Anybody seen this article on Muslims by Australian Prime Minister? Any Opinions?

[MisterMuncher]

"And if people will remember, we couldn't hang flags out of our window during the World Cup. Now I'm not racist, but do you agree that what I've just said is ridiculous?"

I do agree, yes. It's ridiculous. It also never actually happened. Sure, there was talk of such things, and some froth in the press, but find me a single creditable example of someone having to take down a flag because it was offensive to Muslims (not because it was a breach of planning law, or somehow hazardous), and I'll cheerfully follow it up with a youtube post of me eating my cycling shoes. Boiled or Fried.

[Attica!]

We're a small area, it wasn't National. But it happened just after Christmas when they said it's no longer Christmas and it felt like we were just dangling it at them. It happened, I live here, and I remember it perfectly well because their was a riot at college over it when we got back

[Attica!]

"And if people will remember, we couldn't hang flags out of our window during the World Cup. Now I'm not racist, but do you agree that what I've just said is ridiculous?"

I do agree, yes. It's ridiculous. It also never actually happened. Sure, there was talk of such things, and some froth in the press, but find me a single creditable example of someone having to take down a flag because it was offensive to Muslims (not because it was a breach of planning law, or somehow hazardous), and I'll cheerfully follow it up with a youtube post of me eating my cycling shoes. Boiled or Fried.

I definitely know them flags on Cars were banned. Just found load of articles on it. It wasn't the goverment that issued the ban, it was more local councils. People did it anyway lol

[MisterMuncher]

If you've found loads of articles, perhaps we could see them. I mean, this is the internet and all.

[Attica!]

If you've found loads of articles, perhaps we could see them. I mean, this is the internet and all.

This is the articles I mentioned about the councils banning flags on cars, etc. Like I said, it wasn't government, it was more local councils. Here's a few:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285492/Council-workers-banned-flying-England-flags-OWN-cars.html

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1241490_victory_over_binmens_world_cup_flags_ban

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/World-Cup-Fury-as-offensive-England-flags-banned-by-housing-association-in-Cambridge-article464951.html

[nfe]

He's not a patch on the dreamboat Brian Cox.

Ahhhhh. Got logged out and lost a big post.

I find it difficult to accept that anyone familiar with the Quran, it's history of interpretation and hermeneutics would think it universally negative. Or indeed hate it or the religion it presents. As I say, it stands alone amongst texts of its era in presenting in a glorifying context a secular, religiously free society.

Again, saying it inexorably leads to sharia is nonsense.


RE: Those articles. One banning was due to health and safety bollocks on binmen's vans. The other two were not at the behest of Muslims.

I never said Muslims? I said due to being racist, as they didn't want people in the UK who didn't support England to feel uncomfortable. ANd it doesn't matter if it happened or not, it's the fact that things like this even get considered. It just shows there's some sad people out there who like to just be awkward and ruin people's fun.

Sorry, it was the tree you said was directly because of Muslim protest. The one that was the only case in British history but sported zero news coverage.

[MisterMuncher]

If you've found loads of articles, perhaps we could see them. I mean, this is the internet and all.

This is the articles I mentioned about the councils banning flags on cars, etc. Like I said, it wasn't government, it was more local councils. Here's a few:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285492/Council-workers-banned-flying-England-flags-OWN-cars.html

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1241490_victory_over_binmens_world_cup_flags_ban

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/World-Cup-Fury-as-offensive-England-flags-banned-by-housing-association-in-Cambridge-article464951.html

All of those articles carry the classic "caveat in paragraph 19", as identified by Ben Goldacre. The headline and the bulk of the story is given over to the sensational headline and the wounded party, and a scant bit of regard paid to the person doing the (not actual) Banning, and their reasons for it.

It had little to do with being offensive, either, or racist. It largely comes down to something very simple. Some people like to thing they have special dispensation to display emblems or whatever on other peoples property or vehicles, and like to moan their arses off when they're told they can't. Incapable of accepting they're subject to rules and regulations, they lash out at an outgroup for someone to blame, because they're too damned thick and lazy for a little introspection. Entitlement is a gruesome thing.

[MDV]

If we're to accept the hyperbolic and reactionary presentation of the attempt by muslim extremists to conquer the free world with sharia law, and are really faced with the decision between a 'free' country that is forced to maintain as much freedom as practicable for as many as possible by rejecting a few that would deny most freedoms to everyone, then yes, its all good. Do that.

But the reality is, we arent. Its grandstanding, nothing more.

Genuinely racist or not, genuine threat of sharia law or not, he knows hes got a demographic of nationalists to appeal to by taking a "strong" stance against a perceived (i.e. imaginary) threat or pollution of an equally tribal, if largely preferable way of life and he can get votes of those dumb spear-rattling meatheads (a similarly viable practice here).

I have no love nor tolerance for any religion. Islam, christianity and any other imaginary friend having, cognicidal and occasionally homicidal and every now and then genocidal idiot can take their overwritten medieval magic book of rules and shove it. Or at least keep their quaint little fantasies to themselves and not expect anyone else to act or live like their delusions should be of any importance or concern to them. Any attempt to impose religious dogma (or its side effects like teaching creationism or prohibiting certain kinds of medical research or blanket prevention of abortions or condemnation of contraceptives or etc etc etc) on a country as a whole is repugnant.

With that in mind, its just a tiny bit contradictory as $%&# that he goes on to say that his "free" country is a definitionally and near-universally christian one, and if you dont like that youre free to.....leave.

I've long maintained that the only society that has genuine religious freedom is a secular one. Because its true. As I say, I have no love for religions of any sort, little but contempt in fact, but you should have the right to pursue or practice whatever one (or bizarre ill-thought-out new-agey combination of them) you want.

Its like the x factor or whatever cr@ps in the charts these days; I'm perfectly happy for people to indulge in it so long as its not forced on me. I dont have to listen to it, and likewise I wont be hijacking CFM with a small heavily armed team of metal ninjas to play origin, nile, hour of penance and behemoths discographies back to back. Though I'd really, really like to.

[Afghan Dave]

MDV... I agree.  PDT_003

[Attica!]

MDV... I agree.  PDT_003

+1

[gwEm]

Can we go back to discussing which picks we all use please?

au contraire! this thread was obviously going to be a "high-brow debate thread" from the title, therefore uninterested parties can stay well out of it :)

[FredD]

FROM MDV :
"...I have no love nor tolerance for any religion. Islam, christianity and any other imaginary friend having, cognicidal and occasionally homicidal and every now and then genocidal idiot can take their overwritten medieval magic book of rules and shove it. Or at least keep their quaint little fantasies to themselves and not expect anyone else to act or live like their delusions should be of any importance or concern to them. Any attempt to impose religious dogma (or its side effects like teaching creationism or prohibiting certain kinds of medical research or blanket prevention of abortions or condemnation of contraceptives or etc etc etc) on a country as a whole is repugnant..."



Couldn't have put it better myself sir !!  8)

[Elliot]

Well I, for one, am glad that this is thread is effectively over.

[dave_mc]

dangit the quote system's not working

anyway i more or less agree with mark's post, though i'd be less confrontational towards religion- i'm more of an agnostic than atheist anyway, not to mention it does more harm than good (much like when religious people want something banned,it makes everyone else want to see it more), and also religion isn't the only reason for killing anyone, there are a bunch of opportunistic chancers about who'll use any reason to get people to kill for them.

[Elliot]

The pathways to transcendent peace, my brethren, are mother of pearl coloured Fender celluloid heavy picks, Om mani padme hum.....