The Insidious Advancement of Islam in Australia

[epronovost]

My point was that this proscription may be based in the older and deeper cultural base that gave rise to Islam as well. We cannot say it's the religion which made the taboo, or if the taboo existed prior and the religion then subsumed it.

That's entirely accurate. There are no written sources to confirm if the proscription of marriage between children fed by milk mothers and their actual children was taboo prior to Islam or if it's something entirely new. It doesn't really matter either way though as even the Hadith who mention that rules are not universally accepted either with some preferring even harsher restriction and others simply having no specific rules on the subject.

[SYZ]

Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who have
denied the Truth...".

Surah 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them kill them. Such
is the recompense of the disbelievers."

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, capture
them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush".

Why would I have to address this?

Well, simply because you've attacked me for my opinions on
Islam—which you've strongly disagreed with—and conversely
vigorously defended the core of the religion, and its archaic
precepts as—on the whole—being rational and acceptable in the
21st century.

So... why won't you address these prominent tenets of Islam?

And how can anyone defend Sharia "law"?  Punishments for
breaches range from public lashing, stoning to death, beheading
and amputation of hands, hanging, and Qisas eye for an eye.

[epronovost]

Well, simply because you've attacked me for my opinions on
Islam

No, I called you a bigot for your opinion on Milk Mothers which is not an Islamic practice since it pre-dates Islam by literal thousands of years. Your reaction to such a practice, describing it as threat to Australian secular society and "Islamic infiltration" is completely overblown, marked with a profound antipathy toward Muslim people, especially women, insinuating that since they are Muslim they are all for stoning people, slavery and other similarly monstrous practices which is not accurate.

It's not because you think something is Islamic that it's actually the case. In the same vein, it's not because someone call you a bigot for your pig-headed, prejudice based attack on an otherwise inoffensive practice that those people would defend uncritically all the behaviors and beliefs of the people who want to practice the otherwise inoffensive practice. I can perfectly defend a murderer accused of being a monster because of the shape of his skull and dismiss anybody who makes such an argument as racialist bigot high on pseudo-science, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of murder.   

and conversely
vigorously defended the core of the religion, and its archaic
precepts as—on the whole—being rational and acceptable in the
21st century.

Can you quote me doing such thing? I specifically mention in post number 13 that Islam has many disgusting tenets and is, as a whole a great source of oppression and suffering in the modern world which would be a direct contradiction. I am and was explicitly opposed to Islam as a whole and more particularly as a modern political force.

And how can anyone defend Sharia "law"?  Punishments for
breaches range from public lashing, stoning to death, beheading
and amputation of hands, hanging, and Qisas eye for an eye.

I don't defend such laws or system of laws either. I never had. You are throwing baseless accusations about a subject that has nothing to do with Milk Mothers or you average Aussie Muslim.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No one's telling you whose tit to suck. What's the big deal?

[epronovost]

No one's telling you whose tit to suck. What's the big deal?

You know maybe that's the problem... what if he really wants to suck on those tits specifically because it's the law.

/joke

[SYZ]

Yet another example of undermining Australia's democratic
processes by a Jihad of stealth...

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said today that faith-based
political parties would undermine social cohesion in Australia.

His comments came after revelations that The Muslim Vote
movement was planning to target federal Labor seats at the
next election.  The Muslim Vote denied it was a political party
or religious campaign, but rather a political campaign that
aimed to "educate and mobilise" its community on a grassroots
level.

"I don't think and don't want Australia to go down the road of
faith-based political parties because what that will do is undermine
social cohesion", he claimed.

—I agree totally.  If nothing else, this sort of thing is totally at odds
   with the political tenet of the separation of church and state.

On its home page The Muslim Vote party proclaims:

The next Federal election signals a shift. We will no longer accept
being taken for granted. Australian Muslims are a powerful, united
force of nearly 1 million acting in unison. The Muslim Vote alone is
capable of forcing the current government into minority government.
In 2024, we are focused on Federal seats where the Muslim vote can
influence the outcome.

Average Aussies should be very, very concerned that the AEC (Australian
Electoral Commission) allowed the registration of this group of religious
zealots in the first place.

              

[adey67]

[adey67]

[Minimalist]

"I don't think and don't want Australia to go down the road of
faith-based political parties because what that will do is undermine
social cohesion", he claimed.

I couldn't agree with him more.  Just look at what the republiKKKunts have become!

[SaxonX]

So how does that hurt you? If the folk who hold to those standards hold to them for their faith or cultural mores, and don't inflict them on you, how does that affect you?

Something or someone whose religious practices I strongly disagree
with don't of necessity have to "hurt" or "affect" me personally, but
the subtle imposition of something like Islamic practices, or even some
tenets of Sharia law into our secular society certainly can.

Milk mothering—unlike wet nursing—prohibits the mothered baby, as an
adult, from marrying the actual sons or daughters of the milk mother.
This is an absurd proposition, and has no basis in the potential effects
of recessive genes causing physical or mental abnormalities in the baby,
as would a brother-sister sexual relationship.

One of the funniest occurrences here was when Islamic councillors at a local
government council meeting refused to eat the chicken and beef sandwiches
provided for a lunchtime snack.  The council's kitchen went out of their way
to avoid giving the Islamists ham sandwiches—naturally.

Why did they refuse?       Because the chicken and beef sandwiches were
prepared on the same kitchen bench tops as the ham and salad sandwiches.

—At least these dickheads went hungry!    

So the guy not eating a sandwich and being consistent with his beliefs makes him a dickhead. You understand that Jews have the same rules when it comes to Kosher food.

[SaxonX]

How is it being "imposed" on you? Are you required to live by this standard? Has this been made law, as you seem to be suggesting?

A couple of recent (admittedly minor) restrictions imposed on non-Muslims
here in Victoria:  Female-only gymnasiums for Muslims; "closed to males" days
at public swimming pools to allow Muslim females to swim; Halal certification
of foodstuffs requiring a labelling license fee paid—by the producer; a legal
right for Muslims to purchase prescription medications not encased in gelatine
capsules—at an additional cost to pharmacies.

Thin end of the wedge?     Yes?     No?

Yes somehow a female only gym is a grave imposition because there aren't a million gyms men can go to and woman only gyms aren't already a thing.....Oh wait
Yes having some days for Muslim women to swim is a terrible burden . Except there has been women only pools for decades.
Yes  Halal certification is the worst thing ever 
Yes allowing to buy something is terrible thing 
All these supposed imposition seem freaking  innocuous honestly

[SaxonX]

How can you fight an idea without knowing what the idea is...

I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed at the vehemence of
respondent's defence of Islam and Islamic practices on an atheist
forum.  I'm also disappointed by the personal insults directed at me
for merely stating my opinions—particularly by apparent Islamic
apologist epronovost, who has yet to address this:

Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who have

denied the Truth...".

Surah 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them kill them. Such
is the recompense of the disbelievers."

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, capture
them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush".

—Maybe as a long-term, mature-aged, astute, "practising" atheist I'm on the wrong forum.      

No ones defending Islam they just aren't upset by the minor stuff your complaining about .....Serious being able to buy capsules without gelatin

[SaxonX]

Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who have
denied the Truth...".

Surah 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them kill them. Such
is the recompense of the disbelievers."

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, capture
them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush".

Why would I have to address this?

Well, simply because you've attacked me for my opinions on
Islam—which you've strongly disagreed with—and conversely
vigorously defended the core of the religion, and its archaic
precepts as—on the whole—being rational and acceptable in the
21st century.

So... why won't you address these prominent tenets of Islam?

And how can anyone defend Sharia "law"?  Punishments for
breaches range from public lashing, stoning to death, beheading
and amputation of hands, hanging, and Qisas eye for an eye.

Great how likely do you think any such punishments will be carried out in a modern western country ....Answer nil

[SaxonX]

Yet another example of undermining Australia's democratic
processes by a Jihad of stealth...

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said today that faith-based
political parties would undermine social cohesion in Australia.

His comments came after revelations that The Muslim Vote
movement was planning to target federal Labor seats at the
next election.  The Muslim Vote denied it was a political party
or religious campaign, but rather a political campaign that
aimed to "educate and mobilise" its community on a grassroots
level.

"I don't think and don't want Australia to go down the road of
faith-based political parties because what that will do is undermine
social cohesion", he claimed.

—I agree totally.  If nothing else, this sort of thing is totally at odds
   with the political tenet of the separation of church and state.

On its home page The Muslim Vote party proclaims:

The next Federal election signals a shift. We will no longer accept
being taken for granted. Australian Muslims are a powerful, united
force of nearly 1 million acting in unison. The Muslim Vote alone is
capable of forcing the current government into minority government.
In 2024, we are focused on Federal seats where the Muslim vote can
influence the outcome.

Average Aussies should be very, very concerned that the AEC (Australian
Electoral Commission) allowed the registration of this group of religious
zealots in the first place.

              

Democracy allows people to freely form parties and free citizens to vote. Were you this angry when the Christian Democratic Party existed in Australia.

[epronovost]

I just read the website of Muslim Vote. It seems this organization is all about the Israel-Palestine war at the moment and of course strongly supports Palestine. This is not a religious party and doesn't seem to be in favor of any sort of religious fundamentalism. In fact it contains no political statement or program nor any links to spokespersons or actual reach and influence. It seems to be a tiny, recent grassroot political organization that uses Islam as it's identity marker to create a voting block with at the moment it's focus on Australia's policies towards Israel and Palestine, but also an eye on social housing issues in Australia as a secondary concern. I don't see anything particularly alarming. I would even guess that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Australia have never heard of this organization. On another note, religious and ethnic minorities often create organizations like these to increase their political weight and gain traction for issues that relate specifically to them or special points of interest. I think Anthony Albanese is trying to cover his ass by lying about what Muslim Vote is and dog whistling to xenophobes.

[SaxonX]

You mean what used to be called a "wet nurse" which was a very common occupation all around the world, including Australia prior to the 20th century and the creation of baby formulas...

Yes, I'm aware of wet nursing.  But "milk mothering" has totally
different reasons for its existence—and they're definitely religion
based.   It also forms an automatic familial kinship between the
milk mother and whoever's bay she feeds—which is nonsensical.
And means, for example, that when the baby reaches adulthood,
he or she cannot marry any of the milk mother's sons or daughters.

A milk mother asks a pregnant woman if she can be her milk mother,
but it's not a matter of necessity like wet nursing, where a birth mother
can't feed her baby herself, for whatever reason, and approaches a wet
nursing facility.

At any rate, I consider Islam to be the most reprehensible religion of
them all, and any or all attempts to integrate its practices into a
nominally secular Australia should be resisted at all levels.

And believe it or not, this image of schoolgirls was captured on a street
in Sydney in 2017...
 

Offensive?     To me, absolutely.     

Uh huh that picture is a bunch of Muslim women with headscarves .....And?

[Paleophyte]

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said today that faith-based
political parties would undermine social cohesion in Australia.

Wouldn't want those Muslims voting out your Catholic PM. Oops, did I say the quiet Islamophobic part out loud?

[SaxonX]

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said today that faith-based
political parties would undermine social cohesion in Australia.

Wouldn't want those Muslims voting out your Catholic PM. Oops, did I say the quiet Islamophobic part out loud?

Ask him how he feels about The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, or the influence of The Australian Family Association or the Christian Political parties that exist in Australian like the Australian Christian Party or The Family First Party or are only Muslims not allowed to form political movements putting a lie to the idea of saying values democracy and secularism while ignoring one of it's key ideals of respecting the will of the electorate and not engaging in religious sectarian favoritism 

[SYZ]

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said today that faith-based
political parties would undermine social cohesion in Australia.

Wouldn't want those Muslims voting out your Catholic PM. Oops, did I say the quiet Islamophobic part out loud?

Exiled Muslim senator Fatima Payman has launched her
new political party with no policy positions and which will
not require candidates to oppose the war in Gaza, the issue
that saw her join the cross-bench.



(In Australia, the cross-bench is invariably the parliamentary
home of Independents, members disbarred from either of
the goverment or opposition parties, or just politically thick
as two planks.)

The Western Australian politician said her party, called
'Australia's Voice', would offer "something different" to
voters who felt "left behind" by the major parties.

Several First Nations leaders involved in a campaign for
a First Nations Voice in the recent referendum have privately
expressed frustration with the use of the word "Voice" by
her party, saying permission was not sought.

Aboriginal elder professor Tom Calma said "they should
make it very clear that they are not there to represent
the 'Voice to Parliament' by Aboriginal people.

And... Under Section 44 of the Australian Constitution,
there are serious questions about her eligibility to serve
as a senator due to her dual Afghani/Australian citizenship.

[SYZ]

Wouldn't want those Muslims voting out your Catholic PM. Oops, did I say the quiet Islamophobic part out loud?

Ask him how he feels about The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, or the influence of The Australian Family Association or the Christian Political parties that exist in Australian like the Australian Christian Party or The Family First Party or are only Muslims not allowed to form political movements putting a lie to the idea of saying values democracy and secularism while ignoring one of it's key ideals of respecting the will of the electorate and not engaging in religious sectarian favoritism.

Okay... The Australian Family Association is not a political party.
The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship is a cross-party grouping
but not a political "party" per se.  The Australian Christians is yet
to successfully elect any State or Federal representatives. [LOL]

The Family First party is multi-denominational, and was recently
deregistered in Victoria due to lacking a minimum number of
financial members. [LOL]  It has no formal affiliation with any
particular religious organisation.

At any rate, any political party based solely on religious tenets
such as Islam would be anathema to the democratic principle of
the  separation of church and state.

[SaxonX]

Ask him how he feels about The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, or the influence of The Australian Family Association or the Christian Political parties that exist in Australian like the Australian Christian Party or The Family First Party or are only Muslims not allowed to form political movements putting a lie to the idea of saying values democracy and secularism while ignoring one of it's key ideals of respecting the will of the electorate and not engaging in religious sectarian favoritism.

Okay... The Australian Family Association is not a political party.
The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship is a cross-party grouping
but not a political "party" per se.  The Australian Christians is yet
to successfully elect any State or Federal representatives. [LOL]

The Family First party is multi-denominational, and was recently
deregistered in Victoria due to lacking a minimum number of
financial members. [LOL]  It has no formal affiliation with any
particular religious organisation.

At any rate, any political party based solely on religious tenets
such as Islam would be anathema to the democratic principle of
the  separation of church and state.

None of that refutes my central point if were against religious integration into government we have to oppose it all.

[Minimalist]

Given everything that is wrong with religitards the question one should be asking oneself is "why would any batch of religious extremists want to form a political party?"

Do they think they can legislate their particular sky-daddy into existence?

[Paleophyte]

Exiled Muslim senator Fatima Payman has launched her
new political party with no policy positions and which will
not require candidates to oppose the war in Gaza, the issue
that saw her join the cross-bench.

I'm wondering what part of running for office strikes you as insidious. Damned clever of them sneaking around in plain sight like that.

[brewerb]

[Rhythmcs]

Given everything that is wrong with religitards the question one should be asking oneself is "why would any batch of religious extremists want to form a political party?"

Do they think they can legislate their particular sky-daddy into existence?

Yes.  The things we religiously believe are the things we would make true were they not true.  Frankly, I don't think there's anything an official government endorsement could do or provide that a de facto theocracy of the peoples conscience could not, and there's a strong correlation between voting our conscience and voting our religious values.