Saturday, February 25, 2006

Outbreak of Sanity

Australia seems to be the only sane spot on the planet these days.

The plain talk is impressive and bracing.
Adopt Our Values or Go Home, Foreign-Born Muslims Told

(CNSNews.com) - Australian Muslims already unhappy with Prime Minister John Howard's criticism about Islamic radicalism are bristling at even tougher comments from the man likely to succeed him, who says any Muslim immigrant who can't accept Australian values should leave.

Anyone wanting to live under Islamic law (shari'a) might feel more comfortable living in countries where it is applied, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, federal Treasurer Peter Costello said in an address to the Sydney Institute, a think tank.
...
Costello said that anyone "who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship."
...
"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objection to those values, don't come to Australia."
...
Costello, who is widely expected to take over the leadership of Howard's conservative Liberal party within the next couple of years, said anyone applying for citizenship who rejects the notion of living under a democratic legislature and obeying the laws it makes, poses a threat to the rights and liberties of others, and should be refused citizenship.

If foreign-born Muslims who have already become Australian citizens, having not been able honestly to take the citizenship pledge, they should be stripped of their Australian nationality if they also have citizenship of some other country.
...
Costello's comments come amid a debate over earlier ones by Howard, who criticized a radical minority of Muslims whom he said "rave on about jihad" and hold "extreme attitudes" towards women.
This is all so obvious, yet too few are saying it.

This is a great start!

5 Comments:

Anonymous Bob.Pgh said...

The United States of America also practices such sanity in that it requires naturalized citizens to declare on oath that they will not only support and defend the Consitution and laws of the United States but also bear true faith and allegiance to them.

Witness the oath from the web site of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance
to the United States of America

Oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

9:57 PM, February 25, 2006  
Blogger RDS said...

The Australians are going much further. Simpy taking the oath doesn't mean anything, if adherence is not enforced.

Costello is proposing, bluntly, to enforce the terms of Australia's oath. His position is that advocacy of the islamic sharia system, which rejects man-made law, is on its face incompatible with their oath, and thus such people must be stripped of their naturalization as having lied when taking the oath, or should not be allowed to even apply in the first place.

It's refreshing to see someone still believe that words have actual meaning.

I would only say we are practicing the same sanity if we actually hold potential citizens who advocate sharia to the terms of the oath. Otherwise it is a formality without substance.

We do that to naturalized citizens who lied about being associated with the Nazi party, so we should certainly do the same for those who lie about believing in our Constitutional system, certain fundamental axioms of which are not open to further debate (i.e. the Bill of Rights can't be voted away, by any majority, no matter how large).

12:32 AM, February 26, 2006  
Blogger RDS said...

To elaborate, it is vital to note that islam is a political system as well as a "religion."

For example, the Montreal Muslim News has a response to Peter Costello's comments:

Calling on Muslim to embrace western values, or in this case Australian values, is merely coded speech calling on us to leave our faith. For believing Muslims our set of values are based on the Quran and the noble example of the prophet Muhammad. If we look deeply into the sickness of what passes for “western values” one can see why we choose Allah over human made systems of morality and conduct.

Allah unambigously says in the Holy Quran:

“O you who believe, obey Allaah and obey His Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allaah and the Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences.” (4:59)

“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the disbelievers.” (5:44)

“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45)

“And he who does not rule by what Allaah sent down, it is they who are the rebellious.” (5:47)"


Fundamental rejection of Western values couldn't be clearer. These beliefs are irreconcilable.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=0840

12:46 AM, February 26, 2006  
Anonymous Bob.Pgh said...

Right, if people take the oath upon naturalization and later advocate the sharia system, then there is a clear basis for deporting them and we should do so.

Like the Australians, however, we have the problem of how to deal with native-born citizens who might advocate the sharia system.

8:16 PM, February 27, 2006  
Blogger RDS said...

Indeed. Luckily, I think the odds that the native-born would advocate such a thing are much lower. At this point, the desire for sharia does not strike me as having arisen indigenously, but seems to be imported from overseas -- perhaps most strongly via the Saudi-funded madrassas of Pakistan. Cutting off these messengers should reduce the numbers of home-grown converts to insignificant numbers.

I hope.

8:46 PM, February 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home