In case you thought it was only Muslims loonies you had to worry about.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0504.xml

Quote:

"And if that is not worrying enough, wait till the sequence in which a slick, clever, politically ambitious preacher tells his 2,500-strong congregation of impressionable young people that they should have no use for democracy since all the law they need is in the Bible."

Of course I would be the first to admit that this is atypical of contemporary Christianity. Most Christians in the US do not think the divide between religion and the state should be breached. Furthermore, these kids are going to have to go out into a largely secular and very diverse American workplace in order to earn a living. They will not be able to isolate themselves in a religious ghetto.

I also do not want to exaggerate the scale of the problem compared to Muslim fundamentalism. There are more actual madrassahs in Pakistan alone indoctrinating kids with this sort of madness than there are victims at "Camp Jesus."

Nonetheless I do find this worrying development. If the Telegraph report is correct I would like to see more Christian pastors saying this is not what Christianity is about. Just as is the case with Imams, silence can condemn Christian religious leaders.

I can think of a number of ways to respond to Steves article. (well, the article which his article refers to in reality)

VERSION 1.
The Environment in which the 'Jesus madrassah' is located.

From the Article:

>>As the nights lengthen and the mist swirls, as the first frost crinkles and the bones begin to chill, we are entering the season of scary movies. The sides of buses right now are decorated with pictures of severed heads and disgorged entrails by way of promotion for the latest offering of slasher porn.<<

MY COMMENT. err.. duh, and you wonder why there is a 'reaction' against the above ? x 100

VERSION 2.

The article is quite hysterical, long on emotive adjectives and short on a single quote from any of the speakers. Just an indirect assertion that the 'Preacher' tells the interviewer he will influence the next election.

WELLLLLL golly gosh.. and blowww me down.. I tawt tat was DEMOCRACY?

Then...the hysteria goes totally out of control, to the point where the utter bias of the writer comes to the top.. like the sludge in a blast furnace and he says...'brilliantly'

>>The absurdity of the concept that the Bible – rather than a common consensus should be our only legal guide<<

err.. double 'duh'.... I guess that only secular people can have 'common consensus' and that the Bible is 'absurd'?

Ohhh the shock...if enough people actually 'BY COMMON CONCENSUS' agreed that society based on the Bible is a good way to go..and VOTE accordingly ? Now that would be a spanner in the leftoidist works...wouldn't it.

VERSION 3.

>>Instead, they continue preaching an ever-more popular doctrine of hate, fear and war-mongering.<<

AGAIN....not a single supporting quotation, just baseless hysteria and emotionalism.

WAR ? what does Paul say about 'Christian war' ?

II_Cor_10:4 The weapons we use in our fight are not made by humans. Rather, they are powerful weapons from God. With them we destroy people's defenses, that is, their arguments"

Over 2 u Steve :)

ONE MORE THING......

When I see these young 'brainwashed' Christians picking up AK47s strapping suicide vests on, 'necklacing' homosexuals, and having 'last stands' at the camps, while being attacked by the National Guard.... I'll start to worry :)

But if they did.... I'd just point to the real scriptural position and declare them 'Christian' in name only.

Nice to see Steven taking a breather from whacking Mozzies. Yes, some of these extremist Christian Madrassah are a worry. They exist in Australia too, of course, and what is particularly galling is that your tax dollars and mine are used to prop them up.

For example, there's the wacko Exclusive Brethren schools:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20469486-2,00.html

For the record,

I am totally opposed to the use of tax dollars to fund ANY religious schools.

The barrier between religion and state needs to be maintained.

Might frighten you a bit Steve but the overwhelming amount of violence as a result of political gatherings seems to come from the atheist and in particular the so called environmentalist. Just look at any of their 'peaceful' demonstrations. They see it as sport to spit and throw urine on police and anyone else who disagrees with their views. For some reason they seem to attract the feralls.

I don't know of these guys but it seems that they are prepared to do spiritual battle rather than physical unlike many non believers and believers of other faiths. I am yet to see 'fundamentalist Christians' involved in violence as it contradicts the fundamentals of Scripture. The same can't be said for the philospohy of the earth worshippers and the like.

CJ Morgan wrote:

"Nice to see Steven taking a breather from whacking Mozzies."

I notice you don’t call this thread "whacking Christians."

So when I comment on the problem of Christian fundamentalism I'm the "good guy."

But when I comment on the far greater problems posed by contemporary Islam I'm an obsessed "Mozzie whacker" and a Jewish version of Boaz?

What does that tell me about you CJ Morgan?

I at least am consistent. I oppose all authoritarian ideologies whether they be those propagated by Aryans in brown shirts, Fidel / Chavez worshipping airheads or dark skinned people with beards or hijabs.

And, for the record, I do not "bash Mozzes." I bash the imperial authoritarian ideology that is CONTEMPORARY Islam. I also bash apologists for that loathsome ideology.

Runner,

I fully agree that, at least for now, Christian fundamentalism is a minor problem. Let's hope it does not develop into a major one.

stevenlmeyer: "I oppose all authoritarian ideologies whether they be those propagated by Aryans in brown shirts, Fidel / Chavez worshipping airheads or dark skinned people with beards or hijabs"

So do I.

"I bash the imperial authoritarian ideology that is CONTEMPORARY Islam"

No you don't. You conflate Islamism and fundamentalist versions of Islam with "CONTEMPORARY Islam". That is as intellectually dishonest as you would be if you conflated the fundy Christian nutters in yoiur link, or the Exclusive Brethren for that matter, with contemporary Christianity. That's why you mostly come across as an "obsessed 'Mozzie whacker' and a Jewish version of Boaz".

Which is why you cop some stick from me. And when did I intimate that you're a "good guy"?

CJ Morgan wrote:

"You conflate Islamism and fundamentalist versions of Islam with "CONTEMPORARY Islam."

Do I?

Over the years I have put a question to many Muslim Imams here and in South Africa. In its current form the question is as follows:

If (when?) Muslims become a majority in Australia or any other "Western" country would you seek to have the following made criminal offences.

-Adultery?

-Advocating atheism?

-Apostasy?

-Criticising Islam?

-Evangelising for a non-Muslim religion?

-Homosexual acts?

-"Insulting" Muhammed or Islam?

-Questioning the accuracy of the koran?

-Teaching an interpretation of Islam that differs from what is generally accepted (blasphemy)?

-Teaching evolution?

In every case the short answer, after many weasel words, has been "yes."

This sure sounds like an authoritarian imperial ideology to me.

My research leads me to one inescapable conclusion. What you call "Islamism" or "fundamentalist versions of Islam" is in fact mainstream contemporary Islam. It is the "liberal" versions of Islam that are the exceptions.

But don't take my word for it CJ Morgan. Do your own research. Get off your backside and interview a few Imams.

stevenlmeyer: "But don't take my word for it"

Don't worry Steven, I won't.

Further to the unlikely veracity of a Jew interviewing "many Muslim Imams", it strikes me that in the extremely unlikely event of Muslims becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion. That's called democracy.

However, I'm more concerned about what happens now, where we have numerous Christian lobby groups and government ministers attempting to change our laws so that they are in accord with their mediaeval religion. That's called subverting democracy.

Runner, fundamentalist christians DO get involved in violence. How many in the US bible belt support the Iraq war? Its Bush's main source of power. Is it s serious concern? Well, yes but I agree the threat is not as bad as islamic fundy's (unless you're Iraqi or perhaps Iranian).

CJ, whether fundamentalist islam is representative of modern islam or not, the fact is the sub-group is much shriller than any other religous fundy group, and apparently much more dangerous, both to their own people and to the wider world. I think this is what has most people concerned. I agree that if muslims ever become the majority in this country, democracy would give them the right to instill their rules pretty much at will, but I would also suggest that we might not retain the democracy for very long.

Going back to the point of what modern islam is, the concern is also that whilst the modernly educated are generally well enough equipped to make rational judgements about their own faith, much of the sphere of islam operates in vastly uneducated, poor countries. Fundamentalists have their richest pickings amongst those not educated enough to argue back. That's my other concern, is that even if the fundamentalists are not a large proportion of the muslim population, there is great capacity for them to become so. Again, this is why this extremist group is more dangerous than other relgious extremes.

The term "fundamentalist" was originally coined to refer to certain Christians only.

Not involved in violence?

As well as having a firm grip on influencing US politics and a vested interest in maintaining certain foreign conflicts, there are several individuals serving terms in USA prisons for blowing up abortion centres and murdering health workers.

I'm also curious about this strange convergence of statistics -

The US "bible belt" contains those States with the lowest household incomes, the lowest average IQ and the highest national rates of sex and violent crimes.

It's OK to point an accusing finger at one group to maintain your moral superiority over them but extremists are extremists no matter where they come from and what they claim to believe, and they are all potentially dangerous.

Democracy is based on the premise of settling differences through a process of open debate. A democratic government that shuts down whole categories of speech, (and worship) will immediately find itself in alien territory, walking the same path as tyrants.

The communists who seized control of countries following World War II would not tolerate dissent; that's why my family ended up in Australia. For centuries, dictators have filled their jails with people whose ideas and beliefs were judged dangerous, provocative, or likely to incite violence against the prevailing order.

More recently, despots in many countries have used the threat of terrorism as an excuse to silent violent and nonviolent opponents alike.

Having said that however,freedom of speech and belief must be weighed against the possibility that inflammatory words will lead to incendiary actions, a sequence for which there is also much precedent.
The old saying about free speech is that it does not extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

We live in a crowded theater now, and I think it fair to proscribe public speech that is clearly intended to promote violence.

No matter what your religious belief - the duty of every citizen is to share and support the values that sustain the Australian way of life. Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here.

The real victory over terrorism will come not through silencing anyone however, but through the amplification of more reasoned voices in each religious community. In this battle, every ally (families,
neighbourhoods, communities) can make a difference.

TAX DOLLARS FOR RELIGOUS SCHOOLS.... I agree with Steven and CJ on that point.. "except" where said religious schools are actually open to the public :) then..I see no reason not to support them with tax dollars.

But I prefer a totally Christian environment for education, but that also has its drawbacks.. young Christians who have not known anything but the 'christian friendly' educational and social process can get a bit of a shock when they goto a secular university. Unless of course the Christian educational institution has deep wells of apologetics studies, where upon the tables would be entirely turned. It would be Christian 'lions' among the secular 'lambs' :)

Here is an interesting 'madrassah' you may like to comment on.
(unless its the same one mentioned in the article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Luce

"BATTLE CRY"
http://teenmania.org/corporate/index.cfm

Teen Mania’s Mission Statement
To provoke a young generation to passionately pursue Jesus Christ and to take His life-giving message to the ends of the earth!

Our Core Values

Faith
We receive direction, provision, and motivation directly from God and His Word to take the Gospel to the World.

Integrity
We are who we say we are; and we always do the right thing, regardless of expediency.

Relationships
We have servants’ attitudes, and we go to heroic lengths to meet the needs of others.

Vision
We dare to dream as big as God dreams and believe that with God on our side, we can achieve the impossible.

Excellence
We demand of ourselves uncompromising quality and strive to be people who demonstrate excellence in everything we do.

BD's COMMENT.. Hmm.. I can't actually see a down side to this :)

Woah, CJ...you say "they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion. That's called democracy."

I'm sorry, but that's a very narrow, limited type of democracy.
Democracy, for it to have any use, is much more than the rule of the majority. I couldn't care less if 99.9% of the population of Australia think that, for instance, "criticising Islam" or "teaching evolution" should be illegal. That is not something that can safely be decided by majority vote. The right to free speech is an absolutely fundamental tenant of a working democracy, that should NEVER be up for popular vote.

Country Gal

You raise an interesting point as to whether a Christians should or should not go to war. I am sure you would have mixed opinions even among Christians. Some would argue for the common good going to war is necessary to combat evil (eg Hitler,Hussein etc). Others would prefer the UN approach to sit on your hands and allow million to do die by dictators. I prefer the individual check his/her own conscience on this as their are no conclusive Scriptural direction as far as I can see. Quite a complex issue. The point is that No Christian could honestly get any delight out of hurting another human being. This could not be said for the often violent earth worshipers who love to rebel and hurt others in the name of peace. Again they are a far greater threat to peace than some 'fundamentalist Christians'. Just ask any policeman.

runner

not many religious can look at themselves objectively and while there are a few who can; you are not one of them, your quote: "The point is that No Christian could honestly get any delight out of hurting another human being."

I guess the Crusaders, Witch hunters and of course in contemporary times: ordained paedophiles, Ku Klux Klan, Gay-bashers, abortion clinic terrorists - self righteous christians the lot and I guess not one took pleasure in their subjugation of others.

Yes they are the minority of christians, but yes, they are as dangerous as any other fundamentalist of any religious stripe.

Believe what you want, runner, but don't tell huge porkies like you continually do, that ALL Christians are peaceful and loving because it simply isn't true.

It is this type of hypocrisy from you and BD and others that makes secular people angry.

You would achieve far more good bringing your religious brethran into line when they do behave badly. You might just achieve some respect for a change as well.

So CJ...,

If in a context that most people were statistically football players and I was to say:

"In the extremely unlikely event of skateboarders becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their pathetic sport. That's called democracy.

However, I'm more concerned about what happens now, where we have numerous football players attempting to change our laws so that they are in accord with their pathetic sport. That's called subverting democracy."

Would you consider me bigotted?

Johnny Rotten,

I'm surprised that you criticise runner for being sloppy in the way he expressed himself blowing it out of all proportion then in your enthusiasm you claim that the lot of the people on your list are self righteous Christians. I'm guessing that would make things easy for Runner in response. Is that like some kind of Freudian slip of the keyboard due your guilt for slipping in gay bashers there?

I'm also curious about which of Runners brethren you want him to bring into line. Is it the Witch Burners or another from that list or some others? Can you please clarify. And do you mean Runner or Christians generally?

Well mjbp,

In a population of football players, where only 20% of players bother to play, (ie go to a football match or turn up to training), could you even say that football players were statistically in a majority? And if these 20% of football players that regularly played wanted to change the laws to suit their style of play, could we be labeled bigoted in trying to prevent that?

dnicholson/wizofaus - I hope you misunderstand me.

I said "...in the extremely unlikely event of Muslims becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion".

Unfortunately, you and I may regard "free speech" as a fundamental tenet of a working democracy, but if (heaven forfend!) a majority of the electorate decided otherwise and voted in a government that wanted to legislate elements of Sharia law, then I'm afraid we'd have to put up with it or move somewhere else. Indeed, we don't actually have free speech in our current system - what we can say or publish publicly is constrained legally in various ways already, under e.g. vilification, anti-terrorism and defamation laws.

Of course, as I implied, there is virtually nil probability that fundamentalist Muslims will ever achieve a majority in the Australian electorate, so we can rest easily on that score, despite the purported designs of Steven's supposed Imams. I suppose if I said I'd "interviewed" many fundamentalist Christian preachers in my travels and asked them if abortion, adultery, homosexual acts between adults, teaching of evolution in schools etc should be made illegal, then they would also answer in the affirmative.

But it wouldn't mean anything, because I'd be telling porkies, like Steven does when he goes into Islamophobic dog-whistling mode. Yes, fundamentalist Islam is an even more odious belief system than fundamentalist Christianity is, but it surprises me how readily otherwise sensible people appear to respond to the kinds of unsubstantiated dog-whistling exercises that we are exposed to here.

Let's get real - there are a couple of hundred thousand Muslims in Australia, in a population of something like 22 million. The radicals among them are not going to dominate the Australian polity any time soon.

mjbp

No I criticised Runner for being a hypocrit in claiming that christians would never get pleasure out of harming people - nothing sloppy about that.

For your edification (as you apparently live in a bubble) please read the following very factual articles about very nasty christians. As I said most christians are fine decent people, it is the fundmental selfrighteous crowd who are to be feared as much as any other selfrighteous religious group. Why you would want to defend the likes of these people is quite beyond my understanding. PLease, read the following and explain why moderate people everywhere should not be afraid...

Pell backs discrimination against gays…..
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/30/2074861.htm?section=australia

The time line: the Dark Ages to now….
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

Christianity, Apartheid and Racialism…
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16633.htm

If there was any silver lining to the Oklahoma City bombing, it was the opportunity the incident afforded for public education and dialogue about the growth of right-wing organizations….
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/ZMag/articles/july95diamond.htm

The Violent Anti-Abortionist's Handbook…
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,482865,00.html

"And if these 20% of football players that regularly played wanted to change the laws to suit their style of play, could we be labeled bigoted in trying to prevent that?"

Primarily I would think that that would depend on you attitude toward skateboard players. If their were arbitrary conditions imposed on them also then no. Would it help if the football players rejected included those regularly playing and those with beer guts? I would hope that nitpicking about the hands on aspect and the obvious corollary being the attitudes of people not identifying as sportspeople wouldn't be necessary. Do you think that is an essential consideration or just rhetoric to disguise a minority in numbers?

If you'll excuse the 'change of topic' do you think that a politician would have difficulty complying with the commandment not to lie?

Again, I am at a complete loss to understand what you are trying to say (and do not attempt to put the onus on me for a lack of comprehension).

Forget the analogies for a minute. Approximately 68% of people in this country identify as being "Christian". Many of them list this faith because of family history, rather than being a god fan, as less than 20% of these actually attend church (not including weddings and funerals).

The fault lies with the thought that the majority are in tune with being "christian" (or statistically pathetic football players). Football players are not in the majority here, but they do seem overrepresented in the parliament don't they?. And this of course a historically football playing country, so those bloody skateboarders had better keep of the footpaths if they know whats good for 'em!

CJ, no I don't accept that we'd have to put up with it. Many of the rights and principles of equality that we have today were hard fought for AGAINST the wishes of the majority of the day (at least, the majority of anyone with any say).
And I would be willing to fight against the majority to ensure we kept them.
It's one reason that having a basic Bill of Rights would be worthwhile pursuing.

BTW, scary thought: if the current population balance is 200,000 religious fundamentalists vs 21000000 others, then if the former were to breed at a rate of 5 children per household, and the latter at 1.5, then they could outnumber us in less than 4 generations.

DNICHOLSON

Well put.

Democracy is emphatically not merely about the rule of the majority.

It includes protecting the rights of minorities, allowing for the expression of unpopular views and no discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, creed or sexual orientation.

Is Australia a perfect democracy?

Absolutely not.

But it is orders of magnitude better than most Muslims countries.

And since Australia allows for a high degree of freedom of speech we can hope to make it ever better. The strength of democracy is that it allows for EVOLUTION.

CJ MORGAN,

You wrote:

"Don't worry Steven, I won't."

But I'll wager you won't do the research either. I mean how difficult is to to phone a sample of Imams?

CJ Morgan, you and Boaz are PEAS IN A POD.

You both prefer the pieties of your respective religions to facing the real world.

In Boaz's case the religion is Christianity.

In your case it is political correctness.

Neither religion tolerates free thinking.

Johnny Rotten

Finding no joy in hurting another human being does not disqualify someone from calling sin sin. Whether it be adultery, lying fornication or homosexuality sin is sin. Jesus Himself hated sin whilst loving the person. Again you and others seem to deliberately ignore the clear fact that the earth worshipers and tree huggers are by far the most violent political (or religous) group in this country. They rebel at any authority and refuse to accept peacefully decisions made by elected governments.

It's striking how the oddballs need to attribute the delusionary status of 'religion' to those of us who consciously don't adhere to one. Even worse when one's supposed "religion" is a secular slogan: "political correctness".

I had thought that my ideas that I express here were decidedly politically 'incorrect' for some of the most prolific contributors to this forum. They're certainly politically 'incorrect' in terms of the outgoing Rodent government, and undoubtedly will be with respect to many aspects of Rudd's forthcoming regime.

dnicholson/wizofaus:

Settle down, old chap. It's an Islamophobic fantasy - it ain't gonna happen, even in 4 generations. I'm quite confident that our culture is capable of integrating our Nuslims, who will undoubtedly be more "enlightened" by then.

The world will undoubtedly be quite different in a century - which is about 4 generations. Look at what's changed in the past 4 generations :)

stevenlmeyer: "I mean how difficult is to to phone a sample of Imams?"

You're off your tree.

From Johnny Rotten we have the first sign of agression mentioned on this thread. Quote, "It is this type of hypocrisy from you and BD and others that makes secular people angry".

ANGER is the first attitude of violence. I suppose we can allow one bad apple in a bunch.

Toterance brother this is a democracy!

STEVEN... careful now mate.. suggesting that CJ and me are just equal but opposite poles could be so traumatic for CJs health that he might sue you :)

Peas in a pod eh ? hmmm I'll have to reflect on that. But I have to ask... when was the last time I abused you, or tried to assasinate your character and integrity ? :)

JOHNNY ROTTEN.. mate.. please do some clear thinking on what 'being Christian' really is. You can sus this out in the New Testament..Gospel of Mark is an easy 'action movie' read, and Acts is good.. then...some of the letters of Paul. Romans is very systematic but edifying, and answers a LOT of questions about life and God.

Once you reach that point of understanding what a Christian "is" you can then make reasonable comparisons between that and the whacky groups out there who claim to be Christian...or.. are said to be by others.

Cheers

Boazy: "when was the last time I abused you, or tried to assasinate your character and integrity ?"

Boazy's right - he reserves that approach for refugees, Muslims, Greens and gays.

Well CJ, I didn't claim I thought it was *likely* to happen, and you know from my posts in other threads that I largely believe that Muslim immigration should have a dampening affect on fundamentalism, as more and more Muslims see first hand the benefits of living in a secular, liberal democracy. And thankfully it will inevitably have a dampening affect on fertility rates too.

CJ... you forgot 'evolutionists' :)

I have to post this little snippit in this thread.. I don't know how to otherwise bring it to Steven's attention.. as this is his namesake.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

>>On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<<

So.. perhaps we can include his work in the 'Christian Madrassah' :)

Oh.. that list of people you mentioned.

-Refugees. no.. only the ones who try to illegally enter the country and use deceit.

-Muslims. No.. only those who seek to impose Sharia law on us.

-Greens. No, only those who deliberately place animal and plant life above human, as opposed to a responsible and sustainable stewardship of the planet.

-Gays. No.. only those who seek to politicize it, and impose it on our children through education and the media.

See... you 'generalized' against me.. yet a-gain. "You disagree..thus you hate me" kind of thing.

*ouch*.. I just felt a sharp pain in my back.. must be one of those pins going into the Boaz effigy.

Johnny,

Perhaps you are right but I still believe it was sloppy because odds are Runner would allow the possibility that some identifying as Christians do not live Christian ideals yet he made the statement without considering that you would go to town on it. Assuming this is correct then he could have instead said that harming people is contrary to Christian belief. If my assumption is correct that is what he meant. That would be less sloppy in that he would simply be communicating his message without any additional but unintended meaning for you to play with. Hopefully Runner will confirm I am correct.

Further, if my assumption is correct then calling him names (or a name) would be dangerous when you claimed that all baddies in a number of categories were Christians. As with the assumption I made about Runner I assume you don’t really think that absolutely noone in the categories you listed are non-Christian. The danger would be that Runner could go to town on you as obviously some would have to be non-Christian.

Thanks for the articles. I have glanced at all of them and will hopefully get time to read them properly.

CJ,

I don’t want to strike a nerve by supporting some old arch enemy when I don’t know the history so please don’t read anything extra into this but your belief system doesn’t allow free thinking. That is dangerous although your only current victims are Christians. It would be nice if you were to take that on board and weren’t such an extremist. If you don’t believe me would you like me to play psychic and predict your answers to a range of questions?

Anger is a perfectly normal human emotion – it affects everyone at some time regardless of our ideologies.

Some are better at dealing with anger than others. When we are angry we should ask ourselves why.

I know why I am angry at people like runner and other dogmatic fundamentalists. It is because they would rather attack me personally than debate me. I have no intention of getting violent. Anger does not necessarily lead to violence, it is simply a sign we should ask ourselves why we are feeling angry.

Now I have dealt with yet another deliberate attempt to divert the debate, I will continue.

I apologise if I appear to be concentrating only on Christians, but I know more about Christianity than other religions and the relentlessly dogmatic religious on OLO claim to be Christian.

OK, I have pointed out the many acts of violence committed by Christians before and even provided links for those who seem to believe that Christians never do bad things.

Fact is everyone does bad things.

Problem is we don’t always like to admit that we do – bad things that it. Which brings me back to hypocrisy; I believe we should own what we do either as individuals or as a group.

Seems to me that not a single Christian poster here is willing to acknowledge that both now and in the past that Christians have done very bad things indeed.

The question I would like to pose is why?

If Jesus is about loving one another, what has gone so fatally wrong with his peaceful message?

Why aren’t Christians working towards peace, why do they try to blame others rather than cleaning up their own behaviour first?

After all, Jesus himself asked “who cast the first stone?”.

Well there is a lot of stone flinging here and not a lot about respect for those who are not Christian but who are their neighbours.

Johnny Rotten

Nothing could be further from what you say. Christians realise that we all have the nature of Adam. Millions of atrocities have been done in the name of Christ. What you mis represent is Christ's teachings. The church has always been made up of sheep and goats or wheat and weeds. One day we believe Christ will sort out the genuine from the fake. The word fundamentalist has been distorted to mean bad or terroist where in fact anyone who believes in the death, burial and literal resurrection are fundamentalist. They believe in the fundamentals of the Scriptural teachings. The point I make is that a person like you is smart enough to know this and yet you and others delibaretly and dishonestly ignore this fact. You also ignore the most violent in this nation ( the protesters at various gathering) who are more often than not masquerading as Greenies, environmentalist or socialist.

runner: "...the most violent in this nation ( the protesters at various gathering) who are more often than not masquerading as Greenies, environmentalist or socialist"

Finally poor old runner gets something right!

RUNNER....I'm a bit curious about what you mean't the mate ?

"Masquerading as"

Notice how CJ jumped on that like a pitbull on a chihwawa and agreed with you...... Thats ALWAYS a sign of 'danger' :)

I think they are a mixture of "real" Greenies and "real" socialists, but there is also an anarchist element who become human limpit mines and attach themselves to some of these things just seeking to cause strife.

I saw enough anger to fill half of hell when I attended the G20 protest.. mostly from leftoids.

Runner.. ru in Melbourne ? There will be a most interesting trial going ahead in February..I'm taking a few people to it for public interest reasons. Why not come along ?

mjpb: "your belief system doesn’t allow free thinking"

How do you figure that? While I prefer to have strong, verifiable evidence before I believe things, I don't think I'm narrow minded at all. It's people like you who raise myths and legends to the status of reality - which is fine, but I object when your hocus pocus becomes incorporated in a government that has authority over me, or when my tax dollars go to support religious schools to the detriment of state schools.

"That is dangerous although your only current victims are Christians"

Did you actually read what I wrote? I have no problems with most Christians (or Muslims or whatever) - it's only when their beliefs and practices intrude, or potentially intrude, on my life that I object to them. If anything, I think that Islam is less palatable than Christianity, but it's Christians who have the power, money and political clout in this country.

Moreover, in this forum objectionable Christians outnumber objectionable Muslims by about a factor of 10.

"If you don’t believe me would you like me to play psychic and predict your answers to a range of questions?"

No thanks. In my experience, those who have imaginary friends with whom they like to converse tend to be children, or to be 'psycho' rather than 'psychic'. In either case, I have no interest in playing games with you.

JR,

Are you saying that you think that Runner has attacked you personally? I missed it – which post? Do you think that disrespect characterizes posts of Christians in this forum while respect characterizes the non-Christian posts?

”Problem is we don’t always like to admit that we do – bad things that it. Which brings me back to hypocrisy; I believe we should own what we do either as individuals or as a group.

Seems to me that not a single Christian poster here is willing to acknowledge that both now and in the past that Christians have done very bad things indeed.”

I am glad you were sincere. That is to your credit. You weren’t deliberately misinterpreting Runner. Hopefully my assumption about what Runner meant (see previous post) is correct and this will now be a non-issue. Hopefully it will also undermine your general stereotype if he confirms that he knows some Christians do bad things.

”Why aren’t Christians working towards peace, why do they try to blame others rather than cleaning up their own behaviour first?”

Have you considered that perhaps Christians are continually being stoned and being imperfect humans lose sight of working for peace in that environment? This is also a strong temptation for Christians to be less friendly and regardless of ideals Christians are human. Considering that these forums seem to be a haven for extreme Christians (and extreme atheists) can you see anything about the first post that might appear insulting to the local Christians? What I mean is: try walking in the moccasins before being so critical.

Bugsy not ignoring you. I am just riding the post limit and prioritising.

Boaz

I wrote 'the most violent in this nation ( the protesters at various gathering) who are more often than not masquerading as Greenies, environmentalist or socialist.' I meant by this that a number of socialist will use the mask of being environmentalist as an excuse to display violence. Many of the global warming bandwagon are now good examples of this. They justify their violence by pretending to care for the earth while hating all authority. They then have the hide to project law abiding bible believing Christians as evil because the Christians disagree with their narrow minded world view.

And I am from WA not Victoria so am unlikely to make any meetings in Victoria

I feel sorry for you runner, your comments show that it is you that has a narrow minded view of the world.

Environmentalism is not the domain of ‘socialists’ - just look at Turnbull, Howard or even the Californian governor.

I also remember that law abiding and bible believing people were seriously implicated in fascist Germany.

You come across as a self-righteous bigot, not unlike Boaz.

One thing I feel more than ever. We need a bill of rights to provide a legal bulwark against encroachments from governments federal and state, from corporations and, perhaps most important, from religions and other ideologies including political correctness.

Bugsy,

Sorry didn’t mean to go over your head. My analogy is probably too unsubtle to protect anyone anyway so I’ll be more explicit. In the beer gut comment I was referring to the fact that both government ministers/ politicians and Christian fundamentalists are supporting the same issues. Clearly pollies equate with fundies as much as someone with a beer gut equates with superfit football players. Does the idea of a 'Christian' politician attending strip clubs rather than Churches really surprise you? It was one way in which I attempted to show that your attempt to cut down the majority was invalid because the issue clearly doesn't just involve fundies irrespective of how Christians break up.

The other point I was making is that if you want to be applying sound reasoning not just a trick you need to apply the same reasoning to other groups involved. For example not all atheists support abortion, gay marriage/adoption, etc. etc. Would you expect an atheist right winger/conservatist to agree with Christians on the relevant issues? Is it just me or do both major parties lean toward conservatism? I bet they have done their homework so if I’m correct then that hints at the attitudes in the electorate.

An atheist boy at my high school felt comfortable proclaiming that gays should be shot. Scary and extreme attitude toward gays. I have also noticed people using the word gay as an insult. “That is so gay”. Again that is way more extreme and more akin to racial discrimination rather than the Christian outlook on gay marriage / adoption. Christians oppose it due to concerns about the effect on traditional marriage and the effect on children.

In reality you can’t use Church going as a definite determinant of attitude on the relevant issues and we don’t even have a crude unreliable measure like that of attitudes among atheists. Currently on the face of it the majority are Christian because they say so and denying a Christian voice but arguing for the legitimacy of a Muslim voice in similar circumstances reflects an unfortunate attitude toward Christians.

"How do you figure that?"

You exhibit symptoms of putting blind faith in politically correct dogma. If I thought you considered yourself narrow minded I wouldn't have tried to reinforce that observation. If you already recognized the problem you would have dealt with it.

"It's people like you who raise myths and legends to the status of reality - which is fine, but I object when ... my tax dollars go to support religious schools to the detriment of state schools."

Right back at you regarding the myths and legends. I do have mixed feelings about the school thing though. On one side Christians pay tax too and shouldn't be discriminated against. On the other side the government hold the purse strings. Further, an American lawyer I knew expressed a unique theory. He said that American Indians used to suffer like Australian Aborigines until the government stopped trying to help them and left them alone to help themselves. He held that a similar approach should be taken here. Albeit without a firm opinion I have wondered about that and wondered if tough love would help Christians. As Bugsy pointed out a lot of Christians don't even attend Church. Perhaps the independence and need to work together to keep Christian schools going might help strengthen Christians.

"Did you actually read what I wrote?"

Yes you were willing to accept that if Muslims were in the position of Christians it would be democratic for them to wield their power. Why not Christians?

"No thanks. In my experience, those who have imaginary friends with whom they like to converse tend to be children, or to be 'psycho' rather than 'psychic'. In either case, I have no interest in playing games with you."

Your choice re game. I won't hound you with inferences. But I have to point out that I have no imaginary friends. Just a belief in a God like most of the world's population that can't legitimately be compared. Your political correctness has locked you into some bizarre perspectives.

mjpb: "ou exhibit symptoms of putting blind faith in politically correct dogma"

What "politically correct dogma" is that, exactly? How do I put "blind faith" in it?

"Right back at you regarding the myths and legends"

Really - and to what myths and legends do I ascribe the status of reality? I call them myths and legends, which means they're not real.

"...you were willing to accept that if Muslims were in the position of Christians it would be democratic for them to wield their power"

Not quite. I said that "in the extremely unlikely event of Muslims becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion."

Democracy means "rule by the people". In the hypothetical situation of a clear majority of any electorate wanting to change or institute laws of any kind, then democratically they would be entitled to seek to do so. Under the Australian system, that should mean electing representatives to Parliament who openly support such laws when they stand for election.

However, under the current situation we have a minority of the electorate (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) seeking to influence parliament by devious means - including via Christian MPs who are elected as members of supposedly secular parties, increasingly powerful lobby groups like the ACL, or by underhand mobs like the Exclusive Brethren hypocritically and deceptively funding electoral advertising and lobbying sympathetic politicians.

That's why I'm more concerned about the political activities of Christian fundies than of Muslim loonies in this country. If Christians want Christian laws and government, they should vote for overtly Christian parties like Family First.

But of course they don't do that generally, because they know they haven't a prayer of succeeding if they're honest about it.

HEY Q & A.. fair go on the "self righteous bigot" bit eh...

*BD's verbal missile defense radar is online*

Thats a personal attack not a debate contribution.

Why do you confuse 'passion and confidence' with 'self' righteousness?

I don't have much to say about myself, in 'righteous' terms.. not at all, apart from Paul who claimed the crown originally, I'm the 2ic of the chief of sinners.

My comments and points are about a truth which exists quite firmly irrespective of myself. While I seek under God to live that truth, by His indwelling Spirit, it isn't "about me" please.

CJ... you hypothesized that "if (though unlikely) Muslims became a majority here they would be entitled to change the law etc"

But there is more to that issue than simply majority. All it takes is for 'any' group (even Christian, and yes, we do think about this) to have a grip on certain key marginal seats, where the elections generally are closely contested and they can virtually dictate to the party which seeks their support.

The first issue on the Muslim agenda, would be 'hate speech'.. implement laws which enshrine the illegality of criticizing Mohammad and Islam. Thats "Political Step 1". They absolutely have to get that law passed first, because as you would have seen MANNNNNY times here, I and Kactuz and others, have drawn attention to the many
-cruelties,
-mass killings,
-political assasinations,
-intimidations,
-self justification via 'revelations' of convenience
-Sexual involvment with a child

associated directly with Mohammad.... and you know the reaction.

FH. will say "you are mistrepresenting Islam" (whereupon I reply, I'm misrepresenting HIS Islam :)
the politically correct will say "you are spreading hate"
Pericles will say "You are part of 'the problem'"

But in Victoria, we have actually LIVED the tyranny of such laws being passed and seen how they are selectively applied. For us, it is the 'HERE and NOW'...not some hyperthetical future event.

Self-righteous: holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, pompous, pretentious, conceited, etc.
Bigot: extremist, dogmatist, hypocrite, terrorist, fanatic, etc.
Passion: zeal, fanaticism, obsession, infatuation, etc.
Confidence: self-belief, assurance, etc.

Boaz, so you want to play semantics. If you write like a sanctimonious hypocrite, sound like a sanctimonious hypocrite and preach like a sanctimonious hypocrite, well … maybe you are.

You take offense, that is your problem – but it is on topic, whether you like it or not.

There are zealots on both sides – be they Muslim or Christian. For many here on OLO you are very much sounding as an example of the latter.

You talk about a ‘truth’ you seek under God to which you want to live, but fundamentalist Islamists can and do say the same – and please, don’t come forth with various text and verse from the Bible or Qur'an, it’s obfuscation at best and mendacious at worst.

Q&A

It is zealots like BD who run these brainwashing outfits like Jesus camp, because only zealots feel they have the right to mind-fock kids.

All BD can achieve is antipathy towards him - he alienates, outright lies, exaggerates and pretends to moral superiority with his relentless gay & mozzie bashing and virtual vomit of religious quotes.

The BD's of this world are the reason that:

Religion should no longer have tax exemption (such a rort)

and

Should be kept completely out of politics (l'il Johnny pretending to be pious always makes me wanna puke).

and

should always by approached with caution, wearing flak jackets and hard copies of the God Delusion and anything by Douglas Adams.

CJ,

I'm cutting this down from 463 words by prioritising but am happy to revisit the bits I chopped if necessary.

Most of your ‘devious means’ seem like a normal part of the political landscape. I don’t recall mainstream political parties claiming to be either secular or religious nor should they. You think parties should discriminate against potential politicians if they are Christians? Would you say the same about other more politically correct people like homosexuals who lobby heavily but enter major parties not single issue parties? If you are not prejudiced against Christians I assume you hold the equally undemocratic view that homosexuals should be excluded because major parties don’t hold themselves out as gay.

I note your label of fundamentalist Christians lobbying “a minority of the electorate”. You appear to imply that they are completely separate to the Christian majority not just the enthusiastic examples of any group who are likely to lobby. That isn’t just a fundamental misrepresentation as a rationalization for your call for Christians to get special discriminatory treatment in our democracy is it? Again apply that to other groups who don’t trigger the Deep South mentality. Homosexual activists are on a whole different planet in political enthusiasm and typically display extreme prejudice toward Christians that my gay friends don’t hold. Indeed I wouldn’t be friends with them. Yet if the majority of people were gay would you seriously subdivide them to pretend activists were a minority group?

”But of course they don't do that generally, because they know they haven't a prayer of succeeding if they're honest about it.”

Of course not any more than any one issue parties. Most people vote for major parties. That doesn’t establish a Christian minority any more than the lack of success of the Greens shows that people hate the environment.

Q&A that was quite a list mate.. all those names.

Does it by any chance occurr to you that calling me a list of names hints.. just a tiny bit.. at 'self righteousness' in you ? :)

Honestly.. you are playing one of the oldest games in the book..."Throw enough mud and some of it must in the end...stick" but what you don't see is the mud sticking to your own hands old son.

How in the world does it benefit a debate, by calling an opponent a heap of names?

JOHNNY.. is that your take on things also ? that you and Q&A wallowing in name calling like a couple-a-pigs in a slop heap...that 'I' am the one causing the alienation?

and Johnny.. what's this about 'outright lying'? That is a bit strong.. sure I've made mistakes but innocently, or based on poor recollection at times, but 'outright' lie ? nope.. I can't claim that one. Needless to say, you will come up with something I've written and 'SPIN' it as an 'outright lie'. Well go right ahead.

Come come :) let's reason together. Both of you can do better.

You and Q&A want the tax free status of religions removed ? no biggy... we 'DONATE' each sunday so it won't effect us much. I'm a great believer anyway in SELF supporting Churches. The further from the State...the better.

mjbp....that last post was quite well argued mate...

I won't call gay activists 'deranged or lunatic' I simply disagree with their moral standpoint and thus will oppose the furtherance of it in every way I can.

I definitely regard the homosexual condition as non normal, and I don't think one needs to argue that too hard because it is patently obvious. The point though is that while I have compassion for an individual struggling with sexual orientation, I have ZERO sympathy for such a person who is trying to impose that moral viewpoint onto children via education from pre-school to University.

I won't call such a person 'deranged', but I will call them 'not normal' because they arn't. We can engage with others without shabby shallow empty name calling.... at least some of us can.

So....which is worse.. a 'Christian camp' where we speak to a small number of people about spiritual things, or a group which seeks to undermine and invade and infect our whole education system in a planned deliberate and to me, immoral way ?

I sympathise for you BD, empathy is another matter – you decide what word games you want to play.

Boazy: "...a group which seeks to undermine and invade and infect our whole education system in a planned deliberate and to me, immoral way"

Which group is that, Boazy? If it's homosexuals you're talking about, your raving homophobia is showing again.

What is it with you Christian Taliban and gays? Boazy openly vilifies homosexuals as often as possible, while cleverer types like mjpb utilise them in exercises of convoluted sophistry as above.

Hopefully, once Rudd's elected and the Greens hold the balance of power, these sanctimonious godbotherers will scuttle back to wherever they used to lurk until the neo-moralism of the past decade under Howard.

Boaz, please tell, why do you think it is that some people struggle with their sexual orientation? If as a society we simply accepted that homosexual orientation was part of the human condition, there would be no need for any struggle. And it's clear that ranting on about how evil or abnormal homosexuality is has had absolutely no affect on the number of people who are homosexual, so even if it makes you personally uncomfortable, what possible benefit is there in trying to persuade others that it's wrong? If you *genuinely* believe that homosexuality is an abnormal condition that needs curing, then go into medical or pyschological research to see if you contribute towards finding such as cure. (Interestingly enough, there has some interesting work done in attempting to find reasons and cures for homophobia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html?nav=rss_health)

BTW, do you object to heterosexuals that are voluntarily childless?

Wizo...

On the homosexual issue. The major problem is the 'behavior' rather than the alleged orientation.

I have no problem declaring it 'evil' on the basis of scripture, but also on the basis of psychology. I know for a fact that we all have desires which might be described as 'worrisome' on a social level. How many people actually follow through on such desires?

The question is.. what do we DO with inclinations, desires, lusts.. which are clearly not in the best interests of the community ?

One of my strongggg desires during my Air Force days, was to get petrol for nothing.. and I did so by milking the RAAF combi wagon during trips to a remote spot on the base. I found that quite a thrill... a rush you might say.. FREEEEEE petrol... after that, I came to Christ, and when discharged I made a guestimate payment of how much I'd taken, and received a letter of astonished gratitude from the powers to be.

There are pedophiles who absolutely, without the slightest reservation, will claim "I was born this way, I don't have a choice in the matter".. sound familiar ?

In short, open-ness to one form of deviant behavior, opens the gate to all forms 'within the law', but consider this. The LAW once made homosexual behavior 'illegal'... is it so now ? What happened to change it ? Why can the same tactics and reasoning not be used to advance the cause of NAMBLA and heterosexual adult child sexual relationships? I've stated many times that Mohammad 'married' a child of 9 yrs age.. when he was 53. Try to find a Muslim who will condemn such behavior.. not a chance mate.

So... there are many sides to those issues.

CJ,

Thank you for the compliment but when you opined "...utilise them in exercises of convoluted sophistry as above" I disagree considering it simply using clear analogies to highlight your problem in the hope that I can break through. I believe that outside of your Christian prejudice you tend to be quite civil to all and would love to see you become consistent.

Boazy's Christian camp verses education camp (camp education?)made me wonder why you are so threatened by Christians anyway. What is a few camps ridiculed in the media? Are you expecting God to leap down and take that side?

Wizofaus,

May I please interject? "..what possible benefit is there in trying to persuade others that it's wrong?"

Boazy is a fairly enthusiastic (and possibly fundamentalist) Christian. Thus Boazy's take is not just the "ick" or a "that's abnormal" reaction of some atheists. Instead his opinion is tied to his understanding of God's wishes. To Boazy (and others sharing the belief system) being a homosexual and thinking it is just a normal attribute is analogous to walking toward the edge of a pit. He is displaying his concern by yelling a warning. Irrespective of how the warning may be received he feels obliged to say it. At the least he would consider that anyone who walks straight into the 'pit' would be deprived of an infinitely fantastic loving experience and may also worry that they may be harmed. You have heard the Christian saying "love thy neighbour". If you loved someone would you want them fall in a pit? Neither does Boazy. Does that make sense to you? I'm not trying to be obtuse to your argument just trying to help you understand where the man is coming from because your discussion didn't seem to account for it.

"BTW, do you object to heterosexuals that are voluntarily childless?"

Very interesting question. I'm keen to eavesdrop and hear your ideas on that.

BOAZ, our "worrisome" desires such as to steal, cheat etc., are clearly ethically wrong because they negatively impact other people, and we wouldn't want others do the same to us.
Consensual sex between two adults of the same sex harms absolutely no-one, indeed quite the opposite - homosexuals who try to deliberately abstain from engaging their natural desires are the ones who struggle the most, and miss out on the benefits of a loving, committed relationship. Fortunately most eventually realise the futility of such an exercise, and accept their condition is nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes, I understand the whole "I'm worried about you, therefore I feel compelled to help you" argument, but if that was true, there would be a genuine attempt to examine whether simply repeating "homosexuality is evil" is at all helpful, given the preponderance of evidence that is actually quite harmful (30% of teen suicides are claimed to be due to homosexuals unable to reconcile religious teaching with sexual orientation).

BTW, is there anything that Christ said that could be interpreted as the slightest condemnation of homosexuality? This page claims there isn't: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chri.htm

Boazy,

I am often surprised as to when you 'choose' to disappear from threads. It is usually when someone makes an apparently irresistable comment directed to you personally. My theory is that you post so much around the place that you just lose track of all the threads you are in.