Perfect!!

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

[Fuzzness 2]

I agree with what Australia is doing, but I think the writer of the article is an #######. Australia has no right to tell the US and Canada how to run their countries.

[jordanianprincess 0]

I also agree with what Australia is doing. If you are moving to new country than you should adapt to their ways. That does not mean you have to do everything the way that they do it, but whatever happened to turning your head the other way?

If i see something on TV I don't like, I change the channel. There are lots of things that go on in the USA that I don't agree with but to each his own. I'm sure there are things I believe in that others don't. So be it.

I think its very important to have a separation of Chuch and State. In this Sharia law is religous (please correct me if I'm wrong), so where it's Sharia law or any other religous law, then it should not be intermingled with government law.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

(continuing to play devils advocate)

So you're telling people that they should put aside the elements of their religion that conflict with secular law? That is tantamout to telling them they may not practice their religion freely and fully. How is that fair?

Moreover, you're suggesting that the laws of non-believers take precedence over the laws given to us by God. That's like, blasphemy, dude.

[desert_fox 32]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

So are you saying that polygamists that practice their religion in Colorado City, Arizona should be allowed to continue?? Many of these guys marry off their 16 year daughter to their 50 year old uncle as their 6th wife.

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

(continuing to play devils advocate)

So you're telling people that they should put aside the elements of their religion that conflict with secular law? That is tantamout to telling them they may not practice their religion freely and fully. How is that fair?

Moreover, you're suggesting that the laws of non-believers take precedence over the laws given to us by God. That's like, blasphemy, dude.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

So are you saying that polygamists that practice their religion in Colorado City, Arizona should be allowed to continue?? Many of these guys marry off their 16 year daughter to their 50 year old uncle as their 6th wife.

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

(continuing to play devils advocate)

So you're telling people that they should put aside the elements of their religion that conflict with secular law? That is tantamout to telling them they may not practice their religion freely and fully. How is that fair?

Moreover, you're suggesting that the laws of non-believers take precedence over the laws given to us by God. That's like, blasphemy, dude.

DF,

Was there a reply in there somewhere?

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here.

When we've been debating illegal immigration here, haven't MOST of us been saying that all we want the EWI's to have to do, is the same thing we did - abide by the law?

So what's the difference here?

I don't expect somebody to give up their beliefs or principles. Just abide by the law.

The debate is, which law?

Do people who migrate to Australia have to abide by existing Australian law even when doing so is contrary to their religion? Or do they get to bring their own laws,derived not from men but God, with them?

(devils advocate)

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

(continuing to play devils advocate)

So you're telling people that they should put aside the elements of their religion that conflict with secular law? That is tantamout to telling them they may not practice their religion freely and fully. How is that fair?

Moreover, you're suggesting that the laws of non-believers take precedence over the laws given to us by God. That's like, blasphemy, dude.

Still playing.

I don't think so. Even the bible refers to Ceasar and his laws.

[mikeize 0]

I KNOW! Remember how well the English got on with the Aborigines in terms of accepting the native languages, customs and religions? Just goes to show the superiority of Christian values, I guess, that they were so appreciative of the opportunity to live in a new country that they so deferred to the existing culture.

Faced with a more aggressive culture, they failed to stand up for themselves. See where that display of passivity/tolerance got them? What is 'moral' for you today may not always be in the best-interests of your tomorrow. Just a thought.

I'm not sure that it was a "failure to stand up for themselves" that relegated the aboriginal peoples of the world to slavery at the hands of foreign conquistadors, but perhaps more likely technological disadvantage. Now I can accept that one's basis for "morality" may be in essence, that "might makes right"... but it just makes me chuckle when the sons and daughters of invaders past call for the assimilation and conformity (and LEGALITY, lol) of modern (and relatively peaceful) invaders.

Actually, in a way, I see things the same as you do. On the one hand, I would never kill/rape someone and take his land (esp. without DIRE need on my part), because I just can't justify that by my own "moral standards". On the other hand, like you seem to say-"sh!t happens". Yeah, it sure does. And it happens in cycles. So if you are lucky, the empire of which you (and yours) are a citizen, will cling to top-dog status (with you therein clinging to mid/upper-class status) until you breathe your last in that Florida (Mexican?) assisted-living condo. And until then, may you grow fat while others starve. (I think that could be the new Pharisee's prayer...)

-mike

[meddykomp 0]

If your religious law says you should pray 5 times a day .. then you should pray 5 times a day. The government should have no authority to stop you from practicing this. However, if your religion tells you that you should kill your daughter if she loses her virginity before marriage, that is murder, and is not tolerated in the US, and therefore you would need to follow the law of the land. If someones religious beliefs are direct contradictions of the laws of the land, they probably should not choose to live there anyway. There are laws in other countries that contradict my beliefs, I would not choose to live in those countries.

[MrMrsKnight 0]

OK, I'll play.

As long as their laws don't violate the laws of the land, I see no problem.

Amish and Mennonite cultures blend their religious beliefs and still are law-abiding citizens.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If someones religious beliefs are direct contradictions of the laws of the land, they probably should not choose to live there anyway. There are laws in other countries that contradict my beliefs, I would not choose to live in those countries.

Ok.

Do you think a country should actively inform potential immigrants that certain aspects of their religioun or culture are not welcome in the host country?

[mikeize 0]

If someones religious beliefs are direct contradictions of the laws of the land, they probably should not choose to live there anyway. There are laws in other countries that contradict my beliefs, I would not choose to live in those countries.

Ok.

Do you think a country should actively inform potential immigrants that certain aspects of their religioun or culture are not welcome in the host country?

If you can be arrested for it, they ought better f'n tell you can't do it!

[rebeccajo 14]

If someones religious beliefs are direct contradictions of the laws of the land, they probably should not choose to live there anyway. There are laws in other countries that contradict my beliefs, I would not choose to live in those countries.

Ok.

Do you think a country should actively inform potential immigrants that certain aspects of their religioun or culture are not welcome in the host country?

Like we post health warnings on a pack of cigarettes?

In other words, would it make a bit of difference?

But seriously - if it's that big a deal to you, you ought to be pro-active in deciding where to live.

Edited April 17, 2006 by rebeccajo