On 11/30/15, Endless <3ndless@riseup.net> wrote:
From an aspiring Australian senate candidate who I and many others admire, Bernard Gaynor. Hopefully he is observant enough to not get imprisoned on trumped up charges like Pauline Hanson did some years back due to a united effort (it turned out) between our two major ("left" and "right") political parties.
Good luck Bernard, Zenaan
Hello Zenaan,
I'm afraid that Islam, and Islamic ideology, although undoubtedly founded in the midst of violence and chaos and closely linked to quite violent and bloody wars throughout much of history, is not a violent religion. Texts in the Qur'an, as in the bible, promote and glorify the violence of it's followers when perceived in the context of historic events. Such is the nature of holy texts, advocating the victory of their followers in battle over the followers of other religions pertaining to foreign cultures.
To say that Islam is a violent religion by referencing battles that occurred hundreds of years ago completely negliges the positions members of other religions and faiths, such as Christians, took throughout the course of history. Christian movements such as the crusades and the idea of spreading religion through missionaries to be a noble act caused damage in the same way that Islamic movements did by conquering swathes of land in order to spread their ideology and economic power. Such a comparison clearly reflects the nature of religions based on interpretative scripture without so much as delving into the violence caused as a result of more modern colonialism, closely linked with Christian ideology and capitalism.
I agree that religion nearly always degenerates into control of its "followers" in more or less degraded and degrading ways. The Tibetans on the whole are (from what I've read) much better off under the system imposed by the Chinese than they were under the system imposed by Lamas, "Lamaism" ultimately under the Dalai Lama. To excessively generalise, and to stick to "at this point in history, as in, 2015 AD", could you agree that the current manifestation of "Islamists" (i.e. those extreme individuals professing faith in Islam), is in fact problematic for the "reasonably comfortable" Christian/ democratic "west"? Recently Russia has implemented some significant changes in Crimea, replacing the Turkish Imam with a new Russian Imam, building a new large mosque, and I think also some other legislative measures. Russia seems to approach "Islamism", by 'implementing' it's version of Islam and importing a "truly moderate" Imam. My question might be getting lost. Perhaps, do you consider it sensible to distinguish between moderates and extremists of any religion? If so, given the current extreme level of emigration from Syria, Libya and other Muslim areas of our little planet, is there some wisdom in attempting to distinguish between true moderates and extremists or even "likely to be extremists"? I problem I see is that in our 'modern' 'democratic' striving for 'secularism', we in the so called west have given up on morals and ethics ('goodness as each individual conceives goodness') for an extreme relativism, where no one really takes any stand for anything, and it appears to me that "evil" paths of action are pursued by western powers (companies, individuals, nations) in the pursuit of power, oil, control.
An even more modern example of tragedy motivated by religious interpretation is that of Australia's "stolen generations", where, by means of the Christian religion, Australian society itself separated up to 30% of indigenous children from their families.
And the settlers in Tasmania systematically slaughtered the aborigines of Tasmania (an island state of Australia). Heinous crimes. Genocide of the first order. Yes, humans can be a problem. In fact, humans usually are the primary problem.
Evidently, no religion is immune to acts of violence perpetrated in the name of religion or "protection of religion", taking as an example the persistent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Judaism and the fear of Jewish people being oppressed is used as an excuse for the colonization of Palestinian territory.
To blindly accuse "Islam" as the root of all violence perpetrated by those proclaiming to be of Islamic faith is a broad and particularly callous generalization, especially when addressing the issue of immigration.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au To handle the genuine problem of violent immigrants and the difficulty in properly assessing individuals for the violent potential, perhaps a contractual bind - you want to be here, you sign and agree to: - not engage in criminal acts as defined by our statutory criminal code - if you engage in any criminal act according to our statutory criminal code, you will be immediately deported to the country you were allegedly fleeing The "Christian" ethic of "turn the other cheek" can be, and I say is, abused. Abused by our politicians, abused by our schooling institutions turning us into compliant citizens. And abused by those who immigrate to Australia with intent to implement "emigration jihad" which by my readings, is a religious duty, at least for some Muslims (or is that Islamists? - too many terms sorry).
Regardless of one's religion, if a person is conditioned to react with violence, violence will ensue.
I agree. This is a straightforward and logical position. And it's the violent acts that need to be handled, and ideally minimise the entry of violent people into our country. Can we identify violent people amongst those who are attempting to immigrate? Some people say we shouldn't distinguish between "good" and "bad" inclined people - they are just poor refugees fleeing war and who have suffered (which may be true) and we ought to suffer them regardless - I disagree with unlimited tolerance and acceptance of all beliefs, all positions - violent positions and violent beliefs are not only held, but preached, believed and acted upon. A policy to deter violence by immigrants: If they commit any violent crime, immediate deportation ought be mandatory.
Preventing any group of people based on their faith from immigrating to a country is simply discrimination issuing from a stereotype propagated by members of a society acting out of fear. Instead of screening immigrants (refugees or otherwise) based on their religion, it would be much more appropriate to screen for signs that a person may attempt to perpetrate or incite violence.
And an indicator may, for a not so random example, Sudanese Muslims. But all you can do is assess areas and people for indicators - I think a deterrent as suggested above is what's needed. And I think that without such deterrents, and an excess of immigrants who commit crimes, the problems may lead to vigilante reprisal groups - which may well have its own problems (people taking the law into their own hands, without evidence, trials, witnesses - nothing - is this where we want to head?).
Ladies and gentleman, Australia is facing a crisis.
Australia is not facing a crisis. Rather, the Australian government is facing a particularly tough issue of generalization and misrepresentation within Australian borders. I hope that Australia will not succumb to the fear and hatred of Muslim people so often preached by those able to benefit from it.
I can only agree - it is abhorrent actions which ought be handled. Political correctness however casts a great dampener on much "political" debate in Australia, but that's another problem... Zenaan