Keyser Trad:

...You touch on the problem of ethnicity here and there, but fail to connect the dots ….The problem of Multiculturalism is the political “idiom” it has become, (per se)

...When we the locals are fed intravenously, by a constant drip of notional tripe claiming the economic imperatives of Multiculturalism, proffered from the upper echelons of Politics, in support of Multiculturalism; which serves political imperative only, and ignores the downsides; then Multiculturalism simply falls into the basket case of "idiom".

...But fortunately, latest figures suggest a two thirds ratio of immigration over emigration: 130 thousand immigrations to 90 thousand emigrations. Things are looking-up

We see through this stuff by now, using the language and weapons of the left while in a position of weakness. No one believes there is any intrinsic affinity at all between them and Islam.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

"In short: intellectuals cluster to the left, generally adopting as a social norm the principle of pas d'ennemis a gauche, pas d'amis a droit, because like everyone else they are drawn to power. The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders." 

And a Christian culture is orderly and self ruling. Unhelpful to Power and the left. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf

So, to criticise the Cathedral's (state- uni.intellectual atheocracy) culture war is to DEMONISE "deploying the old principle of 'this animal (any push back against the left) is very dangerous; when attacked, it defends itself.' The progressive is always the underdog in his own mind. Yet, in objective reality, he always seems to win in the end."

I don't blame the author for using the tactics of the Cathedral for his own ends, muslims are useful at present in its project of fragmentation – but can muslims play the game with the left? Who is playing who? Fascinating to watch.

While I applaud the sentiments of the writer, I have a problem with multiculturalism in that most of the time the so-called ‘culture’ is in reality religion, and religions are notoriously unsympathetic to dissidents. Within every religious culture there exists a body of persecuted dissidents whose self respect is diminished by the ‘culture’ we are urged to respect.
The author achieved a certain notoriety in this regard for his intolerant attitude to people who are born same sex oriented. He would have more credibility if he espoused the notion of individual rights, in which individuals are respected and feel free to choose those aspects of their culture that fit them, and reject others.

Multiculturalism is OK except when Islam comes into the picture. Even when they are a sizable minority, they will begin to impose their superstitions within their neighbourhood on non-Muslims as they currently do in the UK.

Zakir Naik is a Muslim apologist. Below is a documentary evidence about the hypocrisy of Naik telling you Islam is a tolerant religion. To the non-Muslims they will say one thing but when they are among Muslims you know they speak the truth about Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xHRaNE2XXVk#!

My problem is definitely with Islamic immigration. Why would muslims come to a democratic, secular society based on christian beliefs? There must be 30 or 40 Islamic countries they could go to. It seems many muslims don't even like Australia and want to change it. They have much higher rates of unemployment and incarceration and on average poorer aducation outcomes.

The simple fact is they make very poor migrants. apart from genuine cases of political persecution (maybe 5% of cases) I can't see any reason why we would allow musilm immigration.

"Hardly a syllable is remembered about how we acquired this paradise and how we treated and how we continue to treat its indigenous population."

You mean like preferential treatment for jobs and housing. Extra payment for study, cheap home loans and all that?

thanks for the link Phillip but don't forget that lying is compatible with Islam when its suits their cause. They have this in common with secular humanism hence their hatred for Christianity.

Ybgirp:

...Woo-back…Keyser Trad maybe an official suspect respecting previous Anti-establishment commitments in his past; and this article (to me) hints at an attempt to slide back in on the wings of Multicultural sentiment, (a dismal failure on these pages so far)!

...But you draw the bow too far, when you claim his previous anti-Gay, high profile stance

viz.,

.#... Within every religious culture there exists a body of persecuted dissidents whose self respect is diminished by the ‘culture’ we are urged to respect…#.

Is forming some ill intent, fostered from his cultural surrounds towards homosexuality.

...Wrong I say!... Religion has a responsibility to itself, to oppose immorality from its bowels of belief, irrespective of culture. Homosexuals must live inside their own particular cultural norms, if that culture is subservient to its predominant religious beliefs!

@ Diver Dan,
Homosexuals who live otherwise good lives can receive their reward in this life but people of faith live in the knowledge that they go to a greater reward in the next.

I noticed someone quoting the redoubtable "Mencius Moldbug", there's a lot of truth in what that blogger says.
I've gone on at length describing the differences between "Muslims" and "Lebs" and I don't propose labouring the point but it should be obvious by now that drunken, drugged up Lebanese hoodlums aren't a reflection upon Islam so much as an indictment of multiculturalism/ assimilation and it's globalist culture of Nihilism, corruption and immorality.
I'm in agreement with the idea that Apartheid and Racial segregation were wrong, not in substance or intent but in only their implementation.In a multiracial society people should be allowed to segregate and form enclaves if they choose, where these ideas failed in the past it was because nobody had a choice, that force was used.
Some people like to be among their own kind, others like to live in multicultural societies, some like limited versions of both systems or prefer a socio economic or class based lifestyle.
If I'm honest I'm quite happy to live around Chinese, Southern Europeans and Slavic people, I find there's a lot of common ground since, in the main those groups make up a big chunk of the working class (such as it is).
I don't like being around Africans, Indians, Aboriginals and Middle Easterners and underclass Whites, they are not "just like me", there's really nothing I can learn and no way for me to profit from knowing them and that opinion formed over two decades living in very mixed areas and around the inner city housing estates.

Quote: The message is that these people ruined their country and now they are trying to ruin our (land) made… with our Christian European culture and values.

Yes, that is pretty much it, particularly if we are talking Muslims. Once again, Trad is peddling his “It is not Islam’s fault” excuses, just like in 2008 here at OLO.

Fact: Islam is a religion of hate and violence. Look at the Quran. Checkout verse 9:111. Look at Islam’s prophet – a man that attacked others dozens of times, murdered, lied, plundered, tortured, enslaved men women and children, raped captives, etc… Look at Islamic societies!

Look at what Muslim do everywhere they go: In Sweden, threats and violence cause end of postal service Malmø (Muslim area!)
http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE1510124/kriminalitet-standser-postbude-i-malmoe-

In England, radicals are putting up “Sharia enforcement zones”.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

In “Arab Spring” countries, Muslims are passing new restrictions on non-Muslims.

In Arabia, they want to kill anyone making the mildest criticisms of their ‘dear’ prophet!

Does Trad address these issues? NO! This whole essay is nothing but a “don’t make us change our (Islamic) ways” message.

Why should we thing that Muslims are any different in Australia than anywhere else?

Quoting myself: It is my opinion that Muslims cannot, in numbers, live in peace with non-Muslims. Our values are different and Islamic theology makes co-existence impossible (we are, after all, just treacherous vile animals according to the Quran). I think this position is widely substantiated by how Muslims conduct themselves where they dominate – and I refuse to believe that American Muslims are in different from their brethren in Islamic societies. If Muslims could, they would impose sharia and their twisted values on non-Muslims.
Note also, having read the hadith, I find it hard to believe that people that love, respect and consider Mohammad a ‘great moral example’ have any goodwill toward us. This problem is compounded by the total inability for Muslims to be honest about simple, clear facts in their own scriptures – and because they will not self-reflect on this problem, they cannot change.
http://americanbedu.com/2012/01/18/saudi-arabiausa-islam-and-muslims-in-america/

Bad times are coming!

kactuz:

...Where Christianity has” wimped-out” on the religious moral imperative, Islam has not: To me, that is the refreshing point. Moral outrage is not a flaw.

Jay Of Melbourne:

And how appropriate for the poignant French quote:- .#... pas d'ennemis a gauche, pas d'amis a droit…#. Should be aligned to our Muslim brotherhood, I would think!

“Enemies to the left, and no friends to the right”

Dan....

I think most of the responses are a little hysterical. It is a fact that most humans feel a need for some sort of religious belief. In itself that's not bad. It is only bad when religions become organised and enforce their beliefs and behaviours on others. Most Australians call themselves Christians, but like most Jews, they're 'secular' believers, choosing for themselves how they want to live and, for the most part, letting others live in their own way. Respondents to this blog assume that all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals, when they're not. Increasingly, more and more Muslims are becoming more or less secular, taking what suits them from their religion and leaving the rest. Given time, they too will dare to speak out against religious leaders such as Keyser Trad who seek to force their beliefs and ideas on others. To pre-judge anyone because of their race, apparent culture or religion is irrational. Thinking people judge others on their values and actions.

Yes, both Christianity and Western Culture have “wimped out” They have abandoned their principles and surrendered to the demons of multiculturalism and Political Correctness. Our leaders cringe under their cowardly “say-no-evil” ideology that is devoid of basic humanistic principles. It is so bad that if you follow the links in the Swedish article I gave, you would have no idea of who is causing all that trouble and crime in Malmo. If takes several links to even get a phrase like this: “Malmö is known for a large influx of new residents.” Oh yes, lets not use the M word.

As to Morality in Islam – there is none. They have rituals and rules but no morality. I have never met a Muslim that can be honest about their religion, their Quran and their vile prophet – and I say that because I have actually studied Islamic theology and history. Wearing a burka or veil might provide modesty, but no morality. Let me put it this way, is there any morality in a person that says “Praise be upon him” after the name of a man that laughs at a pregnant woman being split open for offending him?
http://islam.us/hadith/abudawud/038.sat.html (verse 4348)

Take this example about a Saudi guy…
http://americanbedu.com/2012/02/16/saudi-arabia-what-should-be-done-about-hamza-kashgari/

In the comments, a poster links to an article by an Imam explaining why Mohammed is so loved (this to explain why they need to kill the young man for having an opinion they don’t like).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-sohaib-sultan/why-the-prophet-muhammad-_b_1282689.html

The problem is the article is full of lies, as I point out in my reply. Muslims, even so-called experts like this %@*%! (a Chaplain at Princeton) lie without shame to protect their evil prophet and their own feelings. Bad times are coming and I blame Muslims – and our cowardly leaders.

All Muslims are not fundamentalist radicals, but all Muslims love and honor Mohammed, considering him a great moral example - this a man that attacked, murdered, enslaved, lied, raped and plundered continually for 10 years. Need I say more? Figure out what this means, if you can!

Quote: more and more Muslims are becoming more or less secular, taking what suits them from their religion and leaving the rest. Given time, they too will dare to speak out against religious leaders such as Keyser Trad who seek to force their beliefs and ideas on others.

And so what? The real issues are:
1. When will Muslims denounce the hate and violence in the Quran against non-Muslims, or condemn the evil actions of Mohammed?
2. When are Islamic societies going to change their ways? I mean end the intolerance, repeal the apostasy and blasphemy laws and accept freedom of speech and the principle of human equality?

When this happens we can talk. Until then, spare me the talk about so-called 'moderate' Muslims.

The concept of the "moderate Muslim" is a myth like the unicorn, chupacabra and yeti. The "moderate Muslim" thinks the vile things that Mohammad did, described in their own writings, are just fine and dandy. The fact that the Quran says non-Muslims are "lower than animals" doesn't bother "moderate Muslims".

Moderate Muslimhood is the petri dish out of which the radicals grow.

The West - and Australia - is going to pay dearly for their stupidity.

Kactuz, a few points:
-Jihadists are regarded by Muslims as just more pious and more religious,holy men or ascetics.Anyone who's on a journey of faith or religious learning can relate to the mindset but the idea that my god is their god and that he also watches over Muslims and loves them is laughable, can you imagine a Germanic tribesman eying a Roman farmer and thinking that Wotan also protected him?.

-Turning the issue of Islam around in my mind it's become clear to me that Islam does breed violent, intolerant and hostile people, there's no racial component to the problem beyond the fact that 99.9% of Muslims are non White, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Bosnians and Nigerians are all susceptible to the same "unmanageable" degree of devotion.

-I've heard the term "lack of emotional mobility" used in connection with young Aboriginal people, it also rings true regarding non European migrants, particularly Refugees of whom the greater proportion of arrivals are now Muslim.
Emotional mobility implies a strength of character which aids a person's adaptation to new and unfamiliar surrounds and enables them to navigate a high tech, liberal western society without falling apart or succumbing to it's many vices. In light of the monotonous roll call of tragic "New Australian" figures that begs the question, are we helping or making things worse?
Can these people really cope or are they going to end up as mental basket cases, addicts or "clients" of the justice system?

- White Australians are sick of not being consulted or included in discussions about immigration, in fact the perception is that since one vocal wing of the pro population lobby portrays non Eurpoean migration as revenge for "racism" that Multiculturalism is something that's being done TO us not FOR us.
Is there a plan for reconciliation between White Australia and Multicultural Australia and or are we just expected to continue to be it's wallet, with no say in the matter?

Ybgirp, it is irrational not to come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with a religion that teaches its followers to emulate its founder who is a proven rapists, murderer, pedophile, women-hater.

All Muslims are not radical Islamists but ALL Muslims support radical Islamists. “Moderate” Malaysia sent back Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari to his certain death for making statements about Muhammad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/malaysia-deports-saudi-tweets-muhamma

runner
Secular humanism is what keeps religions from annihilating each other in the name of God. Secular humanism is based on the principles of religious freedom without fear of persecution. Runner, I am sure you don't condone the killing of minority Christians in the Middle East. These sorts of actions are condoned generally in less advanced cultures where there is one prevailing religious dogma.

I am not going to comment specifically on the article as there is as much prejudice from the Muslim community as towards it, the difference being of course, Muslims have the disadvantage of being in the minority.

Hopefully in the future Muslims and Christians will form some sort of tolerance for each other in a multi-cultural setting which adheres to a Common Law. I hope we don't see the same sort of radicalisation here as in the UK and that both Muslims and Christians will speak out against any threats to freedom of speech and religion.

Pelican,
You do realise that Christians are in large part responsible for the immigration of Muslims into Europe and Australia? A lot of the old Liberals who lobbied for an end to the immigration restriction act came from Methodist backgrounds and in the end both their Mr Menadue and Catholic Archbishop Mannix made submissions to parliament in support of non White migration.
There is no conflict between Christians and Muslims, of late there have been significant examples of co operation in my town but there is a constant, vicious and hysterical assault on both religions and people of faith in general by secular humanism / atheism.

Please Pelican

'Secular humanism is what keeps religions from annihilating each other in the name of God '

Have you not heard of Stalin or Mao. I suggest you do a little research before suggesting secular humanism somehow creates peace. Also the millions of murdered unborn are a result of humanistic dogma. The humanistic dogma is blinded to true science replacing it with pseudo science pretending the unborn is not a child.

'...my town but there is a constant, vicious and hysterical assault on both religions and people of faith in general by secular humanism / atheism.;

In what way? Provide an example.

For the most part most atheists and/or secular humanists are seeking more tolerant approaches to minorities and that there is not undue influence from religious groups on broader individual choices. That includes freedom for any religious group that acts within the confines of the law as well as a safety net for those who may not conform to the prevailing or dominant religious dogma. That includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists and others.

Often in these sorts of discussion any opposition or disagreement with religious policy (regardless of denomination) is met with accusations of anti-Christian or anti-religion. That is not so. There are many examples where accusations of anti-religion have been used to discourage discussion including the attack on critics who spoke out about the management of child sexual abuse cases. Disagreeing with the stance or some of the practices of some religions whether it be Christian or Muslim does not constitute a 'vicious and hysterical assault'. Common decency must allow for people to speak up if there are abuses of any kind, otherwise religious authority or any other sort of authority is vested with too much power which potentially leads to corruption.

In the main (in real life) my experience is that people of varying beliefs and ideas are for the most part tolerant and accepting of the rights of others even if they disagree with the tenets.

runner
Mao and Stalin were not secular humanists. Please ensure you know the meaning before making wild accusations. Clearly if a despot leader is banning any sort of religious or non-religious POV they are not secular humanists.

Pelican

The religion of secular humanism is god denying and has very similar tennants of faith as Marxist. Your denial of history is quite surprising.

Jay, you say: - White Australians are sick of not being consulted or included in discussions about immigration,

Read this from Norway…. Perhaps it would be a better idea if this political dignitary decided to pay a visit to some of the few remaining ethnic Norwegian families living in the area and listen to their stories and ask them how they feel about the massive influx of immigrants and the effect this has had on their neighbourhoods. The dignitary should pay particular attention to the stories that focus on the thousands of Norwegians who have decided to pack up and leave due the reduced quality of life that this immigration has brought about. But of course this will not happen. The political elites are not interested in such accounts, nor are they interested in giving publicity to views that can be construed as criticism or opposition to the official party line.
http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/2012/02/norway-terra-nullius.html

Yes, Jay, liberal Christians, the media, academia and government have done everything possible to corrupt and undermine our heritage, traditions and values. They have promoted the immigration of people that will cause trouble. It makes them feel good and gives them more power. But you are wrong about the “no conflict” and any cooperation from Muslims is only in self-interest. Note also that the “constant, vicious and hysterical assault” is limited to non-Islamic religions only. Nobody dares criticize the vile ideology of Islam or the many evil actions of their despicable prophet.

Pelican, you say: “Hopefully in the future Muslims and Christians will form some sort of tolerance for each other…”

Won’t happen. Muslims are incapable of tolerance and living in peace with non-Muslims. They have no morals. Note the actions of a Muslim judge in the US:

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

So Muslims are allowed to attack non-Muslims. Pathetic!

This is coming to Australia, too

Oh dear, the dreaded towelheads under the bed. Have you guys ever heard of a place called Turkey? It's a transcontinental Eurasian country next to Greece on a map. It's also a secular, democratic state with a Constitution which provides for freedom of religion and conscience - and it's about 97% Moslem. Now, what were you saying about there being no such thing as a moderate Moslem?

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

1. The word "towelheads" is inappropriate. Try "Muslims" "Arabs" or "Turks".
2. They are not under the bed. What they do and say, they do openly. They make no beans about their agenda or their feelings about their stupid religion, their evil quran or their vile prophet.
3. I doubt that you have much contact with Muslims, or you limit yourself to pious "feel good" kumbayah nonsense. Try asking a Muslim, any Muslim, about Quran verse 9;111, the attacks on peaceful villages by Mohammed, or about the pregnant woman split open for offending this evil man. These are not hard to find if one studies Islam and its history. Yet Muslims refuse to be honest about even the most obvious facts.
4. Now look at the Islamic world... Hardly a beacon of tolerance and human rights. From Indonesia to Morocco the only thing in common is Islam. yet Muslims blame everybody and everything except their religion.
5. Now about Turkey. The spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians said Monday that Turkey's new constitution should grant equal rights to minorities in the country and safeguard religious freedoms.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/20/eu-turkey-minority-rights/

If you are unaware of the real situation of non-Muslims in Turkey than I suggest that you do some research before you say silly things- or just ask the Armenians or Kurds about Turkish democracy and tolerance.

Tony, you obviously care little for our freedoms, human rights and basic principles of equality. I think it is very rational to doubt that people who say "Praise be upon him" after the man of a man that murdered, attacked innocent people, enslaved men women and children, tortured, plundered, raped women, etc... qualify as "Moderate".

<< Turkey [is]... a secular, democratic state with a Constitution which provides for freedom of religion and conscience>>

Yeah right, Turkey is a beacon of tolerance & secularism:

" the Turkish Prime Minister, Recip Erdogan, has put his weight behind attempts to crush a small Christian community and to seize an important part of its assets...
There are now under way legal attempts to seize the land surrounding the monastery (necessary for the community’s continued existence) amid claims that the monastery itself was built on land on which there had once been a mosque"
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/02/24/another-gross-example-of-the-repression-of-christianity-in-turkey/

"Turkey, citing the offense taken by Muslims in 2005 over the Danish cartoon portraying Muhammad, objected to the appointment of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen because of his unwillingness at the time to apologize for the freedom of expression."
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2009/anti-blasphemy-wild.html

"Today, most historians call this event a genocide--a premeditated and systematic campaign to exterminate an entire people. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge the enormity or scope of these events...[it] still illegal in Turkey to talk about what happened to Armenia"
http://www.history.com/topics/armenian-genocide

runner
A secular humanist would not have banned religion. You need to understand what it means to be a secularist?

It is about allowing a number of beliefs to live in harmony with each other under a Common Law without persecution from a dominant religion/non-religion with government influence. How is interference by governments going to further your cause? What if the government was against your religion? You would not condone a non-secular approach in that case I am sure.

In what way is it the same as the Russian experience where the religious were persecuted. You say it but you don't explain your interpretation.

Under your utopia you are arguing for a dominant religous force and a government influenced by one religious force. In countries where that exists there is also atrocities and infringements on human rights.

There are aspects of Islam which are concerning such as that which is happening in the UK ie. 'permission' to discriminate against non-Muslims. Not to mention the same arrogance as most religions in the insistence that their's is the right way. There are also infringements of human rights within some Christian denominations as well including in the most extreme of sects. Thankfully neither of these extreme viewpoints have influence overall although they try and the Christian Lobbies are good at lobbying governments to make personal decisions in people's lives.

How to balance all that in a modern world is the tricky part and I don't have all the answers only that a better approach would be to allow freedom of religion/belief where it does not contravene the Law rather than to deny it.

This whole essay is nothing but a “don’t criticize us or our religion statement”. I really don’t know where Trad gets the idea that Muslims “should not have the right to respond using peaceful means.” As far as I know, in the West Muslims have freedom of speech. Perhaps he is thinking about Islamic societies….

Trad, it is not that we, non-Muslims, are experts, telling you what Islam is or isn’t. We just point out texts that you Muslims pretend don’t exist. Or perhaps you would care to explain the “Muslims are put on earth to kill and be killed” verse in the Quran, or maybe you could share your beliefs as to non-Muslims being “lower than animals.” Could it be that things like this may be the cause of the hate, violence, and discrimination that Muslims practice everywhere?

Personally I would not consider the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith to be a problem IF Islamic societies were not so violent, hateful and abusive. But they are so I guess it is logical to blame Islam. Trad wants us to pretend there is no link between what Islam teaches and what Muslims do, and if there is, it is all our fault for mentioning inconvenient truths.

It has been a while since Trad graced us with an article. 31/2 years! The last time he suffered from rather bad timing, being published just before members of the “religion of peace” went out to kill 150+ infidels in Mumbai (while in contact with their Pakistani friends and voicing vile references to nonMuslims!).

And there is this… “Keysar Trad, the longtime spokesman for Muslim cleric Sheik Taj bin al-Hilaly, has been described as "racist" and "offensive" by a judge who today rejected his defamation claim…
http://www.news.com.au/keysar-trad-loses-defamation-case/story-0-1225756780733

Would this be the same al-Hilaly that is known for criminal actions, lies, hate, defamation and violence against women and non-Muslims? It would!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly

My favorite quote: In March 2009, Hilaly was caught on camera vandalising the Lakemba Mosque and then calling police to report the vandalism.

Those evil infidels made him do it!

Before we worry about Moslems, who have some deeply unpleasant stuff in their holy book but who comprise only about 2% of the population, maybe we should worry about the far more numerous Christians. These quotes are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Deuteronomy 3:1-7
Turned out to be too big for my word limit. Look it up yourself.

Psalms 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

There are many other examples, but that last one is about the nastiest I could find. Bashing your children against rocks to get your kicks? That's pretty fukked up.

But I jest, of course. I don't seriously think Christians should be ostracised for their dubious moral beliefs: most Christians have never even seen Hosea 13:16 or Psalms 137:9. The Bible is large and incredibly boring in parts - people tend to stick to good bits like Genesis and the Gospels and Revelations, and skip some of the less exciting books. Those that have read them are almost bound to agree that they express abhorrent sentiments which any decent Christian would reject. I see no logical reason why most Moslems would not treat the Qu'ran in the same manner.

Cheers,

Tony

Yea watch out Tony for those wicked Salvos who house the poor and needy. And those rotten happy clappers who keep their wedding vowels and generally do a very good parenting job. Lets get rid of them and replace them with Lesbian dads and homosexual mums. Our current leaders are just fine moral examples of secular humanism.

btw you don't seem to even know the difference between Judaism and Christianity ( just a small overlooked matter). Never mind Christians are use to such ignorance.

>>Yea watch out Tony for those wicked Salvos who house the poor and needy.<<

Too much effort to read the whole post, runner?

>>I don't seriously think Christians should be ostracised for their dubious moral beliefs: most Christians have never even seen Hosea 13:16 or Psalms 137:9... Those that have read them are almost bound to agree that they express abhorrent sentiments which any decent Christian would reject.<<

As to the differences between Judaism and Christianity: there are quite a few of them, but I assume that what you mean is that Jews don't have a New Testament. Christians do, but that doesn't mean the Old Testament is null and void.