocate and stringing you along" is lamer than the Dallas dream sequence that lasted a whole season. And it took you two whole days to think of it too!

Your obsession with root vegetables is odd, but then that's probably just what you do. They don't talk back or know what a homophone is.

Oddly enough, you and the turnip are both homophones, but the turnip has a better sense of irony.

Hello Everybody (including JackGol),

Hey, the Festive Season is almost here and we're still arguing...

The laws have been passed so no matter what any of us think - it's going to happen... I don't see the point of carrying on much further with this. I will end with this one thought for you:

" What can I give
this beautiful new generation?
the unwanted gift
of my experience?
I don't think so ...
perhaps only the right
to make the same mistakes
and afterward
not saying
'I told you so!' "

Peace ...

Hi there Bugsy/Ginx. It took two whole days to think about it, did it? Unlike you, I have a life outside of this site and, while I try to review incoming posts, I don't always have the time to read all and reply immediately. I'm sure you'll find some witty comeback to that.
You're the one that brought turnips into the thread (Tuesday, 18 December 2007 8:45:46 PM) so why am I the obsessed one? Don't you think it's you? As someone that can watch a whole season of Dallas, you are displaying classic symptoms.
What's a 'homophone'? Is it how you and CJ communicate off-line? All you have to do is turn round and he'll be there.

Damn Jack, and I had bets that you would write a stupid joke about houses again. And you had already replied twice before you came up with your stupid excuse.

I don't know why you are addressing Ginx, I doubt she bothers to read your asinine crap any more. You're the only one suffering from multiple personality disorder around here. I notice that you really wanted to seem like a reasonable person at first, but it didn't take long for the moronic frootloop to come out did it? Genes will out I guess.

I reckon jpw2040 may have been on to something with his link,
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

I bet all those prisoners in the showers at Barlinnie gave you deep tingly sensation that you didn't want to acknowledge didn't they?

I imagine that any reasonable observer of this conversation would understand what I meant by "puerile, sniggering innuendo".

"Jack the Lad" is a sock puppet for the bannned user "jsp1488". He's a troll, don't feed him.

Frank, I was just thinking back over your posts and wondered what you meant by 'You assert X to be the case and then, when compelling evidence shows X not to be the case, you assert Y to be the case.
Then, when compelling evidence shows Y not to be the case, you assert Z to be the case.' What concepts exactly does x, y and z represent?
Also, 'The Complete Book of Tartan' by Iain Zaczek and Charles Phillips is a lovely book but it can hardly be called an in-depth historical analysis of the origins of Scottish cultural traditions.' - is that a fact or your opinion. And 'That anyone could rate the Scottish Banner above the BBC beggars belief' - the Banner's writer on tartan matters is Matthew A C Newsome FSA Scot. (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland) GTS (Guild of Tartan Scholars). I didn't have that info at my fingertips when I replied to you. Maybe I should have waited longer. Surely you don't pooh pooh him as a source.

Bugsy, tell the truth. You are Ginx. Or were until your little alter ego spat the final dummy. Your mention of the BarL gives me something to think about. Bugsy was a PO there in the eighties. Are you really Brian Moran? Is that your homophone ringing? Better answer it, it might be CJ.

More lame argument from CJ. Avoid my points (latest post avoided was the one of Thursday, 20 December 2007 4:10:35 PM) and trot out your schoolyard taunts and insults.

Nah, Jack the Lad. I don't want to waste any more time.

Jack.... quite a colorful and interesting last post there mate :)

FRANK, CJ and BUGSY...

"The true racist nature of pro multiculturalists" is found in this very telling quote from Amin Saikal writing in the Age.

TOPIC "Nowwwww under Rudd we can deal positively with the Middle East"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/under-rudd-australia-can-tackle-the-middle-east-positively/2007/12/20/1197740464572.html

<<and at the same time to bring Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners on board by agreeing to maintain Iraq's historical identity as Arab and to enlist the co-operation of Turkey by ensuring that the Iraqi Kurds will have no more than limited autonomy.>>

KEY WORDS 'arab identity'

WOOPS.. was that a blatant 'racist' comment I saw...? yes.. it jolly well was.. "ARAB"....identity.

KURDS (Turkick racial stock) "No more than LIMITED Autonomy"...

OOoooh yes.. we must keep those pesky Kurds in their proper place..UNDER the "Arab" dominated government.

Never..never..NEVER be so silly people as to think that the cries for 'Multi-Culturalism' from migrants is anything other than a thinly disguised racist campaign.
When a non traditional newcomer to Australia speaks about 'fair go for migrants'...they are thinking of ONE group..'theirs'.

Like Amin Saikal... he is seeking to re-construct Australian foreign policy in 'ARAB' terms. When he thinks of Iraq..he thinks of an ARAB Iraq. The interests he is promoting.. are ARAB interests.

Sorry Ishmael... the Promise from God, was to Isaac...not you.

Our Identity....or "theirs".... if Arabs and Middle Eastern countries can have an 'Arab' identity, then Australia can have an Anglo/European' identity. And any Arab (or any other) who thinks to the contrary can kindly shove that idea sideways where it rather hurts :)

BOAZ: "Never..never..NEVER be so silly people as to think that the cries for 'Multi-Culturalism' from migrants is anything other than a thinly disguised racist campaign."

Old tactic #1- if you want to express racist sentiments, accuse the other side of being racist.

Old tactic #2 - lump them all in together ("migrants") then attack THEM for lumping them all in together.

Old tactic #3 - use a single item to try to discredit an entire social philosophy ("multiculturalism"). He used the same tactic with kirpans.

Mr BOAZ needs that course in clear thinking and logic. Perhaps someone will put a voucher in his Xmas stocking.

Well that's a nice piece of Christian "peace on earth and good will to all men" from Boazy, who has displayed his ingrained racism yet again in his last post.

There is nothing "racial" about "Arab identity" - it is entirely a cultural phenomenon. Arabs are people who speak Arabic and identify as ethnically Arabic.

On the other hand, a notion such as "Turkick racial stock" is intrinsically racist, since it assumes that there are "racial stocks" from which people derive their primordial identity.

When Boazy and others of his ilk slip into classically racist language in discussions about culture, they give themselves away.

yes, EVERYONE's a racist except me and my chocolate labrador Dusty. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Hi Frank. You're back again. Thought you didn't want to waste any more time. Or is it different when you are doing the lecturing? Did my revision and clarification of my sources move me to the 'too hard' basket?

Nah, Jack, I didn't want to waste any more time on you. Wasting it on BOAZ instead.

Happy Saturnalia!

People need to understand that the Kirpan is just one of the symbols or the Sikh’s religious tradition and is not meant to be a weapon. For example, this article, written by a Sikh, it says: “The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways its religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapons than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.”
And “The Reht Maryada does not specify the length of the Kirpan or how it is to be worn by the devotee. Kirpans can be anywhere from 3 foot swords carried by Sikhs on religious festivals, marriages and parades, to a few inches in length.”
http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm
I understand from other sources that the Kirpan can definitely be blunt if required.

Pericles first suggested ‘bluntness’ of the Kirpan and I reiterated that point several times but this point was ignored.
I can agree with opposing SHARP Kirpans, but what I don’t understand is why you would so strongly oppose the concealed wearing of small, blunt Kirpans by Sikhs in a controlled environment e.g. a school.

You are either for or against religious tolerance, and you are either for or against the wearing of religious symbols including the cross symbol.
But it’s simply a matter of being judgmental if you allow SOME religions to carry/wear a symbol of their religion but not others.

To say that Sikhs should not be welcome to attend public schools when they carry their BLUNT, concealed religious symbol creates divisiveness.
Things like religious symbols such as the Kirpan provide a great opportunity for schools to discuss differences with all the children and their parents to prevent misunderstanding.

I oppose religious traditions or symbols at the point where one religion clearly interferes with the safety or freedom of other people. I cannot see how a blunt, concealed, covered Kirpan encroaches other people’s safety.

Most regulars here would acknowledge that I'm a pretty tolerant person, particularly when it comes to culture. However, my tolerance of the cultural phenomenon of religion reaches its boundary when adherents of religions want special consideration under the law for their beliefs and rituals, and those special considerations might impact on my (and by extension my children's and grandchildren's) peace and wellbeing.

I have no doubt that the kirpan is a purely symbolic implement that is only carried for religious reasons. However, I understand that adult Sikhs who wish to travel on commercial airlines are willing to compromise to the extent of checking their kirpans in as luggage, rather than carrying them in their cabin baggage or on their person. Given that any other concealed weapons are prohibited in schools, how hard would it be for them to make similar concessions?

As I've said before, we'd be far better off removing all religious trappings and symbols from public schools. If parents want their kids to be indoctrinated in hocus pocus, by all means let them send them to religious schools - which of course shouldn't attract any government funding ;)

FrankGol: "We're looking for the last time, or any time really, when a kirpan was used as a weapon in an Australian school.
Nobody has yet found an instance."

When was the last time a kid dynamited their school?
Can't think of a single instance?
Then we can't stop kids taking dynamite to school.

When was the last time a kid poisoned the cafeteria food with arsenic?
Can't think of a single instance?
Then we can't stop kids taking arsenic to school either.

When was the last time a plane was hijacked with a box cutter?
Hang on!

Kirpans are *only* worn by Khalsa, the baptised Sikhs originally formed as a *military order*.
(When was the last time a military order was aggressive?
Can't think of a single instance!).

Khalsa are "Saint-Soldiers".
Saint first, then Soldier.

Saints must have *total control* over their vices (pride, anger, greed, attachment, lust).
Do hormonal teenagers qualify as self-controlled saints?
Can't think of a single instance!

Sarbat Khalsa is a gathering of a representative portion of the Khalsa Panth theocracy, where they discuss matters that affect all Sikhs.

Surely this matter has created enough international controversy (including a Supreme Court case in Canada) to warrant examination of possible solutions at the next Sarbat Khalsa.

The Jathedar is the supreme religious authority of Sikhism.
If the Pope can revise Catholic practices, why can't the Jathedar do likewise?

I note your usual flippant diversion from my questions about Jewish and Satanist schoolchildren.

Can 13-year-old ("adult") Jews leave school before they're 15?
Can Satanist schoolchildren wear an inverted cross which insults the beliefs of other students?

Please answer this time.
Or is the paint getting disturbing too close to your corner?
It's black hole time!

CJ Morgan: "There is nothing 'racial' about 'Arab identity'".

When was the last time you saw an black Arab?
Or one with red hair and freckles?
Can't think of a single instance!

And before you call me a knuckledragging boofhead, remember I *agree* with you about the kirpan issue.
And have no problem with turnips or anal sex, or combining the two.

Shockadelic

You're a rank amateur. Your analogies are not just false - they are preposterous.

Dynamite and arsenic are illegal and dangerous and rightly forbidden in the hands of children. And no-one is advocating that kids should be allowed to take them to school (except you). Kirpans are neither illegal nor dangerous and are therefore not forbidden.

The extension of your weird argument to 'military orders' and hormonal teenagers is arrant nonsense. Work on your logic, mate.

Shocker syllogism #1:
* Military orders are aggressive.
* Baptised Sikhs were "originally" part of a military order.
* Therefore, Sikh teenagers wearing ceremonial kirpans are aggressive!!

Shocker syllogism #2:
* Baptised Sikhs are saints first and then soldiers.
* Hormonal teenagers are not saints.
* Therefore, Sikh teenagers wearing ceremonial kirpans are dangerous!!

Really, you are a shocker.

I suppose you'll annoy me until I answer your inconsequential questions. So here you are:

"Can 13-year-old ("adult") Jews leave school before they're 15?" No, it's illegal.

"Can Satanist schoolchildren wear an inverted cross which insults the beliefs of other students?" That would probably be a ruling each Principal or governing body would make.

Neither question bears any relevance to kirpans. The law allows Sikh initiates to wear them; and they pose no threat to human life.

I'll leave CJ Morgan to comment on whether you are a knuckledragging boofhead, but I have to say you really do lead with your chin.

CJ cracked me up when he wrote 'Most regulars here would acknowledge that I'm a pretty tolerant person'. He's not very tolerant of anyone who holds views different from his. This is apparent from his spewing out of insults instead of engaging in an exchange of ideas.
To be fair, I agree with his 'we'd be far better off removing all religious trappings and symbols from public schools'.
See, CJ, even we can sometimes hold the same view.

I see Frank's still wasting time, now with Shockadelic. BTW Shockers, I don't think turnips have arses, you'd have to ask BugsyGinxBrian.

Jack the Lad

For once I agree with you. I'm wasting time with Shockadelic.

Merry Xmas.

FrankGol making sense?
Can't think of a single instance!

That paint around your feet really makes you hysterical!

"You're a rank amateur."
And you're an elitist charlatan.

"Your analogies are not just false, they are preposterous."

And your argument isn't preposterous?:
Kirpans should be legal, because they're legal.

I'm not the one who defined Khalsa as a military order of "saint-soldiers".
*They* did!
Twisting my words into distorted pretzels doesn't invalidate them.

You accept kirpans as an element of Sikhism.
Well, 13-year-olds being adults is an element of Judaism.
Why is one acceptable but not the other?
Because it's "legal" or "illegal"?
That's not deductive logic, that's hypocrisy!

My questions about Jews and Satanists aren't "inconsequential".

Kirpans are *religious*.
That's the *reason* for the exemption!

If Sikhs are exempted from standard laws, why not Jews exempted from compulsory school attendance after the age of 13, or Satanists exempted from anti-vilification laws.

"'Can Satanist schoolchildren wear an inverted cross which insults the beliefs of other students?'
That would probably be a ruling each Principal or governing body would make."

Wimp!

Why can't principals decide whether Jewish 13-year-olds can leave school?
Or whether Sikhs can carry kirpans?

Why is offending Christians permissible, but not offending Sikhs?

So Khalsa Sikhs are innocent angels who wouldn't hurt a fly?

Exhibit A: Babbar Khalsa, terrorist organisation.

1. Punjab Chief Minister assassinated in suicide bomb attack.
2. Bombings of cinemas in New Delhi.
The arrested possessed 1kg of RDX explosive, a timer, detonator, .303 rifle, 20 rounds of ammunitions, a Punjab Police head constable uniform, and several fake driving licences.
3. Babbar Khalsa's India Operations Chief arrested for escaping prison (accused of masterminding the above assassination).
Recovered during arrest: 10.35kg of RDX, four pistols, 207 live cartridges, remote control devices, and a hand grenade.
4. Member charged for planning assassination of a retired army general and providing shelter to a prison escapee.
5. The Canadian government deport a member for planning assassinations of a former Punjab Chief Minister, his son, and a former Punjab Police Chief.

Oh, those Khalsa Sikhs.
So cute, so adorable.
Perfectly harmless!

Shocker

Go easy on the dynamite and arsenic over Xmas. And watch out for kirpans under the skirts of those 13 year old Jewish truants.

All those adolescents - kirpans at the ready - looking to bring down Australian democracy while we feast on our turkeys and plum puddings.

Be alert - Australia needs more lerts.

I hope we all make it into 2008!

I'll concede that I'm somewhat intolerant of knuckledragging boofheads :)

Having said that, I only engage in such intemperance when confronted by obdurate bigotry. When reason fails colourful language is sometimes effective.

I think anybody who is familiar with this forum knows my position on multiculturalism.

Compliments of the season and a very happy Saturnalia to you all!

I expected as much.

When faced with irrefutable evidence that his case is groundless, FrankGol just skips along his merry (i.e. braindead) path as if nothing happened.

His whole case is based on the "peaceful harmless Sikh", but presented with evidence of *aggressive violent terrorism* by Khalsa Sikhs (no doubt wearing kirpans at the time of the explosions) he just *ignores* it!

And, of course, doesn't really address the issue of Jewish and Satanist schoolchildren being entitled to their own legal exemptions, or religious expression in school.

The black hole strikes again!

I recommend all schoolchildren attend the first day back in school next year in the most *offensive or controversial* attire they own.
(If you've had your Bar Mitzvah/Bat Mitzvah, just don't go!)

Let's have a self-expression/offensiveness free-for-all and see what happens.

(And no, Frankie Wankie, I'm not referring to dynamite or arsenic, just clothing and accessories. Perfectly harmless!)

Shocker: "The black hole strikes again."

So that's it! That explains all! It must have been painful. No wonder you're a shockaholic.

May 2008 bring you a speedy recovery.

I thought you weren't "wasting time with Shockadelic" anymore, Frankie Wankie.
But here you are again!

You're the black hole Frank, but unfortunately there's no explaining you.

Sikhs can do whatever they like, demanding legal amendments to suit their beliefs.

But Hell will freeze over before FrankGol gives Christians, Jews or Satanists the same privilege.

One rule if you're Judeo-Christian, another if you're 'exotic'.
So much for 'non-discrimination'.

The Gospel According to Frank:
"All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ?

yes.. it's just dawned on me.. "Goverment shall make no law promoting a religion" something like that right?

Well the Kirpan is SPECIFICALLY Sikh, and to make an 'excemption' from a law, is tantamount to making a law... thus, as such it is unconstitutional?

I'd value feedback on this, because I'd like to persue it.

Happy New Year.

BD dabbles in 'tolerance'

Ok.. here is what I'm prepared to accept.

1/ SMALL symbolic kirpans of no larger than 2 cm length.
2/ Fully enclosed, so that they weapon cannot be removed from it's sheath.
3/ Sheath and Weapon to be fully enclosed in some difficult to remove material, rendering it totally harmless and impossible to use as a weapon.

Or.. just wear one about the size of a small crucifix.

The idea the Kirpan is not viewed as a symbol of violence (in a defensive sense) is (to Quote Franks terminology) "preposterous".. just take a look at Sikh history to find out.

blessings.

Quick! Somebody call the DA's office. Boazy's ready to cut a deal.

It has something to do with covering his weapon with a sheath.

Happy new year all!

BOAZ-David:

With your usual precision you declare that the Australian Constitution has the answer to your kirpan problem: "...it's just dawned on me.. "Goverment shall make no law promoting a religion" something like that right?"

"Well the Kirpan is SPECIFICALLY Sikh, and to make an 'excemption' from a law, is tantamount to making a law... thus, as such it is unconstitutional?

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Notice: 'prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'. So your constitutional ploy fails.

Now, let's go back to your original posting David. The article from the Herald-Sun (6 December 2007: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22879059-2862,00.html)

"The Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria...told the committee that only a small number or Sikhs have been initiated and an even smaller number of students carry the kirpan.

"The kirpan, carried in a sheath and worn on a strap, is one of five articles of faith that initiated Sikh males have to carry. It is not allowed to be used as a weapon."

Note: "It is not allowed to be used as a weapon."

Note: "carried in a sheathe and worn on a strap". Have you gone off half-cocked again, David?

Frank, it's been quoted elsewhere that the kirpan is carried in part for defensive purposes. Is there a bit of semantics here or are the earlier quotes incorrect?

Is it a weapon only if used for an attack (Bill Clinton's definition of sexual relations springs to mind) or does the quote you made cover both offensive and defensive use?

I still don't see the validity in allowing any child to carry a knife at school. I don't see that religious beliefs should carry greater weight than other reasons for allowing something. If it's OK on the basis of religion then it should be OK on the basis of other reasons which might be equally important to the individual concerned - cultural, obsessive devotion to fishing, hunting etc.

As a parent I'd not want any child at my son's school routinely carrying a knife around regardless of how some may choose to interpret a particular religious belief.

R0bert

R0bert,

The issue here is truly one of definition. And who is doing the defining, and for what purpose? As you rightly point out, Bill Clinton used a convenient - and legally, if not morally, acceptable - definition when he denied having sexual relations with 'that woman'. The definition was available to him and he made the most of it.

When is a traditional 'religious symbol' a 'weapon'? When does the word 'weapon' connote 'attack' and when 'defence'?

When does a 'kirpan' become a 'knife'?

The answer to all these questions is - When people want to use fear of poorly understood symbolism as a weapon against the equally poorly understood policy of multiculturalism.

I returned to and quoted the Herald-Sun article that BOAZ_David used to open this thread. Typically dishonest, BOAZ failed to quote from the article the Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria statements - that only a small number or Sikhs have been initiated and an even smaller number of students carry the kirpan which is not allowed to be used as a weapon.

In the hands of spinmeister BOAZ, the tiny ornamental kirpan becomes 'a concealed unlicenced weapon'. This unleashes the fools and dullards who rush in with fears of children armed to the teeth with AK47s, machetes and sundry other tools of terrorism, 13 year olds Jews being allowed to truant willy-nilly, and governments turning a blind eye to FGM, forced arranged marriages, pedophilia and incest. All because of an inoffensive symbol the likes of which have been around in schools for decades.

I remember an incident in a Catholic school in which a child whacked another with the altar cross, splitting his head wide open. I've never heard - don't expect to hear - any suggestion that crosses are weapons or that Catholic children should be banned from wearing crosses around their necks (no matter what size).

As a New Year's resolution - let's keep this religious weaponry issue in perspective...and let common sense be our friend and companion in 2008.

FrankGol: "Only a *small* number of Sikhs" carry "the *tiny* ornamental kirpan."

And a *small* number of Muslims with *tiny* knives couldn't do any harm either, could they Frankie Wankie?

A kirpan is a "sword" or "dagger".
Swords, daggers and knives are all metal *blades* attached to a handle, capable of cutting or stabbing.
Your semantic games can't get around this.

That's why kirpans are *not allowed* on planes or in prisons.

Referring to kirpans only as "symbols" is dishonest.
They're supposed to defend the wearer against assault.
Therefore they must be *capable* of physical damage to one's aggressor, otherwise they would have *no defensive value*!

Sikh culture is unrelated to the cultural history of Australia, on which our legal code is based.

Sikhs living in Australia cannot expect our laws to change to suit their cultural history.
They moved into our land, not vice versa.

If I moved to the Punjab, I would be expected to live by *their* laws, based on *their* traditions.

"Why don't you live by Aboriginal law?" comes the predictable yawn-inducing response.
If it were 1788, I'd agree.
But over 200 years of irreversible history have changed Australia into *something else*.

I'm not entitled to expect Sikh culture in the Punjab to be compatible with Australia, but I am entitled to expect compatibility *within* Australia.

Why is your embracing of "cultural diversity" inconsistent?

You allow legislators to make exemptions for Sikhs based on religious tradition, but not Jews.

You leave the issue of religious "symbols" in the hands of legislators if it's Sikhs, but school principals if it's Satanists.

It would be so much easier to accept your opinion, if it had any internal consistency.

Kirpan (noun): a sword or dagger.

Contradiction (noun): inconsistency; discrepancy; something that contains contradictory elements. See also FrankGol.

If we can reject "religious" human sacrifices and cannibalism as unacceptable, we can reject "religious" weapons too.

Embrace the "wonders" of multiculturalism if you like, Frank, but do it *all the time* for *all people* (not just Sikh saint-soldiers, but also human sacrificing Aztecs, cannibalistic Papuans, Satanists and Jews) or shut up.

Happy New Year to you Shocker,

I find your dissertations on contemporary multiculturalism very diverting. I think you're winding me up.

Next time I'm in Mexico I'll look out for those 'human sacrificing' Aztecs; and likewise when next in Papua I'll be most wary of inviting cannibals to dinner. I actually get on very well with my Papuan neighbours in Footscray but I was puzzled when one of them when the turkey came on the table at Xmas and he said he was a vegoe. Here was I thinking them all headhunters...

My own family has plenty of first-hand knowledge of Jewish customs and traditions so no issue there except that they all seem to be overly ambitious for their kids schooling and I couldn't find any of the kids wanting to leave school at 13.

But I have to confess I've never met any Satanists so I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge of how multiculturalism is short-changing them. I'll keep a look out at the beach and the cricket next week. Alert but not alarmed, I am.

FRANK SAID:

"In the hands of spinmeister BOAZ, the tiny ornamental kirpan becomes 'a concealed unlicenced weapon'."

*ouch*.... err Frank.... I have to say the shoe is on the other foot mate.

1/ I looked up the "Kirpan" and gained an impression of it's size. (considerable)

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/bldefkirpan.htm
<<Kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords, to tiny knives small enough to be worn about the neck. All Khalsa Sikhs are required towear the kirpan.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#In_the_USA_.28Legal.29
<<In most public places in Canada a Sikh religious Kirpan is allowed but there some places where it is not clear cut. In the 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite&#8209;Bourgeoys the court held that the banning of the kirpan in a school environment is against Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable accommodation. The issue started when a 12 year old student dropped a 20 cm (8 inches) long kirpan in school. School staff and parents were very concerned, and the student was required to attend school under police supervision until the court decision was reached.>>

PROBLEMS.
1/USA has problems with Sikh's at Airports!
2/Denmark has ruled "Religion not a valid reason to break the weapons law"
3/HOW brilliant do you have to be, to realize that it doesn't matter a scrap what the ATTITUDE of the child is. OTHER kids KNOW he has a weapon, and could easily remove and USE it.
Game/Set/Match

THE ISSUE is not one of 'human rights'... oh wait.. it IS.. the right of children to attend school without FEAR of Sikh students carrying deadly weapons.

Boaz, you will not rest until everyone shares your fear and loathing of otherness, will you?

Here are extracts from your last four posts:

>>...FEAR of Sikh students carrying deadly weapons<<

>>pandering to minorities who eventually end up acting like the Sikhs, and wanting to get exceptions from laws about deadly weapons so they can fulfil their supposed religious obligations<<

>>"Islam"-a-phobia is entirely justified... when the Muslim community feels confident, has the numbers, and access to power... well the others said it already... Bomb attacks all around the world<<

>>Taken as true, this would make 'Allah' -the approver of rape/abuse of captive slave girls, -the approver of unspeakable cruelties<<

Tell me, do you really think that these are valid contributions to discussion? Or are they simply renewed attempts to rally others to your exclusionary, bigoted and fearful view of life? You had been a little subdued on the topic for a while, and I wondered if the joy and fellowship of the Christmas holidays had mellowed you a little.

Sadly, this appears not to be the case.

When attempting to understand Boazy, I always find it instructive to remember that he once told me he thought Jesus Christ would be a judgmental immigration officer.

FrankGol: "I think you're winding me up."

I couldn't resist. There's a key in your back.

Pericles: "exclusionary, bigoted and fearful; fear and loathing of otherness."

Are you referring to Boazy, or the Muslims who keep blowing us up, view non-Muslims as sub-human, and kill people who leave their faith.

botheration, Jesus already is a judgmental immigration officer.
Think about it!

Good question, Shockadelic.

>>Pericles: "exclusionary, bigoted and fearful; fear and loathing of otherness." Are you referring to Boazy, or the Muslims who keep blowing us up, view non-Muslims as sub-human, and kill people who leave their faith.<<

On this occasion I was referring to Boaz.

But you are quite right, if the same remarks had been made by "Muslims who keep blowing us up, view non-Muslims as sub-human, and kill people who leave their faith" I would have made the same observations.

There is a difference, you see, between extrapolating from carefully selected ancient texts - which is one of Boaz' favourite tricks - and directly articulating a stance or position.

So far as I can tell, OLO is fully populated with its fair share of the former, of which Boaz is a prime example. Under cover of a specific translation of carefully selected verses, and in the teeth of real Muslims explaining the context and backround of those verses, he feels justified in vilifying Islam as a whole.

Yet, strangely, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim making similar accusations against Christians, despite the fact that there is ample evidence of the same language style, usage and intent in the Bible.

It's pretty much a one-way street. Boaz has given himself a doubleO licence to denigrate Islam at every opportunity, and does so at the drop of the proverbial hat.

I do try to get him to look at himself more critically on occasions, but that's hardly the same as describing an entire religion guilty of rape and child abuse.

Pericles....here is your problem:

<<"Yet, strangely, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim making similar accusations against Christians, despite the fact that there is ample evidence of the same language style, usage and intent in the Bible.">>

"intent".....sorry old son, that is plain incorrect. When understanding the Christian position, one must recognize that it is based on the New Testament understanding of the Old. The 'mention' of judgements on particular tribes in ancient Canaan is nothing of the slightest kind of suggestion that we should or could emulate such ethnic cleansing, such as happened in Serbriniza.

And this is where 'you' depart from soundness... because you fail to understand that 'Islam' is based on the most recent supposed revelations on any matter, and this includes Christians and Jews.
So, when I quote from what you describe as 'obscure' and selective texts, particularly 9:30 I am quoting from the DEFINITIVE statement of Islam re Christians and Jews.

What the likes of Trad and company will do, is quote from the ABROGATED ealier 'Christian friendly' verses to lull non Muslims into a relaxed state of tolerance and acceptance.

Now..your failure to understand this very basic concept is the source of your confused position on me :)

How will Muslims treat Christians if they have power ?
See it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0chkgxqeV3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIikqx0Sfcw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNj8NdFJ4cg&feature=related

In all of these cases, they are fully justified by Surah 9:30 and 9:29

Come out of the fog Pericles.. see the world.

KIRPAN... I feel quite sure that allowing this by an exemption of the law, is tantamount to 'making' a law which promotes one particular religion and is thus unconstitutional.

But Pericles barbs aside.. my bigger concern is how our society will be impacted by the free practice of religions which are in direct conflict with our law,(Sikhism and Islam) and include the specific objective of overturning our democracy.(Islam)

Frank has often reminded us that 'true' Multiculturalism is based on the principle that people are free to practice their culture TO THE POINT where it conflicts with Australian law, and no further. I quite agree with this pretty much, and that is where the probbbbblem is now.
Australian law and cultural practice is clearly NOT condoning carrying sharp bladed daggers to school yards nor through Air Port security NOR into court rooms....

Now..if we can have laws which prohibit such things in SOME cases, it makes the claim that people must be able to practice their religion 'freely' falacious. If they can be prohibited in SOME cases without infringing their religious liberty, why then can they not be prohibited in ALL cases where the safety, well being and peace of mind of others is at stake?

Do we want it the other way? This is classic case of 'Australian' Culture being attacked and undermined by Sikh religious culture.
This UNDERMINING was achieved by lobbying of the Victorian Multicultural Commission, so clearly they have gone AGAINST the very limits of the policy itself.
Seems to me the fox is dwelling with the chickens.

Pericles.. (grabs that 'finger') its really quite simple. "Enjoy your 'otherness' as long as it does not undermine or conflict with Australian LAW" (underlined, bold, font 96 and a 100 exclamation marks added :)

While I'm not all that keen on kids carrying daggers, it seems to me that there are two key points here that the anti-multiculturalists need to address in order for there to be legitimate concern:

a) their religious requirements mean the knife can't be used as a weapon.

b) in the event one was used as a weapon, then point a) would be nullified and the policy would undoubtedly be reversed. Yes, one child would be injured and that could be tragic, but lets face it - if there was a genuine desire to wound, it's quite likely they could find another dangerous instrument somewhere in a school.

So, whilst I see the point about them being dangerous, I think you've got to realise that if their faith bans them from using it as a weapon and their faith is the sole justification they have for bringing in the knives, then it seems the issue is being blown out of proportion by those who would like to use it as a sledgehammer against multiculturalism.

Pericles, it's fine to advocate a society where everybody can live as they please (without harming others), but for this to work, *everybody* must agree to live by those terms.

Muslims have repeatedly "articulated a stance or position" opposing the principle of liberalism, which our society is based on.

Can a "tolerant" society tolerate people who won't tolerate toleration?

Muslims will *take advantage* of our tolerance wherever they're a minority.
But wherever they're the majority, there's no talk of "tolerance".

"Mainstream" Muslims even reject some believers with *Islamic* heritage! (Ahmadis, Ismaili, Sufis, Baha'is)

They barely tolerate Christians and Jews, because they're People of The Book.
What about the rest of us?

Anything that isn't the Islamic-approved way is "the wrong way".

"My people" (heretics, apostates, sinners, deviants, individualists) have had a hard enough time historically with Christians torturing and executing us.
Thankfully they've stopped doing that.

But Muslims haven't.

I don't want to see the gains made in modern societies like Australia lost, through immigration of large numbers of people who think it's still okay to torture and execute "my people".

There's no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim, just variances of extremism, from latent to homicidal.

Enough of "my people" have died at the hands of "believers".
I say: "Not again. Not now. Not here."

I'm not even willing to *risk* the potential for this, by "tolerating" people who would NEVER tolerate me (or even let me live).

I repeat: For "tolerance" to work, *everybody* must agree to be tolerant.
Muslims never will.

Let's be honest, the Muslims are: They call our non-Muslim world "The House Of War" because they're at war (spiritually) with us!

War, not Tolerance.
That's what *they* preach!
Let's just accept that fact and stop being naive.

To fight a bully, you can't just lie down and take it.
You must respond the only way they understand: fight back.
First line of defence: our borders.
Second: our laws.

I proudly accept Australia as "The House Of War".
Eternally sinful. Eternally wrong.
And I am a Warrior.

A Warrior of the Wrong Way.

Boaz, it doesn't matter how many times you protest, your defence of your blinkered fear and loathing of Islam does not impress me.

>>When understanding the Christian position, one must recognize that it is based on the New Testament understanding of the Old... you fail to understand that 'Islam' is based on the most recent supposed revelations on any matter, and this includes Christians and Jews<<

Give me one good reason why I should believe that your interpretation of someone else's religion is accurate, while theirs is not? Would you, using the same logic, accept that my interpretation of the historic bloodthirstiness of your own religion is superior to your own?

If the past is any guide, you most certainly would not. So why on earth would you think that the world should accept your version, as a card-carrying enemy, of Islam?

>>Now..your failure to understand this very basic concept is the source of your confused position on me<<

Right back atcha. Your failure to comprehend that I consider irrelevant your opinions of what one should believe about Islam, a religion that you are bitterly opposed to, is the source of your inability to understand a word I say.

I would however go further, and suggest that each time you deploy these arguments, they get just a little weaker, from being exposed to the light of day.

Just a thought.

Fascinating. It doesn't take much to 'out' a couple of so obvious multi (sorry for using that word) identities, but it takes someone with a brain about the size of a pimple on the back of a bee's knee to get it wrong.

I have been away to very far off shores, I doubt I would even have got a signal on my LT. But no,-I'm still posting as Bugsy cos' Jasper,- the font of all knowledge says so. Sheesh!

Still....., the OLO twerps are still being handled with style. Not difficult really.

Some interesting perspectives, Shockadelic.

>>Can a "tolerant" society tolerate people who won't tolerate toleration?<<

By definition, they can. If they did not, they would not be a tolerant society.

There are those who point out that you can't build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia, and use this as an argument that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque here.

So the question is, would you like us to be more, or less, like Saudi Arabia?

And the corollary to that is, if you do want us to be more intolerant, what should be our baseline? Christianity, perhaps? If so, which version?

>>Mainstream" Muslims even reject some believers with *Islamic* heritage! (Ahmadis, Ismaili, Sufis, Baha'is)<<

For many, many years, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland murdered each other. I think that was a hint that they were fairly intolerant. But perhaps we should look for another religion to be our marker of intolerance, one that is even more intolerant than Christianity?

>>There's no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim, just variances of extremism, from latent to homicidal<<

A fascinating concept. That the best you can get is a "latent extremist". This certainly explains the naked fear you express as:

>>Enough of "my people" have died at the hands of "believers". I say: "Not again. Not now. Not here."<<

But back to the tolerance/intolerance equation:

>>War, not Tolerance. That's what *they* preach! Let's just accept that fact and stop being naive.<<

Again, it's not a matter of naivety, just whether you want to be the same as you see them to be, or different.

It sure must be tough being you, living with all that fear.

Hooray for Pericles!

I do react with a snort when people try to make the claim that the only muslims are extremists.

So, a billion of the world's people are extremists. What's that, about a seventh is extreme then?

But hang on - extremists come in many forms, not just muslims... so there must be many many more extremists who don't call themselves muslims as well. So it's got to be more than a seventh. At what fraction does it stop being extreme?

So, the question arises, if you're stretching the label 'extremist' to include millions and millions of people who haven't committed acts of violence and show no urge of committing violence, then you're going to have one hell of a lot of extremists.

In fact, many of them are less extreme than others. Heck, lets call the less violent ones less extreme extremists.

Moderate extremists if you will. I mean, you've got to be able to categorise right? Clearly, not every one of these billion odd muslims can be equally as extreme.

I mean, how can a card carrying, gun toting, bomb-strapped extremist get the due fear he craves if he's being compared to the peaceable Ahmed, who runs the 7-11 down the street? It's just not fair.

So, now that we've recategorised some extremists and extreme and some as moderate, hows about the extremists who deplore violence? There are plenty who do that, you know. How's about the two iraqi police who threw themselves on a suicide bomber to save other lives? What do we call those muslims?

Hmm... I guess we need our admirable extremists too. Right. So... we've divided our extremists into the extreme extremists and the rest. Extreme-lite I guess.

Sound like a joke? That's because it is. Keep it coming shockadelic, it's a most amusing tirade.

Hmmm.. I shouldn't let my part in this thread descend into a divisive argument about Islam and Muslims, but it seems Pericles has led the way.

You said:

"Give me one good reason why I should believe that your interpretation of someone else's religion is accurate"

....and here is that ONE very good sound reason. 'context'

Surah 9

-Historical..... Mohammad and the Muslims were increasingly in conflict with the Byzantines. As a result, the verses I often quote, are relevant to that situation and forever. The immediate relevance is indicated by reference to broken treaties, by mohammad himself declaring himself free of obligation to treaties, his call (in that context) to hunt down and kill unbelievers (like you) where ever they can be found etc...

-Hermeneutical. The Quran is said to have many 'levels' of meaning. Ok.. let it be so, but for sure, one level is the 'obvious meaning in context' of the words in the document. Now..by applying the same principles as I (or you) would to the Australian constitution, we can arrive at a sound understanding of the meaning and significance of the Quran.

The progression of events is:

-General climate of conflict with both the pagans and the Byzantines.
-The words of Surah 9 are intended to rally the Muslims to war.
-The SCOPE of the declaration of war is the key to understanding the on-going Muslim/Islamic position re non Muslims.

SCOPE. The particular nature of the condemnation of Jews and Christians in verse 30 is eternal in nature. It does not connect with any specific event, but is general. The Jews and Christians are condemned because of their CORE BELIEFS... which we still hold to this day.

REPEATED APPLICATION of 9:29 by Mohammad himself (Hadith Muslim book 1, 29 30 31 32 33) in the context of aggressive war and invasion of non muslims.

PERSONAL CONTACT. Bassam Zawadi is a Muslim apologist and has clearly and unambiguously supported my interpretation in emails.
http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/index.html

KIRPAN
I rang the Attourney General Canberra today, about the Kirpan, they were surprised it was allowed and are looking into constitutionality.

Oh, come now, Boaz, this is not the time to hide your light under a bushel.

>>Hmmm.. I shouldn't let my part in this thread descend into a divisive argument about Islam and Muslims, but it seems Pericles has led the way.<<

May I just point out a teensy crack in the fabric of your apparent reluctance?

You started this thread on 6th December. On the very next day, only three posts later in fact, you wrote:

>>Hi Scotty.. yes.. who knows eh. BASS HILLS ISLAMIC SCHOOL.. the sequel.<<

So it is just a little hypocritical of you to suggest that I am somehow responsible for introducing "a divisive argument about Islam and Muslims".

If I were the sort of person to be outraged, I probably would be.

But this is to me just another example of your ability to say anything you feel like, without regard for truth or consistency.

As for these attempts to justify your fear and loathing of Islam, they are exactly the same as they have always been, and equally unconvincing. You have no scholarship in interpretation of the Qur'an, only a desire to paint its content in the blackest possible light.

Do you dispute this? Then please, show me one instance where you have taken the opposite stance.

As I have said on many occasions, the only possible reason that you continue to post here in these debates is to denigrate someone else's religion, and to take any and every opportunity to vilify, by association, its adherents. This is called rabble-rousing, and it does you no credit to continue to practise it.

Pericles: "What should be our baseline?"

Freedom.

No society has absolute freedom.
But that's the theoretical baseline for comparison.

Does Islam preach freedom?

If their population grows in Australia, will that enhance or diminish our freedom?

Have you seen the headlines recently?
Almost all conflict is either attacks by Muslims, or a reaction to their attacks.

Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland aren't fighting about religion, they're fighting about sovereignty.
And they're not killing Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons for their "heresy".

There are no more crusades, inquisitions, witch-hunts.
Christianity has mellowed.

Islam hasn't. It still petulantly thinks it should rule the world.

It's not "just" a religion, neatly compartmentalised to Sunday mornings.

It's a political/religious reality-system.

And a particularly oppressive one, that severely punishes anybody who questions it or tries to live outside it.

Islam is Nazism without the snazzy uniforms.
"Allah uber alles"
(A fatwa, for me? You shouldn't have!)

It is incompatible with Australia's modern, egalitarian, liberal, democratic and cheeky nature.

"It sure must be tough being you, living with all that fear."

Yes, I know. It'd be so much easier if I could just wish, hope, pretend, ignore.

Tell all the people killed by Islamic suicide bombers recently that there's really nothing to fear.
You're spitting on their graves.

Maybe Muslims should take over the world.
That'll shut you lot up for good.

Then you'll see Islam's true nature and it won't be pretty.

Will you still be making excuses for them when they're taxing you more or less depending on your faith, chopping off the hands of shoplifters, or executing Australians for having consensual gay sex.

The existing Islamic World is a lost cause.
Let them live in their Dark Ages.
But we can prevent our society becoming a part of "The House Of Islam".

My "naked fear" is founded in fact.
Your "naked naivety" is founded in *theory*.

I don't care what Islam could, would or should be.

I see what it is: Totalitarianism.

I see what they would do: Kill me.

Afraid?
More like annoyed.
Annoyed by Muslims. Annoyed by their pathetic Western apologists.

You are indeed a puzzle, Shockadelic.

But what a sad post! Despair, resignation, despondency, bluster oozing from every sentence.

Despair: >>I see what it is: Totalitarianism. I see what they would do: Kill me.<<

Resignation: >>Maybe Muslims should take over the world. That'll shut you lot up for good.<<

Despondency: >>Then you'll see Islam's true nature and it won't be pretty<<

Bluster: >>My "naked fear" is founded in fact. Your "naked naivety" is founded in *theory*<<

I can only conjecture what frame of mind you were in when you wrote it, but I'm glad I wasn't around at the time. Although it might have stopped you having the whole bottle yourself.

>>Annoyed by Muslims. Annoyed by their pathetic Western apologists<<

It is such a strain, isn't it, having to live with "other" people in the world. People who think differently, have a different God, are a subtly different colour (not that you have anything against that) or a subtly different sexual orientation (ditto).

Time for a change, Shockadelic.

Embrace differentness. Glorify otherness. Do something daring, like talk to a stranger. When you buy a copy of Big Issue, ask the vendor how he's doing. And listen to the answer.

And instead of assuming that people who disagree with your viewpoint are necessarily evangelists for your opponents' cause, actually consider their position dispassionately. At which point you can disagree intelligently, rather than just spread the grey gloop of your fear and loathing across the page.

>>Islam is Nazism without the snazzy uniforms. "Allah uber alles"<<

Have a great day. Take two aspirin and see me in the morning.

Pericles, get your aspirin now. You'll need it.

"Consider their position *dispassionately*."

Tell that to the Muslims.
"Azize, put down the detonators. If decadent infidels want to stick butt plugs up their arse, surely that is their own concern."

When I make a dispassionate statement of fact, you describe it as drunken despair.

"It is such a strain, isn't it, having to live with "other" people in the world."

Again, tell that to the Muslims.

You just keep repeating a redundant assertion: that intolerant people must be tolerated, or I'm just as bad as them, despite the fact I tolerate millions of "sinful" things they never would.

"Embrace differentness. Glorify otherness."

It's Groundhog Day!
*Again*, tell that to the Muslims.

You have no idea how "other" I am, baby!
I am the King of Otherland.
And in Otherland, sworn enemies of otherness cannot be our *ally*, now can they?

Muslims *despise* otherness.
Otherness is my very life.
There isn't an orthodox bone in my body.
Precisely why I distrust people whose sworn objective is moral domination of the entire world.

Do you know *anything* about Islam?
You think it's just namby-pamby wussy fluff like Buddhism?
"Ah, Grasshopper, you have much to learn."

In a Christian country, I could say I use pages of the Bible as toilet paper.
(Is that "other" enough for you?)

Most people would just roll their eyes and sigh.

In a Muslim country, if I said I use pages of the Koran as toilet paper, people wouldn't just roll their eyes.

I would be executed.
*Killed* for using a book made of paper as toilet paper.

Salman Rushdie would be killed by Muslims for writing a book.
A novel at that!

Killing people over *books*.
These are the people I'm supposed to tolerate, embrace and glorify?

If anybody tolerated, embraced and glorified Nazism, you'd be the first to repudiate them.
"Try to *understand* the Nazis, Shockadelic. They couldn't possibly be sadistic madmen, just look at their snazzy uniforms! There's nothing to fear!"

You are the puzzle, Pericles.
You would destroy freedom in the name of freedom.

Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." Attributed to [loving] Jesus. Morover, Yahweh was a war god. Constintine suppressed non-Christians and destroyed non-Christian temples/statues: Like the Taleban as I have mentioned in other posts.

What a coincidence, Shockadelic.

>>You would destroy freedom in the name of freedom<<

That is exactly the phrase I would use to describe someone who would prefer that we mutate our tolerant, mature and well-balanced society in order to copy the antics of one that has - as you so graphically depict - some fundamentalist enclaves that demonstrate less tolerance, understanding and maturity than ours.

Generally speaking, that is.

>>If anybody tolerated, embraced and glorified Nazism, you'd be the first to repudiate them<<

Indeed I would. And if you can demonstrate some genuine parallels between Islam and the rise of Nazism in Germany, I would be in the front line, actively working against the corruption of our society by such brainwashing.

>>Killing people over *books*. These are the people I'm supposed to tolerate, embrace and glorify?<<

Now admit it, no-one has asked you to "embrace and glorify", only to understand and show some tolerance for difference.

>>Muslims *despise* otherness... Precisely why I distrust people whose sworn objective is moral domination of the entire world.<<

Yeah, right. How successful were the Christian evangelists who went out to conquer the world for Jesus in the nineteenth century?

So much for "moral domination".

Tell me, oh guru, how much of the capture of the hearts and minds of citizenry by Nazis was through moral domination, and how much by instilling fear at a visceral, physical level?

And are the attempts at "moral domination" of Australia being conducted at a mental or physical level?

I personally feel strong enough to withstand any attempts to brainwash me into any religion. Are you?

Nor do I feel physically threatened. Do you?

Wishy-washy generalizations won't work, you will need to be specific.

A Muslim may very well be capable of managing the local 7-11, feeding and clothing his family, etc.
These are the lower levels of the pyramid in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
They are about basic survival.

Even Nazis worked and fed their children.
Did that make them model citizens?

To get to the top of the pyramid and reach your full potential, you need a freedom of thought and action *impossible* in Islamic society.

Where are the great Islamic thinkers, artists, scientists?
Can't think of a single one?

Now list the Westerners who've made great cultural contributions to art, science, philosophy.
The list is a mile long.

Why? Because it's at least *possible* to be Self-Actualized in a liberal society.
In fact, a liberal society is a *prerequisite* to Self-Actualization.

Islam is authoritarian, censorious, conformist.
That's why Muslims are rarely spontaneous, creative, autonomous, humourous (i.e. Self-Actualized).

The more Muslims there are in Australia, the more authoritarian, censorious, and conformist our society will become, and the less potential there will be for Self-Actualization.
And almost all growth of Islam in Australia is from immigration *not* conversion.

If 5% of Australians are Muslim, most of us could still become Self-Actualized.
If 33% were Muslim, it'd get a lot harder.
If more than 50% were Muslim, you can kiss Self-Actualization goodbye!

No society or person is 100% free or 100% tolerant.
Otherwise, we'd embrace the difference of cannibals and glorify the otherness of serial killers.
Even pirates had some rules and restrictions.

"Freedom" and "Tolerance" are not either/or.
They are relative *continuums*.
And Islam is at the *other end* of the continuum to us.

Various reports on freedom and social development worldwide exist and they all show the same thing: Islamic countries suck at freedom, Non-Islamic countries rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_(report)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

Australia is currently ranked:
#3 Human Development
#6 Quality of Life
#8 Democracy
#11 Corruption Perception (i.e. 11th least corrupt).

Islamic countries come way down the lists.

More Islamic = less free.
More Islamic = more corrupt.
More Islamic = worse quality of life.

Put 2 and 2 together, Pericles.

Shockaholic asks: "Where are the great Islamic thinkers, artists, scientists? Can't think of a single one?"

This says more about his pig ignorance than about Islamic achievements of world-wide significance. There are dozens of books on this topic (no, not Shocker's ignorance, but about achievements by Muslims).

Just a cursory glance, for example, at the Nobel Prizes (the most coveted and prestigious international awards) would show recent winners known to be Muslims include:

1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Egypt, Nobel Peace Prize
1979 - Abdus Salam, Pakistan, Nobel Physics Prize
1988 - Naguib Mahfouz, Egypt, Nobel Literature Prize
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Palestine, Nobel Peace Prize
1999 - Ahmed Zewail, Egypt, Nobel Chemistry Prize
2003 - Shirin Ebadi, Iran, Nobel Peace Prize
2005 - Mohamed ElBaradei, Egypt, Nobel Peace Prize
2006 - Orhan Pamuk, Turkey, Nobel Literature Prize
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh, Nobel Peace Prize.

(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/)

Note that five of these Nobel Prizes are for Peace. I wonder where these thinkers stand on Shocker's Malovian hierarchy?

Perrrrrricles....

my lengthy training of that active brain of yours is finally having a positive impact :)

You said:
<<"your fear and loathing of Islam,>>

Now..FINally you are at least using the correct terminology. "Islam" not 'Muslims'...goody goody.

<<You have no scholarship in interpretation of the Qur'an, only a desire to paint its content in the blackest possible light.>>

Actually.... close but no cigar.

1/ My primary objective is not to 'loathe' as much as wake Aussies up to the 'loathing' which is absolutely real in the Quran and Hadith towards Christians, Jews and "Polytheists" (thats you by the way.. in Quranic terminology)

2/ Pericles.. remember good ol Abu Izzadeen London Muslim radical who abused the home secretary (Formerly Trevor Brooks).. arrested last year.. he said in typical colorful fashion "non muslims are kaffffffirs..and no kafffffir is innocent..only Muslims are innocent" well they carted his sorry rear end off to the slammer but only about 30 yrs too late.

3/ The problem is... I'm sure even MeinKampf has some good points and that if one was interested in finding them, one could speak glowingly about its ground breaking ideas ?... but there is one minor catch... it appears to declare a whole race/religion 'persona non grata on planet earth'....and for that reason, we must turf out the whole thing or reap the consequences.

Hope you had a delightful break :) I caught 2 decent fish..and played with my new laptop .. this morning...I kicked its sorry arse TWICE in chess.. and at LEAST now it will admit that checkmate is a DEFEAT and not a 'draw' as it did the first time I wupped it .....

Then you said:
<<Do you dispute this? Then please, show me one instance where you have taken the opposite stance.>>
Nope..I don't deny that at all. The 'good bits' are like the bait I used to catch my fish.. but inside the bait..was a deadly hook.

The break seems to have refreshed your tendency for modesty and self-restraint, Boaz.

>>Perrrrrricles.... my lengthy training of that active brain of yours is finally having a positive impact <<

Must be something about the cathartic battle of wits you have experienced with those two fish. If the bait you used is the same as you use here, I suspect they may have leapt out of the water in an act of self-sacrifice, just to get you to stop your rabble rousing for a moment.

Your attempt to promote the idea that you hate Islam but love Muslims won't catch you any fish here, Boaz. It's the equivalent of pretending that you hate Nazism but love Nazis.

>>My primary objective is [to] wake Aussies up to the 'loathing' which is absolutely real in the Quran and Hadith towards Christians...<<

Only in the interpretation that you, and a few Islamic rabble-rousers, choose to use. You have placed yourself in opposition to terrorists by using the exact same tactics as they do, haven't you?

>>The problem is... I'm sure even MeinKampf has some good points... but there is one minor catch... it appears to declare a whole race/religion 'persona non grata on planet earth'....and for that reason, we must turf out the whole thing or reap the consequences.<<

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You and Mein Kampf take an identical approach. You both “declare a whole race/religion 'persona non grata on planet earth'” and advocate that “we must turf out the whole thing or reap the consequences.”

Tell me, which part of this parallel escapes you?

It is only a very small step, Boaz, from advocating the elimination of an entire religion, to that of advocating the elimination of its adherents. That is what you perceive your religious enemies to be doing, so you consider that the appropriate response is to do the same.

Don't you see how this puts you on the same level as the people you purport to despise?

Well thank you again for that very colorful perspective Pericles..

there is one minor point I wish to clear up though.. hanging from your literary nose like a missed chunk of.. who knows what..

I am not calling for the 'elimination' of a religion.

I'm calling for 'legal restraint on immigration and serious measures of vetting of all migrants to Australia in terms of 'their' values and ours and a determination of suitability based on the level of compatability.

For Muslims already here.. and those embracing that faith.. there are 2 groups and thus, there must be 2 approaches.

2 GROUPS..

1/ the nominal..cultural...and the sincere but gentle.

2/ The radical die hard.

For group 1... the solution is the proclaiming of the Gospel of salvation in the boldness and annoining of the Holy Spirit...such that 'whosoever will...may come'

For group 2.. its the AFP and Asio.

Thanx again for showing me how my words can be misunderstood.. it assists me in adjusting my terminology.

UPDATE on the Kirpan... had a call yesterday from the MultiCultural Council of Vic.. (who was VERY guarded about who I might 'be' and where from)
She explained that "Schools have the righ to determine things on a case by case basis." but she ALSO said she understands that Airports 'have an arrangment' and that the Kirpan must be sewn into some kind of garment on planes.. WHAT ? so she is suggesting that they can actually be CARRIED on planes?
Just a reminder of what one is...see here.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40025000/jpg/_40025050_sikh-knife.ap.jpg

Isn't that a beaut :) I can see it all now.. a 15 yr old Sikh kid at school...with THAT.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on one cotton pickin' minute there boaz.

You speak of two groups of muslims in Australia, the easy going moderates and the radicals.

And your solution for the easy going ones is:

"For group 1... the solution is the proclaiming of the Gospel of salvation in the boldness and annoining of the Holy Spirit...such that 'whosoever will...may come"

I can only conclude that by saying this, you mean one of two things. Either A) you're suggesting we convert them to christianity, or B) you're suggesting we continuously harangue them in attempts to convert them to Christianity.

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. This is a SECULAR nation, boaz. Our heritage may be Christian, but last time I checked, we still had separation of church and state, and we didn't decide our policies on religious thinking. You've accepted the importance of keeping christianity apart from government yourself.

I'm pretty easy going for mot osf your posts, because by and large they seem pretty peaceful, but if your 'solution' involves conversion to Christianity, I find that very, very ugly.

It seems that the problem some people have with certain elements of Islam is their rigidity against secular nations.

The solution is not to adopt the same attitudes, regardless of how peacefully you insist they join.

BOAZ

I used to think you were just a bit thick, but what characterises much of your "Christian" fundamentalist contribution to OLO is gross distortion and, if if you think necessary, lies.

Your picture of a large kirpan accompanied by your comment, "I can see it all now.. a 15 yr old Sikh kid at school...with THAT" is a disgrace. I'll bet you tell your children that lying is a sin.

Do you ever blush?

For Christains already here.. and those embracing that faith.. there are 2 groups and thus, there must be 2 approaches.

2 GROUPS..

1/ the nominal..cultural...and the sincere but gentle.

2/ The radical die hard.

For group 1... the solution is to badger them continuously with the truth.
For group 2.. its the AFP and Asio.

Something just does not sit right about that although it's as close as I could come on the spur of the moment to Boazy's proposal.

I'd rather leave that first group to live their lives by their beliefs as long as those beliefs are not allowed to impact on others.

Boazy clearly falls into the second group and should be dealt with accordingly.

R0bert

Well, this is a new position, Boaz. I might just hold you to it.

>>I am not calling for the 'elimination' of a religion<<

Then how exactly do you describe your position?

If your "solution" is to incite a crusade against Islam, which would seem to be the objective of your rabble-rousing, where would you stop? It isn't easy separating the wheat from the chaff, you know. So you'd be bound to continue until they're all gone, wouldn't you?

If your "solution" is to convert every Muslim to Christianity, that will have the same effect.

No, I'm sorry, but the only real solution is for you to find a way to live alongside Muslims, in the same way you live alongside atheists, rastafarians and Roman Catholics.

With tolerance, and an understanding that there exist people in this world who do not share your views.

Are you capable of doing this? Who would you accept as an example of how it is done?

FrankGol: "There are dozens of books on this topic."

Books, books, books.
Haven't read every book ever written? You're "pig ignorant"!

A response within 17 minutes?
A list you prepared for such an emergency, Agent FrankGol?

Walk among the people, Frank.
The "rabble", the "mob".
Not your elitist friends.

Ask Gazza and Shazza if they know any famous Muslims (that aren't terrorists or warmongering "prophets").

Alfred Nobel felt guilty for *inventing dynamite*, so tried to assuage his guilt with the Prizes.

Apparently he didn't think mathematics, philosophy or social studies mattered.
The arts? Literature.
Only books matter, eh Frank?

The Peace Prize has been won by Al Gore and Henry Kissinger!

Anwar Sadat: peaceful Muslim?
The same Anwar Sadat, who started a war against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, when Israel was most vulnerable.
What a guy!

Yasser Arafat was a terrorist!
One member of the Nobel Committee *resigned in protest*!

There's *some* notable Muslims? I'm shocked!
There are no doubt some notable Basque, Tamil, or Inuit persons.
How much does that influence life in Australia?
Not one bit.

Pericles ignores my last post and attacks the easier target of Boazy's Christian zeal.
It's a lot harder to attack a *decadent* "agenda".

Pericles, like FrankGol, confuses two completely different things:
1. Liberalism, or personal freedom, *within* Australia.
2. The movement of people across borders.

Movement of large numbers of people, with unrelated and incompatible cultures, across borders is a different issue to *internal* liberalism.

It's artificial cultural change.
Not internally voluntary, spontaneous or organic change.

Movement across borders is not a "right", it's a privilege that can be revoked.

Here's a litmus test: ask every Muslim you know (if any) what they think of Elvis Presley.

Almost all of Western popular culture in the last 50 years has been directly or indirectly influenced by him.

He's the St Peter of Western pop culture:
"On this Rocker, we will build our Culture."

Are Muslims pro-Elvis or anti-Elvis (or even Elvis-neutral)?
I think we both know the answer Pericles, but only I'd be honest enough to say it.

TRTL and FRANK...

no no no... not 'convert them to Chrisitanity' in the way you seem to be suggesting.
"proclaim" the Gospel in as many ways as we can without adding offence to it. This might mean approaching people and ASKing if they would like to know more, broadcasting a radio program..handing out a piece of literature... or.. door knocking.. (shudder) or..online or through relationships.. or through a coffee at maccas as FH and I had.. Since he did most of the talking, I'd hardly say I badger people. Badgered/harangued people (like tortured) will possibly convert on the outside, but not the inside.. so it's pointless.

Pericles. point taken.. I do hope for the elimination of Islam in Australia (and the world) but only through normal conversion,.. and faith on their part.. free choice.
You continually confuse the 'legal/cultural framework' which I address as a member of Australian society, and the Gospel framework which is addressed to peoples hearts.

Robert..points noted.

Frank.. "Lie" ? good grief.. I've done the research on the Kirpan, and it can (from Sikh sources) be from a small crucifix size (acceptable) to a sword size. do some reading old son and stop acting like a 'leftoid' :)

i.e. "He disagrees with me..MUST be a racist.. so I'll call him that."
or.. "I disagree with him..I'll just call him a liar"....
too cheap matey.

BOAZ

On 6 December 2007, you started this thread with this paraphrase of a Herald-Sun news item: "SIKH students in Victoria have been given the green light to carry small daggers to school under a plan that has outraged teachers and principals." Small daggers!

The description: "The kirpan, carried in a sheath and worn on a strap, is one of five articles of faith that initiated Sikh males have to carry. It is not allowed to be used as a weapon." Not allowed to be used as a weapon.

By 15 January 2008 you "updated" your thread: "Just a reminder of what one is...see here.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40025000/jpg/_40025050_sikh-knife.ap.jpg
Isn't that a beaut :) I can see it all now.. a 15 yr old Sikh kid at school...with THAT."

The photo you produced (unsourced and unattributed) is of a large, probably antique, kirpan held up in front of the face of a mature man - not by a 15 year old boy.

What you say you "can see now" is nothing like what initiated Sikh boys wear under their clothes. You are clearly trying to manufacture fear by misrepresenting and distorting the reality of school practice. I call that lying. What do you call it?

You excuse yourself by claiming: "I've done the research on the Kirpan, and it can (from Sikh sources) be from a small crucifix size (acceptable) to a sword size. So are you claiming to be telling the truth by saying that a kirpan can be as large as a sword and that such a "weapon" would be worn under the school uniform of a 15 year old boy?

As for your injunction that I should do some reading, I have researched cases and constitutional law thoroughly and find that wearing the kirpan to school is legal in at least the following countries:

Australia
Canada
Denmark
India (under the constitution, no less)
Sweden
UK
USA.

I have not found a single case of a Sikh using his kirpan as a weapon at school in any of these countries. Maybe your superior research has revealed such cases?

But boaz, you say that it's about offering them information on Christianity, but not badgering or haranguing them.

There is one very simple response to this: when they tell you they're not interested, do you stop.

And by stop, I don't just mean stop talking to them at that juncture, I mean, once they've made it clear they don't want to be subjected to more of this rhetoric, do you leave them be permanently?

Because quite frankly, if your answer is no, then it is indeed badgering them.
If your answer is yes, then it's no different to the current situation, so I don't see why you've really brought it up at all.

Grand Faith Auto

Start game.

Beat your wife: 100 points
Flog adulterer: 100
Cut hands off thief: 200
Stone unwed mother to death: 400
Buy slave: 50
Execute apostate: 500
Execute homosexual: 300
Hijack plane: 2000
Crash plane into civilian target: 5000 (extra 50 each casualty)
Crash plane into military target: 7000 (extra 100 each casualty)
Outlaw political parties: 400
Accept bribe: 50
Ban teaching of Western philosophy in schools: 400
Ban the public practice of religions other than Islam: 2000
Detain political opponents without charge and hold for indefinite periods of time: 600
Torture prisoner: 70
Arrest woman for driving car: 100
Arrest woman for traveling without male relative: 100
Levy additional tax on non-Muslims: 100
Destroy temple or church: 500
Destroy world heritage site's archeological treasures: 2000
Issue fatwa calling for execution of novelist: 200
Assassinate critical filmmaker: 300
Set fire to embassy: 700
Desecrate foreign flag: 50
Send death threat to critic: 100
Demand destruction of ancient Egyptian statues and artifacts: 400
Marry a child: 200
Beat cleanshaven man with big stick: 50
Rape woman who wears stimulating and attractive clothing: 300 (700 if gang raped)
Destroy museum and private art collections: 3000 each collection
Pray only at the times you're told to: 50
Take aid workers hostage: 100 each hostage, 200 each casualty
Assassinate government official: 1000
Take school hostage: 1500 (extra 200 for each child killed)
Massacre villagers: 100 each casualty (extra 600 for each baby smashed against a wall)
Kidnap and murder journalist: 300
Kidnap and behead foreign businessman: 300 (extra 300 if you videotape execution and post on the Internet)
Machine gun worshippers in Hindu temple: 100 each casualty
Bomb nightclub full of tourists: 100 each casualty
Plot to bomb Australian electricity grid: 300
Plan to attack Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor: 400
Take Olympic athletes hostage: 3000 (extra 200 each casualty)
Bomb synagogue: 500 (extra 50 each casualty)
Bomb commuter train: 500 (extra 50 each casualty)
Dismiss criticism as "Islamophobia": 100
Strap explosives to yourself and blow yourself up during hospital's opening ceremony: 15,000 points and go to Heaven

Game Over

recycle myths 1000 points

Display ignorance 1000 points

Peddle hate 1000 points

Game over!

FrankGol: You scored 0 points. Lowest score.

"Recycle myths"

Myth? Do you even know what the word means?

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered members of the Israeli Olympics team in Munich, September 1972.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Nicholas Berg, an American businessman, May 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Daniel Pearl, an American journalist, February 2002.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Paul Marshall Johnson, an American helicopter engineer, June 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Kenneth John Bigley (a British civil engineer), Jack Hensley (an American engineer) and Eugene Armstrong (American construction contractor), September 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Kim Sun-il, a South Korean translator, June 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Shosei Koda, a Japanese tourist, November 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Fabrizio Quattrocchi, an Italian security guard, April 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Margaret Hassan, an aid worker, November 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Seif Adnan Kanaan, an Iraqi citizen accused by his killers of being a US spy, October 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered Tom Fox, a human rights worker (3 others also abducted) in 2005/6.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* kidnapped and murdered three Indonesian Christian teenage girls, October 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* videotaped many of these executions and posted the footage on the internet.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* sent death threats, put a bounty on the head of, and set alight the artwork of Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who'd depicted Muhammad as a roundabout dog (a form of Swedish street artwork).

Myth or fact: *Muslims* set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Syria, following the Danish cartoons controversy in 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed United States' Beirut embassy, April 1983.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed the World Trade Center, February 1993.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* hijacked a French passenger jet in Algiers, killing 3 hostages, December 1994.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed the Khobar Towers, June 1996.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, August 1998.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed the USS Cole, October 2000.
(A military target yes, but a decade *after* the first Gulf War had ended!)

Myth or fact: *Muslims* demolished the two giant Buddhas of Bamiyan, March 2001.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* hijacked 4 passenger planes, and crashed them into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon, September 2001.
(You do believe the official story, don't you Frankie Wankie?)

Myth or fact: *Muslims* suicide bombed a Passover ceremony in a hotel in Netanya, Israel, March 2002.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* suicide bombed a Jerusalem cafe, March 2002.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* machine gun attacked an Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, September 2002

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed a Bali nightclub, October 2002.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* suicide bombed a number of targets in Casablanca, May 2003

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed trains in Madrid, March 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* took a Beslan school hostage, resulting in the deaths of 158 adults and 186 children, September 2004.

Myth or fact: A *Muslim* murdered Islam-critical film director
Theo van Gogh, November 2004.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, February 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed London public transport, July 2005

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed 3 locations in Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, July 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed two markets and a bus in Delhi, October 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed 3 hotels in Amman, Jordan, November 2005.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* bombed a railway station and Hindu temple in Varanasi, India, March 2006.

Myth or fact: Faheem Khalid Lodhi, an Australian Muslim, was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, for plotting to bomb the national electricity grid or Sydney defence sites.

Myth or fact: *Muslims* massacred 8000 civilians in Mazar and Bamiyan, Afghanistan, August 1998.

Are all these "victims" still alive somewhere sipping cocktails?
Did I imagine all this?
Is this a movie where I wake up and go "Oh, it was all just a bad dream."?

Frank... .

Its the principle which is improtant FrANK.. iffffff Sikh's are allowed to carry 'a kirpan' (which MAY be of any size between the extremes mentioned) and they 'elect' to carry one of 'substantial' size.. then we have a potential problem of Sikhs carrying deadly weapons on planes.

TRTL... of course I stop....

I'm having a humdinger of a dialog with an Australian Muslim right now.

THE ISSUE.. I claimed that Mohammad allowed Muslim soldiers to rape captive girls on the battlefield.
I supported that claim by a hadith which is unambiguous...

I then suggested he might try a number of respones based on past history in this kind of debate.

One of my 'possible responses' was this.

9/ Goto a Mufti..and just 'swallow' what he feeds you .. which would be either:
a) It didn't happen
b) It did happen and actually this is quite ok under Islam. (May Allah curse that infidel who caused you to ask this)....

His response (22 yr old Aussie born) was this:

<<so whats your point? They are enemies of god those who fight against god, so technically they a kaffir(enemies of islam) so im going for option 9 (b). fornicating with an innocent woman is a sin in islam but when it comes to war, those captured prisoners it is ok,>>

Do you see it ? INNNNNCREDIBLE.. $100 as prize for guessing where my thoughts went to when I read that.. BILAL SKAF!

Now..this 'VALUE SYSTEM' is growing up in our midst..like a malignant cancer.. that would regard raping YOUR wife (and Franks) as 'sport' and acceptable under Islam..... grrrrrrr to be honest.. my 'mercy threshold' with Muslims goes plummeting when I read that kind of stuff.
The sad part though is that they mysteriously connect such things with 'holiness' and God... (Allah) its a classic case of 'calling evil good, and good evil' and it is an indictment on their spiritual condition from which they (like all people) need salvation in Christ.

I was wondering when Boazy would steer this thread into an Islam-bashing exercise.

Shocker and BOAZ

You really know how to hate, don't you Shocker? You need two posts to evacuate your bowels. Are you all done now? Feeling better?

On the basis of the possibility that a Muslim might rape my wife, BOAZ would have rid of the lot and convert us and them all to Christianity. Christians, of course, have never been known to rape.

Is there no end to the man's hypocrisy and ignorance?

Neither of our resident bigots lets the stench of pig-sty deter their monomania.

So FrankGol, did the events I listed *really occur* or were they just "mythological"?

Could you compile just as extensive a list of *recent* similar crimes by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or even the "evilest" of them all, Satanists?

If Muslims weren't acting like *psychos*, I couldn't care less.

If this were 1608, not 2008, it'd be arguing for restriction of *Christian* immigration!

"If Christians want to burn witches and torture heretics in Europe, fine.
But I don't want to see that sort of thing in Australia.
I fear they'll make our society more authoritarian and repressive."

Would you respond in your usual tedious way?:

"Most Christians are moderate and peaceful, Shocka.
Only a few extremists are burning witches and torturing heretics.
The true values of Christianity don't endorse this violent behaviour.
Why do you hate Christians so much? Blah, blah, blah."

If Muslims face prejudice, discrimination and intolerance they have brought it upon themselves through their *own* behaviour.

This isn't simply about "otherness".
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have some pretty "other" beliefs.
But they aren't seen as a *threat* to anybody's life or property.

If Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were blowing up embassies, hijacking planes and beheading hostages, people would be just as "phobic" about them!

And they don't carry daggers to school either.
The worst they might do is not salute the flag.
"Omigod, Jimmy didn't salute! Quick, run for your lives!"

I don't "hate" Muslims or Islam (or Sikhs).
It *bores* me.
BORING!!

However, the people who believe in Islam would *execute* me, simply because I *want* to live a life of "sin".
Sin, sin, yummy, yummy sin.

Has Australia become less homophobic, censorious and sexist in recent decades, only to go *backwards* through the importation of people *more intolerant* than Aussies ever were?

At least Australia only jailed or fined homosexuals.
They didn't *execute* them!
Women may have had fewer options, but they could at least wear whatever clothes they wanted.

Do Muslims want a liberal society? No.
Will they let me live a filthy, dangerous, frivolous life? No.
So they can go to Hell.

Gosh Slic, you don't half get yourself all worked up, don't you?

He's got to get back on the tablets.

The reaction of some posters to David’s & Shockadelic’s comments…
unbelievable! who said cricketers were the champions of sledging(?)

David exposes an all too all too common a mindset amongst Muslims ( perhaps, the dominant one) Shockadelic’s list, shows its inevitable consequences.

All too often, Muslims represent their beliefs’ as being beyond even questioning/reasoning.
Not just in the sense of – I don’t want to discuss it, something common to many creeds –but also in the sense that, if you offend my beliefs I have a god driven right to retaliate, & in what ever form takes my fancy.

Some Western civil leaders have advocated that we should come to an accommodation with such a mindset by avoiding to criticise Islam. Apparently, while Islam may
recruit from amongst open societies, Its adherents dispositions are too
fragile to accept open societies critical assessment.

Others, on OLO tell us there is nothing to be alarmed about, there are only
a minority who think/act like extremists – just sit tight [ I suspect that's the
same advice that frogs sitting in a warming saucepan tell each other ]

Others, like the sledgers, are still in kindergarten dreamtime playing with plasticine & pulling each others hair…

The Sinner's Bill of Rights

We the people, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are sinful, and that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights:

The Right to Work on Any Day, even religious holidays.

The Right to Intoxication, to consume any mind altering substance.

The Right to Imperfection, to be deformed or defective in mind or body.

The Right to Suicide, to prefer death to life.

The Right to Doubt, to disbelieve, to question everything.

The Right to Wrath, to hate or be angry, to seek revenge.

The Right to Cowardice, to put one's own survival before all else.

The Right to Sorcery, Fortune Telling and Astrology, to believe in forces other than the official God(s).

The Right to Lust, to gain sexual pleasure alone, with any willing adult companions of either sex, with any part of one's anatomy, or with any inanimate object.

The Right to Exuberance, to excessive emotional display.

The Right to Lie (or Omit Truth), for any reason within one's private life, and in public for entertainment purposes.

The Right to Idolatry, to place any thing or category of things in a position of primary importance.

The Right to Offend, to ridicule or be disrespectful, to use offensive language.

The Right to Sadness, to be melancholy and joyless.

The Right to Dishonour one's Parents or Ancestors, what do they know.

The Right to Greed, to amass more wealth than one requires, and to Gamble, to play games of chance for material gain.

The Right to Identity, to perceive oneself in any way, to attire oneself accordingly, or to modify one's body.

The Right to Spy or Betray, in order to further one's own interests.

The Right to Believe in Unorthodoxies, no matter how apparently ludicrous in the eyes of the Orthodox.

The Right to Sloth, to be lazy, indifferent or purposeless.

The Right to Pride, to be vane or arrogant.

The Right to Envy, to be jealous.

The Right to Fun, to not take anything seriously, to waste time on frivolity, to be mischievous.

boaz

I'm having a humdinger of a dialogue with an Australian Christian right now.

THE ISSUE: I claimed that the christian god was willing to permit the torture and murder innocent women and children, simply to win a bet and prove His greatness.

I supported the claim with the book of Job, which is pretty unambiguous.

I then suggested he might try a number of responses, based on past history in this kind of debate:

1) Go to a Christian, and just 'swallow' what he feeds you which is either:
a) it didn't happen.
b) it did happen, but this is quite okay if it's god doing it.

His response was this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4857&page=10

"There is indeed an important message, perhaps found in the words of Job at the end.
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted. "
There is also the blessing of Job at the end.. showing that suffering is not always the end of the story.
All I would say on Job would be conjecture :) But I hold that it is rightfully part of the Canon, and is to be valued as such"

Now this 'VALUE SYSTEM' is growing in our midst..like a malignant cancer..that would regard killing YOUR wife (and children and property, with added torture and disease) (and Franks) as an acceptable part of proving god's greatness.
The sad part though is that they mysteriously connect such things with 'holiness' and God... its a classic case of 'calling evil good, and good evil' and it is an indictment on their spiritual condition from which they (like all people) need salvation in rejecting such primitive superstition.

---

I eagerly await the line that presumably we should all swallow, instead of calling a spade a spade, and denouncing the hideous god that would permit the torture of job just to prove He is powerful, before just 'replacing' his daughters with prettier ones and letting Job into heaven - after the torture.

Ah. That makes it all fine then.

TRTL.... *OUCH* :)

well..I can always rely on you for at least sincere criticism.. as opposed to the blather and irrational dribble coming from 'other quarters'....

JOB... ... some important points.

The principle of the absolute sovereignty of God..in all circumstances, is certainly underlined in that book.

As to the 'justice' of allowing Job to be 'tortured' as you put it.....well.. it all ended well... but in terms of the book...it is seen by some as poetry... by others as a historical report...

Either way, there is no 'command' in it or.. generalized allowance for God's people to ill treat others. This is most important in relation to the dialogue you are referring to. Me with Muslim bloke,which is US..HERE..NOW... and yours and mine..about Job ?

I believe we should approach such things in a big picture way also, looking at what the Bible actually DOES or does NOT allow us to do, and contrast that with what Islam allows/commands Muslims to do.

So, in terms of VALUES... the above para is 'paramount' :)

Can you imagine if we sought biblical justification for raping Aboriginal women, just because they are 'kaffirs' ?

First.. It is not there.
Second....In Islam, it is.

BACK 2 the KIRPAN :)

boaz, you consistently say that we should scrutinise the Qu'ran for being violent. You urge readers to exercise their moral judgement, which is fair enough.

But in response to the book of job, all you can say is:

a) there is no command to mistreat people.
b) all ended well.

Problem here boaz, you're avoiding the central issue I have here.

Using the same critical reasoning you're asking us to apply to the Qu'ran, apply that to the behaviour of God in this tale.

When God tortures someone's family to prove their devotion to Him and cement his greatness, is is excusable?

You've pretty much accepted that the only reason for this exercise, was to prove that god's will cannot be thwarted.

As far as the 'it all ended well' argument goes - that is no justification for killing someone's family. In fact, one of the most repugnant aspects of this story, is the fact that God simply replaces the daughter he killed with a new daughter who looked prettier - as if she was a mere possession.
Even the argument that he got into heaven is pretty weak, when you consider that the reason why Job was punished, was to prove his devout loyalty to god was not derived from having a pleasant life - so he would have been destined for heaven anyway.

Cont'd

This is a god who tortured someone who already was devoted to him, merely to prove god's greatness.

You've not challenged that.

So I can only conclude that you refuse to judge your god - you can't apply critical reasoning. Presumably, it isn't up to us to question god's motives.

No matter how heinous the act may be.
No matter that it's an infantile bet.
No matter that were it a human, we would describe the motives of this act as 'pride' or arrogance, which is among the Christian sins.

Well boaz, that's how devout muslims feel about Allah and Mohammed. It isn't up to them to judge.

Whilst I concede Islam has been interpreted by extremists in a manner that allows violence, which doesn't appear to happen as often with Christianity, you're using the same excuses.

Whilst the result hasn't been the same, the only excuse you can use is exactly the same as the extremists. "It isn't up to us to judge god's plan. God is great."

To hell with that. If the book of Job is indeed to be accepted as god's actions, then I reject this version of Him utterly, and if you had the courage to apply the same criticism you apply to the Qu'ran, you would too.

You demand that Muslims renounce the violent aspects of their holy book. Can you renounce the violent aspects of your god?

You've consistently avoided applying any judgement on the actions of God in this tale.

In the earlier post, you said that you couldn't analyse this because it would just be conjecture.

That's precisely what I want - your opinion, not some scriptural code. You've made thousands of posts on this website, offering scriptural interpretation.

Even when I said that most are turned off by this, finding it akin to an automated machine on the telephone instead of a real person.

I ask you, yet again - do you think God was justified in permitting the devil permit unspeakable acts of torture on one of His most devoted followers, simply to prove His will cannot be thwarted?

C'mon BOZO; belly up to the bar...............

(Hey Slic!, still the master of cut and paste I see!!)

Hi there Ginxy..I've missed you :) welcome back.

TRTL.. I think your key phrase to be addressed first is 'but when God is concerned'......

I find myself stuck in the same dilemna Paul referred to in Romans 9

Reflect on this first please (by reading the context)

"9.1
<<I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race>>,

(so..if he wistfully desired that..why not just abandon his faith and go back to them?.....*think*)

Then...

9.14
<<What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.>>

Now..here is my problem. I cannot argue with Paul, because he clearly had an experience of the Risen Lord which is unparalleled in History.
Knowing all that he wrote, and his testimony, again.. I find no chink in his spiritual armour or integrity upon which to base some attack.

The point is...God IS...sovereign. I don't think you are giving this anywhere near as much weight as you should. We'll talk again when you have 'created' some new life form out of nothing :)

Finally, where do you get your ideas of 'justice and fairness' that you base your assessment of God's behavior from ? :) welllll..I hint that you got them from the culture which is based on no less than the same document you are criticizing. So.. perhaps your inherited cultural understanding of justice, fairness and most importantly the sovereignty of God, are not quite where they should be just yet?

Ultimately...there are and will be many unanswered questions this side of eternity.

For the most evasive answer, in recorded history, please see above.

You still refuse to judge gods actions, yet you consistently ask us to judge the actions in the Qu'ran.

You say, "he point is...God IS...sovereign. I don't think you are giving this anywhere near as much weight as you should."

On the contrary, I'm well aware of your point, I just think it's bulldust (I really really wanted to use a stronger term here, but alas, I suspect OLO frowns on that).

I'm giving it a great deal of weight. As much weight as you're placing on the actions of Mohammed.

I'm just willing to see these actions for precisely what they are - cruelty.

The fact you can't address the question shows that deep down you know it's cruel.

Because it's god, he gets a free pass.

I'm saying that nobody and nothing gets a free pass. You can say god created life from nothing, well, any man can have a child with a wife.

That doesn't give them the right to torture it.

I'm putting an assertion to you here boaz, and I don't see how you can deny it:

Your religion, requires you to set aside your morality in order to be a believer. You won't use your judgement when it's god in question.

God is excused from morality.

In Islam, they excuse mohammed, saying he's the prophet - in a way, he's the extension of god.

However ugly it looks, they can't judge it. Just like you can't judge your god.

This is what I'm getting at boaz. You're doing what you despise in the Qu'ran.

Ultimately, what's in the bible or the Qu'ran doesn't matter one jot to me. It's the people that count, not the book.

So I'll condemn extremists who murder, but I'll not condemn Islam. Just like I'd condemn the god who tortured Job if I believed in him, but wouldn't think it fair to condemn Christianity as a whole.

Hey Ginx, still the master of the useless comment I see.

Cut and paste?
You mean the list of Muslim atrocities?
I can only report what has already been reported elsewhere.
Or should I just make stuff up?

Phrases from America's founding documents and the Bible's deadly sins?
This is called "artistic licence".

Or "wit".
I wouldn't expect you to understand.

TurnRightThenLeft, now who's being evasive?
If you condemn the God of scripture (Bible or Koran), you must condemn the scripture.
If you condemn the scripture, you must condemn the faith based on it.

You can't say you condemn the Abrahamic God (based on what's stated in scripture), but "I'll not condemn Islam or Christianity as a whole."

What? The Abrahamic God is the basis of Islam and Christianity.
(And Judaism. Or is that the real problem?
You don't want to be seen as anti-Jew, so you "cop out" with a pathetically weak God/scripture/faith/believers distinction).

I don't believe any scripture, nor do feel any "atheistic zeal" to condemn it.
Scripture is irrelevant to my life.
My only use for scripture is ironic appropriation (and occasionally toilet paper).

But I can condemn plane hijackers, embassy bombers and hostage beheaders.
And I see Muslims, Muslims, Muslims whenever these events are reported.

If a culture or ideology, is *habitually* producing such things, don't we have the right to question the suitability of potential migrants from this background?
We are discussing multiculturalism *in* Australia, remember?
Not the validity of cultures in and of themselves, in their original context.

You draw the line *somewhere*.
Or do you allow cannibals, human sacrificers and eugenicists into the country?
If you say "No" to them, you are being "intolerant" and not embracing the diversity of human culture, belief and values.

You aren't 100% tolerant.
We all draw a line somewhere.
The only difference is *where* we choose to draw the line.

This perpetual, pathetic Pavlovian parroting of pompous PC propaganda is perplexing and perverse!
You may call me P.
P for Pissed Off.

No, shockadelic, it's quite simple. I couldn't give two hoots about what's in a book, I care about how people choose to use that information.

Besides, I agree I'm not 100% tolerant. I'm not the least bit tolerant of your posts.
I note you haven't actually disputed the hypocrisy I've highlighted in boaz's posts, so unless you want to further highlight the hypocrisy with which you attack ginx's 'useless comment' you might want to actually address the main points I've made instead of getting all worked up over your anti-tolerance schtick.

Sounds like you're the one "getting all worked up" TurnRightThenLeft.

"I couldn't give two hoots about what's in a book, I care about how people choose to use that information."

Duh! Isn't that precisely what *I* have been saying?

"I agree I'm not 100% tolerant. I'm not the least bit tolerant of your posts."

Then you're anti-liberal.

You're not the least bit tolerant of my posts because:
(a) You refuse to contemplate them for more than 1 nanosecond.
(b) You've convinced yourself I'm someone I'm not.
and/or (c) you are a paid agent of a Certain Agenda.
(My bet's on the latter).

"I note you haven't actually disputed the hypocrisy I've highlighted in Boaz's posts"

Maybe because I don't care whether Boaz is a hypocrite or not.

And how exactly am I a hypocrite for describing Ginx's useless comment as a 'useless comment'?
Did Ginx add anything to the debate? (Does Ginx *ever* add to a debate?)
I think I've contributed quite significantly, but you just ignore any valid points I make, because you've already made up your mind to dismiss anything I say.

"Anti-tolerance shtick"?
I thought this whole discussion was about tolerance? Am I mistaken?

You are intolerant, so is Boazy, so is Ginx, so am I.
We just define our *limits* differently.
That's not "shtick". It's a valid point.
Which you dismiss.
As usual.

I will not tolerate people who *execute* homosexuals.
Do you?
And don't go all evasive, answer me: Do you "tolerate" the execution of homosexuals?
There's no neutral responese here, TurnRightThenLeft: it's Yes or No.

'Useless comment' Slic?

Useful enough to get a response!

Try to be original. At the very least put your own feelings of hatred down, NOT those you recycle én masse from elsewhere.

Thank-you BOZO. You might be being sarcastic in your welcome comment, BUT you put it politely. Nice one. Keep it up..............

You and Slic, and the usual mob, chant the same intolerant mantra again, and again, and AGAIN.

Soooo; my type of mob will come in and try to steer you on the right path. It's a dirty job but.........

Of course I don't tolerate the execution of homosexuals. I've said repeatedly, I've no time for religious regimes no matter what stripe they are, and I hate religious extremists.

What I object to, is the way genuine criticism of ugly muslim regimes, has been appropriated by insular racist rednecks who hate people who are different.
Now, genuine criticism is muffled.

I hate the muslim regimes that persecute their people and I was disgusted during that recent rape case, when it was the victim who was punished by the law.

That being said, I disagree with them, and I disagree with you. I don't want to be aligned with either, but your tactic is to condemn muslims on a whole and attempt to draw others into your bigotry against the many people who don't deserve it, by acting appalled when there isn't enough criticism of those who do.
I'll condemn those who do, but I won't condemn the many muslims who don't.

That's more than a billion people, many of whom have no choice as to the regime that is controlling them. Many people of the muslim faith are kind, caring people, regardless of the ugliness in their book - just as the book of Job is ugly, and most christians are decent people.

That's what I'm getting at, but you're warping it to some kind of refusal to condemn ugliness. Quite the contrary.
I've considered your posts I see some similarities to my views but on the whole, you're appropriating genuine criticism of the few, to a broadside assault on all muslims.

That's what I've been getting at in this post - I don't give a damn about the religion, I care about the actions of the people.
And for all your talk of extremists and murder, you fail to give any credit whatsoever to the hundreds of millions of muslims just living their lives in peace. You tar them with the same brush as the extremists.

That's what I hate, and that's why I don't tolerate your posts for a second. That's what makes us different.

Welcome back Ginx. Where have you been? That was a very long sulk.

I see that your 'useless comment' has stirred up the others but it was irrelevant to the thread. Your self-imposed exile of the last few weeks hasn't changed you, has it?

Can't wait for your next bit of irreverence.

Ahhh! Jasper; the teflon prat!

Always personally going for me; did before; doing it again.

Your OCD is getting worse.

First/last post to you. You never have anything of value to say.

"Your tactic is to condemn Muslims on a whole. A broadside assault on all Muslims."

So how do we know, when hundreds of thousands of Muslims are submitting their visa applications, *which* ones are going to be a problem and which ones aren't?

They're indoctrinated from birth to follow orders (or else) and despise liberalism (It's the work of Satan, remember).
They're infiltrating our world to take over it.
It's the *publicly stated aim* of their faith!

An apparently "kind, caring" 7-11 manager could become an "extremist" overnight, depending on world events, leading him to drop his usual moderation, and defend his fellow *Muslims*, not his fellow Australian citizens.
Faith trumps nationality with these guys.

We distrusted *all* Germans, Italians or Japanese during WWII.
We had to tar them all with the same brush for our own protection.

Of course there were moderate, kind, caring, peaceful Germans, Italians and Japanese.
But could we just *ignore* the potential threat, and tar them all with the same "moderate" brush?

In liberal Western countries during WWII, ethnic Japanese, Germans and Italians (even citizens of the Allies) were interned in camps.
The American Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this, arguing that it's permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there's a "pressing public necessity."

How many more bombings, hijackings, kidnappings and executions need to occur before you accept there's a "pressing public necessity" to restrict Muslim immigration.

"More than a billion people, many of whom have no choice as to the regime that is controlling them."

Interesting choice of words: "Have no choice."
Precisely what's wrong with Islam.
Precisely why it's a threat to the liberalism you claim to love so much, but would sacrifice in its own name.

As I've said before, liberalism only works if *everybody* agrees to live by that principle.
Muslims are the most intolerant people in the history of the world.
And they (even the moderates) think we're slaves of Satan.
Can we really "tolerate" this potential threat?

It might break your tender little heart, but sometimes you're going to have to say "No".

It's not personal, Ginx, you just can't help being a fool and I just pointed that out.

This isn't my last post to you. So how long till your next hissy fit and disappearance?

To everyone else on this multi-culti thread, not 'happy invasion day', not even 'happy multi-coloured, multi-lingual melting pot day', but 'Happy Australia Day'.

And Happy Republic Day for all our Indian friends.

Ah, so in essence, your entire argument shockadelic, is that we should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

Clearly, the key difference here, is that rather than react in fear of the actions of a minority of muslims by overall numbers, and in doing so, piss away what our society is, I'd rather keep the things that make us different.

TRTL...I always find myself intellectually stimulated by your posts.. at least you think about them rather deeply.

<<The fact you can't address the question shows that deep down you know it's cruel. Because it's god, he gets a free pass.>>

There are a couple of dimensions underlying those statements which deserve closer examination.

With regard to Job.. yes, I absolutely agree, the process of whittling the poor bugger down and trashing his family, to me is absolutely cruel.
and then, covering the blighter with 'boils' *ouch*.....

Lets look at it 2 ways.

1/ Its poetry, a parable...designed assure people that no matter how bad things get... trust in God is the best thing.

2/ It really happened. In which case the order of events is quite important.
a) God says "Look at my servant Job, how faithful he is"
b) Satan says "hah... give him to me for a while and see how faithful he is!"
c) God allows it...
d) Satan does it.
Job survives, is more blessed than in the beginning.

Ok..no matter which way you cut it, from OUR human framework and reference point, it certainly challenges our values and 'sentimental' understanding of God.

QUESTION.. 'from where did we GET those values' ? aaaah.. *think*

We obtained those values from our Christian heritage. Is it then fair to judge He from whom our values came ? Asking me to 'judge' God is a longshot mate.. I simply won't do it.

I can judge the Quran, and Mohammad beCAUSE of the reality of God, the finality of the Scriptures and of Christ. Now..b4 you jump on me, I knowwww that is where circular reasoning/arguing begins.

CONCLUSION. My condemnation of the Quran and Mohammad is based on a very simple principle. I cannot link Biblical teaching or Christs example to earthly violence against non believers simply because they are unbelievers. In the Quran and Islam it is entrenched.

ummm...don't mean to be a hog here but I'm noticing a trend.

SHOCKA is actually saying some very sound stuff.. usually toward the end of his posts.

"Do you welcome"? ..then he lists a few gross attitudes.

I'm not seeing much by the way of 'answers' to this, and after all..it is the key to the whole topic.

"Do we accept and tolerate
-"intolerance" "British police goto hell" (sign at London Islamist protest)

-Eugenicists.. (looks that up...)aah..got it.. kind of Dr Mengle type stuff.. race improvement..mein kampf :)

SOOOO.. Ginx.. this is your que to actually make a ...(takes a breath) CONT..RI...BUUUUUTION :)

How far does your tolerance go ? "to the extent where Australian law permits" ? or.. do you accept much more and freely allow them to change our law to 'their' particular ism or thing?

*awaits courteous and thoughful response*

PS.. the last few posts gave me plennnty of laughs :) Jack, Ginx, Shocka TRTL...

So boaz, in that post you make two key points:

1) If the story of Job is true, at the end he is left more blessed than he was in the beginning.

2) We can't judge god with our morals, because Christianity is where our morals are derived from.

When you stop to consider them carefully, neither of these are particularly persuasive.

In regard to the first one - it isn't okay to kill something, then just replace it. You say Job is left more blessed - but how can that excuse the murder of his daughter?
What's more, the writing in the bible speaks of his new, prettier, better daughter.

What kind of attitude thinks that just replacing a daughter with a 'better' one is acceptable? This is a human being, not a bike.

In regard to 2) - if we're gifted with these morals, regardless of where they come from, what reason is there to discard them simply because of the alleged originator?

Consider this for just a moment - if I get my morals from my parents, then one of my parents does something heinous like torture, should I look the other way?
Regardless of the issue of loyalty which does muddy the waters, it doesn't change the fact that the torture is immoral.

Are morals concrete or aren't they, boaz?

What is more important? Doing the right thing, or doing what's sanctioned by god?

I reject the actions of suicide bombers, because they're doing the wrong thing. They see it as doing what is sanctioned by their god.

Tell me boaz - if god repeated the story of Job today and you were required you to carry out those actions of torture to make it possible by His wishes, would you do it?

Actually, I'll go a step back -

Would you stand by and let it happen?

If I could put a stop to it, I know I would. The real question I have, is knowing that it's god's will, which you say can't be thwarted, would you try anyway?

TurnRightThenLeft: "Your entire argument, shockadelic, is that we should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality."

Why not? We did it before in WWII. (German? Japanese? Off to the internment camp!)

There's an obvious threat from a *specific* ideological/cultural group.
Yes, not everybody in that group is a threat.
But considering the avalanche of destruction in recent years coming from that group, it would seem appropriate to *temporarily curtail* the usual "rights" (not that we have a bill of rights anyway), and wait until the dust settles before we *risk* any further damage.

If you were Australia's insurance company, how would you evaluate the probable risk of Muslim migration?
Harmless? Dangerous?

Large numbers of Muslim migrants will "piss away what our society is".
"I'd rather keep the things that make us different."
But those "things" won't exist if we became demographically too Islamic.

As Boaz pointed out, you won't respond to my question about *limits* to tolerance/freedom.

No society is 100% tolerant, no person 100% free.
Or we'd allow cannibalism and human sacrifices.
Other societies found them perfectly acceptable!

*Australians* define what's acceptable to *Australia*, which can differ to other societies.
There's no *universal, permanent* definition of what's acceptable or unacceptable.
This changes from culture to culture, and even within a culture over time.

Things we use to "tolerate" (slavery, whaling) we no longer tolerate.
Things that were illegal (walking down the street at night - strange but true) are now permitted.
Tolerance isn't fixed. It's relative to the time and place.

At this time, there's a large amount of vicious behavior emanating from the Muslim world, directed at *Westerners*!
This place, Australia, has suffered minimally so far.
But for *how long*, if hundreds of thousands of Muslims walk in the door over the next few decades?

When we see signs the Muslim world is maturing and no longer a threat, we can rethink.

But don't hold your breath.
Remember the witch hunts and inquisitions went on for centuries before Christianity "grew up".

We both *agree* on liberal principles.
You think they're fixed and universal.
I know they're not.

Shockadelic, you're acting as though we face a united enemy - this isn't the case.

Although I'm sure you can point to any number of violent acts committed by muslim extremists, when you look beyond the superficial indications, you find the motives are far more complex.

In both world wars, it was a case of an organised enemy with a fixed agenda.

In the case of muslim extremists, more conflict is caused by the sunni-shia divide than a vendetta against the west. Much of it is due to the presence of local dictators, in fact, if you follow the history of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, you find that one of the chief difficulties he had was persuading militant groups to join his campaign against the west - they were more interested in fighting enemies much closer to home, from different muslim sects.

Take a look further. The name, Jamal Al-Fadl ring a bell?
The first mentions of Al-Qaeda were in his trial, in relation to organised crime.

There's no disputing Al-Qaeda now exists in some international form, but I'd contend that it originated as a series of local cells, each with their own petty local issues instead of some grand international agenda.
It was when the west started reacting with hysterics that we gave them a united name and increased their potency.
By and large, their goals are still local issues, but now they get attention when they attack western targets and align themselves with Al-Qaeda.

With so many hundreds of millions of muslims spread throughout the Western world and forming a key part of our society... tell me Shockadelic, what is it you're proposing we do to these people? From your tone, I can only see you advocating we declare all out war, which sensibly speaking, appear to be the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a small fire.

As usual, TurnRightThenLeft ignores my questions (and our common ground) and goes off on another tangent (to prove how evil I am).

Now, to be a threat, Muslims must be a *single* entity with a single agenda.

Bollocks!

Fragmentation is part of the problem.
You catch one terrorist cell, there's dozens more out there.
A slippery chameleon.

And terrorism is just the icing on a very nasty cake:
Misogyny, homophobia, censorship, religious discrimination.
And that's *mainstream* Islam, not just extremists.

Yes, I see the paradox of discriminating against Muslims because they discriminate against others.
But if they weren't like that, there'd be *no need*.
Life is full of paradoxes.
Your Lord and Saviour, Rationality, is dead. (If indeed He ever existed.)

"The motives are far more complex."
But the *principal* motive isn't nationalism or economics.

It's Godfulness.

Let me say that again:
Godfulness.

"More conflict is caused by the sunni-shia divide."
All the more reason to keep this conflict out of our historically Muslim-deficient country.

"The presence of local dictators" actually *prevents* extremism.
With a tyrant around, clerics (and their sheeple) mind their manners.

"Tell me Shockadelic, what is it you're proposing we do to these people?
From your tone, I can only see you advocating we declare all out war."

Oh, come off it!
Now who's "reacting with hysterics"?
I've already stated my "evil plan": stop immigration.

Continuing immigration would be "the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a small fire."
(A "small fire" so far responsible for plotting to blow up the electricity grid, gang raping white girls, and bashing lifesavers, for starters.)

What will it take to get it through your thick skull?
The Sydney Opera House blown to smithereens?
Machine gun massacre in parliament?

Wouldn't budge an inch would you?
You'd just keep prattling on about civil liberties (the ones Muslims reject).

If only there were a modern, liberal, individualistic, hedonistic culture somewhere, where authoritarian theocrats had no power to chop off my head.

Oh, hang on. I'm already there!

Right. Because resorting to insults is the best way to win any debate.
Though you are succeedingly admirably at convincing viewers that you're a hostile angry bigot.

You're advocating a dumb course of action you haven't properly considered.

You compared the muslim threat to WW2. I told you why it's a false analogy.

You're suggesting we halt muslim immigration.

Doesn't address the muslims here, who you'd be declaring war on.
By telling them, we don't want your kind here, you'd be branding them the enemy.

'Course you can bloody well find examples of muslim inspired violence. There's a billion of them.

You said we declared Nazis the enemy and discriminated - this time, we'd be doing that for the religion of between a fifth and a seventh of the world.

They haven't declared war on us and they don't have an army on the warpath. A few nutjobs have. You're giving them too much credit - and power.

Even the US, at the forefront of the War on 'Terror,' (Hooray for wars on abstract nouns!) hasn't done that.

So yes, it'd be 'declaring war.' How d'you think the muslim world would view Australia?

Thought about financial ramifications? Nations we trade with? Oil access? How Indonesia will consider this?

Our neighbour co-operates with us on border protection.

You think their government of the world's largest muslim nation will wanna be seen to cooperate with the world's most anti-muslim government?

Your decision is shortsighted. The muslim nations are increasing in population faster than the West. You want to poke them.

Fortunately they're not the hostile enemy you think they are.
I'd recommend you travel through Indonesia and live among the people. Then, if you actually had a personal understanding of the reality on the ground, you'd see how dumb all this fearmongering looks.

I know there are other bad muslim regimes. My point is, you can't judge the people by the actions of those governments or clerics.

Yeah, I'm assuming you haven't been to Indonesia. You can't have.
Nobody who has, would be so damn ignorant.

BOZO ducky, I will, as you can see, make a contribution when I, not you see fit.

My only contribution is that TRTL is doing very nicely thank-you in dealing with you and Slic. There is no way I can tackle your sort that well. I mean it. Besides..............;

...I reckon I could be overseas for a three years not months, and come back here and find YOU in particular (Slic's capable of showing some humour on occasion );- still spouting the same old oil and water piety/intolerance-hatred.

It's like a soap opera!

The message has been conveyed time and time again; Muslim = some good/some bad. Christian = some good/you bad. Atheist = me good. Multiculturalism = good; ---- and NO amount of sticking the ol' cranium in de' sand and denying its existence or success is goin' to change things.

Simple really. Sigh...........but I guess when one is dealing with....ah well! best I not say it, me bein' a lady an' all!

TurnRightThenLeft: "Resorting to insults is the best way to win any debate."
You'd know.

"You're advocating a dumb course of action you haven't properly considered."
Ditto to you.

"You compared the Muslim threat to WW2."
No, I compared the treatment of *possibly innocent* Germans, Italians and Japanese to today's possibly innocent Muslims.

"You're suggesting we halt Muslim immigration. Doesn't address the Muslims here."

If we proposed restricting immigration of prostitutes, this doesn't interfere with the free choice of Australian citizens to become prostitutes.
It only affects *foreign* prostitutes, whom we have no obligations to, and have no right to live here.

"Branding them the enemy."

They brand *me* the enemy: Harbi.
Harbi have no rights. Not even to live.

"The religion of between a fifth and a seventh of the world."

Numbers matter?
1 billion Allah fans can be wrong.

"They haven't declared war on us."

Oh, yes they have.
It's a principal tenet of their faith that they *must* dominate the *entire world*.
(A false hope, yes. But that won't stop them trying!)

"How d'you think the Muslim world would view Australia?"

Who cares?

"Financial ramifications? Trade? Oil? Indonesia?"

Trade has nothing to do with immigration.
Trade is about moving *products*, not people, across borders.

They want to sell us something? They need the money.
They want to buy something from us? They can't produce it themselves.

Business is business.
Oh-so-sensitive activists might agitate and moan.
Cold-blooded businessmen will continue doing deals.
Ka-ching!

I wouldn't go using Indonesia as an example of a model international citizen.
Here's a shovel, TurnRightThenLeft. Start digging your own grave.

"I'd recommend you travel through Indonesia."

I suggest you travel through *all* Muslim countries.
Don't forget your safe-conduct, Harbi.

I don't have to travel *anywhere* in the world.
This is the only place I want to be.
This gloriously "satanic" nation, future world leader (if we're not destroyed from within first.)

Keep your PC mind control.

I didn't spend half my life overcoming the "dictatorship" of my parents' beliefs to succumb to yours or your Muslim "friends".

I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds.

TRTL... ur doing a good job there.. (re my discussion of Job) because you are thinking about the issues.

Whether we take Job as 'true/real life' or.. poetry.. I have to leave it at this point most likely. I can see your reasoning, but I also am at a loss to take it much further. Have a look at the same dilemna Abraham faced re Sodom and Gomorrah.. see his disucssion with the Lord.

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [e] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

In the light of the many huge acts of God in salvation history...I'd be very slow to Judge Him....after all..I am but a speck of dust.

SHOCKA... it surprises me that his basic reasoning seems to be under question here...

ewwzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzxppppppppppppppppp

No..i didn't suddenly have an anurism :) my little grandaughter is desperate to HELP (sitting on my lap) :) so I let her have a type 0_^

shocka ur doing a great job.. keep it up mate.

GINX .. "me=bad" ? :) grrr and MC=good? *gong*.. 2 marks lost there.
cheers.

I think that your granddaughter has a fine grasp on the issues here, Boaz, and I just love the simple directness of her comment.

>>SHOCKA... it surprises me that his basic reasoning seems to be under question here...

ewwzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzxppppppppppppppppp<<

I couldn't have put it better myself.

It should mean something to you, Boaz, when your granddaughter demonstrates such insight. You must be very proud.

All shockadelic is doing is blowing hard into his Boaz-trumpet, and getting a slightly more discordant and ear-splitting sound from it. As TRTL is patiently trying to point out to him, making this amount of fuss when he is in more physical danger from spilling his tea than from Islam, is not informative or helpful. It is just noise.

At least he is still operating in the abstract, and not trying to rabble-rouse. But if I were you Boaz, I'd not let him into your team, as he doesn't seem quite in control of himself.

>>I didn't spend half my life overcoming the "dictatorship" of my parents' beliefs to succumb to yours or your Muslim "friends". I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds.<<

Hmmm. Maybe a clue in there somewhere?

:) good onya Pericles... always reliable for a colorful and humorous comeback....

I'll give my grandaughter a special hug for the humor that her little keyboard activity inspired :)

Shocka is quite passionate.. agreed.. and possibly still living in bit of a reactionary mode.. but we are all like that to a degree.

Perhaps he is just expressing his frustration that something as simple as A,B,C is simply not seen by others who claim to have a degree of understanding.

He is saying nothing more than "If you know the characteristics of European Carp, and allow them to get into a trout stream, in time they will dominate and the trout will dissappear".

-Carp breed earlier than trout.
-Young carp EAT young trout.

The rest is simply history.

The Trout need very stringent "border control". They need to assess the 'values' of the Carp before letting them into their territory.

So, if Carp want to come to Troutland..all they have to do to be accepted is:

1/ Don't eat young trout.
2/ Don't breed so early.

"values"

Regarding intrusive cultural practices. (ie.. back to the Kirpan)
I feel too little thought is given to the social impact of allowing such things. You see. "For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction" something like that. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Knockon effect etc..

Oh, a Barman is a person in your neighbourhood.
(He's in your neighbourhood) He's in your neighbourhood.
And a Gambler is a person in your neighbourhood.
They're the people that you meet each day.

And a Harlot is a person in your neighbourhood.
(She's in your neighbourhood) She's in your neighbourhood.
And a Rent Boy is a person in your neighbourhood.
They're the people that you meet.
They're the ones who walk the street.
They're the people that you meet each day.

Now a Muslim is the new guy in our neighbourhood.
Our noisy neighbourhood. Our crazy neighbourhood.
Yes, there's Muslims moving into Aussie neighbourhoods.
I can see them freaking out each day.

Yes, the Sinners are the people in your neighbourhood.
(They're in your neighbourhood) In every neighbourhood.
And the Godless are the people in your neighbourhood.
They're the people that you meet.
When you're walking down the street.
And they're never gonna go away.

Now the Muslims they don't seem to like our neighbourhood.
If they don't like us, well, why join our neighbourhood?
Well, I tell you mate if you don't like our neighbourhood.
You can pack your bags tonight.
Get a ticket for a flight.
To the Middle East where there's no Gays.

BOAZ_David,

You are the winner of this month's Hackneyed Medal.

("hackneyed - adjective: overused, overdone, overworked, worn out, timeworn, platitudinous, vapid, stale, tired, threadbare; trite, banal, hack, clichéd, hoary, commonplace, common, ordinary, stock, conventional, stereotyped, predictable; unimaginative, unoriginal, uninspired, prosaic, dull, boring, pedestrian, run-of-the-mill, boilerplate, routine; informal old hat, cheesy, corny, played out. Antonym original.")

The judges were particularly impressed with your corny - should that be 'wet'? - analogy using carp and trout to argue the need for very "stringent border control" and "the need to assess the values of the Carp before letting them into their territory". Assigning borders to troutland and values to carp were judged to be especially vacuous.

The judges went on to comment that your concluding remarks broke the OLO all-comers record for the most platitudes in a single paragraph:
* intrusive cultural practices
* too little thought is given to
* the social impact
* for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction
* nothing happens in a vacuum
* Knockon effect.

A truly dense piece of prose.

Your use of the banal 'etc' to suggest you know more than you can possibly tell was deemed so uninspired it clinched the Medal for you on this occasion.

Keep up the bad work!

HA! That's what I love about this place, there is a plentiful supply of antidote to the hell fire and brimstone mob!!

(Postscript: I have to chuckle at the censor system. It told me so politely that 'so many exclamation marks were unnecessary. Like a kid before the headmaster I removed one at a time going back before the HM for approval! He ((women are not so precious!)), waggled his cyber finger at me until I went from 4 ex marks to 2!)

Boaz, I'm very glad that you raise the issue of "for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction".

As any fule kno, this is shorthand for Newton's famous Lex III, "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi"

What Sir Isaac realized, and attempted to express in terms that we all understand, is that if Boaz rants and stamps his feet in opposition to a religion that he fears and despises, he can expect push-back with an equal force. And the more he rabble-rouses, the closer he will come to generating a violent reaction.

More importantly, this should be seen in the context of Lex I, which puts it succinctly as "Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare"

Which is Newton's way of saying that if you don't rabble-rouse, Boaz, you will suddenly find that there is nothing pushing back at all - it has all been created by your own actions.

Good ol' Isaac. A handy hint for all rabble-rousing whack-a-mozzies.

Not a bad try there Perilous....

I do see your reasoning..but I dispute your chronology.

Here is my take.

"If people come into the streets of London with signs saying "Annihiliate those who slander Islam"
and/or
"Europe you will pay, the Mujahideen are on their way"
and/or
"Bomb Denmark, we will invade you, and take your wives as war booty"

If vociforous Muslims abuse publically the Home Secretary of England..

Or run a hostile demonstration and abuse Britain and Christians outside Westminster Cathedral

well...

I suggest that THAT.. will indeed bring about a reaction.. part of which is my on going theme and may I say the growing world wide anger and readiness to stand up against it.(Which I am seeing more of each day)

I don't recall ever even thinking about organizing a rally and signs saying "Annihilate those who insult Christ"
"Kill those who take the Lords name in vain"

So.. in reality, you've got the order of action/reaction quite wrong.

Though I have to commend your grasp of Latin (or your cut/paste abilities :)

Honestly... don't you see this ?

Let me run it by you again.

1/ people call for annihilation of non Muslims simply because the 'take the name in vain'
2/ Those to whom they speak.. are rather upset.

Do you follow now ?

I think we may be getting somewhere at last, Boaz.

>>I do see your reasoning..but I dispute your chronology.<<

So your final defence for your rabble-rousing would appear to be that famous childhood receptus ignavorum, "but mum, he started it".

("Coward's retreat", by the way - yes, the Latin is genuine. So, of course, are my cut 'n' paste skills. I didn't feel like typing it)

Surely you cannot believe that a grown man can get away with such a puerile (puerilis, -e adj. childish) excuse, especially one who presumes to come from a relatively civilized society?

The analogy is real. When your mum told you off for fighting, and you gave her that line, what did she say?

"Boaz, I don't care who started it, you should be old enough to stop it."

Let's try again.

>>I suggest that THAT.. will indeed bring about a reaction.. part of which is my on going theme and may I say the growing world wide anger and readiness to stand up against it.(Which I am seeing more of each day)<<

And I suggest that exactly as you do with children, you ignore their petty squabbling and posturing, only coming down hard on them when they break the law. It happens to be legal to stage demonstrations in England, thank goodness, and most people treat them with the contempt or respect that they deserve.

You must have been asleep in the sixties, when there were violent demonstrations against the Vietnam war, with placards equally inflammatory and insulting, around the world.

By acting as you do, you provide enormous opportunities for agents provocateurs (French. Sorry) to set you up to do their dirty work for them.

All they have to do is put a video up on YouTube, it would seem.

Constructive perspective Pericles....

Ok.. lets look at your scenario just a tad closer.

"But Mum... HEEEee started it..."

Sure.. as children this is indeed a refuge for our wounded pride.. but often we are speaking the truth.

Your offering suggests that 'justice and fairness' have no part in childrens squabbles.

Each case of 'he started it' must be dealt with on its merits.

If..for example.. each time you walked home.. the idiot in question fired a ball bearing at you from a sling shot.. EVERY time you came home..and you had asked him..his mother, his father to stop it.. and ur own parents.. and still he aims at you.. well.. blow me down if I don't think giving him a decent blood nose isn't the way to fix it. (at that age)

I 'fixed' a number of such things as a youth.. never had any more trouble after a decent whack in the mouth I assure you. In one case I did so with blood from mouth to navel from a king hit, So..I did learn 'violence' can solve problems :) the alternative would be to increasingly cringe, avoid, repress, etc all that ur feeling, and later on it comes out in behavior to some poor sap in the wrong place.

These days, I prefer to replace 'violence' with agitating for political change. Safer all round and more satisfying to the adult frame of mind.

What I believe you are missing..is that there is a line which, once crossed, will have dire results.

-One man calling for invasion of Demnark so he can take their wives as ware booty...... now that's his mindset in the UK....
-Others hearkening back to battles fought centuries ago.....
-Calling for 'extermination'... now Pericles..even you would realize this is beyond the pale.. have a look at what extermination means.

MY CALL... is for laws preventing people saying such things. That's a core issue with me. That...is true hate speech and must be stopped, legally. Don't you agree ? so..how does one get 'migrant vote dependant' politicians to actually change the law ? seriously..how?

FrankGol dismisses Boazy's carp and trout analogy.

So why do pro-multiculturalists themselves use a biodiversity analogy to assert the "benefits of diversity"?

In ecosystems, diversity is good.

The "benefits of diversity" don't however apply to *introduced* species or analogously, "introduced" cultural elements.

Introduce an exotic species (like cane toads) and all hell breaks loose.

Likewise with cultures.
They have internal diversity, but the diversity is organically related.

Cultures can assimilate elements of exotic cultures, but only to the extent that they're compatible with the existing system.

Diversity is essential to ecosystems and cultures.
But not without compatibility or relatedness.

And I can't believe you guys are bagging Boazy for tenaciously holding on to "outdated" beliefs, while applauding or excusing Muslims for doing the same thing!

(Yes, Boazy, I am a reactionary.
Radicals and their revolutions have caused death and destruction for hundreds of years.
And every revolution ends up becoming just another Orthodoxy.
It's only a matter of time before the green-left "revolution" turns into a mean, sour killfest.
It's no wonder the watermelons love Muslims so much, they share the same mentality: Obey or Be Punished!)

Pericles, "I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds" is a quote from the film "V For Vendetta".
When you see the film (and any self-respecting liberal should), you'll understand what I mean.

And yes, the film lumps Muslims in with Homosexuals and other "oppressed" groups.
Another of my favorite films, "Escape From L.A" makes the same "mistake".

I think the makers of both films are suffering the same delusion as many OLOers: That Muslims, despite provoking their "victimisation", and despite being one of the most *oppressive* groups in history, should be sympathised with, because treating them differently would be "the same" as treating other groups like Blacks, Gays and Jews differently.

The difference is the latter groups have done nothing to deserve their "oppression".
Muslims have brought it upon themselves.

Sometimes you may need to be a bit of a tyrant, to prevent an *even worse* tyrant getting their way.

And I don't own a trumpet.
Percussion instruments are my speciality.