Politics Is controversial far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders thinking of an Australian visit?

[harmesy 37]

I didn't mean to be offensive Radiojake in my response. I apologise if I caused offence. and I appreciate your response about Ali's book. I 100% find her someone I really respect. Anyone with courage to stand up to a tidlewave of aggression and hatred (from religious figures) is truly impressive.



All I can suggest is getting educated on the issue, you find your own answers- ignore what I have to say if you like, either way it will become the biggest issue within this country and in Europe (unless things change radically) within 100 years. It is naive to just glibly state that there are good and bad people in all races etc. That is a simplistic response to what is going to be a VERY complex issue.


I just suggest getting educated on what are the aims of Islam. It will be an issue for your kids. Read up on it, learn from a variety of sources as at its core Islam does not respect western values. You think they do, and they will like you to think they respect western values - but it is an unpleasant truth that they don't. They can tolerate western values (at times), but they don't respect them.


Keep that in mind with your thought processes and come to your own conclusions. Or if you like, again, completely ignore what I state.


You could start with asking yourself- how many TRUE democracies are there in the Arab/Islamic world? Once you have done your research then ask yourself - why is it that democracies don't flourish in these countries?


"only a prozac addicted optimist would put money on the emergence of a western style democracy"...in the arab world - Niall Ferguson.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Why is he arse backwards and repugnant. I listened to him. He's not racist or bigotted , he's someone from a place that has not experienced such a type of religion as Islam until the last few decades and has found that people who follow the laws of the Koran are very very different to the christian backgrounded people from his home country...

I get all that. Truly I do. And Geert HAS some legitimate points to make about hardline, militant Islam. But does he put the blame where it BELONGS? Does he lay it at the door of the extremists?

No.

Geert Wilders has a pressure hose attached to a huge tank full of shitty water, and he's hosing the whole of Islam with it, good and bad alike. Extremists and moderates, they're all being hosed down with this shitty water coming from Mr Geert Wilders.

Could he get his message across in a better way? Yes. Could he appeal to the moderates to help oust the hardliners in their midst by including them as part of the solution instead of part of the problem? Yes, he could.

But that would mean tolerance.

 

[harmesy 37]

I g

Could he get his message across in a better way? Yes. Could he appeal to the moderates to help oust the hardliners in their midst by including them as part of the solution instead of part of the problem? Yes, he could.

But that would mean tolerance.

Would you please kindly define "moderate Islam" and then can you please define "radical islam"

Can you also quote bits of the Koran where they attribute their attitudes towards non-believers and also what the Koran and associated writings state about those that choose to leave the religion of Islam (apostasy). Let me know the bits that deal with this topic that you think are "moderate" by western standards.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Moderate Christians follow the mostly humanist New Testament not the fire and brimstone Old Testament.

But they BOTH (allegedly) came from God. Did Jesus say "Forget the first bit, my Dad's going senile," while shrugging his shoulders at the multitudes watching on?

 

[Malifice]

Would you please kindly define "moderate Islam"

and then can you please define "radical islam"

 

[cancat]

But they BOTH (allegedly) came from God. Did Jesus say "Forget the first bit, my Dad's going senile," while shrugging his shoulders at the multitudes watching on?

I've asked the same question of Christians myself. But there is a basis for humanism based on the New Testament that does not exist for Jews and Muslims who only follow older texts.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Would you please kindly define "moderate Islam" and then can you please define "radical islam"

Good questions! Moderate Islam is the form of Islam where they DON'T take everything in the Koran literally. Radical Islam, like most fundamentalist forms of a religion, is TERRIBLY literal: A punishment that was the norm at the birth of Islam is still valid today. Women had little place in the society of Islam's birth so the same must be true today.

Can you also quote bits of the Koran where they attribute their attitudes towards non-believers and also what the Koran and associated writings state about those that choose to leave the religion of Islam (apostasy). Let me know the bits that deal with this topic that you think are "moderate" by western standards.

First off The Koran was written some 600 years after events in the New Testament of the Christian Bible took place, and both books PLUS the even older Jewish Torah reflect a world that no longer exist. That fundamentalists try to apply the procedures of those long-extinct worlds to modern society is worrying. You'll get no argument from me.

HOWEVER, to answer your question on apostasy, I'll do some research. I'll rank the religions according to their age;

JUDAISM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Judaism

The first recorded reference to apostasy from Judaism is in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, which states:

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."​

​

CHRISTIANITY
NOTE: Catholics (the original 'branch' of Christianity) differentiate between pefidious apostasy (complete abandonment of faith) and heresy (modifying existing beliefs in some way).

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnapos.htm

Perfidi is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous.

The "Shepherd" of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord. [Similit. ix. 26, 5; Funk, Opera Patrum apostolicorum (T¸bingen, 1887), I, 547]. Apostasy belonged, therefore, to the class of sins for which the Church imposed perpetual penance and excommunication without hope of pardon, leaving the forgiveness of the sin to God alone...

ISLAM

Differing views come to light on apostasy in Islam.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/apostasy1.htm

THE ABSENCE FROM THE QUR`AN OF ANY PENALTY FOR APOSTASY

It is a significant fact that the Book of God does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy. Many Muslims would immediately say, The Qur`an does not tell us everything. We need to go to the Hadith to find guidance on matters not touched by the Qur`an. But while this is true of matters of detail, this is not true of fundamental issues.

God knew that while the Qur`an would be preserved faithfully, the authenticity of ahadith will remain subject to doubts in most cases. Therefore, he would make sure that all the basic teachings would be included in the Qur`an while leaving some details to ahadith so that the size of the Qur`anic text remains manageable for memorization. Looked in this way the absence in the Qur`an of any punishment for apostasy becomes very significant.

The punishment for apostasy is not a detail that we can expect God to leave for ahadith, especially if that punishment is death, since taking the life of a person, if done without a just cause, is regarded by the Qur`an as tantamount to killing all human beings (5:32). Even lesser penalties for theft (cutting of hands,5:38), illicit sexual intercourse (100 lashes, 24:2), and unsubstantiated accusation of adultery (80 lashes, 24.4) were not considered by God as matters of details to be left to the ahadith. Therefore there is no reason why God would consider the more serious penalty of death for a more serious sin of apostasy as a matter of detail to be left to ahadith.

It is also significant that the Qur`an refers to apostasy several times (2:217, 3:86-90, 4:137, 9:66, 9:74, 16:106-109, 4:88-91, 47:25-27) and yet does not prescribe any punishment for it. Had the Qur`an not mentioned apostasy at all, we could have perhaps argued that there was no occasion for the Qur`anic revelation to deal with this subject and it was therefore left for the Holy Prophet to deal with. It may also be noted that almost all the verses that refer to apostasy are found in surahs said to be belonging to the Madinan period when the Islamic state had been established and penalties for crimes could be prescribed and applied. Only 16:106-109 appears in a surah identified as Makkan.

It is thus a natural conclusion to draw that the absence of any legal penalty for apostasy in the Qur`an means that God never intended any such penalty to become part of Islamic Shari‘ah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah, literally means: "relapse" or "regress" but usually translates to "apostasy", or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined in Islam as the rejection in word or deed of one's former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam. Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths – to no punishment at all as long as they "do not work against the Muslim society or nation...

...It has been suggested that "The Qur'an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy, with severe punishment to be imposed in the hereafter, but not mentioning explicitly any earthly penalty for apostates. Except for 16:106–109, the verses that discuss apostasy all appear in surahs identified as Madinan, that is, they belong to the period when the Islamic state had been established."

However, mainstream translations, such as those by Pickthall, Asad, Malik, Yusuf Ali and even Maududi, a 'liberal' translator contradict this.

Qur'an Surah 4. An-Nisaa, Ayah 89 or Qur'an 4:89 states that "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they (Apostate) turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them". This command to kill or slay is in all mainstream translations.

Furthermore it is Qur'an 4:89 that is often quoted in Sharia courts as justification for the execution of an Apostate. However, the following verse Qur'an 4:90 expands on this to "Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."

In addition, the previous verse states that this verse refers to the hypocrites, "...What aileth you regarding the hypocrites..." Quran 4: 88. This implies killing an apostate is disallowed if the apostate does not fight against Muslims.

Direct references to punishments for apostasy were contained within the Hadiths, which were separate from the Koran;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

Traditions of the life of Muhammad and the early history of Islam were passed down mostly orally for more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death in AD 632. Muslim historians say that Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (the third khalifa (caliph) of the Rashidun Empire, or third successor of Muhammad, who had formerly been Muhammad's secretary), is generally believed to urge Muslims to record the hadith just as Muhammad suggested to some of his followers to write down his words and actions.

Uthman's labours were cut short by his assassination, at the hands of aggrieved soldiers, in 656. No sources survive directly from this period so we are dependent on what later writers tell us about this period.

By the 9th century the number of hadiths had grown exponentially. Islamic scholars of the Abbasid period were faced with a huge corpus of miscellaneous traditions, some of them flatly contradicting each other. Many of these traditions supported differing views on a variety of controversial matters.

Scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted as authentic and which had been invented for political or theological purposes...

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53941-Apostasy-in-Islam-(quran-vs-hadith)

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"

So here we have these Hadiths, of dubious authorship not to mention historical accuracy, maintaining that the penalty for apostasy is death. The older Koran dosen't really say a thing, does it?

 

[harmesy 37]

Wow ! it is that easy is it? the problems of the world can be solved in pictures. I can put up some pictures too! It is that easy. good and bad. Can you put up some photos of aggressive buddhist marching in the street too -where they are seeking to behead anyone who insults the buddha?

I think you believe that bringing up this topic is about "demonising" individuals. It isn't - it is about discussing the merits of the religion in a western context. It is great that Bachar Houli plays football, it is great whenever people of Islam in this country get involved in Australian cultural life. I am all for that. The more integration there is the better off we will be. If Muslims live in a vacuum, lacking respect for the "host culture" then that is when there is a problem.

 

[radiojake]

I didn't mean to be offensive Radiojake in my response. I apologise if I caused offence. and I appreciate your response about Ali's book.....

No problem. There was no offensive to be had, just joining in the lively discussion - No need to apologise

You could start with asking yourself- how many TRUE democracies are there in the Arab/Islamic world? Once you have done your research then ask yourself - why is it that democracies don't flourish in these countries?

I am probably going to stop participating in this thread, because our engagements will probably just end up going around in circles. However I just wanted to say one thing about the above - Why should all nations, regions of the world conform to Western style liberal democracy? What authority has the West to impose democracy on every other nation? The reason why democracy is pushed so much is because it best suits the economic imperative of global capitalism. It's an extremely eurocentric viewpoint to believe that democracy is the be all and end all of political systems...

Again this isn't an advocation for sharia law or anything of the sort, but I think the idea that because other nations have yet to embrace a western conception of political order, doesn't inherently make them dangerous or backwards. Who cares how many TRUE (your emphasis) democracies are in the Islamic world? (actually, while you are at it, how many TRUE (your emphasis) democracies are there even in the West?)

I got an assignment to finish.. Will dissapear for a while -

 

[blackcat]

I didn't mean to be offensive Radiojake in my response. I apologise if I caused offence. and I appreciate your response about Ali's book. I 100% find her someone I really respect. Anyone with courage to stand up to a tidlewave of aggression and hatred (from religious figures) is truly impressive.



All I can suggest is getting educated on the issue, you find your own answers- ignore what I have to say if you like, either way it will become the biggest issue within this country and in Europe (unless things change radically) within 100 years. It is naive to just glibly state that there are good and bad people in all races etc. That is a simplistic response to what is going to be a VERY complex issue.


I just suggest getting educated on what are the aims of Islam. It will be an issue for your kids. Read up on it, learn from a variety of sources as at its core Islam does not respect western values. You think they do, and they will like you to think they respect western values - but it is an unpleasant truth that they don't. They can tolerate western values (at times), but they don't respect them.


Keep that in mind with your thought processes and come to your own conclusions. Or if you like, again, completely ignore what I state.


You could start with asking yourself- how many TRUE democracies are there in the Arab/Islamic world? Once you have done your research then ask yourself - why is it that democracies don't flourish in these countries?


"only a prozac addicted optimist would put money on the emergence of a western style democracy"...in the arab world - Niall Ferguson.

im sure Niall would not refuse some job in the US Republican admin as a foreign secretary like the canadians brezinski and galbraith

 

[harmesy 37]

No problem. There was no offensive to be had, just joining in the lively discussion - No need to apologise




I am probably going to stop participating in this thread, because our engagements will probably just end up going around in circles. However I just wanted to say one thing about the above - Why should all nations, regions of the world conform to Western style liberal democracy? What authority has the West to impose democracy on every other nation? The reason why democracy is pushed so much is because it best suits the economic imperative of global capitalism. It's an extremely eurocentric viewpoint to believe that democracy is the be all and end all of political systems...

Again this isn't an advocation for sharia law or anything of the sort, but I think the idea that because other nations have yet to embrace a western conception of political order, doesn't inherently make them dangerous or backwards. Who cares how many TRUE (your emphasis) democracies are in the Islamic world? (actually, while you are at it, how many TRUE (your emphasis) democracies are there even in the West?)

I got an assignment to finish.. Will dissapear for a while -

Radiojake, these are really good questions.

Why should we look at democracy as an important aspect of life? I put it down to freedom of thought/freedom of will. In fact, oddly enough, even in a democracy we can have our free speech rights attacked- as Gillard and Conroy are trying to shut down any political show (on channel 10) that dares to criticise their inept govt- but I have gone off track. The free press should be our most treasured institution.


Re:Turkey - this country is supposed to be the only proper democracy in the arab & middle east- islamic world. I will leave "democracies" in Indonesia and Malaysia aside, as they have similar flaws. Let's look just at the Middle East.

Yet..
"Today Mr Erdogan (Turkish leader) is the world's leading jailor of journalists. 76 are now imprisoned and more are harassed or fired for dissent, casting a long shadow of self-censorship





Islam is about submission, submission of your free will. Subjugation. Democracy is allowing free thought- Yet Islam isn't so great on free thought as there is only one book worthwhile for true Muslims. Eventually books and thoughts are destroyed or belittled if they contravene the koran. Nietzche, Karl Popper, philosophy, religious thought that are different to islam, Charles Darwin, Mary Wollstonecraft all are null and void according to Islam. That is the destruction of knowledge.



Re: Karl Popper

Furthermore, in support of human rightslegislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."



Islam as a concept/religion is intolerant of thoughts/attitudes that don't support the religion. There is only one path according to Islam. Individual muslims might be tolerant peace-loving, want joy and happiness for their kids, but the doctrine of Islam is not tolerant. Keep that in mind when you use your own free will to decide on what course of action is best for you.

On an aside, did you think the march down the sydney streets recently from muslims showed a toleration of different viewpoints/different attitudes towards religion? Can I ask you how many "radical" buddhist you have seen marching down Sydney streets demanding people who aren't buddhist respect the Buddha-otherwise they will behead someone. Let me know when it happens. I think you will be waiting a long time.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Radiojake, these are really good questions.

Why should we look at democracy as an important aspect of life? I put it down to freedom of thought/freedom of will. In fact, oddly enough, even in a democracy we can have our free speech rights attacked- as Gillard and Conroy are trying to shut down any political show (on channel 10) that dares to criticise their inept govt- but I have gone off track. The free press should be our most treasured institution.


Re:Turkey - this country is supposed to be the only proper democracy in the arab & middle east- islamic world. I will leave "democracies" in Indonesia and Malaysia aside, as they have similar flaws. Let's look just at the Middle East.

Yet..
"Today Mr Erdogan (Turkish leader) is the world's leading jailor of journalists. 76 are now imprisoned and more are harassed or fired for dissent, casting a long shadow of self-censorship





Islam is about submission, submission of your free will. Subjugation. Democracy is allowing free thought- Yet Islam isn't so great on free thought as there is only one book worthwhile for true Muslims. Eventually books and thoughts are destroyed or belittled if they contravene the koran. Nietzche, Karl Popper, philosophy, religious thought that are different to islam, Charles Darwin, Mary Wollstonecraft all are null and void according to Islam. That is the destruction of knowledge.



Re: Karl Popper

Furthermore, in support of human rightslegislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."



Islam as a concept/religion is intolerant of thoughts/attitudes that don't support the religion. There is only one path according to Islam. Individual muslims might be tolerant peace-loving, want joy and happiness for their kids, but the doctrine of Islam is not tolerant. Keep that in mind when you use your own free will to decide on what course of action is best for you.

On an aside, did you think the march down the sydney streets recently from muslims showed a toleration of different viewpoints/different attitudes towards religion? Can I ask you how many "radical" buddhist you have seen marching down Sydney streets demanding people who aren't buddhist respect the Buddha-otherwise they will behead someone. Let me know when it happens. I think you will be waiting a long time.

Great comments . Absolutely correct. Anything preaching forced thinking is against freedom and should be banned.If it doesn't promote the free thinking of anyone, then it is promoting tunnel visioned thinking and a predisposition to force thoughts on others in the name of religion, to a point of violent action against "non believers".
That march and the beheading bullshit in that march should have not been allowed, but here any idiot can say anything they like. Its called Freedom of speech. So muslims have a think about what you really believe and what your frightened into believing, it really makes a difference, it also does something much worse than just let you follow doctrine like a robot , it has a nasty smell of politics, 9/11 was politics not religion , but religion was used with martyrdom involved, to create horrific murder. Any wonder the West will turn on fanaticism with every ounce of clear thinking and decency.
But no muslim needs to fear me , I won't put a bomb under your mums chair while she's on holiday.

 

[Tommy Pierrepoint]

Great comments . Absolutely correct. Anything preaching forced thinking is against freedom and should be banned.If it doesn't promote the free thinking of anyone, then it is promoting tunnel visioned thinking and a predisposition to force thoughts on others in the name of religion, to a point of violent action against "non believers".
That march and the beheading bullshit in that march should have not been allowed, but here any idiot can say anything they like. Its called Freedom of speech. So muslims have a think about what you really believe and what your frightened into believing, it really makes a difference, it also does something much worse than just let you follow doctrine like a robot , it has a nasty smell of politics, 9/11 was politics not religion , but religion was used with martyrdom involved, to create horrific murder. Any wonder the West will turn on fanaticism with every ounce of clear thinking and decency.
But no muslim needs to fear me , I won't put a bomb under your mums chair while she's on holiday.

I agree with all you have written bar the first line. Under your set of rules If I freely think that making forced thinking has legitimate purpose have I had a free thought or a banned forced thought?

 

[JoondalupJ]

I agree with all you have written bar the first line. Under your set of rules If I freely think that making forced thinking has legitimate purpose have I had a free thought or a banned forced thought?

You tell me, I don't know the answer, but you could put some christians in the fear faction, you know, burning in hell etc. All I know is violence seems to breed out of this Islamic thing, and its not comfortable for me.
But if you have forced barracking for the Tigers put upon you, like my brain washing for Hawthorn put on me, before I had any idea, but to love the Hawks, I don't think I would go to war with you over your forced thoughts.

Sounds a bit silly I know, but I suppose I,m saying people who are frightened into any beleif have an automatic problem in the people who force that onto them.
I guess if your big brother threatened to punch you out everytime you said I won't barrack for Richmond when you were little , so you barracked for Richmond , it wouldn't lead to strapping on a bomb .

Its that serious with Islam , for some reason some of them think they have to force their thought and belief on their people , and others, its not freedom and its wrong.
Whether I'm right wrong or otherwise, this is how I've seen this faith , and it appears dangerous to me. And separative as well. We don't fit with that way of life and blind thinking. Don't tell babies to carry signs about beheading your neighbours.
Lots of people of that faith marched that day, THEY LIVE IN MY COUNTRY, BECOME US OR LEAVE.Thats what I feel right now about Islam , I don't need it and I don't want it .
But for those here now, settle in and behave, don't preach anything, especially violence . Don't bring your kids up to be nasty fanatic little jihadists.
We don't and won't have them here in Aus.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...like my brain washing for Hawthorn put on me...

Were you brainwashed into following the Hawks? I KNEW there was something insidious about that club!

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

Geert Wilders is back in Australia, and this time its to help launch the ALA Party which has similar core values to the PVV which is doing well in the Netherlands

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...t/news-story/cedaf7202290bbd3f29a05a517edb650

 

[JoondalupJ]

Were you brainwashed into following the Hawks? I KNEW there was something insidious about that club!

Yes ,,,, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees give me more I want more, Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawks!
There that's brainwashed enough , ah such a beautiful mind!!!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hey JoondalupJ , up yours!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Geert Wilders is back in Australia, and this time its to help launch the ALA Party which has similar core values to the PVV which is doing well in the Netherlands

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...t/news-story/cedaf7202290bbd3f29a05a517edb650

I agree with his conclusion;

http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...-comes-at-a-cost/story-fnii5thn-1227572542720

...Wilders is on WA soil for less than 48 hours and his host, the Australian Liberty Alliance, will probably suffer the same fate (electoral oblivion) as One Nation. But it remains our individual right to hear his opinion, whether we agree or not.

And worst case scenario; if you’re offended by his visit, then simply stay home and ignore him.

For the rest of us, the anti-bigotry side, we can show how wrong those lot are by actually CREATING a more inclusive, harmonious society. We will annoy religious conservatives by pushing for marriage equality. We will annoy racial, cultural and religious bigots by acknowledging that you can value your roots and be proud of them without the need to state your superiority.

Social progession means moving forward, not marking time or wishing for the more exclusionary 'good old days' past. Only by society moving forward did we consign things like slavery and segregation to the dustbin of history.

We need to keep moving forward.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

The thing that annoys me most about people like Wilders, ALA etc, is it makes it easy to accuse anyone who objects to, or even questions, any aspect of Islam of being racist/bigoted etc.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The thing that annoys me most about people like Wilders, ALA etc, is it makes it easy to accuse anyone who objects to, or even questions, any aspect of Islam of being racist/bigoted etc.

Depends on how you word your criticism, I guess. Quite a few people don't differentiate between moderates and hardliners, and to the average punter it looks like they may be painting the whole religion and all its adherents with the same dirty brush they only meant to paint the fundamentalists with.

Oh, and bigots DO exist. On this issue and most others too.

 

[Malifice]

The thing that annoys me most about people like Wilders, ALA etc, is it makes it easy to accuse anyone who objects to, or even questions, any aspect of Islam of being racist/bigoted etc.

I tend to agree. There is so much to be critical of in Islam, but all the racist/ ethnocentric/ Islamophobic buffoons make it next to impossible.

Accusations of antisemitsm get tossed around in every thread that's critical of Israel, and they dont devolve into even 1/10th of the sort of bile that gets slathered around the place in a thread on Islamic issues.

I would love to have a reasonable (critical) debate on Islam, but every thread just goes into territory that would make Hitler blush no more than a few pages in.

 

[sherb]

I agree with his conclusion;

For the rest of us, the anti-bigotry side, we can show how wrong those lot are by actually CREATING a more inclusive, harmonious society. We will annoy religious conservatives by pushing for marriage equality. We will annoy racial, cultural and religious bigots by acknowledging that you can value your roots and be proud of them without the need to state your superiority.

Social progession means moving forward, not marking time or wishing for the more exclusionary 'good old days' past. Only by society moving forward did we consign things like slavery and segregation to the dustbin of history.

We need to keep moving forward.

Funny you say that.

A friend of mine on Facebook posted a graphic from the Reclaim Australia nutters which basically ended with the "Pick a Side" ultimatum.

That's not how I view it. No need to pick a side when you want a more inclusive society. In fact, that's the last thing you want to do.

Said so of course and didn't get a response.

 

[Malifice]

Funny you say that.

A friend of mine on Facebook posted a graphic from the Reclaim Australia nutters which basically ended with the "Pick a Side" ultimatum.

That's not how I view it. No need to pick a side when you want a more inclusive society. In fact, that's the last thing you want to do.

Said so of course and didn't get a response.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Wait..

 

[crackerjack4X4]

29.4 percent of Swiss People are bigots.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/uk-swiss-election-idUKKCN0SC0ZY20151019

Sunday's result cemented the SVP's position as the dominant force in Swiss politics.

It won 29.4 percent of the vote, according to the final tally from Swiss broadcaster SRF, up from 26.6 percent in the 2011 vote and far exceeding expectations. It was the best performance by a party in at least a century.

This translated to an extra 11 seats in Switzerland's lower house of parliament to bring its tally to 65, the highest for any party since the chamber's membership rose to 200 in 1963.