Sorry, just wanted to bob my head in for a moment because R0bert said something that really caught my eye…

<<… the grand master of the OLO anti-multiculturalist squad has according to past posts lived outside Australia but I suspect that there as here he saw what he wanted to see and ignored that which he did not want to see>>

I think R0bert has hit the nail squarely on the head here, because this is typical of not just the religious mindset, but even more so of those who frequently experience what’s known as ‘Religious Ecstasy’.

From Wikipedia:

”Religious ecstasy is an altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness which is frequently accompanied by visions and emotional/intuitive (and sometimes physical) euphoria. Although the experience is usually brief in physical time, there are records of such experiences lasting several days or even more, and of recurring experiences of ecstasy during one's lifetime. Subjective perception of time, space and/or self may strongly change or disappear during ecstasy.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ecstasy

I think this explains just every about every one of Boaz’s posts to the point where it’s almost spooky.

My goodness..there is so much to go on here....

Great to see some juices flowing... but there are some curious bits.

Frank:) ur a treasure really...

<<BOAZ
You are living proof that the people with the least to say, say it most often
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 11 February 2008 9:29:20 AM>>

then this:

<<Heaven forbid, another BOAZ think-alike. When you haven't got an argument - or any evidence to support your case - attack the people who disagree with you.
It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.>>

The word 'irony' comes2mind.

TRTL.. again some reasonably close to sensible discussion:

"but when you start on that, I really do start ignoring your points".

Now..'that' is where you become unhinged mate. Honestly.. you should have gone 'right' but you went 'left'.... You are disconnecting the behavior of the taxi drivers from the 'reason' they behave that way.

Now.. one poster said "They were all charged, its minor.. isolated" etc.. But what you seem to be ignoring.. (all the anti BD gang)
is the 'thin edge of the wedge' stuff.

It might not concern you mob that the Archbishop of Canterbury is so out of it that he..as the head of one of the largest Christian traditions in the world, can suggest 'Lets allow Sharia law into our legal system' but boy oh boy..it sure concerns me. That kind of thing is not 'isolated and minor'....
The other things.. taxi drivers.. it's also not isolated.. Melbourne..Sydney... America...Canada..UK... is not 'isolated'.

But a FATWA ? seeking to overule our law on the basis of Sharia?
Again.. its not minor.

FINALLY. I still haven't seen an answer to the question: "Who's 'rights' should prevail? The Taxi drivers 'freedom of religion' or the Law of the land?

If we can all agree "Law of the land" I'd consider that real progress!

TRTL...one more important thing you said deserves further discussion.

<<Translating that (Muslim Dictatorships)into a frontal assault on the western world is much more difficult, and actually it tends to be the enemies of these dictators who stir up terrorist acts.>>

Rarely in the annals of human discussion, have truer words ever been spoken!

That is exxxxactly what I'm on about. The 'enemy' is not the Hosni Mubarraks, the House of Saud, Sadaam Hussein... etc... it is the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir.. I truly believe you blokes and girls.. know so little about this group.. their widespread activities and their actual goals of a world Kalifah that it almost inspires me to offer a public seminar on that very issue.

Here is how it works...

1/ Radical groups (whether they be Aryan Brothers or Muslim fundanmentalists) become more active.
2/ They then threaten "If you are not with us.. we will kill you"

Union groups even use this method.. sometimes to the point of at least threatening to kill.. though with the Painters and Dockers they did just that.

So..the 'enemy' TRTL is this mob. My objective is to raise awareness of such groups, and such processes, and to combat them at the ideological level.

"Know your enemy" is also one of those chunks of wisdom we could all benefit from.

I wonder how many of you who claim to have 'lived in other cultures' ever saw things from the point of view of those on the rough end of the stick as opposed to being cocooned in very 'managed' situations.

The prize for the most 'vacuous' statement goes this time to CJ..

"I worked with a Malay NGO"

*pat pat* CJ... did you get out among the indigenous people who's land is being stolen for either timber concessions or Oil palm estates? Did you ask him why Malay members of Parliament regularly RANT (yes, caps needed) about "If anyone ever DARE threaten Malay position and privilege, they should be incarcerated under the internal security act" etc etc...

Did you ever unpack the real situation ? I doubt it.

Dear Philo
You are wrong if you think that we << have never lived in another culture>>. In really, we lived in many countries, I visited more than fifty countries and I stayed for more than three years in four countries. Because we lived in different countries we learned to respect other civilizations and promote the understanding and cooperation between people of different civilizations. Only persons who underestimate their civilization, only extreme nationalists afraid and worry for their civilization and fight against any other civilization. I am very happy when I live in a country with people from different civilizations because I have the chance to take any good elements from their civilizations and improve our civilizations. It is shameful, when the new technology transformed our planet in a small village, some people to try to divide our world and move backward our civilization.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The Archbishop's comments have been presented to you on this Forum -
totally out of context...

Dr Rowan Williams argued that adopting SOME aspects of sharia seemed
"unavoidable." Giving certain aspects of Islamic law some official status in Britain would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslim's did not relate to the British legal system, he explained.

His comments were delivered in a lecture on civil and religious law given at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London.

However, they were swiftly rebutted by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, who insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, not should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," he said.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at."

It should be explained that the Archbishop of Canterbury was attempting to promote tolerance and respect between two great faiths.
As he succinctly stated," There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with SOME aspects of Mulsim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law."

But he did not endorse the 'kind of inhumanity' that was associated with sharia in some Islamic states.

Boazy: "The prize for the most 'vacuous' statement goes this time to CJ.. "

You are such a patronising prat, Bozo. I was responding to a clearly false claim from your fellow Christian Taliban that those of us who object to your continual bigotry "have never lived in another culture".

Do you know what "vacuous" means? Look it up, and you'll find that the word is far more applicable to your latest drivel than my response to Philo.