Re: Asslifters = Personas non grata in the Land Down Under

Mathias Donien wrote:
> docremington wrote:
> > Mathias Donien wrote:
> >>TUKA wrote:
> >>>On 2005-11-24, Mathias Donien <usenet_trash@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>I do not like Sharia law but to prohibit voluntary use of it is wrong.
> >>>
> >>>Excuse me? You mean that I can or should be able to set up my own set of
> >>>laws that contradict the state's laws?
> >>
> >>Yes, absolutely. The only legitimate set of laws is that which I agree
> >>to prior any business takes place.
> >
> > Then the sharia-thumpers may find it convincing enough to leave
> > Australia for sharia places, no doubt, enlightened.
>
> Who can rightfully order them to do so?
>


The owner of the place, naturally.

> >>>The reason for a law is to encourage good behavior and prevent bad
> >>>behavior and thereby advance the social good as seen by the people
> >>>framing the law.
> >>
> >>Exactly. But different people have different ideas about what qualifies
> >>for good behaviour or bad behaviour.
> >
> > All the more reason for sharia-thumpers to stay home, that is, in their
> > places of origin, otherwise they may be mighty misunderstood.
>
> Who can rightfully order someone to stay in this or that place? Nobody
> actually. I only can legitimately prohibit someone to step onto my
> property if I own a piece of land but not more.

So can a government.

> >>Therefore people who frame a law or
> >>a rule need to come to a consensus.
> >
> > Sharia-thumpers did not participate, to the extent of my knowledge,
> > either in forming of the country, or its legal base.
>
> I do not see why this is of any relevance.

Maybe that is why Germany is Germany and not Bahrein?

> You can set the rules on your
> own piece of land.

That is why there exists a sharia-thumping Saudi Arabia.

> Another one may set different rules on their own
> property.

That is why Germany does not thump sharia.

> Anybody who claims to be "the government" cannot do this
> legitimately.

Happens anywhere.

> >>>In particular, apostasy is an abomination. That prohibits freedom of religion.
> >>>And you think it should be allowed in Australia. Geesh.
> >>
> >>Only for those who apply that to themselves and leave others out of it.
> >
> > Muslim killing of, or otherwise inflicting bodily damage on muslim
> > apostates is OK then.
>
> Only if they voluntarily agreed to such terms. Anything else would be a
> crime.

And who decides whether it is a crime or not? Haven't we just
delegitimized "the government"?

.