freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 10:12am:


FD, you are defending the rights of moslems, to express their freedoms and rights.

That would be commendable, except for one fact.


The FACT,
that moslems believe that in a just society, they will have the freedom, and the right, to murder those who they perceive as insulting moslems / ISLAM.

That is the 'religious freedom' to which moslems aspire.





FD,

Your 'tolerance' of the right of moslems, to their 'religious freedom', is empowering their aspirations.

Moslems want the freedom and the right to oppress and murder non-moslems - BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-MOSLEMS.

Moslems want to practice cultural supremacism, and political fascism, and to impose an intolerant tyranny upon all mankind.

That is the 'religious freedom' to which moslems aspire.

Your 'tolerance' of the right of moslems to their 'religious freedom', is empowering moslem aspirations.




The difference between your position, and mine, is that, i don't equate the aspirations of good moslems, with religious worship, or with religious practice.

I equate the aspirations of good moslems as criminal intent, the intent to seek the power to murder, and oppress others, who do not believe, as they believe.



FD,

By suggesting that we must show tolerance for moslems [and their 'values'], and must respect their rights, you are [effectively] demonstrating that you believe that moslems and ourselves share a moral equivalency.

I don't believe such a thing.

I believe that ISLAM is an evil philosophy.

And i believe that we should separate ourselves from moslems, and from ISLAM.

And we should certainly not afford moslems the same rights, in our society, as we enjoy [rights which they despise, but will exploit, to destroy our society].

That is not 'racism'.

It is simply taking a moral decision, to separate myself from something which i regard as profoundly evil.






Quote:


FD,

You claim you support freedom of choice, and liberty.

IMO, 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.

By extending freedoms within our society, to [good] moslems, you, and 'tolerant' people like you, are working against those ideals [of freedom and liberty] which you claim to be a champion of.








Quote:



Good people do - hold our society together.

When i say 'good people', i equate that term with what i would call moral people.

People who know the difference between good and evil.

People who can discern between good and evil, and who then decide to shun the evil, and to embrace the good.

That statement i know, will seem simplistic, especially to many 'liberals' who are heavily invested in their belief in the worth of 'tolerance', of those who are different from ourselves.

And who have a belief in the worth of the 'tolerance' of those who have different perceptions from us, of what is right and wrong, good and evil.

What is good, what is evil ???

Do we have a 'moral compass' any more ???

Many today believe that good and evil are too difficult to define, for ourselves.i

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M Pirsig

jordan484 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:29pm:


Thanks for another recap. So, you see the boundaries as a tool for changing society to suit yourself by denying people basic human rights and taking their children away from them (while washing your hands of responsibility for what you set in motion). I see the boundaries as limited only by the rights and freedom of others.

Quote:


Well done Yadda. That doesn't sound crazy at all.

Quote:


So you should then understand the need to reinforce the real meaning of freedom, not throw it out the window every time someone does something you don't like.

Quote:


Not really. They seem pretty impotent against it. It is your behaviour that may actually empower them, because your intolerance gives credibility to their intolerance. If both sides are rabidly intolerant of the other, who's to say which side people will choose? On the other hand if one side preaches intolerance and the other responds by insisting on fundamental human rights, most people will make the right choice.

Remember Yadda, this is an idea you are fighting, not a bunch of people. Islam is impotent because this battle did not even exist in the days of Muhammed. You are making the exact same mistake that muslims do. You have gone so far to the opposite extreme that you have become indistuinguishable from your enemy in the eyes of reasonable men.

Quote:


Here you just demonstrate your misunderstanding of rights Yadda. You cannot deny one person their rights without denying it to everyone, including yourself. If you deny Muslims the right to choose their own religion, you also deny it yourself.

Quote:


WTF?

Quote:


Fortunately the law is a bit more reasonable about these things.

Quote:


No I am not. I am working for them. You seem incapable of distinguishing between granting freedom and actually supporting every choice that people make. All I am supporting is their right to choose Yadda, not the choices they make. Likewise, you also seem to get yourself all confused when you equate freedom with tolerance. They are not the same thing yadda. Freedom requires tolerance, but it is also freedom that grants people such as yourself and Alan Jones the right to express their intolerance. You get yourself into also sorts of mental loops trying to understand tolerance of intolerance, because intolerance can mean such a broad range of things depending on how it is expressed. It becomes meaningless drivel. On the other hand the concept of freedom is quite simple.

I wonder how many here believe segregation by socio-economic status to be as pernicious as that based on religious affiliation.

I wonder if it is a feature of the secular mindset, with its naturally held suspicion and mistrust of religious indoctrination, to see religious education necessarily as an evil while ignoring, overlooking or actively supporting socio-economic segregation, with all its attendant indoctrination despite its probable role (among other things) as both the source of cultural chauvinism and the foundry of middle-class guilt.

Certainly both can have a profound formative effect, with probably socio-economic segregation being more affecting than religious.

But surely if the issue is social segregation, then that which is based on money should be seen equally as pernicious as religion... Perhaps more so.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 10:35am:

Certainly agree with you Muso, regarding merit... In fact I'd go further to say that the term segregation (with its baggage of implied 'status undeservedness') is too harsh when in the context of merit. One ascends based on merit.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 10:35am:

And that was my point... If anyone has a problem with segregating kids based on religious affiliation, then they should also have a problem with segregating kids based solely on parental social status. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, The idea of congenital nobility of the socio-economic elite is as asinine an idea as an hereditary mathematician.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 10:35am:

All true... And pro-religionists would argue that the ideals of morality and culture are better served by religious education and that 'good Catholics' (or good *insert traditional religion here*) are necessary for a healthy society.

Helian, are you equating wealth with social status?

I'm fairly sure that private faith schools have better standards of education than state-run secular schools. What should be banned is any sort of religious institution that gets fed by tax payers money!




____________________
see also catholic schools ban

Don't ban Religious Schools,

just tell Politics, Mathematics, Spirituality (Fashion), Music, Science, Farming, Oceanic, Art, Aviation, Military, Conservation, Medical, Cooking, Sport and Citi-zenship ....SCHOOLS, to just get with the program and

"SOUND UP AS IF YOU'VE GOTTA PAIR!"
(Trans: Get your own bloody schools ya wheeners!)

In the Sydney Basin there are a number of 'themed' schools.
Most are Religious because Religion 'started' the concept of 'School' and the edu-ma-cation that comes with it.

We must remember that some schools promote Breeding and Good Relationships, others focus upon Achievements and Creativity.
You can tell a guy who was raised in an All-Boys School, he's the one with 'harassment' against women in the Workplace and thats just one example of the 'differences' that arise in various situations due to various forms of Schooling.

I know this because I wagged School in Mt Druitt to get a real edu-ma-cation from the Libraries and followed up on my favourite subject "Excursions" because that seemed the only subject where the other kids seemed ...relaxed n' happy, etc.

Any-a-ways.
James Ruse is popular for its strong Agricultural focus and does hit the #1 of top schools occassionally for Achievements (guess not much is happening in the hay at that school then )
Newtown Schools seem very Music orientated.
Fort Street (which is where I would have ended up - but moved from Lewisham to the dogpit of Mt Druitt) seems very Science orientated
Hurlstone Park is another Agricultural.
Kings is very Political, even if it dresses its students in un-practical Military uniforms in the heat of summer.


...as you can see there are more out there I'm sure, that aren't just focused upon Religion. Its up to you to recognise your child's talent let alone recognise if your child needs to learn to achieve or have good relationships in their lives.