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 > Article Comments > Faith in open debate > Comments

Faith in open debate : Comments

By Ruth Limkin, published 23/12/2004

Ruth Limkin argues Victoria’s vilification legislation is dangerous and sets an appalling precedent for our Nation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
This is incredibly misleading. Unfortunately the author fails to highlight what the preachers said. One suggested that the Islamic prophet was a paedophile, I wonder how the author would react if it was suggested by a muslim that Jesus was a paedophile?

Suggesting that the qu'ran (as they did) promotes violence, killing and looting is akin to stating that the bible promotes incest, rape and murder - read the Old Testament sometime.

If you want to know more about the details of this case I would suggest you have a look at the decision - http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/islamic_council_of_victoria_v_catch_the_fire_ministries.pdf you may find it interesting to read what this author left out.
Posted by dmac, Friday, 24 December 2004 7:39:13 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'd actually like to see what was said, not that it would change my view of the legislation. I don't think saying the prophet Mohammed was a paedophile in this context is any worse than saying Christ was conceived out of wedlock. The Old Testament certainly does promote violence, some of which we see at work in Israel at the moment and it gives honour to people who have committed incest and murder.

I've looked at the summary, and the individuals concerned appear to me to have put an extreme case, but is this enough to involve the law?

We publish all sorts of material in the journal and on the forum which misrepresent Christianity. As a Christian I've never once thought that it was a matter for other than open argument. Certainly never crossed my mind that it ought to be illegal. In fact, rather the reverse.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 24 December 2004 8:25:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to know EXACTLY what was in the texts and verses from the Quran. That is surely the starting point. How can we judge the resulting comments unless we know what EXACTLY was the basis for discussion? I challenge the authorities to publish the verses and texts on this site and in the Press . Let's have ALL THE FACTS. Otherwise there will always be a smell of suspicion sbout this case. As GrahamY points out, Christianity gets belted around the head every day in the media, but doesn't run screaming for legal vengeance. That's surely what freedom of religious discussion means, not spies attending seminars and taking notes to run to the legal eagles with.I think this Law is just a weapon to intimidate Christians with. I would bet my best pair of sox that no other religion will be taken before this Tribunal.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 24 December 2004 10:04:39 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
I would actually think it is much more offensive to acuse someone of being a paedophile then being born out of wedlock...

I don't agree with a lot of things in the Muslim religion, I also don't agree with a lot of aspects of Christianity, but if people choose to believe - good luck to them, but there is no need to slander the beliefs of others.

I think the problems related to religion come down to one thing - fundamentalists, be they muslim fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, hindu fundamentalists, atheist fundamentalists, or any other type. There is no need to slander other peoples beliefs, and given that we can't control what people say (and nor should we) I see no other option for people to seek some relief from vilification then using the courts.
Posted by dmac, Friday, 24 December 2004 12:11:23 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
Ayesha, the second wife of Mohammed was 6 when he married her and 9 when they had sexual relations, so I understand.

I'm not making a point about what is more offensive - illegitimacy or paedophilia - I am making the point that most believers would see both as offensive. On the facts I would think both were likely to be true (and I am a Christian). I don't see that I should have any legal problems making these statements, but I am not aware of the way in which they were said by the offending pastor, so it is difficult to make a personal judgement on the findings of the court.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 24 December 2004 12:28:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, Big Al misses the point by a country mile. This is not about "freedom of religious discussion", it is about racial vilification, whether religious or secular.

There is no breach of the constitutional right to free speech in quoting, discussing and publishing verses of the Koran, just as there is no problem in quoting, discussing and publishing verses of the Bible. There is, however, a law against misrepresenting such religious verses to inflame racial vilification.

For example, if a Muslim cleric quoted the verse from the bible where god instructs his people to murder women and children, and then told his congregation that all christians in Australia secretly want to murder women and children, because this is what their bible tells them to do, then that cleric might find himself in similar legal difficultes.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 30 December 2004 11:58:37 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
Grace
It would be a misinformed or poorly educated muslim cleric who would quote from the Bible ie Old Testament and say 'all christians in Australia secretly want to murder women and children, because this is what their bible tells them to do'.

If a muslim cleric were to quote from the Bible to illustrate what Christians are instructed to do, then he would quote from the New Testament. Christians are followers of Christ, and the New Testament contains their set of rules which one would expect they are expected to follow.

The Old Testament foreshadows the coming of the messiah and Christians believe Jesus is the messiah, so Christians read the Old Testament in this context.

The Jews are still waiting for the messiah promised in the Old Testament and so continue to live by the rules of the Talmud(Old Testament rules).

Muslims believe Jesus is just another prophet and Muhammed is their man. Muhammed wrote the Koran in the 7th century. it stands to reason that Muslims would be expected to follow the teachings of it and the Hadith. The Pastors quoted from these texts. Is this wrong?

Now compare the teachings and practices of both Jesus and Mohammed.

If a muslim cleric taught that Jesus encouraged Christians to murder, he would be wrong, wouldn't he if he quoted from the words of Christ?

Read both and compare.
Posted by cynthia, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 10:19:28 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
Whilst not the key point of the article, I would like to make mention of the misrepresentation of Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) not believing "that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation".

Latter-day Saints firmly accept and use the Bible as scripture, and LDS beliefs state categorically that "there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are certainly Christians, as their correct title states, and they strive to follow him in word and in deed.

- Christopher Cooper, LDS Church Public Affairs, QLD
Posted by LDS Church Public Affairs, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 4:14:27 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 think the critical issue here is selective quoting of scripture to justify a position, be that hatred of Muslims, Christians or whomever.

It would be interesting to know why the preachers convicted chose to inflame anti Muslim hatred by selectively quoting the Qu'ran.
Posted by dmac, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 4:31:09 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
How do you non-selectively quote?
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 4:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure, if you want to get into semantics any quote is selective. Perhaps I should have written that the critical issue here is the selection of scripture to mislead people.
Posted by dmac, Wednesday, 5 January 2005 8:22:26 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
Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus say's old testment law should are binding and he has no problem with them.

Jesus says that the Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever. But in Luke (16:16) he says they were binding only until the time of John the Baptist. And Paul (Rom.7:4, 6; Eph.2:15) insists that Christians are free to completely disregard the Old Testament laws. Notice also that Jesus says here that the earth will not last forever, but elsewhere the bible says it will.

Burn them witches!
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 5 January 2005 12:08:41 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
Grace, please state where in the Bible God tells His people to murder women and children.
Posted by Big Al 30, Wednesday, 5 January 2005 9:23:18 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
again..for DMAC

You appear to be either blind (deliberately) or ignorant..(in which case it is not ur fault) in either case.. we should all look for 'truth' rather than 'what suits us'. Now..in regard to the claim that Mohammed was a 'paedophile' This was technically incorrect, but not far off the mark. The TRUTH is.. that 'under Australian Law, he would be jailed as a 'child abuser/molester'. Why ? because according to Hadith in respected Bukhari, and by confession of his favorite wife Ayesha.."I was engaged at 6...... and married at 9yrs old" Now.. this is not denied by Islam.. because it cannot be. (Though, I have seen an attempt.. arguments from silence) Ayesha was at the age of puberty when she actually married Mohammed. But one wonders WHY a 50+ yr old man, would want to marry a NINE year old girl ? Could he provide for and love her when she is even in her 30s ?.. So, claims such as u referred to are quite legitimate when seen under AUSTRALIAN law, and the laws of most other countries.
Now..for those who may think this is some kind of 'anti muslim spin'.. here is the quote /Hadith in full
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 58:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Law provides as follows:
Crimes Act 1958

NSW CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 66B
Any person who attempts to have sexual intercourse with another person who is under the age of 10 years, or assaults any such person with intent to have sexual intercourse, shall be liable to imprisonment for 25 years.
Victorian Crimes Act 1958
(a) if the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the child was, at the time of the offence, under the age of 10, to level 2 imprisonment (25 years maximum)

The Commonwealth Marraige Act allows for a minimum Age to marry of 18, or 16 with a magistrates approval. The Migration Act is tied to the Marraige Act.

So, at least, it is true to say anyone marrying a child of 9, is a serious sexual offender under Australian law.

Even the founder of Wahabism who was married around 10, would have been married to a girl of similar age. But for a 50+ man to marry a 9 yrs old girl ? well.. draw your own conclusions about this.
Most Muslims would either not be aware of this, or simply explain or justify it in terms of 'Arab Culture' at the time. But it would be better for them to explain it humbly in terms of "I fully understand how disgusting this is for the modern Australian/Western value system"

Yet, I find not ONE reference in the whole of the Old Testament, (which includes reports of Incest and Adultery and murder), to any such incident. I find it difficult to accept that this was 'culture'. The Arabs are descended from Ishmael largely, a son of Abraham, from whom the Jews are also descended. Why would the cultures be so radically different ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 1:44:15 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
One more for DMAC
'How would you feel, if people described Jesus as a paedophile'
Well, IF...there was some actual evidence of this, it would be difficult to refute or feel anything other than 'its true'..but fortunately...there is no suggestion of such behavior, not in the canon and to my knowledge in the non canonical works of the time.
To be honest.. I have been living with Anti Jesus comments of the most 'vitriolic and perverted kind' for most of my Christian life. It goes with the territory ! The difference is, I actually realize that such comments are a cry of desperation and need. I don't 'hate' such people..I PITY them.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 1:48:44 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
MORE....for DMAC
my goodness.. u are filled with MYTHS and misunderstandings it boggles the mind.
"To describe Mohammed as a paedophile is tantamount to saying the Old Testament promotes 'incest,rape etc etc' .. is simply not true.
Why ? The life of mohammed is held up as a ROLE MODEL he is glorified and looked to as the 'ultimate muslim'.. or.. am I wrong ?
The references in the Old Testament, to say "incest" are REPORTS of particular events.. NOT the 'approval' of them. You need to learn to distinguish between the 'Ethical/moral teaching' of the Old Testament and the historical reporting. Look for example at Kings and Chronicles.. they are FILLED with statements of awful behavior, murder, mass killings etc ..FOLLOWED by 'and thus king so and so did EVIL in the sight of the Lord.
So.. lets have 'truth' rather than 'pro Islamic spin' here ok :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 1:55:29 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
and one for GRACE ....
Grace.. I'm rather passionate about a lot of issues here.. as u might have already observed. But in response to your 'how would u feel' if some cleric declared all Christians are going to take over blah blah"
I would WELCOME such a statement. It would give an opportunity to share with people the REAL teaching of Scripture, that the kingdom of God is 'NOT' of this world. In spite of how 'organized' religion, (RC and Anglican, Orthodox) have grown into large worldly institutions. When it comes to assessing the Church.. always go back to the SOURCE code :)
Good for Christianity ...good for Islam. have a read of Quran Sura 23.5-6 it might give you an indication of what was taught as the 'norm' for 'The Believers' That is like the 10 commandments.. 'This is how you should live'..... and that sura says
Sura 23:5-6
http://www.jannah.org/qurantrans/quran23.html (Quran Translation)

023.005 Who abstain from sex,

023.006 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

I thought about this, I cannot imagine a slave girl falling in love with a man who has been a party, directly or indirectly to the execution of her family during Jihad/war. Nor can I imagine her giving anything but the most begrudging consent to intercourse under duress. So... the question needing to be answered here.. is: "Is the Surah 23 meant to be 'abiding' or just for a short time ???

http://www.islamia.com/surah_023.htm claims....
"This Surah deals with the virtues which are the seed-bed of Faith"

and..Were any changes introduced to 'abrograte' this sura ? In fairness, Manumission of slaves was spoken highly of by Mohammed, as recorded in the hadith, but it doesn't change the fact that between taking of the slave and manumission (if they were lucky) they were 'doctrinally' available for sex to the owner, according to Surah 23.5-6.
This is not 'selective' apart from selecting the MOST relevant section which SPECIFICALLY relates to the 'norms of behavior for the Believing community'. If anyone doubts this, get on a chat line, and ASK muslims about how this sura should be interpreted.
MIRC server=dalnet chanel #Islam ask 'theorist' who is a knowledgable Arab.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 2:31:34 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
BOAZ_David if you wish to talk about truth, how about the most basic one, that the fairy tales in both the torah, bible and quran are made up and as such need to be taken with a pinch of salt. To condemn someone for transgressing laws made 1000 years after they died is a bit moronic and even more so in this contexts. To say that that Arabs and Jews are descended from this abraham character and that their culture should therefore be the same, is to display your inability for logical thought. The cultures of the Cannites and the bedouin tribes were quite different. Cannites were farmers living in the green crescent while the Bedouin were nomadic for a start. The islamic movement adapted the old testament to their culture just as the christian have done to their cultures.

The taking of a wife of nine was not out of the ordinary for that period both in the culture in question and in many others including many sanctioned by the christain church. In actual fact the quran is unique out the three story books in the it gives accounts from female perspectives. To say that there is no mention of women this young getting married in the bible is to fail to mention that the bible rarely mentions the age of any other details about women. AS for your assertion that the bible does not condone any incest then I think you have not read it, there are many examples I give you one, your mate abraham married his sister Gen 17:15-16. Since we are talking about abraham, he is a central figure in all of faiths after all, I wonder what does his willingness to kill he own son for a voice he hears in his head say about the various jewish sects ?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 13 January 2005 2:38:08 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
aah..burly is WORKING.. I'm about to catch a KENNY :)

Kenny.. THANX :) I can roll with the punches as well as give them.
Sarah, was Abrham's HALF sister. I dont suggest for a moment that this was a good thing, and I don't see any indication in Genesis of it being anything other than a statement of historical fact. The ETHICAL and moral teaching about such relationships infringing Gods law are found in Leviticus, via Moses.. a LONG time after Abraham.
Now.. myths and fairy stories u propose. I'm currently trying to get a book banned.. I have a complaint with the EOC about this. Its called "Da gospel according to Ali G." U might be wondering why I mention this in connection with 'myths and fairy stories' well here is why. The Author of that book is named COHEN.. a Jew. But the significant part of this, u can discover urself by researching the DNA link between COHEN=> KOHEIN==> AARON the brother of Moses. The guys very NAME is testimony to the reality of the one he is mocking (he did a satirical.. holding up to contempt reversal of the 10 Commandments)

And what I was pointing out re Mohammed and Australian law... was just THAT... and my stating this also alerts us to the DANGER of 'moral relativism' which u, by implication appear to be advocating.
If it was 'not harmful' for a child to have sex 'then'.. WHY should it be NOW ? on what grounds do we jail a guy for such an act now for 25 yrs ? are we not just waiting for the lobby groups and activists ..the paedo's to claim that we have NO enduring foundation for such laws.. and they point out such things as Arab culture in support of their claims.. to gain favor with our politicians' .... is that where u are at ? If u can refute my reasoning here..I'll be rather suprised.. I suspect you will appeal to some imagined 'universal sense of morality' that all people allegedly have.. (well.. I guess they didnt have it back then eh :)....
If u doubt that what I'm suggesting here could happen.. do a google on 'NAMBLA' I wont tell u what it is..but they are DOING exactly as I'm saying here... I await ur more informed next comment :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 3:29:08 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
Actually I don't think there is any universal morality. My position is that we make our own morals/laws/social norms. We use a figure of 10 years old for paedo's why not 5 or 15. In most cultures in history adulthood in females was signaled by the womens first period. This can happen as young as 8, more importantly the child is perpared for adulthood which I don't think we do now. In Australian law in a attempt to have some common rules we have said that the age for lawful sex is 16, sex with someone between the ages of 10 and 16 is not on and sex with anyone younger is a serious crime. But I ask you what magic happens to someone at the age of 10 or 16. I think that the person should be sexually mature and mentally prepared for sex and it's consquences and in our culture I think that could be anywhere from 14 to never with average of about 20. Anyway this is off topic which is free speach.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 13 January 2005 3:56:06 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
FOR KENNY
Sure, free speech.. in a moment.. have u pondered 'why' we jail a guy for 25 yrs for infringing what appears to be described in both your response (by implication) and even the LAW 'simple cultural taboo' while knowing full well that it may not be as 'horrifying' as it seems. I have worked in an indigenous culture.. my wifes parents were married when the mum was 12 and the father 14, as the mum told me about 5 weeks back..when I was in that country "We didnt have the slightest clue what to do" so.. it puts HUGE doubts in my mind that a girl in Arab culture would be in any better position because this culture is an equivalent one. Of course.. a mature experienced MAN could give her all the clues.. right ? but .. I reallllly wonder about that whole deal. I think our sense of moral revulsion may come from Jesus words "IF any one causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a millstone around his neck and be thrown in to hell" <== I wonder if the paedo priests read that ! guess not. One more left jab on the 'fairy stories' ..I've done considerable study on the matter, formally, and in my own church we are blessed with Dr Clifford Wilson a significant archeologist of great experience. (do a search) I'm quietly confident that the scriptures can stand up to any level of scrutiny. Paul did not say we can 'disregard' the Law he says Christ in us enables the requirement of the law to be fulfilled.. Romans 7.4 saying "You have died to the law" means we no longer look to a 'set of rules' as much as we look to Christ himself to fill us 'WITH' that law in our hearts.

Sure..we fail and stumble, but sanctification is not overnight.. its a process. Justification is instantaneous.

FREE SPEECH. The 2 pastors. They are from a very enthusiastic section of Christian tradition.. that enthusiasm was misunderstood by the 'spies' as being 'threatening. They just plain didnt 'get it' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 4:33:14 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
Boaz_David, I sense much anger in you. No need to get personal, get yourself a nice cup of green tea and chill out for a minute.

The critical issue here is that preachers were misleading their flock about tenants of the Qu'ran and the plans and motivations of the Muslims.

Just remember that shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all are an abomination before the Lord. www.godhatesshrimp.com

And don't forget that Lot offered to give his virgin daughters to men so that they might rape them instead of men. Nice.
Posted by dmac, Thursday, 13 January 2005 4:40:21 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
DMAC .. thanx.. please dont misconstrue 'passion' for anger..

I dont really see why u haven't picked up on the 'collusion' (EOC&ICV) background to the entrapment ? Did u actually notice that ?

Thats one reason I'm so passionate about this. Its the old "When 'they' are 'US' syndrome. You mentioned in your first comment above, that 'they said the Quran promotes violence' ..but are

1/ u suggesting it does NOT ? Did u see the references and submissions they made ? Did u visit their web site and actually check them ? I grant it does not suggest violence in every 2nd verse, but those quoted are pretty clear.. and when u see how these verses are utilized/intepreted by the authors of the text named in Durie...
its pretty clear.

2/ And u made no comment about what Mark Durie found about Islamic curriculums in Melbourne. (he was an expert witness for CTF)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf
(Duries argument is well developed and crucial to understanding Islam in Melbourne)

3/ Have u been to a Pentecostal church meeting ? (I'm not Pentecostal)

Can u address these specific issues pls ? Show ur view, then support it with actual evidence and references.

I appreciate the back and forth.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 13 January 2005 5:31:35 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
HI BOAZ_David

Easiest to start with your last question: no< I have never been to a pentecostal church meeting.

I have read the statements by Mark Durie, but I don't believe you could really consider an ordained minster an independent witness...

But that is really beside the point. The point is that these preachers selected tracts of another religions scripture to promote an anti muslim view. That's it. That's what this is all about.

Do you believe it is appropriate for these preachers to claim that Muslims will embark on a spree of rape, torture and killing of Australians? Do you believe this yourself?

I must say I am amazed by the anti-muslim sentiment that I have witnessed since first looking at online opinion around a month ago, absolutely amazed. I find it quite amusing to be considered pro-islamic, I have never been acused of this before, and aside from anything I am not pro islamic (what next? will I be a traitor to my country and race?), I am however anti-vilification and this is the crux of the issue.
Posted by dmac, Friday, 14 January 2005 8:13:08 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
dmac, would you consider the witnesses supporting the Islamic side to be "independent"?
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 14 January 2005 11:19:30 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
Big Al 30, not sure, but if they witnessed the event they are more likely to be independent then someone specifically brought into a trial by one side that is an ordained minister of that sides religion.
Posted by dmac, Friday, 14 January 2005 12:10:12 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
DMAC, Not necessarily. Depends why they were there. If they were sent to take notes and "spy" on the speakers, that's anything but independent. It is very difficult in a case like this to find someone really "independent". I wouldn't say "impossible" but very hard.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 14 January 2005 2:03:20 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
DMAC
to respond.. about 'should pastors be able to suggest Muslims will rape, torture, kill' Not really.. u and I are in agreement there. Its a bit over the top. What I would accept though, and this is very 'backed up' by their own traditions.. 1/ Mohammed is held up as a role model and 2/ He himself did torture some people who stole his camels and killed his shepherds. The torture being, to lop off their hands, and their feet, to gouge out their eyes, and leave them to die a slow death in the rocky desert heat. (Sahih Muslim Book 016, Number 4131) <== makes interesting reading. You can search that simply by entering 'sahih muslim' as key words in google. Read the whole gory section on Jihad..

So, to suggest Muslims might 'torture' is not as far fetched as it might sound, based on their own traditions. Personally.. when they are at just 2% of the population such a scenario would be pretty unlikely, but on the other hand.. it would not be the 'mainstream' muslims who do that.. it would the radicals.. as it always is. May I direct your attention to the recent murders of some coptic Christians.. throats cut etc... whole family.. and what did they do ? they were very active in chat rooms.. web sites.. personal opinions etc.. mostly with Muslims.

(Do a search on "New Jersey family slain") Do u remember the Dutch Film maker ? Critized Islam and is now dead. His star had to go into hiding for 2 months.. Remember Salman Rushdie ?

The pastors SHOULD have said.. 'the extreme element of Islam will most likely do such and such'.. did u know that one of the pastoral team of CTF had a) threats.. b) house burnt down ? All this is factual, and I haven't and wont suggest anyone go on an anti muslim hate spree. That would be both illegal and contrary to Scripture. I do take your point .. that 'this is what it is about' ..with the reservation that (and risking sounding like a broken record) it was an orchestrated deliberate attempt to silence them. I just read yesterday on the Lakemba Mosque site about 'ZIONIST THUGS' which alone is in clear breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. But I'd prefer that they had the freedom to 'show their colors' than have it silenced by sneaky Christians or Jews who infiltrated their meetings.
Keep up the comments :) jdrmot@bigpond.net.au If u want to further discuss this on a more personal level.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 20 January 2005 10:56:09 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
DMAC
one more. You said u read the Witness statement of Mark Durie. ? Did u note his assessment of the texts used in the curriculum in Islamic schools here ? and what they say about 'bringing in the Islamic state' ? If not, pls re-read, or contact me for a link to his statement. I would not suggest Mark is impartial, he is a Christian, and I'm quite sure supports the ministry of CTF, but his scholarship does not appear to be partial. He appears to have done a very cafeful study of the issue.
BOAZ
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 20 January 2005 1:41:34 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
If we can't find someone "independent" we will probably have to settle for someone with "ethics and integrity".
Posted by Big Al 30, Thursday, 20 January 2005 2:02:07 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
BIG AL
indeed :) Did my links help you ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 20 January 2005 4:30:55 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
BOAZ_David, I have tried to get onto your links, but they are always rejected. However I have read much of Durie's evidence, and am most impressed by his approach, his thoroughness and his lengthy quotes from leading Muslims. I've never heard of him before, but he seems to be the man of ethics and integrity I hoped for previously. I cannot understand why that Judge should fail to be impressed by his evidence.

This legislation is an attack on our freedom to comment on various religious and political matters as we have done for generations without causing any violence or strife worth mentioning. It is noteworthy that Western Australia and South Australia have abandoned plans to introduce laws on "religious vilification". It's a pity that wiser heads [if here are any ] in the Victorian State Labor Government did not put a stop to this in Victoria.
Posted by Big Al 30, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 3:18:39 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
Dear Chris Cooper, LDS Public Affairs.

You are I suppose entitled to call yourselves Christians, but then it is also fair to say that you do not hold the understanding of God as trinity that orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do, so from their viewpoint you are not Christians, leave aside your many other strange doctrines.

I should not misrepresent your beliefs, and I have not and will not, but I am perfectly entitled to strongly criticise them.

I guess you do the same especially as the Prophet Joseph Smith was told by God that all the existing church were wrong etc etc.

Yours for truth in advertising,

Rowland Ward
Posted by Rowland W, Thursday, 27 January 2005 10:41:05 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
Ruth,

Sorry for the late comment but I recently saw your article.
First, there are lots of debate sites between Christians and muslims but the CTF excercise was not one of them.

I am a muslim who grew up in Catholic/ Coptic education and have been
into countless religious debates but at the end you walk out accepting other people differences and accept that it is God who judges us all on our hearts and intent.

If the CTF excercise had a good intent in debating Islamic religion, he should have debated the area of disagreement between Mulsims and Christians which is comparing Jesus's story in the Koran and in the bible or Virgin Mary's stroy in the same references. Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet of God, Believe he is the Messiah and believe in his virgin birth. The key debate have always been on Jesus divinity and subsequently the trinity of God.

If you bypass the Koranic references and go a pick a 6th source hadith (as a pastor you know hadith have many sources) to me that sounds as ill intented as a mulsim picking up lot story from the bible to claim christianity encourages incest sexual behavior.

Christians who convert to Islam or the opposite are usually around those two topics: Jesus divinity and God's trinity. The CTF acted like the joke of the man who lost a piece of jewelery in a dark area so he went looking in a light drenched area because it was easier to look. Ignoring the real debate points and looking somewhere else where it is easy' is what the CTF did.

We can encourage healthy debates but I am sure any reasonable person can see what the CTF in Victoria was all about.

Having said that, I congratulate honest priest and pastors who took the witness stand against the CTF.

Regards

Ash
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 10 June 2005 10:31:13 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
How can any priest, pastor or minister support a law which allows a convicted sex offender in Ararat jail to sue the Salvation Army for running an ALPHA course in basic Christianity, thereby forcing the SA to spend valuable resources defending itself?
This legislation has set Muslims against Christians, and now reportedly, Jews are set to take action against a group of Muslims. Yet it was supposed to protect religious harmony! It's made to order for troublemakers like the above sex offender.

No wonder the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne, the Victorian Liberal Party, and Muslim spokesman Amir Butler have recently come out against it. Labor Governments in WA and now NSW have decided against following Victoria down this dangerous track. The Liberal and National Parties in Victoria should pledge to repeal this law as soon as they next form a Government.
Posted by Big Al 30, Thursday, 30 June 2005 3:16:30 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
Excellent post Fellow_human. The point at issue here has been lost on many.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 30 June 2005 4:35:13 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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