Regardless of what their name may be just about all religions are based on belief and faith. None are science fact based.
All are dangerous, even Buddhism, probably the most peace loving, has its violent adherents.
Islam is no worse than Christianity as history has shown and still is showing.

#… They need to join us in saying “Never again” and do something about it…#

No, it’s urgent for us as Australians to act against the insidious encroachment of Islam in our communities. The time for Muslims to act and respond with civilised action that we recognise as containing any genuine contrition and therefore worthy of the valuable time wasted in the the waiting for it, is past.

Anything Muslims do and say in defence of the Bondi outrage, from here on, should only be acknowledged as a cynical ploy: A ploy to extend the inevitable total collapse of Democracy, as we see in Europe right now, and we, like them, are declared an Islamic Nation by decree of the winners; Muslims per se.

It is past time to declare war on Muslims, before our inevitable collapse under the intrinsic barbarism at the core foundation of Islam.

Presenting intellectual clap-trap such as this piece today from Graham Young, is a white flag of surrender. Where is the anger, where is the visceral response against the barbarians a million strong in our midst, Muslims all?

People are religious because they want to be.
It fulfils various instinctive needs.
These particular needs are a persons Achilles heel.
By there use, people can be manipulated and controlled.
So instead of railing against religion, perhaps we should examine the cause?
And educate people so they can see clearly what they are doing.
Reality and truth should lead them away from destructive ideas.
As always, early education, centred on fact, is the best way forward.
Which means religious schools must go.
To have children exposed to manipulation like that, from such an early age, is disgraceful.
It is akin to the radicalisation we openly despise.
I see the only way out of this mire it by the use of education.
And it will be a slow process.
Initiated by government?

Islam is no worse than Christianity as history has shown and still is showing.
ateday,
Christianity has been plagued with Christians as Islam is now plagued by Islamists ! Christianity has given us the Woke & Queers & Islam has given us ISIS & Hamas. Both Clubs' future is promising to be very turbulent as they push too far & common sense is rallying against stupidity !
Merry Christmas !

Indy,
Please tell me how christianity is responsible for homosexuality.....?

steady,
with its irresponsible preaching of unwarranted tolerance !
Strange you didn't ask about the others ?

If religion is the sole cause of the problem, then Christianity must have been the sole cause of the years of violence in Ireland, as Catholics battled Protestants. I say there are lots of contributing factors that cause extremism in society, social and economic not being the least of causes, add excessive nationalism to the mix, and the problems increase ten fold. Religious perversion can be used to justify radical action, there are still some Christians who hate Jews, using the justification that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, some 2000 years ago.

Dear Paul,

«If religion is the sole cause of the problem»

I would just drop the word "sole": religion is not the cause of any problem.
There is also no such thing as "Religious perversion", only perversion under the guise of religion.

While elements of both Islam and Christianity can be and often are incorporated into some people's religion, that does not automatically render them as religions by themselves.

Other than that, I completely agree with your comment.

---

On the article:

Expecting "an easy relationship with liberal democracy" is overreaching and unreasonable, more so when we have neither true liberalism nor true democracy and likely no true liberal democracies ever existed anywhere.

I for one, also do not have an easy relationship with what commonly passes for liberal democracy, yet I do not kill, injure, burn, destroy or otherwise disturb others - and no more than this should be expected of Muslims either.

Similarly, no one should be expected to "grant innate dignity to non-believers", since innate dignity can neither be granted nor taken away: others may either have it already, or not!

Once such unreasonable demands are removed, one finds that the vast majority of Muslims are good people, well beyond just Ahmadiyya (and Sufism). One of them, in fact, Ahmed al-Ahmed, risked his life and was wounded in order to save "non-believers". And he is not an exception: his family and Syrian community are all proud of him.

At the end of the day, for better or worse, people are being ruled by their own hearts, not by theology or folklore.
(and speaking of theology and folklore, neither are necessarily of a true religious nature)

Hi Yuyutsu,

Perverted religious belief can be dangerous, and much of that stems from wild interpretation of scripture, be it the Bible, the Koran, simply in ones own mind, whatever. Mix that with self righteousness, and a belief that one is doing Gods will, then you have a possible recipe for disaster, agree? There are other dangerous factors involved, a charismatic leader(s) creating certain beliefs within the minds of the followers, claiming to be the prophet of God, or even the reincarnation of God himself. I think its called a cult following.

"A religious cult is a group with unorthodox beliefs, often centred on a charismatic leader, demanding extreme devotion, and using high-pressure tactics for recruitment and control, leading to exploitation (financial, sexual, labour) and isolation from outside life, with examples like Heaven's Gate or "The Family" (Anne Hamilton-Byrne) showing destructive potential, though "cult" is a contentious term, historically used for new movements now seen as religions (like early Christianity)."

Christianity has many cults within itself as does Islam and Judaism, and I'm sure others do as well. Those who for what reason reject the mainstream of the religion, and create an alternate radicalisation. some are benign, there are many within Christianity, but there are others that become so radicalised that violent extremism follows. Agree?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1182981643695206

Christianity gas moved on since the Crusades !

ateday,
re steady,
Damn predictive text, only just spotted the error !

Dear Paul,

«Perverted religious belief can be dangerous»

Perverted beliefs can be dangerous.

Just beware please of mistakenly counting such dangerous beliefs as "religious", only because they happen to include the word 'God' or the like.

«and much of that stems from wild interpretation of scripture, be it the Bible, the Koran»

Again, are the above books religious? Are they truly scriptures?
I doubt.

«Mix that with self righteousness, and a belief that one is doing Gods will»

The intent to do God's will and that alone, is wonderful. It is a great purifier.
But how can God's will be consciously done when one has no clue what God is?

«then you have a possible recipe for disaster, agree?»

Yes, acting AS IF one follows God's will while having no clue what it is, can be a recipe for disaster.

«Christianity has many cults within itself as does Islam and Judaism, and I'm sure others do as well. Those who for what reason reject the mainstream of the religion, and create an alternate radicalisation.»

The term "mainstream of the religion" assumes that Christianity/Islam/Judaism are religions.

I disagree with that assumption.

«some are benign, there are many within Christianity, but there are others that become so radicalised that violent extremism follows. Agree?»

Yes.
So long as Christianity is not described as a religion, I agree.

Fine, but.... does nor explain dog whistles and extremist attacks by white Christian nationalists versus Jews, Muslims and Christians of the centre?

Security agencies in both Oz and US have warned that far right (mostly) Christians are more dangerous eg. Tree of Life Synagogue, Charlottesville, Breivik, Christchurch etc.?

Meanwhile, as reported in by NYT etc., Atlas Koch (inc AIP here) Network's Heritage developed 'Project Esther' for Netanyahu, Trump and Putin?

'From the New York Times:

The Group Behind Project 2025 Has a Plan to Crush the Pro-Palestinian Movement

Even before President Trump was re-elected, the Heritage Foundation, best known for Project 2025, set out to destroy pro-Palestinian activism in the United States….

…..‘But critics such as Mr. Jacoby say the think tank is exploiting real concerns about antisemitism to advance its broader agenda of radically reshaping higher education and crushing progressive movements more generally.

Project Esther exclusively focuses on antisemitism on the left, ignoring antisemitic harassment and violence from the right.‘

How does it help by always and solely blaming 'Islam', which has diversity and its own issues like other religions, leading to and justifying authoritarianism and corruption by faux or misguided believing leaders?

Hi again Yuyutsu,

If you are not going to define Christianity, and others as religions, then what are you going to define them as? A belief system, I assume, worshipping a supernatural deity (gods) of some kind, with a set of instructions as to how one should live ones life in order to receive a afterlife reward. Is that what its all about?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1618616099554768

My guess is that the Woke Left & supporters of Labor won't get this !

Dear Paul,

«If you are not going to define Christianity, and others as religions, then what are you going to define them as?»

You touched on a fine point:
It is so much easier to state what something is not than to define what it is.

Definitions do not match reality and may be used for convenience only.
Definitions are digital, they best fit rigid, fixed axiomatic systems such as mathematics, but reality is analogue and constantly changing.

Christianity is not a religion because it does not always (only sometimes) help its adherents to come closer to God.

Also, Christianity is not a belief system because different Christians have varied system of beliefs - some very conservative, others progressive. Catholicism has the catechism, but that is not shared by protestants, nor truly taken up by (or even known to) every Catholic.

Also, Christianity cannot be defined by worship because not all those considered Christian worship.

My favourite definition of Christianity, is quite exclusive I'm afraid:
"Christianity is the society of Christian people: a Christian is someone who, following the teachings and example of Sage Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and should the need arise, is willing to give up their life on the cross or equivalent for the sake of their love to others".

So sadly in practice, your definition of Christianity will need to be relative, situational and depend on the context.

"Between 1979 and April 2024, we recorded 66,872 Islamist attacks worldwide. These attacks caused the deaths of at least 249,941 people."

Religion of peace?

OTOH over 80% of those attacks were Mohomadians killing other Mohomadians who didn't believe exactly the same fables. While they're killing each other, I'm fine with it. When they get invited here and use the same murderous mayhem, then I'm not so thrilled.

Of course, there are many here who, for all sorts of reasons, would prefer these figures weren't mentioned and instead think that their enemies are elsewhere. Bondi proved them wrong.... not that they'll ever know it, let alone admit it.

Hi again Yuyutsu,

I have great difficulty with the notion that a Christian is one who is; "following the teachings and example of Sage Jesus Christ of Nazareth", as nothing of the teachings of Christ was ever directly recorded. I believe the modern gospels are the works of (many) others who came sometime after Christ, and have been interpreted and reinterpreted many times over. The "teachings" no doubt changed to fit with the prevailing beliefs, some political that were prevalent at different times through out history. I maintain that Saul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul)was a greater influence on Christianity than Jesus himself.

Dear Paul,

No worries - definitions are neutral, they make no claims.

I still believe that on the balance of probabilities, even while the gospels are unreliable, the Sage Jesus of Nazareth (who was labelled "Christ" by some of his disciples) did exist, taught spiritual truths and values to Judaic disciples and was executed (or perhaps only seemingly executed) without resistance on the Roman cross because the Judaic authorities of his time perceived him as a political threat.

But never mind, suppose none of that happened, then all it would mean is that according to my favourite definition there are no Christians in existence.

In that case, I would relax my definition slightly, omitting the requirement of following Jesus' particular teachings and example - so how about simply:

"A Christian is someone who, should the need arise, is willing to give up their life on the cross or equivalent for the sake of their love to others"?

Hi once more Yuyutsu,

Totally agree with what you have said. I believe the basic Christian values are good, as its says; Loving one another is as important as loving God. In my book, love thy "neighbour", is the most important of all commandments, and that includes oneself. God I see in abstract terms, not as a physical being, but as the sprite within the human psyche. The majority of believers find it easier to understand God as a physical being living in his heaven, doling out his commandments to the humans (that's us) below. For me that is nonsense, convenient but nonsense. I add that Christians don't have exclusivity to what is good and rightest, there are many pathways to what the Buddha called Nirvana.

Dear Paul,

«God I see in abstract terms, not as a physical being, but as the sprite within the human psyche.»

Yes, how beautiful!

God described Himself through the speech of Shri Krishna as follows:

"I am the gambling of the cheats and the splendour of the splendid. I am the victory of the victorious, the resolve of the resolute, and the virtue of the virtuous." [Bhagavad-Gita 10:36]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1526270738589690

I wonder what Labor Politicians would comment on this ?