| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> The Great Muslim Debate http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1174459870 Message started by zoso on Mar 21st, 2007 at 4:51pm |
|
|
Title: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 21st, 2007 at 4:51pm
There is a whole load of fear-mongering and paranoia on this board regarding Muslims and the 'dangers' they pose to our society, I'd like for a change to hear peoples solutions to this problem. I will concede that the extremist end of the Muslim spectrum at least represents a dangerous bunch of individuals and that some reconciliation needs to be found. If you believe it is simply ALL muslims thats fine, but I do not want to hear why they are a dangerous culture, I want to hear solutions.
So ye bigots, put your money where your respective mouths are and come up with something constructive for a change. How do we fix it?? Constructive, realistic solutions please. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Mar 21st, 2007 at 5:56pm
The weekend ge together they had recently to talk things through seems to have worked well. Members of the general public got to here a wide range of views from muslims to anti muslim protagonists. Afterwards they came out far more pro-muslim, and probably more aware of the true nature of any real threats.
What we need to do is stop alienating the entire muslim community and work with them towards the goals we have in common. The more we tar them all with the same brush, the more we push weaker individuals towards extremism. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 21st, 2007 at 7:28pm freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 5:56pm:
Wise words. Essentially this is the only solution, you aren't going to get rid of one of the most popular and fast growing religions in the world without some major headaches... to put it lightly. I'm just challenging people to think about this, I mean really think. Apart from what you have written here freediver, what solutions are there? So far the silence is deafening. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 21st, 2007 at 10:18pm
Good query zoso.
My answer in one word. Education. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 21st, 2007 at 10:21pm
"Think education and medical research is expensive ?
Try ignorance and disease." |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by auzgurl on Mar 21st, 2007 at 11:10pm
I think its fair to say zoso..this is not fixable, nor should it be..What we should be concentrating on is fixing ourselves and as much as we hate hearing the word..the solution is called tolerance and eduaction..in that order.
being a Muslim is not a diesease. Just like we dont consider our culture to be a disease. The solution is eduaction and tolerance.. Through eduaction comes understanding and tolerance..The only solution to our angst, and our angst is the real problem, not to the 'problem' of Muslims..I dont see them as a problem. The suicide bombers etc are not real Muslims, they do not represent Muslims as a pple. they are fundamentalist extremists..like any society has its extremists..In Aust. these extremists are represented by whom?....not sure..but ultimately and in the end this is the only answer to that question!!!!! :-? :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:42am
[quote author=sprintcyclist link=1174459870/0#3 date=1174479513]My answer in one word.
Education.[/quote] I agree 100% with that. Bring on the OLPC! Give them the internets! :) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:53am
Hi auzgurl. My idea of education was not to educate nonmuslims about muslim
It is to educate muslims about the koran. Tolerance - hahahahhaha suicide bombers and child sacrificers ARE real muslims. That is supported by the comments of the (ex)leading auss muslim, the Old Testament and the koran. Education is the best and only practical answer I can think of. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:55am
Hi Zoso - what is OLPC ?? Open learning centre ??
Yes, give the the net, let them find out for themselves. From non-regulated and free sources. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:57am zoso wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:42am:
Careful zoso, i think when sprintcyclist says "education", he means to educate the muslims in christianity as they are currently misguided. the only reason i'm saying that is because sprintcyclist seems to be an extreme practising christian. Personally, i think the muslim issue is something the muslims need to fix internally, where the moderate ones should deal with the extremists. But what the wider Australian community shouldn't do is label them all as extremist/terrorists and show hatred to all of them, since doing that will only make the situation worse and has the potential to create more terrorists. It basically becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 9:02am wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 11:10pm:
The Australian extremists are the "Catch The Fire Ministries" and the "Exclusive Brethren". |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by auzgurl on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:32am
Thank you gavin..Ive heard a lot about the Exclusive Bretheren..and Sprint is an extreme Christain..you were right about sprint!!
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by auzgurl on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:34am
suicide bombers and child sacrificers ARE real muslims"
--------------------------------------------------------- This is a really dumb thing to say sprint.........! :-[ |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 12:43pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 8:53am:
Suicide bombings have also been carried out by Christians and atheists, look up "cult of the suicide bomber". That guy through his studies found that Muslims only make up a portion of all suicide bombers, the key driver is more depression and political disenchantment than religious fundamentalism. OLPC is the 'one laptop per child' organisation that has made a laptop that has a $100 USD value with the sole intention of selling them to developing countries to help their education. Its basically a cheap 'toughbox' that youcan kick around and it doubles as a digital book. Very low power usage, very cheap, flash hard drive, wireless internet and running linux. Bill Gates is not impressed :) http://www.laptop.org/ They are so effective that the Northern Territory government intends to use its federal funding for computers to buy one for every child in school in the NT. The NT government can afford one of these for every child instead of one PC for every classroom. HOWEVER, since it is federal money being spent, the feds have stepped in and claimed they will not permit the NT government to buy computers that do not run M$oft software... And you thought this wasn't a wholesale corporately owned environment... Last I head the NT was going ahead anyway and sticking it to the Howard govt. Now, education is irrelevant to your religion, if their (whoever fits the bill for the sake of the argument) understanding of the world means they interpret their religion literally and use it as an excuse for violence then they will simply have to change the way they interpret their religion. Christians had to do it. I think a lot of Islamic fear and hatred comes from a misunderstanding of our culture fuelled by the propaganda of various extreme groups, the actions of the west of late have done little to disprove this propaganda. I see the internet, education and freely available western media in general as a good answer to this problem, once they realise that we are just people like they are things will be moving along. This also requires that WE as western nations realise that THEY (whoever fits the bill) are people just like we are and should not be treated like some animal because they have differing views and poor education. I note that education is also key in settling down Australian, American and other intolerances as well, this is a double edged sword. Trump I'm still eager to hear your words on this topic? AN what about you? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 1:22pm
Hi zoso - under that search I found basically only muslims being suicide bombers. which is what i see in the news/net/anywhere.
OLPC is a great idea. When christians had used the Bible as an excuse for violence they seriously misused the Bible. that was strictly against what Jesus taught. They misused it for their own monerty or property gain . My understandinf is when muslims use the koran as a reason for their violence they are interpeting it correctly. The moderate muslims (which are the majority) are uninterested in it and abhor violence. Due to the confusing manner in which the koran is written and abrogation, almost anything can be quoted form it. Old stuff that has been abrogated is ok. Yes, one of the muslims I know is just like me. Works, got kids, a car that breaks down .... Auzgurl - it may sound dumb, but i have proof. gavin - I would prefer extreme christian s to extreme muislims . You ?? Yes, the moderate muslims do have a responsibility about the extremists. why do they do nothing ?? Whem have they marched against extremism ? I agree, we should not label them all the same. Most i know are perfectly normal. One here has just had his first child - I was just as pleased as he was when he told me. We had a "dads" tearful moment. Education is the only way I can think of. educatre the muslims about what the koran does say. The vast majority are not interested in killing and taking over the world. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 1:51pm
D@mmit, that was the wrong book. I can remember a radio interview with a researcher who claimed the suicide bombing obsession had little to do with extremist islam, and more to do with other factors. This guy makes the point at least partly: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/saturday/stories/s1415277.htm
But I remember distinctly some figures quoted finding muslim suicide bombers a minority to non religious and christian ones. Wish I could find the stats now! News/net/radio are certainly going to be reporting on the Musims, who will get ratings by reporting on atheist suicide bombers?? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 2:32pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 1:22pm:
sprintcyclist, extremes of any religion are dangerous, so i wouldn't say extremist christians are any better than extreme muslims. u only have to go to the US and find bombings of abortion clinics and gay nightclubs to see the actions of extremist christians. those actions are not acceptable at all. the only difference between extremist christians and extremist muslims is that we tend to focus on extremist muslims too much and ignore any violent actions by extremist non-muslims. ur "today's news" threads are a good example of ignoring violent actions committed by non-muslims. Quote:
they have marched against extremism, remember back to Sept 11 & after the Bali bombings when there were multi-faith gatherings which included muslims who all condemned the terrorist actions. it's actually quite surprising that everyone ignores this and assumes that the moderate muslims have done nothing. Quote:
ur assuming muslims don't read the Koran, they probably do know what it says. in terms of education, there are two aspects: 1. we need the moderate muslims to teach the extremist muslims the way the Koran should be interpreted. the reason being that as it stands now, i think extremists tend to have an incorrect interpretation (like extremists in all religions). 2. we need to educate non-muslims as well since i think that the majority of non-muslims don't know enough about it and just jump to the conclusion that muslims are all violent based on the actions of extremists. and if they do read the Koran, chances are they only read bits of it and take verses out of context. doing this is quite dangerous, like i mentioned before labelling all muslims as violent will only create more extremists. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:23pm zoso wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 4:51pm:
REPATRIATION |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:27pm
People say that only these "fundamental muslims" believe in using violence, why then are there so many leaders of Islam, like SHEIKH TAJ EL-DIN AL-HILALI who are supported by "moderate" muslims. They all attend the same mosque as him, and listen to the same garbage he spews out.
Imagine if George Pell leader of the Catholic Church in Australia claimed that all Christians had to take back the land that belongs to Allah by the sword if neccessary. Do you think "moderate" catholics would go around saying they dont really agree totally but they still will attend mass that he presides over? Where i live there are many muslims, and the vast majority would cheer again if the saw september 11 all over again i know this because they tell me all the time with pride. It is quite clear that Islam cannot coexist with other types of Islam (muslims account for more deaths of muslims accross the globe than any other group) let alone other religions. There is no peaceful solution to this problem locally, education has not worked between different sects of islam in islamic countries how can it work between different religions? If it didnt work in France, Holland, Israel, England, Spain, or the Philipines why would it work here? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:31pm Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:27pm:
Welcome to the forum Pender! another enlightened man walks amongs us! |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:32pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:23pm:
And that solves what exactly? My question is not how to solve the problem 'in Australia'... |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:34pm
There are a stack of useless threads containing loads of whining bull already here mr pender. I do not care for people who can complain and not put up a solution to what it is they are complaining about.
This thread is about solutions. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:35pm Quote:
Ah so you mean world wide. Each western country then must REPATRIATE THEIR MUSLIMS |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:41pm
so Aussie Nationalist, ur solution is to send muslims back home??
but what about muslims that were born & raised in Australia? and i don't only mean those from Middle Eastern background but Australian converts as well. they are already home. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:45pm
I havnt got a solution that will please everyone but, send them away, wherever i dont care.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:47pm
enact laws to oppress the relgion as they have done in france.
No head dresses, no more mosques etc. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:58pm Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:47pm:
so clamping down on civil liberties is ur answer?? :o :o :o remember, freedom of religious expression. it's amazing, but after Sept 11, George W Bush said that the terrorists are doing this because they hate our freedom. so we want to respond by actually doing what the terrorists want us to do (i.e. remove our freedom)?? if we do that, then the terrorists would have won. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:06pm
what about when that relgion encroaches on our freedom as human beings to live? i do not believe in freedom of relgious expression, because if that were true, there would be various crimes in the name of God that would have to be deemed legal.
We do not have true freedom of religon in Australia, there are various things our laws prohibit religions from doing here, what is another few laws that prohibit religions even further?. 100% freedom is a myth. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:16pm Quote:
ABSOLUTELY! Quote:
You'll find they consider themselves ''Lebanese'' and Iraqi'' and ''Pakistani'' Not Australians. Converts- They converted through marriage. they follow the spouse home or divorce and renounce. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:17pm Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 3:47pm:
Here Here. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:24pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:16pm:
no, i actually met a full-bloodied Australian couple recently, who have both converted to Islam and not converted via marriage. and when i say full-bloodied Australian, i mean born & raised here, family from European background and been in Australia for several generations, white skin, blond hair, blue eyed, etc. where do they go? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:25pm Quote:
But what if the religion threatens freedom itself? Quote:
NO, We are heretics and infidels.- we do not follow Allah! Thats why they hate us. They are actually using freedom to thier advantage. Quote:
How does that work??? Their goal is to islamify the world. If we out law them, how can they win? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:26pm Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:06pm:
ur assuming they are all a bunch of murders, which they aren't. if someone commits a crime, then punish that person for the crime they have committed. but u shouldn't punish the entire community for their actions. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:26pm Gavin wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:24pm:
GAS CHAMBER ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:29pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:26pm:
Aussie Nationalist, ur really inconsistent, u criticise muslims for being a violent bunch of murderers. but then ur solution is to "kill them". wouldn't that just make u as bad as they are?? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:30pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:26pm:
Ahh I see... as I thought AN, you have no solutions, you are as we true nationalists like to say: a bloody whinger mate, bloody fukcin whinging sheila. You like to complain, and do nothing about it... very good, in line with the Aussie spirit ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:33pm
IDIOTS! ;D
Cant ya's tell im having a lend! Gas chambers really. HA! :P |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:35pm
Seriously, i bet those two white converts were nice- They grew up as christians.
Example of one and he is a peace lover- cat stevens. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:35pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:25pm:
WHEN has Islam threatened your precious freedom?? Howards anti-terror laws DO threaten your freedom and all you can do is complain about muslims who have done nothing. wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:25pm:
Right! better take it away then! wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:25pm:
And by your own words, you believe this goal to be the removing our freedoms: wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:25pm:
So your argument is that we should quickly take all our freedoms away before the muslims get a chance to do it? Again please I want to stay on topic, how can radical Islam be addressed worldwide? Realistic solutions. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:38pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:35pm:
yes they are nice, not sure if that's because of their muslim or christian influence though. i didn't know them when they were christian. but, what do we do with them?? we can't deport them or kill them? seriously. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm Quote:
When it arrived in Australia. Quote:
His laws dont threaten me- im not a muslim. Quote:
Only theirs. Quote:
Remove theirs. Quote:
No just theirs. Quote:
Ok- One solution would be to withdraw ALL western Armed forces from the middle east and lets see what happens. Thats the first step. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:44pm Gavin wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:38pm:
I'm not sure, that is a sensitive issue. i will open a pole. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:48pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
Totally agree that's the way the go. i reckon if we stop messing about in the Middle East, then they will leave us alone. the current US foreign policy in the Middle East does drive people to extremism, e.g. support of oppressive dictators in Egypt & Jordan, support for Israel regardless of it's actions against Palestinan civilians. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:56pm wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
Care to elaborate? wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
I know your being a child and dangling the line, but I'm going to bite anyway... The laws target everyone... you with me? You are quite the retard if you think otherwise. Your bag can be randoly searched fo no reason. YOU can be randomly detained on hidden evidence. YOU can be charged and jailed for 'sedition' against the government. How many Muslims can do these things to YOU? wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
Ahh yes, the perfect way to create a harmonious society... enforce inequality. wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
That doesn't answer my question. You lack consistency yet again AN, if you want to play with the grown ups, learn to use that lump of skull you got on your shoulders. wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
Ahh yes, the perfect way to create a harmonious society... enforce inequality. Because you know, it has worked so many times before and never once ended violently... wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 4:42pm:
Allright... something vaguely constructive. I almost agree. But it won't solve the problem, sooner or later some random radical will get hold of a small nuke and hit Israel, if we walked away altogether that is. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 5:01pm
I don't advocate military intervention there AN, but I do believe that aid needs to be sent where aid needs to be, as such, some troops presence is a good thing. Take Afghanistan, Australian troop presence is actually helping to show the radical muslims that Australians are good people who want to help.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 5:04pm Quote:
Funny that, you calling me a child- you are the one who is name calling. Israel is the number one problem in the middle east, and they are the cause of their own problems. If they got nuked, i and many others would not shed a tear. The west would benefit leaving, and breaking all ties with israel. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm Quote:
I'm only going to answer once, okay zoso? I don't want one of your threads to drag out for another ten years talking about how 'Muslims should be tolerated, just because we don't wanna be as bad as them' rubbish. What you have to understand, zoso, is that IMHO, the Islamic religion, as it is today, contrary to what everyone here keeps saying, is completely incompatible with western society. You can believe this if you want to or not, I don't care zoso, because quite frankly, I think you're too set in your ways to consider it (It's also not the topic). But anyway, since I'm of the belief that Islam is incompatible with western civilisation, I can only think of five options for the moment (If anyone can think of anything better, enlighten me): 1) Try to make them convert, through education and with the reduction in Islamic schools and mosques over time. I think Islamic kids should be absorbed into the mainstream public schools, and if their fanatical parents disagree... tough. 2) Pay them to leave, much like the British National Party is suggesting in Britain. 3) Forcefully deport them and restrict all further Islamic immigrants. 4) Cut off any further Islamic immigrants and hopefully the Islamic religion will be bred out over time (Although, I highly doubt this will work). 5) Last and most extreme/severe, sterilisation and restrictions on Islamic couples adopting kids. Extreme times call for extreme measures. And I do admit these are extreme measures. And I don't think assimilation and acceptance has, or ever will work. Whatever, you can go down the line of thinking... "Well, there's no proof that muslims can't be absorbed into western society." Fine. Do that. It's your country and it's at your own risk. But do me a favour and just don't forget what happened to European countries who absorbed large amounts of Muslim immigrants and allowed them to continue their lives as Muslims within these countries. What did these Governments do wrong apart from follow your 'assimilation' and 'education' guidelines? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 12:02am
SEIG HEIL ! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:51am ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
Its not some soft position of tolerance, I advocate the most pragmatic solution to YOUR supposed problem, integration, assimilation if you will but I choose not to look at it that way. At the very least we need to find peace and common ground with an angry neighbour, no good will come of anything else. Besides Trump, I am the one who is utterly fed up with long winded conversations with you going absolutely nowhere because of your absolute staunch refusal to accept other peoples views. I have demonstrated a number of times now on this board my ability to accept another persons view if they put up a good argument. You have simply failed to put up a good argument on this topic. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
And clearly some aspects need to change, but my feeling is it is more of a misguided defensive over-reaction than some underlying evil in their religion. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
Estimates put the Islamic population of the world at somewhere between 0.8 and 1.2 billion people. Exactly how to you propose 'converting' around a billion people to another religion? Sounds like you are asking for more trouble than we already have. I agree that education is key to making them accept we are not out to get them, but people like yourself need to accept this view as well before we will get anywhere. And that seem highly unlikely. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
How does this help anything? I am asking a more general question of how we can put a stop to radical Islam on a global scale, throwing them out of our country changes nothing. Besides, as has already been pointed out, what about the local converts? What about the Muslims who are born on our soil and therefore legally and Australian? ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
This is just a more violent version of #2. So you have 4 points to make, not 5. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
;D Right... ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
Ok, I assume you *think* you are being serious... So how does this stop converts? As I said to mr AN, forced segregation has never ended peacefully, you would be causing more violence than we have now by a long shot. Good move... take a relatively benign situation and turn it into the worst case scenario. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
Extreme times? What have muslims ever done to you personally in this country? What personal experience do you have that these are in fact extreme times? Things seem rather business as usual to me... ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 11:42pm:
France used aggressive policies like the ones you propose and got rioting and further nastiness. I will give you London and Madrid but they could have been taken out by any terrorist group. Do not forget the IRA pulled off more bombings in London over a longer period of time than Muslims ever have and the jury is still out on Madrid, in fact Al Qaeda has been ruled out despite claiming responsibility (as they conveniently do for everything..). The fact is that France AND Spain suffer far more terrorist activity from the local Basque separatists who are not Islamic. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 7:14am
I am not at all interested in getting bogged down in more pointless debates about why you should or should not accept minority cultures within our society. The answer is simple, our law permits it and you have to accept it,, there is nothing more to say. I am by no stretch of the imagination 'set in my ways', I am always out to find new ideas and learn new things, I believe very much in a lifetime of learning new things and constantly adjusting my view to meet my understanding.
The thing is Trump, and through this thread I have set out to demonstrate this, you may be able to defend your emotional position, but without any credible solutions that position loses any foundations it may have had. This is the point you constantly miss in my postings. Your 'solutions' are weak, 18th/19th century knee jerk reactions that do not fit in a modern civilised world. If that is the best you can come up with then you have no answer, because that was weakly cobbled together at best, when you say things like 'cut them off and hope they breed themselves out' and 'just convert them' you show that you haven't really put a lot of thought into this, for all your 'research' into their religion and you innate understanding of their 'violent nature', you simply haven't put any thought into anything but the emotional side of your belief. My position on this debate is based on what I believe to be a credible solution, that is what we are achieving in Afghanistan, and what we are trying to do in Iraq (although Iraq is not working). Forget my personal emotion beliefs about acceptance, they are irrelevant to this thread. This is about realistic pragmatic solutions. Muslim fear/hatred of our country comes from ignorance of our culture, this is what needs to be turned around. By segregating and persecuting a group because of their religion you will only create more problems than you already have, and never actually achieve your goals of lets call it 'cultural cleansing'. Many people have thought along your lines about many groups in the past: Milosovic, Pol Pot, various Apartheid leaders, Mugabi, Indonesians in East Timor, and while I hate to use the example, Hitler. How many ethnic cleansing events have ended well in history? How many have succeeded for a lasting period of time and brought peace instead of more violence? Despite the obvious fact that the international community would never abide by your 'solutions' they have never worked before and will never work in the future. Credible, realistic solutions Trump, thats what I asked for. But thank you for the insight into your way of thinking: all heart no head. Your proposals are neither credible nor realistic, and as such your views are left supported by emotion only, you need to really think about this topic a little deeper, and along different lines than what you have previously. I support your right to hold your views, provided no violence comes of it, but I really don't think you have much of an argument when all you can do is complain and when asked how you might fix the situation you quickly come up with a poorly thought out re-hashing of rather standard ethnic cleansing routines that are proven to achieve nothing. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 7:16am wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 5:04pm:
You dangle the line AN, fishing for a reaction, you are smarter than that and it is a childish pursuit and you know it. I am not name calling I'm telling it how it is, the Aussie way. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Gavin on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 9:25am
i just noticed the results of the poll, of 5 votes listed, 2 votes are saying to deport Australian converts.
for muslim immigrants, u may argue to send them back home, but for Australian muslim converts they are already home. so, deport them to where? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:10pm
Some solutions if the above preferable options by DT are not possible.
1. Mosques must be basic buildings which do not dominate the scene. Eg; No towers, No dome, no middle eastern architecture. 2. Sermons MUST be spoken in ENGLISH and Arabic banned in public. 3. Muslims cannot walk in public in religious gear unless they are a preacher. 4. No islamic political partys shall be allowed to exist, and no practising muslim may hold political power. 5. All sermons must be monitered by law officials to stop radicalism. The same should go for ALL other religions also. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender(Guest) on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 8:47pm
The only reservation i have over stricter laws on muslims is that these laws will be enacted on all religions, it hardly seems fair to punish every religion because one is constantly causing problems.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 9:06pm
And Israel is King.
That is all. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by mantra on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:04pm
Isn't it the King of Israel - now who could that be? :-/
It looks to me as though a fundamental zionist is on the same level as a fundamental Muslim. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:32pm mantra wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:04pm:
I Agree with your statement 100%. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:33pm wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 8:47pm:
Why not? the JEWS and CHRISTIANS are just as bad. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:34pm Classic Liberal wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 9:06pm:
Are you a KIKE :o |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by mantra on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:44pm
A true christian - one who believes in the ten commandments - doesn't boast about it. All we hear from the religious zealots on these forums, who believe they are the righteous - is whose God is better?
This is ridiculous - I was always taught that God is goodness and if we practice this to the best of our ability our planet will be a better place. But this isn't the case for the obsessed - the fundamentalist Muslims believe in war, the zionists believe in greed and power and the so called Christians believe they are superior. Their tolerance to anything outside their fanaticism is nil. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:47pm mantra wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:44pm:
Its crazy isnt it. all these fanatical religious bastards. this pender, seems to be a nutter. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by mantra on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:51pm Well AN - I don't really like being negative about people, but you're right. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 11:06pm mantra wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:51pm:
Well these fanatical religeous people are nothing but trouble. Jew ,Christian, or Islamic. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 11:52pm
I've been forced to answer this... although I don't want to.
Quote:
Look mate... it's the law for the minute and I have no plans to disobey the law at the present time. But laws can be changed to suit a society at any given moment. No law is ever permanent. That's what referendums are for. So I don't understand why you keep taking this viewpoint (I don't want to disobey the law... etc etc). Okay... we shouldn't ban *EVERY* culture. That would be slightly nutty. I accept that viewpoint of yours (I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier). But the whole concept of multiculturalism, at the present time, IMHO, is flawed. Should we accept EVERY culture? No, I don't believe we should. We should be extremely SELECTIVE with our cultures. And SELECTIVE with the immigrants we let in. An extreme example so you get the message is this, should we allow cannibals into our country and allow them to continue this practice out of 'cultural sensitivity?' I doubt it. Would you agree with this? Quote:
Fine. That's your opinion of yourself. But my opinion of you slightly differs. Sorry... that's the impression I'm getting upon reading your posts. Please don't misunderstand... I'm not having a go at you or anything. Quote:
I don't have the solutions, zoso, I'm not a genius, nor a politician with enough power to carry out decisions. All I know is that by pointing out that, I on a personal basis, lack solutions, the problem still remains, correct? It still doesn't make your position 'right,' hence this thread doesn't prove anything. People can think of solutions at any given moment at any given time. If I'm a doctor, and I can't find a cure for cancer, does that still make it okay? No. I'm an expert on the problem, zoso, but I never said I was an expert with the solution, I admit that. And I encourage people to come up with better solutions for it than keel over and die. Quote:
How on earth does 'educating' the masses in Afghanistan and Iraq relate to this thread? We're talking about Muslims living within western countries, not Muslims living in Islamic countries. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 11:56pm
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
James 1:27 |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 24th, 2007 at 12:49am Quote:
Oh get over yourself, zoso, and stop being a hypocrite. Quote:
Well zoso, it's pretty hard to think up a well-thought out solution at 3 in the frickin morning, especially when you couldn't give two sh1ts about the topic in question. I haven't thought deeply about solutions, true, but it still doesn't take away the problem... does it? Quote:
There's no 'underlying' evil in their religion zoso. And no, it's not a defensive, misguided 'over-reaction' like you think it is. It's simply two different cultures that are simply incompatible, so long as certain traits in either one of their cultures remain. And I can't see cultures changing very soon in either camp. It's kind of a permanent thing... the differences are at the very centre of their foundations. Quote:
Where did I say I wanted to convert 'all' the Muslims in the world, zoso? I'm suggesting we convert the ones within Australia, over time, and cease letting 'fresh' ones in. Quote:
Mate, if we adopted this policy, and our Government took ACTUAL steps to achieve this and set up some kind of agenda, I'd shut my mouth... in the meantime though... I'm going to continue complaining about it all I like(Rightfully so) until we actually do something about it. Quote:
WTF? Well... if this IS the case, we must be trying to answer different questions. I'm merely trying to find solutions for Muslims at a local level, hence, Muslims within already existing western societies. Muslims within Islamic nations should be left alone. Quote:
Doesn't make a difference. They should still be encouraged to leave. How many European converts are there anyway? 5? I doubt this will be a problem in the long run. Muslims need numbers and their community to maintain their religion, if separated from the rest of them, their religion would cease to exist. Peer pressure is a strong thing within the Islamic religion. Quote:
Paying them to leave and forcefully removing them are hardly the same thing, zoso. Quote:
What are you laughing at, zoso? Oh that's right... the 'bigot'... me. ::) Quote:
I'm not going to get into this point, it could drag out forever. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 24th, 2007 at 1:25am Quote:
Okay... first off... personally. 1) Removed pork from my local butchers in the name of 'political correctness.' 2) Neighbourhood has been told to remove Christmas decorations in fear of 'offending someone.' Doesn't seem like much, as Muslims are a very, very small minority within my neighbourhood. Nationwide. 1) Whole Australian suburbs swallowed up by Muslims to the extent that Australians fear entering these suburbs. 2) Harrassment by Islamic gangs. 3) Large number of gang rapes. 4) Riots/demostrations. 5) Racism. 6) Political correctness. 7) Terrorism fears and proof that there are terrorism cells within Australia. 8) Division. 9) Homophobia. 10) Anti-semitism. 11) Anti-Christian. 12) Sexism. 13) Alienation. (Please understand these are problems popped off the top of my head and not much thought have been put into them. I'm tired and couldn't be bothered listing any more. Sorry if two different reasons overlap one another) There may not be any problems where YOU ARE, zoso, but where do you live? Do you live in suburbs where the Islamic population is high, or low? The point I'm trying to make with the 'extreme times' statement, is take a nation like Sweden, under very similar conditions to that of Australia, look at them and think to yourself: should we learn what happened to them NOW before we let them grow in numbers and continue to tolerate, before we make the same mistake they did? Quote:
I'm not familiar with their tactics. Please go into further detail. Quote:
The IRA hae been in existed since 1919. And the Muslims have been in England since the late 1960's. One would assume, logically, that of course the Irish have commited more bombings in this time. And how long have there been Irishman in England for? 1000 years? Quote:
Really? Tell me more. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 24th, 2007 at 2:00am Quote:
Muslim fear/hatred. ::) You're painting everyone with the same brush, Zoso. It's not 'cultural cleansing' in a lot of the examples you used, it's called 'race cleansing.' They did it out of 'fear of race.' This just demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. Mugabe, Hitler, aparteid leaders all rejected these people on the basis of race more than culture. I'm not quite familiar with what happened with East Timor and I'm not even sure who or what 'pol pot' is, but I'm sure there's a chance the Indonesians didn't attack the East Timorese based on their 'culture.' As far as Milosevic goes, well, that's correct. I guess on the one hand you could use that as an example as what happens when Muslims are tolerated for too long... violence occurs, and on the other hand, you can use it as a demonstration as to what happens if you're too heavy handed with Muslims. It can go either way. Quote:
How much 'cultural cleansing' have ended succesfully without ending in more violence? How's about a little thing called the 'Jewish people' for example, it was reported in the bible's section of Jewish history that they wiped out large amounts of people from their land with different cultures. Sure, you can argue that Jews got there karma in the end, if you think karma actually exists. But the people that got them back at them in the end were never the original inhabitants that were wiped out, it was completely different people who did so. How's about the Christians wiping out pagans from Europe? Didn't hear a peep out of them once it was achieved. How's about the Christians converting the Aztecs? How's about the Muslims wiping out most of North Africa and destroying local cultures in favour of their own? How's about Jews being persecuted in England? (The English got away with it). How's about Spain? Spain was occupied for a long period of time by the Muslims before finally being kicked out. How's about the Germans? They successfully kicked out the Romans from Germany which finally led the Romans to finally give up at the Rhine River. How's about Eastern Europe? They were largely occupied by the Ottomans/ Muslims for hundreds of years before finally being kicked out by the Christians. And our latest example, the Muslims will successfully kick the Americans and their culture out of Iraq. Etc etc etc. Believe me, there have been PLENTY of instances of cultural cleansing that have ended successfully throughout history. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 24th, 2007 at 2:01am
PS. You might be interested to know, zoso, that I was the one who put 'undecided' in the poll.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by AUShole on Mar 24th, 2007 at 6:16am Quote:
That would be more appropriate! ;) Lets all play my god is better than your god... |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Mar 24th, 2007 at 11:55am
Not sure about Afghanistan, but the Iraqi people certainly aren't fond of US soldiers, despite their support for regime change.
The only problem with completely disengaging the middle east is that the problems there are no longer local. Due to the nature of the modern world, very few problems are local. Extreme times call for extreme measures. And I do admit these are extreme measures. But not extreme times. And I don't think assimilation and acceptance has, or ever will work It's worked for every other similar problem. Trying to convert them is a stupid idea that will make the problem worse. How many ethnic cleansing events have ended well in history? How many have succeeded for a lasting period of time and brought peace instead of more violence? Tasmania? The same should go for ALL other religions also. Sounds like Communist Russia to me. I keep forgetting that AN doesn't exactly discriminate against Muslims. He is intolerant of all religions and wants state-enforced atheism for all. Which is of course no different to religious extremism. The removal of a fundamental human right. It's simply two different cultures that are simply incompatible, so long as certain traits in either one of their cultures remain. And I can't see cultures changing very soon in either camp. Why not? We adapted our culture to be tolerant of Asian immigrants. Removed pork from my local butchers in the name of 'political correctness.' That isn't an attack on your freedom. Neighbourhood has been told to remove Christmas decorations in fear of 'offending someone.' Neither is this - it's just government policy that changed. You are still free to put up trees right? How's about the Christians wiping out pagans from Europe? Didn't hear a peep out of them once it was achieved. There are still plenty of pagans in Europe. How's about the Christians converting the Aztecs? That wasn't ethnic cleansing. And our latest example, the Muslims will successfully kick the Americans and their culture out of Iraq. That, and the Roman example, are the repulsion of foreign military forces, not ethnic cleansing. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 24th, 2007 at 6:47pm Quote:
Well, I agree with that completely. Lets just say I was pushing a point... 'for the sake of the argument' ?:) Quote:
I agree, but these measures are in place. You can't pick and choose between who comes in on anything other than personal merit, it would be quite hipocritical otherwise. And comparing a Muslim to a cannibal is a bit much really, I think you are exaggerating your point just a tad there. Quote:
Well, this thread is supposed to be talking about what ways the problem of Islamic extremism should be approached, this doesn't come down to who is right or wrong, I was trying to get a conversation going along more constructive grounds and it seemed to work... that was my intension? My position is simple, if you think there is a problem, and want to publicly canvass your views, you should be prepared to put up some possible solutions to show you have at least thought it through. If not, why complain? If I disagree with what you think will solve the situation, thats fine, why is that a problem? Quote:
Well I had hoped the broader issue would be discussed. Quote:
Whats the point here? Good that you have thought deeply about the problem, thats what I'm on about. Defend your beliefs, if you have thought it through well then why would that be a problem? Quote:
Well the world is small and shrinking rapidly, we will have to either learn to get along or start shooting each other... personally I am against the whole shooting part so my position is an obvious one to me. Cultures have always changed to adopt changing surroundings, I have made this point before. Western European culture has changed dramatically many times over, we will change in the future, what is wrong with hoping that two cultures can change and get along? Its not like it hasn't happened before! |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 24th, 2007 at 6:50pm
Look I'm sorry if I pissed you off that bad trump...
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 26th, 2007 at 4:26pm
Ok, Trump... we a bit calmer now? I have yet to finish...
Quote:
I was laughing at you're idea that you can cut them off and hope they just breed themselves out... Quote:
Ouch don't hurt my freedoms there! 1) your butcher is an idiot and 2) I doubt it has much to do with it, hell I'm offended by christmas bull and the utter waste of energy that goes into those stupid keeping up with the joneses light displays... Quote:
Yeah, just forget that the same is true when it comes to aboriginals, gays, christians, bikie gangs, vietnamese gangs, fat white people, rich white people, italians, greeks and so itcan go on... this is a criminal problem if anything, not a cultural one. Quote:
So this doesn't happen from non Muslim gangs? Again, criminal problem, not cultural. Quote:
Private school boys anyone? White people? Black people? Again, this is not isolated to the Muslim community. Quote:
As you yourself have demonstrated, this is again not isolated to Muslims... see a pattern emerging yet? Quote:
OhI see... a solely Muslim problem again? Quote:
Oh?...those damn muslims... responsible for all the worlds ills, who would have thought. Quote:
Australia's one terrorist bombing was carried out by a white Australian, there is as much chance that any terrorist attack will be due to any person of any cultural background as there is it being a Muslim. Racial profiling in this way is known to not work. The fear comes from propaganda, I for one am far from afraid of terrorism, I think the much more likely scenario of me dying from slipping in the shower deserves more of my attention. I know many people who feel much the same and think the threat of terrorism is just overblown propaganda. Quote:
Will always exist, Muslims did not introduce this idea into our society. I have demonstrated before that there are clear cultural divisions (which culminate in animosity and violence quite frequently) within the white community of Australia, let alone the myriad of other cultures we already have here. Quote:
Was not brought here by Muslims, this is a huge problem amongst white Australians and almost everyone else. Quote:
Ok so I'm sick of writing the same thing over and over. None of these things are unique to Muslims, not one single one of them, every one of your points supporting your claim of 'extreme times' does not fit the bill. These are not extreme times, they are very normal times. Quote:
I am not innately familiar with it either, but I believe they supress cultural expression within the Muslim community (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). The point is that imposed powerful cultural divisions resulted in serious violence in France, not the other way around, it is an example that supports my position of cultural tolerance, not your position of increased division. Quote:
On the level of propaganda you may be correct, but this is not true. Almost all cases of ethnic cleansing occur due to a fear of cultural influences by the elite, communists feared cultural influences that would undermine their agenda, so did the Nazis. The race card is merely drawn to help the propaganda machine along. Quote:
I would rather look at it as an example of what you presented as 'solutions'. Quote:
A fair call when taken to their ultimate conclusions, but my point was more that when examples of division are used as an excuse for cleansing (presented it poorly of course), violence erupts as a result of the intolerance, it is not some inherent attribute of cultural differences. Take the modern Jews in Israel if you like, or south African Apartheid, that is what I am talking about. Quote:
If total anihilation of a culture is your aim, however when you get rid of some and leave others you tend to seriously piss the remaining portion off. Is the total eradication of a religious group of around a billion people what you are after? Because I would say that excluding them from our country while we accept others is simply asking for trouble, if we don't have terrorist problems now, we surely would if we went down that path. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 26th, 2007 at 6:31pm wrote on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 10:47pm:
interestingly i would refer to you as a nutter, you just hate everyone different from you. and i think i am no more superior or valuable than anyone else, just luckier in that i was raised well. My soccer team is made up of Christians, Muslims and Atheists, i get along with all of them very well. When i was at school, Some of my best friends at school were Hindu and Muslim, one of my mates at Uni is Jew. I am a christian fundamentalist, yet i seem to be able to coexist quite happily with all these other religions. Actually i am quite normal just like everyone else, amazing. You claim that i am a bigot and throw around blanket statements like that I think i am seperior, after all we fundy's hate everything that isnt us and we are self righteous to teh bone. Ironically by saying these things you are exemplifying the same characteristice you are so against. I just like everybody else make mistakes, in fact i know what is right unlike many people and yet still do wrong, so perhaps i am lesser of a person than most, but self rightious i am not. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 26th, 2007 at 7:01pm Quote:
Awesome, thats really good mate! Encouraging :) Just a tip, if you don't want to confirm his comments ie: Quote:
Don't go saying things like: Quote:
Which implies your religion tells you what is right and thus us godless folk don't know what that is. I always come across this with religious types: "I'm not arrogant or anything its just that my beliefs make me better than you". Sorry dude, I'm not meaning to be horrible to you or anything and I don't think you said the wrong thing (quite the opposite), just that the way in which you said that might have confirmed what AN was talking about, even if it wasn't your intention. Oh and don't let AN get your back up... he means to do that ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 26th, 2007 at 11:46pm Quote:
What have I done to make you assume I'm having a spac attack? :-? Quote:
Well, like I said before zoso, it's only a neighbourhood with a small Muslim minority, yet they still get away with things like this. Can you imagine what it's like for an Australian living in Bankstown and Lakemba? Quote:
Gee... I had no idea 'bikie' suburbs, 'fat white' people suburbs, 'rich white' people suburbs' and 'gay' suburbs were so 'rampant' in Australia. ;D Greek and Italian suburbs aren't much of a problem. Vietnamese and Aboriginal suburbs are definitely a problem. Hence the failure of multiculturalism. But out of all the problems these suburbs create, the Muslim suburbs cause the biggest problems. Any idiot can see that. Quote:
Zoso, if you think that a majority of gangs in Australia aren't ethnic and culturally motivatedk, you're delusional. 'Gangs' are not unique to any culture, but the motivations behind it (Differences in culture) are a big factor. For example, the Vietnamese and Islander gangs in South Brisbane. Hence, the failure of multiculturalism. If Australians saw themself under one banner and one culture, there wouldn't be this kind of gang problem. And Islamic gangs are BY FAR the worst (Guns, knives etc etc). 'Aussie gangs' are few and far between. Quote:
Yeah, and these 'gang rapes' weren't CULTURALLY motivated were they? The Islamic attacks were. ::) Quote:
No, there's no pattern. We'd decrease the AMOUNT of riots though. Quote:
No... as above. Quote:
I'll tell you what mate, for someone who's 'clear' on what it is to be a Muslim, you certainly are bringing RACE into it aren't ya? And what about the Muslims who were caught BEFORE they carried out their attacks? Do they count? Or in your mind don't they qualify becuase they never 'got away with it?' ::) Quote:
There's that word 'white' again... Whatever, Muslims take 'homophobia' to new heights. Quote:
Can't you grasp the idea that I'm not trying to PROVE that these things are UNIQUE to Muslims??? I'm merely trying to make a point that they are probably ten times worse at these issues than Australians are. Do we really want people here who take these issues to extreme levels? Quote:
Gee, what a surprise. Not familiar with a subject you're using to back up your argument? ::) Quote:
The French Muslims did it to themselves. It wasn't the French who did it at all. :-? As I will soon point out in another thread, Muslims tend to create their own societies within societies, cutting themselves off from the rest of the world. Why? Because it says to do it in the Quran! Why is it so hard for you to grasp this, zoso? It's a unique Islamic trait. We've seen examples of it right across the world and it's not unique to the Muslims within Australia. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Aussie Nationalist on Mar 26th, 2007 at 11:48pm Quote:
What god??? ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am Quote:
It actually supports my position that Muslims isolate themselves, form their own communities within communities and then have the nerve to wonder why they aren't being treated as equals, going on a month-long riot. Don't we see a pattern similar to Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, England and Sweden here? SURELY it's not our fault. Not using this many examples. It's DEFINITELY an Islamic cultural trait. Look it up, and you'll see, zoso boy. Quote:
Right... ::) Quote:
Which one? Quote:
Whatever. Just admit you're not good with history and I'll ease up on you. 'Modern.' ;D Quote:
Oh bullsh1t. What are you basing this off? Quote:
No. Where have I EVER said I wanted to do this??? Quote:
With their technology? Please. ::) Quote:
No Muslims = no worries. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by oceans_blue on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:30am
ALL WE NEED IS LOVE.................................. :)
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 27th, 2007 at 1:05am Quote:
I guess I'll stop breathing air then. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 27th, 2007 at 7:58am ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
Wont somebody think of the children? ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
I'll assume that is a sarcastic remark. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
I had multiple gang fights in my neighbourhood as a teenager, always between vietnamese gangs and skinhead gangs. No failure of multiculturalism, just stupid gangs breaking the law. It takes two ignorant groups to tango mate, and in every case I encountered at least one of these groups was an Australian one. Quote:
Now who's deluded ::) Quote:
Yes they were. I remember a private school boys group in Brissie called the rape squad or some such, group of mates in their own little sub-group going out raping chicks because thats what they did. This is just an example of how cultural influences go way beyond ethnic divisions. Besides, I couldn't care less what motivated a rapist so long as the prick ends up behind bars. I don't expect we will be seeing rape legalised any time soon to accommodate our muslim neighbours, so again, criminal problem not cultural... and really I believe that ALL criminal problems have a bit of a cultural problem at heart, when talking about Australians, Muslims, Aborigines or 12 yr olds makes no difference. Quote:
How many Muslim riots have there been anyway? Even Cronulla was a stupid whitey event... take zero from a number and you wont change that number... Quote:
Its not that at all, but you do like to bring it to the personal level don't you? You see, you say 'Australian' but you mean 'white Australian', and that is why I use it. I actually consider 'Australian' to be anyone who is a citizen and belongs to any cultural creed, which would mean Muslims and Vietnamese and many more, so I use the term to specifically talk about that one group you consider to be the only 'Australian' one. Thats all Trump, were just talking on the same level... nothing to do with race, I'm just following your lead. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
I do not actually disagree that isolation, segregation and extreme cultural divisions are a bad thing. I am trying to point out to you that in order to eliminate these things, groups of people need to be integrated into society, not pushed away. I know you don't believe it is possible but you don't have a credible alternative up on offer which is why I started this thread. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
Now who's ignorant of history? ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
So you are telling me that segregation in Israel results in no violence? Are you telling me that segregation in the Apartheid system resulted in no violence? This makes me poor at history? I used the word modern to distinguish between your point about the Jews in the bible... I'd say in the context the word 'modern' fits... you're a fcukin fruitloop. ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
So you want to live in harmony with our Muslim neighbors now? ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
So you agree? Terrorism is not a danger to us? ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 12:10am:
But I thought you didn't want to get rid of them.... all? And so long as the religion remains (and we have successfully deported all muslims ::)), people may still convert within our country, shock horror, the we would have, shock, muslims again... So then what? Live in this perpetuating cycle until someone has the gall to wipe them out... OR... we could all just learn to get along? And by that I mean more likely that a lot of Muslims will be lightening up on their extreme views but people like you would have to also... Takes two groups to tango Trump, you are as bad as they are. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:12am
A hand needs to be extended, there is absolutely no point sitting here on the internet complaining about why Muslims can never get along with any other culture, no point at all. There is only one option and that is to find some way of making it work, to find a way of allowing freedom of religion while throwing out these pointless petty arguments about cultural differences. They have always existed and always will exist.
I think we need to first drop the d@mn issue! There is no point paying lip service to the extremist views on the media and websites like this. Sprintcyclist your daily news posts only serve to forward the extreme agenda by giving it air. Turn your backs on the vocal idiots! Show them nobody is listening, and no I do not mean ignore the issue and let it creep up on us, I mean don't make such a fuss about it! Secondly I think we need to stop giving the points of issue any air in the first place. Trumps example of banning certain meats at the butcher is a good one, this has to stop, things like allowing women to have license photos taken under the veil, this has to stop. This way there would not be so much for Aussies to be complaining about and Muslims would not assume they can get away with this sh!t. Thirdly, schooling, is more or less addressed already, but this is part of a broader argument that our whole country needs more money in education. Fourth, stop being such puss!es about it! Don't witness something you dislike (the butcher for example) let it brew up inside then b!tch about it on some website like some little b!tch! Say something to the d@mn butcher! If enough people do this he will quickly realise that there are greater cultural offences to be committed by paying lip service to minorities than doing what everyone else wants. Same with all these issues, just don't let it happen in the first place and it wont be a problem! I thought Aussies were a tough and vocal bunch? not a bunch of puss!es who slink around letting their laws be circumvented and then complaining about it in private! Be men (and women) about it! Finally, just accept that multiculturalism is not going away and that some way needs to be found to reconcile this... Just accept reality! |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 27th, 2007 at 9:47pm Quote:
To me... that sounds like multiculturalism at work. Quote:
Proof or knowledge please? Quote:
Okay... so... a small isolated group of Australian private school-boys decide to invent a criminal gang and you somehow assume this is a widespread 'culture.' Well... I agree... all rapists should be treated equally. But if we get rid of the problem (In this case... Islam...) rapes would be severely reduced, wouldn't they? (Not to mention women could walk freely in the street with their shoulders exposed without being abused). And no... it's not an Australian cultural trait to 'rape.' Quote:
'Stupid whitey' hey? There's that word again. Oh okay. So you don't acknowledge that this so-called 'riot' wasn't triggered by Muslims in the first place? And don't you acknowledge the next few riots carried out in the following nights? Quote:
I consider anyone who acknowledges European culture (Whether you be black, white, yellow or blue) to be Australian. Whatever, keep you're dumb culture behind closed doors if you want, but out in public, you must abide by Australian culture. That's the way it should be. Quote:
Then we have VAST differences of opinion then. Since when has it been like this anyway? Since 1983? Big deal. My granddad and great-grandad I'M SURE wouldn't have fought in both world wars to uphold the beliefs of Vietnamese and Muslims. In fact, they would have been bigger bigots than Hitler. Quote:
Quit assuming, zoso. Quote:
How's about, upon arriving in Australia, tell them to leave their cultures behind and dedicate their lives to Australia? Quote:
Fair enough. We're on the level then. On the large scale however, I agree with it. Country to country, rather than community to community (Sorry if I explained that bad). Quote:
You're not very good at spotting sarcasm are ya? Quote:
Fruitloop! Whoa! I think the engineering student is getting serious now. You clearly know only the 'modern' aspects of history whilst totally ignoring all the instances of history where segration and 'culture destruction' has ended peacefully which did not lead to further violence. In an earlier post, I demonstrated about 15 or 20 examples where culture destruction has successfully worked and did not lead to further problems... yet you ignored it... choosing to indicate the popular, multiculturalism friendly 'aparteid' and 'Middle-eastern' examples. IF you had any 'real' knowledge of history, SURELY you could relate to instances where cultures have been completely destroyed through force with no consequences... but no... you continue to insist that EVERY instance throughout history it's led to more violence. This sweeping statement in itself is self-defeating... and there's no way you can prove it to be true. And using the stupid aparteid system and Israel as your CORE examples is just showing me that you only know the standard, politically correct versions of history... aka... the 'popular' ones. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Mar 27th, 2007 at 10:40pm Quote:
I wouldn't mind one bit, so long as they aren't living in Australia. Being separated by thousands of kilometres and official borders is one thing... but sharing your community with them is ridiculous, not to mention dangerous. Quote:
Building a car bomb as opposed to a jet are slightly different things, zoso. Quote:
1) I only want to get rid of the ones within western communities. It makes sense to do so. 2) People will never convert to Islam in Australia on the large scale if there isn't a large community already in existence. Muslims in Australia would be no problem if our Government didn't invite so many of them, so rapidly, at the same time, within the same area. But it's too late now, and if we don't do something about it soon (Like fireants or canetoads) the problem will grow and grow. 3) How many Australian converts are there, anyway? I've heard it's the fastest growing religion in the world, but is it really the case in Australia? Do you have statistics to prove that there's a few Australian converts? Quote:
Gee... how inspiring. Hopefully that's the final post from you so we can close this stupid thread. Good advice by the way, just cop it and if we don't, we're 'just pvssies.' 'The eternal wisdom of zoso.' ::) Let's let the problem grow folks... it's easy... all we have to do is 'do nothing.' I mean... it worked for the Jews didn't it? It worked for HIV/aids didn't it? I see you ignored the French example again btw... Whatsamatta? -Cat got your tongue? -Unsure of your own assumptions again? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Mar 28th, 2007 at 3:04am
Greek and Italian suburbs aren't much of a problem.
There was a problem when people thought they were, just as you now think Muslim communities are a problem. The only difference between them is how recently the people immigrated. For example, the Vietnamese and Islander gangs in South Brisbane. Hence, the failure of multiculturalism. One small problem such as this is not an indication of a failure of multiculturalism as a whole. 'Aussie gangs' are few and far between. The worst gangs in Australia are the bikies. They are 'aussie' gangs by any definition. After seeing white people beat up ethinics in broad daylight in large numbers, it is no surprise they form gangs for self defense. BTW, perhaps you should say white instead of Australian so as not to confuse people. Making up your own definition of aussie just makes you look ignorant of Australian culture. I'm merely trying to make a point that they are probably ten times worse at these issues than Australians are. Then you are failing to make that point. Furthermore, you are completly missing the point of this thread and making it just like a dozen other threads on this forum. The member who started this thread acknowledged there was a problem from the beginning. It actually supports my position that Muslims isolate themselves, form their own communities within communities and then have the nerve to wonder why they aren't being treated as equals, going on a month-long riot. So do asians and any other group that is made to feel unwelcome. SURELY it's not our fault. It's not possible to put fault on any one group. A major contributor to this problem is people's tendency to oversimplify it. And no... it's not an Australian cultural trait to 'rape.' Neither is it a Muslim thing. Oh okay. So you don't acknowledge that this so-called 'riot' wasn't triggered by Muslims in the first place? Again, you cannot hope to resolve anything by looking for a single cause. Forget 'who started it.' If white people start looking for excuses to go round beating up ethinics, they are the problem, not the ethnics. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 28th, 2007 at 10:09am ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 10:40pm:
Glad to see you are capable of keeping up Trump... ::) I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE to what you have claimed me to say right here. I said: if there is a problem, get out and speak up about it. I explicitly DID NOT say sit on your ass and wait for it to go away. Your butcher for example obviously feels that the minority he is pandering to is the most vocal... so get out and change that. I never said a thing about 'just cop it' I said DON'T COP IT... if you DO sit there and cop it (as you appear to be) then yes, you are a pvssy who only wants to complain... are you with me? Good to see university has helped your reading skills... ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 27th, 2007 at 10:40pm:
Aye, that I did, I am not clued up enough on the topic to make my point, and I am not about to go out and research it with many other things on my plate. Strike one up for you if you like but it was off topic to begin with, in fact almost every post from you in this thread has been off topic, bar one. Freediver is correct, you have taken what was initially me admitting there is a problem and asking how we should deal with it and turned it into you whingeing about multiculturalism again. If you have nothing more to say Trump, piss off and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. If you do have some contributions relevant to the topic please, speak up. And don't take this as victory because I left your mindless drivel unanswered... I could ago on forever in that pointless debate, but this is about what can be done to remedy these issues, not talking about the issues in the first place. I have said my piece: speak up and don't let our culture be changed, other than that I'd like to hear different perspectives. And look here you appear to agree with me: Quote:
And Australian culture permits people to walk around head to toe in black with a veil if they wish, it permits people to wear whatever we like and worship whatever we like. I completely agree however that your butcher should not be changing his menu and we should not be allowing women to have license photos taken under the veil, hindu dudes not having to wear motor bike helmets because of their head thing etc and so on. All that sh!t is wrong, with me?. Just don't sit back and expect the government to protect these things for you, get out and speak up about it, get out and get all your mates to speak up about it - just don't go cronulla style on us because as we saw, and you pointed out (retaliation attacks), that sort of mindless violent rioting only increases the problems tenfold. Nonviolent resistance Trump... the point is to resist these things that are upsetting you in a way that does not escalate tensions. An easy first step - go out and tell your butcher that you are culturally offended by his decision, then write to your council and find out why Christmas lights were banned, and say you are culturally offended by this, encourage your neighbours to do the same... now THAT would be doing the right thing. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Mar 28th, 2007 at 11:00am
It was probably people like Aussie Nat who got the lights banned. People who are antagonistic towards all religion and don't like seeing money wasted on the festive season.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Mar 30th, 2007 at 8:52pm zoso wrote on Mar 26th, 2007 at 7:01pm:
Don't go saying things like: Quote:
Which implies your religion tells you what is right and thus us godless folk don't know what that is. I always come across this with religious types: "I'm not arrogant or anything its just that my beliefs make me better than you". Sorry dude, I'm not meaning to be horrible to you or anything and I don't think you said the wrong thing (quite the opposite), just that the way in which you said that might have confirmed what AN was talking about, even if it wasn't your intention. Oh and don't let AN get your back up... he means to do that ;) [/quote] sorry to go off topic but.. I would not be a Christian if my religion was not "right".... I personally never once said i was better than you because i knew what was right, in fact the statement "I'm not arrogant or anything its just that my beliefs make me better than you" is merely stereotype, much the same as the "bushman australian" or the "dumb Irish". I find it irritating when people claim that christians are arrogent and think we are better, when you yourself say such condescending sterotypes in reference to myself without readig properly what i said. If you had read what i said i actually pointed out me "knowing what is right" makes me less of a person not more as I still do so much wrong. Knowing what is right does not make me superor arrogant, it just shows you have been taught and were lucky enough to listen. could i be a christian if i did not believe i was right? the whole point of our religion is the belief in God etc, if i did not believe it was fully true and right then i would not believe in God and thus not be a Christian :) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Mar 31st, 2007 at 5:16pm
pender I wasn't having a go at you :)
If you want my opinion (and you probably don't) nobody can claim they are not arrogant if they do not question their own beliefs, myself included. You saying this: "I would not be a Christian if my religion was not "right"...." is arrogant as far as I'm concerned. How on earth do you know you are right and other beliefs are wrong? That is the definition of arrogance as far as I'm concerned. Don't be ashamed of it, its not a bad, I was just trying to point out to you that it is this attitude that upsets people... because telling somebody who doesn't believe the christian religion is 'right' that it in fact is 'right' implies that you think your belief structure is superior to theirs. This tends to upset people and it is the one simple thing that christians never seem to get their heads around. You may be right mate just keep it to yourself and acknowledge that it is a personal 'right', not a universal one... then we all get along... |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 1st, 2007 at 9:07pm
defention of arrogance : Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
I love to hear your oppinion. My beliefs are superior, but i am not. I do not believe i am worth more or am more important than any other person. I suppose you believe that there is no superior belief over any other? what about the belief that there are superior beliefs, is that incorrect? You see the contradiction. I believe there is right and wrong, therefore some beliefs must be suprior, much the same as the sky is blue whether or not poeple believe it is. I have no problem with offending anyone, i dont think there is anything wrong with offending poeple, so i will continue to do so, in order to further my cause. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 2nd, 2007 at 9:30am Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 1st, 2007 at 9:07pm:
Number one: Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 1st, 2007 at 9:07pm:
Number two: Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 1st, 2007 at 9:07pm:
Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 1st, 2007 at 9:07pm:
Yes, there is no such thing as right and wrong and you cannot compare the existence of right and wrong to the fact that the sky is blue. Right and wrong moral values are human constructs that have no real place in nature outside our own little human world, all that matters in the real world is survival, but that is a rather cold position for a person to take, and it is not my point. My point is that YOU are in no position to claim that YOUR belief system is superior to another persons belief system, to think that you are is the definition of arrogance as you so kindly provided. It is not about whether there are belief systems that are better than others, or which ones are right and wrong (if there is such a thing), it is about the fact that YOU would not have the gall to claim your particular belief system is superior to others unless you were an arrogant person... simple. It is a matter of modesty, I thought a true believer in god is constantly questioning his beliefs? You cannot be questioning your beliefs very much if you go around telling people they are wrong and you are right. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 3rd, 2007 at 9:12pm
believing that Christianity, and thus GOD is superior and the only right religious belief does not make myself any more or less important than any body else. I do not pretend to be better than the next person but consider myself lucky to have encountered God. I know what is Right and Wrong from this.
Your post modernist ideals of no right and wrong and no absolute truth are a new phase to the world and will pass in time. Besides you did no answer my question earlier. If every belief is equal what then of the belief that not every belief is equal? Is that belief also equal? You would refer to yourself as modest in that you do not believe your beliefs are superior, yet you determine there is definatly no one right or one wrong. By saying this you are saying that my belief where there is one right and one wrong is in fact incorrect. Thus you yourself claim superiority in beliefs. Absolute right and wrong are fundamental to my sprirtual beliefs and you have claimed that this belief is wrong, while your belief in no right and wrong is right. Your beliefs contradict themselves by the way. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 4th, 2007 at 7:34am
Oh please pender, please just realise that I am not attacking your faith, I am trying to help you to get along with people of different or no faith. Christians have been rubbing people up the wrong way on this board, don't you want to know how to stop that from happening?
Your question? Quote:
Yes, of course it is. I thought you might have picked up on the fact that I answered this already through implication. Quote:
No I believe personally that there is no absolute right or wrong, of course there is a *relative* right and wrong but that comes down to personal beliefs for each individual, I would not go so far as to say that you are in fact wrong (in relative terms) and thus inferior by believing otherwise. All things equal remember? To me, in my frame of reference if you will, you are wrong, superiority and inferiority are not implied by that statement, only my opinion, to you, you are right and I respect that. Expressing that I think your belief structure is missing the mark yet remains equal to mine does not mean I think I am superior to you. I may think you are wrong but I maintain that even if you are wrong that your right to believe what you will is equal to mine, in the end I always maintain the belief that I may be wrong, to me this is the only way to learn and grow as a person. So you see pender, no contradiction, you are still assuming that right and wrong imply superiority and inferiority, this is simply not the case. I am trying to tell you that so long as you go around spouting this to people around you, you are going to encounter tension with others thinking you are an arrogant christian for not accepting that there might be another relevant world view. Just accept that you *may* be wrong, and that others just *might* be right, in RELATIVE terms. Do you get that? You are right, yes, inside your little head you are right, but trying to transpose your beliefs onto another person, that whole definition of right and wrong changes, you know? people are all different, I mean dam dude even christians vary in their interpretations and beliefs! You have to accept that if you encounter a christian that has a slightly different belief than yours, their belief is not inferior because of that now is it? Nobody has true conviction in their beliefs if they cannot question them from time to time. If you assume you are correct, and don't even know of alternatives (and you cannot without first assuming you may be wrong) then how on earth can you be sure you are correct? I am trying to help you to understand non christians and prevent you from getting them upset through this insensitivity that many christians (and other hard line believers) seem to possess. These things I talk about apply to people of other faiths as well as those with none. My point is to have respect for all belief structures and stop saying yours is superior. Its really simple pender, just stop saying your belief is superior and everyone gets along. I am trying to show you some diplomacy, don't alter your beliefs, just alter your language when talking with others. Why is that hard? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 4th, 2007 at 10:54am
My point is that YOU are in no position to claim that YOUR belief system is superior to another persons belief system, to think that you are is the definition of arrogance as you so kindly provided.
It sounds to me like you are deliberately creating ambiguity around two different terms in order to equate them. Faith and arrogance are not the same thing. It is not about whether there are belief systems that are better than others, or which ones are right and wrong (if there is such a thing), it is about the fact that YOU would not have the gall to claim your particular belief system is superior to others unless you were an arrogant person... simple. It goes without saying that if you you claim something is right then that is only your opinion. There is no need to preface everything with 'I believe...' in order to avoid being labelled arrogant. I thought a true believer in god is constantly questioning his beliefs? You can define 'true believer' any way you want, but that is not part of any doctrine I am familiar with. It may be part of some 'eastern' philosophies. Christians have been rubbing people up the wrong way on this board, don't you want to know how to stop that from happening? I see it differently. I see people who are antagonistic towards organised religion being overly sensitive towards what are obviously no more than simple statements of belief. to you, you are right and I respect that Then why are you nitpicking his statements. This seems to be heading towards necessitating disclaimers on all personal opinions. So you see pender, no contradiction, you are still assuming that right and wrong imply superiority and inferiority, this is simply not the case. You don't think that being right is superior to being wrong? Just accept that you *may* be wrong, and that others just *might* be right, in RELATIVE terms. This sounds to me like you are disrespecting his faith. If you claim to be respectful of other faiths, does that not include accepting the nature of faith? If you assume you are correct, and don't even know of alternatives (and you cannot without first assuming you may be wrong) then how on earth can you be sure you are correct? That's what faith is all about. It is not derived from logic. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 4th, 2007 at 11:55am
Feediver this is not about what a person believes or disbelieves, this is about how you communicate that to others. Sure I've gone too far in the other direction but I have been trying to point out to pender what it is like on the other side of the fence.
Quote:
Of course they aren't, but my point is the way in which you communicate your faith to others will determine how they view you, if you don't want people to think you are arrogant, then you must voice your beliefs in a way that shows respect for theirs. Quote:
This point seems to be lost on the hard line christians in my opinion... sorry hard line anything to be fair. And yes sometimes you do have to preface certain things with "I believe" if you want to communicate without upsetting each other, PARTICULARLY when it comes to faith based statements. Quote:
Fair enough if that is what you believe, but I have known many christians who think that questioning their beliefs is an important part of understanding them. I think this is true for anything. Quote:
Bible quotes? Spurious statements about what beliefs are right wrong and superior? You seem to be missing my point here freediver, I am trying to explain WHY people are getting so upset by this and WHY people get so upset about this stuff in general. It seems funny to me that some christians are STILL missing the point... Quote:
No I am trying to demonstrate to him, or anyone, how certain ways of communicating your beliefs can upset people who have differing beliefs. When it comes to contentious beliefs then yes it often is necessary to qualify statements if you don't want to cause tensions. Quote:
Not at all. Somebodies right is another persons wrong, what makes either one superior outside of each respective personal frame of existence? To quote good old cap'n Jack ;) : 'all that matters is what a man can do, and what a man can't do'. But hey this is just MY belief, go right ahead and disagree with me, just respect it if you respect me as an individual... this is what I am getting at. Quote:
Why? I am trying to point out that in relative terms, ie inside another persons point of view, he may indeed be wrong according to that other persons point of view. Exactly what is wrong with simply accepting that other people will view your beliefs differently? Isn't pender's entire argument that his point of view says that myself and others are wrong for being agnostic? This is my entire point right here: if you want others to accept your point of view as relevant, you must first accept their point of view as relevant, from whatever relative position (ie: you believe what you want, I believe what I want). Quote:
And yet still I have met many christians who believe that questioning their own faith is an important part of having that faith and strengthening it. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am
Feediver this is not about what a person believes or disbelieves, this is about how you communicate that to others.
Didn't I acknowledge this when I brought up the issue of putting a disclaimer on your claims? And yes sometimes you do have to preface certain things with "I believe" if you want to communicate without upsetting each other, PARTICULARLY when it comes to faith based statements. Well, this is the crux of the matter. That is only necessary to aviod confusion. For example if people are likely to confuse a claim based on faith with a point of law, then it would be a good idea to be specific, but given the context that is not usually necessary. I am trying to explain WHY people are getting so upset by this and WHY people get so upset about this stuff in general. You are going further than that. You are implying that someone else is responsible for your reactions to their statements. People always react badly to what are legitimate and reasonable statements, especially on online forums. You are claiming that he should stop making the statements, rather than acknowledging your responsibility to control your reaction. If you think I have this backwards, please quote something that you think was not appropriate and give a link to it. Exactly what is wrong with simply accepting that other people will view your beliefs differently? Sharing your faith is part of many people's faith. If you understood his faith, you would understand his desire to share it with you. Isn't pender's entire argument that his point of view says that myself and others are wrong for being agnostic? I think you are getting it now. The next step is to accept that he views your beliefs differently. if you want others to accept your point of view as relevant, you must first accept their point of view as relevant I don't think his goal is to get you to accpet his views as being relevant. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 5th, 2007 at 9:00am freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am:
True. However many agnostics take issue with christians using the open forum to push their ideas. I don't go round stopping people in the street to tell them there is no god, ordinarily (without provocation) I wouldn't be talking about my beliefs toward christianity or faith on this forum either. This thread (if you've noticed) is a fairly isolated case of me pushing my non-christian views and I have never set out to discuss why there is no god or push MY personal spirituality on to people here. Why? If I did people would think I'm a nut and it is entirely NOT RELEVANT... funny that christians get away with it? freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am:
So does the same apply for everyone's reaction to Hilali? Its all their fault for getting upset not Hilali's? Remeber, all things equal... to me, the christian agenda is as provocative as Hilali's BS, so when is it fair to take issue with what someone pushes on you and when is it not? PARTICULARLY on a forum devoted to debate?? Now if you haven't noticed I am not one of the people who has been complaining fiercely about the christian presence, apart from a couple of spots where I dished out a bit of sarcasm (in good faith) I am not until now getting up about it. Only in this thread have I been trying to be a sort of mediator between the christians and everyone else by explaining what gets peoples backs up. I swear if an atheist or agnostic person, or Muslim Hindu or Jew for that matter went around to a bunch of christians carrying on saying there is no god, or that they have superior views, in every conversation the christians were having about their christian stuff, the christians would react in exactly the same way, probably worse... the thing is atheists don't tend to do this... You don't even need to isolate the group to christians, take any group of people of mixed faith and no faith, walk up to them and start telling some of them that you have superior views, but hey its all OK because its just your 'faith' to have superior views, you are going to upset them... it is simple! If you DON'T want to upset them, you chose not to voice certain things in the name of diplomacy... freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am:
Sure it is... when someone asks. With christians it tends to get beyond 'sharing' and into the realm of marketing. I get so many christian views shoved down my throat all the time, they knock on my door, they preach at the local uni, they preach in public places where nobody asked, they have advertisements on the bloody TV (tell me thats just 'sharing'?), and they preach here on this website. This is not sharing in good faith, this is pushing an agenda. freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am:
I always got it, I know pender views my beliefs differently, I am trying to explain why he should to stop telling everyone his beliefs are superior. I don't even care if he thinks otherwise, but he says it in the public forum, gets burned for saying it (rightly) and then doesn't understand what he did wrong, thinking it he is innocent because of his good and pure faith. Well the thing it has nothing to do with faith, it is about not going around telling people you have superior views to them. Its called diplomacy. If you ARE going to tell people your views are superior, at least accept that your arrogance is responsible for upsetting them, at the very least! freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 7:26am:
I never said it was, but I do accept his views as relevant... What I do not accept is that carrying on about the superiority of your opinions is all good and pure because you are christian. BS I say! Christian or no, you tell someone your beliefs are superior to theirs and you are guilty if they get upset about it, no two ways about it. I am prepared to wear this charge when I upset people during arguments, as anyone should, just don't use faith as an excuse to wash your hands of diplomacy. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 5th, 2007 at 9:14am
I don't go round stopping people in the street to tell them there is no god, ordinarily (without provocation)
Plenty of people announce their views in public places. It doesn't annoy people. So does the same apply for everyone's reaction to Hilali? Sure, if people get all bitter and twisted about it, they are responsible for making their own lives a misery. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 5th, 2007 at 9:21am freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 9:14am:
I'm telling you it annoys me? I'm telling you I know many people who get very annoyed by this. freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 9:14am:
Now that has to be argument for arguments sake? If Hilali thinks he is not responsible for upsetting people with differing views he is kidding himself, absolute lack of diplomacy coming from that man. Are you trying to tell me that diplomacy is not relevant? that the onus falls on the individual to not take offence to offensive language? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 5th, 2007 at 11:52am
It depends on whether the feeling of offense is justified or not. So far your argument seems to rest on the fact that people took offense, not that the behaviour was inherently offensive.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 5th, 2007 at 3:07pm freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2007 at 11:52am:
No, I am trying to point out why it is inherently offensive to tell somebody you have superior views to them because of your faith... are you even reading what I wrote? What is not justified about taking offence when someone comes and tells you your views amount to sh!t because you don't believe in the same stupid little book that they do? Is it not offensive for me to prance into a church and begin telling people that there is no god? I will repeat myself to make it clearer if you need me to: Quote:
What on earth is not justified about taking offence to having religious views shoved down my throat everywhere I turn. I am sorry freediver but when some idiot tells me their views are superior to mine because they are absolutely 'right' only because their 'faith' tells them they are, coupled with the fact that I get christian BS forced on me at every turn, yes I get smacking offended alright? I find it offensive the christians use 'sharing the faith' as an excuse for sympathy in their blatant advertising persuits, I take offense when christians infiltrate our secular political process and work to prevent personal freedoms and hamper scientific advances. Can you not see that a good many others on this board are getting offended as well?? Just because you sympathise with the christians, doesn't mean people are not offended by this sh!t. I have not set out to make any particular comments about the the inherent superiority of my views due to my faith, I would not do such a blatantly arrogant thing because it would seriously offend people. I would thank those of different faith to extend the same respect to me, unless of course they are happy to offend others by pushing their views. Just accept that people do not like being told that their views are inferior, based on some sh!t they don't believe, just accept that the behaviour of fundie christians upsets and offends many people, whether you agree with those peoples reasons or not. I disagree that there should be so much animosity towards muslims, but I fully accept that people are offended by their comments and actions. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 5th, 2007 at 5:22pm
hmmm
Firstly christians are always "ramming their faith" down your throat because they feel obliged to, for your well being. Christianity teaches that whether or not you believe in God he still exists, and that it is imperative for your sake that you have a relationship with god, so to give you the opportunity to embrace eternal life. The bible itself commands all christians to go to all the places on earth and preach the good news, not for our own sakes but for all those who do not know it. I am not trying to ridicule or tell you how i am better than you, i just would like you to know what ive found because i think if you embraced it you would not only live a life of fulfillment beyond your wildest dreams, but also receive all the benefits of an eternal life in paradise. Personally Zozo i dont like telling anybody how they should live their lives, but I am obliged to. Oh and causing people offense isn’t always a bad thing, it can often have good outcomes |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 5th, 2007 at 5:53pm
Well pender, right now I don't know whether to laugh at you or to take pity on you.
Quote:
Might I suggest, for YOUR well being, you stay the hell away from me when peddling your beliefs, I have one d@mn big dog that keeps the faith peddlers away from my door, take note if you ever swing by. Man I hate salesmen. Quote:
I know what you have 'found' and its a godd@mn lie, a load of tripe and I am absolutely not interested, never will be, don't bother, give up now. This is an utterly offensive position for you to take. I already live a life of fulfilment beyond YOUR wildest dreams, one that is not constrained by an externally imposed set of values that I had no part in defining. I am free, you are the one who is constrained... Quote:
Except that you are simply offending people and achieving nothing...if you don't like pushing your agenda down peoples throats, don't bloody do it! I have known a good many christians that do not feel they need to impose their beliefs on everything around them in order to have their faith, take note! So we are clear then. You don't give a d@mn about offending others, so long as you can peddle your wares? Nice religion you have there pender, real nice. This is it, christians just do not get it do they? utterly incapable of getting it through their manipulated heads? How would you react pender if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak? How would you like me coming into your church and preaching paragraphs from the god delusion? How would you like me knocking on your door and trying to push godlessness or devil worship on you and your family? This is just an absolute load of BS, as always when talking to ignorant christians. This is all it comes down to, after all this you simply acknowledge that you are willing to offend others simply to push your agenda, and yet no doubt you would cry bloody murder when the tables are turned (*cough* Muslims *cough*). As always, hypocritical sh!t. But no pender, thank you for admitting to the true nature of your pyramid scheme, sorry faith...thank you indeed for the insight. Have your fairytale pender, just keep it the hell away from me. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 5th, 2007 at 6:14pm
:D
You seem to have no problem pushing your own agenda in every post you make. A constant post modern humanistic theme can be found in everything you say, yet you do not see me jumping up and down telling you to get the hell away from me. I already live a life of fulfilment beyond YOUR wildest dreams, one that is not constrained by an externally imposed set of values that I had no part in defining. Interesting being the god of your own religion isn’t it, you can shape everything around yourself, after all you are the height of all wisdom and knowledge. Those Christians that follow a supreme all knowing being and shape their values around that, are foolish arnt they? I mean they are encouraged to not only think of themselves through their values but everyone else. And are encouraged to actively seek the betterment of every person. We would all be much better off if everyone had self invented values, we would then create a society of obsessed people, who encourage “what ever tickles your fancy as long as it doesn’t affect me” and “I do what I want”. Pride comes before the fall. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:05am
No, I am trying to point out why it is inherently offensive to tell somebody you have superior views to them because of your faith... are you even reading what I wrote?
Yes I am reading. Don't assume people don't understand just because they disagree. What is not justified about taking offence when someone comes and tells you your views amount to sh!t because you don't believe in the same stupid little book that they do? Is that what he said? Is it not offensive for me to prance into a church and begin telling people that there is no god? Not sure about that one. They would have every right to boot you out, but they would be more likely to try to help you. What on earth is not justified about taking offence to having religious views shoved down my throat everywhere I turn. Is that really what is happening? I take offense when christians infiltrate our secular political process and work to prevent personal freedoms and hamper scientific advances. That's what democracy is all about. It's not that they want to undermine your values, it's just that they have slightly different priorities. There is nothing wrong with people letting their religion influence how they engage in politics. Can you not see that a good many others on this board are getting offended as well? I can see that it bothers a few people. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:53am freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:05am:
There you go patronising again... That is fine freediver, except that you completely misrepresented what I have been saying, you didn't disagree with what I was saying, you disagreed with something that I have not been saying, a straw man if you will. The only way I figure you could have got it so wrong was that you simply weren't reading. Quote:
Through implication, I believe so. That is more or less how I feel about constant pressure from religious nuts. Ofcourse no christian is going to put it this way but yes that is about what penders comments amount to. Quote:
No doubt they would, but to think that nobody would be offended you are kidding yourself. Quote:
More or less. Its most likely this easter pagan holiday that the christians think they created... but none the less, christians are relentless in shoving their unwanted views down everyone's throats. They think its all fine and good because its just their faith, but it amounts to and absolute intrusion of privacy and religious freedoms in my book. Ever noticed the christians are most often among the biggest complainers when it comes to Islam? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Quote:
There is also an important separation of church and state in the westminster system , so while religious views may influence individuals, church representatives have no place in parliment. Quote:
You think?? Why wont the smacking christians just LEAVE everyone ALONE? if they had respect for my privacy and beliefs in the first place we wouldn't be here talking about this. Christians are just about the most arrogant, intrusive and pushy religious nuts on the planet, second only to perhaps hari crishnas. Just because they disguise it in a thin veil of polite cheeryness does not make it any less rude and intrusive when they shovel their BS onto all of us. Goddamn, THIS is why I never should open my mouth in regards to christian issues. You cannot reason with these freaks. Your faith is in decline chumps, enjoy your final days while they last... PS. Pender, I only started pushing my views onto you when I could see clearly that you simply defy reason and wish only to go around pushing your views at any cost, upon seeing red at your pure arrogance, I could not help myself. Read through anything else I have written outside of this thread and I generally am not interested in pushing people towards any religious belief structure. I have my own brand of faith thank you, and I would never think to shove it onto another individual, generally I would think people would be kind enough to extend me the same respect, but when you demonstrated clearly you are not interested in that, everything went out the window... you see how much peace and love your views bring?? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:28pm
I have no probelem with you being offended if i call your beliefs wrong, in fact i think that would be natural reaction although i would expect you to also give my point due consideration as i have given yours.
i explained at length why christians dont leave poeple alone. anyway religious discussion rarely amounts to anything other than fights when people of the subject beliefs are involved. I also agree that Church and state should be separate, you wont see me supporting any current bishops or cardinals into government. Christiniaty and even fundamentalism deserves representation in the government if the recieve enough support. interestingly it is not my views but your reaction to them that have brought no peace and love to this thread. I have not reacted in such a way to your views, even when they were imposed, perhaps the violence in the conversation then is a fault of your views not my own. anyway i'm done on this one, nice chatting. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:32pm Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:28pm:
Where have I missed this point? I get it pender, I find it profoundly disturbing. Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:28pm:
So why is it again that you insist on being so pushy about your faith? You seem to be aware that it is both rude and intrusive, and now you acknowledge that it more or less only causes argument? What about some of those other christian values like love thy neighbour (ie: respect my sh!t)? Why is it that the 'desire to share my amazing gift' comes above all other christian values that would tell you to respect others and not peddle your wares? Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:28pm:
Good :) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 6th, 2007 at 1:35pm Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 12:28pm:
I have given christio-fascism all the time and consideration it will ever need in my universe and have thoroughly dismissed it. You chumps had your chance. I am not pushing my beliefs onto you, I haven't even once on this board MENTIONED my spiritual beliefs. I merely ask that if you are a sincere and respectful individual that you refrain from telling me that my beliefs are wrong and yours are superior. Just keep it in your pants you freak! Clearly you are simply a rude and disrespectful individual who utterly refuses to show respect for those around him by refraining from pushing your views onto others. This is your wonderful and beautiful faith? To be pushy and domineering, to go around telling the world that they are wrong and you are right at all costs? You really DON'T think there are aspects of your religion that deserve to be held in higher regard than the desire to spread your views from one corner of the globe to the other? Isn't it a chrisitan ideal to have respect for others???????????????????? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by pender on Apr 6th, 2007 at 8:20pm
you have pushed your beliefs onto me, youve told me that there is no right or wrong and i am in no position to say that their is such? How is this not being pushy?
You are a disturbed person, you need to sort out some issues, and i will leave you to it. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 7th, 2007 at 12:40am
I know what you have 'found' and its a godd@mn lie, a load of tripe
Zoso it sounds to me like it is you who is ridiculing other's beliefs, not the other way around. Through implication, I believe so. In other words he didn't actually say it. A strawman if you will... That is more or less how I feel about constant pressure from religious nuts. I get the impression that you are reaction to multiple people, not all of whom are on this forum. Right? christians are relentless in shoving their unwanted views down everyone's throats No they aren't. I barely even notice it. They think its all fine and good because its just their faith, but it amounts to and absolute intrusion of privacy and religious freedoms in my book. What about in reality? Are they really invading your privacy? Ever noticed the christians are most often among the biggest complainers when it comes to Islam? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Actually I believe it was AN, who is antagonistic towards all organised religion. I hadn't really come across any serious anti muslim stuff till I started this forum. There is also an important separation of church and state in the westminster system , so while religious views may influence individuals, church representatives have no place in parliment. Not an institutionalised place. If they were elected they would have a valid place. Why wont the smacking christians just LEAVE everyone ALONE? They do. Christians are just about the most arrogant, intrusive and pushy religious nuts on the planet, second only to perhaps hari crishnas. Oh dear, the hari chrisna's now. They really bother you? Is it because they are so happy? Zoso your statements about Christianity (and the hari chrisnas) are far more antagonistic than any statements I have seen here from them. You are still focussing on your reactions to them, not on what they actually do. If you started giving specific examples, rather than your interpretations of their intentions, I might be more inclined to agree with you. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 7th, 2007 at 1:43pm Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 8:20pm:
Those are not religious beliefs, they are simply points of respect that one must accept if one is to ever get along with those around them. Clearly you are not interested in achieving harmony with your non christian neighbours? Classic Liberal wrote on Apr 6th, 2007 at 8:20pm:
Right, now the fact that I am not christian and do not want christian beliefs forced onto me at every turn means I am not only inferior but I am now disturbed...good one mate. Again, really nice religion you have there, really peaceful and friendly, I can see these views you hold will always allow you to live peacefully with those around you. ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 7th, 2007 at 1:58pm freediver wrote on Apr 7th, 2007 at 12:40am:
Only once I lost my temper, and I fulyl accept that what I said was arrogant. My original point still stands and has not been refuted, in fact pender just accepted that it is acceptable for him to upset people in the name of 'sharing' his faith. Quote:
Not even close. Quote:
Insightful freediver, how very insightful of you... Quote:
Because you are clearly in defence of this offensive behaviour. Quote:
Yes. Quote:
'Among those' pender is right up there with AN Quote:
No. Quote:
They do not, or else I wouldn't even be on this topic... you have blinkers on freediver Quote:
Again... if theydidn't shove their religious beliefs down my throat, I wouldn't have a problem, that and the chrishnas are hypocrites and scammers just as christians are. Quote:
Only since I lost my temper at penders and your own utter ignorance. If christians are not overbearing, intrusive and pushy, I have no problem, when they force their views on everyone around them in the name of 'sharing the faith', at the expense of upsetting people, as pender confessed he is willing to do, I have a problem, I have a real big problem with that, I have a problem with ANY reliogous person imposing their views on my personal space, it is intrusive and arrogant and pisses me the bugger off. I don't even need to continue here, pender agreed with me and proved my original point, that he is willing to upset people to push his views around, I won this argument the second he said that. If you read back the whole point of everything I have saidhere was that I was trying to show pender that if he communicates in a particular way, he is going to upset people, after much carry on, he simply admitted he is willing to do that just to 'share' his faith. There is nothing more for me to say, except to dish out what I cop, and happily wear the title of arrogant asshole who only wants to piss off christians, you see there I am honest, christians do this and think they are all good and pure for doing so... |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sense(Guest) on Apr 7th, 2007 at 10:39pm
zozo has a point. This thread is surrounded by Google ads from religious maniacs trying to sell religion. None of the adverts here are from atheists trying to put their viewpoint. But things are changing. Dawkins has done a great job with his "The God Delusion" and Sam Harris has done a much more concise and effective job with his "Letter to a Christian Nation". Richard Dawkin's website is superb.
Christians are defenceless when it comes to dealing with the Islamic threat. Its just another religion - all based on fairy tales for the purposes of controlling the masses. Grow up. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 8th, 2007 at 4:38am
Those are not religious beliefs, they are simply points of respect that one must accept if one is to ever get along with those around them.
That is, pretty much the same thing. Whether a view is religious or 'from the mind of man' should not change the conventions that guide us as to what circumstances are appropriate for sharing those views. That is religious descrimination. You are basically saying that athiests can criticise religious people, but not vice versa. It is religious discrimination. That appears to be what your entire argument is based on. My original point still stands and has not been refuted, in fact pender just accepted that it is acceptable for him to upset people in the name of 'sharing' his faith. Sure it is. I upset people all the time with my views on marine parks, evolution, green tax shifts etc. I always come across people who insist that I must be doing something wrong because people react so badly to what I say. Because you are clearly in defence of this offensive behaviour. What offensive behaviour? I don't think you have even quoted anyone. Most of my disagreement with you stems from the absence of any evidence to back up your claims. I appears that you are just angry at the world, or at religious people in particular, and are projecting some kind of persecution complex onto your interactions here. Are you arguing that candidates for election should not have the freedom to associate with religious groups? Only since I lost my temper at penders and your own utter ignorance. If you think I am ignorant, inform me. Give some real examples. Christians are defenceless when it comes to dealing with the Islamic threat. No they aren't. If anything there is a real risk of Christians over-reacting. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 11th, 2007 at 2:50pm
Exactly what evidence is necessary freediver? and where have I failed to provide it? Do you need a re-cap of this whole argument to make things clear??
To begin (forgetting that we started on muslims), AN called pender a nut then claimed religious fanatics are trouble, sprint jumped in with a bible quote, then pender (and here is where it begins) responds with this beauty: Quote:
Which up until the final paragraph I was finding quite agreeable, all good stuff. At this point I simply said to pender: Quote:
Don't go saying things like: Quote:
Which implies your religion tells you what is right and thus us godless folk don't know what that is. I always come across this with religious types: "I'm not arrogant or anything its just that my beliefs make me better than you". [/quote] I used examples from penders comments from the beginning. The conversation quickly grew out of control as pender insisted that his views do not make him arrogant and that he is not superior, only his views are, to which I replied you cannot have that cake and eat it...chump. Soon I was debating whether thinking your views are superior makes you arrogant and whether or not it is more important to 'share' your views or avoid upsetting people. We were getting nowhere until pender came out with this wonderful little bit: Quote:
Which sounds a lot like pender is happy to ram his beliefs down everyone throat and that upsetting people in the process is forgivable for the ultimate goal of spreading the 'good word'. This made me rather upset, since pender had been saying things that I thought were encouraging, and so I lost my temper and spat the dummy at the christians. Things I have claimed that might need evidence? That Christians ram their sh!t down my throat at every turn? They knock on my door invading my privacy with their nonsense, when a cable TV salesman knocks on my door I consider it an invasion of my privacy a it is for anyone who does this. What more evidence do I need to provide? Christians have advertisements on the tellie, proving they are willing to go to any length to push their ideas onto others. What more evidence do I need to provide that they use TV advertising? They preach at my local university in public areas upsetting more or less everyone present, certainly everyone near me is upset by this, do you want more evidence that they actually do this? I, like all Australians, was forced to endure Christian doctrine at regular intervals in every single year of my schooling, I know the message, I know the morals, I am not interested, why do Christians keep trying to change my beliefs and refuse to respect that I disagree with them? Apart from losing my temper here I do not go out of my way to change the way Christians view the world, why can they not extend the same respect to me? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 11th, 2007 at 3:58pm
My feelings on this topic, and on the topic of separation of church and state are put into words almost perfectly by this quote from US senator Barack Obama: (source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5456752353400414374)
Quote:
This is absolutely what I believe this conversation comes down to. You are both trying to equate my secular belief (that in order to exist harmoniously with non religious neighbors, or neighbors of a different faith, you must respect their beliefs) with your faith based belief. They are not the same, I can back up my belief with reason, you can only back up your belief with faith. We live in a secular society and we must all respect secular values as the mutual common ground that we use to achieve harmony with others, and indeed these are the values which grant freedoms of religious expression. Note that I challenge the notion that simply attempting to change a persons faith to meet your own standard is not a religious freedom of expression, it is a disrespectful intrusion of a persons freedoms. Obama then says in regards to the political process: Quote:
This is what it all comes down to, in a secular society where anybody is free to follow any faith we must be able to communicate with each other in terms that everyone can relate to if there is to be social cohesion. You cannot relate faith based principles to secular principles and be on the same footing, they are not the same, they do not equate. And so in conclusion, it is not a good idea for pender to publicly decry that his views are superior, using only faith based evidence instead of proof and reason, if he is interested in keeping any sort of peace and having a defensible position when people challenge him as arrogant. Here freediver is the clear distinction between the way in which you upset people (through reasoned argument based in proof), and the way in which pender is upsetting people (through assumptions of faith). Freediver for the record I agree here with everything Obama has said, yes christians are free to be part of the political process, it is not however justifiable to push politics (or science for that matter) in terms of faith based arguments. By extension from this principle I believe it is not sufficient for religious followers to defend rude behaviour or intrusive behaviour on the grounds of faith based arguments. It is my personal belief that the methods through which we achieve social harmony and social cohesion must be 'amenable to proof', as Obama so eloquently put it, if they are to be considered valid. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sense(Guest) on Apr 11th, 2007 at 5:34pm
Zoso - I'm with you on all that.
Cheers |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 13th, 2007 at 4:24am
Note that I challenge the notion that simply attempting to change a persons faith to meet your own standard is not a religious freedom of expression, it is a disrespectful intrusion of a persons freedoms.
I strongly disagree with this. See the other thread I just started. It is always a matter of freedom. Whether it is disrespectful is very open to interpretation and depends on how it is done. Furthermore, respect is a very grey area when it comes to law or any other type of policy. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 13th, 2007 at 1:36pm freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2007 at 4:24am:
Telling me about your religion is freedom of expression. Using your story to try to convice me your religion is what I should follow is also freedom of expression. Making attempts to change my world view using anything other than reasoned argument is not freedom of expression. By this I mean derision, insult, aggression, humiliation, passing laws based on arguments of faith etc. Quote:
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying ::) without at least ATTEMPTING to understand the other person you will always be at a loss as to what they react to and how... The way in which pender was going about it is simply disrespectful, the way in which sprint approaches it however is fine, there is a clear distinction between the two approaches. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by talkingtothemoon on Apr 16th, 2007 at 11:24pm
My 2 cents on the Muslim problem ...
* Stop Muslim immigration INTEGRATION * Visual integration (get rid of all the "marks of separation" that reinforce the march of Islam i.e. headscarfs, veils, Muslim beards, bedsheet couture, mosque architecture). We need to relegate Islam to the status of other religions i.e. an invisible personal faith. With an invisible and ill-defined community, the jihadists will have less encouragement. Expand it to other religions too - ban overt displays of religion. And foreign appearance freaks people out too (with respect to the beauty of each within its own kind), particularly the elderley - they often find it tiring to deal with diversity. * Linguistic integration (no foreign languages spoken in public, written on shops, disseminated in public service material, no foreign music). Language is another "mark of separation". And I think there is something about the Arab language that is uniquely irritating and incompatible to English-speaking folk - the sounds are nauseating (with respect to the beauty of each within its own kind). Give the folks some years notice before enforcement. The above two points might only need to be enforced for people born after the date the legislation is enforced. So if Muslims want to have kids, they'll know the strict rules they will be born into. But maybe let the old folk keep their garb and language until they die out. * Conceptual integration (ban parts of the Koran that preach hate, violence, sharia, etc). Basically, Australians want Muslims to get the hell out of their face (visual integration), speak our language, and knock-off the hatred and takeover-mentality. SEPARATION * If integration proves impossible due to their exploding population, no-go zones, and violence, then we have to separate ourselves from Islam somehow. So pay them to leave, ban them from having kids, whatever it takes to compassionately halt their numbers. There is no way mutliculturalism will work, it will just drive the wedge between us even further. Invisible Islam, or no Islam. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 17th, 2007 at 9:31am
We need to relegate Islam to the status of other religions i.e. an invisible personal faith.
Othe religions are not invisible personal faiths. It's just that you are more familiar with them. They are 'hiding in plain sight'. With an invisible and ill-defined community, the jihadists will have less encouragement. I don't think so. Extremists get more foothold in fragmented societies. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 18th, 2007 at 2:55pm Quote:
How do you say people cannot grow beards or not wear headscarfes? I have a beard and my girlfriend likes to wear head scarfes from time to time? Who is to say what we can or cannot wear or how we shave or keep our hair? The only way I see to achieve what you describe here is to deny rights to people based on their faith, how do you define that? How do you stop it just going underground? Most of all, do you want to live in that kind of society because it doesn't sound very Australian to me? You may be right about language, english should be learned, but I do find it interesting the way in which Australians are so vehemently opposed to non english languages, in so many other countries, including our Euro-centric cousins in Canada and most of Europe, skill in multiple languages is not frowned upon like it is here, quite the opposite? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Brian Ross on Apr 20th, 2007 at 1:49pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 22nd, 2007 at 1:22pm:
The recent history of suicide bombing is that Islamists have copied the idea from the LTTE in Sri Lanka, where it was used extensively. The Tamil Tigers used it spectacularly to kill the PMs of India and Sri Lanka and have also blown up numerous Sinalese. The Islamist use of the tactic is only a comparative recent invention and runs counter to most Islamic teachings which hold that suicide is a sin. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Brian Ross on Apr 20th, 2007 at 1:52pm talkingtothemoon wrote on Apr 16th, 2007 at 11:24pm:
How is this different compared to what the Nazis did to the Jews? How is it different from what the Chinese government has attempted in Tibet? Are you aware that the Federal Government cannot make laws governing religious belief according to the Constitution. What you're proposing would be struck down by the High Court on that basis. Are you proposing a referendum? Do you seriously believe such a proposal would pass under the referendum rules for Constitutional change? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 7:10pm
I think you will find that people aren't really anti muslim, they are anti lebanese but are unable to distinguish the difference.
I have recently learnt that Iran are full of Persians, not Arabs. So, this means we don't have to hate Arabs anymore because it's the Persians that support Islam. Overal it is all too confusing so i will just continue to treat people as individuals and hate you all equally. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:08pm
Hi zoso, Brian and enviro,
essentially all the terrorist acts are by muslims. It is against other muslims and against nonmuslims, against everyone who does not submit to their personal belief. hey - that is what is stated to do in the koran! Also what mohammad did himself. They follow ishmael of the old testament, he makes "interesting" reading to say the least . is a pity, the muslims I know are "normal", but the religion is intolerant, sexist and violent to the extreme. maybe they would change if their numbers were in superiority ? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:36am
essentially all the terrorist acts are by muslims.
That is only a very recent trend, and is not completely true even now. Muslim veil allowed in UK courts: judges http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Muslim-veil-allowed-in-UK-courts-judges/2007/04/25/1177180691369.html Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil in British courts, senior judges said. Muslim women should be permitted to wear the full facial covering, known as the niqab, as long as it does not interfere with the administration of justice, the Judicial Studies Board's Equal Treatment Advisory Committee said. Such decisions, however, should be made on a case-by-case basis, the committee said. The guidance was issued after an immigration judge adjourned a case in Stoke-on-Trent, central England, in November because he could not hear a Muslim lawyer who refused to remove her veil. The case resumed after her firm sent another lawyer to represent her client in court. Judges should not automatically assume a victim appearing in court wearing the niqab creates problems, the committee said. Nor should they assume it is inappropriate for a woman to testify wearing the full veil, it said. The issue of face-covering veils has stoked debate over religious tolerance and cultural assimilation in Britain, which is home to 1.6 million Muslims. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:51pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:08pm:
I'll tell you right now... they would DEFINITELY change if they were the majority. You seem pretty educated when it comes to Muslims and the quran. sprint. Can't you see a pattern emerging throughout the world between what Muslims do and the actual religion they practice? I think it's very nieve, especially those who are peace loving and under-educated on Islam, to dismiss it as 'hate-mongering' and 'racism' to want this religion out of Australia. There's definitely a pattern between violence and Islam throughout the world. The only reason the ones that you know are peaceful... is because they know if they open their mouths in a society full of Aussies, they know something bad will happen to them. Basically they're saving their own arses and biding their time... As soon as they get the chance... and form a majority... they will try and convert us all through force and intimidation. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:58pm
If you want to fight the Muslims fight it with Christianity and Christian ideals. Evil people will still join the Muslim clan but how can we ever have armegedon if there are no muslims?
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:01pm
DT history does not support your views. The more violent aspects of Islam have only emerged relatively recently.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:09pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:01pm:
Are you up to date on Middle Eastern history, Freediver? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Brian Ross on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:34am
Are you lot sure you aren't mistaking "Muslims" for "Islamists"?
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate. It is the Islamists who are seeking to use Terrorism to further their ends. They are a subset of Muslims who hold an extremist fundamentalist viewpoint which is opposed bitterly to modernity within their religion. It is the reason why they spend a great deal more time and effort attacking their co-religionists, rather than killing Westerners. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 4:24pm
Hi brian, enviro, freediver and DT
Brian - yes, the nazis and chinese have done "bad" things too. Does not justify any more "bad" things to happen. enviro - that is very equitable of you - to hate us all evenly. makes me feel all warm :) :) :) freediver - mohammad mass murdered jews for not converting to islam, so "terrorism" for islam has been around since mohammad. Dt - yes, I do see direct correlations between what terrorsts are doing now and what is written in the koran. A few remembered spot quotes illustrate this - "Make islam domiant over all other religions", "kill all the jews and nonbelievers", "cutting off opposite hand and feet of sinners". In addition beheadings were common, dying for allah is good, violence is glorified. Written nonchronologically it is a really weird book. There is nothing about relationships in there at all. Enviro - muslims see us christians in the same way as they see jews. I feel education is the answer. Can't force people to become chrisitans, buddhists, jews, athiests, agnostics, wiccans, new agers or anything else. Brian, yes, the islamists are the extreme sector. My views are "moderate muslims" are like most "christians". ie, the christians that don't read the Bible, rarely go to church, etc etc etc. The extremist muslims do read, understand and follow the koran. hence hilalis comments. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:09pm Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:34am:
No, unfortunately Brian they seem incapable of making the distinction. I have fought long and hard with this lot on this topic and I have just given up entirely now. Reality will continue to prove them wrong, muslims will continue to move to Australia, multiculturalism will only become more the norm as the world globalises, and the minority Islamists will go the way of the dodo. We will not beliving under sharia law any time ever, and Australian culture will not be compromised for any religious agenda, it will however change with time and cease to resemble what it does today. The Islamist movement was already in its death throes until the neocons came in and gave people a reason to listen to them. But they are dying out again, the last 6 years were but a flicker of a dying candle. My suggestion brian would be to just walk away and let these guys have their little fantasy. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:41pm
yes, there is a massive difference between "moderate" muslims and "extremist" muslims.
How/why is this so ? Why does hilali say so inflammatory comments and NOT get the sack ? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 26th, 2007 at 8:37pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:41pm:
Because he is not some hired and paid employee? What are you going to sack him of? Sack him of people listening to him? "sorry folks, you can't listen to Hilali any more...he's been sacked..." |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 9:44pm
That is good, last time I heard he was on a 3 month period where they would decide. he was still aussies top muslim, despite not being "officially" allowed to speak int eh mosque anymore.
he was a hired employee. i thought he should have been sacked by saying things that are against the koran. Unless of course, he said things that are in line wiht the koran. In which case, he cannot be sacked. Sort of it the pope said "forgive others", can't really sack him for it. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 12:51pm
He wasn't 'sacked.' They just stopped paying him ;D
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 27th, 2007 at 6:17pm zoso wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:09pm:
::)Stick to engineering you moron. Either that, or study this topic in depth before making 'assertions' that what the newspapers say are correct. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 6:37pm
Perhaps you would have more success at convincing others if you stuck to pointing out why he is wrong rather than the personal attacks. If you think the papers are wrong then it will take more than 'pulling rank' to convince people you know better.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:05pm freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 6:37pm:
What a load of krap freediver, I've already been over this topic about a hundred times... citing incidents across the world caused by Muslims, providing polls, news articles, citations from the Quran... etc etc... But all this jack-azs says in reply... oh... but we have moderate Christians... therefore, we can have moderate muslims. He basically generalises EVERYTHING and puts everything and every group in the same basket. I'm through with arguing with this bigot... he ignores everything and just keeps repeating his same politically correct statements over and over again without a trace of actual knowledge to back up his claims. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:14pm
What a load of krap freediver, I've already been over this topic about a hundred times
You didn't expect it to be easy did you? You can't expect people to join you in your muslim bashing after one or two scare stories. People get tired of getting worked up over each new 'threat' to our society, especially if it is another minority group who are 'all the same'. He basically generalises EVERYTHING and puts everything and every group in the same basket. Unlike you? You do have a tendency to tar all muslims with the same brush. I'm through with arguing with this bigot... he ignores everything and just keeps repeating his same politically correct statements over and over again without a trace of actual knowledge to back up his claims. Perhaps if you made more effort to engage him in challenging debate you could draw him out on his views. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:47pm freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:14pm:
What you say is largely true, freediver. But at the end of the day, I have more important things to do than just try and convert ONE individual who is clearly brainwashed and a lost cause. I do tend to paint Muslims with the same brush, but this is in response to generalisations by people like Zoso. If they didn't keep repeating the same old rhetoric about 'Multiculturalism being good' and 'Islam being misinterpreted,' then I might delve deeper into the topic. Or I may even discuss other elements of Islam, such as the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Until then, I'll answer an individual like Zoso in the same manner. How am I supposed to engage him in a 'challenging debate' if he's under-researched on the topic, and keeps repeating the same old ideological sh1t over and over again? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 28th, 2007 at 4:58pm
What do extremist buddhists do?
Or extremist hindus, extremist athiests, extreme christians, extremist agnostics, extreme pagans ? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 28th, 2007 at 5:52pm
Interesting trump, last I checked I had put up two posts regarding the purpose of multiculturalism to which you could come up with no reply.
So I shall repeat. Our economy requires that we receive immigrants... right, you with me still? We NEED them, we need the skills because we don't have enough skilled labour. Ok right, now once they are here in our society, they are free to express their faith and their culture. It is a part of our society, if you believe in Australia then you believe in the freedoms it represents, right? To go out and restrict the behaviour of subgroups based on their ethnic background, while the rest of us are free to do what we want, that is ASKING FOR TROUBLE. Do you WANT to pick a fight and create tension? Or would you rather accept that economically we are dependant on immigration, and therefore multiculturalism is a requirement for a civil and free society. Find a way to end our dependence on immigration and you might have a leg to stand on. On top of all that, I did say to you that I do not think any part of our culture should be sacrificed in the name of being accepting to other cultures. Simply allowing ethnic groups to wear the clothes they want to wear and eat the food they want to eat is not an assault on our culture. If you do see assaults on our culture, speak up about it, like your little butcher example. Have you actually been down to your butcher and told him what you think of his policy yet? Rallied a few friends in the neighbourhood to do the same? Because if you haven't I'd hazard at a guess you are simply a whining little b!tch... As for the danger posed by muslims, I agree, we do not need to discuss that any further,but I shall just let history demonstrate who is right... see you in 20 years chump. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 28th, 2007 at 5:55pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28th, 2007 at 4:58pm:
Come on sprint, how many wars have been fought between extremist christian groups? A helluva lot! Can you not see that extremists do not require a group to be extremists? They simply are violent and over the top people...end of story. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 28th, 2007 at 11:01pm
But at the end of the day, I have more important things to do than just try and convert ONE individual who is clearly brainwashed and a lost cause.
That kind of misses the point. In debating the issue you also educate yourself and a couple of onlookers. It is the debating opponents who give you the most difficulty that teach you the most. How am I supposed to engage him in a 'challenging debate' if he's under-researched on the topic, and keeps repeating the same old ideological sh1t over and over again? You're a smart man, you figure it out. Our economy requires that we receive immigrants... right, you with me still? No it doesn't. We NEED them, we need the skills because we don't have enough skilled labour. Oh no we are getting paid to much lets bring in more labour so we keep down the running costs for big businesses. The rest I agree with zoso. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 29th, 2007 at 12:42am
Hi Zoso - very fair comments you post.
I have no idea how many wars have been waged between extremist christians. Sure has been a few though - ireland, spanish inquisition (not sure on that one), the crusades. I am not sure if there has been a christian group that has just waged terrorist activities against everyone else ? There was a christian based terrorist group recently in usa that was reported in by other christians. We have not always done the "good" thing. None of these extremist actions are supported by The Bible. having a violent leader/book to follow sure does justify and promote violent and over the to people |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by DonaldTrump on Apr 29th, 2007 at 2:54am
Tada! Exhibit A. -More ideological jibbering from our favourite politically correct fascist, Zoso.
Quote:
Firstly, I never conceded defeat in those threads, I just noted that your points were going around in circles and nothing new was being said by you. Hence, I stopped posting. Quote:
Take note of this... it's a key point. Multiculturalism DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL IMMIGRANTS. Quote:
Okay. Provide some stats or some kind of link that we have a 'skills shortage.' The Muslim immigrants we've been importing from Sudan in Victoria (Not to mention the ones imported into Tamworth) have little to no skills apart from trolley pushing. Is that the kid of 'skills' you're referring to? Quote:
Pfft. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way. It can be changed easily with a referendum. It's not the be all and end all of society. Quote:
Since when is it part of 'our society?' Since 1970? What about the other 170 years of our nations history? And as far as I know, there's no bill of rights that says we have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion.' Quote:
And what about when tampering with these ethnic subgroups are a REACTION to trouble? :-? Quote:
No... I do NOT except this. In fact, I reject your backward point of view altogether. Immigration and multiculturalism do not necessarily need to go together. If we'd just accept immigrants from countries with similar cultures to our own, with GENUINE skills, and not as much emphasis on KEEPING their cultures (Trust me, people like this DO exist), then we'd be okay. Importing immigrants from Africa and the Middle East is just asking for trouble. Quote:
Whatever. Perhaps increase our own population? Immigration isn't a permanent solution, it's a temporary solution. Quote:
Oh gee. How fine and dandy. Tra la la la la la. You make it sound SOOOO innocent and straight forward when in fact, it isn't that simple. How's about when Muslim women don't want to show their faces for driving licences? What about when Muslims don't want their girls to wear the traditional school uniform? What about when Muslims demand air conditioners in schools during summer when their girls are getting too hot fro their Muslim gear? What about when particular Muslims protest at schools and hostpitals when pork is served to them like it's served to everyone and demand individual preferences? The list goes on, pal. These 'innocent' things yours is more troublesome than you think. Quote:
What makes you think I haven't? Quote:
Right... I hope your daughter is raped by a Muslim immigrant in that short space of time. Quote:
Oh yeah? NAME THEM. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 29th, 2007 at 2:12pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 29th, 2007 at 12:42am:
Terrorism is a tactic of war, usually it is called guerilla warfare. The deliberate targeting of civilians is not a wholly owned subsidiary of 'terrorist' tactics either, so that line of reasoning has no merit. Quote:
and I don't believe suicide and the murdering of muslims that do not agree with suicide or terror tactics is condoned by the Koran... Quote:
It is not about wages, nothing to do with wages at all, we have a serious skills shortage... in case you have missed the headlines for the past several years... Our government is somewhat opposed to uncontrolled immigration, the pacific solution shows this, and yet pragmatically they continue to allow immigrants in on skilled work visas...why do you think that might be? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 29th, 2007 at 2:24pm ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 29th, 2007 at 2:54am:
I never suggested it did...there is some subtlety to my argument you seem to be missing... Quote:
Please...you need proof that the skills shortage is real? There are other purposes to immigration, such as satisfying our legal requirements under UN charter, I think you are confusing refugees with skilled migrants, but either way the main point stands. Quote:
Pfft. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way. It can be changed easily with a referendum. It's not the be all and end all of society.[/quote] You WANT to live in a society that doesn't allow freedom of dress and religious expression? I have a beard, I like my beard, if I want to put on a turban and cook Indian or Arabic food it is my prerogative, if my girlfriend wants to wear a veil in public that is her prerogative, if she wants to put a dot on her head and do a silly dance or even read lines of the Koran in some public place she is allowed to. Separating out sections of the population and denying them these rights has been the cause of any number of dangerous conflict situations in history. You are effectively condoning an apartheid system...you think that is representative of Australian values? Protectionism is death, cultures will always change. Globalisation is the unstoppable future, all I can say is it must suck to be you when you have to face these realities every day... Quote:
Since when is it part of 'our society?' Since 1970? What about the other 170 years of our nations history? And as far as I know, there's no bill of rights that says we have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion.'[/quote] Since federation. We may not have a bill of rights but you will find that the constitution and federal law provide all the protection of freedom that is necessary. Quote:
And what about when tampering with these ethnic subgroups are a REACTION to trouble? :-?[/quote] What trouble? Do you have any examples? Ones that are not just examples of petty crime committed by people who look a little different to you? Quote:
There is a population decline in almost all countries with 'similar cultures to our own'. There is no immigration to be had from these places. Quote:
Whatever. Perhaps increase our own population? Immigration isn't a permanent solution, it's a temporary solution. [/quote] Ok...so how does that solve the short term problem? Or the long term problem for that matter? Immigration has been a permenant solution for the entirety of our history...what makes you think this will change? Quote:
I said multiple times that I disagree with allowing any of this...are you sure you are keeping up? Quote:
Have you? Have you tried to rally some others to the cause? Quote:
Wow, you really seem to be representing a wonderful culture that deserves to be preserved... Quote:
The French, Irish, and English civil wars, and the crusades...to name a few. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by zoso on Apr 29th, 2007 at 2:40pm
Oh and by the way chump, the definition of bigot:
Quote:
Doesn't quite fit the argument I am putting forth. And fascism: Quote:
Is quite the opposite of what I am arguing. I'll just leave it up to the reader to decide which one of us best fits the definition of these words. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on Apr 29th, 2007 at 6:53pm
A thread on multiculturalism: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177288133
I think that attacking multiculturalism as a way to get at muslims is a bit absurd. Even if it does have it's problems, history has consistently shown that the alternative is not just wrong, but evil. Pfft. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way. It can be changed easily with a referendum. It's not the be all and end all of society. Yes it is. Fortunately such a referendum would stand zero chance of passing. And as far as I know, there's no bill of rights that says we have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion.' I don't think anyone would seriously try to take them off us. And besides, a piece of paper cannot protect your freedoms - something the Americans are having a tough time learning. A functioning democracy is what protects your freedoms, with or without a constitution explicitly protecting them. In my experience deference to a constitution is an excuse to avoid really thinking about an issue. And what about when tampering with these ethnic subgroups are a REACTION to trouble? You have a downwards spiral. Fortunately cooler heads usually prevail. Right... I hope your daughter is raped by a Muslim immigrant in that short space of time. Come on DT, there's no need for that sort of thing. Zoso I will start a new thread on the skills shortage/wages issue: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177837250/0 |
|
Title: 'Mickey Mouse' preaches Muslim fight Post by freediver on May 9th, 2007 at 4:24pm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Mickey-Mouse-preaches-Muslim-fight/2007/05/09/1178390368076.html
Hamas militants have enlisted the iconic Mickey Mouse to broadcast their message of Islamic dominion and armed resistance to their most impressionable audience - little kids. A giant black-and-white rodent - named "Farfour," or "butterfly," but unmistakably a Mickey ripoff - does his high-pitched preaching against the US and Israel on a children's show run each Friday on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas. The militant group, sworn to Israel's destruction, shares power in the Palestinian government. "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists," Farfour squeaked on a recent episode of the show, which is titled, Tomorrow's Pioneers. Israel has long complained that the Palestinian airwaves are filled with incitement. An Israeli organisation that monitors Palestinian media, Palestinian Media Watch, said the Mickey Mouse lookalike takes "every opportunity to indoctrinate young viewers with teachings of Islamic supremacy, hatred of Israel and the US, and support of 'resistance,' the Palestinian euphemism for terror." The television station would not comment. A Gaza-based psychologist said the program proved that the culture of glorifying violence had penetrated Palestinian society. "It's the fault of both (Israel and the Palestinians)," said Samir Zakkout, from the Gaza Community Mental Health Program. "If Palestinians had peace, children wouldn't learn violence." Children have been traumatized by bloodshed in the course of Israeli attacks and Palestinian infighting, he said. "There's been a collapse of values," he said. "If I can kill my enemy, I can kill my brother." Somali forces 'burn Muslim's veils' http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Somali-forces-burn-Muslims-veils/2007/05/09/1178390387541.html Somali security forces are seizing and even burning Muslim women's veils to stop Islamist insurgents from disguising themselves for attacks, authorities and witnesses said. The crackdown on veils is a highly symbolic turnaround for Mogadishu after Islamist leaders, who controlled the city in the second half of 2006, had instructed women to wear them. "Every policeman and government soldier has orders to confiscate veils from veiled women," senior police officer Ali Nur told Reuters in Mogadishu, saying various recent attacks had been carried out by people in disguise. "Some of the remnants of the Islamic Courts have been caught wearing veils. During the war, these remnants, pretending to be women, killed so many government troops." Somalis are generally moderate Muslims, and most women traditionally cover their heads but not faces. Officials say some suicide attacks have been carried out by men disguised under full face-veils. Backed by Ethiopia's military, Somali government forces kicked the Islamists out of Mogadishu over the New Year. They have been facing an insurgency since then that has killed at least 1,300 people since February. Absorbing Muslims tackles radicalism: PM http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Absorbing-Muslims-tackles-radicalism-PM/2007/05/11/1178390516282.html Prime Minister John Howard says assimilating new citizens into the Australian community helps tackle the problems of radicalism among a minority of Muslims. In Tuesday's budget, Treasurer Peter Costello allocated $461,000 to programs that help Muslim communities integrate into the wider Australian community. "I think it's in the interests of everybody," Mr Howard told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "There's every reason to try and assimilate - and I unapologetically use that word 'assimilate' - a section of the community, a tiny minority of whose members have caused concern. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by freediver on May 14th, 2007 at 11:48am
http://www.msauq.org/?content=events&eventID=20
TERRORISM, WOMEN and ISLAM “UNVEILING THE MYSTERIES…” MSAUQ Presents A lecture by Halim Rane (PhD Scholar in Islamic Studies) Wednesday 16 May 2007 at 4PM Building 24, Room S402 Light refreshments will be provided Presented by MSAUQ (www.msauq.org) http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=57197 The broad purpose of this paper is to explore the question of 'how do we 'deal' with Other?" While there has been considerable work done around this topic generally, I focus specifically on how the ‘construction’ of group identity can affect and inform responses to that question. Overall, I argue that group identity constructions can matter greatly to decisions and justifications concerning recourse to violence. The paper takes the Basque political violence in Spain to illustrate, firstly, that conflict can be based principally about protection of group identity. Moreover, it reveals that Basque leaders constructed ‘Basqueness’ in order to pursue political goals which required conflict, and thus not only can identity constructions be grounded in political motives, they can contribute to violent recourse. I argue that a pivotal moment is when actors inject threat into identity difference discursively; the importance of this moment however is largely overlooked by mainstream analyses. The second part of the exploration is purely experimental. I ask if useful parallels can be made between International Relations theory and approaches to constructing group identity. For instance, in the case of the political violence in Spain, both the Basque and Spanish identity constructions were based in what could be described as a 'realist' paradigm, whereby identity notions were both positivist and generally intolerant of Other ways of living the ‘good life’. Native American constructions, on the other hand, come at identity alterity from a largely post-modern perspective which recognises a plurality of truths and the virtue of permitting multiple notions of the good life. In the case of the former, conflict between identities is enabled by the manner of the constructions; yet in the latter, recourse to violence against Other is constrained. http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=57171 Islamist extremists starved of donations http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Islamist-extremists-starved-of-donations/2007/05/16/1178995188873.html The flow of international funds to Islamic extremists in Australia has been slashed by 80 per cent thanks to an agreement with the Saudi Arabian government. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gogerthat on Jul 31st, 2016 at 11:43am
Religions, not one scrap of proof that there is any god, there used to be gods for everything. sun moon gods etc,
gods were invented to give answers to our evolving brains for the inexplicable, comets other stuff in the night sky, earth was the center of the universe and flat, Darwin, Einstein and science challenges religion, hell they were burning witches up to 500 years ago. What matters is here and now. Gutless muslims killing innocent people almost every day, (not all I know) is buggered. move on and get with it. No more immigration of these type until this mob sorts them selves out. not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslim. Finally coalition should get out of the middle east, I pitty there women who don't get treated fairly though. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by John Smith on Jul 31st, 2016 at 11:44am freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 5:56pm:
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o I'm in shock ... is this really from FD? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Yadda on Jul 31st, 2016 at 12:24pm John Smith wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 11:44am:
John_Smith, What is so strange ? Post 9/11 many people in the West considered ISLAM to be simply another typical/traditional religion. And they actually knew very little, about that faith known as, 'ISLAM'. Maybe FD was in that 'boat' too ? But in the intervening years, some people have chosen to try educate and inform themselves about what ISLAM is, and about what 'traditional' [i.e. mainstream] ISLAM does promote in the world. And perhaps the change in their opinion about ISLAM, reflects that effort, to educate and inform themselves more, about what ISLAM is. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Jul 31st, 2016 at 12:26pm John Smith wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 11:44am:
FD has awoken John. FD used to be a spineless apologist: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/711#711 |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by John Smith on Jul 31st, 2016 at 3:37pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 12:26pm:
What happened to cause the complete flip? Did some Arab steal his wife or something? |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Baronvonrort on Jul 31st, 2016 at 4:33pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 12:26pm:
It's common for apologists to become fierce critics of Islam when they become enlightened about Islam. Abu ,Falah and Lestat would have helped educate FD on the idiocy he was defending. ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:07pm John Smith wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 3:37pm:
He started talking to Abu. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by John Smith on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:08pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:07pm:
ahh ... that name keeps popping up for some reason |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:16pm
FDs entire world-view of Islam was shaped by what Abu said to him.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Karnal on Jul 31st, 2016 at 6:50pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:16pm:
Now now, you need to take your own share of the blame here, G. FD’s view is also formed by what you don’t say to him. Still, that doesn’t stop FD trying ever so hard to get you to say it. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Yadda on Jul 31st, 2016 at 7:13pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:07pm:
gandalf, Oh, go on, do tell. What is/was wrong with Abu ? [......apart from the fact the Abu is/was a Sunni pig.] . addendum; polite_gandalf wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 10:59am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Frank on Jul 31st, 2016 at 9:27pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 5:16pm:
Don't be silly. It is all Muslims who shape everyone's view of Islam and Muslims. All you Muslims are ambassadors for Islam. All of you. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Yadda on Jul 31st, 2016 at 10:29pm Yadda wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 7:13pm:
Hey gandalf, QUESTION; What is the name of the best religion ? Yes, yes, .....we all know that the best religion is ISLAM, but is the best religion, Sunni ISLAM ??? If not, .....then what is the name of the best religion ? . Yadda doodles, while anticipating a response...... animal farm, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others Abu's religion = = bad gandalf's religion = = good |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Aug 1st, 2016 at 12:59pm Frank wrote on Jul 31st, 2016 at 9:27pm:
Sorry Frank, how silly of me not to remember you and FD and moses accepting, respecting and never even dreaming of mocking the insistence of this muslim that Islam commands peace and freedom and goodwill to all mankind. Or for that matter the countless muslims who argue the same... |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by moses on Aug 1st, 2016 at 3:15pm
Or the innumerable millions of muslims who 100% tell us that the tenets of islam which motivate and cause rape, torture and mass murder, are the immutably perfect words of allah and can never be changed.
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Aug 1st, 2016 at 4:09pm moses wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 3:15pm:
No you certainly do listen to them moses. Strange though that you don't listen to the millions who say otherwise. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Secret Wars on Aug 1st, 2016 at 5:28pm polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 4:09pm:
Meh, it's up to your mob to reign in your fellow cultists. The authorities are doing what they can, but they swim in your waters. Seems to me you and your fellow cultists have the most at stake. In a forum debate club apologisms, excuses, distractions and mitigations may make you feel better but do you think they convince anyone or change the larger picture and perception? Everytime a bomb goes off, a head is hacked or throat is slit in the name of Alan attitudes harden. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Yadda on Aug 1st, 2016 at 7:28pm polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 12:59pm:
gandalf, We are constantly bombarded with the insistent claims that moslems are want to make, claims concerning their honour, their honesty, and their good and benign intent. A benign intent emanating from the inspiration of their peaceful religion. /sarc off But we rarely see any real and valid substantiation of those claims, in facts or in example. Yadda said..... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329870100/2#2 Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Frank on Aug 1st, 2016 at 8:10pm polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 12:59pm:
You are speaking with tongue in cheek of course. I have never accepted this because I do not believe for a moment that something called Submission would command peace and freedom and goodwill to all mankind. Islam means Submission NOT Accommodation or Coexistence or Tolerance or Goodwill, least of all Peace. Islam is a Religion of NO Peace Until Submission. geddit? Finally? Islam merges political and religious Submission and will never accept the separation of the spiritual and the practical. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by gandalf on Aug 1st, 2016 at 8:25pm Frank wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 8:10pm:
Ah, so what you really mean is we muslims are all "ambassadors for Islam" - just as long as we stand by what you insist is the real Islam. All peace-loving muslims are ineligible for the ambassadorship. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Yadda on Aug 2nd, 2016 at 12:46am polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 8:25pm:
gandalf, "peace-loving muslims", ...is 'false advertising', it is a contradiction in terms, it a deceit which would describe a violent rapist as a 'loving husband'. "ISLAM is peace." The phrase "peace-loving muslims", ....is akin to describing Mohammed as 'a perfect man', as an example for all men. [just as he is described by Allah, in the Koran. Koran 33.021 ] "...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD. hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260 Yadda said..... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329870100/2#2 Quote:
gandalf, You are a fraud. And a person without any shame. A moslem. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by moses on Aug 2nd, 2016 at 3:25pm
gandalf wrote Reply #172 - Yesterday at 4:09pm
Quote:
Yes of course I listen to their claims of justification, cause and motivation for unimaginable human rights atrocities committed in the name of allah around the globe. Only a fool would not look for the trigger, for their indescribably insane barbarity, perpetrated without the slightest degree of guilt or shame. They all claim that they have been given the consecrated right to perform these deranged atocities by the teachings and deeds of muhammad, the commands of allah, the verses in the qur'an. They are telling the truth, they are indeed following to the very letter these commands, deeds, teachings and verses, which they cite as their cause and motivation. You are the liar in this affair gandalf, your attempts at whitewashing these evil inducements of islam are pathetic. You prefer the bloodshed and untold human misery, to the truth: islam allah muhammad and the qur'an got it wrong. |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by kemal on Aug 2nd, 2016 at 4:08pm moses wrote on Aug 2nd, 2016 at 3:25pm:
Well Said. End of topic as far as Gandalf is concerned! |
|
Title: Re: The Great Muslim Debate Post by Frank on Aug 2nd, 2016 at 6:46pm polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2016 at 8:25pm:
Yadda is right, Gandalf - you are a fraud. You are peace loving in the context that Submission is Peace - you are a standard issue orthodox Muslim for whom the Peace of Islam is the Submission to Islam. You can stick Submission and the Peace it brings.i |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |