Dear Foxy,

Hmmm ........ "It's not the religion that's at fault but people's interpretations of it."

Sorry, but the problem with that analysis is that the Koran is front and centre for observant Muslims, and it contains many, many rock-solid references to principles that you and I may disagree with - such as the goal of imposing, by peaceful OR less peaceful means, Islam over all people and countries; the tribal notion that women are in need of protection for life (and therefore are entitled to , effectively, fewer rights than men) because they are always at risk and/or inferior to men; the notion that, once any land has come into Muslim hands, it is never to leave them; the notion that one can get into heaven by committing jihad, with all its various meanings. And so on.

I'm certainly not suggesting that, on these grounds, Muslim immigration should be limited, let alone banned, but we have to analyse these issues with eyes wide open.

Love,

Joe

Foxy,
It was a poor example that Belly gave when citing sexual abuse by christian clergy. They were acting contrary to their church and Christs teachings. The muslim actions are totally in line with their religion.

I have yet to read any passage from the Koran that promotes love and kindness to fellow man. It is all killing and hate, totally unacceptable in our society. Of course Islam is to blame.

ISIS consider themselves to be 'very good' muslims and is why young muslims were rushing to join them. We had to invoke laws to stop them going to Syria.

Foxy,
You said, "We have many Muslims in this country
living peaceful lives and contributing to our
communities".

Why do you think it is that ordinary muslims have not publicly condemned ISIS for what has happened in Syria. I suggest it is because they agree with ISIS and/or they are too bloody scared to be critical. Don't forget there were bashings and businesses fire bombed early on.

Which ever, they are keeping a low profile now. But these 'peaceful' muslims were willing to riot and advocate beheadings over some silly cartoons.

The problem IS Islam. Islam IS the problem, not 'radicals' and 'extremists'. Islam itself is radical and extreme. It’s all there in black and white for those who read; but the Marxist Left on OLO don’t read; they stick with their own sick ideology. This is why Foxy et all, useful idiots all, are always apologising and make excuses for Muslims. The Left and Islam are natural partners: they are both totalitarian, controlling, hating, against free speech and Western civilisation. The end game between these two extremes, after they have oppressed the rest of us, will be awful, but nothing that they don’t both deserve.

Hey Foxy,

I don't think its really about an apology for apology sake;
- So much as 'admitting and establishing a wrongdoing';
And as a result 'setting it down in stone' that Sonia's criticism / behavior is not acceptable or permitted.

- Even though she did nothing wrong -

She did apologise initially I think, but I honestly don't she had anything to apologise for.

Hey ttbn,
"I read the article prior to this one which advised that nothing was found against Kruger because the tribunal correctly 'found' that Islam is not a race." (Foxy also mentioned this)

- Yet they're putting her through the wringer and taking strips off her anyway.
2 years she's had this crap over her head, just for voicing what many citizens in this country were rightly feeling.
It's like some kind of weird mass censorship I'm not sure how to exactly describe.

Belly,
Obviously I think Sonia's been vilified for simply speaking her mind.
- What Aussies have always done since Aussies were Aussies. -
Why do you think she was wrong?
Think hard - try to win the argument on merit.

Here's my spiel:
How can a person be 'wrong' when stating 'how they feel' about a certain topic?
It's hard to argue with feelings, providing they have a basis of merit.
I'll give you an example:
Lets say you were driving, pulled up at the lights and someone run up the back of you.
Your car is looking like a write off and you're angry.

I walk up; you're going off and I say "Nope you're wrong".
'Wrong' doesn't really come into it, it doesn't fit.

I'm 'angry', 'happy' 'anxious' 'fearful' 'upset' 'depressed'.
It's hard to argue against feelings when they hold merit.

If I say I'm scared aliens will abduct me;
Then you don't necessarily argue that I'm not scared, but delusional.
- Because the argument likely does not hold merit -

Knowing that people 'cannot argue with feelings' is a part of manipulating others.
(Playing the 'Guilt' or 'Victim' cards comes to mind)

Hey Foxy,
"We really should not blame any religion for the actions of fundamentalists or extremists within that religion."

Why the hell not?

We'll blame the religious person who refuses reasonable medical treatment for their child don't we?
We assign blame then, right?

With 'Secular Ethics' we can judge the quality of a particular religions merits;
With Ethics we could line all religions up and compare them just like you do when you're choosing an internet or phone plan.

So why not exactly?

And as a further question;
What do you think might be the long term result of 'wilful ignorance' or 'not ever assigning any blame' on this particular issue?

- Food for Thought - Always gotta look at the Pro's and Con's -