Surely the time to review muslim immigration is now. The promised seemless arrival of muslims in Western countries hasn’t been realized. It seems whole forests have been cut down just to provide enough paper to record their activities. Firstly they wanted to know why we had no mosques. Since then their fault finding has turned up the inappropriateness of clothing worn by our women; our failure to attend Friday prayers; the way we slaughter our animals; our religion; the religion of other groups; freedom; our system of government; and so much more. Now they want their own political party. All this throws up the question ‘just what contribution can muslims make to multiculturalism’?

It should be mandatory for all muslims to study the arrival in Australia of people from Spain or Estonia or Peru. Such groups have arrived in Australia without causing a ripple. Those groups are the paradigm of ‘seemless immigration’. We don’t even know how many Estonians live in Australia. However, we are reminded at regular intervals about the number of muslims in Australia.

It is apparent that muslims and life in the West are immiscible

Once I looked up the word immiscible I agreed with you. All Muslim writtings send a clear undeniable message. The aim of Islam is to take over the would. We non-muslims have three options.

1. Fight and be killed
2. Convert to Islam
3. Surrender and live in servitude to Islam.

I am more than happy for it to be proven that this is not the case. However, the more I study Islam the more I come to realise that those so called "radical extremist muslims" are acctually a refection of the true islam.

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”

Sage - "All this throws up the question ‘just what contribution can muslims make to multiculturalism’?"

Better ask what contribution Muslims can make to Australia. The answer is 'none'.

But they have caused more division and social problems than any other immigrant group in Australia's history with their high level of crime and violence, their continual demands for special treatment and their religious hatred and bigotry against Australia and Australians.

Before anyone states the usual - 'All Muslims arent like this' - so what? Radicals have the power and I dont see too many 'moderates' challenging the status quo.

Give Muslims more political power in Australia? Lets commit mass suicide instead, its quicker and probably less painful.

Hilalli is smarter than he looks.

He so cleverly throws a grenade knowing damn well that the reaction will get him free exposure and initiate discussion.

The discussion now will be "who" would lead Muslims in the next election and NOT do Muslims have a legitimate right to call their cult a religion under Australian law - when all the facts and evidence prove Islam to be anti-secular, anti-Australian, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and definately dangerous to our social fabric and national security.

Well done Sheikh - avoiding core issues by smoke blinding the media with "trivial quotes from the Qur'an" and stupid tasteless remarks about Australian values.

The article shows that the chasm between Islam and main stream Australia is widening. Muslims are digging themselves deeper into oblivion. If not for our democratic system and tolerant society – they would be all deported onto an island, shot for treason, and in jails.

Australian may be blasé about their political future BUT they recognise rat when they smell one…

'All Muslims arent like this'

That's right, The ones who are not like this are the ones who have not read the Koran.

By the way you will notice that when Muslims comment on the ranting of "radical clerics" they say that his comments were "ill informed" or "unfortunate". They don't acctually say that the clerics commenst were "wrong" or "not true" or "not what we belive"

For a good understanding of what Islam teaches visit http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

This is what has been allowed into our once peaceful country, all the bigotry and hatred of the Middle East right in our own backyard. Happy, Paul Keating and Malcolm Fraser? May you both burn in hell.

Bomb threat to Arabic newspaper

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bomb-threat-to-arabic-newspaper/2007/01/24/1169518718734.html

AN ARABIC newspaper in Sydney says it fears its office will be blown up after a man claiming to represent al-Qaeda in Australia left a threatening telephone message.

The man was apparently reading from a script when he left the message for the editor-in-chief of al-Furat, Hussein Khoshnow, 10 days ago. ASIO and the police are investigating the message....

"Every Iraqi Kurd and Shiite in Australia will be butchered."

Given the level of hysteria & hoo-haa these days Isn’t a representative muslim voice in our democracy a good thing? It probably won't be Hilali's, but that's not what the author is about, is it?

Since “Muslims also have the same entitlement as anyone else to pursue religiously identified politics”, the “generating [of] further distrust of Muslims” can only come from those already somewhat paranoid. Sure, we all “wonder what special interests a Hilali-endorsed candidate might pursue.” Just as surely we will find all this out before the election.

“On some issues, Iraq being the most obvious example, mainstream political thought is moving closer to the position held by many Muslims. “ Hmm. Nothing to do with flagging public support for Iraq, then, or the fact it was a really dumb idea to start with? What other examples spring to mind? Can’t think of any myself. Perhaps the author could elaborate.

“Hilali and his spokesman Kayser Trad…” I reckon that’d be news to HIM.

“Hilali is a divisive figure among Muslims, let alone in the general community. Given the intensely negative reaction to Hilali's recent utterances, no candidate strongly associated with him could hope to win”

True, true, and true. He’s got no chance. Still, his candidacy gives panic merchants like the author an opportunity to create further distrust and fear.
I think he/she will find OLO is an ideal starting point.

I read where there are something like 240 different ethnic groups in Australia. If each group were permitted to put a party into Parliament , it would certainly create an interesting stew.
If one ethnic group are allowed, wouldn't it be discrimination not to allow all the others?
That really would be 'multiculture!
It wouldn't be Australia but then that should please a lot of Aussie haters.

Mickijo,

Each ethnic group IS permitted to put a party into parliament.
Ain't democracy a bitch?

Oh proverbs stop it,
why cant u take an analytical approach to the issue rather than a fundamentalist approach. What we need is another period of enlightenment such as the 18th century enlightenment movement, which was a period where humankind was set free from superstition, and radical thinkers and was a process that encouraged the development of a pluralist perspective.
Religion in no part explains or predicts human affairs, in the same way Marxism was not able to predict political crisis, stock market crashes or sociological trends. The Quoran as well as the Bible are nothing but grand narratives, which is reflective in the fact that Islamic societies are no more homogeneous than our own Western Christian counterparts.
Yes perhaps its true that some facets of the Muslim faith could do with modernisation, which is an honest reflection made by Zauddin Sardar 'our recent past, that is the last four centuries, and our present, I submit, do little credit to the ideals of Islam; still less do they reflect the civilisation that was once the pace setter of humanity' but this change will have to come from within Islam itself, and believe me, id suspect that given the chance Christian fundamentalism would move toward theocracy (as we are witnessing in small degree within America).
I agree with Shakira Hussein's article, but i also believe that "Meaningful dialogue with other religions cannot exist if you cannot tell the difference between legitimate critisism and disagreement on the one hand, or unfounded prejudice and hostility on the other" (Runnymede Trust Report, 2004)

Wow. Some you guys never miss an opportunity for some good ole incoherent muslim-bashing.

It would be interesting to know how traditional Australian Muslims currently vote. In my opinion, they would probably find themselves in a difficult position, torn between their conservative values and the fact that the conservatives in this country don't seem to like them very much. If this is the case, then there might actually be room for a Muslim-values-based party in Australia (as much as I dislike faith-based poltics)... hmmm, I'm thinking it would look something like Family First (although neither of them would ever admit it).

Tak - heh, excellent point. The two sides are a lot closer than either like to admit.

mickijo, any group which can raise the funds and necessary number of supporters to register a party is on the way. Then of course you need to get the numbers to win seats. In this case the issue is a faith based group rather than an ethnic group.

I'm not sure how many votes it takes to win senate seats but few ethnic or faith based parties are likely to have the numbers to get even one of them especially if their voters are spread out across a number of states or their potential voters come from a variety of backgrounds (not all christains vote for Family First).

R0bert

So, everyone in this forum accepts without question that faith and politics have the right to mix. You are all happy to have a prime minister who believes there is a superman in the sky that not only knows the thoughts, hopes and fears of every individual and cares about them personally, but he/she/it made and cares for every molecule in the universe. And this grand entity [origins unknown], not content with being lord of the universe, demands that every human on the planet bends their knee in abject adoration, performs sacrifices to it, and hates everyone who doesn’t blindly worship their god. Well I would prefer a rational person to lead my country!
Bennie… Keyser Trad is on record demanding Sharia law and the right for Muslims to stone to death homosexuals and female adulterers. Do you want him in power? Makes Tony Abbot look effete.
Mickijo… as someone else pointed out, Mohammedanism is a religion, not an ethnicity, just as Jewishness is religious, not ethnic… this is where they confuse you. It’s religion pure and simple.
There is a solution to the impending conflagration: get a Constitution that declares Australia to be a Secular State in which religion and religion based political parties have no part whatsoever. Otherwise, we’ll be a theocracy before you realise without the safeguards built into the U.S.A. constitution. They’re in deep religious poo at the moment, but they will be able to climb out – we won't!

Can someone please explain to me how a politicaly charged group like Islam (disguised as a religion of sort) - with such irreconcilable values to Australia, undermining our society and threatening our national security - could be allowed to exist here let alone compete in the leadership of this country?

This is far beyond democracy – it fringes on lunacy.

Any thoughts RObert?

I really don't know what the fuss is all about. We've had overtly Christian candidates, politicians and political parties for years (e.g. Festival of Homophobes, Fundies First, Tony Abbott etc). Seems to me that fundamentalist Muslims are only slightly sillier and more hateful to than their Xian counterparts.

I'd like to see all the religious hocus pocus confined to churches, mosques etc - but hey, it's a free country.

Or is it?

just to make a point a political party in NSW needs to be one year old before it can nominate people for parliament.

Therefore they will have to be independants, so lets look at that are they really independant no

there agenda is islam anything else.

Let Hilali run as a candidate in Lakemba.We will then kmow where we all stand in terms of extremists being very small in number.

I reckon Hilali would get at least 30% support from Muslims in that electorate.

You're on Arjay. If any independent candidate backed by the Merry Mufti scores more than 1,000 votes against Morris Iemma, I will personally buy you a beer (at your pub of choice in Lakemba or Greenacre).

Check out Irfan Yusuf's sorry account of the fate of the last candidate backed by Hilaly at http://planetirf.blogspot.com/2007/01/hilalys-endorsement-is-poisoned-chalice.html . The Mufti's support managed a swing AWAY from his candidate.

Interesting to note that Hilaly supported a Liberal candidate. Perhaps the Liberal Party is the natural home for all religious conservatives.....

ybgirp, do you know of any way of stopping faith and politics mixing?
I'd prefer to have an option to have the country lead by someone who does not follow an ancient middle eastern shepherd god but right now there don't appear to be any serious contenders for the job. Maybe those who like those things have a greater interest in running others lives than the rest of us.

coach, "Can someone please explain to me how a politicaly charged group like the AOG (disguised as a religion of sort) - with such irreconcilable values to Australia, undermining our society and threatening our national security - could be allowed to exist here let alone compete in the leadership of this country?" good point.

Mostly because if the majority belief was set as the standard for everybody your faith would be gone along with Islam. While many australians are nominally christain only a minority take it the way you do. Should you be allowed to exist here?

I'd like to see a removal of some of the protections and exemptions religions get but not see them outlawed. Make them pay the same taxes and rates as other interest groups. Hold their teachers and leaders accountable under various government acts that bind other operators (trade practice, fair trading, medical review etc) but provided the claims they make can be reasonable backed up with reputable evidence (or carry the appropriate disclaimers) let them do their thing.

For the record I don't really think that the AOG or Islam pose a clear threat to national security.

R0bert

With Judaism or Christianity bringing religion into the realm of government would be barely noticeable since both religious expressions are inherent with in democracy. Democratic precepts are not foreign nor anathema to either religion.

On the other hand democracy is not a precept of Islam. Islam is an expression of totalitarian authority that knows no social boundary. Islam must be actively present in all social forums and institutions.
What you eat. What you wear. Where you live. How you pray. How your educated and what you are to learn. How you are policed. Your courts system. etc. etc.. Most importantly how you think. And if it is found that your thinking outside of the Islamic box immediate steps are taken to reign you in. Muslims are encouraged to ghettoize for reasons of Islamic control. Muhammad said, "any Muslim living with pagans (unbelievers) are exempt from me". Which means they are living outside of Islam and can not be trusted to be good Muslims.

The question is not whether Muslims might bring their religion into government but, rather how to stop Muslims from bringing their Islamic government into Australian politics and general government.

The author of this article is really confused. On the one hand she claims that there are many kinds of Islam. Then she makes the following profound statement:

"On some issues, Iraq being the most obvious example, mainstream political thought is moving closer to the position held by many Muslims."

What the?

RObert has a valid point when he mentions that rather than attacking culture, their "cult" or religion or whatever it is called, there needs to be closer attention to their behaviour.

This week I am really surprised that many of my progressive arts and cafe latte sipper friends are really changing their attitude on this. Not on grounds of ethnicity or religion but behaviour.

Tonight was particularly pointed as an example. We saw the photo of those horrible thugs in the Granville School "club". What did they do after their media appearance causing for concern to the police and Education Department? I can tell you. Guess!

They were at Kings Cross celebrating. I saw 9 of them. I recognised their faces. I just so happened to be at a birthday party in a cafe.

Now with my limited knowledge of Arabic, it was hard not to hear them beefing out: "Australian idiots" and calling a gay couple "Attay Allah" meaning enemy of God. They approached the table with a knife and were stopped by an irate lesbian, yes, correct spelling, not Lebanese, a woman not to cross at the Cross.

All 9 scuttled away like frightened rodents and went on to the next unsuspecting venue. I could hear sex workers out side spitting out "f#*k off towel-heads". They made a few ape sounds and disappeared.

We really do get Islamic trash in this country.

Three well-known artists I saw mentioned "I wish they would just deport those bastards" and a Greens member there said "I will never make a stand for their rights again".

Granville, its the place that finally convinced me we can not live together.
The plan to teach the world to be one is failing, those racist young men are Australians born here and tought to hate by parrents who have gained much as a result of our freedoms.
I spent part of my chilhood in a far different Granville, every family knew every one all doors open to each.
This election if such a candedate stands will only prove we are seperate.
About 5% of well meaning but lost forever non Muslims will vote for them and about 8% of the total of 13% who are Muslim will too.
How long will it be before a mainstream party , sadly likely my ALP runs a candedate from within this group?
It is near certain but why?
We can not forever turn the other cheek to such pure insults and long prison terms must come for these racists

RObert, France has been pretty successful in stopping faith interfering in politics. They have had the courage to outlaw ostentatious signs of religiosity in public – the headscarf, crucifixes, skull-caps etc. {Which attracted loud howls of condemnation from Australia!}The French government supports tolerance of all minorities and severely punishes offenders; however no candidate for elected political office would consider using his religion as a platform. Religious beliefs are not allowed as a defence for criminal acts. Spain, too has had the courage to strip the Catholic Church of its centuries old privileges and overt role in politics, and has joined France in being one of the two most ‘liveable’ countries of Europe. Australia, meanwhile, follows the cringing path it has taken for the last two hundred years – caving in to whoever shouts the loudest. First England, then the U.S.A., always Christianity, and soon Islam. This country has never been independent and never will be.
Democracy – even the watery version we have here, contains the seeds of its own destruction. It only lasts until the first politician opens his mouth, it then becomes a demagoguery.
The AOG and Islam may not pose a threat to national security, but they pose a threat to the mental wellbeing of millions of Australians.
Aqvarius, there is absolutely nothing democratic about the organisations of either Judaism or Christianity. They are hierarchical, male dominated dictatorships.
Saintfletcher… unfortunately, your latte crowd and the artists do not represent the majority. Most Australians are uninformed because the media are controlled by a few powerful men who like things as they are, and callously manipulate information to attain their ends. They are the ones who decide the outcome of Australian elections, not the puppet voters.
As long as mainstream Christian organisations are permitted to maintain or increase their annual profits of several billions of tax-free dollars, they are not going to rock the boat.

Aqvarius, there is absolutely nothing democratic about the organisations of either Judaism or Christianity. They are hierarchical, male dominated dictatorships.

ybgirp, it's aqvarivs. And what I said was that both Judaism and Christianity are inherent with in democracy. I did not say either was democratic. However The Catholic Church might argue. I believe they elect their Pope and might consider they apply democracy with in their institution while maintaining a hierarchical chain of power.

ybgirp - point taken. Keysar Trad seems to have positioned himself between the more extreme positions taken by Hilaly, and those of the wider community, in a naïve effort to paper over the gaps. Personally I think he’s out of his depth. A lot of cultural and lingual baggage accompanies Islam, and no amount of rationalising will make non-moderate Islam acceptable to Australians.

Having said that I would point out extremism is not peculiar to Islam - take a look at some of the fundie rants on other posts here. To a secularist they all sound despairingly similar.

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice to declare Australia constitutionally secular? In an ideal world one’s religion, one’s dogma, would be a personal thing and proselytising would be frowned upon.

What no one seems to realise is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a total world view that takes in every facet of life, including politics. It is the documented stand of muslims all over the world that they believe Islam to be the one true religion and that every nation on earth will eventualy come under the rule of Islam.

Muslims in Australia and overseas have made some frightening statements, such as, "jews are Pigs". Australians are Liars" The jews should be Elliminated" like a "Tumour". Muslims offended at the publication of a cartoon, chanted on the streets of London "Bomb USA, Bomb UK". The list goes on and yet I have never heard a muslim spokesman in Australia say that they do not believe this stuff. They might say that the Sheiks comments were "unfortunate" but that's about it.

Why don't Muslims protest about acts of terrorism with the same enthusiasm that they protest cartoons and anyone who speaks against them?

Yes I agree that Christianity has a lot to answer for from the PAST. However, I am talking about CURRENT Muslim attitudes and I am telling you that it is the aim of Islam to bring Islamic rule to every country on Earth and the only option Non-Muslims will have are:

1. Fight and be killed
2. Convert to Islam
3. Live in servitude to Islamic rulers under a system that would make Apatheid look like a picnic.

We only have to look at what life is like in places such as Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia or Egypt to see what we can expect under Muslim rule. In Ehypt a Christian Church cannot even repair their broken toilet without special permission from the president.

Folks we need to be aware of the agenda of Islam on this planet.

Visit www.thereligionofpeace.com and then see if you can find a LEARNED muslim to tell you that what is on that sight is not true

Proverbs,

You make some fair observations. I can't help seeing parallels however between what Muslims SAY they're going to do, and what the coalition of the willing IS doing right now, in the middle east.

In other words, how do you think a muslim living in (say) Iran would react to the proposition that "CURRENT Christian attitude...is the aim of Christianity to bring democracy to every country on Earth and the only option Non-Christians will have are..." etc. You could probably tack the same three options onto it and you'd have today's muslim condition in a nutshell.

Sure, many in the west think they're barbarian, but that's not the point. The west has relied on this over the past 60-odd years to get what they want.

No less a danger to us all than Radical Islam and its biggoted followers are the posters who will not see.
Some post saying this is a kick Muslim thread, clearly it is not.
It like others questions unAustralian biggotry and dangerous biggotry based on one faith.
Notice the constant looking back to christian missdeeds of centurys past?
Yes ALL or at least christian and Muslim faiths have done wrong but today we fight for the right to our countrys culture in the name of multi culture?

RObert,

How could the AOG church have irreconcilable values to Australia, undermining our society and threatening our national security?

What possible comparisons can you draw between any church and political Islam?

I think your emotional baggage has gotten the best of your judgment. I was hoping to get a reasonable comment from you, but alas.

Proverbs,

I have been trying for many months to draw attention to the threat of Islam – all I got is labelled as a Christian radical and out of touch with the “moderate” Muslim majority who apparently are a peaceful law abiding bunch.

Australians are much unprepared when it comes to identifying national threats. Their tolerant attitude and lack of understanding of foreign cultures makes them vulnerable to becoming besieged by dangerous regimes.

Islam as you know stands alone as a real foreign danger not only capable by determined in taking over this country. All signs and facts show this reality to be true - but only to the awakened person.

Keep up the good work and remain vigilant.

Bennie, I have friends who have fled Iraq under sadamm. They tell me that their friends and relatives still living in Iraq welcome the allies. They all say that life is much better now than it ever was. They would prefer to live in Iraq today with all its problems than to live under the rule of Sadamm or under Muslim rule in places like Iran and Syria. Those people living in Iraq today do not want the troops to leave until they are able to fend for themselves. They know they will be at the mercy of terrorists if we withdraw.

Shakira,

Honestly sheikh tag failed failed to lead, manage, integrate or even be a good example to the Muslim community.
Here is a sample, I play soccer with 15 other Mulsim youth and neither myself or any of the others like him or support his political ambitions.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
That is all very well... you may not support his political ambitions, but do you support all the teachings and comandments of the Koran? If you do, then, like fundamentalist Christians who say they support all the teachings of the Bible, you also support the overthrow of the present political system and the introduction of a religious state in which all laws will be based on the ancient rules that guided wandering desert tribes in the Middle East.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what sort of government you would like to live under.

The tail end of the article releases all the information and intent so subscribed;
The Abbott and Rudd Christian fellowship;
It would not be any surprise that within the World, there is no such thing as an Islamic Civilization; Never has, and Never will be; Islam is it self its own paradox and its own Oxymoron.

No matter how much Proletariat propaganda, it can not make Islam something it is not; a religion and a spiritual guidance- well only if you submit to the totalitarian initiative.

I would like someone now days to actually define Christian fellowship, because if I am not mistaken Modern day Christian Intellectualism is it self an Oxymoron;
They have submitted in droves to the evils of Marxism’s coercive Proletariat Lobotomization process, and resemble more in the Red ranks; common with the Communists manifesto's and Syntheses spin-off’s than biblical or Christian teachings.

Well, let’s call that Islamisation by default.

I actually wonder how many Moslems realize there were Civilizations before the Islamic Mohammedan Occupation began. And destroyed them.
Not much has changed ay , only the date.

If citizenship can be given, it should also be taken away. If citizenship is a contract where by the migrant swears to be a good citizen ,obey the laws of Australia and keeps the peace, then by his/her actions break the terms of that contract,why should that citizenship not be removed.
It should be a privilege ,not a right and it has been given away too cheaply.
We see people like Hilali, Trad ect who practically sneer at Australia and it's people. They are totally offensive and could be regarded as dangerous as they are in positions of responsibility to young people within their communities.
They are an insult and an affront to ordinary law abiding people and should have no right to be here.
If they are held as having rights to our parliament then our laws need changing.

mickijo: "If they are held as having rights to our parliament then our laws need changing."

Duh. They only have rights in our parliaments if they can attract sufficient support from the electorate to make that the case.

Otherwise, are you suggesting that we change our laws to equal something less than democracy?

What system would you suggest that is preferable? Or is it okay to reject democratic principles where Muslims are concerned?

Each time a discussion like this arises, we should be asking some more probing questions.

1. Is the incorporation of Islam into Australia, a step which is beneficial to a society such as ours?
2. If so, in what way?
3. Should we be encouraging Islam to take a more prominent role in Australia?
4. If so why? If not, why not?
5. Where in the world is Islam peaceful, beneficial, endearing, respectful of others?
6. If nowhere, then why not?

We certainly should ask some more probing questions about this relentless agenda!
And I would suggest, urgently.

Fortunately we live in a democracy and we cherish freedom of speech , allowing the Hilalis to rant and insult our intelligence.

We also have laws that govern and protect our democracy and freedom.

I strongly suggest the use of these laws against any group or individual found guilty of acting outside and against our democracy.

Clearly Islam has no place "inside" our democracy. They are citizens of the Islamic community of believers "Ummah". Australia is but the new found land for Islam. Too bad other people live here – lesser people (infidels) deserving Islam.

The last en-passant remark of Hilali: " we love Austraaalia more than anyone else..."

Translation: We have more rights to this land than anyone else.

A Muslim cannot divorce him/herself from the words of Allah who says that ALL land is His and is given exclusively to the Muslims to fight for and protect.

So when is our government going to get tough on this national threat and launch an inquiry on the legitimacy of Islam to exist in this country?

I like the idea of re-evaluating citizenship – like a driver’s licence, you break the law you lose points and eventually your licence.

The problem with that is a Muslim will lie and swear every time they are caught – and if that doesn’t work cry victim and discrimination.

The latest incident is the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool (Sydney) found guilty of promoting hatred materials and instructing Islamic youth for Jihad…

The head of the GIYC Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, said he had been put on “trial by media” for comments taken out of context and no longer relevant…

How can a series on “DEATH” videos instructing young people to kill themselves and asking their parents to nurture the love of death for the cause of Allah - be taken out of context or deemed irrelevant?

Unfortunately Politicians need votes. They will prostitute themselves and mortgage their own children to get elected. Even if this means shutting an eye on Islamic activities under their jurisdiction.

Muslims are completely incompatible with our and the western way of life. The Turks are an exception and blend in reasonably well. Most of the others especially the Lebanese and Pakistani create little Lebanon’s or Pakistanis where they isolate themselves by keeping their women under black sheets and create an in your face poorly educated underclass with a high birth-rate and well developed Centre link rorting skills.
Many of the Southern and Western Sydney electorates are corrupted by branch stacking with all sorts of less than desirable members being elected. Hilaly could be rewarded with some real power to push his agenda if he takes this further

now for those who dont want to prostitute themselves you should talk to me

I couldnt care less about votes because i care more about the people.

All you have to do is email

looking for members and candidatets for the federal election are you willing to put yourself where your mounth is.

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

C J Morgan, why should we pander to those who despise us and our values? The answer to both your questions is YES!
Democracy should be a two way street, with Muslims it is one way so there should be no appeasement , no pandering to their religious demands or wants.
They would be far better off to live in their own lands with their own laws than constantly trying to buck ours.
We do not need them.

Indeed, mickijo. I don't think we need people who put their personal bigotry above democracy and the rule of law, but I have to put up with you (and religious nutters of all persuasions) because I live in a democratic society that values personal freedom.

I don't mind all that much, because in my opinion the alternatives are far worse. Give me a liberal democracy anyday over any other system.

To return to the topic, I fail to see how "Muslim" candidates or parties are any worse than "Christian" candidates, parties and politicians. In my view, politics should be robustly secular, but it's arguable that the Christian view should be represented in parliament because a significant proportion of the electorate follows that faith. Exactly the same logic applies to Muslims.

It's called democracy, folks. Abandon it and the terrorists have won.

C J Morgan,

The view from behind your secular glasses makes you see all religions as equally annoying and irrelevant.

Your failure to differentiate between good and evil – true and false – ally and enemy, is exactly what the terrorist need to continue their infiltration in a our blind society.

As the PM reminded us recently, our Christian values and heritage are the foundation of what made this country great.

I don't agree that most Australians follow the Christian Faith. They may also not be following "another" faith, they may call themselves Catholic, Anglican, … they may even believe that God exists, but Australia is vastly secular if not anti-religious.

Islam wins every time it is lumped with "other religions" especially the real monotheistic Christianity/ Judaism. Islam has absolutely nothing in common.

Islam is a paganistic political movement invented by an Arab in Arabia. It is based on fear, intimidation, and ignorance of the true God. Islam's aim is to destroy Christianity, Judaism, …all isms including secularism, bringing the world - including Australia - under the rule of their god Allah.

Do some research before you drown in your secular neutrality.

Coach, surely you know that Judaism was the source of both Christianity and Islam? That all three monotheistic religions share the same Old Testament? The same god. The same prophets, history and stories? And it is those that are the source of fundamentalism in both Christianity and Islam. Looked at objectively, there’s not much difference between Sheik Hilali and Pat Robertson or any of dozens of hellfire TV Christian Evangelists advocating assassinations and war, both in the U.S.A. and Australia now that Australian Christians have their own TV station broadcasting these divisive and inflammatory messages.
Morality – good and evil etc., have nothing to do with religion. They are universal precepts that determine whether or not humanity survives. They have been common to all races at all times. Religions grab those that suit them and brag they are their inventions. The purpose of all religions throughout history is control – Christianity no less than any other. For what other reason do they amass such vast wealth, lobby parliamentarians and seek to have their religion represented in parliament? I have as much fear of Family First as I have of a Moslem candidate.
Democracy is not a good system of governance; however it is the only system available that is prepared to grant individual freedom; because it rests on that glorious foundation. Remove individual freedoms and you destroy our way of life. You destroy what has taken many thousands of years of sacrifice and strife to attain… a government that espouses justice for all and fairness.
Our country became what it is because of intelligent people who valued individuality and who refused to let religion dominate, because religions always persecute dissidents. We have the ‘Enlightenment’ to thank for our freedoms, not religion!

ybgirp,
You put it in a nutshell.
Democracy ain't the best system but it's all that we've got that will guarantee (sometimes !) individual freedoms.

To all and sundry,
Just be thankful however that in the past the Pope decided to interfere in Australian politics and decree that no Priest or Bishop of the Catholic Church could stand for Parliament.

Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Budhism etc are all compatible with Democracy. Islamism ain't.

cjm, We live in a democracy,muslims do not believe in democracy. Our parliament is built on democratic beliefs therefore there should be no place for the undemocratic in our parliament.
It is bad enough that we have the likes of Hilali and his opffsiders preaching opposite values to his brainwashed youthful followers. That is wrong but we must keep such people away from our law making . We do not want our democratic way of life undermined .
Too bad if you don't like it.

Proverbs,

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

*

-BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll

News-of a possible US military reduction in Iraq, beginning as early as this fall, is being met in Baghdad with the deep skepticism of a war-weary people who have witnessed many other American exit plans go unfulfilled.

*

Most Iraqis want an end to the 127,000-strong US presence, which they consider an occupation. But they are concerned, too, that Iraqi forces, while growing in size and capability, still can't cope with the insurgency and sectarian killings that have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

"I want the Americans to leave as soon as possible, so the reason to attack Iraqi troops will end, because insurgents are always accusing us of being agents and supporting these foreign troops," a first lieutenant of Iraq's Interior Ministry said Monday, while commanding a checkpoint on Baghdad's airport road.


These comments tie in with other reports coming out of Iraq, some from US researchers & some from other groups. There's plenty more but I think you get the picture. i.e. you're being had.

"Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Budhism etc are all compatible with Democracy. Islamism ain't. "

I can't think of a beter reason to keep religions & politics totally apart. Once the supporters of one superstition thinks it has the moral upper hand over supporters of another superstition, it can only get worse.

I should've inclulded this in the previous post.

Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Turkey & Yemen are all democracies, all overwhelmingly Muslim.

Indonesia's "democracy" doesn't look much like one, to most of us.

Bennie

In December,in Malaysia, Islamic authorities gave Malaysian mountain-climber M. Moorthy a Muslim burial against the wishes of his Hindu widow.

In Aceh Singkil, a church which was holding a revival meeting was burnt down on 1 September 2006 by an angry Muslim mob. This was accompanied by threats that all other churches in the area will be burnt.

In a village near Banda Aceh seven houses built by a Christian organisation for Christian victims of the 2004 tsunami cannot be occupied by the Christian families they were intended for. Local Muslims organised public demonstrations outside the houses. The same Christian organisation had built over 200 houses for Muslim victims, but only Christians were prevented from occupying their houses.

you call that democracy

ybgirp,

Sheikh Tag's view are not religious but political. He seems capable of manipulating religion and political events to create a position.
(same as Coach and Boaz:))
I am a great believer that once religion is to become a public: either a unifrom, a title, a discussion topic, then it becomes a political matter.

Answering your question, I don't support any theocratic governance or leadership. Their roles are in mosques and churches to preach good values. We have an Iranian and an American model of presidency where both believe they are inspired by God.

Yeah right!
Peace,
T

As much as we might want to seperate religion and politics it is impossible. I know that at least Judaism, Islam and Christianity talk about a God who is interested and involved in every aspect of your life. That includes birth, death, marriage, employment, politics and so-on. A Christian, Jew or Muslim in politics is going to make decisions based on his or her belief. Secular Humanism and Maxism also have religios attributes.

So if you want to know how your polititian is going to vote then you need to look at their belief system or world view. You then need to understand what that world view says about various issues.

Be carefull not to make assumtions. Many people think they can predict how a muslim of a jew or a socialist might vote on certain issues. Study the options. you may be surprised at the hiden agenda some people have.

Tennyson,
Nor does Singapore’s. But you get that.

Proverbs,
Are you seriously surprised Banda Aceh has problems maintaining the rule of law? Or was this was a government initiative? Mosques (and churches for that matter) in NSW have been vandalised; our government knowingly sends refugee applicants back to their country of birth to undergo forced abortions, perhaps death; a mob of Sydney youths assault a group of fellow citizens in broad daylight because they look different; a small Sydney community campaigned long, hard and dirty to prevent a place of worship being built near their suburb, for the simple reason it was to be called a mosque, not a church. These instances and yours are newsworthy for good reason. Doubtless if we troll through enough newspapers and anecdotal reports we can engage in sophistry at 20 paces.

The assertion was made, “Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Budhism (sic) etc are all compatible with Democracy. Islamism ain't.” I appreciate why casual observers of this site think this - but is it true?

Interesting point you’ve made about the separation of religion & politics. In some countries (such as the US) political candidates combine them to garner votes. From that point it’s usually a matter of who’s holier than thou - and for atheists, that’s everybody - which is why, against all the odds, not one US senator or member of congress has declared themselves an atheist. But once the cat’s out of the bag…well, do we really want to go that way? Hopefully the electorate will continue to regard such political posturing with healthy scepticism

I can tell you that it is almost certain, that while the Indonesian government may deny any involvement, they are well aware of what is happening. Just as they were well aware of what went on in East Timor after independence. The Australian Government has been monitoring the Indonesian government for years and they are also well aware of what the Indonesian government is allowing and instigating, but diplomacy does not allow any of this to come out. (I have reliable sources)

I suggest you do some careful research and try and find out for yourself what life is like under a Muslim government.

Is it true that:
It is against the law to change your religion.
A woman of any age must have a male as a legal guardian.
It is not permitted for a non-Muslim to have a larger house than a Muslim.
The word of a Non-Muslim does not hold up in court over the word of a Muslim
people may not build or even repair churches, synagogues, temples or any other non-Muslim place of worship.

Have you noticed how what was once the ravings of “Muslim fanatics” are now becoming more commonplace and those who say Islam is a religion of peace, seem to be in the minority
Go to http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24018_Dispatches-_Undercover_Mosque&only

And view a program about a guy who went undercover and attended a mosque in Englan

Proverbs,

I've done a little wikiresearch, and found the Indonesian constitution "...states that all citizens are equal before the law. [It] details the human rights guaranteed to all, including:

the right of children to grow up free of violence and discrimination
the right of all to legal certainty
the right to religious freedom
the right to choose education, work and citizenship as well as the right to choose where to live
the right of assembly, association and expression of opinion
the right to be free from torture

Citizens also have "the rights not to be tortured, to have freedom of thought and conscience, of religion, to not be enslaved, to be recognized as an individual before the law ...Finally, every person is obliged to respect the rights of others.

"The nation is based on belief in God, but the state guarantees religious freedom for all."

It says nothing about not allowing churches to be built, but judging from the above that's no surprise. Then again, all the above might be utter crap. Perhaps your little birdie could confirm this?

The video? England, it's immigration program and the radical Muslims living there sure do have a problem. I'm against all forms of indoctrination, but particularly the religious type. There's a saying about this, isn't there? Once again, Wiki to the rescue -

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

I understand what the Indonesian constitution says but the reality is that all citizens are not equal under Indonesian law. For example an Indonesian of Chinese heritage (even forth or fifth generation) such as those found in the city of Manado in North Sulewese do not have the same legal rights as an Indonesian with Indonesian Ancestry.

Seeing as how everyone is getting on the Richard Dawkins (God Delusion) bandwagon and pointing out all the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion maybe it is worth considering the following.

Muslims invented:
Inoculation technique
Fountain pen
Soap
Windmill
Crankshaft
Distillation

Christians invented:
Electric light
The gramophone
Air conditioner
Westers dictionary

Christians established:
Harvard University
Yale University
Princton University
Oxford University
Canbridge University
Websters Dictionary

Explorers.
Vasco Da Gama
David Livingstone Missionary explorer
Magellan
Columbus

If you read the biographies of these people you will see that many of them were motivated by their faith to do what they did. I agree that religious people have a lot to answer for but I also believe the good done by men and women of faith far outweighs the evil

Proverbs,

I think evaluating faith in this manner could lead to all types of not-very-useful conclusions. Everything we see around us was invented by someone, somewhere, while some things were invented more than once by different people in different eras. Love to know who invented spam though.

I’ve been pointedly interrupting a number of recent threads here, in light of increasing focus being paid to religious beliefs as well as a surprising (but inevitable?) spurt of rhetoric, hidden agenda and self-righteousness arising directly from the accidents of birthplace and upbringing. Or as I put it elsewhere, indoctrination. How many zillions of words are going to be written before it’s realised that without common ground we’re not going to get past stage 1? I’m not talking about a particular belief or brand of zealotry, but the whole shebang about competing faiths.

This discussion began when someone witness the first sunrise, and wondered, and came up with an answer, and invented the first deity. We realise now, of course, how wrong they were, and smile knowingly.
At which point I invoke the word “conceit”. The debate rages today. Is it any different? Call me when you reach a consensus, yeah?

No, the point I’m making is that your position is much easier to defend when it’s tangible. There are more than 20 religions with half a million+ adherents, and another 4300-odd smaller churches (http://www.adherents.com), each with their own particular brand of salvation. And here’s everyone on OLO with their heads buried in their navels having a (god-sanctioned) gripe at those infernal infidels! Can you believe this? If it wasn’t such a waste of time and intellect it’d be funny.

I’ve read the emails and visited the links and yes, the imams in England are hateful, the evangelists on American radio are ignorant, and the rants on late-night talkback are….the predictable result.

BBC radio last week reported Livingstone was a bumbler who managed to convert ONE native…for three months. Now that's funny.

Richard Dawkins came about 2000 years too late, I’m thinking

Bennie
My point is that despite those who say Religion is a curse on the planet, there is enough evidence to suggest that it is not as bad as Richard Dawkins Et Al make out.

There is no such thing as neutral education, politics etc. We all have a particular set of paradigms through which we view life and it does not have to involve the supernatural to be religious. Secular Humanists declared themselves to be a religion. Marxists pursued their goals with a religious fervour and there is almost a religious zeal about Richard Dawkins assertion that there is no God (which he can't prove any more than I can prove there is a God).

Everyone has an opinion. My concern is that there are those who are willing to sue or even kill those who disagree with them.

I may disagree with what people do or say but I try to separate a persons action and opinion from the individual. Everyone person is a valuable, worthwhile and deserving of respect. So why is it when I disagree with Homosexual ACTIVITY then I get called a bigot, a homophobic and any number of negative terms. If I disagree with Islam I run risk of being sued or having my life threatened.

I don't seem to have these problems when I disagree with other religions or political persuasions.

I see nothing wrong with healthy debate, lobbying government or peaceful demonstrations, but it's gone too far when people decide to personally attack those who disagree.

Two pastors hold a seminar in which they preach love and respect for Muslims. They quote from the Koran to illustrate the danger of some of Islam’s beliefs. They are charged with religions vilification because Muslims who were deliberately planted in the seminar with a view to gathering incriminating evidence set them up.

Its interesting how many Muslim clerics (shepherds of the flock) are now saying things that cerify the two pastors warnings

Richard Dawkins is entitled to his opinion but his call to ban religion is a call to ban freedom of thought

Bennie, what you write is correct. Humans have invented more than 20,000 different religions over the last 100,000 years or so. Every religious adherent today rejects 19,999 of them. You and I simply reject one more than they do.
It is a total waste of time and effort to treat indoctrinated, brainwashed religious people as rational. That part of their brain has been excised when it comes to religion. Better by far to ignore them completely because they are unable to think outside their dogma. If ignored they might stop trying to convert everyone on sites such as this.

Proverbs,

You’re right in saying there’s nothing wrong with healthy debate, lobbying government or peaceful demonstrations, but that it's gone too far when people decide to personally attack those who disagree. In fact I agree with most of what you’ve said. Does Dawkins really call for a ban on religion? I think that’s unrealistic. I simply want believers to acknowledge their personal beliefs (whether in god or allah or buddha or the flying spaghetti monster) are theirs and theirs alone.

You’re also right to say Richard Dawkins cannot prove there is no god. The salient point here is he’s not the one espousing supernaturalism.

Thanks for your comments Bennie.

I agree, my faith is my own. However, it became my own when someone talked to me about their faith and I made it my own. A lot of us are grateful that someone took the time to talk about their faith with us. I have friends who were drug addicts, suicidal, alcoholics, prostitutes and so on. They all say that believing in a God who is personal and who cares about them saved their life. It gave them a sense of purpose, destiny and a reason to live.

If I am on the wrong track I hope there are those will NOT keep their opinion to themselves.

Ybgirp’s post proves your point about personal attacks.

He knows nothing about me and yet assumes that because I hold to a particular point of view, I must be mentaly deficient, irrational, and have been brainwashed and indoctrinated.

Ybgirp also seems to suggest that anyone is free to share their opinion on this site but when Christians do it they are trying to convert people.

A debate is nothing more that two people trying to convert each other into accepting their point of view. It could even be said that you are trying to convert people into believing there is no God.

That’s fine, you are free to do that and I don’t have a problem with you doing it.

I have often seen Christians singled out and come under personal attack (eg ybgirp’s post) because they dare express their opinions.

People express opinions everyday.

So, is it just me or do christians seem to get criticised a lot more than anyone else for expressing an opinion.

It makes me wonder what is so threatening about the Christian message that gets people so personal and nasty and start making unfounded accusations about someone’s mental capacity?

If we are comfortable with our position then we should have no problems debating it. I say, bring it on.

Can’t we share our differences without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. Who knows, we may learn somethin

Oh, come on, Proverbs... If I insisted there was a little old invisible woman living under the Sydney Harbour bridge who could read the minds of every human on the planet and could influence their behaviour, at the same time keeping the entire universe [which she had made] on track, the stars in their constellations and the planets in their orbits... would you believe me? I think you would first poitely ask me for proof, and then, when I couldn't provide any, would say I was seriously deluded.
And yet my story is not one jot different from the one you believe, so you shouldn't be surprised if rational people doubt your sanity.

“Is it just me or do christians seem to get criticised a lot more than anyone else for expressing an opinion?” Fair question. One muslims might also be entitled to ask. What opinions DO Christians have? Is their worldview consistent with what is taught in the bible?

It isn’t enough to call oneself a Christian or muslim or Buddhist or whatever if it only provides a platform for intolerance. For sure, “If we are comfortable with our position then we should have no problems debating it. I say, bring it on.” What I don’t get, is how some people seem comfortable when they’re clearly very sick.

"........my story is not one jot different from the one you believe, so you shouldn't be surprised if rational people doubt your sanity."

".....how some people seem comfortable when they’re clearly very sick."

Your story does not compare in the slightest

We are NOT talking about an invisible old lady living under a bridge. We are talking about a historical figure. There is more credible documentation to prove the esistence of Jesus than there is to prove the existance of Plato.

We are talking about a religion that has grown from 120 people gathered in a room after their leader had died to more than 2 Billion believers world wide in the last 2000 years.

We are talking about a religion embraced by some of histories greaters scholors, scientist, inventors, explorers, statesmen musicians and the list goes on.

We are talking about a religion that thrived despite severe persecition by the communists in the Soviet Union and Other Eastern block countries. China now has an estimated 80 million Christians despite continued and well documented persecution. Why would people willingly sacrifice their life rather than deny their faith?

Maybe there is a little more to this than you think. After all do you know everything there is to know? Is there really nothing greater than ourselves? Frankly it would take more faith for me to believe, for example, that something as complex as the human eye simply happend to evolve without intelligent design or intervention. Normally anything left to its own resources deteriorates not improves (just look in your fridge).

With a third of the worlds population refering to themselves as Christian I would suggest that those who consider Christians to be mentally unstable are acctually in the minority.

In fact more than 90% of the world population adhere to a religion of some sort. Then again maybe there is nothing out there and everyone is deluded except for a select handfull who think the rest of us are fruitcakes

Look at the state of the world, Proverbs... overpopulation, global warming, and the destruction and desecration of humanity's sole means of survival -- the biosphere from which we evolved. And when you've stopped to think a little, ask yourself whether the humans who are fouling their own nest and causing their own extinction can be sane. Then understand that for the most part, the countries that caused this horror have been ruled by christians. Do any bells ring? Don't you wonder if people who believe in omnipotent supermen in the sky should be permitted to rule the planet?
By the way... there are no historical records of christianity's Jesus or his miracles that would be accepted in any court. The Romans, who kept records of everything, do not mention such a fellow. It is inconcievable that his exploits could escape some mention. there were, and still are, hundreds of blokes called Jesus, but none to whom supernatural powers have ever been reliably attributed by eyewitnesses.

Historical (non-christian) evidence that Jesus existed and performed miricles

Roman historian Josephus (.93 C.E.)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.

Pliny the Younger c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."

Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."

The state of the planet can also be traced back to people who wear cloths or eat meat or have hair.

If you are so concerend about the impact of religion on world then why not go and gather some real evidence to support your case.

Proverbs, All your 'quotes' are hearsay, written from one to two hundred years after the purported event! Check the Roman records from Jerusalem from 30BCE to 1CE and see what you find... Zero!

The reason why Christians opinions are so depised is because the Light came into the world but men loved darkness more. Truth exposes the error. Whether it is the fallacy of evolution or the killing of unborn babies people don't like to face up to their own sinfulness. Many god haters are happy to appease Islam because along with humanisn it is a false religion. They hate Christ simply because He spoke the truth. People also know that one day they will face judgement but prefer not to think about it or deny it. The good news is that while you are still alive you have the opportunity to repent and turn to the only One who can save your soul.

Jesus was a relativley insignificant character and not really worth writing about during his lifetime.

The gospels were written by people who knew jesus first hand. Assuming they exagerated what he did. If they they made up a fictitious character, then why are there no reports from that era refuting his existence. Why not say they were visited by an angel like those who started mormanism? Its a lot harder to disprove

After Christianity grew so rapidly historians started recording details about Jesus. Some of those who wrote about him acctually despised the Christians and had nothing to gain be perpetuating a lie. They never denied his existance.

Jesus died between 29AD and 36AD. Josephus was born in 37AD and wrote about Jesus in 93AD, 56 years after his death. Other mentions of Jesus came 80 to 100 years after his death. It would have been very easy for any of those writers to find local records and individuals to verify what they wrote. Just because their sources are not around 2000 years later does not mean that they did not exist at the time.

It is hard to imagine that people from various backgrounds (including supporters and opponents) would collaberate to make false statements about stuff that happened 50 to 90 years ago and there not be on single document renouncing those reports?.

Try making up a story about a guy who lived 50 to 100 years ago, who traveled the country performing miraicles, raising the dead and healing the sick. Who was killed by the local authorities who confirmed his death, supervised his burial and put an 24 hour armed guard on the grave. Dispite this he was reported to have risen from the dead three days later and was seen by thousands over a six week period. Now try presenting that as fact and posting it on Wikipedia. How long would it take before we saw all sorts of documents and first hand reports from people in the area saying it never happened and the person never existed?

Pericles
True, Jesus was a minor character and not really worth writing about during his lifetime.

Also true, the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus.

However, Assuming the writers of the New Testament did exaggerate events or even made up a fictitious character called Jesus, then why are there no reports from that era refuting his existence.

When Christianity grew historians started writing about Jesus. Some writers despised the Christians and had nothing to gain be perpetuating a lie.

Jesus died between 29AD and 36AD. Josephus wrote about Jesus in 93AD, 56 years after his death. Other mentions of Jesus came 80 to 100 years after his death (Pliny the Younger c.111-117 AD and Tacitus Roman Annals c.115-117 C.E.). It would have been very easy for any of those writers to find local records and individuals to verify what they wrote. Just because those sources are not around 2000 years later doesn’t mean they didn’t exist at the time.

It is hard to imagine that people from various backgrounds which included supporters and opponents, would collaborate to make false statements about stuff that happened 50 to 90 years ago and there not be on single document renouncing those reports?.

Try making up a story about a guy who lived 50 to 100 years ago, who supposedly travelled the country performing miracles, raising the dead and healing the sick. Who was killed by the local authorities who confirmed his death, supervised his burial and put a 24-hour armed guard on the grave. Despite this he was reported to have risen from the dead three days later and was seen by thousands over a six-week period. Now try presenting that as fact and posting it on Wikipedia. How long would it take before we saw all sorts of documents and first hand reports from people in the area saying it never happened and the person never existed?

Evidence that Jesus existed may be questionable but the fact that not one writer in those first couple of centuries challenged the existence of Jesus strongly suggests to me that he did exist

Bennie made an important point ... "Ethnic minorities CAN form political parties"

Well..I for one wish to nail my political colors to the mast and say NOT ON MY WATCH :).. if they have the democratic right to do so, I suspect such a move may conflict with our racism and discrimination laws.. and if it doesn't those laws should be beefed up so they do.

The very idea of an 'Ethnic' party is racist. In fact.. the idea of a 'Christian' party is also 'religiousist' I don't really like the idea of either. I'd rather see a party which has strong Christian input, but not calling itself 'Christian'. So, Fred .. sorry mate.. I cannot support the Christian Democratic Party, but I'll support you as a Christian standing for parliament.

PROVERBS..doing a good job there mate :) Blessings in Him!

YPGIRP.. I have a way of getting you off the forums :) I'll just AGREE with you.. apparently that makes you feel like a failure you said ? :) But.. much as it is tempting, your viewpoint on little old ladies under bridges is.. welll a bit on the nutter end of the spectrum mate. It added nothing to the serious issue of the incarnation of Christ and the conveying of that message to humanity.
So.. I'll refrain from agreeing with you here..
CHEERS

Errrr... proverbs, my old, it is impolite to respond to a post that I didn't write.

>>Pericles
True, Jesus was a minor character and not really worth writing about during his lifetime.<<

I have not actually posted before on this thread.

And anyway, where did I say that Jesus was a minor character? Not just here, but on any thread?

I'm used to being taken out of context, but to invent my entire argument is taking "straw man" techniques just a little too far.

I find your logic highly questionable too, by the way, but I refuse to defend a position that I have not adopted.

By the way...

>>Also true, the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus<<

I think you accidentally missed out a "not" in this sentence.

Just a quick glance at your "evidence" shows that i) Pliny wrote about Christians, not Jesus, ii) Tacitus wrote about Christus, again without details, which just leaves iii) Josephus to give him a name and a religious setting "... a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples."

But once again, I am not justifying a position for or against the existence of Jesus the person. What I have said all along is that there are no contemporary recordings of all the stuff that made him (posthumously) famous: water, wine; loaves, fishes; leper, cured; lame, walked; dead, restored to life etc. etc.

Unless the place was full of idiots, you would have thought that someone would have written a word or two. And that someone else would have taken it upon themselves to make sure the record survived?

Wouldn't you?

But as I understand it, the lack of contemporary support is also taken as irrefutable evidence, on the basis of "surely if the stories were invented, wouldn't they have invented some sources too?"

As I said before (in another thread entirely) this is the classic conspiracy argument: the very lack of evidence is itself evidence...

There are many god-obsessed atheists on this thread.
Do you folks ever get any sleep at night?
You seem to be more passionate to trot out your stuff, than Christians.
Relax a bit!

Food for thought indeed, Tennyson.

>>There are many god-obsessed atheists on this thread. Do you folks ever get any sleep at night? You seem to be more passionate to trot out your stuff, than Christians. Relax a bit!<<

I can't speak for anyone else, but my own position is simple.

We non-believers are often active in the defence of our way of life, because it is threatened daily and on every side by religious fanatics, determined to establish their particular version of godliness as the only one with any legitimacy.

But apart from that, it occasionally upsets me on a different level.

It distresses me to let pass unchallenged such a concerted attempt to create an alternate reality in this world. Particularly one that requires - demands, even - that you let go of your normal critical faculties, and let some "higher being" make all your decisions for you.

It distresses me that otherwise highly intelligent people (and I'm not just talking about this forum; in fact I specifically exclude this forum) can misuse that intelligence to such a massive degree, on one of life's most interesting and challenging subjects.

"Why are we?"

The willingness to take such a fascinating topic and reduce it to the will and whimsy of one god or another is to me the biggest waste of an individual's brain that there ever could be.

The other aspect that distresses me is that, having opted out of the discussion by refusing to contemplate alternatives, the "only-one-god" brigade proceeds to use this fallacy as a weapon against others, fighting and killing them in the process if necessary.

That's why it might appear occasionally that I am "passionate" about it. The sheer waste of highly-evolved intellects. The utter absence of any rational justification for choosing one "only-one-god" position over another. The horrifying waste of human life that believing in "only-one-god" entails.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain. Have a great day.