Pericles,

"Fear and loathing" is a perfectly rational response to Islam.
At least you didn't say Muslims. I am able to separate the two.
My concern is as I stated.
The declining state of Europe due to the ascendant influence of Islam is empirically observable.
I don't want my children, or any future Australians, to inherit those problems.
Maybe you need to study Islam a bit more and get out of the multicultural lemming mindset.

I quote from Vijay Kumar:

"America was conceived as a free constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.

The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam-not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.

Our constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law-which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable.

So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable.

Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other "explanations" are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil."
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/interview-with-vijay-kumar/

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed its decision last month regarding the practice of female circumcision by immigrants from some African, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures."
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/27/success-american-academy-of-pediatrics-shamed-into-reversal-of-female-genital-mutilation-policy/

"Doctors consider 'less severe' female circumcision

By Timothy McDonald

The body representing Australia's obstetricians and gynaecologists is considering whether to support a less extreme version of female circumcision known as a ritual nick....."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/28/2911991.htm

The American Academy of Pediatrics has finally seen the light and now
"the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians will next month
discuss backing "ritual nicks", a modified form of genital mutilation."

"Push to let Australian doctors mutilate genitals of baby girls"
http://www.news.com.au/national/push-to-let-australian-doctors-mutilate-genitals-of-baby-girls/story-e6frfkvr-1225872274181

When will this multicultural madness end?

Will all female genital mutilators and multicultural apologists please emigrate to where your madcap views are shared.

I posted this on the other FGM thread, but it seems apposite here too:

I think that laws against FGM should be enforced, and further that the mooted 'ritual nick' should not be countenanced in Australia. I gather that it's been rejected in the US now, so it's unlikely to be adopted here anyway.

My position derives from the interests of the children who are subject to these anachronistic, unnecessary and quite barbaric practices.

Of course, the same arguments can be applied to male children, who are still commonly circumcised for 'health' reasons in Australian hospitals.

I was circumcised when I was born, but my now adult son wasn't, basically since the hospital policy at the time was anti-circumcision and neither his mother nor I could think of a good reason for him to be surgically mutilated. Twenty years later he seems to be suffering no ill-effects from having a foreskin.

Mind you, I've never noticed any ill-effects from not having one. But how would I know?

Seriously, I think that any form of genital (or other) surgery on children should be performed only on strictly medical grounds. Religious tolerance shouldn't extend to child abuse, and neither should the cultural practice of routinely mutilating boys' genitals for spurious 'health' reasons be condoned, IMHO.

I find myself in the bizarre situation of agreeing with CJ Morgan.