# Is having Sharia law in Britain a good idea?



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 November 2008)

According to this guy in the video Sharia law is operating in Britain. I had heard whispers of it before but wasn't sure if it was operating or proposed. 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ox2-Wun2dIg&feature=related

The Brits do silly things sometimes but this takes first prize for the destruction of future values.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLOflbAOeg&feature=related


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 November 2008)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wV13aziuzz4&feature=related

Yep the British have lost the plot.

And this is the result:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uTtcRA6rIuA&feature=related


----------



## Lantern (22 November 2008)

No.

Another Pat condell vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2008)

Didn't watch the vids but ......


----------



## mayk (22 November 2008)

I don't know why people are so obsessed about everything Islamic. Is Islamophobia so rampant in our society? 

Are the true values of the west so afraid of Islam? When will this scare mongering end? 

I don't know about Sharia law implementation status in Britian, but I guess it is old news and already discussed ( I think near last Christmas).


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2008)

mayk said:


> I don't know about Sharia law



Maybe google it, or something similar.

It is similar to the Christain world still going through the Inquisition....


----------



## mayk (22 November 2008)

kennas said:


> Maybe google it, or something similar.
> 
> It is similar to the Christain world still going through the Inquisition....




I meant to say implementation of Sharia law in Britian, as I think it is still not passed into law.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 November 2008)

mayk said:


> I don't know why people are so obsessed about everything Islamic. Is *Islamophobia* so rampant in our society?
> 
> *Are the true values of the west so afraid of Islam? *When will this scare mongering end?
> 
> I don't know about Sharia law in Britian, but I guess it is old news and already discussed ( I think near last Christmas).




The word in red is overused and cowardice to the core.

Islamofacism: why is it allowed to go unabated? Why is it that people who practice free speech are called Islamophobics? 

Mayk you obviously are not informed. Pick up some books on the topic that aren't left wing bent and you will be surprised. Do you value free speech? Or have you sold your soul too? 

And this is discussion so if it is old it is still discussion because it is a current topic that is getting more and more intertwined with peoples lives. 

Regarding the question in blue: the two systems or value sets don't mix expecially when it comes from SA. Google Wahaabi. Even better buy a book on it.

Have a look a this:http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fwA3jErg9Bc&feature=related


----------



## mayk (22 November 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The word in red is overused and cowardice to the core.
> 
> Islamofacism: why is it allowed to go unabated? Why is it that people who practice free speech are called Islamophobics?
> 
> ...




Well if you look at the pattern of news you will find the rise and decline of media news about Islam when it suits them. When there is nothing else to sensationalize, Islam baiting comes to the rescue of news media feed.

My main concern is this, if Wahabism is so detrimental to the core values of west, then why does west always support the KSA? Why go to Iraq when all the attackers are from KSA? Is it double standards or cowardice or hypocrisy or simply OIL? 

Regarding free speech I guess Australia is the first western country to bring online filtering to the Internet. You know which other countries employ them? KSA and China and NKorea... Well good luck with free speech.

Where was all this discussion a decade ago? It is all a propaganda for geo-political control of resources. If you are not sucked in the right wing media, things might be more clear to you.

It is all about power and control, and fear is the tool used to achieve that. First it was Nazism/fascism, then communism now Islam. whatever works on the sheeple.


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2008)

mayk said:


> My main concern is this, if Wahabism is so detrimental to the core values of west, then why does west always support the KSA? Why go to Iraq when all the attackers are from KSA? Is it double standards or cowardice or hypocrisy or simply OIL?



Good point mayk, and it's all about choosing the lesser of two weevils....

(good joke in Master and Commander on weevils)


----------



## Largesse (22 November 2008)

mayk said:


> Well if you look at the pattern of news you will find the rise and decline of media news about Islam when it suits them. When there is nothing else to sensationalize, Islam baiting comes to the rescue of news media feed.
> 
> My main concern is this, if Wahabism is so detrimental to the core values of west, then why does west always support the KSA? *Why go to Iraq when all the attackers are from KSA*? Is it double standards or cowardice or hypocrisy or *simply OIL*?
> 
> ...





answers in text


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 November 2008)

Mayk,


> Well if you look at the pattern of news you will find the rise and decline of media news about Islam when it suits them. When there is nothing else to sensationalize, Islam baiting comes to the rescue of news media feed.



No doubt there is sensationalist news reporting about anything, not just one religion. Reporting facts that pertains to one religion is important if it involves the services of the country, treason by citizens and basic moralistic voids.



> My main concern is this, if Wahabism is so detrimental to the core values of west, then why does west always support the KSA? Why go to Iraq when all the attackers are from KSA? Is it double standards or cowardice or hypocrisy or simply OIL?



Perhaps all and I don't support the fact the west is in bed with the Saudis. 



> Regarding free speech I guess Australia is the first western country to bring online filtering to the Internet. You know which other countries employ them? KSA and China and NKorea... Well good luck with free speech.



Pretty sad isn't it. But I wouldn't expect censoring by the uninformed. 



> Where was all this discussion a decade ago? It is all a propaganda for geo-political control of resources. If you are not sucked in the right wing media, things might be more clear to you.



Yes, where has all of the debate been? Unfortunately the west has been hijacked and people are thinking differently and saying contrary things to the governments that led them. The word is "clearer".



> *It* is all about power and control, and fear is the tool used to achieve that. First it was Nazism/fascism, then communism now Islam. whatever works on the sheeple.



What is all about power? You have said something but not given any details. 

Nazism came about due to a right wing fascist ideology which entrenched itself into the dumb and easily led which in unison with the complacency of the wealthy and middle class took power and destroyed a nation, not to mention committed genocide. All fact.

Communism came about as an ideology of redistributing wealth at others' expense. This became a state run ideology of totalitarian control.

Yes propaganda is rife and leading sheeple into fairy land thinking. Propaganda goes both ways not just from the western governments which you seem to be referring to. To say a pitbull is a safe dog to let loose is propaganda. To say Windows XPservice pack 1 is better than XP service pack 2 is propaganda, because clearly it is not better than serice pack 2.

Does anyone know what service pack 3 is like?  
Cheers..


----------



## mayk (23 November 2008)

Well from my understanding/research of the reason for implementing Sharia law is that Muslims in Britain want their binding contracts (like marriage and divorce) to be according to Islam. It will only impact Muslims and will not be implemented on the rest of population.

Contrary to the media sensationalization, no cutting of limbs  will take place in British version of Sharia law. It will simply uncomplicate the cases of family law dispute. 

From what I have heard the highest priest of the Britain is in favour of this. Strange isn't it.


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2008)

mayk said:


> Well from my understanding/research of the reason for implementing Sharia law is that Muslims in Britain want their binding contracts (like marriage and divorce) to be according to Islam. It will only impact Muslims and will not be implemented on the rest of population.



So this is what they're after:

Requirements for Islamic Marriages:

**The man who is not currently a fornicator can only marry a woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the Book. 
**The Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. 
**The woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a man who is not currently a fornicator. 
**The fornicator can only marry a fornicatress -- and vice versa. 
**The guardian may choose a suitable partner for a virgin girl, but the girl is free to contest and has the right to say 'no'. 
**The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn't ask to be married. 
**It is obligatory for a man to give bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries -- "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right."
**A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower. 
**Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her. At this point the husband must pay the wife the "delayed" component of the dower. 
**A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait four months and ten days before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period. 
**If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man, and if they got divorced (only in a way that this divorce is not intended for the woman to re-marry her first husband) the woman could re-marry her first husband.
**These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.


----------



## mayk (23 November 2008)

kennas said:


> So this is what they're after:
> 
> Requirements for Islamic Marriages:
> 
> ...




Well a lot of fornication in there  

Well some of the points are just piss take like the impotent one, have you got any reference? Does he has to show medical certificate.. That will be embracing.


----------



## Sean K (23 November 2008)

mayk said:


> Well a lot of fornication in there
> 
> Well some of the points are just piss take like the impotent one, have you got any reference? Does he has to show medical certificate.. That will be embracing.



I got this off wiki under sharia law.

There were some references which I deleted.

There's probably some other more academic sites to take at face value as well.

I read somewhere that in Malaysia men can divorce via text message by texting 'I divorce you' three times ....

Nice.


----------



## disarray (23 November 2008)

western guilt is out of control, but if the people are too busy watching tv and swilling beer to kick their leaders up the backside then i suppose they'll reap what they sow.


----------



## wayneL (25 November 2008)

disarray said:


> western guilt is out of control, but if the people are too busy watching tv and swilling beer to kick their leaders up the backside then i suppose they'll reap what they sow.



In a funny way I couldn't agree more. It's not just militant Islamism they're asleep on, it's everything.

Anyhow, my observations from my vantage point. Firstly,the vast majority of Muslims I've come across in this country are perfectly charming people, are friendly and have perfectly acceptable manners and integrate quite well.

As I've mentioned before, I have a good friend who is a Muslim Indian (not devout though, we drink together ). During Ramadan, he took us to an area called Southall in London, which is mostly Muslim and virtually zero whitefella... mosques, call to prayers, veiled women, Halal McDonalds, no eating before sundown, the whole shebang. We saw one other white person the whole evening. Nobody batted an eyelid at us. (It could have helped that we were with one of them).

They were actually quite chuffed that we were interested in their food, culture etc.

Regarding Sharia in Britain:

Firstly, we have to take a bit of a look in the mirror. Not for guilt trips, self loathing or anything like that, but to see how we behave in similar circumstances so-as not to be hypocritical.

It has to be said that Anglo Saxons are pretty adept at inflicting our values upon the folk wherever we go. Brits move to Spain and France and demand egg and chips. We go to Iraq and enforce western democracy and build McDonalds everywhere.We go to Muslim countries and largely flout their cultural laws if we can get away with it (drinking etc.). All over the world, there are Anglo-Saxon enclaves within foreign cultures. 

Should we be surprised that others do the same when in our countries?

In Britain, Sharia has been in operation for decades, but mostly in concert with English law. In the same way Jewish customary laws are also accepted and have been been since Noah was a boy.

The real debate starts when it is proposed that Sharia supersedes British law when Muslims are involved. Only a few radical Islamists are proposing that and the vast majority of Muslims here DO NOT want that.

But going back to disarray's point, we need to be very careful that the radicals don't get their way because of some insane lefty jobsworth lets them. No way!

The result will be a move to the extreme right BNP and this is already happening to a small, but noticeable extent. In conclusion, Sharia is here, has been for a while, is mostly benign and works in with British law. But as usual, a minority of radical agitators dominate the debate and the news.


----------



## Bobby (25 November 2008)

I posted this on the wrong thread , most would have missed it so have a read, Hello Wayne , your still fine with me mate .

Scary Facts About Islam 
Dr. Peter Hammond 


(Note: Many Muslims are disillusioned with Islam but are too fearful to think of escape. Please pray for them to know the God of love and peace.) 


Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.  Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. 
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. 
Here's how it works. 
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: 


United States-- Muslim 0.6% 
Australia-- Muslim 1.5% 
Canada-- Muslim 1.9% 
China-- Muslim 1.8% 
Italy-- Muslim 1.5% 
Norway-- Muslim 1.8%   


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: 
Denmark-- Muslim 2% 
Germany-- Muslim 3.7% 
United Kingdom-- Muslim 2.7% 
Spain-- Muslim 4% 
Thailand-- Muslim 4.6%   


From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.   
This is occurring in: 


France-- Muslim 8% 
Philippines-- Muslim 5% 
Sweden-- Muslim 5% 
Switzerland-- Muslim 4.3% 
The Netherlands-- Muslim 5.5% 
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8% 


At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.   
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: 


Guyana-- Muslim 10% 
India-- Muslim 13.4% 
Israel-- Muslim 16% 
Kenya-- Muslim 10% 
Russia-- Muslim 15%   


After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: 


Ethiopia-- Muslim 32.8%   


At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: 


Bosnia-- Muslim 40% 
Chad-- Muslim 53.1% 
Lebanon-- Muslim 59.7% 
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of  non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:     
Albania-- Muslim 70% 
Malaysia-- Muslim 60.4% 
Qatar-- Muslim 77.5% 
Sudan-- Muslim 70% 
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:     
Bangladesh-- Muslim 83% 
Egypt-- Muslim 90% 
Gaza-- Muslim 98.7% 
Indonesia-- Muslim 86.1% 
Iran-- Muslim 98% 
Iraq-- Muslim 97% 
Jordan-- Muslim 92% 
Morocco-- Muslim 98.7% 
Pakistan-- Muslim 97% 
Palestine-- Muslim 99% 
Syria-- Muslim 90% 
Tajikistan-- Muslim 90% 
Turkey-- Muslim 99.8% 
United Arab Emirates-- Muslim 96%   


100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: 


Afghanistan-- Muslim 100% 
Saudi Arabia-- Muslim 100% 
Somalia-- Muslim 100% 
Yemen-- Muslim 100% 
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.     
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj' 


It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate. 


Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Some say Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> In a funny way I couldn't agree more. It's not just militant Islamism they're asleep on, it's everything.
> 
> Anyhow, my observations from my vantage point. Firstly,the vast majority of Muslims I've come across in this country are perfectly charming people, are friendly and have perfectly acceptable manners and integrate quite well.
> 
> ...




Hi Wayne,

Thanks for discussing. I spent some time composing a response only to have my post not post due to the short time limit. I am glad you have a nice friend to drink with. 

I'll post later when I get over the Repetitive strain injury.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 November 2008)

wayneL;365873


> In a funny way I couldn't agree more. It's not just militant Islamism they're asleep on, it's everything.



Yes they are. 


> Anyhow, my observations from my vantage point. Firstly,the vast majority of Muslims I've come across in this country are perfectly charming people, are friendly and have perfectly acceptable manners and integrate quite well.



That is good to hear.


> As I've mentioned before, I have a good friend who is a Muslim Indian (not devout though, we drink together ). During Ramadan, he took us to an area called Southall in London, *which is mostly Muslim and virtually zero whitefella*... mosques, call to prayers, veiled women, Halal McDonalds, no eating before sundown, the whole shebang. We saw one other *white person* the whole evening. Nobody batted an eyelid at us.
> 
> They were actually quite chuffed that we were interested in their food, culture etc.



Wayne, you have mixed race and religion here. 
Nice food for sure.



> Firstly, we have to take a bit of a look in the mirror. Not for guilt trips, self loathing or anything like that, but to see how we behave in similar circumstances so-as not to be hypocritical.



I agree.


> It has to be said that Anglo Saxons are pretty adept at inflicting our values upon the folk wherever we go. Brits move to Spain and France and demand egg and chips. We go to Iraq and enforce western democracy and build McDonalds everywhere.We go to Muslim countries and largely flout their cultural laws if we can get away with it (drinking etc.). All over the world, there are Anglo-Saxon enclaves within foreign cultures.



Yes I think it is natural to want what is normal and not which is difficult or different. Living abroud has taught me to appreciate what is back at home. At the same time I don't expect an Aussie meat pie shop to open up and convert everyone to my way of thinking. 



> Should we be surprised that others do the same when in our countries?



No. But why should the predominate culture be told it has to change or move, especially established religious places of worship?  



> In Britain, Sharia has been in operation for decades, but mostly in concert with English law. In the same way Jewish customary laws are also accepted and have been been since Noah was a boy.
> 
> The real debate starts when it is proposed that Sharia supersedes British law when Muslims are involved. Only a few radical Islamists are proposing that and the vast majority of Muslims here DO NOT want that.
> 
> ...




I won't even address this as it is too complicated for me to talk about. But the shortsightedness of contemporary left wing thinkers is sickening. In 50 years Europe and Britain will be very different. I hope it is for the better and cultures can live together much like the days when the three cultural and religious groups lived in peace in Toledo, Spain. 

Cheers...


----------



## wayneL (29 November 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> wayneL;365873
> 
> Yes they are.
> 
> ...




It all boils down to an issue of power. The reason Australians eat lamb beef and french fries, rather than wichitee grubs, racehorse goannas and emus, and live in houses rather than roam about in a nomadic lifestyle, is because European Christian culture overwhelmed the local one. The locals didn't have  a say.

If they could have, they would have.

In this country(UK) The local Britains have been Romanized, Saxonized, Vikingcized, Normanosized, Frenchicized, even Germanicized* in succession over the centuries. (*The royal family is German)

If Anglo/Euro countries are overwhelmed by Islam, it is because they will have overpowered us with numbers and or cultural power.

The insane thing about our culture is that we hand them this power for gratis. This is not very bright. By all means tolerate their religion and culture within the confines of our own, but "allow" to displace it. This is not on, but the loony left are ensuring it is on. Very bad.

This is why organizations such as the BNP will start to grow as whitefella (as proxy for european religion and/or culture) starts to defend his turf.

But if we don't, they (the Islamists) will take over eventually. 

I strongly believe we should defend our culture. I like our culture and believe it is worth defending. But we should resort to kneejerk racism, xenophobia and nationalism; rather by sternly drawing a line in the sand and saying - You're welcome here, we like your curry and your kebabs, but here's how many we believe should be allowed, here's how we expect you to behave and if that is not satisfactory to you, then frack off. We celebrate Christmas, Easter and we like to perve (clandestinely from behind sunglasses, not lecherously) at our women in bikinis. We won't move our church and we won't cater to your Islamic sensibilities. We'll eat pork in front of you without think about whether this offends you or not and damn well enjoy it.

If you cause trouble over any of this, we'll kick you @ss.

The majority that I have met are happy with that sort of arrangement. Only the Anglo and Islamic loonies aren't. So while targeting Islamofascists, we should also be targeting Atheo-offbalance-humanists who are every bit as dangerous as the other nutters.


----------



## sails (29 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> It all boils down to an issue of power. The reason Australians eat lamb beef and french fries, rather than wichitee grubs, racehorse goannas and emus, and live in houses rather than roam about in a nomadic lifestyle, is because European Christian culture overwhelmed the local one. The locals didn't have  a say.
> 
> If they could have, they would have.
> 
> ...




Well written, Wayne - that really sums it up in a nutshell!

Just last week I was helping my young granddaughter prepare Christmas cards for her classmates.  She was a bit worried because about five of the kids "don't do Christmas".

I said to her that this is a traditional event celebrated by our country Australia and although these classmates don't do Christmas themselves, they might still be happy to receive a card and candy - or at the very least the candy!

I also said that if she were living in another country and they had a special traditional event, she wouldn't be offended if someone gave her a traditional gift.  She brightened up then and could see that she would be happy to accept such a gift as a token of friendship and would not be offended because we don't do that event in our home country.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

wayneL said:


> 1. .. The reason Australians eat lamb beef and french fries, rather than wichitee grubs, racehorse goannas and emus, and live in houses rather than roam about in a nomadic lifestyle, is because European Christian culture overwhelmed the local one. The locals didn't have  a say.
> 
> 2. ...  In this country(UK) The local Britains have been Romanized, Saxonized, Vikingcized, Normanosized, Frenchicized, even Germanicized* in succession over the centuries. (*The royal family is German)
> 
> ...




1. Re Expatriates and immigrants steering change in their new home ... Sometimes there's a major cultural clash ... Example :- when Poms/Aussies go to China - I'm thinking of the old HK pre 1997 - and find that they eat dog.  Furthermore in some cases, they beat em to death so that the meat is more tender.   Difficult to argue we should be allowed to criticise - but we do.  

Maybe a bit like whales in Japan (although I suspect that it has become a stubborn standoff where noone wants to lose face). 

People here arguing that turkey throat slitting, is acceptable entertaiment. We are all over the place 

Know an Islam immigrant who, after a year, I had eating fried rice.  Just that he took out the individual bits of pork.  Took him 2 hours to eat a platefull  

2. Does that make the Brits "King-sized" ? 

(to be continued)


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 November 2008)

(from previous) :-

3. and/or reasoning  i.e  if we have shown ourselves to have an disastrous and uninspiring ethical base, - i.e. we frequently push uncharitable self interests above all else. 

4. yep , extremism begets extremism

5. agreed, but I don’t think that disarray’s suggestion we should challenge them that Mohd was a rapist pedophile etc  is helpful (This from Attack in India thread) :-



disarray said:


> …Faith Freedom International …  maintains a particularly aggressive debate against islamic teachings. the author has levelled a $50,000 challenge to islamic scholars to debate him on accusations that mohammed was a narcissist misogynist rapist pedophile lecher torturer mass murderer terrorist looter  it certainly appears that mohammed wasn't a turn the other cheek kinda guy.




5. and 6.  agreed, especially point 6 

7. I doubt that that’s what is said to anyone, lol. 

8. Agree that there are extremists in all religions, especially those based on non-science


But in summary, I think that Sharia (my understanding of it anyway  - especially as it affects women in UK etc ) should be banned.  If women want protection from men under British law, they should get it .  The law of the land is the law of the land, end of story. 

Why a woman would voluntarily become a Muslim defies logic. 

PS and if anyone has a hand cut off for some theft - they are tried accordingly - for aggrevated assault or whatever.  etc etc


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> It all boils down to an issue of power. The reason Australians eat lamb beef and french fries, rather than wichitee grubs, racehorse goannas and emus, and live in houses rather than roam about in a nomadic lifestyle, is because European Christian culture overwhelmed the local one. The locals didn't have  a say.
> 
> If they could have, they would have.
> 
> ...




Yes good point about the leftie carrots have feelings brigade. 

It is time our traditions and cultural norms were not further degraded and re-emphasised.


----------



## Happy (3 December 2008)

> Originally Posted by wayneL showthread.php?p=367232 - post367232showthread.php?p=367232 - post367232
> 
> The insane thing about our culture is that we hand them this power for gratis. This is not very bright. By all means tolerate their religion and culture within the confines of our own, but "allow" to displace it. This is not on, but the loony left are ensuring it is on. Very bad.





Kosovo springs to mind for some reason.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (3 December 2008)

Happy said:


> Kosovo springs to mind for some reason.




Do you mean this Happy?

Source Wikipedia:


> In March 17, 2004, serious unrest in Kosovo led to 19 deaths, and *the destruction of a 35 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries* in the province, as Albanians started pogroms against the Serbs. Several thousand more Kosovo Serbs have left their homes to seek refuge in Serbia proper or in the Serb-dominated north of Kosovo.
> 
> Since the end of the war, Kosovo has been a major source and destination country in the trafficking of women, women forced into prostitution and sexual slavery. *The growth in the sex trade industry has been fuelled by NATO forces in Kosovo.* [11] [12] [13]



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

Or did you mean the fact that Kosovo has declared its independence?


----------



## Happy (3 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Do you mean this Happy?
> 
> Source Wikipedia:
> 
> ...




Some inependence.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 December 2008)

http://europenews.dk/en/node/16898

Catholic schools in Britain have sold out too.

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/12/britain-catholic-bishops-bowing-to.html


----------



## Buddy (4 December 2008)

Now this has to be a hoax. Surely, they are not that stupid!
And do we expect reciprocal rights? And how about the same in Saudi and all the rest of those scummy countries.  And also how about opening up some liquor stores in those places.  I think not.  Got to be a hoax.


----------



## amory (4 December 2008)

always nice to observe a levelheaded discussion taking place among sensible broadminded people.  years ago .. around the time of the london subway attacks .. I wrote a fairly simplistic novel where I had "them" blow up chatswood station in sydney, aust.  throughout the subsequent plot, it is quite remarkable to observe the changing attitude amidst both the authorities & the general population after such an event on homeground territory.  look at it this way .. Bali is virtually forgotten, Mumbay far away.  some lessons are still to be learned.  needless to say, no agent wanted to touch my work with the proverbial pole.  can't say I blame them.  so far, PC rules ok.

the topic of this thread?  yes, it's touched on in a generalized sort of way.  is it ok to bash your wife, to bury women to the neck in sand & stone them to death, to send 8-year olds in with bomb-belts .. without providing specific answers.  it was only a novel, entirely fictitious at this stage.

in Britain, it would appear .. "Sharia is here, has been for a while, is mostly benign and works in with British law."  well that last bit is reassuring anyway.  but give them time ..


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 December 2008)

amory said:


> always nice to observe a levelheaded discussion taking place among sensible broadminded people.  years ago .. around the time of the london subway attacks .. I wrote a fairly simplistic novel where I had "them" blow up chatswood station in sydney, aust.  throughout the subsequent plot, it is quite remarkable to observe the changing attitude amidst both the authorities & the general population after such an event on homeground territory.  look at it this way .. Bali is virtually forgotten, Mumbay far away.  some lessons are still to be learned.  needless to say, no agent wanted to touch my work with the proverbial pole.  can't say I blame them.  so far, *PC rules ok*.
> 
> the topic of this thread?  yes, it's touched on in a generalized sort of way.  is it ok to bash your wife, to bury women to the neck in sand & stone them to death, to send 8-year olds in with bomb-belts .. without providing specific answers.  it was only a novel, entirely fictitious at this stage.
> 
> in Britain, it would appear .. "Sharia is here, has been for a while, is mostly benign and works in with British law."  well that last bit is reassuring anyway.  but give them time ..




Perhaps they should read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228705645&sr=1-1

Head in the sand is the western way it seems.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2017)

I'm guessing once you mass employ Pakistanis, etc into the public service and education system like has happened:

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/vid...re-a-place-for-sharia-law-in-australia/#page1


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2017)

If public servants are teaching sharia law, they should be sacked.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

All laws should be based on rational secular thought.

However, if we are going to pander to christians and allow christians to bring in laws based on their religious rules, can we really be upset that Muslims want some of their laws brought in.

I am in favor of removing all religious based laws that don't have a rational secular base, but until that happens you can't be mad at the muslims for trying.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> All laws should be based on rational secular thought.
> 
> However, if we are going to pander to christians and allow christians to bring in laws based on their religious rules, can we really be upset that Muslims want some of their laws brought in.
> 
> I am in favor of removing all religious based laws that don't have a rational secular base, but until that happens you can't be mad at the muslims for trying.





Still arguing the all in or all out rationale. Put up with a wrong because another wrong exists = two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> All laws should be based on rational secular thought.
> 
> However, if we are going to pander to christians and allow christians to bring in laws based on their religious rules, can we really be upset that Muslims want some of their laws brought in.
> 
> I am in favor of removing all religious based laws that don't have a rational secular base, but until that happens you can't be mad at the muslims for trying.




What Christian laws do you mean ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Still arguing the all in or all out rationale. Put up with a wrong because another wrong exists = two wrongs don't make a right.




Actually I don't want to put up with any religious laws, but I currently have no choice.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you are going to allow one group to get away with something, you have to allow the other groups to, or admit that none of them should have the special treatment.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What Christian laws do you mean ?




The laws banning the sale of alcohol on good Friday for a start.

It's not enough that the christians just refrain themselves on good Friday, but they have bought in legislation to try and stop/make it harder for people outside their religion to have a buy some beer.

Imagine if a muslim based law prevented the sale of alcohol on a certain day, people would go nuts, but every one just accepts the christian based law, its a double standard.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Actually I don't want to put up with any religious laws, but I currently have no choice.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you are going to allow one group to get away with something, you have to allow the other groups to, or admit that none of them should have the special treatment.




The whole concept of religious laws is contradictory.

Religion is a voluntary association, therefore religious laws cannot be compulsory. If you don't like the rules or your religious club, then leave the club.

If people can't feel that they can leave a religion without being intimidated then that group is not a religion but a subversive organisation which should be dealt with by secular laws.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The whole concept of religious laws is contradictory.
> 
> *Religion is a voluntary association, therefore religious laws cannot be compulsory. If you don't like the rules or your religious club, then leave the club.*
> 
> If people can't feel that they can leave a religion without being intimidated then that group is not a religion but a subversive organisation which should be dealt with by secular laws.




Yep, but even atheists are banned from buying alcohol on good Friday.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, but even atheists are banned from buying alcohol on good Friday.




So buy it on Thursday . 

Anyway the Muslims want to legalise pedophilia by reducing the age of consent, and they have their hooks into Australia's most prestigious university.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bl...y/news-story/4247218fc501f6f97266a51205a7d4af


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So buy it on Thursday .



why should I have to do that? why can't the religionists just be happy living by their own rules without subjecting us to them.

Good Friday liquor rules are just one example of their intrusion, but its one that affects me given that I am normally travelling that weekend, and always seem to get caught short.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyway the Muslims want to legalise pedophilia by reducing the age of consent,




A blanket decision to not pander to any religions silly rules would fix that problem, however its hard to justify ignoring muslim laws when we pander to some christian ones.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> *but if you are going to allow one group to get away with something, you have to allow the other groups to*. (sic)




We don't have to allow anything, especially tradeoffs. Why would we broaden the reach of godworshippers would steal our freedoms and e.g. advocate for girls to be brides?

You have been in Afghanistan, you know the truth about Islam and little boys dressed as girls and sold for sex. Surely you of all people should be discriminating and discriminating hard.


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> We don't have to allow anything, especially tradeoffs. Why would we broaden the reach of godworshippers would steal our freedoms and e.g. advocate for girls to be brides?
> 
> You have been in Afghanistan, you know the truth about Islam and little boys dressed as girls and sold for sex. Surely you of all people should be discriminating and discriminating hard.



the real question is why would you let one special brand of god worshippers steal your freedom?

As I said, I am in favour of banning all religious infringement, not Banning one group while pandering to another, because as long as you pander to one group, others will seek the same treatment, its human nature.

It's like telling 3 year old twins only one can have a cookie, there will be a huge melt down. But if both are denied, they will probably accept it better, and your case is on more solid ground.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> the real question is why would you let one special brand of god worshippers steal your freedom?




Regrettably one lot of God Botherers got in first and took over the major political parties. Their influence seems to be waning though and perhaps certain laws will be watered down. That's no reason to let another lot of GB's get any foothold though, and Sydney University seems to have done just that.

Who knows where we will end up if people like that multiply and divide our society.


----------



## Tisme (14 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> the real question is why would you let one special brand of god worshippers steal your freedom?
> 
> As I said, I am in favour of banning all religious infringement, not Banning one group while pandering to another, because as long as you pander to one group, others will seek the same treatment, its human nature.
> 
> It's like telling 3 year old twins only one can have a cookie, there will be a huge melt down. But if both are denied, they will probably accept it better, and your case is on more solid ground.





Seniority and founders:




> The English common law has an incredibly rich Christian heritage. England’s most celebrated jurists – including the likes of Blackstone, Coke and Fortescue – often drew heavily from their Christian faith when expounding and developing what are now well established principles and doctrines of the common law. This article demonstrates how Christian values and principles underpin the English common law, and how they still remain valid to the interpretation of the common law even to the present day. Finally, the article explains why Christianity has always been an important element of the common law, and why the Christian foundations of the common law should not be ignored or neglected.
> 
> 
> 
> Common law means a legal system based upon the English legal system; a mixture of customary law, judge-made law and parliamentary law. At least until the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. This philosophy argues that there is a divine reason for the existence of fundamental laws, and that such laws are superior to human-made legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles by which everyone should live. This assumption was expressed, among other things, in the Magna Carta of 1215, a charter which guaranteed the basic rights and privileges to the English barons against the king. Professor Aroney explains Christianity’s ideological influence upon the Magna Carta:




Augusto Zimmermann, Ph.D., LLB, LLM Augusto Zimmermann teaches at Western Australia’s Murdoch University School of Law, where he currently is Senior Lecturer in Law as well as Associate Dean for Research and Director of Postgraduate Studies.


----------



## qldfrog (14 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Who knows where we will end up if people like that multiply and divide our society.



we know=> 
2017:France/UK/sweden; 
2117 Califat of Europe


----------



## Value Collector (14 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Seniority and founders:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Find me any reference to Jesus, Christianity or the Bible in the constitution. Because I don't think they are there, there are phrases that ensure freedom of and from religion though.


----------



## Triathlete (15 July 2017)

Sharia law is totally incompatible with Australian values, so why does this Sydney University want to bring it here?

Senator Cory Bernardi has made his stance clear - there is no place for sharia in Australia.

https://www.facebook.com/AUConservatives/?pnref=story


----------



## Tisme (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Find me any reference to Jesus, Christianity or the Bible in the constitution. Because I don't think they are there, there are phrases that ensure freedom of and from religion though.





I don't have to find you anything. Self evidence is self evidence. From your year 8 schooling you would know that the Church of E  still has permanent English Lords Spiritual seats in the UK parliament, but you'd debate that too.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't have to find you anything. Self evidence is self evidence. From your year 8 schooling you would know that the Church of E  still has permanent English Lords Spiritual seats in the UK parliament, but you'd debate that too.




 Section 116 of the *Constitution* of *Australia* precludes the Commonwealth of *Australia* (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any *religion*, imposing any *religious* observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any *religion*.

---------------

I think that is pretty clear. But no court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116, I think its time the Australian people stood up and made the state and federal governments respect that part of the constitution, and allow us to buy beer on good Friday, and in the process force all religions to take a back seat.

Federal governments have twice proposed referendums to expand the scope of Section 116: in 1944 and in 1988.

Maybe we could pass the referendums now that people would be focused on the Islamic religion, rather than the smiling face of the local church that operate in a more clandestine manner.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Section 116 of the *Constitution* of *Australia* precludes the Commonwealth of *Australia* (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any *religion*, imposing any *religious* observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any *religion*.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> I think that is pretty clear. But no court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116, I think its time the Australian people stood up and made the state and federal governments respect that part of the constitution, and allow us to buy beer on good Friday, and in the process force all religions to take a back seat.




I actually think it would be more appropriate to get more serious about the damage alcohol is doing to society and whether it should be sold in supermarkets or after hours, but that's not a religious viewpoint it's one based on observation and the opinion of medicos who have to treat the aftermath of alcohol abuse.


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I actually think it would be more appropriate to get more serious about the damage alcohol is doing to society and whether it should be sold in supermarkets or after hours, but that's not a religious viewpoint it's one based on observation and the opinion of medicos who have to treat the aftermath of alcohol abuse.



we can do both.


----------



## McLovin (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Section 116 of the *Constitution* of *Australia* precludes the Commonwealth of *Australia* (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any *religion*, imposing any *religious* observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any *religion*.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> ...




The Constitution doesn't apply to the states. The Commonwealth does not declare public holidays, or regulate when you can or can't buy alcohol.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> we can do both.




Sure we can, but it's a pity you choose to trivialise the gaining of religious influence by Muslims in universities (which is the one place that religion should have no influence), by reference to a pretty minor example of so called Christian religious law. 

Christians have been sacked from university positions for espousing their religion, so I'd like you to say that the same should happen to Muslims, unless you have a bias towards them ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure we can, but it's a pity you choose to trivialise the gaining of religious influence by Muslims in universities (which is the one place that religion should have no influence), by reference to a pretty minor example of so called Christian religious law.
> 
> Christians have been sacked from university positions for espousing their religion, so I'd like you to say that the same should happen to Muslims, unless you have a bias towards them ?




Do you just want to focus on putting out one fire, or do you want to ban lighting fires, install sprinkler systems, and have fire alarms, do prevent all fires getting out of control in the future.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Do you just want to focus on putting out one fire, or do you want to ban lighting fires, install sprinkler systems, and have fire alarms, do prevent all fires getting out of control in the future.




You can put out one fire to stop it building into a bigger fire, and the Sydney Uni case is a good place to start.

So what do you think ? Leave the person there to attract radicals and let the Uni get taken over, or put the fire out before it gets out of control ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 July 2017)

Not religious but for freedom sake don't swap JC for Muham mad.


----------



## Tisme (15 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Section 116 of the *Constitution* of *Australia* precludes the Commonwealth of *Australia* (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any *religion*, imposing any *religious* observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any *religion*.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> ...





You didn't do law at school/uni did you.


----------



## Tisme (15 July 2017)

McLovin said:


> The Constitution doesn't apply to the states. The Commonwealth does not declare public holidays, or regulate when you can or can't buy alcohol.




Australia was given it's predication laws by the UK Parliament. There is no ambiguity our constitution et al was enabled by having British Laws. Which was still all powerful upto and including the Australia Act


----------



## Value Collector (16 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> You can put out one fire to stop it building into a bigger fire, and the Sydney Uni case is a good place to start.
> 
> So what do you think ? Leave the person there to attract radicals and let the Uni get taken over, or put the fire out before it gets out of control ?



Bring in and enforce legislation that keeps religion and government seperate, so all buildings a fire proof.


----------



## Tink (16 July 2017)

Is political correctness going too far?
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/

Our National Public Holidays are:

New Year's Day AD 2017(in the year of our Lord), Australia Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Easter Sunday is on the weekend, so we don't need a public holiday.


----------



## Value Collector (21 July 2017)

Tink said:


> Is political correctness going too far?
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/
> 
> Our National Public Holidays are:
> ...




What's your point?


----------



## Tink (22 July 2017)

I am still waiting for you to show me an atheist country.

Our nation, Australia, is based on our Christian foundations, traditions, customs and values.
One nation under God.
And yes, we still say the Lord's Prayer in parliament.

Christmas is a part of this nation, our culture and our traditions, and therefore celebrated in government buildings.

Political Correctness is a poison that lets evil flourish.


----------



## Mirus3000 (22 July 2017)

Tink said:


> I am still waiting for you to show me an atheist country.
> 
> Our nation, Australia, is based on our Christian foundations, traditions, customs and values.
> One nation under God.
> ...




Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer !!!   _Paul Joseph Goebbels_


----------



## Tisme (22 July 2017)

Mirus3000 said:


> Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer !!!   _Paul Joseph Goebbels_



*"...... *one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2017)

Tink said:


> I am still waiting for you to show me an atheist country.
> 
> .




What is an "atheist country"?

The word atheist just describes a person who isn't convinced a god exists, I am not sure what your definition of an "atheist country" would be.


> Our nation, Australia, is based on our Christian foundations, traditions, customs and values.
> One nation under God.




Does it say "one nation under god" in the founding documents?





> Christmas is a part of this nation, our culture and our traditions, and therefore celebrated in government buildings.




I celebrate Christmas too, for the vast majority of people it is not about Jesus, its about family, presents, prawns and beer.

Just ask anyone what their favourite things about Christmas are and they won't mention church or Jesus.

Christmas festivities have been well and truly highjacked by secular society, we stole your Christmas and made it our own, just like you lot stole it from the pagan, lol 

This song comes up Christmas for 90% of the Australias that celebrate it.





> Political Correctness is a poison that lets evil flourish




What do you mean?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2017)

> Political Correctness is a poison that lets evil flourish




In some circumstances this is true.

If political correctness stops us discussing the evils of religion for fear we may "offend" someone, then that evil will flourish.


----------



## Value Collector (22 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> *"...... *one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"



I preferred the original, before they added the part about imaginary friends. 

Listen to the original, it never included god until the fundamentalists added it in the 50's


----------



## Tisme (22 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I preferred the original, before they added the part about imaginary friends.
> 
> Listen to the original, it never included god until the fundamentalists added it in the 50's





Yeah original was: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

then Dwight added the God clause in 1954

Never really cottoned onto the idea that a flag is anything but a symbol, although I do fly a big Oz bugger from my second storey verandah.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2017)

Surprising the Yanks didn't have God in from the start considering the first settlers were Calvinists.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Surprising the Yanks didn't have God in from the start considering the first settlers were Calvinists.



The founding fathers were quite anti organized religion, there was a lot of religious turmoil in Europe at the time, and all the new immigrants had different beliefs, they simply wanted to turn their back on the nonsense and forge a nation based on common ground, hence why the separation of religion and government was made very clear in their founding documents.

It wasn't until the Cold War with the "godless communists" that the Christian fundamentalists managed to squeeze, their bs into the pledge, and onto the currency.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> Never really cottoned onto the idea that a flag is anything but a symbol, although I do fly a big Oz bugger from my second storey verandah.




Yeah, the flag is a piece of cloth, that's its, it's just a symbol, my father believes a person that burns the flag should be shot, but he is wrong.

Does a person that burns a photo of me deserve to be convicted of murder, no ofcourse not.

People say soldiers fight for the flag, I say bs, I have never met anyone who has believed they were fighting for a flag, soldiers fight for much more.

I would fight for a persons right to burn the flag before I would fight to hurt a person who simply burned a flag.

Because I would much rather live in a nation that respect the right to protest, and even condoned protest against the very symbol of the nation itself, than live in a country that would kill some one for speaking out,

Flags are nothing but cloth, all humans are worth more than cloth.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, the flag is a piece of cloth, that's its, it's just a symbol, my father believes a person that burns the flag should be shot, but he is wrong.
> 
> Does a person that burns a photo of me deserve to be convicted of murder, no ofcourse not.
> 
> ...




I don't think people who burn the flag should be shot, but they should be placed on an ASIO watch list as potential terrorists.

If someone burned a photo of me, I'd be tempted to put a contract out on them before they got me first.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

It took these goofballs to make me relise that a flag can be burned in celebration of freedom, if you ever get a chance to see their show in Vegas, I recommend it


----------



## Tink (23 July 2017)

Well actually we do, VC - we have 'Almighty God'.

As for the US, this was already talked about, that the founders were all Christian.
Where does the common law come from.

Good to see Trump breaking up political correctness.


----------



## Tisme (23 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, the flag is a piece of cloth, that's its, it's just a symbol, my father believes a person that burns the flag should be shot, but he is wrong.
> 
> Does a person that burns a photo of me deserve to be convicted of murder, no ofcourse not.
> 
> ...




I guess people who think burning a flag as a deliberate insult are into totems themselves. I personally fly the flag because I'm not ashamed to do so, it looks great against the style and size of my house, and I identify as Australian. 

Yes if someone feels compelled to burn a flag, who am I to stop them wasting the $10 plastic cheapy they invariably choose. If they tried burning one of my calico versions it'd probably just smolder.


----------



## Tisme (23 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think people who burn the flag should be shot, but they should be placed on an ASIO watch list as potential terrorists.
> 
> If someone burned a photo of me, I'd be tempted to put a contract out on them before they got me first.




I'd be fairly sure that happens anyway. Protesters are invariably photographed. Joh made an art form of it.

I'd hazard a guess there would be a lot of avatar photos on facebook that would be burned if feasible by millions if not billions of members.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> I guess people who think burning a flag as a deliberate insult are into totems themselves. I personally fly the flag because I'm not ashamed to do so, it looks great against the style and size of my house, and I identify as Australian.
> 
> Yes if someone feels compelled to burn a flag, who am I to stop them wasting the $10 plastic cheapy they invariably choose. If they tried burning one of my calico versions it'd probably just smolder.




Yes, flags are symbols but imo if you show contempt for a symbol then you show contempt for the object behind the symbol.

I'm not saying that people who burn flags should be prosecuted, but it's a warning of their general feelings and possible intentions towards a particular country or whatever that symbol represents.


----------



## Tisme (23 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, flags are symbols but imo if you show contempt for a symbol then you show contempt for the object behind the symbol.
> 
> I'm not saying that people who burn flags should be prosecuted, but it's a warning of their general feelings and possible intentions towards a particular country or whatever that symbol represents.




I can see you have a passion for the flag, but honestly don't recall it being sacrosanct growing up. Sure they were often used alongside the Union Jack and festoons, but they were more celebrations than obedience sessions.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2017)

Tisme said:


> I can see you have a passion for the flag,




Not all that much, we should get that thing in the top left hand corner off for a start, but I'm just saying that there is a definite association with a symbol and the object or idea that it represents.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Not all that much, we should get that thing in the top left hand corner off for a start, but I'm just saying that there is a definite association with a symbol and the object or idea that it represents.



Burning the flag can itself be a symbol of something very real and very worthwhile, e.g. A symbol of our freedom of protest, and a symbol that we can freely speak out against our own nation, not all people have those freedoms.

If some idiot attacks some one who is exercising their freedom, the attacker is the one committing the crime, and being unaustralian.

People always matter more than symbols.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> People always matter more than symbols.




Sure, but to use your example of burning your photograph wouldn't you be entitled to assume that a person who did that would have something against you personally ?

As I said, burning a symbol shouldn't be a crime but we should take it as evidence of those people's feelings towards the thing that the symbol represents.


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> It took these goofballs to make me relise that a flag can be burned in celebration of freedom, if you ever get a chance to see their show in Vegas, I recommend it




This piece excepted, Penn has a lot of good ideas in relation to politics and religion, but he can be such a foul mouth. I despair listening to some of his pieces thinking that they should be shown in the classroom for their educational content or to certain audiences, but they cannot simply because they are expletive ridden. I cannot understand how a man of his obvious education would need to lower his standards so much.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

bellenuit said:


> I cannot understand how a man of his obvious education would need to lower his standards so much.




He left high school to attend clown college, but is big on self education and reads a lot.


----------



## Value Collector (23 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but to use your example of burning your photograph wouldn't you be entitled to assume that a person who did that would have something against you personally ?
> 
> .




Depends on the reason they are burning it, I would probably just try to understand the persons arguements and make a judgement based on those, rather than assume their intentions.


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

bellenuit said:


> This piece excepted, Penn has a lot of good ideas in relation to politics and religion, but he can be such a foul mouth. I despair listening to some of his pieces thinking that they should be shown in the classroom for their educational content or to certain audiences, but they cannot simply because they are expletive ridden. *I cannot understand how a man of his obvious education would need to lower his standards so much*.





Men + Age =or> Stupidity


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Not all that much, we should get that thing in the top left hand corner off for a start, but I'm just saying that there is a definite association with a symbol and the object or idea that it represents.




Is this what you mean


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2017)

Ok, we'll leave it in to keep him happy.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The founding fathers were quite anti organized religion, there was a lot of religious turmoil in Europe at the time, and all the new immigrants had different beliefs, they simply wanted to turn their back on the nonsense and forge a nation based on common ground, hence why the separation of religion and government was made very clear in their founding documents.
> 
> It wasn't until the Cold War with the "godless communists" that the Christian fundamentalists managed to squeeze, their bs into the pledge, and onto the currency.



Point of order - I have an American 1922 silver dollar with "In God We Trvst(sic)" on it.


----------



## Tisme (24 July 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The founding fathers were quite anti organized religion, there was a lot of religious turmoil in Europe at the time, and all the new immigrants had different beliefs, they simply wanted to turn their back on the nonsense and forge a nation based on common ground, hence why the separation of religion and government was made very clear in their founding documents.
> 
> It wasn't until the Cold War with the "godless communists" that the Christian fundamentalists managed to squeeze, their bs into the pledge, and onto the currency.




I'd be surprised if their were many migrants after independence because they shut the doors for a couple of generations and when they did resume there were the usual suspects from the UK plus the new wave from christian europe... that's when the christian divisions split into political parties = Catholic Democrats and Anglican/Lutheran Republicans.

Like Australia the Chinese and Middle Eastern types were limited and even sent home.


----------



## bellenuit (24 July 2017)

wayneL said:


> Point of order - I have an American 1922 silver dollar with "In God We Trvst(sic)" on it.




"In God We Trust" was first added to U.S. coins during the beginning of the Civil War. The motto appeared on paper currency beginning in 1957.

http://time.com/4179685/in-god-we-trust-currency-history/


----------



## Value Collector (24 July 2017)

1957 it became the national motto and was added to the paper currency, and the reference to God was added to the pledge around the same time.


----------

