Well said David, "spotto ono"

My recent "mantra" has been to draw peoples attention to those very things which fuel such actions as you have abundantly referred to, which are the 'culture of defending' the Islamic message and messenger with military, political and "legal" means.

This was summed up beautifully by my debating adversary Fellow Human (bless his kindly heart though :) when he said:

"as soon as the muslims became strong enough to DEFEND themselves,..."

(Referring to Mohammed beginning military raids on the Quraish and others who opposed him.) Interesting spin on 'defend' :) but the problem is that as whether the 'doctrine' advocates 'defensive' OR offensive actions, defense can always been spun to include pre-emptive attacks, as mohammed proved.

The abysmal lack of clear thinking going on with many posters is a serious concern.

How many of us would justify the almost religious ferver inherrant in many of the 'Neo Nazi white supremacist' movements simply because the founder said and did some very nice/compassionate/wise/altruistic things ?

NONE ! (exCEPT those who are IN that movement) what the rest of us do is "Look at the LIFE, of the founder and then interpret the message in terms of mass murders, concentration camps, invasions of other countries, slave labor racial supremacy ideas etc... its because of THESE things, that we reject the WHOLE of the ideas/doctrines/teaching of such movements, because we know that at the heart of it, eventually, the rough end of the stick will be shoved down our throats. We do NOT allow ourselves to brush over those things simply because of a few kind words or actions by the founder.

Islamic Invasions began at Yarmuk in Syria in 636,then Eqypt, Spain and almost France and had it not been for Charlemaigne at Tours in 732, we would ALL be speaking Arabic now. Then there were the Ottomans, and the remnants of their handiwork in Bosnia, the Caucasus etc (And we are told 'Islam did not spread by the sword' :)

Does anyone but the GB's hear anything other then blar,blar,blar.
What's the matter DB will they not let you into hillsong? show them your stock portfolio maybe they will change their minds. Mr Palmer no one cares the laws were brought in for the exact reason that they have been used for in this instance. If a Christian fundamentalist gives a talk about evolution you can bet it's not to advance scientific debate on the subject.

Thank you David for writing this perceptive and accurate information.
The Age and Herald Sun decline to print my letters relating the Catch the Fire case to current activities by some Muslims.
Perhaps the newspapers don't want to be the subject of a complaint of 'religious vilification!
During the hearing Judge Higgins was told about the activities of Sheik Omran and IISCA, and witnesses told him these fundamentalists were active in Melbourme, but still he found that 'fundamentalism' wasn't practised in Melbourne!

Mind you, Judge Higgins was also told (by witness Dr Mark Durie) that the Islamic Council itself had been selling/recommending a book by Pakistani Islamic militant Mawdudi, considered by some to the 'original mastermind'* of the jihadi movement and al Qaeda 40 years ago...
[*See Iranian commentator Amir Taheri, "And this is why they did it" writing in The Times, 8 July 2005
At http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html ]

Much of what the pastors said in the seminar or newsletter related to FUTURE activity - and as David Palmer so eloquently describes, we have a plethora of current activities that proves them right.

Religious vilification laws close down debate - because no one wants to be seen as 'nasty' and they certainly don't want to go to jail.
BUT the reality is that everyone still thinks what they thought before, and talks about it to friends and sympathetic colleagues - and the debate is pushed underground to fester before exploding as it did in the British race riots.

On the other hand the British authorities have been tolerant of Islamic groups that may have seemed radical and did nothing to control the growing extremism simmering under the surface.In fact by promising British Muslims a religious hatred law they offer appeasement that will only exacerbate the problems.
We need open and honest debate.
We need to get rid of the religious vilification law that restricts open discussion of religious ideas.
PS .... have you ever wondered why NO countries have 'political vilification' laws?
Jenny Stokes
Research Director
Salt Shakers www.saltshakers.org.au
For full details of the Catch the Fire case, see
http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/265

Boaz, for a moment I felt as though I might agree with your position on this, until I realised that you are exhibiting exactly the symptoms of the disease you rail against.

The law is bad, and should be repealed in its entirety. It can only inflame feelings and exacerbate divisions, it cannot resolve issues or right wrongs. That is what makes it bad law. Imagine, if you can, what would be the reaction if you were to make a formal complaint under the legislation against some public comment by a religious group you happened to disagree with (assuming of course there is one). What right would be upheld, what damage would be alleviated? None. Your sense of self-righteousness would be boosted for a while, and then you'd go on the hunt to uncover some other perceived slight on your particular brand of religious posture.

Your triumphalist "I told you so" post above illustrates this well, I think.

At least, I'm pretty sure it does, if only I could understand where it went after the "my recent mantra" comment.

To Boaz.

While depicting the murderous things the early Moslems achieved there were also the harmonious and progressive. Most cruel scenarios you write about were probably the actions of the desert Arabs who were virtually brought up in their ignorance mostly to capture maim and kill.

But remember early Islam also contained the kernel of the world's intellect in Mesopotamia and Egypt, which also contained much wisdom and understanding inherited from Alexander's ancient Greeks. In your history books, read about the Great Library of Alexandria.

I have already posted a brief history of Moslem scholars passing on Aristotelian intellect to Peter Abelard around 1000 AD, then later on to St Thomas Aquinas. In its simplicity it was called "the search for enquiry" or the "light of Reason" rather than faith. From it grew the Rennaissance, the Reformation, the ages of reason and enlightment. In fact, it has been suggested that Socratic philosophy with its wisdom and understanding could still get our world out of the mess it is now in. Socrates had a term, out with the Gods and in with Good, maybe we should all think deeply about what he meant.

George C - Bushbred

All the commentary from Muslim apologists I hear for the defence of their religion, "a religion of peace" avoids the question if asked if they know any Muslim person preaching hate or intending terrorism. Their plea of ignorance and excuse comes with, "well Christians also commit terrorist acts". As though one act of bastardery deserves another equally as vile. Is it that they actually support such acts? If such persons occupy responsible teaching positions in educational bodies or any of the Christian Churches in Australia they would be fully exposed and publicly excommunicated. Name one person, in the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church that would dare to turn a blind eye to someone planning a London type bombing? It is not happening! But it is certainly happening in the Muslim community in London.

I have attended lectures by the two Pastors and have never heard them propose acts of violence - yet Victorias Muslim Council classifies them as religious extremists. The Muslim community fail to expose talk of violence within their own community against Israel and America. They demonstrate extremist hatred against these two democratic Nations, and incite hatred. Their concept of Peace is not coexistence but the annihilation of all difference, and all subject to shari'ah law.

Until we hear them stand for principles above the pride of their religion our nation will not be secure.
1. All persons are equal apart from their religion before the State and God.
2. Democracy means assimilation and not segreation into tribal clans.

3. They begin to expose those preaching hate of any person or nation.

Generally speaking Muslim legal activists are intolerant to our way of life and personal freedoms. That is the reason they cannot tolerate Daniels' exposure that within Islam there are terrorists that are supported by the religion.