But not the way the American left envisions it!
I'll save the analysis for now and let you readers discuss this one in the comments...
I am a Renaissance Man!
change all the references to Islam to references to Judaism and it takes on a whole new perspective...
Posted by: Never Again | Thursday, 25 August 2005 at 01:43 PM
Last time I checked, Hassidim weren't going around blowing people up for having foreskins.
Posted by: Brian B | Thursday, 25 August 2005 at 02:17 PM
I think his/her point wasn't to defend Islam, but to caution that it might set a precedent whereby other religions could be forced out by the state. What happens when some politicians decide "Christianity is incompatible with Democracy"? We are perhaps perilously close to that here in America, as our courts do everything in their power to wipe God out of the public eye.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Thursday, 25 August 2005 at 04:40 PM
Wow! On the one hand HURRAY, it's been too long coming and it's sad the Australians had to take the brave first step, when America was so horribly affected by 9/11 and rampant "tolerance" of those idiots who keep insanely insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, even when radical Wahabbists decide that it's somehow "peaceful" to blowup people who are innocent but they see as agents of the Great Satan (bloody infidels) ... on the other hand, it sets a curious precedent ... what happens when the day comes (and it *will* come) that Christianity is "officially" considered "extreme" and our own government decides to eradicate Christians or make them swear allegiance to the State instead of to Christ....bears some thought ... Just read Brave New World & 1984 this summer ... seems like they're more on their way to becoming prophecy as time passes.
Posted by: FSIL | Thursday, 25 August 2005 at 08:50 PM
Hurray for Howard. Finally a politician who sees what the rest of us do. If only he could lend that pair of glassed to Bush.
Posted by: James C. | Friday, 26 August 2005 at 07:51 AM
I understand the threat, but the article clearly states that he's talking about those who espouse violence, not Muslims in general.
Posted by: Brian B | Friday, 26 August 2005 at 11:26 AM
Greetings,
"change all the references to Islam to references to Judaism and it takes on a whole new perspective..."
Strawman. Can't recall a Jewish 'communittee' that is requiring any person to convert to or die / pay additional taxes.
Don't see many Jewish people blowing up people and building around the world (except in national defense)
If that was happening - then I would be aggreable to reducing the threat.
"Think his/her point wasn't to defend Islam, but to caution that it might set a precedent whereby other religions could be forced out by the state."
Another strawman. Chruch of Christ, Baptist, nor even the Mormans are demanding that their religous law take priority over secular law - and thank goodness! One wife is more than enough thank you. ;)
"What happens when some politicians decide "Christianity is incompatible with Democracy"?"
We put people in jail who value their 'Christanity' over democracy - specifically the idiots that want to blow up abortion clinics and people who work there.
Regards,
Mike
Posted by: Mike | Friday, 26 August 2005 at 02:39 PM