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.