Maiden speech

[kgwilson]

Thankfully very true Octave. Many Islamic hardliners are trying to drag everyone back to the old, medieval ways. Islam has not undergone the reforms that allowed Christianity to move on from those barbaric practices.

Whereas our Christian leaders are finally being found out to be the hypocrites they always were, taking vows of celibacy and abusing children in their care. That sounds pretty barbaric to me.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You obviously haven't read the christian bible then... try Leviticus

Leviticus is from The Old Testament. Christians normally give precedence to the New one.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Whereas our Christian leaders are finally being found out to be the hypocrites they always were, taking vows of celibacy and abusing children in their care. That sounds pretty barbaric to me.

Agreed, but at least they're having a clean out. You and I can question Christianity and mock its leaders and it's excesses; doing that to the other faith is a bit risky. It is long overdue for its own clean out and Reformation.

 

 

[facthunter]

No it's going the other way. You will soon have more trouble questioning Christianity if some have their way and suicide will be a capital offence. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Just to pick up on a couple of points.

 

As far as I am concerned all subjects should be open for discussion, however, the quality of discussion is important. The original poster "listened to snippets" and went on to say the media had just highlighted the bad parts. I listened to the whole speech and then searched for and read or listened to interviews he gave. Some may regard this as just "picking" one or two points he made.

 

Consider this gem.

 

Neil Mitchell: "So if an Australian-born person who is Muslim commits a crime, would you deport them?

 

Senator Anning: Yeah, I think I probably would. Neil, incredulously: HOW?! "

 

Now any intelligent person would ask how this would be achieved.

 

Even if you could change the Australian constitution to allow this (with its possible unintended consequences) how on earth would you persuade another country to take a non-citizen if they did not wish to.

 

I have two competing theories about Anning on this subject. The first one is that Anning is unintelligent and doesn't know how absurd his idea is. I don't really buy it though. The second theory is that this kind of utterance is popular with a certain demographic who don't really care about facts or truth. It is throwing red meat to those merely wish to have their anxieties and fears articulated in the way that they would articulate them.

 

I could go through to interview thoroughly but I assume people will understand the point I am making. Those who are not happy with the current system need to present rational fact-based arguments or support those people with a "public platform" who present rational arguments. Anning is not your man, he does not present an argument that will fly with the rational intelligent centre ground.

 

As far as a Muslim ban, I am not sure why anyone would support it without knowing how it would be achieved. Anning seems to think that a Muslim ban would preclude Sudanese immigration seemingly without realizing that the vast majority of Sudanese are Christian (about 70%) so do we have a ban on Muslims or Sudanese?. Do we have a ban on Malaysians or Indonesians who are Muslim, how do we know if a potential immigrant is or isn't Musilim.?

 

My understanding is that 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and on student or tourist visas, do we ban students and tourists?

 

Slippery slope arguments? Perhaps but then the notion that this statistically small change in our demographic equates to a take over of our culture is also a little difficult to sustain. Remember the so-called Asian invasion?

 

We want immigrants to conform to Australian values but some people don't consider judging a group by a tiny subset to be antithetical to "Australian values"

 

I suspect that it is politically useful to promote fear, to find a common enemy.

 

Consider those calling for a burqua ban. Now for the record, I am conflicted by this. I believe generally in personal liberty but acknowledge that for some it may not be a choice. But what I find stunning is why this is elevated to an important issue. As I said earlier I lived for 6 years opposite a mosque and I think I may have seen one woman in the full getup. Ask yourselves (and be honest) how many Australian women wear the full burqa? how often do you see on the street?

 

When it comes down to it I believe that we should vet potential immigrants to ensure they will add to our culture that they will become good citizens and I do not believe it is efficient to judge by group and certainly my personal ethics does not allow me to judge a person in any other way but as an individual.

 

When people use the term political correctness I suspect they are really saying "yes my point of view may sound unfair but you must believe it as well, but you won't say it because of political correctness" I can only speak for myself but. I don't say anything to please anyone, I can and do annoy as many of my right friends as my left friends.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... this kind of utterance is popular with a certain demographic who don't really care about facts or truth. It is throwing red meat to those merely wish to have their anxieties and fears articulated in the way that they would articulate them....

Unfortunately very true, Octave. The political pendulum seems to be swinging right and thinking voters had better get active before our own nation is dragged even further in that direction.

 

...We want immigrants to conform to Australian values"....

The wisdom of Solomon is needed to create a "test" for this, but, once again, my main point is that we are importing large numbers of people whose faith not only forbids them from leaving it, but expects them to actively spread it. This religion is fundamentally incompatible with our core values of democracy, tolerance and freedom of expression. As their numbers increase, so too will the pressures to modify our way of life to accomodate theirs- until it will be too late to stop the trend.

 

Australia would be crazy to ignore what has happened in tolerant, democratic European nations which have welcomed large numbers of Moslems. Images of "Sharia Police" intimidating immigrants who try to integrate with the mainstream culture are just one outward sign that things are going to get worse.

 

...we should vet potential immigrants to ensure they will add to our culture that they will become good citizens...

I totally agree. Most Moslems make a valuable contribution to our country. My only concern is the faith that they bring, and which a tiny few of their children feel duty bound to serve in violent ways.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Just to pick up on a couple of points.

As far as I am concerned all subjects should be open for discussion, however, the quality of discussion is important. The original poster "listened to snippets" and went on to say the media had just highlighted the bad parts. I listened to the whole speech and then searched for and read or listened to interviews he gave. Some may regard this as just "picking" one or two points he made.

 

Consider this gem.

 

Neil Mitchell: "So if an Australian-born person who is Muslim commits a crime, would you deport them?

 

Senator Anning: Yeah, I think I probably would. Neil, incredulously: HOW?! "

 

Now any intelligent person would ask how this would be achieved.

 

Even if you could change the Australian constitution to allow this (with its possible unintended consequences) how on earth would you persuade another country to take a non-citizen if they did not wish to.

 

I have two competing theories about Anning on this subject. The first one is that Anning is unintelligent and doesn't know how absurd his idea is. I don't really buy it though. The second theory is that this kind of utterance is popular with a certain demographic who don't really care about facts or truth. It is throwing red meat to those merely wish to have their anxieties and fears articulated in the way that they would articulate them.

 

I could go through to interview thoroughly but I assume people will understand the point I am making. Those who are not happy with the current system need to present rational fact-based arguments or support those people with a "public platform" who present rational arguments. Anning is not your man, he does not present an argument that will fly with the rational intelligent centre ground.

 

As far as a Muslim ban, I am not sure why anyone would support it without knowing how it would be achieved. Anning seems to think that a Muslim ban would preclude Sudanese immigration seemingly without realizing that the vast majority of Sudanese are Christian (about 70%) so do we have a ban on Muslims or Sudanese?. Do we have a ban on Malaysians or Indonesians who are Muslim, how do we know if a potential immigrant is or isn't Musilim.?

 

My understanding is that 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and on student or tourist visas, do we ban students and tourists?

 

Slippery slope arguments? Perhaps but then the notion that this statistically small change in our demographic equates to a take over of our culture is also a little difficult to sustain. Remember the so-called Asian invasion?

 

We want immigrants to conform to Australian values but some people don't consider judging a group by a tiny subset to be antithetical to "Australian values"

 

I suspect that it is politically useful to promote fear, to find a common enemy.

 

Consider those calling for a burqua ban. Now for the record, I am conflicted by this. I believe generally in personal liberty but acknowledge that for some it may not be a choice. But what I find stunning is why this is elevated to an important issue. As I said earlier I lived for 6 years opposite a mosque and I think I may have seen one woman in the full getup. Ask yourselves (and be honest) how many Australian women wear the full burqa? how often do you see on the street?

 

When it comes down to it I believe that we should vet potential immigrants to ensure they will add to our culture that they will become good citizens and I do not believe it is efficient to judge by group and certainly my personal ethics does not allow me to judge a person in any other way but as an individual.

 

When people use the term political correctness I suspect they are really saying "yes my point of view may sound unfair but you must believe it as well, but you won't say it because of political correctness" I can only speak for myself but. I don't say anything to please anyone, I can and do annoy as many of my right friends as my left friends.

Many people conflate religion and culture.

[Marty_d]

Leviticus is from The Old Testament. Christians normally give precedence to the New one.

Which always confused me. If the old bit is out of date and no longer relevant, why do they keep it?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Marty I suspect it's useful to have an instruction book with so many exceptions and contradictions.

 

Keeps a whole class of religious leaders and sharlatans in work.

 

 

[willedoo]

Which always confused me. If the old bit is out of date and no longer relevant, why do they keep it?

I've never read the Koran, but from a personal point of view, the Old Testament is the biggest pile of cr*p I've ever read. It makes the Book of Mormon look like a serious work.

 

If most Christians were fanatical in their adherence to the Old Testament, it would make Islam look fairly mild.

 

The Old Testament is completely at odds with the concept of a loving, caring God. In that book, he's actually a bit of a prick. For example, if you were to sustain some injury to your testicles for whatever reason, you are not allowed into heaven. Can you imagine God saying " Come on up, but if you've got crook nuts, forget it". If that was me, I'd tell him to shove one of his harps up his holy rear end. Point is, we can justify being concerned about religious fanaticism in all faiths, but mainstream Muslims are unfairly targeted. It's not that long ago that our society was nothing to be proud of by modern standards, so hopefully, the more medieval thinking fundamental Muslims can catch up, just as we progressed.

 

 

[red750]

Which always confused me. If the old bit is out of date and no longer relevant, why do they keep it?

From Biblica - The International Bible Society web page:

 

The sacred Scriptures of Judaism consist of three groups of documents: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (such as Psalms and Proverbs). These Scriptures also form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Judaism does not accept the inspiration of the New Testament or its account of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

 

 

[Bruce]

I never understood religion until I came across computer viruses. That's what a religion is, it's a computer virus which exists in the computers in our heads. Human computer viruses are passed on by software means, such as at a religious school, where those who have a good dose of the virus infect the kids.

 

Now not all computer viruses are equally bad, and there is little doubt that the Moslem one is a particularly nasty one. Of course most people carrying the virus are normal and I have to agree that there are many good people among them.

 

The terrorist acts are not done by a few bad apples, they are done by the truest believers. Young men who would have earned medals if infected by a different

 

virus.

 

Yes there are some dreadful things in the bible, the saving grace is that it was written by different men over many years and is full of contradictions. The koran is quite a different thing. I think it would be far more difficult for a biblical true believer to become a terrorist than a true believer of the koran.

 

 

[red750]

We have a Somali chap who comes to the Men's Shed as carer for an intellectually challenged Australian chap. He says it is not the Somalis who are causing all the trouble, the Sudanese are the bad ones.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's always the other mob who are bad.. Often so bad they deserve to be killed. apparently. To me that just shows they are insecure to not tolerate contrary views. IF they are really going to heaven what more do they want? Apparently this world is not of much consideration.. I don't like killing anything even shrubs or ants. Life is a truly amazing thing to be respected.. It's all around you if you leave things be.

 

The Saudi's have been pretty active in pushing the most violent forms of moslem doctrine. They now realise that and are trying to tame it down a bit.. In my view the middle east is a disaster waiting to happen and has already started.. What they have sown they will reap. It's not helped by the actions of the West in the last 100+ years either. or recent Israeli behavior... Nev

 

 

[octave]

We have a Somali chap who comes to the Men's Shed as carer for an intellectually challenged Australian chap. He says it is not the Somalis who are causing all the trouble, the Sudanese are the bad ones.

I am always suspicious of huge generalizations although this does highlight the point that a general Muslim ban would perhaps stop Somalis immigrating but not most Sudanese are in fact Christian about 70% and with only 16% being Muslim (2011 census).

 

Getting back to the speech and its call for a Muslim ban. I have not heard anyone explain how this would work. And certainly, no one here has any idea. Would we ban just immigrants or visitors as well? Would we stop anyone immigrating from Malaysia or Indonesia? How could we tell if a Sudanese person was Christian or Muslim? This may seem like nitpicking but it is no good throwing an idea out there without any detail.

 

I believe that Trump's ban does not include Saudis and therefore if it had been in place before 9/11 would not have prevented it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Actions and statements by some political parties are only aimed at reinforcing their particular support base and saying what they like to hear. Looking for reason in it is a bit pointless under those circumstances. The most extreme statements will always get some support. There's still people who believe the earth is flat and a large number believe it's 6300 years old. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I am always suspicious of huge generalizations...

Without them, a whole lot of shock jocks, politicians, rabble rousers and associated stirrers would be out of work!

 

...I believe that Trump's ban does not include Saudis...

Of course not! (Even though most 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, it was organised by Saudis and Saudi money is funding terror schools all over the place...)

 

The Orange-haired grub, like much of America’s ruling elite, isn’t going to risk his billion-dollar deals with the Saudis.

 

Money is much more important than human lives and national security...

 

 

[facthunter]

Spot on. USA worships the God of money. If the Don is making money, it's left alone. Saudi's buy US weapons and supply fossil fuel and oppose IRAN, so they can do what they like. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Getting back to the speech and its call for a Muslim ban. I have not heard anyone explain how this would work...

This is the crux of the issue, Oscar.

 

I don’t have a solution either, but the current head-in-sand policy will lead us to a much more difficult situation later on, when moslem voters and their pressure groups have the same sort of power currently being used and abused by the christian lobby.

 

A national conversation about this is overdue.

 

 

[Bruce]

I have a solution, that is to stop all immigration. We are already way overpopulated.

 

Yep I would let in a number of well-publicized refugees to assuage the bleeding hearts out there. A few thousand at most.

 

These refugees would be selected on completely non-racist criteria, but if they were infected with religion, they may need quarantine.

 

 

[nomadpete]

A good risk management strategy, Bruce.

 

We are presently just scraping by to supply the needs of our present population.

 

 

[spacesailor]

B

 

Stop all immigration :

 

Let thousands in ?

 

The ten pound poms was as big a mistake, as the open door policy of the bleeding heart brigade.

 

one out all out

 

if there,s no immidiate need, then Close that fffin door.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm sure the Aborigines would have welcomed that situation a few hundred years ago. We export our best food and wine. Locals don't get a chance to have the best. On the Map this place looks like a big empty paradise.. The fact it's one of the driest places in the world is not generally known..We have seriously degraded it since we arrived. We are great at cutting down trees and poisoning rivers. and eroding topsoil. As long as there's a dollar in it, go for it. and leave the mess for others to fix. Outside of the cities hardly anyone lives there. Kids have no idea where eggs come from. They would be horrified.. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...We are great at cutting down trees and poisoning rivers. and eroding topsoil. As long as there's a dollar in it, go for it. and leave the mess for others to fix...

...and the environmental vandals will grab any chance to do that. The current drought has seen the same old ignorance trotted out. Build more dams, divert rivers inland, drain swamps, put nature last, farmers first.

 

Joyce's call to divert environmental water to drought-hit farmers panned by conservationists

 

The media is treating this drought as some sort of disaster imposed on us. It ain't.

 

Many farmers saw it coming and prepared for it. They are ignored, while those who didn't are screaming for the rules to be changed to suit their short-sightedness.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I just hope aliens don't land in Australia, and ask me

 

"Take me to your leader!"

 

How embarrassing.