Bit over the top there Lady's, fancy anyone telling me how bad things will get under Abbott.
But lets be honest the Catholic Church has been at the wheel of the ALP for a very long time.
Some of it is true, I too fear religion involvement in government.
That strengthens my fear some Muslims are a concern.

I would put fundamentalist Christianity into the category of:

"Clear and Present Danger". - They have power now, they may have even more power in two weeks.

Whereas fundamentalist Islam is something that we must be ever vigilant of. However, they do not have the numbers, let alone any power in Australia. What we must reclaim is separation of church and state, so that NO religion gains power over our governments.

Concessions we have granted to one religion will be taken up by others. Which is why we need to be very careful just how much latitude we give to Christianity.

This thread is a waste of time unless it considers ALL religions - singling out Islam is just bigotry. Just as there are a majority of decent moderate Christians, the majority of members of Islam are very reasonable people.

Far from it, Proxy. Far from it.

>>Foxy, I'm not making assumptions, I'm stating facts. You refuse to address these facts, merely stating your beliefs.<<

The only facts you bring us are "someone said this" facts. "Abdullah Saeed" said such and such. "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" said this or that.

So yes, it is a fact that they said what they said.

But it doesn't make what they said, fact.

As an example of some of your other "facts".

>>The small minority of Muslims in France have effectively annexed more the 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibles over which the French authorities have relinquished control. The small minority of Muslims in UK have effectively implemented Shariah Law.<<

Garbage. Both statements. Not fact, at all.

Show us where the French authorities have relinquished control. Show us where Sharia law is in operation in the UK.

It's just a cut 'n' paste of the same old fear-and-loathing anti-Muslim propaganda, isn't it.

So, please apologize to Foxy.

>>PERICLES.. you definitely are in need of a verbal smack....and a stern look and a heavy frown. You did exactly what Proxy said.. truly. You neglected the sources, and simply re-constructed the whole argument in terms of your own biases.. baddddd Pericles.. bad bad!<<

Usual Boaz gobbledegook. Show me where I did anything different in having my say, to that which Proxy did, having his say.

I used exactly the same "source", and merely selected the parts that were at odds with Proxy's conclusions.

The entire thread is based on Proxy "re-constructing the whole argument in terms of his own biases".

You people amaze me with the sheer scope of your self-delusion.

Severin,
If Foxy had written a thread on the
marvellous contributions of Muslims
or
the evils of Christianity
and you tried to discuss
Islamic negatives
or
Christian positives
she would have screamed
"BACK OFF YOU TROLL!
Go rant on your own thread - leave mine alone!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3716&page=0#90126
by now.
All I ask of you however is to attempt to answer the question:
Is violent Islamic jihad unacceptable but is non-violent Islamic jihad OK?
Should Australia welcome immigrants who wish to overturn our laws and replace them with Allah's laws, which they hold superior?
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/134080

Pericles,
However I respond to you, you just jerk me around.
I could waste my time by posting references but it would make no difference to you.
You would simply delight in baselessly refuting or ignoring them and then respond with more inanities and demands.
You appear to delight in being obtuse.
You, Pericles, are the real troll.

Pericles, I think Proxy was referring to "Shariah Law" in the recent allowance of Shariah family courts to operate in the UK- which although I find to be ridiculous, wrong and should be banned; is still the sole extent of Shariah's operational capacity in Britain at all.

Anyway, what seemed like a good subject at first glance seems to be more about some broader political point-scoring, which is losing my interest fast. Reason is, hardly anyone in this country actually would welcome someone who advocated transforming our country into a theocracy (let alone bloody a Shariah society), and only vary in at what point they would deny a visa over it (I on the other hand would have no qualms slamming the gates shut when such characters arrive). Instead, most people aren't even answering the question because they don't want to contribute to some broader far-right anti-Muslim survey/motion.

As of now, the usual pointless debate about the broader Muslim population is doing its usual route.

Good news!
Criticising Islam is not racism.

Ekermawi v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ekermawi v Nine Network Television Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 198

"53 First, vilification of Muslims does not fall within section 20C(1), because Muslims are not a ‘race’ as defined in section 4 of the Act.
The reason, as the Tribunal said in Khan [i.e., Khan v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & anor [2002] NSWADT 131] at [18], is that Muslims ‘do not share common racial, national or ethnic origins’ and are therefore not an ethno-religious group such as the definition embraces.
In so ruling, we follow the decisions, commencing with Khan, that are listed above at [44].
We are unaware of any recent authority to the contrary.
It follows that any statements broadcast by the Respondents that generated negative feelings towards Muslims generally, or any group of Muslims, on the ground of their being Muslims could not amount to unlawful racial vilification."
http://lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2010nswadt.nsf/f1a6baff573a075dca256862002912ec/1e8a6290aa345d5bca25777400135086?OpenDocument