‘morning Foxy,

I’ve read all three of your posts on this thread, so what did I “attribute” to you that you did not say?

You posts are sickly sweet, unadulterated PC and intellectualized rhetoric.

So we don’t have problems because we << we have an institutional framework that preserves tolerance and protects order we can celebrate and enjoy diversity in food, in music, in theatre, in language, and culture. But we could not do that without the legal framework which guarantees the freedom to enjoy our diversity.>> Yuk!

I suppose Muslims enjoy all these attributes of our “culture” do they? Hogwash! They despise all of it.

<< To be an Australian, one pledges loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share democratic beliefs to respect the rights and liberty of others and to respect the rule of law.>>

Really? So pledging to Allah first, wanting Sharia law, combining religion and State and vilifying infidels is consistent with that is it?

Bleating on about me accepting the fundamentals of our constitution has nothing to do with anything, just PC rhetoric. It is however vital to those who refuse to abide by our laws and constitution.

Nobody is seeking to blame all Muslims for the medieval slaughter being conducted in their name, but they ARE the enabling environment, which includes progressives like you.

“The problem is that PC in principle and by intention destroys culture simply as such. On the face of it that may not be obvious, since PC claims to like culture so much that it insists on equal standing for all cultures. That principle is supposed to allow a thousand flowers to bloom. Instead, it kills them all.”
James Kalb

it would
be wrong and unfair -
to blame all Muslims for the actions of Islamists,
Foxy,
Bad things happen when good people do nothing. Thus far I haven't seen anything you wrote that could be interpret as standing up to that dreadful influx that is an unintended consequence to wrongly so-called multiculturalism. .

Dear spindoc,

You can twist it whichever way you like.

However as far as I can see if "political
correctness" are the first words that come out
of your mouth when the views of others don't
agree with yours - chances are very likely that
you are indeed part of the problem.

Read your own posts before you criticise others.
Your posts are full of sweeping statements and
generalisations and you are definitely arguing
on an emotional level, not a mature intelligent one.
We don't blame the Catholic or Anglican religions for
child sexual abuse. Blaming any religion for the
actions of some of its practitioners is not a logical
way to argue.

However, I can see that you're on a roll and nothing
I will say will deter you from your rhetoric.
If that makes you happy or gives you some sort of
warm and fuzzy feeling - who am I to question it.

cont'd ...

Dear Spindoc,

Experts tell us that -

Terrorism is a complex
phenomenon. Its a specific kind of political
violence. There are certain conditions - social
and political injustice and people choose terrorism
when they are trying to right what they perceive to
be a social, political, or historical wrong. When they
are stripped of their land or rights or
they believe that violence or its threat will be
effective and usher in change.

Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s felt they
must do so in order to create a Jewish state. In the 1960s
and 1970s the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable
response to the usurption of their land.

The IRA bombed English targets in the 1980s - to make
the point that they felt their land was colonized by
British Imperialists.

Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in
the 1990s stemmed from his belief that US troops stationed in
Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of
Islamic State he believed should exist in the Arabian
Peninsula.

So it goes.

Dear Individual,

We are not "doing nothing."
Our government has passed laws for
our protection. And anyone who breaks these
laws shall be punished accordingly.
Which is as it should be.

Foxy,

When you quote, for instance from Peter Costello, you deliberately cherry pick, sometimes pasting bits together to imply a meaning that is identical to yours. However, when the original speech or article is read in its entirety, it is plain that what the author was saying is in fact opposed to your world view.

Do you honestly believe for example that Peter Costello agrees with you? Here is just a bit that you didn't quote and one could ask, as I am asking now, why not?

" There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don't enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don't come to Australia."

http://tinyurl.com/costello-quote