• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims.........

daedong

New member
CANBERRA: Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on
Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in
a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of
mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special
meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it
clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that
some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not
accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by
parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which
has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he
said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching
that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian
law and another the Islamic law, that is false.

If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy,
and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another
country which practises it, perhaps, then, that's a better option,"
Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to
leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move
to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who
did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically,
people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by
Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear
off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on
Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques.
agencies


PS If you would like to read something Australian be it be political or other topics from downunder i will post them on a regular basis. Please let me know because i don't want to bore you.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
Here in the U.S., I was always under the belief that I am free to practice the religion of my choice (or none at all). However, local, state and federal laws could not be violated in the name of my religion. Unfortunately, that seems to be under attack here in the U.S.

An example is pictures on driver's licenses. My state requires your picture on your driver's license. In that picture, it is specifically stated that you may not wear any hat, cap, or "dark" glasses. A specific religion does not want the picture of their women on their driver's license, as it violates their beliefs. For obvious security reasons, this creates problems. However, in a few states now, the states are allowing people to get a driver's license without their picture being taken! I do not have a problem with people practicing their religion, but when it interferes with security, and state law is "overlooked" for a specific religion, I have problem with that. Where I live, I was always taught that it is a "privilege" to have a driver's license; not a right.

Hopefully I stated that correctly, and it doesn't sound as if I have an issue with a person's religion. I don't. I just have a problem with laws I am required to abide being made "not applicable" for other people because of their religious beliefs. I say this because I believe in what you posted; if you don't like the laws that exist here, feel free to go elsewhere. I certainly wouldn't expect another country to change their laws to accomodate me.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Personally I like the whole concept of throwing people out of the country if they don't want to accept the rules of law and the culture of the country.

I am the son of an immigrant to this land. My father refused to teach me his native tongue and prevented his father from doing the same. My uncle, born here, has far more of an accent than my father. People who knew my dad assumed he was born here and assumed my uncle was the immigrant. My dad's logic was that he escaped Hitler's push East and Stalin's push Westward and this country accepted him so his responsibility was to assimilate.

Now bare in mind, I have no problem with people who want to keep their culture but hold it subserviant to the nation's culture. So the "Irish Americans" who want to celebrate their nationality are just fine with me, as are the "Indian Americans" who celebrate their own cultures . . . so long as all of them do not impose their cultures onto the mainstream, or melting pot, culture that holds us all together. I guess my point is we all have to co-exist, so we need to realize that our national or religious heritage must be held as a personal belief that does not supercede, and potentially undermine, the nation.


 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
B_Skurka said:
..."Irish Americans" who want to celebrate their nationality are just fine with me, as are the "Indian Americans" who celebrate their own cultures . . .

I have an interesting note. On many of our government forms we have to check our heritage: German, Irish, Mexican etc. One of the choices is "Native American". It may sound picky, but I strongly feel that they should print what they mean; American Indian. Back in college, for a particular English class, I was required to trace my ancestery back to when my ancestors came to America. I spent months on this project since it was of great interest to me. However, as far back as I could find records of my family was 1705. In 1705 my ancestors were in Southern Illinois. I could not find any records previous to that no matter how much I tried. With my surname, some professionals in the geneology suggest that my ancestors perhaps migrated south from far north many centuries ago. Therefore, I check "native American" on reports. I actually feel that anyone born here is a "native American".
 

OkeeDon

New member
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars." In many Muslim countries, if a woman appears with her hair uncovered, she is removed from the street. That's OK with me. In the United States, if a person does not want their photo on a license, they can get someone else to drive for them. That's OK with me, too. If a person does not want to abide by the laws of his country, he can be punished for breaking the laws, regardless of where he is from. If he is from somewhere else, the penalties can include deportation.

In the United States, there can be no law regarding religion. That goes both ways -- there can be no laws forcing someone to follow a specific religion, but there can also be no laws that provide benefits to specific religions. "No law" means no law.

None of the above is liberal or conservative, left or right. It's just common sense.

The real beauty of the United States is that one has the right to try to change those laws if one can, providing one follows the prescribed (but quite tolerant) methods such as electing representatives. If a prescribed majority agrees that the laws should be changed, that's OK, too.

In a trivial yet significant example, in the 33 years I've lived here, my city has had several initiatives on the ballot for city council term lengths. We have gone from 4 year terms to 2 year to 4 year to 2 year to 6 year to 2 year to 4 year, and the short-term advocates may well win again in the future. Regardless of the confusion this has caused, the system works.

We've heard the phrase, "America, love it or leave it" promoted by shallow-minded folks. The true phrase is, "American, love it, leave it, or work to change it." But, unless and until you (or them) do succeed in changing it, you have to follow its rules. Period.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Don, very well said.

Now I don't know how the law works in Kangarooland, but what you wrote sure applies to the good old US of A. It never ceases to amaze me when I see folks who defend themselves by saying things like I don't recognize the legitimacy of that law. The reality is the law is the law. The beauty is our law is a fluid law that allows for change by following the system. Don't like? Fine, work to change it, but until it is changed you have no choice but to follow it or deal with the penalties.

I'm now very curious what Vin's take is on all of this as we have obviously taken his Australian story and converted it to our nation's policies.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
In the United States, there can be no law regarding religion. That goes both ways -- there can be no laws forcing someone to follow a specific religion, but there can also be no laws that provide benefits to specific religions. "No law" means no law.

None of the above is liberal or conservative, left or right. It's just common sense.

Thanks Don. I was hoping that I did not come across as making any sort of political comment at all. I'm very pleased that you interpreted it exactly as I tried to write my thoughts.
 

EastTexFrank

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Vin, that's a "refreshing" attitude coming from politians. We'll never see or hear such a thing in this country.
 

EastTexFrank

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
:) Well said Don. I truelly believe that is how the system is supposed to and should work.

I also agree with Dargo in that anyone who is born here is a "Native American". I guess that labels me with the title of "Immigrant" for the rest of my life. :) :) :)
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
EastTexFrank said:
Vin, that's a "refreshing" attitude coming from politians. We'll never see or hear such a thing in this country.


Quite true, we never will hear that from our politicians. And that is a crying shame.
 

OkeeDon

New member
Anyone watch "Commander in Chief" last night? Didja grin when she invited the Nigerian Ambassador into the converence room?
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OkeeDon said:
Anyone watch "Commander in Chief" last night? Didja grin when she invited the Nigerian Ambassador into the converence room?


Nope I missed it, but I was curious about that show. Was it any good? It looks like it has some promise. I'm not fond of any show that has a political message of any kind, I hope they can walk that line and make the show a good one.
 

OkeeDon

New member
It's a mixed message. Mackenzie Allen ("Mac") (Geena Davis) was the VP to a pretty conservative GOP President, however she was an avowed Independent who was chosen to be VP as a "stunt" to help the President get elected. The President suffers a stroke, and will be incpacitated at best. The next in line after the VP is the Speaker of the House, can't recall his stage name, played by Donald Sutherland. The Speaker is, if anything, further to the Right than the President.

While the President is being treated for his stroke, his staff asks the VP to resign in favor of the Speaker. She does NOT want to hand over power to that reactionary character. However, the President recovers enough to speak to her, and asks her directly to resign. Despite her misgivings, she prepares a letter of resignation.

The President dies before this is resolved. The Speaker, in true right-wing fashion, shoots himself in the foot by coming to her, talking down to her, and trying to bully her into resigning, all the time while she is holding her resgination letter on her lap. She sets aside the letter and informs the Speaker she will be taking the Oath of Office.

In the meantime, one of her activities as VP was a "throwaway" mission to try to prevent the Nigerians from executing a woman accused of adultery. The execution will be by burying her up to the neck and stoning her. While the President is on his sickbed, Mac orders the fleet to move carriers in such a way that the Nigerians can be threatened.

Even before she takes the Oath of Office, while serving as Acting President, she asks the Nigerian Ambassodor to a conference. He starts through the door in a pompous manner, talking down to this "female". He is startled, however, when he enters the room -- and discovers that it is a situation room, with a conference table full of the Joint Chiefs, who all stare at him while the General explains to him how they plan to rescue the woman, and promises to do it "with as little loss of life as possible." Of course, the woman is subsequently released, even as the new President is addressing Congress for the first time.

The program is a bit fanciful, and asks one to leave their credulity at the door (as if a right-wing Presidential candidate would ever ask an Independent to be on the ticket), but it looks to be good fun, and certainly will do no harm to the idea of a female President. Near as I can see, there is no attempt to draw any parallels between "Mac" and Hilary, with the exception of a portrayal of female competency. At one point, the widowed First Lady says to Mac, "If Moses had been a female, she would have asked directions, and led the Israelites out of the wilderness in a week."

There also looks to be some good, clean fun in the handling of the new First "Lady", Mac's husband. As VP, he was her Chief of Staff, but she fires him because she does not want it to look like the first female President needs her husband to tell her what to do.

I'll watch it. There will be some conflict; my wife prefers The Amazing Race.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
I didn't see it, but I don't see how G Davis can play anything other than an extremely radical left wing nut. I think she is about as center on politics as S Serandan (sp?) or Jane Fonda or Sean Penn.
 
Top