The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our great Judeo-Christian tradition > Comments

Our great Judeo-Christian tradition : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 30/5/2007

Peter Costello seems to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition exclusively forms the basis of 'Australian values'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
Yes I was stunned when I read about that question to. Judeo-Christian values my arse. England was already a secular nation by the time they were claiming Australia. I would love to know what uniquely Judeo-Christian traditional values are reflected in "Australian values". No this is just another attempt by the Christian right to force their beliefs onto other people.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 9:07:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've always wondered about this term "Judeo-Christian" as if Jewish people and Christians have some sort of timeless alliance. Jews under centuries of Christian rule have suffered progroms, deportation and forced assimilation. It is unlikely that Christian and anti-semitic rulers such as Isabella of Spain, Catherine the Great or Nicholas II of Russia would have used the term to describe themselves.

It is true that Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaeism but that doesn't mean they should be coupled. Besides, many political traditions such as democracy come from polytheistic ancient Greece and Rome and pre-date Christianity by centuries.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 9:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simply, Irfan - rubbish.
Posted by pegasus, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 9:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's deeply disturbing that values would ever be centered around any religion.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:02:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great. Now we can expect a 5000-post argument between dogma and reason, as OLO's resident fundamentalists insist that Christianity created society, peace, modernity, women's rights, art, public education, science, and anything good, anywhere, ever.

If anyone points out that Christian theocracy has always been marked by ongoing violence, genocide, and hostility to progress, they will be told that Hitler was an atheist. Apparently this constitutes evidence against secularism.

The circus as usual, but without a halftime clown show.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually a great many other belief systems are significant in our heritage - our days of the week are largely named after Norse gods. Today is named in honour of Woden!

As an interesting aside Wednesday is Miercoles in Spanish and Mercredi in French - both honouring the Roman God Mercury who had pretty much the same portfolio (in a governmental sense) in the Roman system as did Woden in the Norse. Similar comparisions are available for all days of the week.

Tomorrow we will all be giving recognition to Thor!
Posted by Reynard, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not a huge fan of Woden, though I do like Tuggeranong. Still, nothing beats Lyneham.
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:21:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Costello can take is religious views and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

So can Irfan Yusuf.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:33:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People who lived in those countries who have a Secular Background, have one thing in common respect for another person religious beliefs.

Politicans forget that religious intolerance has been the primary cause of most wars.

To my Islamic Brothers and Sisters be proud to tell us about your religious beliefs. The BBC has a weekly show, where people of the Islamic Faith can debate the issues which lead pepole to judge them unfairly.

To the Peter Costellos of this world treat others as you would have them treat you.
Posted by southerner, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:40:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fine posts there from Leigh and Pegasus. Nice to know you're carefully considering your responses and phrasing them with due consideration and an appraisal of the issues... fair enough you don't like it, but a little more detail on the 'why' side of things might be nice. As it stands, I can only conclude you'd made up your mind well before reading the article.

The great judeo-christian tradition... interesting. I sometimes wonder how far the christian brotherhood extends. Most christians seem to agree there's not all that much separating groups such as the Anglicans, Lutherans and so forth... but I wonder if the Seventh Day Adventists, Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses have copped similar abuse when they attempted to make a presence in Australia.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tuggeranong, Irfan? Who's he the god of then? On second thought, I probably don't want to know.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like it or not our traditions are based more on the Old and New Testament than they are on the Koran or any other religious teaching. That does not make any traditions right or wrong but, given the way fundamental Islamic culture treats women and those of a different faith (coming case in Malaysia will be interesting) I think that the values which have arisen out of thoe traditions are possibly just a little less violent and unreasonable. It could change - especially if we get a PM who wears his or her cross on his or her sleeve and tries to change the country with it.
What I do know without a doubt is that there are many people who do not attend church or the mosque or the synagogue and they are still honest, decent, law abiding citizens who care about other people and tolerate different points of view...more than can be said for the author of the article or some of commentators so far.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What tradition ?
The 'white australia policy' no doubt.
Indoctrinating Indigenous Australians with various forms of christianity,C of E on Groote Eylandt and Roper River; Catholicism on the Tiwi Islands,Methodist on Elcho Island, Lutheran at Haasts Bluff. and latterly the intrusion of some yankee god botherers
Aborigines had their own concepts of creation in the Rainbow Serpent and the story of the Wawilak Sisters which was denigrated by Christians and just as valid as the Adam & Eve Myth of Creationists if you are into fairy stories.

Australian traditions are evolving with the help of mob hysteria such as the Cronulla Riots; Soccer fever and misplaced tribal patriotism an extension of the schoolyard bullying of anyone who is 'different' or doesn't barrack for 'our' team. The latter fomented by our sporting contests that all too often display our worst behaviour.

I imagine our Parliaments seek to reinforce Christian traditions with their hypocritical recital of 'the Lords Prayer' before they set to and display their finest traditions of abuse,obfuscation.evasion and downright lies while pretending to operate the country in everyone's interests.

The sooner we shed the mantle of Judeo-Christian myth and get down to REAL secular government the better.We just need to develop respect for All beliefs without developing into a race of religious Zealots as in the USA where their leader believes he is guided by GOD ?
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The term "Judeo-Christian tradition" is totally a political term and has no real relevance or significance other than that, and it is used only as a political tool to assert a dominance of one religion, ie Christianity (not really Judaism as that is included only in name, again a political ploy), over others by saying this religion is more important because of history.
As Irfan has hinted at, the "tradition" is not so fundamental to our nation or it's growth and prosperity, and claiming such is an attempt to rewrite history.
But i guess that is what fascists try to do, change history to support their own political agenda and therefore enforce their totalitarian monoculture on everyone.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:19:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to know how many Jewish people find the term "Judeo-Christian" extremely offensive. Given the history of persecution of Jewish people at the hands of Christians I'd imagine quite a lot.

As for Australia's democratic traditions, the word democracy comes from ancient Greece - Athens, for example. Nothing to do with Judeaism or Christianity.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:09:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Kenny. Actually, if the relevant question is as Irfan describes it, I would fail that part of the citizenship test, despite the fact that I was born, raised, educated and have lived most of my life in Australia.

This is because I would argue that, although "Judeo-Christian" might well describe some of the ideological underpinnings of the British colonial project under which the First Fleet was sent to the territory that later became Australia, "secularism" is far more characteristic of the "Australian values" that have emerged since the establishment of Australia as a nation in the early 20th century. Indeed, it could be (and has been) cogently argued that Australian nationalism arose as a kind of secular religion that eclipsed the religious orientations of the previous colonies.

It could also be argued that this question contravenes S. 116 of the Australian Constitution, since it explicitly asserts the centrality of "Judeo-Christian" values to "Australian" values, to the extent of making the acceptance of such a condition of citizenship. This would seem to contravene the requirement that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth" (if indeed citizenship is to be regarded as such).
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh, Irfan, I've suddenly realised I'm with you on this one!

At the very least, that question shows the dangers of a multiple choice, tick-and-flick style of citizenship test. If it were a short answer test, then my answer (as a white secular male with occasional Buddhist dabblings) would be "Australia's tradition of values is probably influenced mostly by values which we broadly regard as Christian, but which are not exclusively Christian (after all, most religions have an equivalent to "thou shalt not steal"), but that those "Australian" values have also profited from a pragmatic secular perspective and more recently from influxes of other value systems and other faiths."

Unfortunately I couldn't find a box with that written next to it so I guess I'm on the next boat to Nauru.

Even if our new citizens manage to tick the right box, what exactly are these "Judeo-Christian values" anyway? So far as I know, Judeo-Christian values say that people like me are going straight to hell because I don't believe in Jesus. Fair enough, if that's what they want to believe, but it's not really the style of thinking we want to institutionalise or officially endorse, is it?

I thought the joy of democracy was its plurality: many people, many ideas, many values, all validated.

The test is a foolish, ridiculous exercise.
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I really enjoyed this post. And I don’t have any problem with the idea that the sources of Australian values could be as varied as the make-up of early colonial Australian society.

The values that the test question is referring to can be found on the Dept of Immigration website, at http://www.citizenship.gov.au/news/citizenship-test/Australian_values.htm . They are given as “respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, equality of men and women, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, fair play, and compassion for those in need.”

Not all of these values are obvious outgrowths of the “judeo-christian tradition”.

Some of them are, such as compassion (“be compassionate and humble”, 1 Pet 3:8) and rule of law (“everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities”, Rom 13:1).

But claiming some of the others as judeo-christian is more than a little dodgy.

How about a quick rundown:

Freedom and dignity – “Slaves, obey your earthly masters” (Eph 6:5)

Equality of men and women – “wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Eph 5:24)

Freedom of religion – “I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.” (Lev 26:30)

And would you believe, I couldn’t find Parliamentary Democracy mentioned anywhere in the Bible!

Cheers!
Posted by Rhys Probert, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 2:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with those who see the term as practically meaningless, and used politically. The sooner we stop using it the better. The seven commandments of the Christian ten that deal with our relations with one another are simply commonsense guidelines for people living in a community, and were about in human societies long before Moses. A good deal of our legal system has a basis in Roman law. And Abraham is, after all, accorded status by Jews, Christians and Muslims as a central figure in their religions. Let's drop it (Mr Costello, please copy).
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 2:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me Irfan is addressing several different questions here, that maybe deserve separate attention.

Firstly, the question of sifting values by hierarchy and one-answer-only citizenship test. On this I agree wholeheartedly with AnthonyMarinac. Not only does this utterly fail to capture the richness and complexity of our values and their origins, it is also more sinister – in effect an attempt to impose a particular interpretation of Australian values, rather than to identify whether the applicant can correctly identify the objectively accurate ones.

Secondly, is there a contemporary consensus on common values between Judaism and Christianity? I’d say not in detail (nor is there within these faiths), but there are some points of commonality of origin and perspective which are material (many of these are held in common with other faiths, especially Islam). The history of anti-Semitism is shameful, and David JS makes a telling point about how Jews might feel about dragged under an umbrella term conflating them with a religion that has persecuted them, and describing values they might not share at all.

Third, however, while Jews have every right to disavow commonality with Christians, the reverse is not true. It is in this sense – of acknowledging Christianity’s evolution from (and debt to) Judaism, its shared scripture, common stories and Jewish Messiah – that the term Judeo-Christian is a valid descriptor of Christian thought and culture.

Fourthly, when used more broadly, the term Judeo-Christian acknowledges that – despite centuries of persecution, discrimination and marginalisation – Jewish people have contributed disproportionately to Western culture, in science, politics, philosophy, the arts etc (Popper, Arendt, Marx, Freud, Einstein, Spinoza, Ricardo, Mahler, Kafka…).
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:13:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not in a billion lifetimes is it acceptable to expect intelligent people to respect your religious beliefs.
You can expect that you won't be tormented for them, that people will not stop you having them, but respect is reserved for the deserved. The real.
I'm not sure whether people's need to worship something or someone else is simply laughable, or something a little more sinister, like pathetic.
But what I do know is, that when my little brother used to ask about Santa,or the Easter Bunny, I'd humour him. Until he was about 8 years old, when he was old enough to stop believing in gift carrying animals, seasonal goblins, snakes that talk and protect apples, skinny dead men pushing aside boulders to ascend into heaven, and global warming.

God was simply a symbol created to control the people of that time by appealing to their morales. Times have changed, but the bible hasn't caught up a 10th of the way, but won't stop interfering in other people's lives. What scientific document would ever have this luxury? It wouldn't because science is real, and nobodies soft little feelings get hurt when someone disproves a scientific theory.

Keep your imaginary friends believers, but keep them to yourselves. The rest of us aren't that weak and dependant.
Posted by Daniel_21, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

A good article and a point well made. Secularism is inherently inclusive or indifferent to religious and non-religious beliefs.
The secular democratic movement was born as a result of the French Revolution which was, amongst other things, anti religious.

For a group to claim that secularism is an extension of their faith reflects total ignorance of modern history or at best an attempt to take non-deserved credit. Thats politics.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:40:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me see um it is the Christians who are blamed for the abuse of the indigneous and woman while the human secularist are the saviours of our culture. Dream on!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Judeo-Christian tradition" is a political term invented and used by the right in the US to try to portray Jews and Christians as natural allies against the Muslims. To create an us versus them mentality that justifies the degree of power and influence the Jewish Lobby has in US national politics. So its not surprising that the same people use it here.

I am an atheist, but I have no reluctance to admit that this country has a Christian tradition. We are a country that was set up as a colony of Britain. It has a Christian tradition. Unfortunately we are becoming more and more a colony of the US. Which may have been founded with a Christian tradition, but is increasingly becoming a Judeo-Christan country. Jews interests first. That is after all the real reason why Iraq was invaded, and why Iran will be if Dick Cheney and his neocon buddies can come up with a pretext before the end of 2008. Christians' second. Jews principles of smiting thine enemy first. Jesus' principles of loving thine enemy very much second.
Posted by GordonD, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GordonD – the term long predates the current anti-Islamic right-wing uses and is historically associated with leftish or multiculturalist attempts to assert a commonality of tradition between the two faiths, and broader origins to the religious influence on western culture than Christianity alone. Check out wikipedia for the history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

Of all the reasons to question the use of the term I find yours – attacking Jews and Judaism – the least persuasive. Jesus’ principles of loving the enemy and turning the other cheek were Jewish. That’s why the term Judeo-Christian is appropriate to the actions of those who follow his teaching
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy,

I would hazard a guess that Tuggeranong is the god of Waugh!

Cheers to all belief systems. I believe I'm going to have a beer!
Posted by Reynard, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*BOO* :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:40:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just give me the Sermon on the Mount I learnt as a little kid. Seems to say it all - some even say Socrates could have written it, but he never wrote, but he certainly had plenty to say, leaving Plato to write about it, and all.

I,ve even been called a Communist for using the Sermon's principles. Well, its been said Christ could have been a Commo, well if he really could have been, what's he going to do with Bush and the End Day's mob seein' they're sure about Him coming back?
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 5:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The points about keeping religion and citizenship separate are great, but nobody seems to be acknowledging the elephant in the room.

The set of citizenship questions which were "released" a couple of weeks ago were just a piece of kite-flying by persons unknown. The government may be intending to implement similar questions (or worse), but they have distanced themselves from the particular set which included the question Irfan quotes:

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/sit-the-test-until-you-pass-andrews/20073918-djn.html

Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Posted by jpw2040, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 5:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If any Christian or Jew had written a similar article with a reverse slant making other religions equal to Islam,they would be quickly dispatched.

Religion is a curse born of our own insecurities and weakness.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 6:45:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If any Christian or Jew had written a similar article with a reverse slant in Egypt for example,ie making other religions equal to Islam,they would be quickly dispatched.

Religion is a curse born of our own insecurities and weakness.It has nothing to do with truth or reality,but tribalism,which pitches one side against another.Tribal elders find power,security and solace in the ignorance of the masses.Nothing has changed in our psyche in 5000 yrs.Will we ever learn?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 6:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion is the root of all evil!

But then...hang about....I too have a God. His name is "Conscience!"

One doesn't need to resort to the supernatural to learn about my God, though many years ago I did plagiarise a biblical quotation:

"Only to do the right, and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God." Mic.6:8

And that about sums up the extent of my religious indoctrination!

As for the rest - it's all spin - obsolete and fearful strategies to control the masses!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 7:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My what a lot of fuzy headed angry lot of people. Whether you like it or not the fact remains that it is not incorrect to state that Australia values were fundamentally judeo-christian in nature. Or do you fuzy headed wonbats want to re-write history? I also know what our nation was not founded on. It was not founded on female circumsision, it was not founded on the principal that religious conversion would be met by death, and it was not founded on the belief that all unbeleivers must die.

Dont waste your energy on such considerations of the past. The past is past. Instead lets all work to make the future a better place that it has been for all Australians.
Posted by father of night, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 9:34:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's face it, there's not a lot of difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions. There is an invisible patriachal God who rules via a patriachal oligarchy who consult the appropriate patriachal texts. In other words, all three monotheisms peddle the same old tribalisms, misogyny and homophobia

However, modern Christianity is (on the whole) superior to both Judaism and Islam. This is because Christianity has been winnowed by the great scientists, philosophers and thinkers of Western civilisation. It has come out of its Dark Ages and is therefore more open, tolerant and feministic than Judaism and Islam who are still stuck in there 'Desert Tribe' mindset.

Christianity as a cultural package is therefore more in tune and beneficial to contemporary Australian culture. At least Australians don't have to put up with the likes of these idiots in mainstream religious culture;

'Wife Beating in Islam - The Rules'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58&mode=related&search=

'Wife Beating in Islam - only a rod will help'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY&mode=related&search=

However, having said all that, there are signs that the feminist wheels are turning at last in the Islamic world. This debate is strangely refreshing;

'Debate on Wife Beating as instructed in Quran'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&mode=related&search=

Now, I'm a 'soft' atheist so I'd like to turn every temple, church and mosque into a museum. However, since we're obviously stuck with monotheism until more people learn to use their brain properly then I would choose Christianity over the other Judaism and Islam any day. At least it's tribalism, misogyny and homophobia has been mediated by a long list of free-thinkers and dissidents.
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 10:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anybody noticed the cartoon on the OLO home page? ("Why geeks like computer games") I wonder what unrecognisable avatar Irfan might choose?
Posted by Snappy Tom, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 10:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judeo-Christian-Islamic have the same abrahamic root

But who cares about tradition - mainly point-scoring politicians who are trying to cash in on cultural fears about difference.

look to the future - not the past
Posted by malingerer, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 10:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following video contrasts beautifully the difference in attitude between a secular/Christian ethos and the Islamic mindset;

'Wife Beating in Islam - More Rules'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hcQTmcgkKA&mode=related&search=

(Someone tell me he's not the Mufti of Egypt and it's all a sham. Please!)
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 10:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR, the reported incidents of domestic violence across NSW have increased by around 50% over the past 7 years. The major cause of these incidents is over-consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs.

The Muslim population in NSW hasn't increased by 50%. Muslims generally don't drink.

Please explain?
Posted by Irfan, Thursday, 31 May 2007 12:16:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is, Irfan, that wife beating in the West is socially reprehensible and prohibited, whereas it seems that in Islam it is perfectly acceptable, even recommended.
What part don't you understand?
Posted by Froggie, Thursday, 31 May 2007 6:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR

Before you start jumping over people of the Islamic Faith, have a look at the level of Domestic Violence in this country. In particular that which is directed towards Women by men who are not of the Islamic Faith.

Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

As with all religions you will find extremist. Why do you think most wars are started, all in the name of Religion.
Posted by southerner, Thursday, 31 May 2007 7:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Myyyyy My... what a lot of myths, and lemmings :) No offense, but lemmings just follow the ‘media’ (i.e. the lead lemming) and rush headlong over the cliff.

Has all my work been in vain?

Guys.. PUH-lease avoid saying things which make you look like a mindless lemming following the crowd.. it has the impact of making you look a bit silly when subjected to truth and fact.

The following observations are mean’t to be a warm hearted dig at you blokes.

Lemming1_Southerner
“religious intolerance has been the primary cause of most wars” Response.. READ HISTORY
-Megalomania, Greed, Trade disputes, Territory.

Lemming2_Maracas
“The sooner we shed the mantle of Judeo-Christian myth and get down to REAL secular government the better.We just need to develop respect for All beliefs without developing into a race of religious Zealots”
Response-Clearly you have yet to meet a Mr Dawkins...zealot ? nah :) “Make It Up As You Go” is the alternative to religious tradition. As they say, aim at nothing and you’ll hit it.

Lemming3_Daniel_21
“God was simply a symbol created to control the people of that time” (next time you pick up the Bible.. actually read it. I challenge you to support that comment from the founding History of Israel :)

Lemming4_Arjay
“Religion is a curse born of our own insecurities and weakness” * ouch * back to re-education thread for you old boy :)

Lemming5_Dickei
“As for the rest - it's all spin - obsolete and fearful strategies to control the masses!”
Really? Lets test that....John 6
v60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
v66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Yep...thats it.. “control the masses”

MEGA_Lemming_6 TR
Let's face it, there's not a lot of difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions.

Its re-education thread for you also :) ur a worry matey.

Jewish and Islamic “Similarities exist-legal side” Christian.. nothing like them.

CONCLUSION
The only way to bolster our ‘JudaoChristian’ traditions is national repentance.. not legislation.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 31 May 2007 7:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can I ask how this turned into a "my faith is better than your faith" pissing contest?

I thought Irfan's idea in writing the piece was that the citizenship test shouldn't pin our cultural values on one religion or creed to the exclusion of the others. In other words, the citizenship test, if such a stupid thing should need to exist anyway, should in itself be as open and tolerant and exclusive as we hope Australia might be.

A thread which has degenerated into christians, atheists, secularists, muslims and others defending their own creeds while attacking the alternatives, is just about the antithesis of the tolerance I thought Irfan was calling for.

A
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Thursday, 31 May 2007 8:08:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Fellow Human is still writing 'good article' each time his fellow Muslim raves on.

What a waste of time OLO has become. The same people talking the same crap.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 31 May 2007 8:22:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In terms of "Australian traditions" and trying to get new migrants to understand them (a difficult task since this forum alone has differing views on what they are) can we at least factor in the traditions and history of the population that was here prior to 1788? There's far more to Australian history than what Christians, Jews or Muslims have been doing.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 31 May 2007 9:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting posts. If judeo-christian does indeed exclude catholics, I can't help but wonder if it's really the best idea - doesn't that encourage historical feuds to continue?

Leigh - I see you lead by example. A most amusing post.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:04:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“After all, 160 years before the First Fleet arrived, Portuguese explorer Pedro Fernandes de Queirós came across an island he presumed to be the “Great South Land”, “

Yet they did not settle it.

If the history of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism in South America is any guide, a dam good job they did not. One thing is true, whilst the process of colonialism might offend many, the history of British colonialism has left a far better outcomes than the colonial practices of other colonial nations, Portugal in particular.

Had Australia been settled by Portuguese, the Australian economy would probably be a basket case run by a bunch of recently reformed slavers with communist extremist running around feeding off the dissent of oppressed peasants.

Similarly, had Australia been colonised by Arabs, we would probably be Islamists with 16th century social values and oppressed women. Social services and parliamentary democracy would not exist, just a bunch of warring tribes casting Machiavellian plots against one another.

Costello is right and the loon who wrote this article just don’t “get it”.

Maybe if he were of a Judeo-Christian background, blessed with an English history of religious and social tolerance (for the past 300 years), benevolent colonialism and a developed democracy, he would “get it”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Benevolent colonialism"?! Tell that to the indigenous population of Australia. Like non-British examples of colonial occupation, the colonial regime established here was a military regime which shot its way into power. The regime regarded the locals as sub-human. No different to the Spanish in Caribbean. Or the English in the Caribbean for that matter. And like the Spanish, the British had a lively slave trade up until the 19th Century. The late 19th century if you include indentured labourers to Queensland sugar fields from the Pacific.

Uganda, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Burma are also former British possessions. Great examples they are of the benefits of British rule.

As for this "Judeo-Christian" malarky, if you called a West Bank settler "Judeo-Christian" you wouldn't last very long. It's nonsense term used by Christians to co-opt the Jewish tradition for political purposes. The more I hear from the Coalition Government and their version of Australian history the more convinced I am of their ignorance.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 31 May 2007 1:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve enjoyed many of the comments in this thread almost as much as the original post. There’s nothing like a lively discussion thread for a bit of lunchtime entertainment!

Rhian, I found the clarity of your comments very helpful in sorting out some of my muddled thinking; thank you.

AnthonyMarinac, any thread with the slightest hint of a religious connection seems to bring out the “my faith is better than your faith” pissing contest you mentioned. It also draws out the “fundamentalist secularists” who repeat their “all religion is stupid” mantra ad infinitum, but who can’t seem to leave religious threads alone. Maybe there’s a basic human need to feel superior to somebody.

TurnRightThenLeft, too true, the term judeo-christian as used by many does exclude Catholic Christians (as well as Orthodox, Maronite, etc). Back when I was an undergraduate (15-20 years ago) it seemed to be used as an alternative term for “patriarchal capitalism” and thus considered the root of all evil (which really got my goat, because at the time I was a fundamentalist born-again Christian).

Jpw2040, thanks for that background info, it explains why I couldn’t find these citizenship test questions on any official government site. I wonder if these possible questions are being “leaked” to gauge community response.

Bugsy – the great god Tuggeranong – ha! My favourite post so far!

And of course BOAZ_David; I was wondering when you’d show up ;-)

Cheers!
Posted by Rhys Probert, Thursday, 31 May 2007 2:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS I would note of the four examples of ex colonies you give three were all handed over after democratic elections for government.

The fourth , Zimbawbe was declared a sovereign state by Ian Smith’s UDI government, which , despite sanctions, ran the state effectively and prosperously until 1980, when yielding to world pressure, he capitulated and following democratic elections, Mugabe came to power.

That Mugabe took a vibrant and functioning country with a healthy economy and turned it into a charnel house of economic incompetence and murder is the best reason for suggesting that those countries you name might all be better off had they remained British Colonies.

Doubtless, were you God (in place of Judeo-Christian values) or had any authority or real insight, you would have ordered them to behave differently; but you aren’t and you haven’t.

As for “The more I hear from the Coalition Government and their version of Australian history the more convinced I am of their ignorance”

Really, so regale us with your insight, your profound lack of ignorance, I could do with a good larff on a slow Thursday afternoon.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 May 2007 2:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geez I dunno BOAZ_David, there are plenty of striking similarities with the religions u so fervently distinguish. If you have the time watch this video http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234&sourceid=zeitgeist
'The Naked Truth by Jordan Maxwell'
and prove to me otherwise...
Posted by peachy, Thursday, 31 May 2007 3:39:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys Probert - I find it rather interesting in your post you mentioned you used to be a born again Christian - I can't help but wonder what changed your mind - sometimes it seems to me that many of the most devout christians are simply the ones who have inoculated their beliefs against other ideologies, but I suppose that goes for fundamentalists of all stripes.

If it's too much of a personal question then don't worry of course, but I sometimes wonder if the answer to many of the world's current problems lies with those who've repudiated a fundamentalist view...
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 31 May 2007 4:31:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would seem that, in Malaysia, religion is an accident of birth and something you cannot change, unless you wish to convert to Islam of course.
There is a great deal in our way of doing things that could be improved but at least we are free to be what we want to be...and that is something we should surely endeavour to retain
Posted by Communicat, Thursday, 31 May 2007 5:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your approach to discussion on these threads is consistent, Boaz, but even so, cannot go unchallenged.

Apparently, the observations of those who disagree with you "look a bit silly when subjected to truth and fact"

Remember those words. "... subjected to truth and fact".

Now, where were we?

>>“religious intolerance has been the primary cause of most wars” Response.. READ HISTORY
-Megalomania, Greed, Trade disputes, Territory<<

Well, it is an opinion, sure, but you haven't presented any "truth and fact", have you?

I would also suggest that we could add "religious intolerance has been the primary cause of most terrorist activity" to the charge.

>>"We just need to develop respect for All beliefs without developing into a race of religious Zealots" Response- Clearly you have yet to meet a Mr Dawkins...zealot ? nah :) “Make It Up As You Go” is the alternative to religious tradition.

No. "Make it up as you go" is an invention of yours that purports to prove that every non-Christian supports paedophilia. No "truth and fact" there, then.

>>“God was simply a symbol created to control the people of that time”
No response from you, interestingly, just an exhortation to read a religious text. Which, of course, is totally unbiased on the matter.

>>“Religion is a curse born of our own insecurities and weakness”
No response again, just bluster.

>>“As for the rest - it's all spin - obsolete and fearful strategies to control the masses!”
Really? Lets test that....John 6<<

The reference was, as you know, to organized religion, and nothing to do with John 6.

>>"Let's face it, there's not a lot of difference between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions."
[your response] Its re-education thread for you also<<

Again, no response, just waffle.

Sorry - where is that "truth and fact" again?

>>Guys.. PUH-lease avoid saying things which make you look like a mindless lemming following the crowd.. it has the impact of making you look a bit silly when subjected to truth and fact.<<

Back atcha.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 31 May 2007 7:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan said: "Muslims generally don't drink". Well, we can be thankful of that.
Posted by Snappy Tom, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:09:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Infran,
Re Domestic Violence :
From a statistical angle, one wouldn’t need a 50% increase in population of perpetrators ( whoever they may be )to account for a 50% increase in reported cases .
( I’m sure you can work out for yourself the other variables that may be involved)
But perhaps more significantly - the only populations likely to report domestic violence are those who see it as being immoral/ unnatural. – if it were part of some groups ethos they would be little inclined to report it .

Re Secularism:
Not all forms of secularism are the same .Secularism having recently evolved ( or more correctly, re-evolved) still carries many fundamentalist genes .

While secularists may not appeal to some deity. Many forms of secularism still have their liturgies , priestly classes , chosen peoples & their (lesser ) inquisitions .

Domestic violence is real & has been with us for a long time but it has recently been adopted by secular fundamentalists as a weapon to bludgeon their opponents. And it has becoming popular with that priestly class called lawyers as a component in plea bargaining.

[ One would be on safer ground questioning Mohammed’s credentials, in a mosque than question the figures & definitions re domestic violence in many of our secular institutions
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

If you read or watched thinkers like Karen Armstrong lately, you will see the Judeo-Christian slogan is an American term opposing the Abraham faith ie creating the "us versus them" which is divisive.
Any responsibe true Aussie could have picked that one up. But Mr Costello missed it along with his cheerleaders squad :yourself, Boaz and TR). How dare the Aussie muslims ask to be included in the elite "Judo-TaiKuando-JuJitsu-Christian" cocktail :-)
Sounds like a religious martial arts group.

You quoted:
"The same people talking the same crap"

In deed!
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan tells us that when he was a lad that his mother befriended all the Catholics in the street: "It was her way of showing solidarity with other oppressed peoples"!

Has that message rubbed off on you, Irfan? How do you show solidarity with people who are being oppressed by Muslims in many countries around the world?

Don't believe me about the facts of Muslim oppression? Check out the Religion Report of May 30th, 2007 at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1937124.htm#transcript

As Stephen Crittenden notes in his introduction:

"The plight of Christian minorities in the Islamic Middle East is one of the 20th century tragedies to which we pay least attention.

From the Copts in Egypt, to the Maronites, the Melkites in Lebanon, Orthodox and Chaldeans, the Christian population of the Middle East is a fraction of what it was, and more vulnerable than ever. Nowhere is the situation worse at the moment than in Iraq. And few groups are more vulnerable than the ancient Assyrian Christian community. In fact, this week the Italian journalist Sandro Magister, has warned of the end of Christianity in Iraq.

In early May in a heavily Christian suburb of Baghdad, a Sunni extremist group began broadcasting a fatwah over the loudspeakers of the neighbourhood mosque: the Assyrian Christian community had to convert to Islam or leave, or die. Their Muslim neighbours were to seize their property. The men were told they had to pay the gizya - the protection money Jews and Christians traditionally had to pay to their Muslim overlords - and families were told they could only stay if they married one of their daughters to a Muslim.

More than 300 Assyrian families have fled, mostly to the north into the Kurdish region of Iraq where they are not welcome either. They are sleeping in cemeteries, they have no food, more than 30 of their churches have been bombed, their children are being kidnapped and murdered".
Posted by Snappy Tom, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inherent in Costello's assertion is the idea that values are or can be founded in a religion. That claim is mistaken. Rather, religious doctines depend logically on presumed moral beliefs. For example, you can only understand the Christian doctine of the atonement if you bring to it an understanding of wrongdoing. To settle the debate between the theories of the atonement you require to assume moral views on, amongst other things, punishment. Yet the doctrine of the atonement is the core of Christianity.

The core of Judaism, as I understand it, is the call of God to Israel to be His chosen people. Yet there was a dispute until first century AD about whether the call was for the sake of Israel itself, or for the sake of everyone else. It was settled (in favour of the latter view), essentially because it didn't make moral sense for God to have chosen Israel for its own sake.

I know less about Islam, but there is an ongoing dispute about the interpretation of the Koran, essentially between liberal ethicists and others--though there is a wide range of views. Some of the debate concerns the meaning of individual words--hence the variety of translations. Some, though, is on how the circumstances of modern life may require a rephrasing of what was written.

Here too, pre-existing moral views are required to partipate in the discussion rationally.

The beliefs that are central to these three religions thus depend logically on moral views. Those moral views therefore are not, logically cannot be, dependant on the religious views.

The reformers understood this perfectly well. So did Aquinas, and the Islamic thinkers whose writings led him to write his tomes. (Pun intended.) (William of Occam didn't, it is true, and neither did Ghazali 100 years earlier.)
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The notion that people who come from overseas should adopt Australian values is confused nonsense. What kind of value is that principle itself? It seems to depend on a universal assertion--roughly, that people should adopt the values of the country they happen to be in. That is rubbish. If I had gone to Hitler's Germany, would I have had any obligation to adopt the anti-Semitic nonsense which had become widely accepted there? Of course not.

When I came to Australia, there were many widely held views which were mistaken. The double standard of sexual morality was widespread. People were still taking indigenous children away from their parents. There was common rejection of inter-racial marriage. It was thought to be morally acceptable for police to beat up peaceful demonstrators. Women were still being denied jobs one they married--though that was changing.

In the circumstances, I had a clear obligation, as an academic in particular, to do what I could to change those values.

There are still widely held values, that should be argued against. You give some examples, Maracas--(my sports team, right or wrong).

I accept, with modificatons on the equality part, the values of “respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, equality of men and women, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, fair play, and compassion for those in need.” But certainly not on the grounds that they are Australian. That would be irrational.
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:46:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snappy Tom, it amazes me when Western Christians rabbit on and on about the plight of Arab Christians at the hands of Arab Muslims yet are strangely silent about the plight of Arab Christians at the hands of Israeli Jews.

But I guess for many so-called conservatives, Israeli Jews can confiscate as much church property in Jerusalem as they like. The Israeli army can build settlements in Beit Jalla (where the real Saint Nicholas lived) and can divide Bethlehem in two by building a giant wall. You might want to check Stephen Crittenden's archives and check out his interview with the Christian Mayor of Bethlehem.

Yes, Assyrians are suffering. So are many others in Iraq, a country that has been plunged into civil war. Whose fault is this? What are the Coalition forces doing to rstore order in Iraq? Isn't it the responsibility of those who invaded Iraq to maintain order and ensure sectarian forces don't pit Iraqis against each other?
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ryhs... I did poke my nose in with a tentative 'boo' :) but held back until things got going.

Peachy.. my audio is dead mate.. cannot hear what they are saying.. please summarize in 3 simple points what the vid is saying ?

In anycase, I'd be referring you to the founder and foundation documents. Christ and the New Testament for the guide on the matter of 'arn't they all the same' kind of thing.

Pericles.. there you go again.. trying to hyper analyse.
350 words mate.. not much room for repeating facts I've offered ad nauseum.

Peachy..I'd refer you to the dicussion/posts in "Mohammad was a" thread, and look closely at how ABCD portrays the outright murder of a Jew. Its quite revealing about his mindset, and is ENTIRELY consistent with:
a) Mohammads character.
b) Mohammads actions.
c) Islamic thinking.

"Murder an enemy of Islam while he is sleeping" ?...."so what" (abcd)

Peachy.. you better put a Crescent flag in your window and double lock the doors. We would not want ABCD to mistake you for an 'enemy of Islam' eh :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 1 June 2007 7:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, more ducking and weaving, I notice.

>>Pericles.. there you go again.. trying to hyper analyse.
350 words mate.. not much room for repeating facts I've offered ad nauseum<<

Just because you repeat stuff "ad nauseam" (accurate description, by the way) doesn't turn them into "facts".

Mine was not in any way a "hyperanalysis". It simply stripped away the verbiage from your long list of "lemmings", to expose them as no more factual than the tooth fairy.

But I know how much you hate that, and pretend that it hasn't happened.

Is it my imagination, or are your "arguments" getting just a little bit desperate?

>>Peachy.. you better put a Crescent flag in your window and double lock the doors. We would not want ABCD to mistake you for an 'enemy of Islam' eh :)<<

Coming hot on the heels of your comparing ABCD to the murderer of Theo van Gogh on another thread, I'd suggest that you are getting extremely close to the boundaries of good taste here, Boaz.

Sad.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 1 June 2007 10:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Crescent flag was originally a Byzantine Christian symbol. Then again, I guess B_D regards orthodox Christians as infidels ...
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 1 June 2007 10:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pegasus puts it succintly. No Irfan, the First fleet wasn't chocka with Jews and Muslims. It was chocka with poor white trash by Pom standards back then Poor people who committed minor infractions to gain a one way trip to Oz. Bit like sending the refugess to the US isn't it?

And Catholics? Well Irfan they are actually Christian, much to their shame but they are.

Chinese were here early. Certainly, they were the first after the Fleet etc and of course the owners, aboriginals.

As to TRTL's request for "reasons". The article is based on lies mate. Check the passenger lists. Find me some Muslims there please.

As Pegasus and Leigh indicated. Absolute tripe.

Irfan as usual inventing and rewriting his own fantasies for the sake of stirring people who "believe". Put it in the bin Irfan, it's untidy.
Posted by DavoP, Friday, 1 June 2007 1:35:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Arjay. How is it so many still need to believe in God? Our society, and most, are based mostly on fiction. God looks after us. Get real. A curse indeed Arjay, but I suppose the curse is a "sin" or some other major crime in their world.
Posted by DavoP, Friday, 1 June 2007 1:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi TurnRightTurnLeft – Sorry I didn’t reply to your post earlier; OLO has become limited to a lunchtime activity for me lately.

No, I don’t mind telling you how I become a “lapsed” Christian. Quite the contrary, because it gives me an excuse to talk about myself!

It was a combination of a number of factors; there wasn’t any single moment of blinding insight when the scales fell from my eyes. Doubts first started in my mind with theological problems, such as free will, original sin, divine justice and the problem of evil. These of course can all be explained away, but they started me thinking.

Then I started having problems with the idea that the Bible was inerrant and had to be read literally. The scientific evidence of evolution, plus some archaeological stuff I came across which suggested that most of the Old Testament history was incorrect, provided fertilizer for the doubts that were already starting to grow. Ironically, I had started looking at this evidence in order to find things to SUPPORT my faith!

The behaviour and attitudes of my fellow Christians also bothered me. Although I knew (and still know) many genuine and wonderful Christians, there were also…the others. The single-mindedness of many of them was astonishing; eg “helping those in need isn’t our job, Christians are meant to be Evangelising”, or when reviewing a book “this book by John Stott is ok, but he doesn’t talk enough about Evangelism”.

And finally, there was the personal aspect. I just felt like I was knocking on a door and no-one was answering; I was seeking something that couldn’t be found. So I concluded that all along I had been vainly chasing the wind, and became an agnostic.

Th moral of the story is - if you're a Cristian and you want to stay that way, don't think too much!

Cheers!

PS the reason I didn’t become an atheist is because I met too many atheists who showed exactly the same blinkered attitude that had so irked me among the fundamentalist evangelicals.
Posted by Rhys Probert, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davo is right of course. Check out the passenger lists for all the early ships to OZ. Must have lkept their Jewish and Muslimm identities well hidden as all the names are standard British ones. No other names. I guess they all converted during the trip. Right Irfan?

One link as an example : http://www.hotkey.net.au/~jwilliams4/pass26s.htm. Lots of Ilsamists there Irfan. Could you tell us which ships they were on please?
Posted by pegasus, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey come on guys. Not so hard on Irfan.

I do believe there were Afghani cameleers in South Australia in the mid ninteenth century.

I can also state for certain, there were Afghani cameleers in Western Australia living in remote areas during the 40's.

My brother and I, living at a remote post office, could hardly wait for the Afghanis to come to "town" on a Thursday where they would give us rides on their camels - a memorable occasion for little kids!

Though I'm only presuming they were Muslims - but then most Afghanis are, aren't they?.

So Muslims have probably been residing in Australia for a long time. Interestingly though, in the early days, we didn't give a cocky's bottom what religion they were!

It was the Catholics versus the "Prottos" in those days! And wasn't my family alarmed when I advised I intended to marry a Catholic.....scandalous!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 1 June 2007 3:13:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that Irfan has thrown up a smokescreen by hightlighting the word 'values' in his essay. This is a nebulous word that means little when taken out of context. Of course all people have values because they are encoded in their genes via several million years of human evolution. This is a given.

However, if you place values in the context of culture then we have a completely different picture. If anyone has travelled overseas you'll know what I mean. 'Culture Shock' can be a very real phenonomen for many people.

My wife and I lived in a small one bedroom apartment in Riyadh for 2 1/2 years. While we got on extremley well with our Saudi and Sudanese neighbours it still didn't deter the fact that Sunni Islam as practiced by the Gulf States is misogynist to the core. In every facet of day to day life my wife was treated like a second class citizen. But worse than that she suffered sexual harrassment almost on a daily basis during those 2 1/2 years. If I was not there to chaperone her then she was assumed to be fair game for sport.

From my travels throughout the Middle East I could only draw one conclusion - Islam is a misogynist faith due to nature of the Koran and the sexist example set by Mohammed himself.

In comparison, modernised Christian traditions are far less sexist than Islamic traditions. This is as plain as the nose on your face. Every women in Australia should heave a sigh of relieve that we don't have a core Islamic culture.
Posted by TR, Friday, 1 June 2007 11:15:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan (as a Muslim) would have us believe that Islam is a religion that protects women from abuse and violence and is therefore on a par with modernised Christianty in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth;

'SAUDI ARABIA: GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST WOMEN

This report begins by discussing the discrimination faced by women. Among the issues covered are: laws and customs which specifically discriminate against women...'

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE230572000?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES

'Media briefing: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN PAKISTAN

Women in Pakistan are severely disadvantaged and discriminated against. Violence against women in the home and community as well as in the custody of law enforcement officials is on the rise. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) found that in 2000 a woman was raped every two hours, and that hundreds were victims of "honour" killings, domestic violence, burnings and murder.'

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330102002?open&of=ENG-PAK

'TURKEY: WOMEN CONFRONTING FAMILY VIOLENCE

As in countries throughout the world, the human rights of hundreds of thousands of women in Turkey are violated daily. At least a third and up to a half of all women in the country are estimated to be victims of physical violence within their families....Violence against women is widely tolerated and even endorsed by community leaders and at the highest levels of the government and judiciary. The authorities rarely carry out thorough investigations into women’s complaints about violent attacks or murders or apparent suicides of women.'

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur440132004

And my final point. In Western societies misogyni is ad hoc and against the central teachings of the state. On the other hand, misogyni in Islamic societies has a religious component that makes it systemised. We can do with this system elbowing its way into Australian religious tradition - says this atheist.
Posted by TR, Saturday, 2 June 2007 12:35:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snappy Tom / TR,

A country like Egypt have a poor record of human rights and no enforcable anti-discrimination laws.
However, here is another view on the Christian minority there : christians have their onw TV channels and educational programs and the government bans movies like the DaVinci code because it might hurt feelings or shake their faith. Christian minority have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest average income. Their Christmas and Easter is a national full day televised public holiday.
Now which western country do you know offer that to minorities?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 2 June 2007 11:46:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fellow Human

Yours is an interesting post especially the section that notes: "Christian minority have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest average income". Can we rightly conclude from this that Christianity might be just a bit more amenable to economic advancement than Islam? (And I'm not even a Christian by the way.)

On the other hand when I did a Search for Egypt + Christians at Google, six of the first ten references referred to either the persecution of, or disadvantage suffered by Christians in Egypt.
Posted by Snappy Tom, Saturday, 2 June 2007 12:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR, what on earth do your 2.5 years in Saudi Arabia have to do with an essay on Australian values and citizenship? Perhaps you should re-read the essay. If you need some help with my plain English, I understand there are ESL services available in most areas to help you in case your years in KSA led you to forget your (presumably) native tongue.
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 2 June 2007 3:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indonesia's most influential newspaper is Kompas. It is owned by a private Catholic foundation. Imagine the fuss if The Australian were bought by a private Buddhist or Islamic foundation?

Yes, minorities are mistrated in many countries, Muslim or otherwise. But let's not be blind to the multi-faceted and complex nature of the real world.

Unless, of course, you want to rely on News Limited (or should that be Limited News?) tabloids for your information needs.
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 2 June 2007 3:46:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR: "Of course all people have values because they are encoded in their genes via several million years of human evolution. This is a given."

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Values in this sense are ideas about ethics, and are learned. While this learning begins at birth, it is by no means the same thing as asserting that values are genetically inherited.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 2 June 2007 3:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan ... you haven't answered the question.
Posted by Snappy Tom, Saturday, 2 June 2007 11:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan, "Yes, Assyrians are suffering. So are many others in Iraq, a country that has been plunged into civil war. Whose fault is this?"

It's very convenient that the United States intervened in Iraq and ousted Saddam. It serves to mask the reality of the secular violence as being the fault of the Americans and allows the Anti-western Muslims fodder to blame America rather than looking inwards. However, the truth is that by the time the Americans thought to invade Saddam had turned most of the daily operation of government over to Qusay and Uday and the Shia majority were primed to open hostilities against their Sunni oppressors following the example of the Kurdish. There would not have been a peaceful hand over of power lead by a Sunni minority government.

Muslims who have a difficulty living with in a secular Judeo-Christian country need to look inwards, not project their fear of change onto their host or adopted countries. If they must have a dominate Islamic culture there are many countries who support such an environment. Be responsible for your choice. Nobody dragged you here in chains. Well, except for the white people. :-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 3 June 2007 12:35:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan, My apologies, where is says secular please see sectarian.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 3 June 2007 12:38:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Values in this sense are ideas about ethics, and are learned.'

CJMorgan, you have over reached yourself with this statement.

As you suggest, values, ethics and morality are refined by religious and cultural 'memes'. However, the underpinning foundation to all human behavious is biological. Let's look at the classic value of altruism. The famous biologist E.O. Wilson comments on this positive behavious thus;

'I have argued in previous chapters that such biases are to be expected as a usual consequence of the brain’s genetic evolution. The logic applies to religious behaviour, with the added twist of tribalism. There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose. Even when individuals subordinate themselves and risk death in a common cause, their genes are more likely to be transmitted to the next generation than are those of competing groups who lack equivalent resolve.

The mathematical models of population genetics suggest the following rule in the evolutionary origin of such altruism. If the reduction of survival and reproduction of individuals due to genes for altruism is more than offset by the increased probability of survival of the group due to altruism, the altruism genes will rise in frequency throughout the population of competing groups. Put as concisely as possible: The individual pays, his genes and tribe gain, altruism spreads.'

Consilience (1998), p 287

Monotheists would have us believe that their particular 'Holy Book' is the fountain of values and ethics and are therefore learned via religious instruction.

I would contest this and say that human genes are the fountain of values and ethics and they are therefore intrinsic to human nature. Culture or religion merely refines the effect of those genes.
Posted by TR, Sunday, 3 June 2007 9:47:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear TR
please read this:

Acts 8:

1And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.(Stephen)
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Then, from the same man after his conversion:

1 Cor 13:1

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

..and then.. tell me its all genes :)

blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 3 June 2007 9:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ironically, the above fatuous and moronic statement (2 June) by Irfan is indicative of Islamic cultural values! Indeed, my time in the Middle East taught me that disproportionate ad hominem insults are are part and parcel of the Islamic religion. And I would suggest that the ability of Islam to withstand sceptical criticism without tempers flaring is practically zero.

Irfan is indirectly arguing by his essay (because he is Muslim) that Australian society should clear a public space for Islam and place it on a par with modern Christianity. I say that we should wait and see first before concuring with such a dramatic suggestion.

My own experince and a mountain of data (eg Amnesty International reports) suggest that the current values and idealogy of Islam is NOT beneficial in the long term to any given society unless it is first transformed by proper sceptical inquiry.

One of Islams current weaknesses is that it perpetuates and accentuates misogynist practice. It is not difficult to see why. The following text (Dawood's translation) from the Koran has been abused by generations of husbands who have no choice but to interpretate the Koran literally because it is supposedly the eternal unchanged word of Allah;

'4:43 As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.'

I should point out that the odds of this verse coming directly from an omniscent god of the Universe would have to as near to zero as damn it. What is bleeding obvious is that the Mohammed was having more than a few marital problems with his miriad of wives and needed some divine clout - in more ways than one.

I'm sorry but current Islamic values are NOT worthy of Australian society and are demonstratably NOT on a par with modern Christianity.
Posted by TR, Sunday, 3 June 2007 10:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, what you are saying Boaz, is that two paragraphs written about 2000 years ago, written by different people at different times, one from the viewpoint of an observer and one written by the guy himself, is supposed to be some sort of evidence that the inheritance of social instincts, whether by gene or meme effects is not happening? That its all due to the grace of God and accepting Jesus......yeah, right, whatever.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 3 June 2007 11:05:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR, as you would undoubtedly be aware, Wilson's 'sociobiological' approach is controversial among social scientists, due mainly to its extreme reductionism with respect to complex sociocultural phenomena.

For example, altruism - as you (following Wilson) describe it - is a human behaviour rather than a value as such. While altruistic behaviour is certainly valued by various human cultures and individuals, the nature of this value varies widely between social groups and the individuals that comprise them.

I agree with you that the claims by religious proponents that their deities are the sources of human values are false - however, it's not necessary to engage in biological reductionism in order to refute such claims. Indeed, Dawkins' invention of the notion of memes was intended to avoid such reductionism, in that memes were proposed as cultural phenomena that behave in ways analogous to genes, rather than being attributable directly to them.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 3 June 2007 11:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BUGSY..thanx for pointing that out.. No, I'm not saying genes have nothing to do with it.. and that accepting Christ is the total answer to human behavior transformation.

All I was doing is showing the dramatic difference in Pauls life pre-/post conversion, to underline that knowing Christ is sufficient to transform a person from violent malevolance to gentle love.

The biological reality of gradual change in outlook due to events at the genetic level? well..I would be loathe to argue against that.

I'm simply saying there is more to the picture and if we had our hopes based on gradual genetic improvement, we might be waiting a long time.

I'm pleased though, to note you picked the exact context of each of those 2 paragraphs. If you apply this same diligence to all the issues you speak about, you will definitely do well :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 4 June 2007 10:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way I see it a person either has their feet on the ground - in Australia or they are loyal to a cult -worship a god in space. It is a contradiction to believe in a magic god which creates a universe and remain loyal to a nation. Cults deal in jingoism and rhetoric, making patriotic claims based on religion are meaningless. This is true of all monotheistic superstitions.

The fact that Costello is superstitious and panders to prosperity cults like the pentecostals should not surprise anybody. Costello as treasurer has consistantly put the value of the material above the value of people. He belongs to a political party who buys votes rather than do the real work of government.

Ifran pentecostals are Christian in name only, they call themselves Christian but technically they are a new age prosperity cult very similar to the latest fastest growing religion 'the secret'. It is certainly true the cult of pentecostalism proscribes draconian dark age judgements to devalue outside society and engage in occult rituals. The other influence of Christianity is they look foward to the central monotheist value of ending the world where followers of the cult are magically lifted into a mythological kingdom akin to the giants castle in Jack and the beanstalk. The pentecostal theology go against all teachings of Jesus,even the good teachings as few as there are.

I suspect you rope them in as Judeo-Christian so as not to include Islam.

As an Australian, Christianity as are all monothesitic cults are as alien to me as little green men. To say the Judeo-Christianity sets my values as an Australian is ridiculous at best. A point in case, I can freely say this and survive because Australia is a secular society.
Posted by West, Monday, 4 June 2007 10:33:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading this thread all I can say is Christians will claim moral superiority and monopoly. The claim of morality is unfounded as are all claims of Christistians and monothesists. The premise for the claim is claim of a real god despite the fact god lives exclusively in fantasy. Even as a man such a god is elusive as there is not a sniff of evidence that Jesus ever existed. Certainly in fact history contradicts the existence of the monotheistic god. Certainly in fact Christian history and the history of all monotheistic cults testify evil is the norm and good values are the exception to the rule. The religious individual has to be their good selves to hold any form of good values.Those who hold good values do so because personality is genetic. Be reminded Christianity has inspired a great many serial killers and Islam a great many terrorists, how is that possible if their religions held good values? Those Christians with good values will use all excuses for their god , god tests with cancer and tragedy. A jealous god is not a moral god. The rest go with the flow of god and ethnic cleanse, convert, witch hunt, terrorise,excommunicate and protest until every mole hill becomes a mountain, then persecutes. Morals and values are a monotheists version of a peddlers wrinkle cream and vitamin B which faith in it will make a 70 year old as young as a 20 year old. The result ,60 year olds who see's a 20 year old in the mirror who scoffs at the bemused who see a 70 year old in crop tops and mini skirts. Religion is the tailor for the emporers new clothes.

Monotheists claim morality and values , but the claim is meaningless. Morality and values in the religious sense is wrinkle cream.
Posted by West, Monday, 4 June 2007 11:02:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie has no idea. Afghans in the mid 1800's were always a part of Australia's exploration due to their use of camels. There weren't thousands of them though Dick. A few hundred. And were they Muslims? Who really cartes. They didn't shove it down anyone's throats like today's religious morins do. These Afghans are and were simply Australians.

Whatever Dick, it has nothing to do with what Irfan has written. If you look you might also find evidence of other races too mate. Maybe, perhaps. What a lot ot rot.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 4 June 2007 12:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comments by the treasurer, Mr Costello, typify the arrogance and downright ignorance of the American style right wing dominated federal cabinet. The Australian ethos has little to do with any Judeo/Christian coalition of values if indeed there is any such coalition at all. As has been pointed out earlier, democracy itself derives from a people that laid the foundations of western society long before christianity developed, and while the jews were still wandering around the desert being a general nuisance to all and sundry - as indeed they still are. Also,if Mr Costello wants to claim the good things for his particular brand of god-bothering garbage, he must also accept responsibility for the bad - e.g the slaughter of the Aborigines, the on-going rape of the environment etc etc. Stick to waving your arms around at Hillsong, Mr Costello - your reading of history and ethics is of no worthwhile interest to anyone other than the brainwashed bible-bashing coalition supporters upon which your job depends.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Monday, 4 June 2007 12:58:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really Robbyh? Who said there were "thousands" of Afghans living in Australia in the early days? Certainly not I!

Furthermore, 99% of Afghans are Muslim so it is very likely the early settlement of these people in Australia would reveal they were Muslims.

So what's your beef? I suspect your post is also a "load of rot".......all froth and no substance!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 4 June 2007 1:36:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "Afghans" weren't from Afghanistan - they were from India and Pakistan - and in those days there wasn't a mosque in every suburb and limitless petro-dollars to fund extremists.
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 4 June 2007 2:28:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, is there a mosque in every suburb of every city in Australia? And are all mosques built and maintained using petro-dollars? Please provide facts and figures.

The wonderful thing about this discussion is that generally the only people prepared to defend Costello;s position are religious fruitcakes who would like to see Australia become a Christian Iran. Dream on.
Posted by Irfan, Monday, 4 June 2007 3:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho

Let's stick to the facts. Included also in the early settlement of the collective "Afghans" were people from Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey.

There was also a mosque in the small town of Coolgardie Western Ausralia.

Though, I agree, the above information has little to do with the fear Australians have of Islamic terrorism infiltrating their way of life!

Let's face it, terrorism is the essence of the current debate, exacerbated by the reluctance of moderate Muslims residing in democratic nations, to vehemently denounce the terrorist actions of Islamic states.

The intellectuals can debate all they like, the fact is the "masses" greatest fear in today's political climate is Islamic terrorism.

Many of us also deplore some of the rotten actions of western governments, however, we can at least feel reasonably safe living in a democratic nation, despite the shifty motives of our right-wing religious leaders.

As previously declared, I continue to believe that "Religion is the root of all evil!"
Posted by dickie, Monday, 4 June 2007 3:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a convert to anti-Islamism, I'm not concerned about facts and figures. I am happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity.

Until a few years ago I was a classic liberal leftist. I believed that the majority of muslims were peace-loving people who were willing to live amenably within western societies.

Moving into a suburb with a large population of muslim refugees changed all that. My experience of violence, intolerance and aggression with muslims in the street and in the media has convinced me that Islam is, as another OLO poster put it, "a monster from the dark ages" that has no right to exist in a sophisticated civilisation like ours.

Christianity isn't much better - just a variety of Islam with its balls cut off by the Enlightenment - but at least Christians don't advocate and enact their small-minded religious beliefs through violence and crime.

If there is another face to islam, I'd like to see it, because my disillusionment is profound. I'm sure muslim people have the capacity to be civilised, but it seems the religion needs a few more centuries of development before it can co-exist with the first world.
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 4 June 2007 4:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Costello went on about “Australia Way of life” but then on 6 July 2006 I published;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

And, in subsequent legal proceedings on 19 July 2006 had this filed as “evidence” and I succeeded on all constitutional grounds, after a 5-year legal battle involving Federal government lawyers.

So, since this publication Peter Costello switched to “Australian values”, I just wonder if he has any clue what this stands for?

The Framers of the Constitution made clear they didn’t want any religious troubles in the Commonwealth of Australia and hence inserted Section 116 in the Constitution to make this clear, just that they did count on religious freaks as politicians who, so to say, would sell their soul to try to get electors to vote for them.

Sure, I have friends who happen to be Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or whatever and so what, they are all part of the Human race!
I do not practice religion, albeit born with Jewish blood (and proud of it) but baptised Lutheran, because too much evil has been going about using religion.
Religion is the right of any person within his own domain to practice provided it doesn’t offence any relevant State law. Hence, I could not care less what religion or non religion a person has, as they are entitled too it as much as I am on what I do provided we all observe relevant legislative provisions. That is what “Australian values” really is about, to accept anyone for the right to choose their own lifestyle within the realm of the law!
I would like to see every politician playing the "religion" card to be ousted from Parliament!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 1:08:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sancho
I rejoice that someone has experienced life on the rougher end of the "Islamic" cultural_stick to the point where he has seen it for what it is.

I smiled at your rather 'castrated' understanding of "Christianity" :)

If I may offer a perspective on that.... 'Christendom' as in the historic expression of ChristianITY.. has not always matched the founder_or_foundation... Jesus .. and his teaching.

I encourage you, to discover the real 'Him' and the true Church on the pages of the Gospels and the book of Acts. The early church was not without its own problems. Such is life when 'people' are involved. They had factions, immorality, false teaching.. the whole nine yards. Most, if not all of Pauls letters were addressing those very things. I can't imagine a church as whacky as the Corinthians. His letter to them has a section "Now..regarding those things you wrote to me about" Chapter 7 verse 1 but the Catholics would love the 2nd verse. "It is good for a man not to marry" :) but he does explain more... now.. I hope those who claim that all religions are the inventions of men are looking closely at this. Most 'men' I know, want to marry.

In order to provide an opportunity for you to participate in something more than just a written forum, why not have a look at this web site, and see what possibilities come out of that.
http://www.islammonitor.org
I've become involved in the Melbourne branch and we had a little protest at the directions hearing over the 2 Dannies religious vilification case last friday. Even though we were few (around 7) and hardly displayed our signs.. it made the news in the Age. (Barney Zwartz)

Other actions are in the planning stages, and please realize that it includes Atheists, Christians and Jews.

One point on the article which claims the 'Judao' part of Judao/Christian means 'Jewish'... well..I don't understand it that way, I simply see it as Christian heritage which has the Old Testament as its foundation. I see no pandering to Jews in that terminology.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 11:00:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ dont you get the irony of not tolerating a religion that does not tolerate other religion in the same way your religion does not tolerate other religion?

Personally I am not surprised. In my antitheist ontology Christianity and hypocracy are interchangeable. Because Christianity literally means hypocracy your sectarian protests mean nothing. Sectarian because you and your mob are Christians which imply you are monotheists which is the same as Muslims. I dont care what you wear and what book you use to excuse you of your responsibilities in life, the Koran or Bible or LOTR but one thing religionists dont get is you have to keep it on your side of the fence.

The fact that people are people discredits the bible 100%. Thank nature people are people. The vatican supported fascism during WW2 and many Catholics fought against their faith and fought against Mussolini, Franco, the Vatican and Hitler. Many Christians go against the OT and refrain from beating their wives and children, killing atheists and marrying widowed sister in laws, raping slaves, killing slaves and keeping slaves. Many Christians go against the teaching of Jesus and earn money , get married and keep non-believers as friends.

There is no difference in my mind if a politician curries favour with a church or a mosque. It is un-Australian, belligerent, disrespectful to the Australian people and callous to Australians who are the victims of religion, those who sacrificed themselves for freedom , disrespectful to democracy as orginised religion is fascism - self indulgent love based on patriarchy and only encourages GBND God Belief Neurosis Disorder.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 12:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho: "I am happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity."

Well at least you have that in common with the Boazys of the world, except you're more honest about it.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 1:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish it weren't so, CJ, but the time for balanced response and negotiation is past. For once, the bigots were correct from the start: muslims only understand force, and see the humility and peaceful processes of a superior civilisation as a sign of weakness.

And thanks, Boaz, but I'm well aware that you only object to Islamic fundamentalist domination because it interferes with your wish for Christian fundamentalist domination. I'll stick with the principles that made Western society great: rationalism, secularism, and free speech.

And as for the website, I'm amazed it's legal. Why don't you simply cut the overheads and pool your resources with Stormfront and the other white supremacist organisations?
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 2:55:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Woops, only 1 run to go until yet another century ...
Posted by Irfan, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 5:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not trained in philosophy or political science (I envy Ayaan Hirsi Ali her training in the Netherlands), but it seems to me that Judeo-Christian (tradition/ values) is a shorthand which is useful, if a little misleading.
The socially useful bits of the Old Testament (the law-like stuff, as can be expected from a group trying to establish itself as a community), which are common to most religions, have been incorporated into the West's legal systems so that people can get along. This took some time, of course. Resisting those in power who did not wish to have their power challenged always does: not only time, but also blood. The dominant religious system (christian) provided these laws.
However, during this process, christianity had its teeth pulled. Enough people in the West came to think that peoples' reason, rather than some powerful clerics, should make laws for the common good. The christians lost this arguement, and have now not only come to accept this state of affairs: many (but by no means all) see improvements and whilst some might pine for their old status, many don't want to go back to being ruled by some powerful clerics (shall we mention George Pell here?) Thus the Judeo-christian heritage has also come to be a reference to rights and freedoms which the powerful christian clerics opposed then and of which many would oppose now.
I think it is clear that this heritage has been the most influential on the development of Australia's culture, but no-one has said it is the only. And I would not hesitate to say that, had Australia been Islamicised in either the way Indonesia, or parts of India were, Australia would be vastly different. And worse.
Posted by camo, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 6:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sancho.....

thanx for the feedback, I'll respond with a couple of counterpoints.

1/ The website is run by Jews, Christians and Athesists, of various ethnicities.. hardly a 'white supremacist' thing.
2/ I object to Islam not because I want a Christian fundy replacement, but because of the observations you make yourself about the impact of Muslim communities on us. (socio/cultural/political)

In fact.. at the VCAT court house, as we 'protesters' were discussing things, the issue of 'religious tyranny' came up (it was on one of our signs) and I made the quip (as a Christian) "Sheesh...I don't even want US to have too much power" and at that, the receptionist who was actually listening from a distance suddenly looked up in surprise.
Trust me.. the last thing I want is a "Christian" government, I wan't a government which reflects the values of the community, and I have to accept my own part if shaping those values. As a Christian, I promote values in the democratic process which I adhere to. Just like those of other persuasions do so.

The worst periods of Christendom have been where the State has been "Christian" in name if not heart. Christianity flourished and grew in the context of pagan emperors, we don't need a 'State' to grow and survive, we will use our lounge rooms.

So, I come back to my recommendation to you personally, to seek... in the Gospels.. the real Christ.

In terms of political forces against us, the NewYork Times is a classic. The plot to blow up JFK airport.. BIGGER than 9/11 was placed on the front page of virtually every American newspaper (reportedly)..but that one. The NYT put it on page THIRTY SEVEN and the front page was some "Indians making bricks". That is beyond bias, its almost treacherous.
Apparently they feel that 'terrorism' is a strong "Republican" issue so they avoid mentioning it.. "maybe it will just ... go away"?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 6:06:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho: "I am happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity."

Did you ever learn the story of The boy who cried Wolf" as a child?

Anti-muslim advocates have spent so much effort bashing Islam on any pretext they can find that any genuine issues which do exist will be lost in the maze of half truths, misrepresentations and outright deceit.

There are some cultural issues with some groups which we as a country could handle better if we could discuss them reasonably. Instead we have some determined to smear all muslims based on the behaviour of some who happen to originate in the middle east and the issues get lost.

If you do have genuine concerns you and those who take the same approach defeat your own purposes.

As CJ Morgan says though at least you are honest about what you are doing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 7:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks R0bert. It seems that Sancho doesn't realise that his (refreshingly frank) admission puts his arguments on exactly the same idiotic level as the fundy Islamophobes. Evidently, his personal unfortunate experiences with 'Muslims' in his suburb is sufficient in his mind to permit the telling of lies about Islam and Muslims in general.

I guess he also wouldn't be aware of the parallels that some of us have drawn here between the ethnic and religiously framed hate posts that threads such as this attract, and the kinds of literature and sentiments that we have seen before - like in Europe in the 1930s, or America in the 1950s.

It seems to me that in some ways Muslims are the new 'Jews', or the new 'Communists'. "Western" capitalist culture apparently seems to still find the need to create an Other to hate, and I fear that we are going to witness the escalation of hatred and warfare based on supposedly religious and/or ideological grounds - but actually structured in much the same way as good old racial conflict.

What's really scary is the way that so many lemmings are so easily led to hatred (which is of course why people like me bother to engage in these inane 'debates').
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 9:30:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But that's the worst part, CJ: I wasn't led easily to hatred. I was a staunch supporter and defender of moderate Islam from the moment of 9/11, when all muslims suddenly became the bad guys. It has been interacting with muslims in my community and my workplace which has taught me that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are only muslims who are committed to violence, muslims who support violence monetarily, and muslims who support violence morally.

My ancestors in dark-ages Europe were no better, and I wouldn't want thousands of them shuttled to Australia and set up in high-rise public housing communities. Yet this is precisely what we're doing with our refugee program - taking people from backward, mediaeval societies and expecting them to behave like modern, civilised citizens when they arrive.

I disagree that muslims are the new Jews. Jews have been resented and persecuted because of their personal success, not because they waged continuing campaigns of violence or expressed a fervent desire to destroy a society which has welcomed them and improved their lives beyond measure. Not until the creation of Israel, anyway. Opposition to muslim immigration is based on self-preservation, not unfounded prejudice.

The mass importation of muslims is fundamentally different from every other wave of immigration Australia has accepted. The Chinese, Vietnamese, Greeks, Italians, and others have gratefully taken part in the wider community, worked hard, and tried to get along. That can only be said for the smallest minority of muslims, regardless of nationality.

Most importantly, this isn't some sort of xenophobic paranoia. London (Londonistan) and France are living models of what happens when you let the muslims loose on a civilised society. If muslims want to stay here, they should expect to live up to standards of behaviour and levels of scrutiny far higher than everyone else, because we've seen how they'll end up living if left to themselves.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Camo western legal systems are inherited from the Romans who based concepts such as lawyers , legal representation, testimony, the judiciary and prison and captital sentences on delegations sent to Athens very early in the republic. The Celts held versions of common law which they considered fair which influenced later Anglo law. Pagans held higher moral ideals especially in the north than Christianity the basis of paganism was respect for fellow people, including strangers even if they held different beliefs and respect for the earth.

In reality Christianity traditionally has remained outside the law.

Christians often avoid the fact that their idol , Jesus was tried by Pontious Pilate not by a court which would mean he would have committed a crime akin to the terrorist attack on the world trade centre to be tried by the Roman executive. Of course he didnt because Jesus before Pilate means the story of Jesus is fiction. Secondly Christian arsonists burnt down Rome which was the reason why the cult was outlawed. The Popes created out of the pagan office of pontif to justify the coronation of kings and emporers (many of whom were no more than crime syndicate bosses) spent most of Christian history fighing against the formation of states.

Even today some cults refuse to report priests who molest children.

The fact that ordely law exists in Australia is testamony to the freedom and protection the secular state can offer citizens rather than the inevitable persecution and tyranny that theological based states inflict onto populations. Case in point Saudi Arabia, Iran , Afghanistan , Pre-secular Britain, France , Germany and 17th and 18th century North American colonies.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 11:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, either you are pathetically gullible or deliberately provocative. You strenuously deny the latter, so...

>>The plot to blow up JFK airport.. BIGGER than 9/11 was placed on the front page of virtually every American newspaper (reportedly)..but that one. The NYT put it on page THIRTY SEVEN and the front page was some "Indians making bricks". That is beyond bias, its almost treacherous. Apparently they feel that 'terrorism' is a strong "Republican" issue so they avoid mentioning it.. "maybe it will just ... go away"?<<

You get your news from sources such as MSNBC, who are of course completely untainted with partiality:

"Federal authorities said a plot by a suspected Muslim terrorist cell to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel artery could have caused “unthinkable” devastation"

Unfortunately, it seems that we are not dealing here with "unthinkable devastation", but with a couple of fruitloops, without the faintest idea of how to blow up a balloon.

"...the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives... even if the group had managed to acquire the financing and explosives to enact the plot, it would have been unsuccessful, due to safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network... The sum of the group's planning for the alleged attack amounts to nothing more than visiting Google Maps and printing off photographs."

Some recipe for "unthinkable devastation", or in your words and event "BIGGER than 9/11".

Some "Muslim terrorist cell"

I think you will now agree, that the New York Times were pretty smart to put it on page 37.

You have this objectionable habit of grabbing any headline involving Muslims, and using it to support your apocalyptic paranoid fantasy about Islam.

Remember "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'"

When will you learn?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 11:28:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles - Boazy won't learn, because he knows exactly what he's doing. As put so succinctly by Sancho, he too is "...happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity".

The major difference is that Sancho is candid about it, while Boazy still denies his mendacity despite being confronted with it regularly in this forum.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 7 June 2007 7:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As disagreeable as you find my statements, I owe it to public debate to state my position honestly. Boaz's crusade of thinly-veiled religious propaganda is contemptible.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 7 June 2007 10:08:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Probably the biggest dangers facing our world right now, unhappily do concern originally the prophet Abraham's sons and daughters, the Jews, the Arabs and us people of Christian stock.

Yet out in the bush in the 1920s and thirties we all seemed to get on, Jewish woolbuyers and Afghan traders mixing with the settlers, from a young kid's point of view no sense of hatred among us at all.

Though one could say that never a Jew or an Afghan was ever allowed through the front door, business was always discussed outside.

The superiority was thus there, as well as shown from not only British but also from German family names like Liebe, Schultz and Carlhausen, similar to in the US, were Teutonic names were so prominent in both World Wars, cousins fighting cousins as the result of so many German families leaving their home countries to start a new life.

Thus we have the stories of how the Teutonic barbarians finally took over Rome, after Roman leaders over hundreds of years gradually lost or cut loose the beginnings of a democracy inherited from the Greeks, eventually to return from a lazy sojourn to find a Germanic sitting on the Roman throne.

In fact, it has been said that it has been the rise of Teutonic or Germanic superiority since the Islamics were sent on the run apart from the Ottomans, that have caused the Arabs as some say to be treated like low life.

The Jews also were treated similarly to the Arabs, but their ability to have a natural sense of reason besides deep faith, has produced some of our greatest thinkers, which helped merge the spirit of capitalism into our Protestant Ethic.

But while we give praise, we also should be allowed to feel a certain amount of contempt for both us Protestants and Jews letting our leaders assume mantles of global elitism as if some sort of almighty God would want it that way.

The facts are, from a fair-minded point of view it does not look good.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 7 June 2007 5:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny how monotheists think they are the only people on the planet. With the exception of Ben Sira who turned the law of David into the bible, OT, mans law into gods law, transferred the greek concept of body worship into the Hebrew faith the "great" Jewish thinkers were all marginalised persons.

The great Jewish thinkers developed to the background of persecution, that is why mostly they stem from Europe and Central Asia. It is also why there has never in history been great Christian thinkers (with the exception of African American liberationalists)because Christians have always persecuted rather than be persecuted. There has been no great Moslem thinkers for ten centuries for the same reason.

Great thought can only be accomplihed from freedom of thought, free thought is a deviancy from controlled thought. Mills reacted against the anti human movement of 19th century protestant Christians , became a great thinker. Kant towed the line and became an apologist for dogma, a lousy thinker. Marx classified capital in light of the persecution of the working masses. Freud classified human deviency from cultural norms, those who within society are persecuted by society.

The reason why Christianity and Islam are persecuters is because the lack of spirituality and the primacy of gaining power both cults contain. Both were created to justify power to kings and is why both are essentially martial cults based on rigid heirachy. In no way is post Nicean Christianity the same as the multitude of Christian cults of the Classic Roman era. Both Constantine and Mohommed had one agenda , to use superstition to cultivate loyalty and power.

Who is it that claims "Gods will" and "In god we trust" which are exactly the same thing , with our mind we think for god.
Posted by West, Monday, 11 June 2007 12:10:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
Now we should have a reflection back that the new mufti indicated not to make comments unless it is approved by the board of clerics. Hilali was to me a messenger to warn about the evil rather then being evil himself as many seemed to attribute to him. Whatever resulted for him no longer to be a mufti is not just perhaps harmful to Muslims but also to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What we really have achieved is the censoring of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and repress this and FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

The Islamic religion means to me as much as the Christian kind of religions. Just don’t bother me with it.
However, I too view that women hardly clothed are causing if not themselves then others to more likely befall pray of rape, etc. I view that the standard of decency has been limited to gutter tactics.
Repressing FREEDOM OF SPEECH may have served many because it was a Muslim Mufti but once you start on this where will it end?

I may not have always agreed with what the Mufti was saying but that is not relevant as many may not agree with my views either.
However, we have currently a political domineering of religion and politicians falling over each other to try to get certain religions on their side so they can be the next government.

Fools, o fools, to fall for this kind of cheap trickery.
Nothing Hilali stated, for so far I am aware off, ever offended me personally and so why worry about him. The problem we are facing however is that the very dangers the Framers of the Constitution warned against now have been made part of our daily lives.
They had their wisdom to keep politics and religion separated and indeed deny the Commonwealth of Australia any kind of involvement into religious issues. We have seen however that over the years people are stirred up by the politicians about certain religious followers and actually interfering with who shall be heading a religious organisation.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 11 June 2007 9:52:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

This is a very sad day for society as it means we have lost a constitutional rights that the Commonwealth of Australia stays out of religious matters! That is the true issue to be mourned about and no doubt the consequences will haunt us, as while Hilali may not be an issue it will be merely a matter of time that politicians will use any religion as their political football and then we may look back and regret never having stopped this to start off in the first place.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 11 June 2007 9:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy