freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:44am:


Very droll.

Freedom and democracy are important values. In themselves they are not unique to Asutralia.
We are talking about people coming to this country. We want them to fit in here, not anywhere where there is freedom and democracy.

Quote:


But where is 'here' Soren,  Hobart, Sydney, Melbourne, Alice Karratha? Do these places have a different flavour? Or do you mean fit in with your friends; can I have some to fit in with my friends? What can we agree on; Australia is a big place with a lot of streets?

Islam debate in France sparks controversy

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's party, the UMP, has hosted a controversial debate on the practice of Islam in secular France.

The debate provoked protests from Islamic and other religious groups, and even from some members of the governing party itself.

Critics have accused the party of pandering to a resurgent far right.

The debate was held a week before a law banning the Islamic full-face veil in public comes into force.

With Muslim religious leaders boycotting the event, only politicians or representatives of other faiths took part in the three-hour, round-table discussion at a Paris hotel.

The BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris says the political atmosphere in France in recent days has been poisonous, with accusations flying between left and right.

According to government estimates, France has as many as six million Muslims, or just under 10% of the population, making it the biggest Muslim minority in western Europe.

French people 'challenged'
 
The debate has provoked outrage among some The UMP argued that it would be irresponsible not to debate the great changes posed to French society by its growing numbers of Muslims.

It outlined 26 ideas aimed at underpinning the country's secular character, which was enshrined in a law of 1905.

The law poses modern-day quandaries about issues such as halal food being served in schools and Muslims praying in the street when mosques are too crowded.

Proposals discussed on Tuesday included

banning the wearing of religious symbols such as Muslim headscarves or prominent Christian crosses by day care personnel
preventing Muslim mothers from wearing headscarves when accompanying children on school field trips
preventing parents from withdrawing their children from mandatory subjects including physical education and biology.
Launching the debate entitled simply "Secularity" before 200 guests and scores of journalists, UMP leader Jean-Francois Cope defended the idea of holding it at all.

Accusing the opposition Socialists of being in denial and the National Front of demagoguery, he called for "a third way, that of responsibility".

"Many French people have the feeling that the republican pact to which they are attached is being challenged by globalisation and the failures of integration," he said.

'Importune'

However, one of Mr Cope's most senior UMP colleagues, Prime Minister Francois Fillon, declined to take part in the debate, warning that it risked "stigmatising Muslims".

Gilles Bernheim, France's chief rabbi, said the debate was "importune" but he was taking part nonetheless.

"We did not ask for this debate but there was no question for us of boycotting it and stigmatising a political party, even if it is a ruling party," he told reporters after arriving at the hotel.

Salim Himidi, a former foreign minister of the largely Muslim Comoros Islands, said Islam's relations with the secular state was "an important subject" that had to be discussed.

"I think France has a mission that goes beyond its geographical limits," he added.

Condemning the debate, Hassan Ben M'Barek of the pressure group Banlieues Respect, said it was aimed only at "keeping the UMP in the media in the year before the [next presidential] election".

Does anyone recall the Auburn riots when police tried to arrest muslims?

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/facebook-website-used-to-drum-up-auburn-rioters/s...

Grey wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:


No, 9.7 million wasted on trying to integrate a primitive culture into a modern society. Has any other immigrant group needed this? - No. The shame is on the apologists such as yourself who continually make excuses for these people and cannot see the true nature of their culture.

Quote:



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/nonchristians.html

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 9:28am:


If we had no hand in the direction of our lives, and if we felt that we were never effective, we'd just sit back.  I don't expect that Muslims are the only people who realise that "change happens".  It does.  Stasis doesn't.  Static circumstances don't exist, even for ROCKS, Soren.  Some changes are rapid and some are very slow.  In fact, some are barely perceivable, but, change happens.  That's not fantastic, it just IS.

We attempt to manage our circumstances by making laws, policies, smiling, shaking hands, conversing, etc, and what we do, as individuals and in groups, does effect future events and circumstances.   The big question becomes, HOW, and whether or not desired effects have been achieved.  It's not always easy, nor obvious, what the consequences, that we reap, will be.  That's not an argument for a passive existence, mind.  Just an acceptance that we KNOW about UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES, and what the road to Hell is paved with. 

I've noticed that a lot of people think that the governments under which they live, are PERMANENT structures, even when they are able to see real changes that have occurred.  Now, that's what I call fantastic.  George Bush, for instance, talked about "a century of alliance" between the U.S. and Japan.  He forgot that the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan.  That's a pretty big blindspot.  Prior to that there were policies that were not friendly, and after that, there were policies that were not friendly, but he was busy ignoring facts.  He'd claimed that Putin was his pal, and he was busy ignoring facts.  Kind of like you do, when you say that recognizing that change happens is "Muslim thinking." 

See, you might think that I'm championing Muslims.  I'm not.  I'm pretty philosophical, myself, but I'm faithless, and I really want everyone to agree with me, and lose their attachment to the concepts of gods and afterlife, because I see them as problematic.  ... and silly... infantile... and a waste of energy.  ... and just beyond annoying for me, personally, since my particular position is NEVER considered to be one that requires respect... while I'm expected to politely listen to the gibberish that spews from religious people.   I am expected to be tolerant.  I quit. 

I don't live my life based on fear, and I feel sorry for people who do.  I don't hold a concept that includes some sentient state after death, so the time that I have is all there is, and I prefer to do other things, contemplate other things that are more immediately "important" than worrying about fantastic takeovers by "aliens".  I know that real nutters are walking around in my real space, but, even though I know people who have suffered the actions of real, undeniable lunatics, even though I KNOW some, in the broad view, those events were extremely rare.  I can only think of one that was possibly foreseeable, and that was one where a "Christian" family, in their zeal to be more thoroughly christian, I guess, handed themselves and their children to a religious cult leader, who decided to kill them all and bury them in his barn. 

The best tool that we have for ensuring harmony, even if it's not MY kind of ideal, is inclusion/COMMUNITY, and intelligent fostering of that drive in ourselves.  Nuts will happen.  Nothing will keep EVERYONE sane.  Nothing will guarantee absolute safety for individuals.

I don't know what you call "liberal ethics", but I bet that we agree that there are lots of predatory people, though we might disagree when we start labelling them, Yadda.  What I am not, is a liberal.  I am a radical.  I am a RADICALIZED radical.  That means that I am an extremist, and I know it.  I don't particularly think that extremists should force their views down other people's throats.  I prefer for people to think, rather than react...mostly.  Sometimes situations call for something much more reflexive than contemplation.