Good stuff - I refuse their islamic ideals.
they can go to any other muslim country if they want that. sympathisers too.




"PROTESTERS have swarmed the Gold Coast City Council headquarters, and with blaring rock anthems vented anger over a planned Muslim school.

Almost 200 residents turned out for the demonstration, draped in Australian flags and shouting pro-Aussie slogans while Australian rock classics such as Down Under and Great Southern Land boomed across the parkland.
The Australian International Islamic College, planned for Carrara, has raised the ire of residents who fear it will lead to the local Muslim population withdrawing from the rest of the community.

A rally last week attracted about 400 people, while people turned out yesterday carrying placards bearing slogans such as "no Muslim school, hell no" and "integration, not segregation".

Resident's spokesman Tony Doherty said Muslim schools did not encourage multiculturalism.

"It's segregation, not integration," he said.

"They're not trying to integrate into the rest of society.

"Since we have started protesting against this our churches have been covered in hate-filled graffiti."

He denied it was hypocritical to oppose Muslim and not Christian schools.

"Catholics aren't a different culture," he said. "They are the same as us."

Some residents say they are opposed to the school more because of parking issues rather than religious grounds.

Mayor Ron Clarke has publicly said he would support the school as long as it satisfies the council's planning criteria.

The council will not make any decision on the future of the school until next year. If approved, the school is unlikely to open until at least the middle of next year."


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24737109-952,00.html

That's ridiculous. Any school should be subject to education board standards to review what they are teaching, and who is teaching them, so it shouldn't matter what religion they are principled on.

It's very racist and wrong to say no to muslim schools, when various Christian schools are prolific. Christians aren't "us" to everyone.

It's these kind of attitudes that foster minorities to feel like minorities.

Flawed Logic wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 8:04pm:

I don't see why minorities shoudl be shielded from the fact that they are minorities.

Quote:


Do they actually ban it, or do they just not sing it?

tallowood wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 10:59pm:


It would be interesting to know whether other Islamic schools have banned the national anthem and whether they have flown under the radar on this issue. Perhaps the media cannot conduct a full story on this issue with Islamic schools nationwide because they are simply unable to get enough sources for a story.

tallowood wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 10:59pm:


Let's just hope that some journalists follow this story up. They'd be stupid not to. It's a very good story, and it would attract a lot of interest. Even a greedy SOB like Murdoch would agree.

I doubt many Muslims would agree to do the story though.

Maybe the non-existent 'non-Muslims' in this school will step forward and risk expulsion by speaking out?

Here are a few typically subversive comments by muslims about the islamic schoool banning the Aussie national anthem.

"I agree that it's against Islamic views and ethos, since the "advancing" of Australia "fair" was based on genocide, conolinialism, the theft of land, and indentured labour/effective slavery. "

"As usual a beat up and a massive one at that.'


then it is the usual "is it halal or not" garbage.

This happens after EVERY muslim atrocity, including terrorist attacks.

Course, if someone disagrees, they are deleted/banned. Ask gaybriel.
how  many people disagree there ???

Great idea bliss.

No religion in schools.
No thinking in church.

nice deflection helian.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 12:10am:

Fundamental Christian ideals include belief in God, belief in Jesus as the son of God, the virgin birth of Jesus, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, miracles, angels, Heaven, Hell, baptism, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Atheists live by the fundamental moral ideals that are common to all human societies, Christian or not.

You could boil it down to the golden rule which predates Christianity and appears in various expressions throughout all human society.

Quote:




So true..................JW kids generally stand and don't sing the anthem but JWs do not have JW schools and Gov. funding, and they do NOT insist that all should conform to their way of worship or lifestyle. I know, I was one (although I don't associate anymore)

For example, they don't celebrate Xmas.............but they have never demanded that because they don't, all public places should remove decorations etc. They accept that they live in this world and not all will accept their beliefs. They don't participate but accept that others do so.

They also take it when they're the brunt of jokes and persecution (unlike some other groups who want revenge). 

So all though I think there is a lot of wrong in the JW organisation and their interpretation of the bible, I must say that apart from their preaching work they do nothing more aggressive to promote or defend their faith.

Australia is in a pickle with it's indiscriminate 'open arms' and political correctness, there are more problems to come I'm sure.

I do not believe religion should be taught in school or that a school should insist on it's religious philosophy being subliminally or directly passed onto our kids. Schools should be teaching equality and humanity, not religious/class distinctions. Private education, religion and money does not make better, smarter, kinder people. Religion should be a parental/personal responsability.

In the ACT the student that got the highest score was a public school student. Funny that! Also, some of the most supportive schools for children with special needs are government schools.

hhhmmm, trying to think of the last JW terrorist.

Or the athiests marching carrying placards saying "Behead the believers"

Gidday helian - yes, that is a terrible thing for a parent to do.

I believe a judge has now overruled on those cases, very rightly, imho

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 10:21am:

Sprint, I know you think you're in some kind of privileged communion with atheists, but really as a practising Christian.... you're part of the problem.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Perhaps, but I think the sect expects more than sharing, otherwise the penalty for apostasy would not be severe or exist at all. The aim of proselytization is to induct new members into the faith, not just to share.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Almost a text book guarantee that they will inflict suffering.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Are they? I bet some are vegetarians as well.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

My direct experience of them is at the door with their copies of The Watchtower.

Islam promotes war as a way to proselytise, as well as a whole heap of other nasty ideas. I'm pretty sure the JW's don't.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Shunning, for example, is a possible penalty for apostasy, is it not? The aim of proselytization is to induct new members into a faith from which there are prohibitions about leaving. The aim is not just to share but to bind.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 1:10pm:

Shunning has enormous psychological consequences, it is not at all passive and amounts to emotional blackmail, the kind which is also employed by the exclusive brethren. Why can a son or daughter not reject religious fetishes when he or she is old enough without risking being shunned by the only parents and siblings he/she will ever have?

It is entirely immoral in a secular society to consider shunning as anything other than a pernicious form of coercion - a form of terrorism if you will.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:


Shunning, for example, is a possible penalty for apostasy,

Apostasy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apostasy (IPA: /əˈpɒstəsi/) is the formal religious disaffiliation or abandonment or renunciation of one's religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy. In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, one's former religion.
Many religious groups and even some states punish apostates. Apostates may be shunned by the members of their former religious group[1] or worse.

Often, like myself, because we no longer associate and our ideas change, there is a mutual separation because there is no longer a common goal. It doesn't have to be nasty, it just seems to happen, people move in different directions. Shunning isn't exactly like executing someone for changing belief.

The aim of proselytization is to induct new members into a faith from which there are prohibitions about leaving.

The word 'witnessing' in reference to JWs means going to tell people about Jehovah and his word, bare witness too others. For me the preaching work was not a burden, I believed in what I was sharing and was happy telling others. By the time some one converts and is baptised they know what the deal is with disfellowshipping.

The aim is not just to share but to bind.

If JWs wanted to bind they would baptize infants and let people who convert become dedicated quickly and impulsively. Yet they don't. JW kids and converts study and answer questions to make sure they understand their responsability, have been going out witnessing and been regular at meetings..........before they are encouraged to dedicate themselves.

I know shunning causes much sadness but you can never compare how JWs and other religions deal with various sins, including apostasy
with this............

Apostasy in Islam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda‎) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.

The four major Sunni and the one major Shia Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed.[1] They differ on the punishment for a female apostate - some schools calling for death and others for imprisonment. According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[2] although the jurist al-Shafi'i interpreted the Qu'ranic verse 2:217 as providing the main evidence for apostasy being a capital crime in Islam.[3]

A minority of medieval Islamic jurists, such as Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi,[4] Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid al-Baji, and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah,[5] and some contemporary Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa[6][7] and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri,[8] argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars.[9][10][11][12]

Some prominent contemporary examples of death sentences threatened or issued for apostasy include Salman Rushdie, who was condemned to death in 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini, (ruler of Iran at the time) for his book The Satanic Verses; and Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity who was arrested and jailed on the charge of rejecting Islam" in 2006 but later released as mentally incompetent.[13]

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 1:29pm:

It's true you can't force people to speak to anyone to whom they choose to shun. But it's still immoral to emotionally blackmail someone into choosing family ties over good conscience and it should be openly castigated as such.

As a form of punishment, shunning is emotional terrorism for those who are deeply scarred by it having lost parents, siblings or children.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 2:24pm:

Idiot.

Imagine how it would feel if your wife took the kids and indoctrinated them against you because you were an apostate.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

No, it is a form of terrorising someone by using emotional ties to coerce him into acting against his good conscience. Terrorism by emotional means - emotional terrorism.

I asked what you based your info on, you said................

Quote:


then you say...................


Quote:


That's a lot to deduce from mags or a conversation with JWs at the door.

Even though I'm not a JW fan it annoys the crap out of me when people misrepresent others and shoot their mouths off without the correct facts.

Not all JWs practice shunning anyway, just like not all catholics practice fedelity, not all jews abstain from pork and not all muslims abstain from alcohol.

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 2:54pm:

If it is true that shunning is what observant JWs should do to apostates, then how is that truth affected by whether or not I've ever been a JW?

Well then, they're not 'good' Catholics, Jews or Muslims are they.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 3:09pm:

In other words, despite the misuse of the word by a semi-literate US President, the noun can be qualified by an adjective.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 3:18pm:

Only if you insist that terrorism must always include the use of a gun, bomb or other physical weapon - which it need not. Rape by definition requires forced sexual intercourse, theft requires the stealing of an object, murder requires the unlawful death of another human.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 3:32pm:

Note the qualifier you used 'most definitions of terrorism do mention weapons'.

If you said to me "I got so drunk last Saturday, I came home and terrorised the wife and kids". That can be interpreted as you physically or emotionally attacked them. If I enquired what you did and you said "I told them what garbage they were and told the kids I was going have them adopted out", I would agree that you terrorised your wife and family last Saturday night. If you said you got so drunk on Saturday night that you murdered your wife and family... I think you'd agree I'd be right to call the cops.

Terrorism requires that your victims feel terrified about something you will do to them.

I qualified it with most because people like you can make up defintions for terrorism to suit whatever silly agenda they have. Like above when you tried to pretend that terrorism was trying to coerce someone into acting against their good conscience.

I'll make it a bit simpler for you - no reasonable definition of terrorism would allow shunning to pass as terrorism. That is why you are avoiding the definition of terrorism.

Quote:


Wrong. Your victims don't have to know what hit them. It is the rest of the public that the terror is targetted at. In any case, that would only be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. It is not terrorism every time someone gets scared. Car crashes make people terrified also, but car crashes aren't terrorism.

It is nothing short of absurd to pretend shunning is terorism.

Seeing as you refuse or are incapable, I will get out the definition of terrorism for you. I should have done this at the beginning.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism is the act of scaring people for a social or political reason using violence (or threat of violence).

Of course, you could argue over the definition of terrorism till you're blue in the face, but I guarantee that you will not be able to come up with a reasonable definition of terrorism that includes shunning people. To do so would destroy any meaning to the term.

You use the word terrorism because it is emotionally charged, not because you ahve any justification in using it. You want people's response to be based on emotion, not reason, because if they thought about it, they would realise how rediculous it is to equate shunning people with terrorism.

I've never heard the term emotional terrorism before and I am an 'anglophone' too. To me it sounds more like emotional blackmail, which is a common term. The idea of terrorising someone by shunning them just seems ludicrous. Don't you think it's ironic that you used a term unfamiliar to most anglophones to describe them?

Using your logic, any form of threat or coercian becomes terrorism.

OK Helian...............just to make you happy.................JWs instill as much fear and 'TERROR' in people by shunning as do Islamic Extremist Terrorists or the 'Red Brigades', or the Nazis.

JWs are terrorists!?

And Catholics with ex-communication?

And when you just don't want to talk to 'aunty mary' anymore because she's a bad drunk, is that shunning, therefore terrorism?

Don't you ever NOT have to have the last word?

bliss wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:21pm:

Just for the record, that's you making the comparison.

You've asked me a question... Do I ever not have to have the last word? Check the threads. How many have me as the last poster?

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:33pm:

Do you mean with Islamic terrorists? or Hindu fundamentalist terrorists?

I mean any kind of real terrorist. Not the imaginary 'emotional terrorists' running round the country threatening to not be your friend.

Right - not those imaginary terrorists. I meant the real terrorists. So can you get back to answering the question now?

Quote:


I can just see the thought process - damn, no one is paying attention to me and my problems now that terrorists are blowing up buildings - I know, I'll call my problem terrorism - that way I'll definitely get a response, even if it is derision - at least people will pay attention.

Would you prefer someone terrorise you with garlic breath or with blunt knife cutting your neck like muslims did to hostages in Iraq? They made a video out of it as well to make sure that their terror is emotional as physical as well?

Note the language they used, recalling Sura 47:4 of the Koran: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks..."

http://www.camerairaq.com/2004/05/nick_berg_video.html

Be honest in your answer please.

I hope that link was not to a site showing terrorists murdering/decapitating people Tallowood.
I didn't check because once seen, it cannot be unseen.
If it is, then please remove it, as they are totally off, and this is not an appropriate forum for such graphic, graphics.

I watched an old british telemovie called, "Omagh", and naturally it is about the 'Real' IRA bombing of Omagh High Street, on market day, in (I think) 1996.

It personalises the tragedy and horror of terrorism very well, in the initial half hour of the film, before it goes more political.

It illustrates the horror of violence, and the shockwave of despair that it sends through the individuals, and communities, assaulted by it, irrespective of whatever motive is trotted out as justification.

Quote:


It isn't any kind of terrorism. If Islamics started shunning the west instead of killing infidels they would stop being terrorists too. It would be a good thing.

Quote:


That doesn't make it terrorism, any more than it makes it rape, theft, fraud or anything elser. You rejected the claim that it is emotional rape on the basis that it isn't rape, yet you call it emotional terrorism and justify it on the grounds that it is emotional, even though it is clearly not terrorism.

Helian may have used the word over-enthusiastically but he was trying to make a point about I think about what is percieved as extreme behaviour WITHIN a community.

For instance some people WOULD be terrified of excommunication, or shunning by their community, especially if that community is particularly insular and their whole life and being is tied up with that community with no friends or family outside of it. I have seen the deep emotional scars of some of these people. Even after years of considerate and patient understanding there is massive distrust and fear of others.

It is one of the main reasons for consideration of traditional punishment systems for Aboriginal people. They will not be accepted back into their community unless they do the spear through the leg business etc etc. That frightens them far less than being persona non grata, That COULD be argued as terrorism when the correct qualifier is used and Helian did provide a valid definition.

I also understand that it is a word that many would prefer not to be devalued, but values differ depending on your vantage point.

Locutius, yes, and explained much more dispassionately than I did, thanks. A good point about Aboriginals too.

I too have witnessed the effects of sustained mind games and sadistic rituals that religious bigots will inflict on even a family member in an immoral attempt first to deter them from leaving the fold and then to let it be a warning to those contemplating apostasy that even one’s direct kin are not immune from ‘special treatment’. After the fact, the severing of family ties, and the subsequent damage it causes, inflicted on an innocent who acts in good conscience is evil pure and simple. This treatment included an apostate not being informed of his mother’s terminal condition until a few days before her death and then discovered only incidentally. Funeral attendees were by invite only. They attended anyway.

Quote:


And who gets to decide what is a cult?

Maybe your little prayer meetings are a cult sprint. Do you have approval from one of the major churches?

So you are a cult leader?

Your welcome Helian. I understood what you were saying but that maybe because I have become desensitised to the word or I'm prone to writers exaggeration.

Yes the girl most familiar to me from such a background is the partner of one of my very best mates. Frankly she was extremely lucky that they found each other. They now have a beautiful little girl and part of our close knit little tribe of friendship and simple expectations. She now finds my sometimes complete lack of diplomacy and my irreverance hilarious rather than threatening.

Yeah religion is too often about controlling and interpreting something none of us have ever been able to comprehend. Wonder what kind of judgement those people will get by their God when they meet up, "So you think you can speak and judge for me without my permission! DAMNATION!"

Haha. Dreams be dreams!