>>>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:0f4ie59umehimagckqhttrbuqau6fvb09c@4ax.com... >>>>>> A reason why we need to vote as my signature suggests >>>>>> Not to get the CDP in but to force existing parties to ban Moslems >>>>>> Fact is if our constitution is enforced we would become a Christian >>>>>> theocracy, Moslems in a Woolworths queue would be told to let the >>>>>> Christians be served first as they do in their stores (in Australia) >>>>>> and YES there's much more, eg, Moslem's owning property would find it >>>>>> confiscated, lose citeznship, dole, public housing as it is in >>>>>> Islamic shitholes where Christians survive
>>>>> And your statement above, sums up your idiotic bigoted outlook. >>>>> Get a life you lying piece of shit.
>>>> Whether Petzel intends for Australia to rip off Muslims might need >>>> further fleshed out. You hav not commented whether you feel the thrust >>>> of greatly restricting immigration is an appropriate goal to pursue..
>>> My personal opinion, is that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate >>> into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive religion.
>> The religion of the participants is irrelevant,
> maybe to someon with their head in the sand... Islam is > is a cukture of violence intent on world domination .
As your opinion, that is fair enough. If you were to *act* according to that opinion, unconstitutionally, such actions could be illegal. The same would apply if it were some opinion held by a Muslim in Australia.
>> actions are all that can, or should be considered. >> Petzl's totally misinterpreted favourite part of the constitution, says >> specificaly that religion can have no bearing on our laws.
>> People are free to believe as they will, but must only act within the law. >> Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe the >> laws of the host country. A bit like "render unto Caesar" in the bible.
> So you acknowledge they do not accept the rule of law ..
Where did you get that from Reg? Certainly not from anything I've posted above.
> ...but play by the rules.
They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our laws, while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive religion."
An observant Muslim accepts the rule of law as above, repeated here "Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe the laws of the host country." There is no fall-back position.
If a state of war were to exist the term "host country" could be moot.
> They do this of on the instructions of their religious leaders, don't they?
Yes, they do. The instructions of their ultimate leader, their God.
It would be a difficult text for an intermediate leader to get around. In that Allah gave it to The Prophet, He passed it to His followers, it was recorded, it is memorised, it remains there to be read, to be obeyed and to be lived.
If a Muslim cleric convinced an observant Muslim to ignore that text I think that other clerics would be keen to know how and why it was done.
In the event that hostilities were to break out, between "Islam as a whole" or a specific doctrinal subset within Islam and the "host country", I can see that a case could be made that because of the host country's declared policy or actions, the term "host country" would no longer be applicable.
>> If an immigrant, tourist, asylum seeker, or refugee actively breaks our >> law >> we should be free to jail them and subsequently revoke their Australian >> citizenship (if they have it) and deport them.
> Deportation after prison should be automatic for selected sentences > Depending on the relationship, family should also be exiled.
Under some "persona non grata" type rules I am all for it. Rats and drainpipes, all the way
>> The revocation of citizenship could be acheived at present by finding that >> a person had knowingly broken their oath of citizenship, which revoked the >> contract between Australia and themselves.
> Simple. They are unable to take the Oath of Alliegence.
"I, ......., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!"
contains nothing that a Muslim need have any problem with.
If they had a problem with it, as anyone might, they would not take it. It would be freely taken or not taken at all.
I would freely take it, although I have no God, as I see the phrase "SO HELP ME GOD!" as meaning "So help me (any such) God" ie "N/A" by virtue of our constition regarding religion. If it were taken only under coercion it is invalid, as it would be for anyone so coerced, Muslim or not.
A Muslim can take an oath, including the oath of allegiance. Muslims in the Army, Parliament etc. have no problem taking it.
You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
> music, Maestro!
<snip>
>> I understand that observant Muslims take a strong line on breaking oaths.
> Oaths to non muslims are not binding
"I hate to seem incredulous, but I don't believe you." I would need a lot more than your word to accept that, Reg.
People of all sorts bear false witness, some con themselves that it's OK. It is not a particularly Muslim-ish thing to do.
If a Muslim swears an oath under duress it is invalid, as it is for anyone. If a given oath is found not to have been made in good faith it is invalid. To break a freely given oath is a breach of faith and an insult. People have been hanged for less.
If any intending citizen takes the citizenship oath and then breaks the terms of the oath they can, and normally should, have their citizenship revoked. As non-citizens they could then be deported legally and morally.
Sometimes it may be more politic if they were left with their citizenship and tried for, say, treason. That would be up to the Crown.
Harry "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:52:13 +1100, Harry Heidelberg
<Erro...@chfile.dne> wrote: >They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there >is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our laws, >while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should be >allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive >religion."
Islam is not a religion despite their violent temper tantrums Australia's constitution can be enforced to ban this evil cult Australian law only recognizes Christian denomination's as Religious
petzl -- Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS <http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf> Vote Christian Democrat first, The Opposition Member second Your sitting member last 2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:52:13 +1100, Harry Heidelberg > <Erro...@chfile.dne> wrote:
>>They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there >>is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our >>laws, >>while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should >>be >>allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their >>oppressive >>religion."
> Islam is not a religion despite their violent temper tantrums > Australia's constitution can be enforced to ban this evil cult > Australian law only recognizes Christian denomination's as Religious
>>>>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:0f4ie59umehimagckqhttrbuqau6fvb09c@4ax.com... >>>>>>> A reason why we need to vote as my signature suggests >>>>>>> Not to get the CDP in but to force existing parties to ban Moslems >>>>>>> Fact is if our constitution is enforced we would become a Christian >>>>>>> theocracy, Moslems in a Woolworths queue would be told to let the >>>>>>> Christians be served first as they do in their stores (in Australia) >>>>>>> and YES there's much more, eg, Moslem's owning property would find >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> confiscated, lose citeznship, dole, public housing as it is in >>>>>>> Islamic shitholes where Christians survive
>>>>>> And your statement above, sums up your idiotic bigoted outlook. >>>>>> Get a life you lying piece of shit.
>>>>> Whether Petzel intends for Australia to rip off Muslims might need >>>>> further fleshed out. You hav not commented whether you feel the thrust >>>>> of greatly restricting immigration is an appropriate goal to pursue..
>>>> My personal opinion, is that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate >>>> into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive religion.
>>> The religion of the participants is irrelevant,
>> maybe to someon with their head in the sand... Islam is >> is a cukture of violence intent on world domination .
> As your opinion, that is fair enough. > If you were to *act* according to that opinion, unconstitutionally, such > actions could be illegal. > The same would apply if it were some opinion held by a Muslim in > Australia.
The removal of incompatable cultures needs to be legal and honourable fair compensation made.
Because if it isn't effective, we risk the rule of law breaking down and well, tragedies occuring on both sides.
>>> actions are all that can, or should be considered. >>> Petzl's totally misinterpreted favourite part of the constitution, says >>> specificaly that religion can have no bearing on our laws.
>>> People are free to believe as they will, but must only act within the >>> law. >>> Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe >>> the >>> laws of the host country. A bit like "render unto Caesar" in the bible.
>> So you acknowledge they do not accept the rule of law ..
> Where did you get that from Reg?
In our culure the only valid reason foe someone not to live within the rule of law is that they are mentally unfit.
Your explanation of the Islamic doctrine would indicate a Muslim failing to live within the Rule of Law of the host country would result in the person being described as inflexible..
The only real moral requirement for a Muslim to observe the Law is when it is Islamic Law.
i.e. Islamic :law has precedence over Western Christian Democratic Rule of Law and acceptance of the Rule of Law is plainly not possible.
> Certainly not from anything I've posted above.
>> ...but play by the rules.
> They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there > is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our > laws, > while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should be > allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive > religion."
Christians and Muslims should not be expected to live together. It is a recipe for disaster. Muslims should stay (permanently reside/ make their homes) in Muslim Countries and Christians should do the same.
I Australia/Europe/Asia/Pacific/Americas, that means Muslims need to be encouraged to move away as was a similiar case in the splitting up of India and Pakistan.
Constitutionally it can be done. Islam needs to seen as incompatable, high risk and unable to make valid historical oaths of alliegence and citizenship.
They should also be subject to a special tax as their belief requires to live under Christian protection.
> An observant Muslim accepts the rule of law as above, repeated here > "Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe the > laws of the host country." There is no fall-back position.
voluntarily accepting the status quo is not participation.
> If a state of war were to exist the term "host country" could be moot.
So Islam is a fith element time bomb. An unexpectedl admission.
>> They do this of on the instructions of their religious leaders, don't >> they?
> Yes, they do. The instructions of their ultimate leader, their God.
Interpreted by various religious leaders and sects.
> It would be a difficult text for an intermediate leader to get around. > In that Allah gave it to The Prophet, He passed it to His followers, it > was > recorded, it is memorised, it remains there to be read, to be obeyed and > to > be lived.
> If a Muslim cleric convinced an observant Muslim to ignore that text I > think that other clerics would be keen to know how and why it was done.
> In the event that hostilities were to break out, between "Islam as a > whole" > or a specific doctrinal subset within Islam and the "host country", I can > see that a case could be made that because of the host country's declared > policy or actions, the term "host country" would no longer be applicable.
There is also a case where Islamic law is in conflict with the Host law.would a jury of Muslims return verdicts similiar to juries of Christians in cases where something is lawfull under Islamic law but unlawfull in the Host countries law. I think not.
>>> If an immigrant, tourist, asylum seeker, or refugee actively breaks our >>> law >>> we should be free to jail them and subsequently revoke their Australian >>> citizenship (if they have it) and deport them.
>> Deportation after prison should be automatic for selected sentences >> Depending on the relationship, family should also be exiled.
> Under some "persona non grata" type rules I am all for it. > Rats and drainpipes, all the way
>>> The revocation of citizenship could be acheived at present by finding >>> that >>> a person had knowingly broken their oath of citizenship, which revoked >>> the >>> contract between Australia and themselves.
>> Simple. They are unable to take the Oath of Alliegence.
> Why not?
They cannot swear indelible alliegence to the Head of the Church of England before their faith and remain Muslim.
The same goes for everyone not an Anglican AFAIC and I believe is fundamental to Petzl's claims
> "I, ......., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to > Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according > to law. SO HELP ME GOD!"
> contains nothing that a Muslim need have any problem with.
Dodi Fayed's father, Mohammed Fayed spent a lot of time trying to legally prove that wrong.
> If they had a problem with it, as anyone might, they would not take it. > It would be freely taken or not taken at all.
Except Islam permits it where nonMuslims are involved -another example of where Islamic law conflicts with host country law
> I would freely take it, although I have no God, as I see the phrase > "SO HELP ME GOD!" as meaning "So help me (any such) God" ie "N/A" by > virtue > of our constition regarding religion.
Athiests are immoral in their morality is not constrained as `believers` morals are constrained..
Murder is not immoral to an athiest. It is an act that carries a risk of liability and compensation. There is no god givenright to exist, an Athiest sees it as simply a combination of fortunate events. -No `right` to live; just lucky to live.
> If it were taken only under coercion it is invalid, as it would be for > anyone so coerced, Muslim or not.
Coersion is in the eye of the claimant.
> A Muslim can take an oath, including the oath of allegiance. > Muslims in the Army, Parliament etc. have no problem taking it.
We've just seen in America yet another example of Muslims being `inflexible` when it comes to their taking of Oaths and interpretation of what constitutes being at war with Islam..
> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than given the serious considerstion they deserve.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:20:53 GMT, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
>I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than >given the serious considerstion they deserve.
It doesn't bother me I find those obsessed with denial are in favor of an Islamic murderous takeover of Australia (Moslems are well financed and trying). Problem is there are also enough within Politics and media helping. Like most, Australia being a Christian Commonwealth and never enforced never bothered me. After events of 9/11 Islamic insurgency worldwide started becoming obvious, Since then there is a reluctant message by media exposing the seriousness of incompatibilities and violent hate Moslems produce After the Islamic Rape gangs found to be a Moslem norm world wide (hidden from view because of supposed "political correctness") Then came what was termed the "Cronulla Riots" with Police and media covering up Moslem involvement and the cause. The truth is slowing coming out http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm or http://tinyurl.com/crlzrd I have researched and found that there is an out and that is to enforce the legal requirements of Australia's Christian Constitution which would have Moslems on the run, deservedly made a illegal entity Be careful of so called "republicism" it will allow our un-enforced constitution to be changed
petzl -- Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS <http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf> Vote Christian Democrat first, The Opposition Member second Your sitting member last 2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:20:53 GMT, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> > wrote:
>>> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
>>I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than >>given the serious considerstion they deserve.
> It doesn't bother me I find those obsessed with denial are in favor of > an Islamic murderous takeover of Australia (Moslems are well financed > and trying). Problem is there are also enough within Politics and > media helping. Like most, Australia being a Christian Commonwealth and > never enforced never bothered me. > After events of 9/11 Islamic insurgency worldwide started becoming > obvious, Since then there is a reluctant message by media exposing the > seriousness of incompatibilities and violent hate Moslems produce > After the Islamic Rape gangs found to be a Moslem norm world wide > (hidden from view because of supposed "political correctness") > Then came what was termed the "Cronulla Riots" with Police and media > covering up Moslem involvement and the cause. > The truth is slowing coming out > http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm > or http://tinyurl.com/crlzrd
[quote stt] "The end of European leadership in the world will place the white settler diaspora in Australia before two choices," writes the author, Mustafa Hamid, a former senior al-Qaeda member who in 2001 married Australian Rabiah Hutchinson, a Sydney mother with links to Islamic extremists.
"It can either return to its motherland in Europe or reconcile with its Asian surroundings and assimilate into it as a wealthy and active member." [quote fin]
> I have researched and found that there is an out and that is to > enforce the legal requirements of Australia's Christian Constitution > which would have Moslems on the run, deservedly made a illegal entity > Be careful of so called "republicism" it will allow our un-enforced > constitution to be changed
> petzl > -- > Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS > <http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf> > Vote > Christian Democrat first, > The Opposition Member second > Your sitting member last > 2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"
>>>> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
>>>I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than >>>given the serious considerstion they deserve.
>> It doesn't bother me I find those obsessed with denial are in favor of >> an Islamic murderous takeover of Australia (Moslems are well financed >> and trying). Problem is there are also enough within Politics and >> media helping. Like most, Australia being a Christian Commonwealth and >> never enforced never bothered me. >> After events of 9/11 Islamic insurgency worldwide started becoming >> obvious, Since then there is a reluctant message by media exposing the >> seriousness of incompatibilities and violent hate Moslems produce >> After the Islamic Rape gangs found to be a Moslem norm world wide >> (hidden from view because of supposed "political correctness") >> Then came what was termed the "Cronulla Riots" with Police and media >> covering up Moslem involvement and the cause. >> The truth is slowing coming out >> http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm >> or http://tinyurl.com/crlzrd
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:20:53 GMT, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> > wrote:
>>> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
>>I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than >>given the serious considerstion they deserve.
> It doesn't bother me I find those obsessed with denial are in favor of > an Islamic murderous takeover of Australia
More of your insane bullshit, the only "denial" around here is your pathetic denial of Australian Laws and Constitution, by inventing words that are not there.
> I have researched and found that there is an out and that is to > enforce the legal requirements of Australia's Christian Constitution > which would have Moslems on the run, deservedly made a illegal entity > Be careful of so called "republicism" it will allow our un-enforced > constitution to be changed
You have "researched" SFA Your quoting of imaginary text and from a few rabid clowns in your wacko church means nothing.
Discussion subject changed to "Stop Immigration Now. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ON AUSTRALIA ng Sunnyzecunt !" by Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
Just go away ...we need no traitor there, especially a well documented arse-licking Viets' Queen ! ... does those betrayed & murdered comrades of yours keep you awake at night ? Wondering ! Jean-Paul Turcaud =================================================
Get your rubber room attendant to wipe your chin (Your enema nozzles backfired again)
Discussion subject changed to "Stop Immigration Now. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ON AUSTRALIA ng Sunnyzecunt !" by Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
On Nov 7, 7:16 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
<australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:43 am, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just go away ...we need no traitor there, especially a well > documented arse-licking Viets' Queen !
> ... does those betrayed & murdered comrades of yours keep you awake at > night ?
> Wondering !
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
... as usual that Sunnyzecunt filth fails to address the issue of his wrongly granted RSL medals, and the illegal use that rightly called coward is doing of it !
Of course resorting to worn out pitiful responses are just delay tactics to prevent proper investigation of the yellow shit ' s claim.
Note That poor sod seems to make a fixation on rubber indeed : room & hoses. This is probably linked to the rubber plantation in Vietnam, since obviously the souvenir of his bloody misdemeanors are gong to follow it ( not him since a vicious beast ) to the grave !
By the way I know I am not welcome in Australia, it could cast some shadow on some well known frauds, liars & criminals ! In that Antipodean Hell On Earth, gentlemen & convicts do not mix happily indeed !
>>>>>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:0f4ie59umehimagckqhttrbuqau6fvb09c@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> A reason why we need to vote as my signature suggests >>>>>>>> Not to get the CDP in but to force existing parties to ban Moslems >>>>>>>> Fact is if our constitution is enforced we would become a Christian >>>>>>>> theocracy, Moslems in a Woolworths queue would be told to let the >>>>>>>> Christians be served first as they do in their stores (in Australia) >>>>>>>> and YES there's much more, eg, Moslem's owning property would find >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> confiscated, lose citeznship, dole, public housing as it is in >>>>>>>> Islamic shitholes where Christians survive
>>>>>>> And your statement above, sums up your idiotic bigoted outlook. >>>>>>> Get a life you lying piece of shit.
>>>>>> Whether Petzel intends for Australia to rip off Muslims might need >>>>>> further fleshed out. You hav not commented whether you feel the thrust >>>>>> of greatly restricting immigration is an appropriate goal to pursue..
>>>>> My personal opinion, is that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate >>>>> into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive religion.
>>>> The religion of the participants is irrelevant,
>>> maybe to someon with their head in the sand... Islam is >>> is a cukture of violence intent on world domination .
>> As your opinion, that is fair enough. >> If you were to *act* according to that opinion, unconstitutionally, such >> actions could be illegal. >> The same would apply if it were some opinion held by a Muslim in >> Australia.
> The removal of incompatable cultures needs to be legal and honourable fair > compensation made.
> Because if it isn't effective, we risk the rule of law breaking down and > well, > tragedies occuring on both sides.
>>>> actions are all that can, or should be considered. >>>> Petzl's totally misinterpreted favourite part of the constitution, says >>>> specificaly that religion can have no bearing on our laws.
>>>> People are free to believe as they will, but must only act within the >>>> law. >>>> Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe >>>> the >>>> laws of the host country. A bit like "render unto Caesar" in the bible.
>>> So you acknowledge they do not accept the rule of law ..
>> Where did you get that from Reg?
> In our culure the only valid reason foe someone not to live > within the rule of law is that they are mentally unfit.
If the law is wrong it is valid to break it and be tried for it.
There is another school of thought that says if "the law is an ass" then obey it to bring it into ridicule.
> Your explanation of the Islamic doctrine would indicate a Muslim > failing to live within the Rule of Law of the host country would result > in the person being described as inflexible..
I have no idea what you mean by that.
A Muslim failing to live within the Rule of Law of the host country would result in the person being described as criminal.
> The only real moral requirement for a Muslim to observe the Law > is when it is Islamic Law.
The Islamic law says to obey the law of the land. When in an Islamic or non-Islamic country the rule is the same. There need not be any conflict. Where there is an apparent potential conflict I would expect that the persons involved would seek legal advice.
> i.e. Islamic :law has precedence over Western Christian Democratic > Rule of Law and acceptance of the Rule of Law is plainly not possible.
The Islamic law is to adhere to the law of the host country when not in an Islamic country. Even if such law is wrong according to Islam eg If the law of the county says that you can not remarry while you have a wife then you can know that your religion says you (one) have as many as you can afford but you still only marry once. In England and Australia it is illegal to remarry when already married but it is legal to have multiple concurrent spouses and live here and there. AFAIK.
Do you have an example where an adherent Muslim has broken the law of the host country and not broken the Koranic instruction to obey the law of the host country? A cite or reference would be nice as well. TYIA
>> They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there >> is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our >> laws, >> while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should be >> allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive >> religion."
> Christians and Muslims should not be expected to live together. It is a > recipe for disaster. Muslims should stay (permanently reside/ make their > homes) > in Muslim Countries and Christians should do the same.
> I Australia/Europe/Asia/Pacific/Americas, that means Muslims need to > be encouraged to move away as was a similiar case in the splitting up of > India and Pakistan.
> Constitutionally it can be done. Islam needs to seen as incompatable, > high risk and unable to make valid historical oaths of alliegence and > citizenship.
Not if the Act making it "incompatible" is based on Religion.
> They should also be subject to a special tax as their belief requires to > live under Christian protection.
Not if the Act to levy such a tax is based on Religion.
>> An observant Muslim accepts the rule of law as above, repeated here >> "Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe the >> laws of the host country." There is no fall-back position.
> voluntarily accepting the status quo is not participation.
What do you mean?
I remember when the abortion law was eased, Sen Georges stated that he wanted people to break the new law. No-one asked him how that could be done.
>> If a state of war were to exist the term "host country" could be moot.
> So Islam is a fith element time bomb. ..
Only to the same limited extent that all citizens and visitors comprise a time-bomb of similar threat potential.
Nothing fifth element (fifth column?) about it. If war were declared all sides would know who was their declared enemy.
> .. An unexpectedl admission.
Unexpectedl because non-existent. No admission has been made. Not even an acknowledgement has been made.
>>> They do this of on the instructions of their religious leaders, don't >>> they?
>> Yes, they do. The instructions of their ultimate leader, their God.
> Interpreted by various religious leaders and sects.
An interpretation that turns the text 180 degrees off course? Even Petzl wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for that one.
>> It would be a difficult text for an intermediate leader to get around. >> In that Allah gave it to The Prophet, He passed it to His followers, it >> was >> recorded, it is memorised, it remains there to be read, to be obeyed and >> to >> be lived.
>> If a Muslim cleric convinced an observant Muslim to ignore that text I >> think that other clerics would be keen to know how and why it was done.
>> In the event that hostilities were to break out, between "Islam as a >> whole" >> or a specific doctrinal subset within Islam and the "host country", I can >> see that a case could be made that because of the host country's declared >> policy or actions, the term "host country" would no longer be applicable.
> There is also a case where Islamic law is in conflict with the Host > law.would a jury of Muslims return verdicts similiar to juries of > Christians > in cases where something is lawfull under Islamic law but unlawfull in > the Host countries law. I think not.
In such a hypothetical case, (unless you can cite a real case), I would expect that the prosecution would consider lodging an appeal - if they thought that justice had not been served. I would also think that further charges might be laid.
>>>> If an immigrant, tourist, asylum seeker, or refugee actively breaks our >>>> law >>>> we should be free to jail them and subsequently revoke their Australian >>>> citizenship (if they have it) and deport them.
>>> Deportation after prison should be automatic for selected sentences >>> Depending on the relationship, family should also be exiled.
>> Under some "persona non grata" type rules I am all for it. >> Rats and drainpipes, all the way
>>>> The revocation of citizenship could be acheived at present by finding >>>> that >>>> a person had knowingly broken their oath of citizenship, which revoked >>>> the >>>> contract between Australia and themselves.
>>> Simple. They are unable to take the Oath of Alliegence.
>> Why not?
> They cannot swear indelible alliegence to the Head of the Church of England > before their > faith and remain Muslim.
There is no mention of the Head of the Church of England in the Oath. Therefore there is no conflict.
> The same goes for everyone not an Anglican AFAIC and I believe is > fundamental > to Petzl's claims
That is one of the fundamental flaws to Petzl's claim.
I can see a potential situation where we do not accept a future monarch of England not being accepted as Monarch of
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:50:34 +1100, Harry Heidelberg
<Erro...@chfile.dne> wrote: >>> You may have been associating with Petzl too much Reg.
>> I find it bothersome his arguements are dismissed rather than >> given the serious considerstion they deserve.
>I have never seen a cogent argument from him, >only repeated assertion of a falsehood. >I don't think he is a liar but I do think he is deluded. >I also think he is supported in his delusion by people with their own goals >and interests at heart.
The fact is our constitution made Australia a Christian Commonwealth Do you disagree with that fact? The Colonists (All serious Christians) demanded that Australia be born that way or they would of voted no for Federation
Section 116 (S116) of the constitution was put in to stop one denomination of Christianity taking control. The Colonists were aware of long and bloody wars happening because this happened in England, There is confusion over what is now called "religion". In those days and until quite recently just meant denominations of Christianity S116 should read like this "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any form of Christian Denomination, or for imposing any Christian religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any form of Christianity, and no test of a particular Christian faith shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Instead of http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/116.shtml
petzl -- Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS <http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf> Vote Christian Democrat first, The Opposition Member second Your sitting member last 2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"
>>>>>>>> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:0f4ie59umehimagckqhttrbuqau6fvb09c@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> A reason why we need to vote as my signature suggests >>>>>>>>> Not to get the CDP in but to force existing parties to ban Moslems >>>>>>>>> Fact is if our constitution is enforced we would become a >>>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>>> theocracy, Moslems in a Woolworths queue would be told to let the >>>>>>>>> Christians be served first as they do in their stores (in >>>>>>>>> Australia) >>>>>>>>> and YES there's much more, eg, Moslem's owning property would find >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> confiscated, lose citeznship, dole, public housing as it is in >>>>>>>>> Islamic shitholes where Christians survive
>>>>>>>> And your statement above, sums up your idiotic bigoted outlook. >>>>>>>> Get a life you lying piece of shit.
>>>>>>> Whether Petzel intends for Australia to rip off Muslims might need >>>>>>> further fleshed out. You hav not commented whether you feel the >>>>>>> thrust >>>>>>> of greatly restricting immigration is an appropriate goal to >>>>>>> pursue..
>>>>>> My personal opinion, is that no Muslims should be allowed to >>>>>> immigrate >>>>>> into Australia, unless they give up their oppressive religion.
>>>>> The religion of the participants is irrelevant,
>>>> maybe to someon with their head in the sand... Islam is >>>> is a cukture of violence intent on world domination .
>>> As your opinion, that is fair enough. >>> If you were to *act* according to that opinion, unconstitutionally, such >>> actions could be illegal. >>> The same would apply if it were some opinion held by a Muslim in >>> Australia.
>> The removal of incompatable cultures needs to be legal and honourable >> fair >> compensation made.
>> Because if it isn't effective, we risk the rule of law breaking down and >> well, >> tragedies occuring on both sides.
>>>>> actions are all that can, or should be considered. >>>>> Petzl's totally misinterpreted favourite part of the constitution, >>>>> says >>>>> specificaly that religion can have no bearing on our laws.
>>>>> People are free to believe as they will, but must only act within the >>>>> law. >>>>> Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe >>>>> the >>>>> laws of the host country. A bit like "render unto Caesar" in the >>>>> bible.
>>>> So you acknowledge they do not accept the rule of law ..
>>> Where did you get that from Reg?
>> In our culure the only valid reason foe someone not to live >> within the rule of law is that they are mentally unfit.
> If the law is wrong it is valid to break it and be tried for it.
So goes the thinking of many prison inmates.
> There is another school of thought that says if "the law is an ass" then > obey it to bring it into ridicule.
I don't quite follow your logic.
>> Your explanation of the Islamic doctrine would indicate a Muslim >> failing to live within the Rule of Law of the host country would result >> in the person being described as inflexible..
> I have no idea what you mean by that.
> A Muslim failing to live within the Rule of Law of the host country would > result in the person being described as criminal.
By the law but by Muslims they would be inflexible if they failed to follow local laws rather than their islamic cultural laws. For example; polygamy.
Widely practised in the Islamic Community in Australia yet illegal in Australian law. These practitioners aren't seen as criminals but inflexible at adapting their culture to Australian laws amd mores.
>> The only real moral requirement for a Muslim to observe the Law >> is when it is Islamic Law.
> The Islamic law says to obey the law of the land.
I consider it is an advice only. Like a travel advisory warning about partaking alchohol in `dry' countries.
> When in an Islamic or non-Islamic country the rule is the same. > There need not be any conflict.
Why should there be conflict?
> Where there is an apparent potential conflict I would expect that the > persons involved would seek legal advice.
But that would be moral advice from their Imam and local legal advice from a local legal practitioner.
>> i.e. Islamic :law has precedence over Western Christian Democratic >> Rule of Law and acceptance of the Rule of Law is plainly not possible.
> The Islamic law is to adhere to the law of the host country when not in an > Islamic country. > Even if such law is wrong according to Islam > eg If the law of the county says that you can not remarry while you have a > wife then you can know that your religion says you (one) have as many as > you can afford but you still only marry once. In England and Australia it > is illegal to remarry when already married but it is legal to have > multiple > concurrent spouses and live here and there. AFAIK.
Why do local laws of sovereign nations require `travel advisery` instructions/ guidelines from the Koran to legitimise these local laws of af a Sovereign nation to Muslims?
Plainly because Muslim Law precedes Local law in moral and theological imperative.
> Do you have an example where an adherent Muslim has broken the law of the > host country and not broken the Koranic instruction to obey the law of the > host country? > A cite or reference would be nice as well. > TYIA
setting up of unlawfull embrionic Mosques by fraudulantly calling them `cultural centres` and ignoring / breaching zoning and Development Application law. Vs Islamic cutlural pecadillo's
>>> Certainly not from anything I've posted above.
>>>> ...but play by the rules.
>>> They can be like you, in that you can accept that constitutionally there >>> is, and can be, no circumstance where religion has any bearing on our >>> laws, >>> while at the same time you can hold the opinion "that no Muslims should >>> be >>> allowed to immigrate into Australia, unless they give up their >>> oppressive >>> religion."
>> Christians and Muslims should not be expected to live together. It is a >> recipe for disaster. Muslims should stay (permanently reside/ make their >> homes) >> in Muslim Countries and Christians should do the same.
>> I Australia/Europe/Asia/Pacific/Americas, that means Muslims need to >> be encouraged to move away as was a similiar case in the splitting up of >> India and Pakistan.
>> Constitutionally it can be done. Islam needs to seen as incompatable, >> high risk and unable to make valid historical oaths of alliegence and >> citizenship.
> Not if the Act making it "incompatible" is based on Religion.
We have the power to change the Constitution. We almost did it when we had a referendum on banning the Communist party
>> They should also be subject to a special tax as their belief requires to >> live under Christian protection.
> Not if the Act to levy such a tax is based on Religion.
>>> An observant Muslim accepts the rule of law as above, repeated here >>> "Muslims in non Islamic countries are enjoined in the Koran to observe >>> the >>> laws of the host country." There is no fall-back position.
>> voluntarily accepting the status quo is not participation.
> What do you mean?
paying lip service to local laws is not respecting local law.
> I remember when the abortion law was eased, > Sen Georges stated that he wanted people to break the new law. > No-one asked him how that could be done.
Not familiar with this. I do not follow pro choice absolutism. Abortions should not be an acceptable or prefferred alternative to birth control as it has become.
>>> If a state of war were to exist the term "host country" could be moot.
>> So Islam is a fith element time bomb. ..
> Only to the same limited extent that all citizens and visitors comprise a > time-bomb of similar threat potential.
I disagree. the cultural pecadillos that make Islam incompatable with Christianity and the ongoing struggle for dominating and subjecting host countries to set aside a pillar of Democratic Western Christian responsible and representuitive government by rejecting the policy of seperation of Church and State. Is definitely a time bomb and the leaders of Islam are acting as a fifth column or element by using protections afforded them by Western Christian democratic principles to undermine said nations with cynical and loathesome indifference.
> Nothing fifth element (fifth column?) about it. > If war were declared all sides would know who was their declared enemy.
The war has been going on for millenia, Islam has not declared an end to the conflict and struggle for world domination.
>> .. An unexpectedl admission.
> Unexpectedl because non-existent. > No admission has been made. > Not even an acknowledgement has been made.
You have made it plain all bets are off in the event of a conflict and that should be seen in the context that the conflict
...
|
