Here is a good post from today's Australian by Chris Kenny which is pertinent to this debate http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/extreme-voices-elicit-mistrust-thus-helping-islamic-extremists/news-story/6b9dac89d99ed6b3ec36c4b914d51977#itm=taus%7Cnews%7Caus_authors_index%7C1%7Cauthors_storyBlock_headline%7CChris_Kenny%7Cindex%7Cauthor&itmt=1487371798534

Kenny urges us to have an honest conversation, and not to deal in stereotypes from either side.

Najla is on the side of those who want to have an honest conversation. But reading this thread, too many don't want that conversation. We get misrepresentations of all sorts of positions, including that of Christianity as well as Islam. (See Tony Lavis above).

Christianity specifically disowns the capital punishment, genocide etc. in the Old Testament. It is not part of Christianity. Hasn't been since the very beginning. The OT is read by Christians to have a better understanding of what it is they actually believe in an historical context, not as a guide to action.

The OT is still current for the Jews. But we don't see Jews behaving like Islamists, so a line of inquiry might be to look at how Judaism modernised.

There is no alternative to reform of Islam from within, unless you want to quarantine a quarter of the world's population, most of whom are as modern and law abiding as most of the rest of the world's population.

Graham Y:

There is no such thing as an honest conversation about religion. All we need to know about Islam is that it is a religion. Religion is not honest and religious people are not honest. They do not deal in facts and reason and logic. All their presentations are about what they ‘believe’ and belief is not something you can argue with. An argument that begins with a presumption that God exists is not an argument since it is not a fact that God exists. A fact is something we know for sure and that both sides of an argument must acknowledge. You cannot have an argument until both sides agree on the first premise.

No matter how tolerant you are or how accepting, you simply cannot have an argument about religion unless you first agree that there is a God. Anyone that continues an argument without first agreeing about this fundamental principle lacks all integrity. It is pointless to talk about religious books or religious behaviour until you acknowledge that God exists. Not that you ‘believe’ in God but that it is a fact that God exists. A ‘belief’ is just not good enough as a beginning for a rational argument.

There is an alternative to reform of Islam from within and that is to hold fast to the basic principles of reason and argument. The more that the West insists on these fundamentals the less relevant Islam and all religion will become. That is how religion in the west is losing its influence because people are no longer prepared to deal in beliefs - only in facts.

Banjo Paterson

I appreciate your civil tone. We probably are not to far off in our belief as far as Government is concerned. The simple fact is that the more secularised our Government has become the more babaric society is. Every politician has drawn their ideology from somewhere whether it be emilys list, the bible, the Koran or Stalin, etc. To separate that personal belief when it comes to Government is impossible. In recent times pseudo science has been used to justify barbarics and deceit. Fools/gullible actually believe evolution is a scientific fact. We have the warming high priests scaring kids and clowns like getup in order to suck more money from the public. You have the homosexual lobby pushing its sick ideology on the public and kids. You can't and will never seperate a persons personal beliefs from public policy. It seems many secularist real hate is Christian influence because it exposes their own lack of morality. They are happy to encompass Islam, Buddism and every other ism as long as its not Christian in origin.

Hi Phanto,

A 'fact' is basically an interpretation of a material finding, also known as 'evidence'. Documentation about events, especially over a long period, cross-referenced with other documents, and with a multitude of references to verifiable people and places and events, is a pretty good stand-in for evidence, in my biased view.

I've typed up maybe fifteen thousand pages of early documents concerning Aboriginal policy in South Australia, so of course I have an interest in the valorisation of documents as evidence in some form, or at least evidence of evidence.

But to take your point, it's amazing how, on the few occasions when people who disagree with my findings have stooped to argue, how easy it has been for them to simply discount all of that as worthless rubbish, while they continue to believe in the Conventional Aboriginal Narrative, even if they have not a shred of evidence (documentation, physical evidence, etc.) to back up one, or many, or any, of its components.

Senator Brandis concedes that it is not illegal to be a bigot but I would suggest that one (at least) part-definition of bigotry is the ignoring of solid evidence, 'facts', in favour of a point of view for which there is no evidence, or the flimsiest of evidence, rumours, the assertions of some authoritative person, interpretation of some one-off statement from long ago.

When one has (what one thinks is) solid evidence, there is never any need to get personal, or raise one's voice or get angry, except perhaps out of pure frustration with bigotry. The truth will always be; lies and illusions will come and go. The truth is its own rock.

Joe

Another great piece from The Australian. This time from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia/news-story/9e6efee3160373ccf9cf4dda8c6daf33

Unlike Yassmin Abdel-Magied,she actually knows her stuff about Islam.. But she does not discount the idea of reform from within.

Phanto, I'm a Christian, and you can have a discussion with me about religion without believing in God. And I am not irrational either. It seems to me that you are being irrational, and for whatever reason you want to destroy religion. That is not going to work. The overwhelming number of people in the world believe in religion of one sort or another, and I don't think it is going away.

Religion provides explanations for things that science can't, and it provides habits of mind and body which are designed to help the believer live a better life, and it also provides a supportive community for the believer. Religions are a useful human institution which confer benefits on society, and even atheists like Alain de Boton recognise this in their writings.

If you think the cure to the problem is the destruction of all religion, then you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, and if you were sucessful you'd inherit a world which would be worse than the one we live in now.

“I'm a Christian, and you can have a discussion with me about religion without believing in God.”

It’s not really up to you – it’s up to me. I can’t have a discussion with someone unless we have a common starting point. It would be irrational to do that.

“And I am not irrational either.”

When it comes to religion you obviously are since the basis of your religion is irrational.

“It seems to me that you are being irrational, and for whatever reason you want to destroy religion.”

What is irrational about wanting to find an agreeable starting point for an argument? All arguments must begin that way.

“That is not going to work. The overwhelming number of people in the world believe in religion of one sort or another, and I don't think it is going away.”

If all arguments were a simple matter of counting the numbers then life would be very easy but they are not. We should do what is reasonable not just what the majority do.

“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?

“it provides habits of mind and body which are designed to help the believer live a better life”

People shouldn’t do things out of habit but because they are reasonable in themselves. Lots of people lead good lives without any reference to religion.

“Religions are a useful human institution which confer benefits on society,”

It does not provide any benefits which are not also provided by non-religious people.

“If you think the cure to the problem is the destruction of all religion, then you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, and if you were sucessful you'd inherit a world which would be worse than the one we live in now.”

I might not be waiting long at all and I think the world would be much better off without religion.