The first anti Islam marches in Australia over easter. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14561379
Conscript wrote:The other two misogynist Abrahamic religions were liberalized. Why not Islam?

It doesn't matter. It matters what god they are worshipping and what its tenets are. I'm not friendly toward Christianity or Judaism either, it's just that the strategy I advocate for opposing them is different.

Conscript wrote:No, but I can read between the lines after two decades of this, especially thanks to radicals like Rei who just don't hide anything. The idea that this is about being against the religion itself is bullshit, it's plainly obvious this is about xenophobia and is why so many people question if these anti-Islamic rallies are racist. Then, just spend some time on pofo, and you can have your suspicions confirmed.

Then you should know that it really is about being against the religion itself. It's possible to engage in racial xenophobia, and simultaneously be against the 'one god' that they claim created the universe. These stances are not mutually exclusive. It's possible for me to not want someone to live near me, and for me to simultaneously hate their god.

My criticism of monotheism and my praise for Lucifer the Morning Star - and the fallen angels in general - as a liberating force in the universe, is not a rhetorical device. It is not a cover for anything. I literally believe it. And it goes alongside my 'xenophobic' (lit. 'fear/dislike of the outsiders') positions. I'm perfectly honest about that, because obviously I will be honest about something which I think is correct and which I think people ought to become aware of.

Your assumption that racialised xenophobia is a sign of being 'not religiously motivated', is based on the assumption that 'true religious thought' somehow is going to be uniformly anti-racist and compatible with left-liberal ideals. That is of course a wrong assumption. Also, the very idea that xenophobia is 'bad' is ridiculous. Xenophobia is a rational response to an externally-originating threat to one's society.

__________

NB: Click the embedded link in this post and actually read what I'm quoting and commenting on. For me this a 100% dead serious issue.
#14561380
Reclaim Australia is another Facebook movement but only 300 people attended a Reclaim Australia rally in April, with about 3,000 people opposing it. Perhaps Australia is not entirely hopeless if the far-right marchers are outnumbered by their opponents ten to one. The leader of the Reclaim Australia movement is Shermon Burgess (a.k.a. The Great Aussie Patriot), who is a garbage collector for the Cooma Council in NSW by profession, but he's not bad as a musician, starring in the band ‘Eureka Brigade’.

[youtube]K34COSOBInE[/youtube]
#14561382
Do they have a place where people can make anonymous donations if they want to help them with funding issues? I find that one of the major pitfalls of these street protest awareness movements, is that they don't make it clear that they are open for donations and they don't have websites with big 'donate now' buttons on them.

They need to take an 'East Asian' style approach to this, and just get a small web 2.0 site that has a really good colour scheme and very simple details about what is happening, when it is happening, and how people can get involved, and a big button for giving money through Paypal or with Bitcoins starting from as low as "AUD $0.50".

And then they need to create poster ads with the QR-code for the website featured prominently on it so that people will scan it with their phone and go there. You want to get the insides the panels of buses and trains for the best uptake, which means you need to buy that advertising space inside the bus so you can get people to see that banner and scan the code. You should not remain confined to Facebook and Twitter, you have to get people at the most 'willing to have xenophobic thoughts', which is when they are travelling (seriously). You can also do bus stops, and the advertisement panels in malls, and also do the advertisement panels of restaurants if they will agree to it, or corner shops.

Another step to consider is to have someone develop an Android app and have several groups of people on the day act as 'guides' who will continuously look at what the police are doing and various points at the protest venue and feed that information back to organisers who will then update the app to show protesters how to best avoid being kettled on a live-updating city map.

You also need to have a catering tent. Yes. You need to give out free food.

Basically, put some serious money into these things so that you can make sure that you can control the street better than the police can, and that you can get more numbers to come out than the centre-left can, and then eventually you'll find that the police will end up protecting your right-wing event from leftist disrupters by sheer force of necessity. That's how you do it.

You don't just go out there with a pure heart and start waving placards at people. If you do that you'll just get kettled by police and spat upon by leftists. You have to leverage the entire human domain and the city telecommunications infrastructure itself against the opponents -- not just social networking sites.

Also, the name of the event matters. You have to understand that you cannot just be against something. You have to be for something as well. Put what you are for upfront. Present the exclusionary aspects of the event as a defence of a global cultural consensus which you will not have to describe because you know that everyone knows it anyway. So you could call it the "Love Australia Full-Day Event" or something like that, and the tag line could be "standing against Islamic extremism and in solidarity with the oppressed of the world". Get someone to figure out to make that line shorter, but keep it truthful. That line is the truth and it will get you far.
#14561406
I am smart enough to understand that not all Muslims are misogynist homophobes.


A tiny percentage are not homophobes.

Even when living in lberal europe it doesnt seem to help that much. France seems to do best but its hardly great ...
The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed.

By comparison, 35% of French Muslims found homosexual acts to be acceptable. A question on pornography also elicited different reactions, with French and German Muslims more likely than British Muslims to believe that watching or reading pornography was morally acceptable.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/ ... osexuality

I dont think i need to give you figures from the middle east where a consistent majority thinks they should be stoned
#14561416
That is also a view that is shared among homosexuals who were polled in the United States as well:
Pew Research Center, 'A Survey of LGBT Americans', 13 Jun 2013 (emphasis added) wrote:[...] Religion is a difficult terrain for many LGBT adults. Lopsided majorities describe the Muslim religion (84%), the Mormon Church (83%), the Catholic Church (79%) and evangelical churches (73%) as unfriendly toward people who are LGBT. [...] Of those LGBT adults who are religiously affiliated, one-third say there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation or gender identity. And among all LGBT adults, about three-in-ten (29%) say they have been made to feel unwelcome in a place of worship. [...]

But of course, Pants-of-Dog will be along shortly to explain - or should I say 'mansplain' - how the Quran and Hadiths only prescribe house arrest and infinite amounts of 'corrective' rape via forced marriage 'in metaphor', and that this 'should not be interpreted as threatening' in any way whatsoever to those who are lesbians.

Or, alternately, that the presence of democracy magically makes it so that they will not be a threat, even though in the UK, Muslims are disproportionately the perpetrators of homophobic hate crimes in contrast to the size of their population.

Anyway, here are some quotes that are on the record, Quran time:
Quran 4:15 wrote:If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

'The other way' is forced marriage and forced sex with the person that they are forced to marry, by the way.

Hadith time:
Abu Dawud 38:4447 wrote:Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Abu Dawud 31:4007 wrote:Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man should not look at the private parts of another man, and a woman should not look at the private parts of another woman. A man should not lie with another man without wearing lower garment under one cover; and a woman should not be lie with another woman without wearing lower garment under one cover.


And a Q&A:
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 5177 wrote:[...]

Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” (Reported by the four authors of Sunan. Its isnaad is saheeh. At-Tirmidhi said it is a hasan hadeeth).

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq judged in accordance with this, and he wrote instructions to this effect to Khaalid, after consulting with the Sahaabah. ‘Ali was the strictest of them with regard to that. Ibn al-Qasaar and our shaykh said: the Sahaabah agreed that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be killed. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq said that he should be thrown down from a cliff. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said that a wall should be made to collapse on him. Ibn ‘Abbaas said, they should be killed by stoning. This shows that there was consensus among them that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be executed. This is similar to the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning the person who has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram [incest], because in both cases intercourse is not permitted under any circumstances. Hence the connection was made in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill them.” And it was also reported that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram, kill him.” And according to another hadeeth with the same isnaad, “Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill the animal with him.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 2420; Abu Dawood, 4464; al-Tirmidhi, 1454; al-Haakim, 4/355).

This ruling is in accordance with the ruling of sharee’ah, because the worse the haraam action is, the more severe the punishment for it. Having intercourse in a manner that is not permissible under any circumstances is worse than having intercourse in a manner which may be permitted in some circumstances, so its punishment is more severe. This was stated by Ahmad in one of the two reports narrated from him. (Zaad al-Ma’aad, part 5, p. 40-41).

The same applies to the sin of lesbianism. There is no doubt among the fuqahaa’ that lesbianism is haraam and is a major sin, as stated by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him). (Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, part 24, p. 251).

With regard to the specific type of punishment mentioned in the question – stoning to death – this kind of punishment is for the adulterer who is married. The shar’i punishment for the crime of homosexuality is execution – by the sword, according to the most correct view – as was narrated in the discussion above about the differences among the scholars as to how this execution should be carried out. As far as lesbianism is concerned, there is no hadd for it, but it is subject to ta’zeer [unspecified punishment to be determined at the discretion of the qaadi]. (al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, part 24, p. 253).

So with all that on the table, I invite Pants-of-Dog to do exactly that thing which I know he will do.

May he commence his squirming and his mansplaining now.
#14561425
layman wrote:A tiny percentage are not homophobes.

Even when living in lberal europe it doesnt seem to help that much. France seems to do best but its hardly great ...

...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/ ... osexuality

I dont think i need to give you figures from the middle east where a consistent majority thinks they should be stoned


How many of these homophobes wish to make everyone else as homophobic as they?

-------------------

Rei Murasame wrote:That is also a view that is shared among homosexuals who were polled in the United States as well:

    Pew Research Center, 'A Survey of LGBT Americans', 13 Jun 2013[/url] (emphasis added)"][...] Religion is a difficult terrain for many LGBT adults. Lopsided majorities describe the Muslim religion (84%), the Mormon Church (83%), the Catholic Church (79%) and evangelical churches (73%) as unfriendly toward people who are LGBT. [...] Of those LGBT adults who are religiously affiliated, one-third say there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation or gender identity. And among all LGBT adults, about three-in-ten (29%) say they have been made to feel unwelcome in a place of worship. [...]


Thank you for providing evidence that homophobia is similarly high among people of other Abrahamic religions.

No doubt Australia will soon have anti-Jew and anti-Xian marches any day now.

But of course, Pants-of-Dog will be along shortly to explain - or should I say 'mansplain' - how the Quran and Hadiths only prescribe house arrest and infinite amounts of 'corrective' rape via forced marriage 'in metaphor', and that this 'should not be interpreted as threatening' in any way whatsoever to those who are lesbians.


Everyone must stick strictly to the subject. We are not going to indulge in ad hominen attacks or discussions about the personality or character of certain individual users.

Or, alternately, that the presence of democracy magically makes it so that they will not be a threat, even though in the UK, Muslims are disproportionately the perpetrators of homophobic hate crimes in contrast to the size of their population.


That may well be true. That does not change the fact that there is diversity of belief among Muslims.

May he commence his squirming and his mansplaining now.


Everyone must stick strictly to the subject. We are not going to indulge in ad hominen attacks or discussions about the personality or character of certain individual users.
#14561431
Pants-of-dog wrote:How many of these homophobes wish to make everyone else as homophobic as they?

That's the stage you are at now?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Thank you for providing evidence that homophobia is similarly high among people of other Abrahamic religions.

You're welcome!

Pants-of-dog wrote:No doubt Australia will soon have anti-Jew and anti-Xian marches any day now.

I hope so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That may well be true. That does not change the fact that there is diversity of belief among Muslims.

There is also a diversity of belief among those who attend anti-Islam marches.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Everyone must stick strictly to the subject.

Okay. I'll assume that you have no response then.
#14561470
layman wrote:I expect these muslim individuals would desire, or even demand, everyone to share their values within their own communitys. No different to the rest of us, including you I think.


Well, who actually opposes homosexual equality in Australia?

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling blocks are the Prime Minister, the Australian Marriage Forum, and the Australian Christian Lobby. The Muslims are insignificant.
#14561475
Well, who actually opposes homosexual equality in Australia?
In my opinion, the biggest stumbling blocks are the Prime Minister, the Australian Marriage Forum, and the Australian Christian Lobby. The Muslims are insignificant.


Dont know much about gay equality in australia.

Assuming it is bad there, I expect Muslims are insignificant to policy change as they lack power and influence within the Australian system.

My point was simply that the vast, vast majority of muslims (world wide) are homophobic, many violently so. As for their attitudes on women, how bad those are depends on how much of a feminist you are I guess.
#14561495
Conscript wrote:The idea that this is about being against the religion itself is bullshit, it's plainly obvious this is about xenophobia and is why so many people question if these anti-Islamic rallies are racist.
Really. Do you think I give these two fuckers any leeway just because they are of my race and nationality? If they hadn't already blown up themselves in Iraq for the IS, they should be hanged under the Brandenburger Tor.

Image

Incidentally, these two also shred PoD's claim that the poor Muslims can't help being misogynist retards, because they are indoctrinated from youth and just can't know better (let me savour this quote from PoD for its delicious colonialist arrogance ):
Pants-of-dog wrote:What is the single biggest cause for believing in a specific religion? It is not the person's opinion. It is the simple fact that they were brought up that way. So, the vast majority of Muslims are Muslims because they were brought by Muslims. They are not Muslims because they really enjoy misogyny or because they have sexist opinions.


These two brothers were Germans, not brought up as Muslims. One of them was smart enough to study Law, the other was a soldier in Afghanistan. Both converted to Islam, fell in love with the IS, traveled to Iraq and blew themselves up. They were true believers of a destructive, dangerous ideology. I reject the notion that we should tolerate adherents of this ideology among us for the sake of being "morally good". I value women's rights higher than misogynists' rights.
#14561497
Frollein wrote:Incidentally, these two also shred PoD's claim that the poor Muslim can't help being misogynist retards, because they are indoctrinated from youth and just can't know better (let me savour this quote from PoD for its delicious colonialist arrogance ):


You seem to have misunderstood.

Decky was implying that we can dismiss all Muslims because they all chose to be sexist.

I was pointing out that they did not choose that.

Frollein wrote:These two brothers were Germans, not brought up as Muslims. One of them was smart enough to study Law, the other was a soldier in Afghanistan. Both converted to Islam, fell in love with the IS, traveled to Iraq and blew themselves up. They were true believers of a destructive, dangerous ideology. I reject the notion that we should tolerate adherents of this ideology among us for the sake of being "morally good". I value women's rights higher than misogynists' rights.


Do you have anything to say about diversity of belief among Muslims? Or are you still under the assumption that all Muslims are like these two fellows?

---------------------

There seems to be this notion that the main reason behind anti-Islam movements is to protect the rights of women and gays.

While "Reclaim Australia" makes mention of equal rights for women, they do not mention gay rights, and reclaim Australia has invited clergy to speak, including those who push for laws banning abortion.
#14561522
Frollein wrote:Incidentally, these two also shred PoD's claim that the poor Muslim can't help being misogynist retards, because they are indoctrinated from youth and just can't know better (let me savour this quote from PoD for its delicious colonialist arrogance ):
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to have misunderstood.
Not at all. You are so wrapped up in your moral superiority that you are blind to your own arrogance against those you deem in need of your "help".

Pants-of-dog wrote:Decky was implying that we can dismiss all Muslims because they all chose to be sexist.

I was pointing out that they did not choose that.
Oh, but they choose to keep following the ideology, no?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you have anything to say about diversity of belief among Muslims?
You either follow the book or you don't. In the latter case, you better run when the true believers find out. They hate pretenders even more than genuine infidels.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There seems to be this notion that the main reason behind anti-Islam movements is to protect the rights of women and gays.

While "Reclaim Australia" makes mention of equal rights for women, they do not mention gay rights, and reclaim Australia has invited clergy to speak, including those who push for laws banning abortion.
Why would I care? As a woman, protecting women and civil rights is my reason to oppose Islam. Temporal alliances of convenience are perfectly acceptable. The Christian church is no opponent we need to be concerned about. They have fallen from power so completely that their potential for damage is in no way comparable to the danger that Islam poses.
#14561533
Frollein wrote:Not at all. You are so wrapped up in your moral superiority that you are blind to your own arrogance against those you deem in need of your "help".


You really like to psychoanalyse me.

Back to the topic:

F wrote:Oh, but they choose to keep following the ideology, no?


Religion and ideology are two different things.

F wrote:You either follow the book or you don't. In the latter case, you better run when the true believers find out. They hate pretenders even more than genuine infidels.


Then the vast majority of Muslims are not True Believers, in which case. there is no reason to target them.

F wrote:Why would I care? As a woman, protecting women and civil rights is my reason to oppose Islam. Temporal alliances of convenience are perfectly acceptable. The Christian church is no opponent we need to be concerned about. They have fallen from power so completely that their potential for damage is in no way comparable to the danger that Islam poses.


Do you honestly believe that Muslim sects have more power than Christian churches in modern Western societies?
#14561553
Frollein wrote:Not at all. You are so wrapped up in your moral superiority that you are blind to your own arrogance against those you deem in need of your "help".
Pants-of-dog wrote:You really like to psychoanalyse me.
It's not that difficult.

F wrote:Oh, but they choose to keep following the ideology, no?
Religion and ideology are two different things.
Nope. But thanks for admitting that they choose to keep following their ideology and are not its hapless victims.

F wrote:You either follow the book or you don't. In the latter case, you better run when the true believers find out. They hate pretenders even more than genuine infidels.
Then the vast majority of Muslims are not True Believers
That's what you like to believe. Unfortunately, the massing up of "isolated incidents" is telling another story.

Do you honestly believe that Muslim sects have more power than Christian churches in modern Western societies?
I observe that they are growing in number and in influence, while the Christian church is declining in both regards.
#14561555
Pants-of-dog wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood.

Decky was implying that we can dismiss all Muslims because they all chose to be sexist.

I was pointing out that they did not choose that.


Yes because brown people don't have agency. They're like animals, so we can't hold them responsible for the things they do. /sarcasm
#14561556
Frollein wrote:Nope.


Yes. Religion and ideology are two different things. If you do not understand that, then you simply do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss how ideology, politics, and religion relate to each other.

F wrote:But thanks for admitting that they choose to keep following their ideology and are not its hapless victims.


This weird claim of yours is based on the faulty premise that religion and ideology are one. Thus, it is wrong.

F wrote:That's what you like to believe. Unfortunately, the massing up of "isolated incidents" is telling another story.


I believe that Muslims have a diversity of beliefs.

You believe they are all bloodthirsty killers who want to impose Sharia on everyone and suicide bomb everyone all the time.

I will leave it at that.

I observe that they are growing in number and in influence, while the Christian church is declining in both regards.


Sure, but that does not mean that they are currently a greater threat to women's rights.

In order to be more of a threat to women's rights now, they would have to be more powerful now.

-------------------

Saeko wrote:Yes because brown people don't have agency. They're like animals, so we can't hold them responsible for the things they do. /sarcasm


I was discussing theists, not brown people. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify the context.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

They're going to bring the debunked "Russiaga[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]