Do you agree that someone elses beliefs are more important than your own?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25311152-5001021,00.html

TRUTHNOW78,
This is the Islamification process aided and abetted by multicultural dhimmies.
Islam has always sought to bring non-Muslims to submission.
That's what Islam means: submission.
Unfortunately there are many useful idiots with no understanding of history who are guided by misconceived notions of egalitarianism.
They should go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan for a while and see how successful they are in convincing the local Imams into time-sharing their mosques with their local Jews and Christians.
We could all watch it on youtube and have a good laugh as they dialogue with their interfaith counterparts at the mosque.
The problem you refer to can only increase as more followers of the Prophet move from Dar al-Islam to Dar al-Harb, their demands increase and dhimmies submit to those demands.
Do something about it or get used to it.
The good citizens of Rotterdam are getting used to it.
They have sections of theatres for the exclusive use of women.
They have taxis that will only carry women and have only women drivers.
Their swimming pools are gender segregated to appease Islamic sensibilities.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/263480,minister-no-separate-theatre-seats-for-dutch-muslim-women.html
This has all been brought about in the name of tolerance, inclusion and diversity.
Not to mention capitulation to Islamic demands/threats.
This will happen here if we let it.

I agree it is misplaced political correctness. Madness.

It is a Christian Chapel and as such should be able to sport the necessary Christian accessories.

"Do you agree that someone elses beliefs are more important than your own?"

Nope.

This apears to be a storm in a teacup.
The Hospital Administration has made an
attempt to make their chapel one in
which every faith can
feel comfortable in. They have
not banned Bibles or any other religious
symbols. They have merely allocated these
symbols to be used for specific services
and ceremonies.

As the newspaper article
clearly states:

"These important religious symbols are appropriately
stored and used regularly."

It's mischievious to blame Muslims or Islamic Leaders
for the Hospital's decision in this matter. Because again,
as the newspaper article states:

"Islamic Leaders last night stressed they would
NOT have asked for Christian symbols to be removed."

Do I think that my religion is more important
then anybody else's?

Of course not.

Apparently the Administration of
The Royal North Shore Hospital agrees with me.

Another beat-up story designed to maintain some sort of indignant rage among the community.

Name one person who has been imprisoned, arrested or even charged for a deliberate act of political incorrectness.

Vilification is one thing but giving legal credence to matters of personal offence or tastelessness is another.

Let somebody carry a bible or wear a cross into that chapel and see if they are actually confronted. If so, let the legal system do it's job and expose it for the tripe that it really is.

A classic slow-news-day beat-up, by a scurrilous and ethics-free news rag.

The title:

"Hospital bans Bibles, crosses from chapel"

The text:

"Each faith is allowed to display their symbols during services but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards"

Does that sound like a "ban"?

It is dog-whistle journalism at its degraded worst. And what do we find here, responding to that dog-whistle?

>>This is the Islamification process aided and abetted by multicultural dhimmies.<<

Right on cue.

It is as if Boaz has found a new career for himself in whack-a-mozzie journalism.

I think that JC himself wouldn't have anything to do with most of todays Christian churches. I reckon he'd side with the Gnostics.

individual bias aside,seems the article says no islamists complained,that likely the decision was made premptivly by the board

anyhow i think we are missing the point of a quiet-area to get our thoughts in order/when our loved ones are passing-over,..or we fear they might

i firmly/believe to know,..as a certainty;that there is no death ofter incarnate life,..that we all are reborn/again into the spirit realm,and for this reason alone feel the issue is deliberatly short sighted

the issue is not even new..[i heard about this last year on abc]..then thinking as i do now..[that the multi/faith aspects of life;after death could easilly be covered by having sections or benches]on each religiously held belief on healing and death

i even saw cupboards where the different beliefs religious/texts could be contained[a libery],and that symbology could be catered for much like saints are arranged in some churches,..along the sides

with things like'meca/section'facing meca,and the divergent mahamoudian/sects catered for in its relitive religious'niche',..the same for the divergent buddist/sects,the divergent xtian/sects and the divergent jewish/sects..[who are all catered for in heaven[yes and in hell]..so why not in this chapple[to call it a'church'is deceptive]

as jesus revealed his[our]fathers house is now..[as allways was]..yet divided,..but just as jesus revealed then..is it now..[that mine[our]fathers house has many rooms]

this who's messenger debait of who is greater is a huge distraction,..were it mine to say i would have the walls lined with the many quotes from all the mess-anger's,..for they all are inspired by the same god[good]

never the less a mans faith is important..same believe puts is in the same room..[no one has the right to knock any-others beliefs,..all good leads to god,..and all bad leads to hell]..it has not to do with what we believe..but what we loved to do

rest assured more will be given
it is only our love of evil that will be taken

it [evil]was never real[only love[good]god is real,..in time we wont need hospitals nor chapples,churches.mosques,because we dont get sick in the next realm,..but its up to each to believe in love/god or not

Dear Pericles,

Reading KMB's post and his strong
anti-Islamic stance - I was strongly reminded of Boazy.

Especially when there is also a religious connection
to KMB's nom de plume. 'The Krimmer Mennonite Brethren,'
(K.M.B.).

Of course, just a coincidence.

Keyser Trad was interviewed today and he had no objections to christian symbols being displayed at The RNS hospital.It is the politically correct and those with other agenda's that have instigated this.

I no longer have any affection for the Catholic Church,but people have a right to pray to their perceived maker in the fashion they choose.Perhaps we should have an athiest chapel with the dollar sign at the centre of homage.The Pope would probably agree,since money is the source of all power in our hedonestic existence.

Pericles,
When Mark Steyn referred to Muslims breeding like mosquitoes he was merely repeating Norwegian Mullah (that's a head Islamic head-banger) Krekar who had proudly said "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes”.
Steyn was nevertheless hounded by the British Columbian Human Rights Commission for years until they acquitted him because of the negative publicity they were getting and also because Steyn threatened to take them to the Supreme Court if they convicted him of hate speech. They moved on to less well-funded prey.
Just a friendly warning to you that your whack-a-mozzie reference could get you stung.

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Those are the first two commandments. Since the god of Islam and the god of Christianity are both the same, the Jewish god, I fail to see what people have to complain about. As for No2, Islam is the only religion currently trying to follow it, so crosses at.al. would be offensive by definition, and since it's their gods' chapel too, putting such stuff away for them is merely courteous, surely?
While I am disgusted with the reporting in the media, I do not feel that we should allow a different culture to bring all its traditions here, only those that WE find acceptable, just as you would expect of a new member of your household, writ large.

What a beat-up. It's not a church, it's a chapel in a public hospital. Bibles haven't been banned from it - rather it has been opened for the use of all religions, which means they all have to remove their peculiar religious objects from it after use.

Sounds likely a timely and sensible policy update to me, given that there are bound to be many patients these days who adhere to religions other than Christianity.

And this is just another TRUTHNOW78 troll.

Thankyou Foxy,

By your comment you have shown how to douse a firestorm of ridiculous indignation with the simple use of logic.

Blessed are the peacemakers! Matthew 5:9

Well done!

I am sure that God must laugh at any attempts to minimize or marginalize His word. It will remain a lot longer than any of us and God is well big enough to make that happen. Some Bureaucrat might think they are having some sort of a victory but any attempt to remove God's Word from public viewing is really pitifull.

Twenty or so years ago the Royal North Shore hospital, Sydney, was rightly known as the pinacle of care and treatment. I can attest to this as I was a frequent visitor, some times daily, and all day, for weeks at a time.

Not so now and we might ask why? The bureaucrats have taken over the running of hospitals from the local Boards. Similar decissions are being made everywhere.

I have been dismayed of recent times to hear of patients not receiving proper treatment or attention. A young girl dying from a head injury because of improper treatment and a woman having a miscarriage in a toilet, from lack of attention.

A year or so ago,it was announced that the 'Rotary Lodge' would be demolished to make room for another building. This 'Lodge' had motel type rooms for relatives of in patients, who needed to be nearby. Many country, interstate and overseas people used this and there are no plans to replace the facility. It was built by a local Rotary Club.

I am no way religious, but did use the chapel as a quiet place to sit, pause and reflect at times of stress. I could not help but admire the decor of the interior and now this will be lost.

This removal of religious artifacts will be the forerunner of demolition as the building looses its significance.

I agree with Keysar Trad as Islam is already provided for in the same building. The best suggestion so far has been for the inclusion of the symbols of other faiths in the chapel. This would further enhance the beautifull interior.

It is bureaucracy gone mad. No complaints were received and the decission was made in case someone was to be offended.For those that say it is insignificant, I suggest you look at what the bureaucrats have and are doing to the health system everywhere.

That's classic, KMB.

>>Just a friendly warning to you that your whack-a-mozzie reference could get you stung.<<

That would be an interesting turn of events, indeed.

I guess you wouldn't mind me using your posts as a point of reference?

>>This is the Islamification process aided and abetted by multicultural dhimmies. Islam has always sought to bring non-Muslims to submission. That's what Islam means: submission... The problem... can only increase as more followers of the Prophet move from Dar al-Islam to Dar al-Harb, their demands increase and dhimmies submit to those demands.<<

It would certainly make for an interesting juxtaposition: your inciting fear and loathing of Islam, and my describing these antics as "whack-a-mozzie". I wonder who would be adjudged the more harmful, by a "Human Rights Commission"?

Incidentally...

>>Unfortunately there are many useful idiots with no understanding of history who are guided by misconceived notions of egalitarianism.
They should go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan for a while and see how successful they are in convincing the local Imams into time-sharing their mosques with their local Jews and Christians.<<

So tell me, where would you prefer to live?

In a country that does not insist that you follow a particular religion, or one that does? One that does not persecute you for your religious beliefs, or one that does? And if you prefer it here, why would you want to import those customs that you dislike?

Your fear of Islam seems to inform many of your views.

What on earth is wrong with reserving seats in the cinema for the use of women only? I can remember when British Rail allocated complete compartments for the same purpose, and no-one complained. Of course, they called them "Ladies" rather than "Women", but the result was the same.

>>This has all been brought about in the name of tolerance, inclusion and diversity. Not to mention capitulation to Islamic demands/threats.<<

In my world, the first sentence says it all. In yours, it's the second.

For you, it's all about fear and loathing, isn't it?

Pericles,
Nowhere do I mention Muslims in my post.
I refer only to the ideology of Islam.
I genuinely feel for those 1.2+ billion souls who have been brainwashed, threatened and otherwise coerced into adhering to such a pathologically dangerous “religion”.
I would never refer to Muslims as mozzies and discourage you from doing so.
As for “inciting fear and loathing of Islam”, while the OIC is constantly putting pressure on the UNHRC to make this an international crime, the notion of inciting fear and loathing of Scientology, or that of inciting fear and loathing of Creationism, for example, illustrate the absurdity of your statement.
Perhaps the crime of inciting fear and loathing of Fascism would be a closer analogy.
I nowhere propose banning Islam as you imply but rather that its dangerous folly be exposed with the light of reasoned debate. The trouble is such discussion could easily get you beheaded or stoned to death or otherwise killed in Dar al-Islam (or Amsterdam in Theo van Gogh's case). Or possibly charged under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act that you allude to.
Nevertheless, perhaps we could start with the criminal antics of the mediaeval genius who instigated the whole thing.
His propensity to behead captured Jews and rape their wives, sisters and daughters “make(s) for an interesting juxtaposition” with the Koran which says "We have indeed, in the Messenger of Allah, a good example (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. [Holy Qur'an 33: ayat 21] "
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/muhammad/perfect_man.html
But then again he did write the book, or do you believe it comes from Allah?
I feel for Muslims as I feel for the victims of other demagogues, such as the victims of the Jonestown massacre.
Mohammed is Jim Jones writ large.
The sooner the entire world realises this, the sooner the bloodshed will end.

The bloodshed won't end until Islam itself sorts it out, that's a historical fact. All religions are a reflection of the people running them, think about it, it works.
Islam has no titular head, and a few sects or branches to boot, but the spread of Fundamentalist Islam is funded from Saudi Arabia, and they control the Holy Sites as well. Change will have to come from the billions who aren't terrorists, working it's way through, and that will take time. Or the oil running out, the Wahabis get a huge slice of that cash, and won't stop promoting Fundamentalism while they have money and a power-base. Any revolution or "people-power" movement in SA will be met with a Jihad, and inevitably fail I think.

I'll just note that we haven't heard from TRUTHNOW78 since the original dog-whistle post.

Quite a successful troll though.

Oh, for heaven's sake, KMB.

>>Nowhere do I mention Muslims in my post. I refer only to the ideology of Islam.<<

Please enlighten me. How do you "refer" to Islam while excluding Muslims from the reference? Maybe you imagine that the two are somehow separate; on the one hand you have Islam, and - somewhere away in the distance - Muslims.

Mere weasel words, I'm afraid.

But you really need to pay closer attention.

>>I nowhere propose banning Islam as you imply<<

And nowhere did I imply that you do.

>>Or possibly charged under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act that you allude to.<<

That didn't even cross my mind, so I certainly didn't "allude" to it.

>>But then again he did write the book, or do you believe it comes from Allah?<<

I have no religious inclinations whatsoever. It follows that I have no view on who wrote what, or why. It is a symptom of your own confusion that you even ask the question.

I am not in any way taking a position that defends Islam itself, KMB. That would require that I take an interest in comparative religion. I am simply objecting to the manner in which you attempt to incite fear and loathing against ordinary people on the grounds that they follow a religion that you disagree with.

>>Perhaps the crime of inciting fear and loathing of Fascism would be a closer analogy.<<

So, on the one hand you protest that you are merely applying "the light of reasoned debate", while on the other state that Islam is closely analogous to Fascism.

You are, I would suggest, one very confused bunny.

The problem with constantly carrying fear around with you is that it warps your judgment on the simplest of issues. The term "whack-a-mozzie" is merely my shorthand for the constant bashing that people like you dish out to Islam and its adherents.

If you can think of more appropriate terminology, I'd love to hear it.

Pericles,
An idiology or belief system is based in tenets or principles of faith or practise that are identified by the person proposing the system. People can change their idiology or belief systems. Marx and Ingils proposed an idiology but not all those that accepted it believed it unreservedly all their existence.

Many people call themselves Christian but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Basically they are not Christian in practise or living in the principles proposed by Christ.

There is a difference between Islam which refers to the doctrine of submission to Allah: and a Muslim which refers to the people who are controlled by Islamic State laws. People can change their minds. The proposed ideology suposedly of absolutes has an unchangable factor; otherwise it is not the doctrine proposed if it is changed.

I'm not sure I catch your drift, Philo.

>>An idiology or belief system is based in tenets or principles of faith or practise that are identified by the person proposing the system.<<

Are you suggesting that Christianity should really be called Paulism? Or perhaps Constantinism?

I offer this on the basis that I don't recall Jesus "proposing a system", while the other two were all about systems and conformity.

>>People can change their idiology or belief systems<<

Well, of course they can Philo.

>>Marx and Ingils proposed an idiology but not all those that accepted it believed it unreservedly all their existence.<<

If there's a point here, I'm missing it. While Marxism certainly had its adherents, I wouldn't put that particular worldview into the same ideological bucket as Christianity. Are you suggesting that it should be?

>>Many people call themselves Christian but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Basically they are not Christian in practise or living in the principles proposed by Christ.<<

That earns a solid "well, derrr"

>>There is a difference between Islam which refers to the doctrine of submission to Allah: and a Muslim which refers to the people who are controlled by Islamic State laws<<

No. The difference is that one is the name of a religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam) and the other is the name we apply to followers of that religion (e.g. Christian, Muslim).

Under your definition, there are no Muslims in Australia. In which case there are a whole load of people making a whole load of fuss about nothing.

>>People can change their minds. The proposed ideology suposedly of absolutes has an unchangable factor; otherwise it is not the doctrine proposed if it is changed.<<

You might like to elaborate on this a little. I read this as saying "ideologies do not change, but if they do, they must change their name to something else."

Which, while true, hardly casts any light on the discussion.

Definitely 'Nope'

Ban the lot of them.

The three Arabic religions are all the same.

'If you don't believe what we believe, we'll either chop your head off, lock you up in a church and burn you, or, when you die you'll go to hell.'

They can all go to hell.

Ignore them. Let them fight amongst themselves in their own trivial pursuits.

Frank Blunt

In my dictionary:
chapel
• a small building for Christian worship, typically one attached to an institution or private house.
• a part of a large church or cathedral with its own altar and dedication.
• Brit. a place of worship for certain Protestant denominations.

There are many places where they do not display Christian symbols permanently. Like there are many places where they do not bake or keep bread ... except that nobody calls those places bakeries.