I think I'm beginning to understand FD's frame of mind regarding the muslim communities in the west. To him they are a akin to a 'state within a state', who are not represented by the countries' leaders - as any other citizen of that country would be assumed to be. Why else would he make the point that "Barak Obama stood up for freedom - what did the muslims do??" Clearly non-muslims (regardless of the demonstrated attitudes towards freedoms) get a free pass because they are "represented" by Obama, Abbott and whatever other non-muslim western representatives FD can think of. ie as soon as they say they support freedoms, the "mainstream" is automatically spoken for - which is fine, but curiously, the muslim community - despite demonstrably being overwhelmingly as integrated, and law abiding as the rest of society - are not considered represented by their country's leaders. No, they must stand up separately and make their own representations, because being a fully integrated, law abiding citizen of their country isn't enough - even though its enough for everyone else, regardless of what their 'freedom credentials' are.

The irony of course being that for all his talk about the importance of muslims integrating and accepting "our" values, here he is insisting that the muslims remain unintegrated - by not allowing them to be represented like everyone else by the state's representatives, and insisting they represent themselves separately - just like a state within a state. Thus FD's circular logic is complete: muslims here are slammed for being foreign and alien to our culture - because of the barriers FD himself constructs around them.

Soren wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:


Please define the term "assimilation", Soren.
Please tell us how do you measure levels of "assimilation"?
Please tell us what is the acceptable level of "assimilation"?

In reality, it's a meaningless word.  I suspect what you mean by "assimilated" is that they wear singlets, stubby shorts and thongs, swill beer, swear like troopers, eat barbequed pork sausages and attend church every Sunday.   

Quote:


You keep repeating that claim, Soren.  Doesn't make it any truer now than when you started saying it.   The reality is that there is little in the core tenants of Islam which are incompetable with Western secular civil society.  You unfortunately continually concentrate on the circumstantial stuff.   

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:


Why don't you do it brian as you will tell all of us later!

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:


Why don't you do it brian as you will tell all of us  later!

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:


Why don't you do it brian as you will tell all of us  later!

Why is it brian that you refuse to answer questions that others pose?

Adamant wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:


No.  I wish to see Soren's definition, so that we can pin down what he means exactly by it.

Quote:


If they are sensible, I answer them, Adamant, if I am able to.   What about you, do you always answer the questions posed to you?   

Quote:


I obviously made that point because you tried to paint me as the extremist and claimed that non-Muslims fail to speak up for freedom of speech and do not support the right to depict and mock Muhammed, in a desperate attempt to portray Muslims as 'holding hands' and being on the same page as non-Muslims on this issue. I made it because you keep insisting I have no evidence for the vast gulf between Muslims and non-Muslims on this issue, and no evidence that Islam itself is incompatible with western values.

Quote:


They are also represented by the freedoms that the west has won and maintained for itself. We are aware of the traditional threats to our freedom. We speak out against them. We have them under control. This is not the same thing as a free pass, any more than claiming the criminals in our jails have a free pass for whatever crimes they have committed.

Quote:


On the issue of people's right to depict and mock Muhammed, they have clearly demonstrated that they are not integrated and are at best putting up with it, through lack of choice.

Quote:


Correct. Merely obeying the law is not sufficient to maintain our rights and freedoms. There are both legal and illegal ways to destroy those rights and freedoms, as you have personally demonstrated here in this thread. Muslims are doing both. No 'good' Muslims stand in opposition to them and support for our right to depict and mock Muhammed. Not even Gandalf. You cannot say the same about any other religious or ideological group within our society. Islam is unique in the extent of it's fundamental opposition to core western values. Gandalf cannot even comprehend those values.

Quote:


I demand they support them. Merely accepting them is insufficient. They are still a threat to our rights and freedoms even if they put up with them.

Quote:


This is your fantasy Gandalf. I have clearly articulated my criticism. You have changed the subject, at every opportunity.

Quote:


Accordig to Gandalf, Muhammed himself was a secular ruler and his Islamic state was a secular one. All you have to do is turn the meaning of these words on their head and Islam is completely compatible with western values.

Quote:


Yes, an unreasonably large minority, and the 'majority' refuses to take an opposing stance, preferring instead to remain silent and go about their business as if the problem doesn't exist and will go away if they ignore it.

Quote:


I have demonstrated this repeatedly Gandalf. As usual, you cannot bring yourself to respond.

Quote:


They were your examples Gandalf - attempts to change the subject, and no, they do not prove the opposite. I have produced a long list of evidence in support of my position.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 9:59am:


Thus the flawed circular logic routine continues.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 9:59am:


Bullshit. Its clearly enough for everyone else, and you insult my intelligence by pretending you have argued otherwise. You haven't. You continue just obfuscating and waffling your way through the thread like you always do - desperately trying to conceal the fact that your argument entirely boils down to "I have an irrational prejudice against muslims, and I dream up freedom-loving attributes of the non-muslim community that clearly aren't there - to create an imaginary and completely unnecessary divide between the muslims and non-muslims".

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:41am:


Freedom of speech is not about mocking the prophet but includes that too. It is part of the established framework of society in the West and so it needs no street marches.
Limiting freedom of speech to protect Islam and the prophet, on the other hand, is an established part of islam and so its devotees do march on the streets when they they find that the protection of their sensibilities is not part of Western secularism. This is why Muslims were rioting on the streets of Sydney 2 years ago.

Soren wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:


Except for the Freudians.