its easy..to ban religion..just change..its name*
[but recall..we will..*KNOW..them..by their works

zionism..is a jewish..form..of athiesm
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/greatgulf.cfm

One means of misleading many Jews..and all too many non-Jews is the Zionist misuse of names..and symbols..*sacred in Judaism.

They use the holy name Israel for their Zionist state. They have named their land acquisition fund with a term that traditionally implies the reward for piety,..good deeds, and charitable work.

They have adopted..as a state symbol..the menorah.(candlebrum).

*What hypocrisy,..*..what perversion*..it is
to have the Israeli army*..*fight under an emblem,
the meaning..of which is..explained in the Tenach (on the occasion of a previous return..to the Holy Land) as,

*"not with armed force.and not w..*ith power,
but..*in My spirit..*says the Lord of Hosts."

The infamous founder of political Zionism, may his name be cursed, who only discovered his own Jewishness because of anti-Semitism displayed at the Dreyfus trial in France, proposed various solutions to what he called the "Jewish problem."

At one point he proposed to resettle the Jews in Uganda. At another he proposed to convert them to Catholicism. He finally hit on the idea of a Judenstaat, an exclusive Jewish state.

Thus from its very beginning Zionism was a result of Anti-Semitism and indeed is completely compatible with it, because Zionists and anti-Semites had (and have) a common goal: To bring all Jews from their places of domicile to the Zionist state, thus uprooting Jewish communities that had existed for hundreds and even thousands of years.
.
Loyalty to the Zionist state was substituted for loyalty to G-d, and the state was made into the modern "golden calf". Belief in the Torah and fulfillment of religious obligations in Zionist eyes became a private matter and not a duty for every Jew or for the Jewish people. The Zionists made divine law subject to party or parliamentary votes, and they set their own standards of conduct and ethics.

Neither*..the founder of political Zionism nor..any of the prime ministers..of the Zionist state..*believed in..the divine origin of the Torah..*nor even in the existence of G-d.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=not+all+jews+are+zionist.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15618&page=0

Dear Bazz,

The point being made by David and myself is that it is
against our Constitution to ban any religion and banning
the Muslim religion is what is being suggested by this
thread.

The religious symbol of the swastika that was used by religions and even by Boy Scouts was hijacked by Nazis to become a hated symbol of murder and oppression. It conveys such offence and public opprobrium that its display can result in arrest. In effect, the symbol is banned.

It is astounding that certain dress such as the burka that is representative of oppression, cruelty, enslavement and death is defended in western democratic countries. It would be ridiculous to assert that Section 116 of the Constitution could protect the burqa and more than it would defend the swastika.

As a reminder, the founding fathers lived at a time of persecution of peaceful religious minorities in Europe. They sought to maintain freedom through rights, but no way would they have countenanced religions or cultures -call them what you may- that trampled over people's rights and caused harm, or warping of people's rights, especially to freedom of speech.

In the eyes of the founding fathers too, there was no incongruity or difficulty in having the occupant of the highest position in the land as head of the church as well as of the Parliament and military forces. That was necessary integration and defended from forces from without.

I am generally opposed to bans, however I am not convinced that any restriction of certain religious or ethnic practices such as wearing the burka in public for instance would constitute discrimination against a particular group. Definitely it would not be contrary to the Aussie Constitution.

It is interesting though to find posters who would put up the Constitution, existing laws and tradition as defences whereas elsewhere they are trenchant critics, opining that we must 'move with change', where it suits them. Must be that 'It is always OK if it suits me, so butt out and never you mind' thinking that is about.

otb..<<..i am generally opposed to bans, however I am not convinced that any restriction of certain religious or ethnic practices such as wearing the burka in public for instance would constitute discrimination against a particular group>>

yeaH
PLUS NUNS HABBITS TOO
AND BABY BONNETS

AND WOMAN WEARING SCARVES OR LONG SKIRTS//OR..JEANS
AND WHATS WITH BRAS..NO..THEIR GONE I TELL YA

AND WHATS WITH ALLOWING THEM TO..SHAVE
YEAH..thats..VERBOTTEN..TOO

WHAT YA THINK WERE PURITANS OF SUM THIN

ohhh lord..such a mindf..and..he wastes it..
thinking about getting back..at women..

what..too many women..been blowing up..in your neck of the woods..beach ball?

At a party this arvo with some Muslim people in attendance. Religion didn't stop the girls and a couple of the boys from having a fun time with the karaoke. Muslim's sing 'Proud Mary' just like the rest of us...terrible.
If you're feeling a bit low the this might help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRG9qntd4g4

only short but the words have great message of welcome to all.

Is Mise "I asked for a definition of 'white' not the percentage of white Muslims."

You asked a definition "in the context of my post" which is about Islam/immigration.
Others have played this game before you.
I define "White", then they say "Oh, but aren't Albanians White? They're Muslim."

I just jumped ahead of you.

My definition of "White" doesn't change depending on the "context".
It means People Of European Ethnic Descent.

Very few such people are Muslims and very few Muslims are such people.
A "racial" limitation would therefore restrict Muslims to infinitesimal numbers, without any explicit religious prohibition.

It would have the added benefit of encouraging immigration of people from similar/related "very high development" countries, within the same civilisation.
A far more sensible policy than everything-and-anything-all-at-once-in-huge-numbers.

Bazz, I wish we could just sit on the sidelines.
It won't be that easy.