This kind of took me by surprise - mostly because it took so long for the breadth of the agenda to be revealed.


Grey wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:

I'd like to ban all religious clothing but accept that would create more trouble than it eliminates.

Grey wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:

I'd like to ban all religious clothing but accept that would create more trouble than it eliminates.

So instead you pick of the easy target - muslim women?

Why would you like to ban all religious clothing? What is the ultimate goal here?


Quote:

It's still clear to me that the burqa is a potent symbol

So you admit it is not a problem in itself?


Quote:

And that clothing that is divisive is clothing that will cause trouble.

Would you like to ban all forms of divisive clothing?


Quote:

Two peoples have suffered persecution throughout European history more than any other. The Roma and the Jews. The history of that persecution is just too horrible to contemplate. The underlying cause is the rigidity of those cultures.

So, it's not the clothes they wear?


Quote:

I'm not saying that excuses the great pogroms, the wholesale slaughtering of those peoples. It clearly doesn't.

It only excuses government issued clothing for them?


Quote:

But people have difficulty coping with rejection

Is this perhaps your agenda - to eradicate the emotional trauma of rejection?


Quote:

But it would take a better person than me to draw up legislation that would work within a reasonable framework.

So you can't get over the first hurdle? Why is that? What is the difficulty? Are you hinting at troublesome issues like human rights and freedom of choice?

Can we ban all communist flags too?

http://www.starsmoke.com/celeb/jenniferconnelly1.jpg :)
Smoking is sexy

And there I was thinking it it might be an interesting new topic instead of doubling up on the burqa.  :)


Quote:

Can we ban all communist flags too?

Not alone no, that would be discriminatory. I think it would be a fine thing to ban all political flags and t/shirts - except for Anarchisms of course because Anarchism is different. <irony alert>

Our society is comprised far too much of gangs. Gangs are not seeking solutions to problems. They will set out to focus on an issue but it's all about power for a hierarchy and growing the territory. Gangs have tunnel vision, uniforms, specialised language, normalised behaviour and coerce others.

The other way of doing is by co-operation between sovereign individuals, (communities).

I'm for the latter method, I just don't know how to deconstruct the former.

Gangs often change their agendas to suit the primary purpose of power, control and territory for the leaders. So conservative parties often don't conserve anything and labour parties are comprised of Lawyers and Doctors.  

The ultimate gangs (the Big Battalions, as they're known) are religions. Their agenda is entirely abstract, the worship of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god, can lead to the burning of wise old ladies and their cats in the pursuit of controlling knowledge.  I don't like religions, I don't like their surplices, cassocks, wibbles, burqas, crosses, swinging jars of incenses, wheat wafer bodies or bloody wine. I've nothing against contemplative spiritual communities though.  

Oi look I'm a senior now :D - time to rev up if i'm going for gold :-)

Perhaps you should start with a list of everything you want banned. That way you won't have to come up with a new ban every day.

Is this going to become one of those ban the person on top of you threads?  ;D

Banned for casting aspersions.

The issue is not religious clothing, but clothing that hides the wearers face in public.  A big difference.

Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things.

You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body.

Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies.

For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched.

Banning types of clothing?

I suppose it's all in the name of "freedom"?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched.

Banned for casting aspersions again. :P

the mistake was made early.
the idiots that run aussie, let 'em come here.
j.

what century is this .. ?? what country is this ..?? .. if they live here .. then do their things at home .. just get some works to do ..

I didn't realise that textiles could be religious.

What if I accidentally wear a tee-shirt that has a religious symbol on it? What punishment would you impose? stoning?

Do I have to throw away my Aboriginal dreaming teeshirt?

What about fancy dress parties? Should it be illegal to dress up as the Pope, and if the Pope himself comes to Australia, should he be allowed to wear his gowns?

I think people should be free to express themselves by wearing whatever clothes they please. The alternative gets a bit Orwellian.

Grey, maybe you didn't think through the implications.


Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:23pm:

Banning types of clothing? I suppose it's all in the name of "freedom"?

Freedom is slavery  :P

Quote:

Grey, maybe you didn't think through the implications.

Muso I did. That's why I said it'd be impractical. But if freediver wants to flog a dead horse, who am I to BAN him  ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things. You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body. Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies. For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched.

Mone are as blind as those who will not see, like you FD:

An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted.
When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'.

The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job.
She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.'
Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz1Julqmw1K


The Talibanesque brutes will enforce dresscodes for women. They will threaten murder for non-compliance. In London. They will do it wherever their numbers grow.
Just to illustrate that your hobbyhorse of "letting women choose for themselves" is a load of bollocks on stilts.
The niqab and the burqa are the black flags of Islam.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things. You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body. Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies. For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched.

FD if every woman wore a burqa in this country would you be comfortable with that???.

we would have to build larger toilets I am afaid.. I cant begin to understand what going to the bathroom means to those women!!

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:23pm:

Banning types of clothing? I suppose it's all in the name of "freedom"?

THIS ISSUE, is not about banning 'clothing', or the 'right' of someone, anyone, to choose to wear, the clothing that they choose to wear.




It is about some people choosing to hide their apparent identity, in public places.

It is about some people choosing to conceal their apparent identity, in public places.

Dictionary;
apparent = =
1 readily perceived or understood; obvious.
2 seeming real or true.


It is about, the question of whether it is appropriate [do persons have the right], in a country like Australia, to drive a motor vehicle, or, for persons to conduct normal daily 'business' transactions in any public places, when their 'apparent' identity is not apparent [to others around them].

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 9:18pm: Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things. You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body. Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies. For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched. Mone are as blind as those who will not see, like you FD: An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted. When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'. The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job. She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.' Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz1Julqmw1K The Talibanesque brutes will enforce dresscodes for women. They will threaten murder for non-compliance. In London. They will do it wherever their numbers grow. Just to illustrate that your hobbyhorse of "letting women choose for themselves" is a load of bollocks on stilts. The niqab and the burqa are the black flags of Islam.

But FD, continues to insist that;      ....'Cultural mores do not have feelings.'
"The case against Islamic immigration"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/34#34


So i guess cultural mores are un-important - ESPECIALLY TO THE MOSLEM COMMUNITY.
/sarc off



A question FD......

If as you insist, cultural mores are un-important, why don't moslems seem agree with you [as the details of Sorens post so eloquently attest] ???

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 9:18pm: Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things. You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body. Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies. For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched. Mone are as blind as those who will not see, like you FD: An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted. When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'. The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job. She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.' Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz1Julqmw1K The Talibanesque brutes will enforce dresscodes for women. They will threaten murder for non-compliance. In London. They will do it wherever their numbers grow. Just to illustrate that your hobbyhorse of "letting women choose for themselves" is a load of bollocks on stilts. The niqab and the burqa are the black flags of Islam.

As the details of Sorens post so clearly demonstrate, moslems, all good moslems, are beyond reason.

All moslems are beyond reason, except of course, the 'moderate' moslems, who, for example, are citizens of the UK.
/sarc off




When will you people choose to accept the truth?

That there are no moderate moslems...

BECAUSE, there is no moderate ISLAM.






THIS IS ISLAM...
This is how ISLAM chooses to promote itself...
And this is how ISLAM chooses to assert itself in the world...

IMAGE,
http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/behead-those-who-insult-islam.jpg
Moslems are always making the FALSE claim, that...
#1, ISLAM - is being 'mis-represented' by 'ISLAM-o-phobes'
OR,
#2, Moslems - are being 'mis-represented' by 'ISLAM-o-phobes'



When will you people choose to accept the truth ???





Q.
What does ISLAM promote, in the world of men ???

A.
'Religious' fascism.


Wake up people.

The Muslim religious 'advice' to women (advice that is very hard to refuse) is that they should not imitate the kuffar. Whoever imitates the kuffar becomes kuffar.

Look it up FD, or better still, ask the great Muslim authority, Abu, whether it is true or not.


In a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud (Allah have Mercy on him) and others, The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:

�Whosoever imitates a nation is amongst them�. (Sunan Abu Dawud,)

It should be remembered here that not everything what the non-Muslims wear and do, is Haram and unlawful. Imitation, which is prohibited, is effected in one of the following two ways:

a) One does something with the intention of imitating the Kuffar, meaning one does so because one wants to be like a particular non-believer or non-believers.

b) Doing something that is unique and exclusive to the non-believers or it is part of their faith. This will also be considered imitation, thus Haram (unlawful). (See the Fatwa of Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani)..

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 9:42am:

The Muslim religious 'advice' to women (advice that is very hard to refuse) is that they should not imitate the kuffar. Whoever imitates the kuffar becomes kuffar. Look it up FD, or better still, ask the great Muslim authority, Abu, whether it is true or not. In a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud (Allah have Mercy on him) and others, The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whosoever imitates a nation is amongst them�. (Sunan Abu Dawud,) It should be remembered here that not everything what the non-Muslims wear and do, is Haram and unlawful. Imitation, which is prohibited, is effected in one of the following two ways: a) One does something with the intention of imitating the Kuffar, meaning one does so because one wants to be like a particular non-believer or non-believers. b) Doing something that is unique and exclusive to the non-believers or it is part of their faith. This will also be considered imitation, thus Haram (unlawful). (See the Fatwa of Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani)..

Within ISLAM, all things within the ISLAMIC universe are defined, according to what is acceptable to ISLAM.

And Western values, of justice, right and wrong [specific areas of 'Western' law], are not halal [permitted] within ISLAM unless they are already permitted by Sharia.

To all moslems, ISLAM alone determines what is right or wrong.



What behaviour is permitted [halal], to muslims?

Within ISLAM, for a devout muslim all things are permissible, if they are permitted by Sharia.

When will you people choose to accept the truth?

That there are no moderate christians...

BECAUSE, there is no moderate CHRISTIANITY.






THIS IS CHRISTIANITY...
This is how CHRISTIANITY chooses to promote itself...
And this is how CHRISTIANITY chooses to assert itself in the world...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uro7B7iFvZw&feature=related

Christians are always making the FALSE claim, that...
#1, CHRISTIANITY - is being 'mis-represented' by 'CHRISTIAN-o-phobes'
OR,
#2, Christians - are being 'mis-represented' by 'Christian-o-phobes'



When will you people choose to accept the truth ???





Q.
What does CHRISTIANITY promote, in the world of men ???

A.
'Religious' fascism.


Wake up people.

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

When will you people choose to accept the truth? That there are no moderate christians... BECAUSE, there is no moderate CHRISTIANITY. THIS IS CHRISTIANITY... This is how CHRISTIANITY chooses to promote itself... And this is how CHRISTIANITY chooses to assert itself in the world... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uro7B7iFvZw&feature=related Christians are always making the FALSE claim, that... #1, CHRISTIANITY - is being 'mis-represented' by 'CHRISTIAN-o-phobes' OR, #2, Christians - are being 'mis-represented' by 'Christian-o-phobes' When will you people choose to accept the truth ??? Q. What does CHRISTIANITY promote, in the world of men ??? A. 'Religious' fascism. Wake up people.

Grey one,

I am on dial-up [@ 24 kb/sec today].

And so i am unable to view, or to comment on the YT presentation which you posted.

What was its 'gist' ?

You will have to make your argument explicit, if you care to, in in this forum, in debate.

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

The niqab and the burqa are the black flags of Islam.

Total covering of the face (as in the burka/niqab)  is not a requirement of Islam, and many Muslims even find it annoying. It's only a tiny proportion of Muslim women who wear masks. I worked in several predominantly Muslim countries in the late 90's and didn't see one burqa in my travels.

The Hijab on the other hand is just a headscarf. It's a fashion accessory.

It's like saying that this guy represents Christianity:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_95272E7706U/SZulFuqkenI/AAAAAAAAB_w/SPyk6iE-VyI/s320/fred-phelps.jpg

Quote:

What was its 'gist' ?

As far as I can make out some mad shyte about Jimmy Carter and obama being gay muslim blood bros, set on wrecking America.


Quote:

You will have to make your argument explicit, if you care to, in in this forum, in debate.

How could I go wrong? As you may have noticed I just used your argument as a template, merely sustituting Christian for Muslim.

This thread is one of the dumber threads on the boards.  To even consider trying to compare creeping around in public with faces masked, with genuine religious freedom issues,  is pathetic in a severely childlike way.

Grey wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

Quote: What was its 'gist' ? As far as I can make out some mad shyte about Jimmy Carter and obama being gay muslim blood bros, set on wrecking America. [quote]You will have to make your argument explicit, if you care to, in in this forum, in debate.

How could I go wrong? As you may have noticed I just used your argument as a template, merely sustituting Christian for Muslim. [/quote]


Wow!  You must have put some thought into that stroke of........
Actually doesn`t work, Christians don`t want to creep around with their faces hidden.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

Total covering of the face (as in the burka/niqab)  is not a requirement of Islam, and many Muslims even find it annoying.

muso,

If that is so, then shouldn't you be trying to convince moslems of that 'truth' ???

As moslems are the ones who seem to be 'confused' about the mandatory wearing of head coverings by ALL women.


To wit, the moslem persons cited here......
"ban all 'religious' clothing"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303119265/14#14

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Belgarion, everyone seems to have a different reason for banning things. You may think it is because it is your right to force a woman to show you part of her body. Soren thinks the burqa hurts our culture's feelings. He is not sure what our culture is though. He knows it is not values like freedom and democracy, but he is unsure about meat pies. For Grey, it is because we should all be wearing sacks of the same colour. Once a year we should all be issued with a new sack so no-one feels rejected. If anyone wears their sack in a non-standard manner they should be lynched.

It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place. I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all. In this case the right of every person to be able to recognise who they may be dealing with at any time.

Quote:

It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place. I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all. In this case the right of every person to be able to recognise who they may be dealing with at any time.

You must be a laugh when you encounter a wilderness koala.

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

muso wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 11:26am: Total covering of the face (as in the burka/niqab)  is not a requirement of Islam, and many Muslims even find it annoying. muso, If that is so, then shouldn't you be trying to convince moslems of that 'truth' ??? As moslems are the ones who seem to be 'confused' about the mandatory wearing of head coverings by ALL women. To wit, the moslem persons cited here...... "ban all 'religious' clothing" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303119265/14#14

The Muslims on this forum are a joke. They don't represent anything. One of them was banned from a Muslim forum for writing nonsense.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 1:24pm: muso wrote on Apr 19th, 2011 at 11:26am: Total covering of the face (as in the burka/niqab)  is not a requirement of Islam, and many Muslims even find it annoying. muso, If that is so, then shouldn't you be trying to convince moslems of that 'truth' ??? As moslems are the ones who seem to be 'confused' about the mandatory wearing of head coverings by ALL women. To wit, the moslem persons cited here...... "ban all 'religious' clothing" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303119265/14#14 The Muslims on this forum are a joke. They don't represent anything. One of them was banned from a Muslim forum for writing nonsense.

muso,

Yes, 'our' moslems on OzPol are a joke, plain and simple.


NOT LIKE, real moslems at all...

+++

IMAGE
http://images.sp@m.com/polls/000799261/polls_behead_those_who_insult_islam_london_5534_84585_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg
Moslem 'entitlement' expressed.



IMAGE
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_03/BergHeadedL_468x350.jpg
Moslem 'entitlement' fulfilled.

Nick Berg, a bound and helpless captive, moments before he was murdered, by those claiming to be moslem 'holy warriors'.
Persons so 'brave' and 'righteous', that they choose to cover their faces, while they commit their 'righteous' act.

Real moslems.

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

Quote: It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place. I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all. In this case the right of every person to be able to recognise who they may be dealing with at any time. You must be a laugh when you encounter a wilderness koala.

I simply kick it in the crotch and take its bucket.

Quote:

muso, Yes, 'our' moslems on OzPol are a joke, plain and simple. NOT LIKE, real moslems at all...

Well I guess you're not a representative sample of real Christians either.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_T4aVkTTesKE/Rs4kucjxiWI/AAAAAAAAACY/ovoGiv88Ato/s400/422314_050728gal_ira7.jpg

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/omaghbombL060906_175x125.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/church-and-state-colluded-to-free-ira-bomber-priest-2061168.html


Quote:

Church and state colluded to free 'IRA bomber priest' Official report reveals how prime suspect in 1972 atrocity was protected By David McKittrick Wednesday, 25 August 2010 The 1972 bombing of Claudy left nine people dead and 30 injured   It was on the last day of the worst month of the worst year of the Troubles that three IRA bombs exploded in the village of Claudy, Co Derry.

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place. I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all. In this case the right of every person to be able to recognise who they may be dealing with at any time.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/284667896_ed669dfc2f.jpg

http://www.momlogic.com/images/kid-oprah-mask-pm-thumb-270x270.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,511808,00.jpg

That was jolly helpfull, thankyou.

Religion and Spirituality (Fashion) are almost like Husband and Wife.
Just like Music and Science.
Medicine and Cooking (sharp blades)
etc, etc

So to say "Ban Religious Clothing" is kinda silly really, because the besides Spiritual people being the best dressed, the Religious come a close and comfortable 2nd.

Musicians are the worst dressed. In fact the worse they dress, the better they sound ironically.
Don't believe me? Walk into a Church or Mosque and tell me you love the sound of their 'wailing'.
I think the Catholic Choirs were as good as it got musically for Religion.

...it won't be long before Moslem men/women, or Men/Women from a Middle-Eastern (Brown skinned - big nosed) background will lead Australia into a more Fashionable future.
I hope it won't be too long in the waiting because I'm kinda embarressed by the 'Westernised' Fashion that has girls dressing up like frumpy Queen Mothers at the Melbourne Cup ...no wonder they have to get totally drunk to get laid.


Remember: Ned Kelly wore an iron Burqua ;D

Unintended irony, one day Rajasthan will take its place as fashion capital of the world.  :)

http://www.aphotographerinparis.com/wordpress/2008/11/25/the-annual-pushkar-fair-in-rajasthan/

Quote:

An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted. When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'.

So we should deny ourselves freedom of dress because some lunatics on the other side of thw orld did it? You have tried this line of argument before Soren. When confronted with the stupidity of it, you merely chop and change to some other silly argument. Yet for some reason you change back to it? Is it because all of your arguments are as stupid as this one? Are you going to change back to meat pies again now?

Furthermore, you yourself promoted the idea that you should be able to refuse employment to someone based on how threy dressed. Should this right only be extended to white people like you?


Quote:

Just to illustrate that your hobbyhorse of "letting women choose for themselves" is a load of bollocks on stilts.

But it does not illustrate anything Soren. It is an example, yet here you are claiming that it proves some kind of rule. The only thing it illustrates is your inability to make a cogent argument against a woman's right to choose for herself.


Quote:

FD if every woman wore a burqa in this country would you be comfortable with that???.

Of course not, but freedom means the right to say and do things that other people might not like. I would feel equally uncomfortable if everyone walked round naked, but you don't see me railing against the nudist movement.


Quote:

we would have to build larger toilets I am afaid.. I cant begin to understand what going to the bathroom means to those women!!

How about you leave that for the women to figure out?


Quote:

THIS ISSUE, is not about banning 'clothing', or the 'right' of someone, anyone, to choose to wear, the clothing that they choose to wear. It is about some people choosing to hide their apparent identity, in public places.

You are not making any sense either Yadda. If Grey calls for all religious clothing, unfiroms, symbols etc to be banned, what has that to do with the concealment of identity?


Quote:

So i guess cultural mores are un-important

Yadda, I said they don't have feelings. When it comes to trying to deny people fudnamental human rights, you are correct, cultural mores are unimportant.


Quote:

If as you insist, cultural mores are un-important, why don't moslems seem agree with you

Why should I care whether they agree with me Yadda?


Quote:

It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place.

No it is not belgarion. Your rights apply to you. They are not some idiotic excuse to for you to compel other people to do what you want. You have no clue what rights are.


Quote:

I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all.

Chopping and changing again are you Belgarion? Or do you see no distinction between your rights and the 'common good'?

Australia is ruled by the Federal Level of Politics, which in turn is run by the positions of Gov-Gen and Prime Minister, all of which serve the International Community as a priority, especially the UK/USA.

So if anything happens overseas, you are damn sure Australia will follow suit just like the sheep that we tell New Zealand jokes with.

Australia is a mindless zombie ...politcally, for overseas agendas.
Its almost sickening to think that Australia 'thinks it really is the multi-cultural United Nations'.
;D LMFAO

I was all fired-up to reply to the other thread on 'the dress code for some moslem women', but am  just getting started on this Forum, not being a chat 'aficionado'  still got to learn to navigate this properly.

So my writings disappeared into the nevernever.

My take on this is v personal. Not Moslem - in fact I hold NO religion, but  I hate to see women repressed and controlled in such ways.

NO BLANKET BAN ('scuse the pun) will rectify this problem. And a problem it is, as long as people want to argue about it, and what it means.

Only I don't think its only some Moslems who practice such oppression.  I daresay there are quite a few Oz women who, to escape their own , singular, brutal marriage, might welcome becoming one of a larger group of oppressed and essentially enslaved women . More to bear the suffering, don't you know?.
'Cos you OZ guys can be just as cruel and controlling - YOU HAVE NO HIGHER MORAL GROUND>!  YOU CAN'T EVEN FALSELY CLAIM YOUR RELIGION MAKES YOU DO IT!!

why should I feel obligated to show my 'attributes' to their best advantage for the pleasure of a bunch a yobboes??
Why do any of you think you have a right to see my face, let alone other parts of MY body??.  
You are fools.
If I choose to wear a headscarf, large  dark glasses and a voluminous wrap, which gives you few clues to my appearance, are you FRIGHTENED!!!??? Do you think you must have the right to complain? Load of shite mate.!!!

Even tho the Holy Koran does NOT require such strict control of women, the rigidity of thinking which seems to personify all Moslem clerics, even the moderate,  ...in considering and accepting any sort of change, after so many hundreds of years of 'custom' , is not so different to Catholic religious intolerance of women, and the refusal to allow women priests.

DON"T YOU GET IT?   It comes down to plain old FEAR.
You aren't offended, you're afraid.!!

And in just about all societies, women have been the ones to suffer this
secret fear Men have of Women.  Lets face it - it ain't no secret. But thats not how this fear is portrayed. OH NO.
Its righteous!!  Its the Lord's will.  (feel the need for a bit of support from a higher authority do you?)

BUT  back on topic,   banning the wearing of burqas or any other  symbolic artifact - perceived to be religious - IS INEQUITABLE.

STAND up for right. You will soon forget the fear that drove you to demand conformity. :(

Emma wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 11:49pm:

[/i] Why do any of you think you have a right to see my face

Because we let you see ours, you dozy bint.

Gag!! Argghhh!  ooh that was BADDD. ::)

DOZY BINT???


How the bugger did you know?? :D


SO  u mean  I see yours, whether I care or not, - so u see mine????

BIG WET DREAM ON!!! ;D

Jalane as you are new here, and to this posting lark an'll, let me give you a word to the wise. There are a very few who have completely lost the plot. Don't imitate them, because people may judge you are as one.

Verily I say unto yea, behold,  by their formatting yea shall know them. For they shall use wide spaces and huge letters and shall wear out your scroll bar and your will to live.

Now should we back up our 100 sisters who don't want to wear a burqa and are oppressed into doing so, or should we support the right of our not really a full quid sister to wear one voluntarily?

thanks for the wise wordz grey - i'm just having a bit of fun really!! ;)

Is good to respond in kind - sometimes. Especially when the other is 'taking the piss'.....  "cos I can piss on the best of 'em".
(that's my competitive nature) :) and they're not sure just what it is!
Certainly - not imitation! ( or am I kidding myself?)

After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - don't know these dudes (duds) so can hardly imitate them, nor would I choose to.
 Subconsciously perhaps, - and isn't that what all good interviewers, interrogators et al. do? Get on their level, mirror their moves, seek a common ground?  From which to undermine? Or build rapport?

Will certainly keep that formatting tip in mind.  As to being 'judged' as - 'like them'  by others (presumably members and guests)  -  I really couldn't give a continental!!  It's not that important to me, as I am accustomed to being 'judged' by all and sundry, and it affects me and my life minimally..

---

Now - for the topic.  Do I want to support.. a ban..or.....?  
Not that simple Grey.  Not an 'either/or' proposition.!!

To me, being forced by my family, husband, society, Govt, or spiritual leader to wear (or do) (or have done to me - like female genital mutilation) things that are designed to restrain and control 'me' (woman)    ---   is anathema.  I support all women who would deny these customs, and refuse to conform.  
If I choose to wear clothing which swathes me from head to toe, I see no reason why that should be anyone else's concern!!.  In fact, in this climate, it makes sense,  - I've never been a sun-baker!!!
I prefer being covered,  and frankly find the excess of human flesh visible in contemporary society, especially by young, grossly overweight young women and men and most sadly, children, as a true and GROSS indictment of OUR social mores.
Don't you??


'You want to haggle  bignose??'   OOOps don't know where that came from, 'cept Monty P.!!

I'd say we back BOTH!.   :)

Its not the act of wearing the Burqa that offends,
its the act of the Burqa that offends anything beyond its world of a Holy Place of Worship.

In other words:
When Moslems walk into the (priv) Hospital where I was working and the women were chastizing their 'visual' identity. I asked them to remove (only) their facial covering - so as not to offend both Staff and other patients.
I immediately got a refusal, for religious reasons.
I said "fine", but this is a Hospital, not a place of Religion "Either remove the veil or leave the Hospital."
...the women eventually conceded after much rantings of discrimination. They then proceeded to keep the 'curtain' around their bed and request "No males" to attend.
That was fine, especially if the female is under 20 in my books, but not that you could tell if she was fully covered in attire.
Now the Moslem woman was 'large' and the two female staff were duminitive and they had to constantly manouver the Moslem lady around in the bed.
I told my two female Staff to fill out Incident Reports regardless, due to the nuisance of this patient's constant request of "No Male" - because they were sure to feel the back pain after. In fact both female staff complained of back pain straight away and Reports were written ("It is written!" ;D).
So you see, the Burqa and any other Religious aspect in life, is ok - but only in places of 'specification', in this case - Temples of Worship.

Alas, many Religious people think 'everywhere' is Religious, just like Polititians think everything is Political and hence why these people both carry Guns as if they were Military = DENIAL. ::)

Now I have met women in Burqas who 'visually' hide themselves, but 'audiolly' I have found them polite and pleasant to converse with.
I mean, maybe some women might find it Religious to "remain SILENT" but be visually more open rather than restrained. Nothing wrong with that - we all extrovert in one manner and introvert in another. But again, leave it at a Holy Place.
A Doctor of whom worked at the same Hospital threw a Scientology Book out his window when the Scientologists told him: "In our Religion - you must not talk while we are being operated upon."
...funny how people use their "Life's meaning" to bully, dominate, dictate and ruin other people's existences.

Religious people should just teach people to Read and Write, nothing more, nothing less.

Who gives a toss what people wear. People should mind their own business more, it would make for a smoother running society. You can't harm another by what you wear, although you can cause psychological damage to fragile individuals by what you don't wear sometimes......think beach, thong, overweight, male, German tourist.....eeeeew

Pansi I do not want to live in a country where people are wearing full on muslim clothing.

Australia is not a Muslim country - if people want to wear that, they have the pick of the Arab world and parts of Asia.

Not Australia.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 7:14am:

Pansi I do not want to live in a country where people are wearing full on muslim clothing. Australia is not a Muslim country - if people want to wear that, they have the pick of the Arab world and parts of Asia. Not Australia.

I don't want to live in a country with homelessness or poverty, but sometimes we have to work with what we've got, there are BIGGER issues at hand.

So what if they take off the burqa, they are still Muslims and you still won't be happy.

Today`s muslim immigrant / refugee is tomorrows enemy of Australia`s western lifestyle. Does the world really need another Egypt, Iraq, etc?  I`m sure that I for one, don`t want the oppressive muslim "lifestyle" around me.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 12:08am:

Emma wrote on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 11:49pm: [/i] Why do any of you think you have a right to see my face   Because we let you see ours, you dozy bint.

So we have some kind of system of forced reciprocity? If some homeless guy shows you his cock you are obligued to respond in kind? Who is the dozy one here Soren?


Quote:

Now should we back up our 100 sisters who don't want to wear a burqa and are oppressed into doing so, or should we support the right of our not really a full quid sister to wear one voluntarily?

False dichotomy once more Grey. You can support them all. This is perhaps the biggest mental hurdle of all for some - that to protect freedom of choice you do not have to force people to choose the same as you, and in fact doing so does not protect the right to choose at all. It merely imposes conformity.


Quote:

Today`s muslim immigrant / refugee is tomorrows enemy of Australia`s western lifestyle.

Today's anti Muslim nutter calling for a clothing ban is today's enemy of freedom and western values.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:28am:

Today's anti Muslim nutter calling for a clothing ban is today's enemy of freedom and western values.

I am NOT an anti-muslim nutter, I am an anti-islamofascist nutter and disapprover of religion in a generally tolerant, nondenominational sort of way  :)

I am still waiting for that list of everything you would like to ban.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 7:32am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 7:14am: Pansi I do not want to live in a country where people are wearing full on muslim clothing. Australia is not a Muslim country - if people want to wear that, they have the pick of the Arab world and parts of Asia. Not Australia. I don't want to live in a country with homelessness or poverty, but sometimes we have to work with what we've got, there are BIGGER issues at hand. So what if they take off the burqa, they are still Muslims and you still won't be happy.

Oh, but compromise in islam is the end of islam. That is why it is is important to press for compromise by Islam all the small ways. It cannot survive compromise, just as it cannot survive jokes and cartoons and criticism and satire. Islam is very ridid which makes it very fragile.

Grey wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

And there I was thinking it it might be an interesting new topic instead of doubling up on the burqa.  :) Quote: Can we ban all communist flags too? Not alone no, that would be discriminatory. I think it would be a fine thing to ban all political flags and t/shirts - except for Anarchisms of course because Anarchism is different. <irony alert> Our society is comprised far too much of gangs. Gangs are not seeking solutions to problems. They will set out to focus on an issue but it's all about power for a hierarchy and growing the territory. Gangs have tunnel vision, uniforms, specialised language, normalised behaviour and coerce others. The other way of doing is by co-operation between sovereign individuals, (communities). I'm for the latter method, I just don't know how to deconstruct the former. Gangs often change their agendas to suit the primary purpose of power, control and territory for the leaders. So conservative parties often don't conserve anything and labour parties are comprised of Lawyers and Doctors.   The ultimate gangs (the Big Battalions, as they're known) are religions. Their agenda is entirely abstract, the worship of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god, can lead to the burning of wise old ladies and their cats in the pursuit of controlling knowledge.  I don't like religions, I don't like their surplices, cassocks, wibbles, burqas, crosses, swinging jars of incenses, wheat wafer bodies or bloody wine. I've nothing against contemplative spiritual communities though.

What about Buddism? - far less violence anyway.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 8:11pm:

I am still waiting for that list of everything you would like to ban.

I think we should ban nudity, because that's pagan atire. If fact, everybody should have a strip search to make sure they're not concealing the fact that they are naked under all that clothing.  ::)

I like this colourful language:

Grey.

Quote:

I don't like religions, I don't like their surplices, cassocks, wibbles, burqas, crosses, swinging jars of incenses, wheat wafer bodies or bloody wine.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 10:39pm:

What about Buddism? - far less violence anyway.

Buddhism is different in that its central product, meditation, is a useful tool. But like every other religious gang it's become utterly corrupted by woo. The Dalai Lama has run a nice propagands campaign over the decades to the extent that his face with a gentle wry and knowing smile has become the sterotype for the worlds Buddhists. The fact he's the latest incarnation of a long line of despots that make the Chinese look enlightened has been carefully swept under the carpet.

http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/EN/links.htm

Grey wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 12:15am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 10:39pm: What about Buddism? - far less violence anyway. Buddhism is different in that its central product, meditation, is a useful tool. But like every other religious gang it's become utterly corrupted by woo. The Dalai Lama has run a nice propagands campaign over the decades to the extent that his face with a gentle wry and knowing smile has become the sterotype for the worlds Buddhists. The fact he's the latest incarnation of a long line of despots that make the Chinese look enlightened has been carefully swept under the carpet. http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/EN/links.htm

There is nothing in those links that compares
with 500 years of the Catholic Inquisition.
It talks about Hitler being influenced by Buddist type religions
but in fact Hitler was a Catholic & he thought he was doing God's work on earth.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 8:11pm:

I am still waiting for that list of everything you would like to ban.

All irrational religious dogma should be discouraged and laughed at. Actually the people who follow religious beliefs should be persecuted the same way that people of science were persecuted by religious authorities in the early times just to remind them of religions' dark past. The tables have turned on religion and finally, reason and common sense now prevail as it always should have ;)

Hi Nail,
What about this as a respectful Easter message from the Catholic Inquisition -
peformed on those who disagreed with it?

---

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 1:35am:

Hi Nail, What about this as a respectful Easter message from the Catholic Inquisition - peformed on those who disagreed with it?

Yes I heard one priest carrying on about how people have lost their way and were more concerned with material things such as MONEY, cars, boats and superannuation etc. What they failed to tell people is how  big their own stash of treasures are with their massive property portfolios, bank vaults full of gold etc. What a bunch of hypocrites always wanting more of other peoples materialistic possessions. Ever seen a church that doesn't pass around an offering plate ?? And you're not likely to either :(

wicked - Last Nail- hope you are proven correct!!!!!!!!

But  - to truly end an epoch of cruelty, repression and control......

BAN RELIGION!.... ALTOGETHER!!!

ah ..maybe not!   (not achievable)
OR.......(hmmmm ... and on 2nd thought that would create a 'criminal black market' in religious goods, with profits to the most capitalistically inclined --  ) and most obsessed.

OR.....YES!!!   Let people do as they would choose, in their own homes....  (hmmmmm..but not in public?)  
Nope - that won't work.!! Not when it comes to religious folk ---  'cos lets all agree on one thing -   Obsessive Religionists WANT to get in your FACE.

SO  YOU KNOW WHAT?????

TOLERANCE is the only viable path.

Emma wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 1:45am:

wicked - Last Nail- hope you are proven correct!!!!!!!! But  - to truly end an epoch of cruelty, repression and control...... BAN RELIGION!.... ALTOGETHER!!! ah ..maybe not!   (not achievable) OR.......(hmmmm ... and on 2nd thought that would create a 'criminal black market' in religious goods, with profits to the most capitalistically inclined --  ) and most obsessed. OR.....YES!!!   Let people do as they would choose, in their own homes....  (hmmmmm..but not in public?)   Nope - that won't work.!! Not when it comes to religious folk ---  'cos lets all agree on one thing -   Obsessive Religionists WANT to get in your FACE. SO  YOU KNOW WHAT????? TOLERANCE is the only viable path.

I like how they try and tell people that it's a personal thing or a personal choice. But it's not personal at all. It's in your face at every instance. It's on TV, radio, print media, internet etc. It's also on every street corner trying to hoodwink suckers to come in and part with their hard earned cash. There is nothing personal about it anymore than there is for an ad for jam rags on prime time TV :(

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 1:13am:

There is nothing in those links that compares with 500 years of the Catholic Inquisition. It talks about Hitler being influenced by Buddist type religions but in fact Hitler was a Catholic & he thought he was doing God's work on earth.

Oh look BOB, Buddhism isn't as bad, but if it was the only religion left after the rest had been successfully banned it would only continue the practice of woo. They all split with the monotonous regularity of amoeba. For all the good intentions of the founder, and I don't seriously doubt them, Buddhism has to go too I'm afraid  :)

Never let a chance go by :) I can't stand Condolsleazy Rice, but I appreciate the fact she seems to get the joke @ 2.19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM

Grey wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

[quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1303119265/60#60 date=1303571586]There is nothing in those links that compares with 500 years of the Catholic Inquisition. It talks about Hitler being influenced by Buddist type religions but in fact Hitler was a Catholic & he thought he was doing God's work on earth.

Oh look BOB, Buddhism isn't as bad, but if it was the only religion left after the rest had been successfully banned it would only continue the practice of woo. They all split with the monotonous regularity of amoeba. For all the good intentions of the founder, and I don't seriously doubt them, Buddhism has to go too I'm afraid  :)

Never let a chance go by :) I can't stand Condolsleazy Rice, but I appreciate the fact she seems to get the joke @ 2.19




Very funny grey. I'm sure it made more sense than the actual ceremony, was it a gang up to rid the world of Muslims? good try I'm sure, bullies all of them.

Condosleazy.....she's not all bad, look at the cushy job she lined up for her sis

The Catholics must not only condemn the 500 year Inquisition they must explain
how the many Popes & others responsible were able to interpret the
Bible to commit such evil - at the same time explaining
how their infalliable line of Popes could be so fallible.

They never do this - they just say - ohh sorry about that 500 years
& put some money on the plate - be a good sport!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

Grey wrote on Apr 24th, 2011 at 8:38am: [quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1303119265/60#60 date=1303571586]There is nothing in those links that compares with 500 years of the Catholic Inquisition. It talks about Hitler being influenced by Buddist type religions but in fact Hitler was a Catholic & he thought he was doing God's work on earth. Oh look BOB, Buddhism isn't as bad, but if it was the only religion left after the rest had been successfully banned it would only continue the practice of woo. They all split with the monotonous regularity of amoeba. For all the good intentions of the founder, and I don't seriously doubt them, Buddhism has to go too I'm afraid  :) Never let a chance go by :) I can't stand Condolsleazy Rice, but I appreciate the fact she seems to get the joke @ 2.19 Very funny grey. I'm sure it made more sense than the actual ceremony, was it a gang up to rid the world of Muslims? good try I'm sure, bullies all of them. Condosleazy.....she's not all bad, look at the cushy job she lined up for her sis

It's just another case of businesses colluding together to get rid of another business which they consider a threat ;)

Quote:

Oh, but compromise in islam is the end of islam.

Fine by me. Compromise on freedom is the end of freedom - not fine by me.


Quote:

That is why it is is important to press for compromise by Islam all the small ways

So we punish the victim while ignoring the genuine issues? It sounds like you want to beat Islam at it's own game. How about standing up for our values rather than being vindictive? Oh I forgot, you can't tell the difference between Australian values and meat pies.


Quote:

but in fact Hitler was a Catholic & he thought he was doing God's work on earth.

Hitler played the catholic when it suited him politically, but there is strong evidence that the Catholic church would have been next on hist list once he got rid of the jews et al.


Quote:

All irrational religious dogma should be discouraged and laughed at.

So you are happy with the rational ones?


Quote:

Actually the people who follow religious beliefs should be persecuted the same way that people of science were persecuted by religious authorities in the early times just to remind them of religions' dark past.

Are you aware that most of the world's most famous historical scientists, and plenty of modern ones, are religious? Persecution was the exception, not the norm.


Quote:

Yes I heard one priest carrying on about how people have lost their way and were more concerned with material things such as MONEY, cars, boats and superannuation etc. What they failed to tell people is how  big their own stash of treasures are with their massive property portfolios, bank vaults full of gold etc. What a bunch of hypocrites always wanting more of other peoples materialistic possessions. Ever seen a church that doesn't pass around an offering plate ?? And you're not likely to either

Have you thought about what they do with that money? Easy to pretend now that we have government welfare to fall back on, but for most of our history it was the church. This is no more of a sane argument than demanding we ban government.


Quote:

I like how they try and tell people that it's a personal thing or a personal choice. But it's not personal at all. It's in your face at every instance.

No it isn't. If anyone is in your face it is the atheists. Just look around here at them trying to ban everything. Imagine the howling if the church demanded we banned the promotion of atheism in public. You have to have a pretty big chip on your shoulder to find Australia's religious people confronting.


Quote:

It's on TV, radio, print media, internet etc.

Who is forcing you to watch it?


Quote:

It's also on every street corner

;D


Quote:

The Catholics must not only condemn the 500 year Inquisition they must explain how the many Popes & others responsible were able to interpret the Bible to commit such evil - at the same time explaining how their infalliable line of Popes could be so fallible. They never do this - they just say - ohh sorry about that 500 years & put some money on the plate - be a good sport!

The funny thing is, the people who criticise the catholics most loudly for this are the same ones demanding we start oppressing Muslims with silly religious bans. Hypocrisy?


Quote:

It's just another case of businesses colluding together to get rid of another business which they consider a threat

Maybe that's all it is, and atheists don't seem any slower at reaching for the bottom of the barrel.

Quote:

No it isn't. If anyone is in your face it is the atheists. Just look around here at them trying to ban everything. Imagine the howling if the church demanded we banned the promotion of atheism in public. You have to have a pretty big chip on your shoulder to find Australia's religious people confronting.

Makes a refreshing change don't it? Difference is atheists don't claim to be speaking for the sky pixie, use superstitious nonsense to install fear, burn people for disagreeing, or do the mock horror of blasphemy and lock people up for it.

Hooray for the starvation army band, they'll try to convert you even if they cant. Actually I think the salvo's should be banned for offences against architecture. ... and music. :P

Quote:

Difference is atheists don't claim to be speaking for the sky pixie

So it is nothing to do with their actions, but their beliefs? You don't mind proselytising, so long as it is 'your side' that is doing it? Everyone else should be banned?

If your views are so righteous, why do you need the government to help you impose them on other people? Have you no faith in your own ability to put together a rational argument?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: Difference is atheists don't claim to be speaking for the sky pixie So it is nothing to do with their actions, but their beliefs? You don't mind proselytising, so long as it is 'your side' that is doing it? Everyone else should be banned?

When their beliefs lead to actions that cause immense harm throughout history banning is only sensible dontcha think? The message of Atheism, that 'god' doesn't exist, never harmed anybody.



Quote:

If your views are so righteous, why do you need the government to help you impose them on other people? Have you no faith in your own ability to put together a rational argument?

Come, come free, my saying 'religion should be banned' is just rhetoric; the government is hardly likely to act on it. Meanwhile religions get an exemption from paying tax, get public money towards the running of their schools, get their pastors implanted in state schools and kick up a hell of a fuss about the suggestion that kids get taught ethics rather than religious morals. Remove those impositions before you go looking for the mote in my eye.

I have every confidence in the reason of my arguments against the irrational, superstitious claptrap I oppose.  

hello! ::)
err - a little off-topic guys!  Yep luv doing that!! :)

why is it so>? :-/

Legal intervention - in the form of 'Bans' - hmmm... bans  - what a polite way of saying -  absolutely forbidden or suffer the consequence.

But - they don't work do they?  not for any real purpose to be achieved.  At least in this context.  All a Ban does is advertise -  and who said 'No Publicity is bad publicity.?
? beats me !! ;)  

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:07pm:

The funny thing is, the people who criticise the catholics most loudly for this are the same ones demanding we start oppressing Muslims with silly religious bans. Hypocrisy?

that's a classic straw man fallacy. I have said nothing of the kind. I bundle all irrational religious dogma together as something that should be exposed for the fraud that it is. Nothing more and nothing less. If you are stupid enough to believe it then you deserve to get ripped off by some con man in a costume waving some incense around the place whilst reading from an old book full of bronzed aged myths.

Bobbythebat1

Quote:

The Catholics must not only condemn the 500 year Inquisition they must explain how the many Popes & others responsible were able to interpret the Bible to commit such evil - at the same time explaining how their infalliable line of Popes could be so fallible. They never do this - they just say - ohh sorry about that 500 years & put some money on the plate - be a good sport!

Freediver.

Quote:

The funny thing is, the people who criticise the catholics most loudly for this are the same ones demanding we start oppressing Muslims with silly religious bans. Hypocrisy?

Freediver - I say that we don't need any of this religious claptrap - be
it Muslim or Christian.
The Catholics must explain the Inquisition to people.
When the Nazis killed people in horrific ways we banned them -
we didn't say - ohh now they've changed - their ideology was actually good.
Here: we'll subsidide your Nazi schools & give you tax exemptions.
It's the same thing - hypocrisy.

Quote:

When their beliefs lead to actions that cause immense harm throughout history banning is only sensible dontcha think? The message of Atheism, that 'god' doesn't exist, never harmed anybody.

You are shifting the goal posts a bit don't you think? For religion, you will define it by every evil deed done in it's name while conveniently glossing over all the good deeds, but for atheism, you insist on defining it by the actions of a 'message', not the evil perpetrated by those promoting it - like for example your attempts to deny people freedom of religion because you think they are too stupid to be allowed to decide for themselves.


Quote:

Come, come free, my saying 'religion should be banned' is just rhetoric;

By rhetoric, do you mean lies?


Quote:

the government is hardly likely to act on it

But I am not asking what the government is going to do in the short term future. I am asking what you want.


Quote:

Remove those impositions before you go looking for the mote in my eye.

I am happy to debate all those other issues, and have done so plenty of times in many threads here, but again, this is about what you would have banned. Don't get all shy on me now, or I'll start calling you Abu. Why are you so afraid to remove the mote in your own eye first? Must I make a perfect society before you will reveal your plans to me?


Quote:

I have every confidence in the reason of my arguments against the irrational, superstitious claptrap I oppose.

 

So why are you now trying so desperately to avoid the issue?

Bobby:


Quote:

It's the same thing - hypocrisy.

What about your own views on denying people fundamental human rights? Must we correct or explain away all of history before you will acknowledge your own hypocrisy? Everyone else first, you last?

Bobbythebat1

Quote:

It's the same thing - hypocrisy

.

Reply from Freediver.

Quote:

What about your own views on denying people fundamental human rights? Must we correct or explain away all of history before you will acknowledge your own hypocrisy? Everyone else first, you last?

Let me explain it more clearly.
Do you reject Nazism?
If the answer is yes then lets look at why:
The Nazi ideology led to to horrific abuses of human beings.
We therefore don't encourage Nazism in any way.

Do you reject the 500 years of the Catholic Inquisition where
the abuses were worse than Nazism?
If the answer is yes then why not look at the ideology that led to this?
All the reasons can be found by the way the Bible was interpreted.
Those words haven't changed & they include many texts telling
people to murder other people.

Surely it's hypocrisy to reject Nazism but to accept Catholicism?

I reject all of these evil things. But I am not a hypocrit. I do not substitute other people's evil for my own. I do not use the actions of people centuries ago to justify the denial of fundamental human rights. I do not even use the actions of modern muslims to justify the denial of freedom of religion. I do not try to ban political parties merely because I can associate their ideology with some historical evil.

Freediver.

Quote:

I do not use the actions of people centuries ago to justify the denial of fundamental human rights.

And yet you would reject the right of someone to walk down
the street in a Nazi uniform wearing jack boots & waving a swastika flag?
Symbols of failed violent ideology are not acceptable
including Muslim religious clothing - at least from my point of view.

Quote:

And yet you would reject the right of someone to walk down the street in a Nazi uniform wearing jack boots & waving a swastika flag?

You should stop making stuff up Bobby. You seem to be confusing the rejection of an ideology with an automatic desire to ban clothing and symbols. It may come automatically to you, but most people stop and think first.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Quote: And yet you would reject the right of someone to walk down the street in a Nazi uniform wearing jack boots & waving a swastika flag? You should stop making stuff up Bobby. You seem to be confusing the rejection of an ideology with an automatic desire to ban clothing and symbols. It may come automatically to you, but most people stop and think first.

I believe I put a great deal of thought into my answer.
It's amazing that after 9/11 we are now pandering to Muslims.
They have an ideology that does not accept other religions or
anyone else who doesn't believe in their prophet.
We are in the middle of a religious war & yet we let
our enemies parade in front of us wearing welding masks.

Quote:

It's amazing that after 9/11 we are now pandering to Muslims.

No Bobby, you are confused again. Defending the right of women to choose what to wear is not pandering to Muslims. It is the opposite of what they want.

Tell us Bobby, whose views do you think are closer to that of Islam? Those who think the government should control what people wear, or those who think it should be up to the individual?


Quote:

They have an ideology that does not accept other religions

Do you?


Quote:

We are in the middle of a religious war

Not according to GWB.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

You are shifting the goal posts a bit don't you think? For religion, you will define it by every evil deed done in it's name while conveniently glossing over all the good deeds, but for atheism, you insist on defining it by the actions of a 'message', not the evil perpetrated by those promoting it - like for example your attempts to deny people freedom of religion because you think they are too stupid to be allowed to decide for themselves.

The history of religion is clear, it does one helluva lot more harm than good. Proof? 'The Holy Land'.


Quote:

[quote]Come, come free, my saying 'religion should be banned' is just rhetoric;

By rhetoric, do you mean lies?[/quote]

Okay, for 'should be banned' substitute ' the world would be much better off without it'.


Quote:

I am not asking what the government is going to do in the short term future. I am asking what you want.

I want to challenge the authority and relevance of religion in the 21stC, but I think you know that.



Quote:

I am happy to debate all those other issues, and have done so plenty of times in many threads here, but again, this is about what you would have banned. Don't get all shy on me now, or I'll start calling you Abu. Why are you so afraid to remove the mote in your own eye first?

Okay I have done so, you are now free to try to justify your bronze age mumbo jumbo.




Quote:

Must I make a perfect society before you will reveal your plans to me?

Do I remember you accusing me of grandiose plans Hmmm?





Quote:

why are you now trying so desperately to avoid the issue?

As you are aware I've clariffied the issue by starting a new thread, where we can discuss religion with a broad brush.

Quote:

The history of religion is clear, it does one helluva lot more harm than good. Proof? 'The Holy Land'.

That is not proof Grey. Religion has been part of our society since we had society. To credit it only with the good is simply intellectual laziness. You demonstrate a far worse myopia than any of the religious folk you criticise for it.


Quote:

Okay, for 'should be banned' substitute ' the world would be much better off without it'.

I am still waiting for that list of things you would ban - you know, the one you insist would not grow by the day. Are you still making it up?


Quote:

I want to challenge the authority and relevance of religion in the 21stC, but I think you know that.

What authority does it have in Australian society?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Quote: And yet you would reject the right of someone to walk down the street in a Nazi uniform wearing jack boots & waving a swastika flag? You should stop making stuff up Bobby. You seem to be confusing the rejection of an ideology with an automatic desire to ban clothing and symbols. It may come automatically to you, but most people stop and think first.

what's the difference ?? Religion is an ideology !!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology


Quote:

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

Quote: The history of religion is clear, it does one helluva lot more harm than good. Proof? 'The Holy Land'. That is not proof Grey. Religion has been part of our society since we had society. To credit it only with the good is simply intellectual laziness. You demonstrate a far worse myopia than any of the religious folk you criticise for it.

I don't credit it with 'good' that's your job.



Quote:

I am still waiting for that list of things you would ban - you know, the one you insist would not grow by the day. Are you still making it up?

You said I'd ban something new every day. I haven't and you keep demanding a list? You expect me to prove me wrong? That's your job.



Quote:

[quote]I want to challenge the authority and relevance of religion in the 21stC, but I think you know that.

What authority does it have in Australian society?[/quote]

Oh good you question now whether the church has any authority, that's progress.

Funny how all these 'Anti-Religious' posters love to Read & Write ;) ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

Quote: It's amazing that after 9/11 we are now pandering to Muslims. No Bobby, you are confused again. Defending the right of women to choose what to wear is not pandering to Muslims. It is the opposite of what they want.

Why would an old bag wear these sorts of clothes ?? To cover up her beauty :D LOL What practical purpose does it serve other than to hide her identity and make identification difficult. Why should muslims have special privileges in clothing which makes their identification difficult ??

I just heard of a case where the council spent $45,000 of rate payers money on a partition for a public swimming pool just so muslim women can swim. How absurd is that ?? My suggestions to those women is don't go. Stay at home so nobody has to look at you. If you want to believe in a silly old book full of nonsense then don't burden other people with it !! Better still go back to Iran and practice it there.

Quote:

what's the difference ?? Religion is an ideology !!

I am not sure what you are asking nail. Do you not know the difference between rejecting an ideology and trying to ban it?


Quote:

I don't credit it with 'good' that's your job.

Sorry, I meant to credit it only with the bad is intellectual laziness.


Quote:

You said I'd ban something new every day. I haven't

I did not mean to imply you had the power to ban things. However, you do keep coming up with new ideas for bans every day. You also keep avoiding any clarification on it.  Are you now saying you oppose all bans, including the burqa? Note that conceding that you have no chance of getting your way is not the same as opposing a ban. It just means you would wait until someone comes along who would ignore the 'practical difficulties' you keep referring to but won't explain.


Quote:

Why would an old bag wear these sorts of clothes ??

It is none of your business nail. People do not have to justify their choice of clothing to you.


Quote:

LOL What practical purpose does it serve other than to

Nail, in case you hadn't noticed, most of our clothes ceased lond ago to be anything about being practical. This is no justification for a ban.


Quote:

Why should muslims have special privileges

They don't. Everyone is free to choose what to wear. Choosing something different to you is not a special privilege unless you believe in government imposed conformity.

Dear Freediver -
if the French can ban it - so can we.

I am not doubting our ability. I am questioning whether doing so is a good idea.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:19pm:

I am not doubting our ability. I am questioning whether doing so is a good idea.

Well - let's see what happens in France & if all's well -
then repeat it here.

We shouldn't ban it everywhere. We just shouldn't respect it.

We should ban it in public places like government offices, banks, schools, universtities. We should allow other places with dresscodes to ban it, like cinemas, clubs, museums, shops.

Quote:

I did not mean to imply you had the power to ban things. However, you do keep coming up with new ideas for bans every day. You also keep avoiding any clarification on it.  Are you now saying you oppose all bans, including the burqa? Note that conceding that you have no chance of getting your way is not the same as opposing a ban. It just means you would wait until someone comes along who would ignore the 'practical difficulties' you keep referring to but won't explain.

The trouble with your thinking Free is that you're an idealogue. You have a fundamentalist faith in principles. I think we share the same principles in general but on this matter of the burqa...I'm not so sure a ban is unthinkable. I think B the B's idea is the most sensible. Let's see what happens in France.

:P :P

Grey - -  
what ?the French???.

Remember the Rainbow Warrier.

Quote:

I think we share the same principles in general

Lets be specific then. How about freedom of choice?


Quote:

I'm not so sure a ban is unthinkable.

Are you trying to say you are still making up your mind?


Quote:

I think B the B's idea is the most sensible. Let's see what happens in France.

If aliens landed there tomorrow, what would it tell you about the burqa ban? If a woman got arrested merely for her choice of clothing, what would that tell you?  If a terrorist blew up the eiffel tower, what would it tell you? Are you and bobby suggesting that we cannot forsee the immediate outcome, or perhaps that we will be able to make some kind of generalisation about every single flow-on effect? Why do you need an experiment to see what happens when you ban something?

Emma wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 1:45am:

wicked - Last Nail- hope you are proven correct!!!!!!!! But  - to truly end an epoch of cruelty, repression and control...... BAN RELIGION!.... ALTOGETHER!!!

Our Western style of justice system is derived from, developed from, the Judaeo-Christian religions.

e.g.
Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
[Leviticus 19:18]

Religions are systems of laws, essentially.

What you are calling for is the abandonment of law.

I am not surprised.







Emma wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 1:45am:

TOLERANCE is the only viable path.

IMO, the call today for 'TOLERANCE', is another expression, another call, for the abandonment of law [i.e. judgement].



I have not the slightest doubt, you will not agree, you will not concede my argument, but what you are calling for, is lawlessness.

And, look around you.

Look at the nightly TV news.....the world of man today, is full of lawlessness [i.e. 'tolerance',   ....of evil].

And on your own head be it.

Infection or cancer, cannot take hold and spread in vital, healthy flesh.
We remain healthy while our body remains vital and 'clean'.
We remain healthy while our body has the capacity to clease itself of the toxins produced by the processes that occur within a living organism.
Infection and cancer, take hold in a 'polluted' body ['polluted' usually due to overconsumption].
Infection and cancer will kill the host, when a body no longer has the capacity to clease itself of those toxins produced by the processes that occur within a living organism.


+++


freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:07pm:

Quote: Oh, but compromise in islam is the end of islam. Fine by me. Compromise on freedom is the end of freedom - not fine by me.

Yes, compromising freedom [liberty] is fine by you FD.



+++

ISLAM is a cancerous philosophy, ISLAM is a cancer which feeds upon the 'body' of humanity - wherever it finds a polluted ['tolerant', morally sick] body.
To wit, 'tolerant' people like yourself, propose that our 'body' should defend the rights of good moslems.
Though ISLAM's intention, and the intent of moslems [often openly declared], is to destroy other systems of law, and to subsume within itself all authority in law, and authority over all people.
i.e.
The essential [and always denied] intent of those moslems who come to live among us, is to destroy the political 'environment' which facilitates and which 'gifts' to you, the right of 'individual choice', a right which you claim to cherish.
[If you challenge that last assertion, please, point to any majority moslem society where those rights, of individual choice, are protected.]

Illogically, you propose to defend the rights of those, who would destroy those same rights, of individual choice.
To wit...
IMAGE...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/freedom_of_expression_go_to_hell.jpg
"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL"

The 'logic' you embrace, is that you propose to defend the rights of those, who's only intent is to destroy YOUR rights, and intend to become your oppressor.

It is as though you hold a box of matches in your hands, and declare;
"It is wrong to burn down a house. And that is why i will not burn down this house."
But then, you choose to give your box of matches to a person who wishes to burn down the house.
Illogical.


FD, you are expressing a false virtue.
In that you seem to see nothing wrong with giving moslems the means, to destroy the political 'environment' which facilitates, your own right of 'individual choice'.
When i say 'false virtue', i mean to convey the total lack of 'proper' discernment, in your worldview.


When we choose to 'gift' to moslems, the right of 'individual choice', moslems will begin to express that right of 'individual choice', in a way which they [moslems] will seek to remove that same right of 'individual choice' from others.....as per;
IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
All good moslems express the view, that the right of 'individual choice' must not include the right to scrutinize, or criticise, or to reject ISLAM

n.b.
That last image DOES display moslems engaging in their right of 'freedom of expression',
...because, TO ALL GOOD MOSLEMS, the right of 'freedom of expression', also DOES embrace the moslem right to promote incitement to murder those who 'insult' ISLAM!


FD, [whether you will admit it, or not] in defending the right of 'individual choice' for moslems, you are implicitly defending a right of moslems, to murder those who reject ISLAM's authority.


FD, you are sick ['polluted'].
The proof that you are sick, is that you are happy to defend, and to host the contagion, that would destroy the body which gives you life.


+++

The Western world will be overwhelmed,  will be destroyed, and  will be subsumed by moslems.

Why so ???

Because those who are 'tolerant', those who are 'virtuous' [like yourself] will allow ISLAM to achieve its ambition.

Because there are so many among us, who are convinced that to appease ISLAM, is the best path forward.


+++

Revelation 17:1
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Revelation 17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
7  And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Revelation 17:15
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16  And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17  For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

I commend you Yadda.

In truth - not by the Holy Books - i recognise the dangers in embracing one's enemies.  IF we forget they are enemies.   I say KNOW your enemies.
Let them walk freely amongst us - and Watch . Be on guard.

But don't deny they are human, as we are. Do you say that if you were born into a Moslem family, you would still believe as you do now?.

You would say - no - I would believe as I was taught, by my family, my creed, my society.   As I DO.

We're all the product of our cultural up-bringing.  Imagine how hard it would be if we were raised in isolation.  
WHAT is TRUTH?  
Truth has many faces.

and Yadda
what else is there to say?

This has been ON since Mohammed rose as 'prophet',  as - a son to God. Or Allah, as He is also known.

Having  never fully read the Bible, just bits and pieces, despite being raised in a Christian country - a member of the Commonwealth,  - and having never been made to read religious texts, having never been christened, having felt nothing but abhorrence for religious fundamentalism, I interact with such as yourself with some awe.  WOW!
An existence I could never experience, not being grounded as you are in this belief system.
Don't even know if your quotes are from the Bible !!
- don't really care either, ..
though - I have to say as a 'Woman", it sure sounds like it >:(>

Yet - isn't Yadda -  Yadda yadda yadda - the yank version of Blah Blah Blah??
:-? ::)

...and the Moslems will do to the French,
what the Germans did to the Jews.

After which the Jew will 'unite' with his Moslem peoples and say:
"Now lets get those bloody Italians!"

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:16am:

I reject all of these evil things. But I am not a hypocrit. I do not substitute other people's evil for my own. I do not use the actions of people centuries ago to justify the denial of fundamental human rights. I do not even use the actions of modern muslims to justify the denial of freedom of religion. I do not try to ban political parties merely because I can associate their ideology with some historical evil.

Yadda paraphrases FD....

"I do not make assumptions about the actions of wolves, to justify the denial of the fundamental right of wolves to mingle with other creatures in the meadow. I would never seek to separate wolves from sheep, just because the suggestion has been made, that wolves might prey upon, and eat the sheep. Wolves should have the same rights as sheep do, to enjoy the meadow."


+++



ISLAM, is essentially a criminal organisation.

A 'wolf', which preys upon mankind.

Wherever it has the 'opportunity', ISLAM always threatens, and often kills, those who oppose or criticise its aims and its 'temporal' or secular [worldly] authority.

ISLAM portrays itself [to many who do not know it] as a religion.

But, imo, ISLAM is essentially a political philosophy, which 'religiously' justifies the use of terror and violence to achieve its aims.

IMAGE
http://images.sp@m.com/polls/000799261/polls_behead_those_who_insult_islam_london_5534_84585_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg
Moslem 'entitlement' expressed.





Yadda wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 1:47pm:

From what i know, from my study, of ISLAM's own texts, and doctrines, i would confidently make this statement; Every good moslem in Australia [and indeed, every good moslem on the planet], by **self declaring** as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. Every moslem! Every non-moslem should be aware and recognise, that ISLAM is in fact, a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against ALL non-moslems ['unbelievers']. And in my estimation, every good moslem **does understand** what his/her **religious** OBLIGATION is, to ISLAM, and to fellow moslems.

e.g.....


Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian. Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'" Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders." And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us". These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world. ...DDA

Google it.

n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"







IMO, no good moslem is a worthy person to live in a country like Australia.

IMO, any person who self declares,

"I am a moslem. Allah is my God. ISLAM is my religion."

....should be removed, expelled from Australia.

you make me think Yadda.

Clearly, from an historical viewpoint, you are correct - Islam seeks to make this world wholly Islamist.  
Witness to this is the fact that Islam rose to dominance, thru war, as far west as Spain, at least> Which leaves?? christian knights and their multitudinous slaves,  to repel this onslaught.   As they did. A LONG TIME AGO.
Architecture alone attests to this.

BUT- this is an ageless conflict, and very likely , as today!, the conflict will continue.  

But- given the roots are so old, - why can't WE - here in C21, reconcile our differences/>??

I'll tell you why.
We are animals - 2 legs BAD.  We are BAD ANIMALS. Trying to justify our BADNESS by calling on a 'god' as justification.

Eternal conflict is OUR right. Nothing else do we inspire.

Emma wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 2:45am:

you make me think Yadda.

I hope that i can do that.

But i'm not holding my breath.     ::)






Quote:

Clearly, from an historical viewpoint, you are correct - Islam seeks to make this world wholly Islamist.   Witness to this is the fact that Islam rose to dominance, thru war, as far west as Spain, at least> Which leaves?? christian knights and their multitudinous slaves,  to repel this onslaught.   As they did. A LONG TIME AGO. Architecture alone attests to this. BUT- this is an ageless conflict, and very likely , as today!, the conflict will continue.   But- given the roots are so old, - why can't WE - here in C21, reconcile our differences/>?? I'll tell you why. We are animals - 2 legs BAD.  We are BAD ANIMALS. Trying to justify our BADNESS by calling on a 'god' as justification. Eternal conflict is OUR right. Nothing else do we inspire.

Human conflict will end, when men have the law [of God] in their hearts [instead of the law [of God] being only in books].

My God promises this will 'come about', to his 'children'.

I firmly believe that our purpose in being 'here', is that we are all choosing our own [future] fate.

The fate of the wicked, is sort of, God's joke, on the wicked [spirits] - because they chose it, for themselves.



Daniel 12:10
Isaiah 48:10
Revelation 21:7-8

Quote:

Yadda paraphrases FD....

How about we stick to reality Yadda? Muslim women are not going to eat you, with or without the viel.

yeah  - not even if they were really hungry.!!! ;)

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:19pm:

I am not doubting our ability. I am questioning whether doing so is a good idea.

yes of course it's a good idea from a security perspective. Security should have priority over irrational religious dogma. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 7:45am:

Quote: Yadda paraphrases FD.... How about we stick to reality Yadda? Muslim women are not going to eat you, with or without the viel.

And no guy is automatically going to rape them just because they see a bit of muslim cleavage.

oooh last nail -  that makes me wonder -

Do you have empathy?
Can u put urself in someone else's place.?  Do you thinK. ?/?
A female place?

I don't think you can, some don't try to kid y'self.

Quote:

Security should have priority over irrational religious dogma.

Should it have priority over the freedom to choose what to wear?

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 12:00am:

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 6:19pm: I am not doubting our ability. I am questioning whether doing so is a good idea. yes of course it's a good idea from a security perspective. Security should have priority over irrational religious dogma. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else.

Hear hear Nail.
Would a man walking around the streets with his face covered
in the same way be accepted or stopped?
I am sure that the police would push him to the ground & rip
his disguise off - followed by a stout police bashing.
Why do Muslim women get away with it?

Are you being sarcastic bobby?

How many robberies and assaults have occured in Australia in the last 12 mths and how many of them involved the wearing of religious head covering?
I think we will all find security has nothing to do with day to day religious clothing.
A scrawny bogan druggy in a burqa is pretty bloody obvious.

Suppose a motorcyclist enters a store without removing his helmet, robs it, then drives off on his bike. How does the burqa ban aid security?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Are you being sarcastic bobby?

In a way yes.
But...   I noticed that during riots in Melbourne - as seen on TV -
many years ago -
some people wearing balaclavas got a savage beating by the cops
even when they were just standing there doing nothing -
that's right - clubbed with batons - blood everywhere.
It seems that any disguise is not liked by police - even though they
of course took their police number ID's off so that
they couldn't be easily recognised  & reported.
The government did nothing about it.

It seems there are different rules for Muslim women.

Its quite comical that over 3,000 people die in this country each year from alcohol abuse and tens of thousands die from tobacco use and the worst thing people can find to be afraid of is relgious clothing and if they can see someones face.
More people die in this country each year from alcohol abuse than died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks..peoples priorities are sure screwed up.
Crikey more people die each year in the world from car crashes than terrorist attacks..
Ya gotta love the hysteria the media and right wing fear mongers generate. Yes we have to fight terrorism and religious extremism but put it in perspective..
Phillip Morris and Fosters are far better at killing than any terrorist group

Quote:

Phillip Morris and Fosters are far better at killing than any terrorist group

Maybe but theofascists don't ask for volunteers to be victims.