Foxy,

You judge people by their behaviour, and that is undeniably a good thing, so how do you judge the President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Keysar Trad?

Or is wife beating OK?

Hi AJ

OK, let's examine your quotes so far and look for the contradictions.

AJ You cannot possibly know what every Muslim believes, LEGO.

But you are God and you know what every Nazi and Klansmen believes.

AJ Except, not all the members of the third group hold dangerous beliefs.

You must be God because you know what every Muslim believes too.

AJ Firstly, it cannot, by definition, be a “stereotype” since it is not oversimplified.*

If you can stereotype all Nazis and Klansmen as dangerous. You can do the same thing to Muslims.

AJ, Secondly, all Nazis and Klansmen define themselves by their horrible beliefs, so there is no double standard.

What defines a good and devout Muslim is written down for them in black and white. That manifesto is not just "horrible", it is extremely dangerous to all non Muslims. I have only the vaguest ideas of what Nazis and Klansmen believe, other than Nazis are dangerous to non whites, and Klansmen dangerous to US blacks. Yet you defend one group and condemn the other two.

AJ Because their membership alone, by definition, provides us with adequate information to determine the harmfulness and dangerousness of their beliefs.

Apply the same logic to Muslims and their beliefs and your argument is bankrupt.

AJ As graham pointed out, Islam is not going away. So you can either encourage radicalisation by marginalising all Muslims, or you can do your bit to not inflame the situation by showing tolerance towards the moderates.

Western civilisation is not going away either. If you display your contempt for white people by constantly attacking our culture, supporting our self declared enemies, and judging us with different standards to non whites, you are succeeding in radicalising us. Pauline got 23% of the Queensland vote. 80% of Europeans polled over 10 countries want Islamic immigration to Europe banned.

AJ Do you know how to discuss anything without putting people into convenient little boxes?

Like you do to Nazis and Klansmen? Or even Muslims? Non white fascists are misunderstood but white fascists are always bad.

Ah, quotes! Let’s see if you do any better this time, LEGO.

<<But you are God and you know what every Nazi and Klansmen believes.>>

“No, I don’t have to be [a god]. Their membership provides us with all we need to know.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336251)

Dearie me! Doesn’t look like the quotes help at all. We’ll press on anyway.

<<You must be God because you know what every Muslim believes too.>>

I don’t need to know what every Muslim believes to know that not all of them are fundamentalists. Just one Muslim is enough.

<<If you can stereotype all Nazis and Klansmen as dangerous. You can do the same thing to Muslims.>>

No, because only the former two groups hold offensive, universally-accepted beliefs.

<<What defines a good and devout Muslim is written down for them in black and white.>>

And the ones who are not “good and devout” ignore much of what is “written down for them in black and white”. In fact, given all the contradictions in Islamic scripture, it’s impossible for any Muslim to be perfectly “good and devout”.

<<I have only the vaguest ideas of what Nazis and Klansmen believe, …>>

Same here. We still know enough, though.

<<Yet you defend one group and condemn the other two.>>

No, I’m simply pointing out a fundamental difference.

<<Apply the same logic to Muslims and their beliefs and your argument is bankrupt.>>

No, Muslim “membership” to the Islamic faith does not necessitate a belief in the bad bits of the Qur’an. No bankruptcy there.

<<If you display your contempt for white people by constantly attacking our culture, …>>

I feel no contempt. The point of quoting others is completely lost on you, isn’t it?

<<… supporting our [self-declared] enemies, and judging us with different standards to [non-whites], you are succeeding in radicalising us.>>

Indeed, which is why I don’t do that.

<<Like you [put] Nazis and Klansmen [into convenient little boxes]? Or even Muslims?>>

Only when I have sufficient information to do so without prejudice. And that's the fundamental point that you are desperately trying to gloss over.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, I think you have a severe comprehension problem. Jesus doesn't say to take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. »
.

I didn’t say he did. It was not in my post. I clearly indicated that “an eye for an eye” was to be found in the Old Testament books of Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy. They are purported to have been compiled by Moses about seven hundred years before Jesus is thought to have been born.

The first five books of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – constitute what is known as the Law of Moses, or Mosaic Law.
.

You add :

« Christianity does not subscribe to Old Testament systems of punishment. It's just undeniable. And it is sad to see people pretending that it does »
.

The laws and regulations of all nations are largely inspired by those imposed on us by nature, completed by others founded in religious belief or which were simply the fruit of our developing conscience based on humanitarian considerations. A hallmark of such laws and regulations for most of western civilisation is the Moses code which, of course, includes, inter alia, the ten commandments and proportional punishment (an "eye for an eye").

Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been the principal promoter, perhaps the founder of Christianity (Jesus and his parents were Jews), following a vision of the resurrected Jesus (whom he never met), exercised a determining influence on the religious belief and philosophy of which we still find trace in modern, man-made law, today (known under its technical term of “positive law”), alongside traditional Mosaic law and Noahide code.

In addition to promoting the Judaic “moral code” with the exception of its ritual and dietary obligations, and the Seven Laws of Noah or so-called Noahide code, Paul was also an adamant proponent of the doctrine of sola fide whereby guilty sinners are purported to be granted judicial pardon “by faith alone”.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It is amusing to note in this respect that so-called modern day laic societies which boast of a secular constitution proclaiming the strict separation of church and state seem to ignore the fact that a good deal of their statute law has been derived from religious code. They point to nations of Islamic tradition where the Sharia has official status as statute law and is applied by Islamic judges or qadis. Some mistakenly imagine that Israel is in a similar situation as regards Talmudic law whereas it is, in fact, a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, closer to the British common law tradition. The difference is not as important as they somewhat naively consider it to be, at least so far as the application of the principle of the “separation of church and state” is concerned.
.

Perhaps you simply misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote : « The adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions which permeated and denatured justice, deflecting it away from its primal objective of pacification and reconciliation and reorienting it towards the pursuit of vengeance, retribution and punishment : “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. »

I did not say that Jesus said we should do that, as you mistakenly indicate. On the contrary, I concluded :

« The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequacy with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice. »

I’m sure you’re very busy, Graham, and, no doubt, you read my post too fast. I wonder how you manage to do all your editing work and participate in this forum as well.

Slow down, my friend! OLO needs you – so do we!

.

JB: <I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?>

AJ: No, the first part isn't right. Giving into the demands of radicals is never necessary.

I agree, it’s never necessary. If we don’t? What then? They say they'll be radicalise all the time. I take that as a threat.

In fact they blame us for the radicalisation there is now because we haven’t given into the demands they've already made. Their Lone Wolf (Packs) attacks are a result of Australians not giving into their demands. Pressure for gain. If infidels are killed, they celebrate openly.

What eventually did happen with that Town in Victoria they were taking to the Human Rights Commission at the UN over not having segregated days for moslim women & putting a large fence around the pool because the naked (sic) women sunbaking offended them. Just for one example at one place.

AJ: Given the tensions that declaring Australia’s Islamic community to be the enemy would inflame, and the increase in radicalisation that would inevitably follow from that, doing absolutely nothing would be a better option.

So keeping the pressure below radicalisation is a win for us?

The very cause of Far Right Radicalism. If they radicalise then "Out.".

AJ: A more proactive approach, engage with Islamic community, fight intolerance.

Whose intolerance? Theirs or ours?

AJ: implement mental illness prevention measures

It’s not a mental illness, it’s a Government System masquerading as a Religion.

AJ: Things we’ve already been doing more or less successfully for decades now.

Successfully? Surely you jest. Those that have been caught lately have been through the program.

My neighbour Son-in-Law's a Fed dealing with Radicals. He says the program is definitely not working. The Public don’t know just how bad the situation is & they haven’t the resources to track the ones they know about, let alone new ones discovered every day.