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 > General Discussion > State Land and Private Religous Purposes.

State Land and Private Religous Purposes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Imagine the kaffufle if the Herald Sun front page said:

"Exclusive Brethren granted Melbourne University land for Worship"

I rather think there would the outcry of outcries.
It would be especially shrill if it was known that such a facility, built at Taxpayers Expense, was to be for the exclusive use of E.B. members only.

I am very concerned that ANY State land not be allocated for ANY religious group, including my own.

What do readers think about this issue?

Is it

a) Consitutional
b) Compliant with anti discrimination law

For the State to promote one religion over others on public Tax payer owned land?

While the constitution only says:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,....

If it could be successfully argued that the EFFECT of granting land to one group for their exclusive use is the same as making a law which 'establishes' a religion... then surely this would make such an act unconstitutional?

The other side of this, is the common sense aspect. If one religion is granted land for religious worship and there are 100 religions represented at a University and they all claim the need for exclusive facilities....then it would be unworkable and uneconomical not to mention totally destroying the fundamental purpose of say an educational institution where such land was allocated?

I believe this must become a political issue which needs legislative clarification. Fortunately for me, I live in an upper house seat which was decided by the grand total of 245 votes.

Just one 'voting group' or.. some enthusiastic lobbying and public information events would be enough to swing it one way or the other.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 1:56:13 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
Be honest, for a change Boaz, and let us know up front what this is really about.

Because as far as I am aware, the Exclusive Brethren have no such designs on campus real estate.

So what are we really talking about here?

I think I know, but I'd like you to tell us.

Go on. Put your cards on the table.

And this time, do us all a favour and present the full story. It gets tedious having every time to fill in the details that you conveniently ignore.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 4:57:39 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
Is this still about the
Muslim Prayer Room that was
raised in another thread?
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 5:58:17 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
Of course it is, Foxy.

Porky's apparently now taken to rehashing his old trolls.

Same shite, different day. Yawn.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 15 October 2008 6:36:03 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 team... actually it is about a principle.

The specifics of the a case in point are not relevant to the principle.

PRINCIPLE.. is.. that no State land should be allocated for ANY religious group in a discriminatory way. i.e.. the State canNOT be complicit in discrimination. Nor can the state be party to any act which has the EFFECT of 'making a law establishing a religion' .. it is still unconstitutional and in my humble view unlawful. (EO Act)

If no one was actually doing things to advance such an unconstitutional and unlawful discriminatory agenda you probably would not hear a peep out of me.

A group among us is seeking just this, and actively campaigning, lobbying, seeking support for and manipulating information in an unethical way in order to gain support.

Now..for the record, in a previous post about a demonstration, I was accused of just this. I found little point in defending myself because people had their minds made up. The fact of the matter was that Pericles was right and I was wrong. The numbers involved were as he suggested, not as I did. The number of participants I used was from the same group, but a different demonstration but was nevertheless true for that equally disturbing demonstration. I admit I was confusing 2 demonstrations in that post. Now.. let's see how far this is taken.. will it prove my point my critics who claim I fabricate and lie, when my writing sometimes is no more culpable than CJ's when he claimed I lied in another thread and quickly posted a follow up apology admitting I was not!

I question the legality of ALL Public education institutions which allow themselves to be duped by politically correct motives into breaking our law and constitution.

WHAT REMAINS is for a test case to determine the issue.
I am lobbying now with members of parliament for just that.
As I mentioned, the upper house seat in our area was won by just 245 votes... quite an attractive number to a bloke in a congregation bigger than that.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 5:39:22 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
Porky seems unaware that every university in the country has at least one - often several - Christian chapel/s, on "State Land". The last university at which I was employed had an official University Chaplain, who was a Catholic nun who used to swan around wearing a habit.

I pointed this out to Porky the first time he started tubthumping about this issue, but his memory appears to be as selective as ever.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 October 2008 8:01:19 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
Dear Polycarp.

For once I absolutely agree with you. No state land should be supplied for any religious purpose.

Not only that but no taxpayer funding should supplied to non-public schools and the Rudd-Howard school chaplaincy program should be terminated.

If students want someone to discuss their problems with it should be a trained counsellor who is not pushing a particular religion.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 16 October 2008 9:47:21 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
Pericles wrote;

"Be honest, for a change Boaz, and let us know up front what this is really about."

Polycarp cannot be Boaz. Polycarp and Boaz have similarities such as citing scripture whether it is or is not appropriate and rationalising or ignoring the crimes of Christianity.

However, I find it difficult to believe that Boaz would be so dishonest as to conceal his identity by posting under another pseudonym.

They must be two different people.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 16 October 2008 9:53:24 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
Polycarp: "If one religion is granted land for religious worship and there are 100 religions represented at a University and they all claim the need for exclusive facilities....then it would be unworkable and uneconomical not to mention totally destroying the fundamental purpose of say an educational institution where such land was allocated?"

Now there are 39 universities in Australia (including the Australian Catholic University and Notre Dame Catholic University both of which receive significant government funding). Can Polycarp name just ONE of these where his matter of GREAT CONCERN is or has ever been a real issue?

You really are transparent Polycarp.
Posted by Spikey, Thursday, 16 October 2008 10:25:07 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
Polly

To spare us wading through all the religions that already have use of State land.

We know that there are many Christian chapels at school, universities, hospitals even airports.

But this isn't what you mean is it? Oh Obtuse-one.

Which religion has you so hot and bothered that you started another discussion?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 16 October 2008 10:39:42 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 agree that no land should be set aside for Muslim purposes... or Hindi or Buddhist.... All religions and groups should purchase their own land. tax free is good...
Posted by Sofisu, Thursday, 16 October 2008 10:58:46 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
david f: << However, I find it difficult to believe that Boaz would be so dishonest as to conceal his identity by posting under another pseudonym. >>

Indeed.

As I look out my window, a flock of pigs is flying past.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 October 2008 11:40:23 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
At least the non-voting Exclusive Brethren handed some of their non-taxed savings back as a "donation" to that Political Party they sponsored.

Too bad, because it makes it look like a money-laundering scam.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 16 October 2008 12:56:22 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
A few things confuse me about the Exclusive Brethren.

They don't vote, but support political candidates.

They don't watch TV, listen to the radio or read newspapers or magazines so how do they know what is going on in the world.

But best of all, they are not allowed to use computers (not to mention the internet) but they have their own website.

http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/
Posted by Steel Mann, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:39:42 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
Either no state land should be supplied for any religious purpose, or state land should be supplied to all religious purposes equally, if desired, without discrimination.
I prefer the former.

Polycarp = BOAZ_David.
Pericles caught him out I knew that Pericles was correct.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1953&page=0#40197

Pericles said, "Well, it's good to see you back in your new persona, Boaz/Polycarp."

Polycarp replied, "and who is this 'BOAZ' character? "

Now, how would Polycarp have known that BOAZ's moniker was spelled in capitals if he'd never heard of him?
Pericles didn't use captials, I suspect for a reason.
I thought it was a clever way of Pericles to haul in the carp this way!

Besides, apart from the Bible quotes and being anti-Islam, they both say BINGO when they think they scored.

Not that it matters to me that someone changes their moniker; in fact it can be a nice game to try to spot 'em.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:49:43 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
One thing about BD - just when you think nothing he does is capable of shocking one any further...whoompa! The rug gets pulled out from under once again.

I didn't realise he had ever denied being BOAZ. By the time I got back from overseas that particular teacupfull must have been over. So I didn't realise that he ever, seriously, tried to pose as someone else. Geez. I should have learned by now, but I guess I haven't because - once again - I'm shocked.

Even if there were no people with IQ's into double figures on this thread I find it difficult to comprehend a mindset which would honestly and truly consider fooling all of the people all of the time into believing that BOAZ was not Poly.

Yeah, I also couldn't give a rats about changing names - but to lie - even by intent (after all, it was BD himself who defended the position that one was equally culpable for a transgression in the mind as in the act)so publicly and unashamedly is bad enough.

But to consider, seriously, that other posters would uniformly be so thick, so stunted or so stupid as to be decieved is mind-bogglingly crass. Illustrates perfectly how he earns the accusations of arrogance, doesn't it?

And to try to dress this thread up - once again - as something else is equally crass.
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 16 October 2008 2:53:40 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
Doncha luv it... a feeding frenzy :)

Wellll.. talk about selection and emphAsis to try to score cheap points...

Cel...why not past the COMPLETE LINE!

<and who is this 'BOAZ' character? is he perchance someone who for you provides meaning in life? 0_^

That little thingy at the end is a WINK....just in case you lot are that computer speek illiterate.
OLO rules are that you may have only ONE on line persona at a time.
I've not broken any rule.
I also prefaced my post with PEOPLE are not the issue but ISSUES are.

Don't bother trying to railroad me more on this, it won't produce anything other than *sigh*.

Now..back to the ISSUE.

David F glad you agree on the issue. Please note, I am adamant that this should apply equally to any Christian group as well.

PROBLEM Most of you who are so busy trying to rip chunks of flesh out of me... are not seeing the key point.

Chapels are not for the EXCLUSIVE use of one particular denomination as far as I know... unless one can prove otherwise. I know that ANYone can enter a Catholic, or protestant chapel when the doors are open and they can sit there mocking (quietly) if they wish.

So..I hope you all 'get' this point.. it is not the allocation of state land per se..it is the EXCLUSIVE use by ONE religion...which denies access to non them. "That" is the issue.

I argue that this has the effect/impact of.. 'establishing' one religion over others, (116 Aust constitution) or.. at best is discriminates on the grounds of religious orientation.

A Sikh, Hindu, Bahai,Moslem, Buddhist are ALL welcome to enter any Christian chapel and no-one is going to regard them as a 'dirty infidel'..no..they will regard them as people for whom Christ died.

What happened to the "tolerance" of differing views which a Multi Faith facility offers?
Discriminatory use of State land is disgraceful.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 4:46:15 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
Polycarp nee BOAZ DAVID

What is it with you and straightforward questions?

Instead throwing another tanty, you could have turned the other cheek and answered my question, which was:

To which religion are you claiming has use of state property for its own exclusive use?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 16 October 2008 5:23:26 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
My grandmother had what
we call, "native wit."

And this thread reminds me of
one of her sayings...

"From an empty saucepan into a leaky one."

Nothing is achieved.

The same applies in continuing with this
"same old re-hashed" discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 16 October 2008 6:16:32 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
Polycarp wrote:

“A Sikh, Hindu, Bahai,Moslem, Buddhist are ALL welcome to enter any Christian chapel and no-one is going to regard them as a 'dirty infidel'..no..they will regard them as people for whom Christ died.”

Non-Muslims are free to enter a mosque. I visited the West End Mosque in Brisbane and watched the prayer service. One boy put his head down and pointed his rear toward Mecca. Apparently this was something he had done before. His father with a sign turned him around.

After prayers they divided into groups and discussed a portion from the Koran. I was invited to join the discussion. They discussed a verse from the Koran where Mohammed advised Muslims to read and learn.

Two members of the group had read Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ and did not think much of it. However, no one in the group expressed approval of the fatwa against Rushdie. They all subscribed to the democratic ideal of free speech.

The imam wanted to give me some tapes and books. I refused them, as I did not want to give them the impression I was interested in joining their religion. I told them I was gathering material for an article.

However, they treated me with courtesy and not as a 'dirty infidel'.

I would prefer not to be regarded as “people for whom Christ died.” I think I am responsible for my own sins and don’t appreciate such nonsense. It is an evasion of responsibility to think your sins can be taken away if you believe some mumbo jumbo.

However, whom were you referring to as regarding others as ‘dirty infidels’? It certainly wasn’t the Muslims I encountered.

I suspect you of having a prejudice against a religion which in some respects is superior to yours. One respect is that it does not believe in a humanoid God that takes away your sins. Muslims, like Jews, believe you are responsible for your sins and are not washed clean of them by believing in nonsense.

Maybe I have you wrong, and you weren’t referring to Muslims. Who were you referring to?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 16 October 2008 7:33:06 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 David

you misunderstand the nature of the access to this particular facility.
At RMIT it is strictly limited to Muslims. If it was as you said for the Mosque...then there is no reason whatsoever that they cannot use the Multi Faith centre as it is now available to them when they need it.

Infidels are 'dirty' as in unclean.. impure.. sinful.. and a host of other names described by the Quran.. Christians are 'deluded' Jews are also deluded.. and away from truth.. their beliefs are 'monstrous'.. (19:91)

"And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind"....[Surah 11, v. 96] read it for yourself David.

You can dress it up from anecdotal experience all you like.. the fact remains that in their documents/constitution such is the case as I've described.

If 'infidels' were no different in the view of the Muslims.. then why do they need a 'mosque' at RMIT? Their complaint is that they need a place EXCLUSIVELY for them.

I don't care whether it's Muslims or Sikhs or Jews or Christians.. the principle is the same- NO State land for discriminatory religious purposes. No amount of pleasant warm fuzzy anecdotes will alter my position on this. Personally..I don't see why ANY religion needs a place on a university campus for prayer. We sure don't there are plenty of Chapels around the place and in any case the 'Church' IS.."the people"..not the building.

Your point about the chaplains is only partly valid. There is no compulsion nor discrimination involved with their presense. Don't make the mistake of insulting Australian history and telling us we don't have a sufficiently strong Christian tradition to justify some meeting of that area of life at public expense.
In 1957 the largest crowd EVER to attend the MCG was there to listen to Billy Graham the evangelist.

If 99 Australians were Christian and one was an atheist or a Jew..I have no problem with those elected by the 99 deciding to use public expense to provide pastoral care in schools. Hopefully the '1' would not annoy everyone else by disputing it.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 8:44:40 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
It seems that Porky's having a bad day.

Serves him right - mendacious, hateful hypocrite that he is, I reckon.

Perhaps he could reflect on why it is that absolutely nobody agrees with him.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 October 2008 9:35:04 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
Dear Polycarp,

No amount of ugly words can override the Holocaust and other products of Christian hate.

However you wrote:

"And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind"....[Surah 11, v. 96] read it for yourself David.

I looked it up and found:

[11.96] And certainly We sent Musa with Our communications and a clear authority,

The ugly words you cited don’t exist. Apparently you have been misinformed.

There is discrimination in regard to the chaplains. The state funded schools are for ALL children. Chaplains of a particular religion simply have no business in the schools. Pastoral care is simply not a function of government unless one lives in a theocracy.

The 'Shine' program of Hillsong church misuses the Chaplaincy program. 'Shine' targets at risk girls and promotes self esteem through politeness, personal grooming and deportment, ideas generally discredited by youth workers.

It is harmful to fund Shine's message to vulnerable girls that they need to conform and be pretty. At-risk girls have enough difficulties in their lives without the added burden of social aspiration and the consumption of beauty products."

Scripture Union exclusively supplies federally funded chaplains to Education Queensland. It recruits pledged evangelists and place them into over 500 Queensland State schools.

Scripture Union is affiliated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God/Hillsong Church conglomerate.

State/Federally funded SU chaplains are in what appears to be the majority of Queensland state schools. Education Queensland from the Minister downwards apparently turns a blind eye as the evangelistic, Pentecostal Assemblies of God/Hillsong affiliated Scripture Union organisation—EQ's exclusive supplier of state school chaplains—publicly describes students as 'ambassadors for Jesus' and is not only installing 'Shine' and 'Strength' Hillsong church programmes into our public schools, but also allowing and assisting SU 'chaplain' evangelists in recruiting male and female state primary and high school students for Pentecostal/Hillsong Jesus boot camps. As we say, the perfect evangelism cycle: gain trust; groom; convert.

This is not pastoral care. These are missionaries.

The Chaplaincy Program has no place in our public schools.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 16 October 2008 9:36:09 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
Hear, hear david f!

However, I suspect you may have inadvertently posted your comment on the wrong thread?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 October 2008 9:43:22 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
Dear CJ... being criticized/attacked by a cacophony of opponents is never a bad day. Such experiences always hone one's own argument and they highlight any chinks in the polemical armour :)

Dear David...you did well :) glad you looked that up. I'm just amazed that CJ and Pericles didn't put in blazing screaming headlines "YOU LIAR" as they are want to do oh..like 100 times a day :) (exaggeration)

The problem was I trusted a Jewish site.. but further I looked at the reference which was Surah II.96 and thought it was surah "eleven" in fact it was surah 2 and the verse is there.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html
Try Surah 5:82

<Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians":>

Here Jews (you) are condemned along with CJ and Pericles and their ilk. Christians are here commended, wow..shock horror..but it doesn't last.. read 9:30 for the 'breaking news' on that. (Surah 9 is later, when Mohammad is powerful)

<The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter.> 5:64

By the way.. speaking of 'holocausts'- running not far behind the Jewish was the CHRISTIAN one... Armenians and Assyrians under the Turkish/Kurdish Muslim jackboot. (9:29 and 9:30 applied Islam)

Weisenthal hunts down all Germans involved.. all I do is call for some decent HISTORY teaching.

BACK TO TOPIC. None of this changes the fact that State land should not be used for EXCLUSIVE and DISCRIMINATORY religious purposes.
If anyone wishes to take up the Scripture Union or the Shine program at the political level BE MY GUEST! I don't mind a scrap. That's what democracy is all about isn't it?
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 17 October 2008 5:56:06 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
Finally, amid the hysterical self-justification, interwoven through the exhaustive religious quotes, we finally arrive at the truth:

It was the Muslims! Who, allegedly, have made exclusive use of state property.

Quelle Surprise.

Your claim: "None of this changes the fact that State land should not be used for EXCLUSIVE and DISCRIMINATORY religious purposes."

I notice that the 'elephant in your argument' is that you don't have a problem with Christian religious practices in state property in general, do you?

David F, it will not surprise you to learn that Polly/Boaz was indeed and perhaps still is a missionary in Asia.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 17 October 2008 8:53:14 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
Polycarp wrote: “Dear David...you did well :) glad you looked that up. I'm just amazed that CJ and Pericles didn't put in blazing screaming headlines "YOU LIAR" as they are want to do oh..like 100 times a day :) (exaggeration)”

I find your ideas offputting. However, you are something much better than a creation in the image of a god which we can’t be sure even exists. You are a genuine human being with human feelings. We human beings can treat each other with courtesy. I wish there was more of it in OLO and everywhere.

However, rather than keep going to Jewish or Christian websites with their cherry picking of ugly quotes from the Koran why not read the Koran so you can get the feel of it in its entirety. You focus on the ugly part of Islamic words and deeds and ignore the ugliness of Christian words and deeds.

The Muslim Turkish/Kurdish genocide of the Christian Armenians certainly set a precedent for the Christian Nazi genocide of the Jews.

Richard G. Hovannisian wrote “Denial of the Armenian Genocide with some comparisons to Holocaust Denial”. The Turkish government to this day denies guilt for the Armenian genocide, but Turks such as Orhan Pamuk are bringing the matter up. Many Christians to this day deny guilt for the Holocaust, but Christians such as Bishop Spong are bringing the matter up.

You object to my statement that the Holocaust was applied Christianity. If you knew more about the history of Christianity rather than denying its wrongs you might find my statement quite understandable. I suggest you read “Antisemitism” by Robert S. Wistrich. Christianity is not the only culprit in promoting this hatred, but it is the primary one.

Besides the history of Christianity you ignore both the good parts of the history of Islam and the Koran.

One very good part of Islamic history is the Golden Age of Spain when Islam was in control, but Jews and Christians were free to practice their faiths and practice whatever occupation they liked. Christianity can point to nothing similar.
Posted by david f, Friday, 17 October 2008 10:47:28 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
Dear David F,

I'd like to give you a great
big hug.

Beautifully and rationally argued.

Bravo!
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 17 October 2008 1:10:52 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
Polycarp, I did address the issue when I said, "Either no state land should be supplied for any religious purpose, or state land should be supplied to all religious purposes equally, if desired, without discrimination.
I prefer the former."
So basically, I don't really disagree with you.

However, while I don't disagree with you basically, I have a problem with double standards.
For example, you defended the Brethren's adventure park when they take advantage of tax exemptions and at the same time denying homosexual groups who are tax payers to utilise the park.

Because I had some extra space in my last post, I thought I'd do some cherry picking because you seem to have a liking for that.
I didn't mean any harm, I really did think that you were denying you moniker-change.
As I said, I don't object to people changing monikers, but wanted to show DavidJ that you are the same person as Boaz.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 17 October 2008 5:35:31 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
Celivia: << I don't object to people changing monikers, but wanted to show DavidJ that you are the same person as Boaz. >>

I agree. Of course, everybody can change their online identity as often as they like. My only objection is when they pretend they haven't, or use multiple identities simultaneously.

I note that Porky's never actually admitted that he's Boazy. When he does, I'll stop calling him Porky.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 17 October 2008 10:10:36 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
CJ, thanks, that's ever so funny!

I wasn't sure whether he'd ever admitted the name change and I couldn't be bothered to find out.
You know, it's spiritual torture to have to go through his posting history to find out.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 17 October 2008 10:25:35 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
David f,

Although some of us may present as being discourteous on threads conducted by DB (aka Polycarp)it wasn't always that way. Indeed for my first two years on OLO I afforded him the courtesy and respect I believe all people are entitled to. However respect, in order to be given, must be earned. When it is met with lack of respect for race, ethnicity, creed, lifestyle and feelings it withers away.

I also applaud your posts and applaud your even-handedness and logical approach.

You will find however, that every argument, point of undeniable logic and truth will be ignored the very next time he starts yet another thread on this exact topic, to which every concievable response possible has already been made to him and ignored by him.

These days I largely ignore any threads started by Polycarp but admit curiosity and incredulity propelled me to this one - it seemed impossible that he would have the effrontery to roll it out yet again.

BTW, anyone else have a huge chortle at the heartfelt wish BD expressed that people would learn some history?

And, by the same token, anyone else repulsed by the idea of "taking a chunk" out of him? Think I'll leave such delights to passing labradors.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 18 October 2008 3:07:04 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
David F,
While not disagreeing with the bulk of what you say I find this last comment misleading:
“One very good part of Islamic history is the Golden Age of Spain when Islam was in control, but Jews and Christians were free to practice their faiths and practice whatever occupation they liked. Christianity can point to nothing similar”

Islamic Spain was never as -enlightened- as many people have been lead to believe.
“(F)ree to practice their faiths” came with many caveats:
-there was death for blasphemy
-there was death for apostates & anyone who gave them sanctuary, and
- the dhimmi rules imposed on non-Muslim generally, gave them a second class status which would make the plight of blacks in pre-civil rights USA look positively egalitarian.

You mentioned Turkey; the level of self-criticism in Turkey re issues from Constantinople to Cyprus remains miniscule. The ruling orthodoxy in Turkey ( & much of the Middle East, for that matter) remains very much ‘our side is/was right, all wrongs/corruptions stem from the other side’.

On the other hand, it would be hard to argue that there has been a dearth of criticism re Christianity, or Western positions, generally, in the West

One of the points that Polycarp makes -which is often overlooked in the haste to bury him- is that for a long time now, the dominant narrative in the West re such periods as Islamic Spain, The Crusades & Colonialism has been overly favourable/accommodating to Islam.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 18 October 2008 4:10:03 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 Horus,

Had we but years enough and time, but we are limited to 350 words. My statement about the Golden Age in Spain was meant to compare it to conditions in Europe when Christianity got control - not multicultural, twentieth century Australia.

There are very different narratives for the Christianisation of Europe and the Islamisation of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain.

In Norway St. Olaf gave the pagan Norse the choice of the bloodeagle (one’s ribs were removed, and the lungs were spread out.), exile or Christianisation. Although he was not the first Christian king of Norway he is the patron saint because of his effectiveness in making Norway Christian.

Charlemagne treated the Jewish population of his domains well but gave the pagan Gauls the choice of Christianity or beheading.

Lithuania was a multicultural society with a pagan monarchy. It had a mixed population of pagans, Christians, Jews, Karaites, Muslims, Tartars etc. Like other medieval societies there were three estates – nobility, peasantry and a small middle class of merchants and artisans. There was no restriction of ethnicity or religion with regard to entry into the nobility. There were a series of Crusades against Lithuania led by the Teutonic knights for no other reason than the refusal of Lithuania to become Christianised. Much of the Lithuanian population was slaughtered during these crusades and Lithuania finally gave in and became Christianised in 1386.

With the exception of Ireland the Christianisation of Europe from 371 when Rome became Christian was accompanied by similar violence.

In contrast the Muslim conquests created dhimmi or second-class citizens. However, for the first few centuries Islam regarded itself as a religion only for Arabs and conversion to Islam of the subject peoples was discouraged. This was because the Arab ruling class paid no taxes, and conversion to Islam freed a person from tax.

Several centuries later Islam became a missionary religion but originally their missionising was confined to Arabia.

In the 14th century Islam entered its Dark Ages and duplicated some of the Christian pattern. Before then the narrative favoured Islam.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 18 October 2008 6:13:06 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 Horus,

You are correct. There has been great criticism of Christianity in the west, and the Muslim world has been mainly undemocratic with severe restrictions on free expression. However, the Muslim world may be becoming more open, and the western world may be becoming more closed. I think the current economic stress will produce closed minds in a climate of fear and chauvinism.

Even though Israel publishes more books than all Arab nations combined there is a small population in the Islamic world beginning to write about their history and start a process of self-examination. Naguib Mahfouz in Egypt and Orhan Pamuk of Turkey, both Nobel laureates, are examples of writers who have shown a spotlight on their own societies. Mahfouz received death threats for opposing the fatwa against Rushdie and supporting peace with Israel. Nevertheless, he died of the illnesses accompanying old age. Pamuk has had criminal charges pressed against him by the Turkish government because of his comments on the Armenian genocide. He is now living in the United States. At a conference in Brisbane I talked to a Malaysian Muslim and his wife. He told me that he was really an atheist but could not say so in Malaysia without losing his job, alienating himself from his family and possibly being in danger of his life.

There is quite a large population in the west that rejects modernity and refuses any process of self-examination. One of them is Sarah Palin, the current Republican candidate for vice-president of the United States, who is a creationist and launched into a screed of American triumphalism during her debate with Biden aired on Australian TV. I fear a climate where somebody like her gets nominated for high office.

Although Polycarp has been criticised for refusing to acknowledge what seems obvious to most people who post on OLO he continues to post and engage. However, I think there are many with similar views to his who have absolutely no contact with those who disagree with them. I hope he continues to post. As you pointed out he can make valid points
Posted by david f, Saturday, 18 October 2008 7:13:02 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 Romany... you_said:

"I also applaud your posts and applaud your even-handedness and logical approach."

and David F says things like "The_Holocaust_was _applied_Christianity"

Now.. have you heard that saying "Stands out like dogs thingies" ? If you cannot see the lack of even handedness in Davids posts, then I hardly think anything will ever persuade you of it.

David mentions "The GOLDEN AGE in Spain"... what he leave OUT.. is how that 'enlightened Islamic power' treated NON Muslims OUTside of it's boundaries. Here is a classic example.

First there was no 'Golden Age' of Spain under the Muslims.

711 Moors invade and defeat Visigoths at Guadelete (Emirate Period 711-756)
714 Most of the Peninsular had been occupied by the Moors
718 Count Pelayo invades from the north defeating Moors at Covadonga
722 Moors defeated by Visigoth Prince Pelayo at Covadonga
724 Garcia Ximenes founds Sobarbe (future Kingdom of Aragón)
732 Moors invasion of France halted by Charles Martel

From 711 when the INVASION occurred (which David seems quite happy about) to 732 when they tried to slash and burn their way into Western Europe..the time period was a mere 21 years.... TWENTY ONE YEARS.. hardly a 'Golden Age'..more likely a gold plated comma.

This 'Golden, tolerant and enlightened' government attacked the Franks, burning, raping, pillaging and destroying.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html
Then Abderrahman, [the Muslim emir] seeing the land filled with the multitude of his army, crossed the Pyrenees, and traversed the defiles [in the mountains] and the plains, so that he penetrated ravaging and slaying clear into the lands of the Franks. He gave battle to Duke Eudes (of Aquitaine) beyond the Garonne and the Dordogne, and put him to flight---so utterly [was he beaten] that God alone knew the number of the slain and wounded.

SO.. I challenge David F and anyone else to give BALANCE AND REASON when they speak about Islamic activities and hurl insults and abuse at ALL Christians by saying 'The Holocaust was APPLIED 'Christianity'"

If anything it was MIS-applied "Christ-ianity" because Jesus never did or urged such a thing. To say otherwise is absolute religious vilification.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:24:45 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
A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of the danger of making incorrect connections between history and particular faiths occurred today on Sky News.

QUOTE.

"Many Indian Christians are suffering from Hindu radicals attacks which are a BACKLASH to the murder of a Hindu Holy man some months ago"

PROBLEM. What this story did NOT say is that MARXISTS had already claimed responsibility for that murder and Christians had nothing to do with it. The Hindu extremists CHOSE to blame Christians as they see them as more of a threat.

TIMES of INDIA STORY
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/We_killed_Orissas_VHP_leader_Maoists/articleshow/3562518.cms

BHUBANESWAR: Orissa's top ranking Maoist Sabyasachi Panda has once again claimed that the red brigade killed Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and four
of his disciples at his Jalespeta ashram on August 23.

HINDU PROPAGANDA story

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2008/09/swami-laxmanananda-saraswati-becomes_03.html

<<Eleven of them arrested by the police are all Christians. The Maoists have denied that they were involved in the gruesome killing.

At last, Christian missionaries succeeded in their notorious plan by killing Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati in cold blood and removed the main obstacle in their path for spreading Christianity in Orissa.>>

David F's approach is about as 'reasonable and balanced' as this Hindu propoganda.

NONE of which is related to the TOPIC. which is 'STATE LAND FOR PRIVATE RELIGION' (and exclusivity)

So..unless we can contribute to the TOPIC.. why don't we refrain from Christian-bashing.

Does anyone agree that STATE land can be used for:

a)Private
b)Exclusive
c)Discriminatory

...Religious Purposes. I don't on the grounds of our consitution and Equal Opportunity Act.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:46:00 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
Porkycrap: << To say otherwise is absolute religious vilification. >>

<< So..unless we can contribute to the TOPIC.. why don't we refrain from Christian-bashing. >>

You seem a bit agitated this morning, Porky. I suppose it would be futile to point out the frequency with which you hijack other discussions in order to engage in a bit of Mozzie-whacking or gratuitous preaching?

You protest too much about david f's interesting observation that the Holocaust can be seen as "applied Christianity". I think he has made a strong point that you haven't been able to refute, despite your expostulations.

As to your "TOPIC", I think everybody's made it quite clear to you that it's a crock. You appear to be about the only participant in the discussion who hasn't realised that.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 18 October 2008 9:02:56 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
Question

If the holocaust was as Polly claims "mis-applied Christianity", then was 9/11 "mis-applied Islamism"?

Back On Topic

For the sake of edification, RMIT has given space to a Muslim Prayer room for OVER 14 YEARS. This room was closed for the building of a new multi-faith spiritual centre.

Now the issue is that suitable rooms have been specifically designed for Muslim students and staff, with separate female and male prayer rooms, washing facilities and social spaces. However, RMIT has decreed that outside of Muslim prayer times the rooms could be used by other religions.

"Even though no other religious group has sought to use the two prayer rooms, RMIT is adamant the rooms remain available to other faiths outside of the times they are booked for Muslim students."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24497173-12332,00.html

Now we have the facts to which Polly has vaguely alluded.

Crime of the century? Hardly.

Polly making mountains out of his favourite Mus-hill? You betcha.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 18 October 2008 10:05:26 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 Polycarp,

May I suggest that you go to your local library
and take out a copy of the book,
"From Buddha to Bono," by Tor Hundloe.

There's quite a few chapters in it on Islam.

One in particular should correct some of your
misconceptions, it
is entitled:

"Islamic scholars guard the great Greek texts."

Hundloe tells us that,

"Hellenistic philosophy and science was rediscovered
in the West after many centuries of neglect, thanks to
Islamic scholars who had preserved much of the works
of the great Greeks. These had been saved in Baghdad,
translated, re-translated and transmitted to Muslim
Spain.

These texts started to become available to the west with
the defeat abd expulsion of the Moors (Muslims) in what
was then known as Andalusia..."

As Hundloe stresses the gratitude everyone still owes
to a few Islamic scholars can't be overestimated.

What would society be like today if we had lost
that once-in-millennium era of Greek philosophy?

Would we only today be in the initial stages of
inventing democracy, law, science and ethics?

As Hundloe tells us, the answer must be, "probably yes."

"New ideas, better ideas, build on old ideas. Ideas
can be lost and can be destroyed. Dark ages resurface.
Dictators burn books because it is possible to destroy
the building blocks of civilisation. Yet classical Greek
science and philosophy was saved, to be built upon..."

We didn't have to start from scratch.

As Hundloe states,

"During the first century of the Muslim Abbasid dynasty,
which lasted 500 years until the Mongol leader Hulagu Khan
sacked Baghdad in 1258, most of the great works of Greek
philosophy and science were translated into Arabic and
kept safely in centres of Muslim religious learning."

"Today we might have very serious concerns with the
fundamentalist fringe of Islam, just as we do with
the fundamentalist fringes of Christianity and Hinduism,
but we should never forget the role of the Muslim scholars
of 1000 or so years ago."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 18 October 2008 4:54:54 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
Interesting nit-picking racist fight starting, by the pointless and stone-age thinking's of religions. What a waste of energy! and not to mention the embarrassment that some christian writers are causing.

The peoples definition. Christianity is very similar to biker gangs! They push they poisonous underworld stuff on one hand and raise money for charity on the other.

And this apparently is excepted. I think I understand what good and evil is now!

Thank god! (punt) Those ammunition factors in WW2! weren't they owned by the christian factions.

I here a song! Two faces have I.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Saturday, 18 October 2008 5:08:23 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
Excuse me. I feel the need to b silly poppet 4 a moment.
Apologies in advance.

Q: What do u get if u cross a Jew with a Muslim?
A: A head banging bottom sniffer!
;-)

They all giggle here when someone farts at prayer time in the Mushollah. They're in many ways very little different to us u know?

Seriously though, when *Sharon* and his goons turned up, was it so hard that u could to take him in, war criminal or otherwise, and sup with him? Mayhaps deep down, despite such foolish and belligerent behaviour, that he came seeking forgiveness.

Aduh! Jadi susah mati. Sama aja Suharto.
(TRANS: Expression of exasperation. and it became (for him) difficult to die. The same as it was in the case of Suharto)

In Indo they said when Suharto was dieing that for him it was very difficult because he had the blood of so much innocence on his hands.

I expect that the same may have been said of Sharon.

Scorn not LuvUnconditional, or suffer Brother Windu's fate u may.

...Adam...
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:39:33 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
Sigh. Polycarp, I'd hoped that by the time I came back to OLO, you might have learned some humility and respectfulness, but alas it would appear not.

Polycarp, again you're not being direct with people. Please understand that when you come at a topic with a clear agenda but use an oblique beginning, it becomes clear that you're actually not interested in anything anyone else has to say, because you're just reintroducing the same lines in a new form.

Have you ever had someone from your 'bank' call you, but instead of discussing your accounts, actually try to flog you insurance? It's kind of like that, only more repetitive.

To get to the thread: Apparently, your issue is not the presence of religious buildings. You condone chapels. Your argument then becomes about exclusivity.
Your objection is that any religion can come and use the chapel, but not any religion can come and use the mosque.

Firstly, this is false. I also have accepted invitations to visit mosques and prayer rooms. I honestly could provide examples of people I know showing the open side of Islam, but frankly, I don't wish to discuss anyone I've met with you because you only see things how you wish to and damned if I'd ever mention anyone I know in reference to Islam anywhere here, because you're incapable of honest evaluation and you'd just find it and react by reducing it to part of your grand plan to advance Christianity over what you see as the muslim menace.

Cont'd.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:48:48 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
They are not the fanged beings you describe.
Please listen to this, because it goes to the heart of what is so objectionable about your commentary.

Your first argument falls flat. Unless you're lobbying for the removal of such rights for chapels, your focus should be on opening the existing muslim rooms.

I'd also make the point the only people interested in visiting these 'open' chapels are other christians. Generally, only other muslims would visit prayer rooms. You're getting indignant because of what exactly? Situations that wouldn't occur?

The cherry on your illogical cake is that prayer rooms tend to be open, though I've no doubt you can find some obscure controversies to support your prejudice.

I'm betting that in order to sustain said prejudice, you then either resort to theological quackery about the nature of Islam, theological quackery about the good of Christianity, or use an exaggerated example with dubious context.

It's tiring. I do honestly wish you'd 'see the light' and grow up one of these days.

It's not 'everybody else', polycarp. There's a far simpler explanation, but I know you're just going to start another thread on the same topics with an oblique introduction so you can discard what you don't want to hear.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 18 October 2008 8:49:35 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
Good_morning_all... hope ur all well.

Quite a bit to respond to here.

Fraccy first.

Let you be the judge Frac...

1/ Core value of Christianity: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life"

2/ Core Islamic value: 9.29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day ..... until they are subjected."

If you doubt that this is in fact a core Islamic value, please refer to exactly how this verse is referred to in the following traditions.(Words of Mohamamd himself)

Hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 30, 31, 32, 33 "I have been commanded to FIGHT.. etc"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0030

Then please examine how that verse was used in the context of an invasion of the Persians.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya. (This sentence is about half way thru the hadith)

COMMENT:
Now..in this, we have a direct connection between the invasion of Persia and a verse in the Quran being quoted to justify it. The quote is entirely legitimate as Omar was a personal campanion of Mohammad.

Applied? or.. Miss-applied.

"Application" must be preceeded by 'Principle' "We 'apply' the laws/principles of physics".. see?

On the reading you've done. (glad to see someone is) 14 yrs of something which is suddenly illegal due to new laws means nothing:)

FOXY.. not sure what you are driving at there, aside from noting certain historical events. Says nothing about Islam itself as a faith.

TRTL I never said I condone chapels.. in fact I specifically made the point that NO religion should have 'them-specific' facilities at a public educational institution.
TRTL.. If you have a chance, visit RMIT and see the Multi faith centre.
Let me ask you.. do YOU have any objection to a non discriminatory, multi faith centre available to ALL? I surely hope not because that would put you on the wrong side of our Equal Opportunity Act.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 19 October 2008 7:37:04 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
Dear TRTL

you said:

"Your first argument falls flat. Unless you're lobbying for the removal of such rights for chapels, your focus should be on opening the existing muslim rooms."

My argument does not fall flat. If the issue at RMIT was simply having 'space' for the performance of religious rituals there would be NO ISSUE.
As has been clearly and repeatedly stated.. but let me state it again:

THE MULTI FAITH CENTRE IS AVAILABLE TO MUSLIMS TO BOOK.

So...if you have a shred of honesty in you.. ask this- WHY IS THERE A PROBLEM AND A PROTEST?

If access is there.. why is there a protest? The Building is the same size.. the same position.. able to be booked for specific times.. so..WHY is there a protest? what is the protest ABOUT?

Are you seeing it yet?

The PROTEST is..about.. EXCLUSIVITY, DISCRIMINATION and lack of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. (to which one might cynically add "The Islamicifaction of part of Australian Educational infrastructure")

Now..if you don't support such noble values as equal opportunity at PUBLIC places.. please tell us up front.

Don't whine about me not being direct, I am on about PRINCIPLE..and it is only those sniping at me who have narrowed the focus onto the Muslims.

1/ NO RELIGION of any description should have facilities at public educational instutions. I have no argument with this....none whatsoever. I don't even care if they are exclusive or open.

2/ IF..any religious facilites are to be at a PUBLIC educational insitution they must be EQUAL ACCESS to all faiths.

3/ IF any faith requires odd ball, or discriminatory or un-equal or costly apparatus to exist then it would be much better for them to have their OWN educational institutions, as long as they do NOT celebrate values which are seditious, aggressive,warlike or cruel.

ANY faith which declares non them must be subjected to their rule by military force is an abomination to God.. to goodness and all sense of Justice and as such should not have the slightest bit of opportunity to advance such values in a civilized society.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 19 October 2008 7:53:14 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
That settles it then - Porkycrap's right and everybody else is wrong. Reason, tolerance and rationality are futile in the face of Porky's intellect and peculiar morality.

Have a nice week.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 19 October 2008 8:22:44 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
Polycarp wrote: ANY faith which declares non them must be subjected to their rule by military force is an abomination to God.. to goodness and all sense of Justice and as such should not have the slightest bit of opportunity to advance such values in a civilized society.

Dear Polycarp,

I must disagree. After the fall of the Roman Empire Christianity spread through Europe mainly by the use of military force. Not only were there crusades against Islam, but there were also Crusades against Lithuania and the Albigenses in Europe. The Spanish conquistadors spread Christianity by violence in the Americas. The English, French, Dutch and other European powers spread Christianity by violence sending in gunboats and missionaries throughout the Pacific. The Christian tradition of hatred and persecution made the Nazi Holocaust acceptable.

Christianity differs from Islam, Buddhism and Judaism in an important respect. Mohammed, Buddha and Abraham founded new faiths. Christianity which centres around Jesus denies his religion since he was not a Christian but a Jew.

Although Christianity can be termed an abomination to God because of its subjugation of large parts of the world by violence it has given comfort to many people. The music of Bach, the soaring magnificence of its cathedrals and other fruits of Christianity gives us reason to see good in it in spite of its abominable record of hate and violence and its betrayal of Jesus’ religion.

Even though its record of violence and hatred is worse than that of Islam I think we must tolerate Christianity and Christians. Remember Christians are humans and entitled to the respect we should show all humans.

We must even tolerate those like Polycarp who promote hatred for those who subscribe to a different brand of nonsense.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 19 October 2008 8:35:39 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
No dear CeeJay...but I believe my "argument" has merit :)

I find it curious how "reason tolerance and rationality" are associated with
-discrimination,
-lack of equal opportunity and
-intolerance
-personal attacks
-abuse.
-insult. (Poly____)

in the mind of some of my opponents.. all the while having a blissful and unknowing smile (not to mention the glazed eyes and dilated pupils)

Next time, try to show me how 'discrimination' actually equals 'equal opportunity' :) then you might get a bit of traction.
It's not a big ask you know..

"We want to discriminate against you and deny you access to a part of state land" = "Equal and non discriminatory opportunity"

Show me a rational, reasonable, logical, persuasive argument which can make x=y (where x=1 and y=2) and u've won the day :)
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 19 October 2008 8:39:58 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 Polycarp,

As I said to you in my previous post,
read the book by Tor Hundloe that I mentioned,
and then perhaps you will begin to understand
the point that I was making. My point was to
correct the misconception of Islam that you
seem to be obsessed with.

Instead of speaking only about the fundamentalists
of Islam - (and all religions have
fundamentalists), you condemn all of Islam as others
can equally condemn all of Christianity for its
historical record.

I'll end with this short poem - which I hope
may (or may not) give you food for thought:

"Wouldn't this old world be better,
If the folks we meet would say,
'I know something good about you,'
And then treat us just that way.

Wouldn't it be fine and dandy,
If each handclasp warm and true,
Carried with it this assurance,
"I know something good about you.'

Wouldn't things here be more pleasant,
If the good that's in us all,
Were the only things about us,
That folks bothered to recall.

Wouldn't life be lots more happy,
If we'd praise the good we see,
For there's such a lot of goodness,
In the worst of you and me.

Wouldn't it be nice to practice,
This fine way of thinking too-
'You know something good about me,
I know something good about you!'"
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 19 October 2008 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
That's such a beautiful poem, Foxy, it think I will keep it.
That means something, because poetry usually causes me to roll my eyes or causes me to feel sorry for the author.

Polycarp,
>>"We want to discriminate against you and deny you access to a part of state land" = "Equal and non discriminatory opportunity"<<
I don't recognise that people here have meant this.

Fractelle said,
"...suitable rooms have been specifically designed for Muslim students and staff, with separate female and male prayer rooms, washing facilities and social spaces. However, RMIT has decreed that outside of Muslim prayer times the rooms could be used by other religions."

I don't think I 'get' what you mean. If Fractelle's statement is true, then what is the problem?

Also, with 'equal opportunity' I would understand it in this context that every religious person has the equal opportunity to practice their religion according to their particular God's rules.
I would add, as long as these rules don't clash with the country's laws and does not violate human rights or interfere with other people's freedom.

Religions are divisive.
Personally I agree that there should not be a place for religion in public places, that it should be a personal thing.
But what do you do when a God dictates a whole bunch of believers that they should congregate somewhere. What do you do when people REALLY believe that they will go to hell if they do not obey certain rules e.g. pray at certain times?
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 19 October 2008 10:46:38 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 Foxy.

That poem was a wonderful response.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 19 October 2008 11:56:48 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
Got a call yesterday morning from the "listeners"
Islamic Luv Poppets they are.
Nothing specific, but a general broadcast. Be aware also that there is much gossip in the grapevines here in Indo and much heresay however ..

"It would be better to stay away from *Boolay* places until further notice."

I know not the truth of it but we have never had such a call and we have been here since early 2006. Of course, the guvna is always receiving reports they say about "ongoing threats" and thus they provide the travel alerts that they do.

If nothing else, I would suggest that it indicates that the clerics are unhappy for reasons mentioned recently in this place.

..

Re the current discussion, Indo is a very large Muslim population but my Islamic friends tell me that Islam remains very much a work in progress. It is very much inter mixed with cultural and other stuff perculiar to Indos.

So, to prattle on about this book says this and that book says that is a bit silly really. It is good for overall health to actually get out amongst the people themselves and see how they actually practice their religion.

Some of these so called priests are more para legals than anything, their fall back lines accross the spectrum being but El Goddo said this thru this prophet or that in this book, and that's God's law and u must believe and p.s. don't forget, only we the male priests truly understand the word and thus u must pay and support us if u want a ticket to salvation.

;-)

!Oh Really!
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 19 October 2008 12:09:51 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
Please, why not regulate these people and ban indoctrination of children in schools and allow only the teaching of comparative religion until such time as they become adults, old enuff and mature enuff to choose their God concept or not for themselves, without a pre-formed dependency on an agent.

That in my view is the great travesty, that some feel it is their right to claim that an individual should not cultivate a 1 on 1 with their God concept, or lack thereof in the 1st instance. Tis not to say that 1 shld be so self absorbed as to ignore the wisdom or not of others however ..

Seriously, from an academic perspective, if even some of the comments about other modern cultures/religions I hear are indicative, I very much doubt that the old texts are even remotely understood, irrespective of whether or not they are faithful reproductions.

...Adam...
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 19 October 2008 12:13:35 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
Damnit polycarp, answer Celivia and Fractelle's question as it is right at the very core of your entire argument:

"Fractelle said,
"...suitable rooms have been specifically designed for Muslim students and staff, with separate female and male prayer rooms, washing facilities and social spaces. However, RMIT has decreed that outside of Muslim prayer times the rooms could be used by other religions."

I don't think I 'get' what you mean. If Fractelle's statement is true, then what is the problem?"

Precisely. There is no issue, because this is merely another obtuse attack. The only difference is that one is a multi-faith room with a more christian flavour, and one is a multi-faith room with a more Islamic flavour, which naturally, polycarp has issues with, so he's cooked up this slant to continue grinding his axe.

Frankly, I'd like to see all faith rooms removed, be they multi-faith or otherwise, but that's not what you're advocating now is it, polycarp?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 19 October 2008 6:36:24 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 TRTL... I did answer the question.

"If others can use the facilities outside of Muslim prayer times, then what is the issue"

THE ISSUE dear TR is this.. 'why' are they STILL protesting? i.e. the Muslims. If the access is available to non Muslims.. why are the Muslims protesting NOW..and about WHAT?

They are protesting wanting EXCLUSIVITY.

They are protesting still, because they want it EXCLUSIVELY for them.......

FOXY :) you are such a warm hearted soul.. if only we had a few hours to spend back and forth eh ... the reason for the difference in our perception of various faith issues is simple.

MY POSITION.

1/"Faith behavior is based on written documents"
2/"Just like the behavior of a phyical thing can be evaluated in terms of the laws of physics which govern it, so too can religious behavior be evaluated in terms of the doctrines which drive it.

YOUR/DAVID'S OTHERS position.

1/ Judge a faith by how it's adherents have acted historically.

Well..that pretty much sums it up.

When I drop an apple..it falls. Reason "Law of Gravity"

When a Muslim fights a non Muslim in a war of establishing Islam.. he is following the Law of Jihad. (9:29)

When a "Christian" goes to south America, slaughters countless Indians and declares them 'Christian' he is NOT repeat NOT repeat again..NOT following anything Jesus commanded or did.

So..the 'Historical' approach to evaluating faiths is simply not valid.

David said "After the fall of the Roman Empire Christianity spread through Europe mainly by the use of military force."

In terms of Historical observation..David is 100% correct (with some reservations) The FORM of Christianity may have spread along with the expanding government, but did 'CHRIST-ianity' spread? Can people be forced to believe something they don't want or can they only be forced to LOOK like they believe it? :) that is the key.

If the latter is true (and it is) then 'Christ-ianity' did not spread by military power, and David's statement is actually false
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:10:31 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
Polycarp wrote:

"So..the 'Historical' approach to evaluating faiths is simply not valid."

The Bible says, "By their fruits shall thee know them." To the people persecuted, tortured and murdered by Christians those are the fruits. You are what you do.

The Holocaust was applied Christianity. Your evident hatred for Islam is more applied Christianity.

Fortunately there also are Christians of good will like Bishop Spong who are trying to make Christianity more humane and accept those who are not Christians.

Foxy posted a poem, "I know something good about you!" Please show us your loving side. I would like to know something good about you.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:27:52 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
Polycarp wrote:

"MY POSITION.

1/"Faith behavior is based on written documents""

The written document that Christianity depends is the Bible.

Bishop Spong has pointed out statements in the Bible including the words of Jesus promoting hate.

The Book of Joshua supports genocide as carrying out the will of God.

Foxy posted a poem, "I know something good about you!" Please show us your loving side. I would like to know something good about you.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:54:18 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 Polycarp,

Your arguments can be summarised:

1. WE are good regardless of what WE do.

2. THEY are bad because THEY are not US.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 October 2008 10:01:53 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
David f, you may have noticed that, broadly, there are two types of Christian. The first are those who believe they should follow in Christ's footsteps and show their devotion by living in gratitude, peace, kindness and acceptance.

Polyboaz, however, is the second kind: those who take the low road to sanctimony by expressing hate and exclusion. It's an easy trick when you know how.

Living as Christ would takes a lot of effort, what with all that turning other cheeks and loving thy neighbours - even when those neighbours are vastly different from oneself. It's much easier to say "these (insert bad guys du jour) are the enemies of my religion. By hating them and hurting them I am being a faithful servant of Christ."

That way, you can express all of your anger, xenophobia, and violent impulses while publicly and proudly stamping God's seal of approval on your behaviour.
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 20 October 2008 1:17:22 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
Dear Sancho,

I think you have defamed Polycarp. He may think he is following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Jesus statement, “No one cometh to the father save through me.” is a most intolerant statement. No matter how good a life you live you are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. That is not a statement of acceptance. I don’t think it good to follow that Jesus. That Jesus expresses hate and exclusion. However, I am sure many Christians believe that statement.

I would disagree with your statement: “David f, you may have noticed that, broadly, there are two types of Christian.”

The implication I get from your statement is that some Christians are good guys and some are bad guys – the old we/they bit.

I really don’t think Polycarp is a bad guy although I don’t agree with many of his ideas.

I think you, Polycarp, Jesus if he ever existed and I are all a mixture of good and bad. In that respect I think all human beings are alike. I think it better not to divide the world into friends and enemies. Polycarp is not my enemy. He is merely a man on the list who I disagree with in some areas.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 October 2008 1:54:52 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
David f

Spot on: Polycarp's arguments amount to little more than as you put it:

"1. WE are good regardless of what WE do.

"2. THEY are bad because THEY are not US."

His methods though are another matter. Perhaps they can be summarised as follows:

1. Pretend you are a serious scholar with a real question to pose.

2. Manufacture a phoney scenario usually in the form of representing THEM as a threat to US.

3. Selectively quote the Bible and the Koran to 'validate' the correctness of US and denigrate THEM.

4. Put in a link to an old article from a fundamentalist Christian website, preferably from the USA, claiming it as contemporary 'news'.

5. Deny having any racist intent by saying it's a question of VALUES.

6. Refuse to engage with posters who know their stuff and challenge facts and interpretations.

7. Move on quickly to another topic.

8. Come back in a month or so to the first topic and repeat the formula.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 20 October 2008 2:00:08 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
No David F.....you posted comments from an outright HERETIC (Spong).

You not only post his heretical, dangerous comments, but also you appear to accept his incorrect understanding of John 14:6 among other verses, and his understanding/position on these is WHY he is a heretic. I've already dealt with the meaning of John 14:6 "No man comes to the Father but by me". SHOW ME A SYLLABLE OF anything in that which suggests OTHER than "belief of the heart". There is not a skeric or shred of anything..ANYthing..suggesting that this verse (in it's fuller context) can mean anything other than belief of the heart.

You also note "By their fruits you shall know them".

EXACTLY.. "what fruit? what do you know? about who?"

1/ Fruit "evil, unChristlike behavior".. cruelty, violence,killing, murder.

2/ Who are they? "They" are those who do the above,but they are surely not those following Christ.

John 14 (same chapter)

5"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him,

errrr...what was that DAvid?

IF YOU LOVE ME......
YOU WILL OBEY WHAT I COMMAND....

Now..at this point we can ask "WHAT" did Jesus command?

Here are FIFTY of them and not a single one involves violence or forcing people to become Christians. (Just as John 14:6 does NOT teach that as the heretic Spong alledges)

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Fifty-Commands-Of-Jesus&id=468177

I'm sorry.. heretical so called Bishops with their equally heretical Jewish followers of convenience have no validity whatsoever in the eternal scheme of things.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 20 October 2008 2:22:19 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
I sense a new thread coming up :)

SPIKEY.. (and David)

1/ No.. we are NOT "Good regardless of what we do"

If we do that which honours Christ and brings Glory to God.. that's one thing. If we act contrary to his revealed Word..then were are evil, under judgment and outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2/ No..they are not 'BAD' because they are not us. "They" (and this may well include you) are LOST because they do not yet know Christ as Lord and Savior. As such... (Lost) they are the objects of Gods abiding patient Love until they die when they will face Judgement.

"For God so LOVED the world...etc" "I came not for the righteous but for sinners"

3/ Selectively quote both Bible and Quran APPROPRIATELY based on common sense,natural language meaning, and (non heretical)scholarly opinion, in both cases and let the facts lead where they will.

6/ Ur kidding...right? :) Happy to engage with posters who DO know 'their stuff' but bigotry was never my flavor of choice.

(Bigotry= Facts mean nothing, just my opinion. I'll discuss facts but the number of ad hominems here is amazing)

Spikey.. the other points were wasted cyberspace better spend on more noble persuits :)

The main problem here is the lack of knowledge of how Islam and Christianity work. We have uninformed leftists, a bitter (but lovable) Jew, and a delicate and hearwarming Foxy, a Fractelle for whom I hold hope, and 'the rest'.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 20 October 2008 2:33:39 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
Polycarp,

Right on cue! So predictable. You cherry pick - as ever - responding (in a manner of speaking) to just two of my six propositions. The other four are too hard evidently.

And in so acting, you demonstrate in practice my points about your methods.

Take 7 and 8 for example: "7. Move on quickly to another topic. 8. Come back in a month or so to the first topic and repeat the formula."

Your knee-jerk reaction? "I sense a new thread coming up :)"

Perhaps I overlooked another of your methods.

9. Offer opponents gratuitous advice about the state of their soul. ""They" (and this may well include you) are LOST because they do not yet know Christ as Lord and Savior." I still have my spiritual Melways, Polycarp, and don't need your direction, thanks.

And another? (Well it rounds it out to PolyCarp's Ten Commandments):

10. When it suits, feel free to contradict your previous statements. In this case you're happy to contradict yourself in the one post:

(a) "If we act contrary to his revealed Word..then were are evil, under judgment and outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

compared with:

(b) "...they are the objects of Gods abiding patient Love until they die when they will face Judgement."

In (a) YOU have decided we are 'evil'. In (b) we are to be judged (by God) when we die.

PS: You've pulled that tear-jerker about ad hominem before. And it sits a little awkwardly with your closing hypocritical gambit: "We have uninformed leftists, a bitter (but lovable) Jew, and a delicate and hearwarming Foxy, a Fractelle for whom I hold hope, and 'the rest'.

Apparently it's ad hominem only when you are the object of criticism.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 20 October 2008 5:12:16 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
polycarp, ad hominem statements are one thing, but it's condescending remarks that I truly loathe.
In place of rebutting arguments, you have a habit of giving the verbal equivalent of a pat on the head and a smug smile, then wonder why people are furious and insulted.

"The main problem here is the lack of knowledge of how Islam and Christianity work."

This is precisely the kind of comment to which I refer. In effect Polycarp, you have just stated that you alone here hold the requisite information, and the others "don't know how Islam and Christianity work."

Problem is, that the practitioners of any given religion evidently have a rose-coloured view of how their religion works.

This is fine - why else would any person choose a religion if they didn't believe it to be the best.

It's the notion that you know how Islam works that really pisses people off, because as has been demonstrated time and again, you don't.

Your previous response was that you are objecting to people making protests. Were I to use such a dodgy argument, say, pointing out that there have been cases where Christians have made unreasonable demands (say, demanding facilities for worship), which have been rightly refused, would you think it acceptable that I then use this as fodder for an attack on Christianity? Would this be an acceptable tactic to use as painting Christianity as a threat?

Which is what this is really about. You make tenuous statements and attempt to portray them as indicative of your pet cause.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:50:58 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
Lets recap:

1) You bring up this thread, though you don't mention Islam, even though it is clearly what you really wish people to focus on.

- This raises the question of honesty - why wouldn't you be upfront, unless you were already aware people find your ongoing crusade objectionable? Unless of course, you don't wish to accept their criticism, and continue heedless of what people say, which in turns indicates a certain unwillingness to consider other views.

2) When Islam is brought up, you say the issue really is about exclusivity, probably due to the transparency of being ok with government multi-faith centres that resemble christian faiths more, but not liking Islamic ones.

-Problem here is, that such exclusivity doesn't exist. It's merely a protest, which you then fall back on. Which brings me back to the point I made about demands above. Clearly, such an argument is rather weak, but hey.

Oh, and if you want, you can ignore this post, but for the love of god, don't give me one of your insufferable comments as though you're an arbiter of religious wisdom and it's everybody else who is uninformed.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:52:12 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
Polycarp,
“Fractelle for whom I hold hope”
I almost envy Fractelle.

“They are protesting wanting EXCLUSIVITY.”
You are concerned about exclusivity, but would it be possible that Muslim students have a valid reason for requiring a prayer room that resembles the Islam faith more than the Christian faith?
AS TRTL mentioned, government multi-faith centres resemble christian faiths more.

You say that you understand Islam, then you’re also aware that Islamic faith requires specific things like a dedicated prayer room, certain hygiene and dress codes, absence of idolatry etc.
If Islamic faith really requires such room for Muslims to be able to practice their faith properly, shouldn’t they be granted that room in the name of Freedom of Religion?
After all, there are 2 other multi-faith rooms at the campus already.

If RMIT didn’t think that Muslims had a valid reason for a separate prayer room then why did they pledge it in the first place?
And why did they later break that promise?
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 20 October 2008 8:56:39 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
"After all, there are 2 other multi-faith rooms at the campus already."

Public money being squandered erecting quasi religious facilities on public land so that insular little groups like Polycrap's can fight each other over their share of access. What a sick joke. I could even laugh, if I wasn't one of the poor sucker taxpayers. And if I wasn't watching public education being run down due to lack of funding.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 1:07:21 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
Dear Polycarp,

Please read the following carefully.

I appreciate being called lovable. It is not bitter to recognise the Christian responsibility for the Holocaust. My eyes are open, but you choose to keep your eyes shut.

The Holocaust was the product of years of Christian bigotry. It was in the truest sense applied Christianity. Some Christians recognize their fruits.

The following is from a Lutheran group recognizing Christian responsibility for the Holocaust:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel7.htm

. . . a repentance initiative
hosted by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Darmstadt, Germany; a community founded in 1947 by Mother Basilea Schlink

Statement of Purpose:
‘Have mercy upon me, O God,
according to thy lovingkindness:
according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies
blot out my transgressions.'
Psalm 51:1 AV

As Jews and Christians we worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We affirm our faith in Him as the one true God. To love Him with all our heart, with all our soul and with all our strength is our holy duty (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).

Instead of being united in love for God, we as Christians have sinned grievously against God's covenant people. Two thousand years of Church history have left a trail of blood: contempt, hatred, hostility, persecution and wholesale slaughter.

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways.

We commit ourselves to pray for His people, to oppose antisemitism in all its forms, and to ensure that respect and goodwill will mark our relations as Christians with the Jewish people in future.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 7:33:58 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 Polycarp,

Call Spong a heretic, and you can ignore his good sense.

Who are you to label a bishop of the Anglican Church in good standing a heretic?

Unfortunately various Christian churches have labeled those who make good sense as heretics. The neurotic guilt-ridden St. Augustine pushed his perverted doctrine of Original Sin. Pelagius with remarkably good sense claimed death is a normal consequence of life and not a punishment for sin and also claimed that we are born free of sin. So what happened? The Council of Carthage declared Pelagius a heretic and exiled him.

Jesus statement John 14:6 "No man comes to the Father but by me" is intolerant whether it is through belief in the heart or not. To say a person is denied God because they don’t believe in a particular bit of Christian mumbo jumbo is sick. I don’t need Spong to tell me that. I thought that about that particular statement when I had never heard of Spong. However, I am glad that a Christian can recognize that parts of the New Testament are responsible for Christian bigotry. To call Spong a heretic is just a label applied to someone whose inconvenient truths you prefer to ignore.

Is the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary also made up of heretics? They connected the Holocaust with Christianity.

I wish Spong success in his effort to rid Christianity of its inherent bigotry.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 8:08:08 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
David F, at the age of 15 I suffered a crisis of faith which had serious consequences for me for the next decade or so. Since then I have recieved instruction from Rabbis, Imans, Priests, Pastors, Swamis, and many good and wonderful people of faiths as diverse as Rastafarianism and Wicca. I have made comparative religions and their history a subject of lifelong study both informally and at University. During this long journey both before and after finally reaching the conclusions to which I now adhere (albeit remaining receptive to the idea that my Truth may not be The Truth)I have also extensively studied The Bible and Koran. Judging by responses on these forums over the years, I am not alone.

The views, sentiments and opinions continually expressed by the poster currently known as Polycarp fly in the face of every honourable and sincere spiritual leader I have ever met or studied. One of the reasons he arouses such animosity is that these views, sentiments and opinions are the antithesis of spirituality as most people understand the concept and consequently are offensive to people of good faith no matter what their creed. To represent these personal views as being representative of Christianity per se is to mis-represent the Christianity to which the majority of Christians on this forum and in the wider community adhere.

The mutual lack of respect which typifies exchanges with Polycarp is not gratuitous on the part of other posters, but is a reflection of the resistance of both believers and non-believers towards affiliation with a personal creed which purports to hold therein the only possible path for humankind to follow. All seeming attempts by Polycarp to "engage" have proved spurious as have claims to a wider knowledge than those with whom he engages.

Objectivity is regarded by Polycarp as culpability therefore is resisted strongly. Simply be aware that the views expressed by him (especially in regard to such questions as Christian depredations) do not reflect the views of the majority.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:16:18 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
Romany, beautifully put.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 12:34:08 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
Yes, I agree with RObert, well put, Romany.

I'm not quite as sanguine as you are, however, that Polycrap and his ilk represent a minority of Christians. Well, I guess they still do at this stage, but that intolerant and prescriptive minority is definitely growing in number, certainly in Australia, if not in China where you are.

Like you, the Christians I know personally, are indeed sincere and decent people, whose understanding of their faith leads them to love and care for others and the planet in the true spirit of the teachings of their Christian inspiration, Jesus Christ. And I agree, we have at least one fine such example here on OLO in Foxy and possibly others I'm not aware of too.

The reason I never hesitate to sink the boot into Polycrap's religious rantings though, when I can be bothered that is, is that I strongly resent the growing influence of his narrow and bigoted brand of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists are infiltrating education and government in Australia in a way unprecedented in our history. Just when the world needs more in the way of acceptance and inclusion, these ugly voices of hate and division are growing louder and ever more strident.

I still haven't worked out whether the best way to treat Polycrap is to confront his every statement as we usually do, or whether we should be ignoring him completely and starving him of oxygen. And of the notoriety that he seems to revel in. Every thread he starts seems to draw us in like bees to honey. I don't think I've seen a thread of his yet that hasn't reached double digits and fairly quickly at that.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 2:22:19 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 Bronwyn,

Although I agree with much of what you say I object to your reference to Polycarp as Polycrap. One can disagree without denigrating.

From my observations I have seen little or no correlation between religious belief and behaviour.

From knowing that a person is a Christian, Jew, atheist, Muslim or whatever I can make no judgments about their behaviour.

I can’t even make a blanket judgment about Fundamentalists although I share your concern about their infiltration in education and government in Australia and the US. I have met Christian Fundamentalists who have been pacifist vegetarians, quite open to hearing the views of other people and willing to treat those others respectfully and courteously even though their own beliefs may coincide with those of Polycarp.

I think it possible that religious belief often merely provides justification for acting in a way people are conditioned to through their family, their peers and their society with the mix modified by their individual personality.

However, I find myself straining my liver and getting angry at his posts so I will not respond to any of his posts until at least the end of the month.

Polycarp has had an effect upon me. He has posted ugly hate passages purportedly from the Koran which he apparently from non-Muslim sites. One of them I checked was inaccurate, and Polycarp had an explanation.

However, I wanted to see what was actually in the Koran and am reading “Readings in the Qur’an" by Kenneth Cragg. Gragg’s motivation was to explore the differences and similarities with Christianity in the Qur’an. I feel I know enough about Christianity to appreciate that approach.

In one way I feel Jesus is not as good an example as Moses, Buddha and Mohammed. They all appeared to have heterosexual impulses. I regard homosexual activities as better than avoidance of sex. We not only teach by words. We teach by example, and I regard a sexless role model as inculcating guilt to those who have a sex drive.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 6:08:00 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
Romany ,
“Polycarp fly in the face of every honourable and sincere spiritual leader I have ever met or studied. One of the reasons he arouses such animosity is that these views, sentiments and opinions are the antithesis of spirituality as most people understand the concept and consequently are offensive to people of good faith no matter what their creed”

But I wonder if our time and place encourages a particular type of spiritualism. And, in a different time and/or place you would have heard the same spiritual leaders express very different spiritual
principles: is what you are hearing from such superficially disparate sources more an echo of our dominant ,mainstream secular values than an expression of their native character(?)

To quote from another, unrelated thread on OLO “There is a universal tendency to airbrush history to suit current political sensibilities”

David F ,
My favourite scene from the Muslim tradition is The Isra' Story, which relates that Muhammad made a journey to Jerusalem astride , a mythical winged creature, in the company of the archangel Gabriel. There he meets with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and officiates as leader of their joint prayer session, and afterwards, he has all of them acknowledge his primacy – it surely paints a picture that is worth a thousand words
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:14:49 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
david f

"Although I agree with much of what you say I object to your reference to Polycarp as Polycrap. One can disagree without denigrating."

With the greatest of respect, david, I will refer to Polycarp in whatever manner I see fit at the time. The term 'polycrap' is nothing more than a fairly innocuous anagram of his pseudonym; I doubt he'll lose any sleep over it.

Any poster who stirs up hatred and division to the extent that BOAZ_David has always done and then covertly reinvents himself with a pretentious moniker like Polycarp, is just setting himself up as fair game, I'd say. Besides, he thrives on it; he doesn't need protecting. He dishes it out to others and knows he can only expect the same in return.

If you're going to start lecturing posters about denigrating others, david, I'd suggest there are plenty of others to have a go at before you start in on me!
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 12:50:29 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
Horus - "But I wonder if our time and place encourages a particular type of spiritualism. And, in a different time and/or place you would have heard the same spiritual leaders express very different spiritual principles"? Indubitably: perhaps I would have heard the words of Jesus as those of an Essene had I lived in another time and place. And perhaps I would have heard the words of an Anglican bishop as those of a Dissenter in still another time and place. The interpretation and reception of any spiritual creed, in order to grow, perforce develops in order to fit the times - the number of different creeds which have developed from the same original source of the Old Testament serves to illustrate this.

I don't think I agree that the sources of other religions and creeds are "superficially" disparate, however. I think they are genuinely discrete sources and reflections of disparate cultures and experiences.I have not spent very much of my life living in cultures which could be considered as reflections of "dominant ,mainstream secular values" so the voices I have listened to have not tended to be more weighted towards such values than to others. While the search for spiritual meaning seems to be a universal concern, humanity appears to conduct this search through a plethora of means.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 3:07:34 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
Dear Bronwyn,

I writhe at your feet in an agony of humble self-abasement for lecturing you.

Polycarp has generated a unity among those who are turned off by him. If we could only show that he is an extra-terrestrial we might unify the planet.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 7:49:31 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
Well.... much as I take a bit of a battering here :) from the usual suspects... I'm greatly encouraged.

Believe it or not, little snippits of information filter out which help me to understand the perspective of those writing against what I write.

David F.. your support for fairness is appreciated (moniker) -as to your comment

"The holocaust was a result of years of Christian bigotry"

Is quite close to the mark. Given the beautiful statements of the likes of Ms Shink.. surely you might like to add the word "misguided" just before 'bigotry'...because surely if you read the words of Jesus, you will see this to be a fact.

The statement "No man comes to the Father but by me" is without doubt one of those which divides humanity into 2 camps. "The Saved" and "The Lost"

Without further comment, it is easy to see why someone could be annoyed by such a verse.

Remember his words when arrested? (Matt 26:52ff)

"for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Notice his emphasis? "that the scriptures be fulfilled"

Notice also in Matthew 8

16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases." (Isaiah 53:4)

For those interested in textual matters..that section is ONLY found in Matthew..not Mark, Luke or John.

Nevertheless...Jesus is here being connected by the Jew (Matthew) to the Messianic Isaiah 53

TOPIC. Bronwyn, ur close when you say education is languishing due to lack of funding..so LETS STOP FUNDING PRIVATE RELIGIOUS structures on state land! for ANY group.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 7:55:27 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
Dear TRTL

the Multi Faith centre at RMIT "resembles" a MOSQUE more than any Church as it was designed by a commissioned Muslim Architect.

I avoid mentioning "Islam/Muslims" because it is an issue of principle which would equally apply if they were Bahai's or Catholics. OR.. Brethren.

Bronwyn.. the issue of 'religious requirements' is irrelevant. The job of the STATE is SECULAR not religious. RMIT made a goose of itself by simply trying:
a) To be "politically correct"
b) To attact high fee paying Muslims from Oil rich countries.

They can reap what they have sown on those issues. I have little sympathy for them.

Regarding a similar request at the University of Western Sydney see this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22364144-12332,00.html

Request: "Build us a mosque"
Outome: "denied"
Reason: "We are a SECULAR institute"

Bronwyn..I seem to notice a pattern in your thinking. i.e.. that the most important thing in all issues is 'what people want' rather than what the law or even the community says. I see this pattern also in regard to assylum seekers.

Dear Romany... you say you have studied the Quran and the Bible.

Please explain Surah 9.. in it's historic context.

Keep the following in mind:

1/ "Did Mohammad simply 'decide' to not honour existing treaties?" (verse 1)
2/ "Why"
3/ "Did he announce that he would KILL all mushriks who remained in the land after a certain period of time"? (verse5)
4/ "Was the only way of escaping death for a Mushrik(Polytheist/pagan) to embrace Islam"? (verse 5)

With the exception of point 2, they only require a 'Yes/no' answer.

if you say you know it.. how about proving it?
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 8:17:42 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 Polycarp,

I am already breaking my word by posting to you.

You wrote:

“Nevertheless...Jesus is here being connected by the Jew (Matthew) to the Messianic Isaiah 53”

That should be amended to:

Nevertheless...the Jew Jesus is here being connected by the Jew (Matthew) to the Messianic Isaiah 53

Jesus was a Jew, and you reject his religion.

Obviously Matthew was wrong since the messianic prophesy was not fulfilled. The lion did not lie down with the lamb, and nations still study war.

I don’t think there is any such thing as a messiah, but Jesus was obviously one of the many false ones. Matthew might have later admitted he was wrong.

You also wrote: “LETS STOP FUNDING PRIVATE RELIGIOUS structures on state land! for ANY group.”

I agree with that. In addition let’s eliminate the school chaplaincy program and stop funding non-public schools. Pastoral care is the business of the churches. Chaplains should only be provided in the armed services, prisons and in similar places where people are away from their religious structures. School children live at home.

I also note Matthew 8:16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

That was part of the superstitious context of 2,000 years ago and of the superstitious part of our population at present.

Do you believe in demons?

The mentally ill used to be called ‘demon-possessed’. Some of us know better now. The New Testament as well as the Jewish Bible has much superstitious nonsense in it. Bishop Spong is trying to emphasise the ethical content of the Bible and get rid of superstitions. We can be aware of Matthew 8:16 and realize it is sheer superstition.

The original prophesy did not mention demons. That was added by the superstitious authors of the New Testament.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 8:39:55 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
david f

"I writhe at your feet in an agony of humble self-abasement for lecturing you."

You're forgiven!

Mind you, it wasn't the image of you writhing at my feet that softened my cold heart! It was this little gem in your last post that won me over -

.."let’s eliminate the school chaplaincy program and stop funding non-public schools."

How could I harbour even a hint of animosity towards a speaker of such wisdom!

You do realise though don't you that you have now placed me in a difficult position. Each time I go to address Polycarp, I now have to choose between showing my respect to you and showing my disrespect to his pomposity. I guess it will depend on how riled I am at the time as to which choice wins!

As long as you know that even while I ignore your advice I do respect you for the decent and fair-minded poster you are. You have to understand though I just don't have your same capacity to turn the other cheek!
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 11:19:57 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
Bronwyn wrote:

"As long as you know that even while I ignore your advice I do respect you for the decent and fair-minded poster you are. You have to understand though I just don't have your same capacity to turn the other cheek!"

As the butt of your remarks I turn the other cheek.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 11:34:21 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
Polycarp has used the phrase “God’s only begotten son” ad nauseam to refer to Jesus. He will then cite that nonsense as a core value of Christianity and cherry pick a nasty Islamic bit and say that is a core value of Islam. I really don’t think Polycarp knows enough about Islam to say what its core values are.

Of course if one reads the Bible one finds that God claims other sons:

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

The above passage says that all Jews are sons of God – apparently even females or don’t they count in the eyes of a male chauvinist God?

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Here God again claims all Israel as his sons.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

In the psalms of David the LORD claims David as his son.

In order to see Jesus as “God’s only begotten son” one has to ignore Exodus, Hosea and Psalms. The books of the Bible contradict each other. It is a most unreliable document.

The God of the Bible in having children is like the pagan gods who impregnate humans. However the Jewish Bible doesn’t mention the females. Maybe that God is hermaphroditic. However, in impregnating Mary while the testghosterone was running the NT God is in the tradition of Zeus who impregnated many human females. Possibly a jealous God effected the destruction of the Tower of Babel as he didn’t want humans to have big erections.

No doubt Polycarp will continue posting the silliness of “God’s only begotten son”.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 23 October 2008 9:02:22 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 David... I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.

PRIMARY CONTENTION.. I.E.. THE TOPIC.
My primary contention is that no religious group should have any exclusive structure built at either tax payers expense or even though donations..on State land.

I don't think any of you can disagree with that primary contention...can you?

Regarding the chaplaincy program.. well that's over to you folks to use your democratic voice to change it. I won't argue against that choice or your expression of it. I do feel that properly run, a chaplaincy program can be of benefit, but this is a matter of opinion.

I would not want an exclusive (or even an open) noticably 'Christian' chapel on state land, mainly because it opens the door for:

-Criticism about favoritism, and use of taxpayer funds.
-Suggests the State and that faith are a bit to comfortable and close.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 6:08:10 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
Looks like Christianity is having some second thoughts of its own about this, Boaz.

>>I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.<<

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24568784-5006786,00.html

"a NSW priest, Peter Dresser of Coonamble in the Diocese of Bathurst, insists Jesus was not God and did not think he was God"

Does it occur to you that there are so many versions of just your own religion - let alone the hundreds of others - that it is extremely brave (in the "Yes Minister" sense) to claim that just one of them must be "right"?

I guess it is one of the great mysteries of life.

Being religious forces you to defend a position that is, ultimately, indefensible. This creates a poisonous cocktail of doubt ("surely I'm not wrong about this?"), and fear ("if we don't show them to be wrong, everyone will be corrupted by them"), which inevitably leads to loathing and violence. Even between adherents of what, to outsiders, looks like the same religion.

Paradoxically, but inevitably, it will be the religious who are quickest to incite in others the fear and loathing they experience themselves. While those without such mental baggage simply look on with dismay.

>>My primary contention is that no religious group should have any exclusive structure built at either tax payers expense or even though donations..on State land. I don't think any of you can disagree with that primary contention...can you?<<

Given that religions seem to mostly take on the mantle of "charity" when lobbying governments for their special privileges, arguing against them is like advocating the brutal bashing of baby seals.

Religion is about emotion, and emotional insecurity of individuals. There are a lot of people who still need it, so governments will have to keep an eye out for them.

The answer ultimately is not to withdraw these privileges piecemeal, but to elect a government that cuts off all financial support to religious groups, including all tax breaks etc.

And that won't happen, because of the baby seals.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 7:50:01 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
Dear Pericles,

Amen.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 8:00:57 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
Polycarp wrote:

Dear David... I'll defer a heavy theological discussion about the use of the term 'son' in relation to God as it is beyond the scope of this topic.

Dear Polycarp,

It wouldn't be an issue if you didn't keep repeating the "God's only begotten son" rubbish where it was not the topic of conversation. However, when it is pointed out to be rubbish then you'll defer discussion of the rubbish.

Rubbish doesn't require a heavy theological discussion.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:56:11 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
Pericles said,
"The answer ultimately is not to withdraw these privileges piecemeal, but to elect a government that cuts off all financial support to religious groups, including all tax breaks etc."

Absolutely agree!
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 3:22:11 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
Welllll....this is indeed a juicy thread :)

PERICLES FIRST.

"a NSW priest, Peter Dresser of Coonamble in the Diocese of Bathurst, insists Jesus was not God and did not think he was God"

SHOCK HORROR... I better batton down the theological hatches and ramp up the 'fear and loathing' which Pericles seems so easily to link to 'disagreement'... poor begger....

Of course, what escapes our dear secular bishop is... that this bloke stands out like a SORE THUMB against the accepted wisdom, similar to that Dr Francis McNab.

Oh..by the way ..

PERICLES and DAVID F yes AMEN AMEN and AMEN! Total agreement there.
The Body of Christ (the only begotten Son of God!) has never languished through lack of state support..in fact it THRIVES.

Ok.. Pericles(David).. on the theological issue. The reason the likes of Dresser and McNab stand out so starkly is simple. They are deluded.

"Jesus did not think he was God" (Dresser)
"If you have seen ME, you have seen the Father" (Jesus)

Bearing in mind of course the context of our Lord's statement. Philip said "Lord..SHOW us the Father and THEN we will be satisfied"

The reason I defer 'heavy theological discussion' is because our Lord also pointed to his humanity and one can cherry pick one set of verses or the other to create an unbiblical Jesus who is neither man/God nor God/Man, but only 'man' or..'only' God.

The other reason to defer is that one would need to revisit the full ecclesiastical debate from the various councils.. not something 350 words can achieve.

Oh..David.. my claiming that Christ is the only begotten of the Father is hardly as dangerous as claiming "Christians did the holocaust". One is an allocation of attribute..the other is an allocation of blame.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 30 October 2008 7:24:11 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
Polycarp wrote:

"Oh..David.. my claiming that Christ is the only begotten of the Father is hardly as dangerous as claiming "Christians did the holocaust". One is an allocation of attribute..the other is an allocation of blame."

I am concerned with truth more than blame. The only begotten bit is absolute nonsense. The Christian blame for the Holocaust is fact.

Sometimes the truth is quite dangerous. It is easier and sometimes safer to deny it.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 30 October 2008 8:24:14 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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