I suspect that the demonisation of the other satisfies our own insecurities about whether we are demonic or not, by declaring an-other who is more "evil". It also helps focus hostility, in that if we were to actually meet and know real people from the "other" side of things (I hesitate to draw lines but I refer to lines drawn by others), it would be harder to whimsically wish their destruction. A lot of demonisation needs to be done to the "other" to get the general public's attention away from the horrific abuses perpetrated at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Another thought, films like "Osama" and "Kandahar" by or about Afghanis and the conditions suffered particularly by women provide an interesting perspective on when there need be no demonisation. The reality simply speaks for itself.

But a credible distinction must be made between the few and the whole. I for one am glad I am not held accountable for what happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to name but I'm sure only a few places of such things occurring. So too more than most of those considred part of the demonised "other" deserve better than to be held accountable for the acts of a non-representative few.

I could be wrong, there could be more wrongdoing intended than we know of, but is it any different over here?

I'd be interested to read Mr Richardson's analysis of the Islamic habit of referring to those outside their faith as "infidels."

The piece offered to us is just another rewriting of the West's Suicide Note.

I suppose then the challenge is whether we are like the child in the playground who says "everyone else does it". If it's wrong, then we shouldn't do it, period. I have always hoped the West would seek to elevate be virtue rather than stoop to another level.

I wasn't advocating exactly that Norm. But we can't wish away enemies where they actually do exist - Nazi Germany for example. We must either recognise the threat and defeat it, or open wide and accomodate them.

Scott, lots of words mate, but at the end its still a piece of intellectual drivel.

How is Rushdie 'demonising' Islam? His work was that of fiction! Its purpose was ultimately literary entertainment, rather than a public exploration of Islam and its tenets. Is his reward for producing fiction, the imposition of a death penalty on his head which has still yet to be revoked!

The conjecture around the Huntington book is typical of people who have not read it. The supposition drawn from the title creates all types of conspiracy thinking. Since publication the Huntington book has declined in prominence in the West, as the assertion took hold that it was the predominantly Christian-Judeo (and can I add secular) West that was confronting Islamic societies. However, if you look at Al Qaeda they are the ones propagating the 'clash of civilisation' arguments. There response to the Iraqi elections is a case in point.

http://americaisnottheproblem.blogspot.com/

Understood - I think where I'm coming from is that it is often hard to demonise with "clean hands". Clearly, justice rather than parochialism, should be the guiding principle. That wrongdoers, criminals be brought to justice (whether in this life or the next), but that we be careful of "collateral damage" to those who don't deserve it. I suppose it also depends on how we define "evil" and the criteria we measure by. If we ratchet our standards too highly we might all (and rightly) be classified as demons. May he or she who has no sin cast the first stone! But yes I take your point. I do feel that it is harder since the 40s to know whether the "enemy" is oever there in the "enemy territory" or wehter they are living among us...

On "Osama" and "Kandahar" - after seeing these films I felt easier about ejecting the Taliban from Afghanistan

It seems that enemies in conflict try to take the moral high ground. l believe this to be mere tonic for the masses, who can rationalise behaviour contradictions in comfort. We like to think we are morally superior. We like to deny human nature. We intellectualise. We live in denial and delusion that we are naturally civil. We try to forget that we are part of the animal world. That we are ruled more by emotions than by reason... fear and greed before facts and figures. Sure, l think that when we try, we are more good than bad. And that there is more good than bad in this wolrd. And most of us learn to moderate... until we get some form of power and control over others. Then our dark side emerges. 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

What l find intriguing is the exercise of putting oneself in the shoes of the 'enemy'. Very quick is the realisation that they feel like us and perceive us in the same way we perceive them. But for most, denial and delusion are comfortable and excellent tonics thru which to perceive.

I've been charged with intellectual drivel, the piece was originally written as an English Extension 2 Major work, so of course it has an academic grounding.

I agree that Al Qaeda are propagating Clash of Civilisations, the point of the piece (a point obviously missed by some) is that this dialectical way of thinking is used by everyone who wants to demonise a particular person or group, whether they be Islamic fundamentalists calling Christians ‘infidels’ or from Western writers.

The focus was on Western use of language to demonise, and of course it is something done by all sides. As soon as this is published Ben P notes that there is an 'Islamic habit' of referring to others outside their faith as 'infidels.' Thank you Ben for proving my point, you instantly thought about the 'other' demonising us. This is a two-way thing.

As for Rushdie's text being a work of fiction, anyone who has read the book and knows anything about Islam can see how thinly disguised the work is, just like Hardy’s Power without Glory.

Hello All
“One of the recurrent ideas in critical theory is the notion that there is “no objective standpoint” and that “language predetermines what we see” and thus “reality” is a mere construction of language. French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, theorised this in his notion of the “self” and the “other” in terms of identification. He stated that we know ourselves as distinct from others through language and other systems of representation. Language, as he puts it, precedes and determines subjectivity.”
If there is no objective standpoint and reality is a construction of language, then the above paragraph is meaningless, as it seems to be offering an objective viewpoint and describing reality, which you said doesn’t exist.
And…
“The gaps in the texts also, such as distinctions between literalists and moderates and the violence caused by the Christian crusades impact as much as what is said and contribute to an imbalanced, subjective account of history and society today.” This statement says that there is a reality which can be described, and therefore inadequate presentations could be unbalanced or subjective. However, earlier you asserted there is no objective standpoint or reality, so you can’t possible say what you just said. Simply put, you have contradicted yourself, as always happens to those who subscribe to the absurd but fashionable critical theory.
Best Regards
Geoffrey

I believe the author has identified a definite trait in the human condition “Western culture seems to have an ingrained desire to have a villain worth hating - the “other”.

This trait was identified in a more casual way by Steinbeck in his book “Travels with Charley” when he mentioned that America always needs an enemy, whether that enemy be the Confederates, the Japanese, the Communists, and now it appears several Islamic nations.

Of course these other “enemies” also need their “enemies” as well, but what of the average person born into that country. Originally they don’t hate anyone, but they can be conditioned to. A look at a number of Iranian web-sites for example reveals that they are people very similar to us, although many Iranian don’t like the extremes of the Mullah

In the more immediate term, an on-line petition can be signed for a young Iranian girl condemned to death in Iran.

The Web-site is
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/index.shtml

And the on-line petition can be signed at
http://www.petitiononline.com/leilaa/petition.html

It wasn't to long ago that whenever I heard an Irish accent, especially in an air port terminal I wondered if the bloody IRA had landed. Now I worry about islamic terrorists, whenever I see a moslem male or female in their dress - costume whatever I am a little perturbed.As I would be if I saw a uniformed nazi SS officer on the street in 1940. Sorry but I am human and I want to live my allotted number of years so I take some note of my fellow beings, those in the frame at this time are moslems. By the way a fictional story or not Rushdie was more correct than incorrect. Mahammod was a 'suspect' trader, he was brutal having slain other Arab tribesmen As well as Jewish traders with their women and children, unless he or his followers wanted to "use" them.He did marry a nine year old girl, as moslems can today. You see moslem girls are more mature? so they are to pray,fast and keep moslem teachings from the age of nine, boys from the age of - would you believe fifteen. Because nine year old girls are so mature then they are ripe for a DOM to marry them. He also invented the 'hudna' which means that he or any moslem could sign a truce with an enemy. The enemy thinking that it was a lasting truce but in moslem eyes it was a temporary truce until they were strong enough to repudiate it, this hudna can and is used today. Moslems are allowed to lie to unbelievers, Christians, Jews, athiests or any other non moslem.I have read more islamic books than many others so I know a little. Regards, numbat

THIS ONE will have very untiring legs :)

That article opens so many issues we probably should all get on a direct chat room and thrash them out one by one.

I'll tackle paragraph ONE for this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whether it be the Germans in World War II classics or the shady Russians from the James Bond films of the 1970's, Western culture seems to have an ingrained desire to have a villain worth hating - the “other”. The “other” is the person or group which is defined as different. The difference infers inferiority, that they are sub-human, thereby consolidating another group's identity. This “other” is effectively marginalised by the “mainstream” of a particular society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is because of the VERY thinking patterns in this article that we NEED to look closely at a major re-think on how we view cultural, religious and political difference. !!!!!!!

The problem is.. that 'normal' men in the street DO respond as this author has claimed, and THAT is the danger of NOT educating ourselves on the nature of society and culture. !!!!

Examining the differences in another culture does NOT imply that they are inferior..THAT one point is just one of the most misconceived notions of our time but one which is used to political advantage.

When one assesses a "different" culture, one has to be objective and fair. (yes.. it was ME who said that) And, this might produce some 'emotionally unpalatable' truths depending on your own position and world view.

When it comes to Islam, I'm wondering if the author has heard of Dar Ul Islam/Dar Ul Harb ????? if no one else knows of this, please research it. Islam or muslims are not 'inferior' its NOT about that.
Differences can be helpful or unhelpful, they can contribute or detract. One must look at them objectively and assess it in terms of potential impact.

FISHING TRIP.. Lets talk about European Carp and Trout. It is a scientific fact that European Carp will out breed Trout and eventually take over the river system they are introduced into. Scientific fact. If one religious group.. Catholic has a higher birth rate than non catholics, and they have a very strong sytem of education, there is a strong possibility that over time, they might increase to the point where 'what they say goes' politically. Perhaps more funding for non state schools and the such like. The problem with this theory, is that we just dont tick like that as far as I can see. I don't sit awake at night worrying about the 'Impending Catholic takeover'. We have all been living together in harmony for too long for me to worry about that. John Howard is Anglican, Peter Costello is Baptist, Tony Abbot is Catholic and from what I can see they get along fine. All 3 are Christian traditions.

Islam is a different thing altogether, and the difference is in the fundamentals. The history, the loyalty factor, the goals. (I've spent quite a bit of time on an Islamic forum in Sydney recently discovering a plenty that their loyalty is more to Islam than Australia per se. Loyalty to Islam HAS to mean loyalty to its social and political prescriptions which are diametrically opposed to many of ours.
John, Peter and Tony are 'infidels'.. as are the rest of us. The goal of being Christian is to glorify God and be Salt and Light to the world. (fundamentals) the goal of Islam is the Islamic State and the Rule of Sharia.(Is now, was then, and always will be.)
Knowing a bit about the Sharia law, I don't EVER would like to live under THAT !!
When the communist manifesto advocated the violent overthrow of the state, we kind of just need to be aware of that when we consider allowing a whole swag of committed communists to migrate here.
When our kids tell us they are going to a PROTEST with the Socialist Alliance, we need to be aware of the SAME goal as stated on their web sites in the fine print.

BUDDHISM Now this is a good one. Do we need to be worried about Buddhists ? or Hindus ? NOOO..of course not, and why? they have no 'goal' to overthrow the state or way of life. They have no 'Buddhist law' that they are trying to implement as a legal system.

JEWS.. Should we worry in Victoria that about 6 of the 12 judges in the federal court are Jewish ? well.. only perhaps if ur in a huge litigation against Solomon Lew and u end up before one of his pals on the bench.... but as for overthrow of the state ? its hardly one of their goals. Influence maybe.. sure.. but establishing the 'New Jerusalem' in Caulfield ? hmmm doesnt sound realistic to me.

Numbat !!
quite a bit of truth in what u said and it supports what I'm saying about our need to property assess and responsibly act, rather than demonize.

NORM....
exactly. It not about whether u should treat others of the 'other' mob decently or kindly, we SHOULD in any case. Its a much bigger issue than 'being nice'. :)

Robertomelbourne

Rushdies account may have been fictional, but it DOES relate to a very particular textual issue of the Koran and its compilation, which is one of the reasons the Muslims dont like him very much. In fact.. dare I say it.. Rushdie is THE OTHER !!! :)

BOAZ_David - we may be arguing the same point about Rushdie's book.

I found large passages of it utterly unreadable. If people got upset because it tortured the fine art of the novel, then I would be very sympathetic. But the point is that the book was considered to be an attack on Islam, and from that the Fatwa was issued. Now take for example the many films and books on Christ's life, such as the book and film Temptation of Christ. While there were protests outside the film theatres, there was no great rush to 'take 'out' the author director.

I think that Scott has tried, and valiantly so, to put forward a position, which I should have been more appreciative than my initial comments suggested. But notheless, the argument apologies for a number of cultural presets for which 'apologies' are the wrong response.

cheers

Geoffrey, I think you may have twisted Scott's words a little to make your point.

It is you, rather than he, who brings objectivity to the table. Scott himself only uses the term to point out that it is a tough concept to pin down. While "'reality' is a mere construction of language" is just another way of saying that meaning is essentially subjective, and highly dependent upon context. "I'm just going outside, and may be some time" has the skeleton of an objective meaning of itself, but carries a substantial payload when the context is Captain Oates and his frostbitten feet. I can't see anything in the article that claims an objective view, and plenty that says that our realities are just that - our own perception of the world, in our context.

You seem a little confused yourself. Scott very carefully described how the interpretations are, by their nature, subjective, but you still imagine otherwise: "However, earlier you asserted there is no objective standpoint or reality, so you can’t possible say what you just said. Simply put, you have contradicted yourself"

Well, as they say around here, duh.

I suspect that you just don't like cunning French linguists.

"Amen" Roberto :)

Pericles
true to form :)
Without adding more at this point. This article is probably of such huge social importance, and that we debate /disuss it here, that I urge all of use to stick with it for some time.

He is describing typical socio/political approaches to and responses to 'others' .. and what we need to do is go to a deeper level than allowing ourselves (and our communities) to simply function AS those typical members of society, and address ways of changing such behavior. i.e the knee jerk hateful reaction to the demonizing of 'others'. Pls see my previous post for more about that.

Boaz, 2 Things
1 We could all stick to our own paddocks and stare at each other menacingly across the fence.
2. Some intermingling or cultural exchange can take place across the fence.

Certainly western culture has its flaws, and we could learn from Muslim culture, as the Muslim culture can learn from ours. We are all born the same, it is what we are taught and conditioned to believe that creates the “other ones”.

Is this guy for real? What a complete load of pseudo-intellectual baloney!

Has this first year journalism student ever been to a Muslim country? He mentions Salmon Rushdie, but has it ever occurred to him to ask why Rushdie had a death order placed on his head? Is not plotting to murder someone at all (let alone because they simply criticise our beliefs) universally regarded as evil? Is not flying planes into buildings, killings thousands evil? Is not strapping explosives on a down-syndrome boy and forcing him to blow himself up evil? etc etc

Pure post-modernist pseudo-intellecual philo-babble!

AK

Timkins,

Muslims are not interested in learning from us. They think we are all depraved (well at least they are right on that point in many cases). They intend to conquer us - if not by war then by demographics and immigration. Their history attests to this. Their own leaders attest to this. Indeed, the very name "Islam" which means "submission" attests to this...

Any notion of cultural exchange or mutual understanding is delusional wishful thinking.

AK

Boaz, I can't let you get away with that.

"Examining the differences in another culture does NOT imply that they are inferior"

A noble sentiment.

But hold. You go on to say "their loyalty is more to Islam than Australia" and "its social and political prescriptions which are diametrically opposed to many of ours", the net effect of which is to let us all know that You Don't Think Much of Islam.

Where the article gently hints that this might actually be nothing more than a knee-jerk "I'm an Us so I must have a Them", you are saying no, it's simply stating the bleedin' obvious.

Have another look through your piece and tell me where it reeks of tolerance, drips with compassion and is suffused with love. 'Cos I can't see it.

I was honestly expecting the debate on this article to be about the extent to which we are conditioned as human beings to justify our actions with reference to "the other", and the sidebar to this being the extent to which that "other" is defined, drawn and coloured-in by the media. Instead, we seem to be naming names and writing tickets.

People, this is all of us. There are one or two people in Baghdad right now who might have a view of "us" that is identical to our view of "them". And they would be as "right" as we. Surely this is not difficult to understand and accept.

Maybe this could bring us back on track, a quote from Scott's piece:

"Refusal to succumb to cultural polarisation and awareness of the power of language to construct and determine our view of reality allows us to make more logical choices about the issues presented to us and to accept the possibility that we as human beings cannot necessarily be identified through easy categories and broad labels."

Timkins
cultural exchanges are one thing. Fundamental disposition is another.
We are not claiming they dont have some welcoming or interesting or valuable cultural traits. So, as far as it goes ok, we can benefit from cross cultural interaction during peace time. This does not change that disposition of aiming ALWAYS at acheiving Dar Ul Islam the Islamic State. That is so fundamental to Islam that its like without it you would have a 4 legged stool with only 3 legs and it would fall. "All the world belongs to Allah and HIS APOSTLE" is what Mohammed so generously said in a hadith. This idea permeates Islam from head to foot.
Don't ever let "Islam in minority Status" fool you. They also have whats called "circumstantial abrogation" which is where the verses of the Quran they use will VARY with the circumstances. If in minority they will quote all the PEACEFUL and FEELGOOD verses. But given an inch of political power, they will quickly 'abrogate' those texts and use the 'more dominant' ones.

Islam claims it upholds freedom of religion and faith.

Sure !!! u can 'be' a Christian but u cannot a) Add to existing Churches, u may only repair them. b) U cannot build new churches. c) U cannot share your faith to a Muslim. But to 'be' a Christian means to share your faith with the world.
See afghanistans new constitution.. all this is clear.

I note with curious interest that the ICV web site seems to have a new upgraded section, SECURITY and it has special mention of how to recognize a letter bomb. Strange.. I dont recall reading or hearing of such bombs being sent TO muslims.. only the other way around.

Asian,
I understand that there are a number of sections of Islamic text that are militant, and it seeks to conquer the “infidels”, or the “others”. But if the Muslims do just that, then what next. There is nothing left, so Islamic text has to be re-written.

If you are seeking to talk-up a war with Muslim countries, then I think it is already being done. A leash has to be kept on both sides, then eventually a merging of the two. Muslim religion and what eventually became Christian religion were once closely related, and Mohammad was only one prophet of God. There were others prophets also.

Timkins, you said: "Muslim religion and what eventually became Christian religion were once closely related, and Mohammad was only one prophet of God. There were others prophets also."

This statement is totally wrong and demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about the history of Islam nor the history of Cristianity. You can talk all you want about putting a leash on Islam but they will not listen to you. They will laugh at you, and when they do take the country they will kill you unless you submit. If you knew anything about Islamic history you would already know this.

AK

Timkins.. goto 'MIRC... choose the dalnet server, join #islam and toss around a few ideas that u have been raising here :)
Try 'theorizer' or "zolweez" who will give u more idea about it.
One is an Arab and the other is Pakistani I think.

Aslan is correct. You demonstrated a decided lack in understanding both faiths mate.. not trying to be mean.
Read Luke then Acts. (For beginnings of Christianity)

for Islam
Then try 'sahih Muslim, which is a compilation of reliable traditions about Mohammed. A lot of Islamic law comes from these.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim

goto chapter 19 "book of Jihad" read all the hadiths, see what kind of character Mohammed was.

Or chapter 16 number 4130 and 4131
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/016.smt.html

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura23.html

You might also read surah 23:5-6 of the Quran and ask whether u would like the idea of ur sister being taken captive (after u have been slaughtered of course) and subjected to what this verse suggests ?
(The term 'rightfully theirs' refers to captive slaves)

This is a good one.

Pericles...WOW.. here I am trying to get to bed :) but the interaction just keeps on coming..

I have to assert very firmly, that my suggestion of noting differences in other cultures is not negotiable :) Inferior is not the same as 'different'

Inferior.. less reliable, less skilled, not as intelligent etc etc
Different .. 'square peg round hole'

I have the utmost respect for the intellectual capacity etc of Muslims.

I was not trying to be 'tolerant, loving, or compassionate.. trust me.
I was attempting to be historically and socially accurate and objective. My major point is, that if we do not have a true understanding of the real principles behind another group, specifically this one, then the reaction of the 'masses' when they get whipped up by the media, (usually by opportunistic politicians) will be a knee jerk one and most likely express itself in hate and violence.
If we know the principles, we can take whatever action we deem neccessary in a controlled and cool headed manner by adjustments to social policy to prevent such violence and knee jerk reactions.

In 1969, , race riots between chinese and malays broke out. It took just a few hours to destroy the social harmony of malaysia,
but decades to rebuild it, and when u hear speeches about 'our privilaged God given position that NO one can threaten' by some of the ethnic Malay MP's u wonder why they even have it now.

Did you notice my bit about the socialist alliance ? if u dig around you will see that they clearly advocate the 'final struggle to overthrow a stubborn and recalcitrant bougoise' words to that effect.

Now this is where age and experience come in a bit. The Communists in Sarawak mainly worked among the chinese methodist youth groups. They put their most charismatic people in those groups, and gradually shifted the focus from the Bible to political issues. They finally tried to stage manage an all out coup ! I wont bore you with details.
I see the same pattern with the rising influence of 'RESISTANCE'.

When it comes to national security and defense of my culture, the central thing is the issue, not my personal emotion about it. As for love, compassion etc .. You WOULD find it in my personal interaction with people of that faith.

Boaz,
It depends on how far you want to go back. What I was referring to was the belief in God and Angles. That is the similarity with Christiany (old testament) and Islam.

Timkins,

The only thing that Yahweh and Allah have in common is that they are both referred to as "God". Apart from this they have absolutely nothing in common.

AK

Asian,
I think that even the experts cannot fully piece together the exact history of Christianity or of Islam. (eg the first records of Mohammad appeared about 100 yrs after his death, and of course the Bible was written over time also).

However Mohammad and Jesus were both prophets of God, which is the original starting point, although a lot has happened since.

Tim .. fair enuf on what u say about the common belief in Angels etc..
but when it comes to the core documents of both faiths, the gospels and epistles for Christianity and the Quran and Hadith and Sunna .. accepted biographies of Mohammed. It sounds like your referring to the 'search for the historical Jesus' kind of thing, where form critical analysis is applied to the bible to find the "REAL" picture. Of course there some rather weighty pre-suppositions which that approach brings with it, and it has many inherrant weaknesses. The funny thing is that when they apply the same thing to the Quran they end up with the same kind of result "This bit was Meccan.. That bit (of the same sura) was of the Medinan period..and so it goes on. If I thought it was flawed for the gospels, I completely roll around the flaw when its applied to the Quran, but anyway.. it would help us to understand your position on such matters if u actually tell us :) then we wont suggest u are limited in your understanding... we will just say you have a different one. For the record, I accept the inspiration of Scripture.

Pericles

"Geoffrey, I think you may have twisted Scott's words a little to make your point."

No. I think you have completely missed Geoffrey's point
In stating that reality is a mere construction of language, scott is making an objective claim, using language. Thus he contradicts himself from the outset. Essentially, if I adhere to what Scott says about reality and language, then his words are meaningless.

Alan

Boaz, there is a possibility that my post was too subtle, but I was trying to point out your Mark Antony approach to the "inferior" issue.

Mark Antony: "I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know"

Boaz: "Examining the differences in another culture does NOT imply that they are inferior.... Knowing a bit about the Sharia law, I don't EVER would like to live under THAT !!"

Incidentally, I think you may have registered a new PB on the Boaz condescension meter:

Boaz: "Now this is where age and experience come in a bit."

Alan/Grey

If I follow you correctly, you have the view that it is impossible for anyone to assert that reality is a construct of language, because that would be an objective statement, and would therefore be by definition self-contradicting. Fair enough.

If, however, I am of the same opinion (that reality is a construct of language), I accept the meaning fully in its context, relative to me and my understanding of the world. It doesn't need to be objective, you see, for me to accept it and believe it.

However, I can understand how the concept would deeply trouble people who only see the world in terms of absolutes.

Pericles
It is not viewing the world in terms of absolutes that I am referring. I am referring to simple logic that we all use to get by every day.
If you wish to assert that the rules of logic do not apply to reality, feel free, just remember it is not to do with absolutes, just simple logic.

Scott, your essay was an excellent contribution to OLO, but unfortunately, your message seems to have sailed right over the heads of most of your commentators, with the honourable exception of Pericles. Courage, Scott.

I don't know who Pericles is, but he has been doing battle with the god-botherers on another OLO forum (Mark Christensen, "Take time before judging god"). Worth a look. You might also be interested to read what Plutarch had to say about Pericles:

"One day, Pericles was in the marketplace of Athens doing business, and all day long some noisy pest kept following him around, yelling vituperation. He even followed Pericles home. Throughout the ordeal, Pericles maintained his composure. It was dark by the time Pericles arrived home, so he gave orders for one of his servants to take a torch and guide this critic safely back to wherever he lived.

Some people said that Pericles was only trying to fool the public with a false front of virtue. But Zeno replied that if Pericles were faking virtue, his detractors should do the same, because even pretending to be good, if this is continued for long enough, will give a man the desire and practice that is needed for good habits....Truly good men do not put on one face for strangers and another for their friends."

Grey

My point is that if it allows itself, the human brain has the capacity to process and understand phrases that are intrinsically illogical, such as "I am a liar", when these are presented in a particular context.

If you look at it in this light, the statement that reality is a construct of language becomes, not self-contradictory, but quite challenging and illuminating.

Grace, I blush. Thank you.

You obviously know your Plutarch, so I suspect you will also be familiar with Plato's view on the function of rhetoric... :-)

Boaz,
The Christians and Muslims have been at each other’s throats for centuries, but both religions have similarities in that there is a belief in a God which is separate to oneself and an afterlife. The bible and the Quran are man made or man written documents. They are interpretations only of what certain prophets have said of God and of the afterlife, and there have been different versions of the Quran and of the Bible.

Not all of Christian history has been good. The Inquisitions are an example. Not all of Islamic religion has been good also, but we are now in the present. I don’t like what various fundamentalist Islamic leaders are presently telling Muslim followers to do, but at the same time I don’t think that the Jerry Springer show or a feminist course at a university is the height of mankind’s evolution either.

The conflicts between the Muslims and the Christians (based on differences of opinion as to who is the best prophet of God) cannot continue because the weaponry both sides now have is too deadly. So there has to be more conferencing between both sides and more middle ground established. The us and them (or other) type approach cannot continue between Muslims and Christians.

Pericles.
let me re-state my position better.
The Islamic culture/faith is not compatable with Australia's Judao Christian heritage, values, Laws and culture.
When speaking to a general forum like this, I should emphasize the 'difference/compatabilty' issue.

Your making too much of my 'dont want to live under THAT'. I told it as it is. I would hate to live under it. You could equally attach a notion of me not wanting it because I want to live a permissive lifestyle .. suggesting I regard it as 'too moral' and therefore superior. Chill on the pedantism.

Condescending ? me ? :) The way I said it.. yes.. it was. Sorry.
I think u took it in good humor.. seems that way.. always be robust.. that little jibe is probably deserved. (yours of me )

Care to introduce yourself a bit ? age, occupation.. interests ? (journalism ?) and 'get out more' :)

TIMKINS

I agree, in principle. But the problem is that agenda's are not driven by moderates in Islamic circles without massive backing from the West. How long do u think Musharaf would last without George ? :)
The 'real' Muslims do not want dialog, they want an Islamic state.
If they do want dialog, the agenda is to further the interests of achieving that state. "When the time is right".
Nominal Muslims are a bit labradorish, but the fair dinkum ones are more the pitbull.

Pericles, I am no philosopher, but...Pericles Funeral Oration was a famous example of rhetoric; Sophocles was condemned to death for sophistry; Plato had a problem with rhetoric as an art of persuasion...I don't, keep it up.

Is Osama Bin Laughing the Goldstein of Orwell's 1984?

A focus of hatred and a justification for everything, who is already dead.

Pericles

The mind can understand phrases like 'I am a liar' simply because it is not a self-refuting statement, as there is the possibility that a person lies some of the time, not just all or none.

The statement that reality is constructed by language only allows people to claim 'demonisation' by avoiding looking at whether the comments are TRUE or not (or partly true). It is an intellectual copout for people who don't want to face a 'reality' that they don't like.

Unfortunately for them, reality does not depend on how you describe it. Language can describe reality (and can be judged accurate or not by how well it does describe it), not construct it. To view it any other way is not only logically incoherent, but shuts down any real discussion of ideas.

Islam (or at least certain significant proponents of it) is either a danger to our way of life or it isn't. Once you can determine whether the concept is accurate or not, then it is possible to say whether someone is 'demonising' or merely stating a true fact.

This reality is constructed by language rubbish just allows the avoidance of determining the truthfulness of a claim by trying to shut down discussion without addressing the issue.

We see this time and time again. Impinge the motives of the speaker, rather than address the issue. Someone opposes affirmative action, they are racist. Someone opposes homosexual marriage, they are a homophobe.

Deal with ideas by addressing those ideas, not by avoiding the issue.

Pericles, I think I mixed up Sophocles and Socrates, told you I am no philsopher...

Grey, surely "I am not a liar" is the classic self-refuting statement, the one that sci-fi writers ask the rogue computer when they want it to self-destruct?

Whatever. But believe it or not, my intention is not to avoid discussion by hiding behind language constructs, it is more to make sure I understand the ground that we are standing on.

You state that "comments are TRUE or not (or partly true)", but this doesn't stand the reality test. As these forums show, they can quite easily be true to one set of people, but not to another.

Then you say "reality does not depend on how you describe it. Language can describe reality (and can be judged accurate or not by how well it does describe it), not construct it."

According to this, for every little thing there is something called an accurate reality . And therefore by definition an inaccurate one (or many). These, you say, "can be judged accurate". But this is where we part company, because it always makes me ask: "Who is the judge here?"

Your illustration is not too much help with my confusion either.

"Islam (or at least certain significant proponents of it) is either a danger to our way of life or it isn't. Once you can determine whether the concept is accurate or not, then it is possible to say whether someone is 'demonising' or merely stating a true fact."

My first concern is "who decides which are the significant components of Islam are a danger to our way of life?" I suspect you'd say "why, the terrorists of course,". My suggestion to you then would be that it is actually terrorists that you fear, which, in my book at least, renders the Islamic aspect irrelevant.

All I can hear from your post is "Islam is bad", which has all the strengths and weaknesses of a football slogan.

Carn the Pies.

GREY...

You said...
"Islam (or at least certain significant proponents of it) is either a danger to our way of life or it isn't. Once you can determine whether the concept is accurate or not, then it is possible to say whether someone is 'demonising' or merely stating a true fact"

You may have a couple of high 5's for this :) (and your just criticism of the language constructs.... idea)

BOAZ

The people who decide which elements of Islam are a danger to our way of life, I think would be those who know it best. By personal experience and study of its founder, laws, philosophy of the State, history of expansion (and associated connection with the doctrinal aspects and example of the founder).

This is my first post to this page. I’m actually not ‘participating’ in the usual sense but wanted to throw a few ‘outsider’ perceptions into the ring.

Reading through the posts three words started ringing in my mind: “Tower of Babel”. Babylon, as in babble.

Then I thought of an Australia as it was at a time when people could honestly and proudly say that “The Australian Way of Life” was the best in the world. Let me mention, for those who have long been snoring at the wheel (aka as being 'laid back' or 'watching the footy'), that time is long gone…

That, if I’m not mistaken was a time when this was a unicultural society. Yes, there were the indigenous people, but for all practical purposes Australia was a single nation, functioning under essentially one culture, its core values defined by one ‘God’ (too bad, atheists and others, but that’s the way it was and to try and rewrite history is plain evil.)

That was the time when Australia gained its magnificence, the fruits of which we now scatter to the global winds.

Today we (i.e. this society) bicker and babble as to whether we are ‘manufacturing’ an enemy with our language or whether our delusions are real and which is the right God or whether Allah should be acceptable, etc. etc. yada, yada. We know not nearly what we are talking about and we waste our precious time with, as robertomelbourne1 said, “a piece of intellectual drivel” and, in Aslan’s words, “pseudo-intellectual philo-babble.”

Absolutely.

We bicker, squabble and split hairs to find answers that stare us in the face. Answers that have been around forever, except we are now so ‘sophisticated’ we think we know better.

All of this claptrapping makes me think of a Greek word: diabolos.

From which comes ‘diabolical’ and, of course, ‘the devil’. The word ‘diabolos” essentially translates as divide and abolish. Which, friends, is actually the essence of what ‘the devil’ is in any given society. ANY GIVEN SOCIETY.

When that society becomes divided and the division is allowed to fester and grow, the society will eventually become ‘abolished’---destroyed. To use a much misunderstood expression, it will go to hell.

Trust me, it will be the real thing if you understand that 'hell' is not all fire and a red-faced fella with horns. Hell can be a way of social life that has become intolerable.

And that, people, is the essence of what is happening here in Australia, and evidenced even on this very page. Read your news headlines for the ever multiplying signs. Read oz-aware.com for a cut-to-the-chase version.

Lurking, unmentioned, in the mists behind this discussion, the murky monster of multiculturism unquestionably casts its long shadow of influence on much of the thinking presented here.

We have embraced ‘diversity’ because ‘someone’ told us it was a good thing.

Who the hell is that ‘someone’ and where’s the hard evidence that diversity, the spawn of multiculturism is a good thing for any society?

ANY society?

Talk is cheap but money buys the whiskey, so SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Nobody can, because in human history there is NOT ONE single example of a multicultural society thriving and prospering. From South Africa to Bosnia, to Israel and Palestine, the evidence is overwhelming that when two cultures compete for the same territory, they clash.

Ultimately, if not immediately, they will clash------violently.

We haven’t had violence—in any meaningful way—in Australia. Gee, can anyone with half a brain not work out why?

While it might feel good to have a say and voice a public opinion, it is clear from these posts---and others---that many would be better employed sweeping the streets rather than partaking in public philosophical pronouncements. Their unlearned offerings serve to merely increase the volume of the ‘babble’. It is clear that the internet is increasingly merely a modern version of the village common, its mindless, ignorant mob screaming their opinions and occasionally calling for blood (Oh, Graaaaace…have I forgotten my pills agaaaaain?)

Anyone know what happened to Babylon? History is not just for the reading.

Islam is not ‘the devil’ or ‘satan’ and those who ‘demonise’ it, or say it is being demonised, have got their eyes and wires crossed.

Division and dissent are the real demons, and they are the spawn of that destructive devil, "Diversity". Islam is inarguably causing division and dissent within increasing numbers of Western societies---UK, Holland, France etc.

That our turn draws inexoribly closer can be evidenced by the many discussions on this website that have the 'I' word as their 'stimulus'....

Australia, you have been warned, not by me, but by long, bloodied human history. United you may have a chance of standing, but divided you absolutely, positively and most certainly will fall.

I very strongly suspect you will not listen, Australia. The only reason I tell you these things is for the sake of my own conscience. I don’t want my grandchildren cursing me as they will curse you.

The fact that Australia has been a paradise for the longest time has led the great majority of her people to arrogantly believe that they are somehow special and ‘above’ the errors made by ‘mere humans’ throughout history.

They have, after all always been exceptionally ‘Proud’ to be Australian, not ‘Honoured’ to be.

Such is the collective hubris, they don’t even know why the difference is critical.

And they surely don’t know that pride comes before........what?

This society must have what it believes is virtually unlimited freedom of speech even while, irrationally, its government tells you how, when, where but not why you must leave your car locked (http://www.oz-aware.com/ideology2.htm). Its bureaucrats, seeking to overturn hundreds of thousands of years of human experience, now tell its mothers how their child must be birthed---or else….. (see Brisbane Courier-Mail of February 3, 2005.

Freedom of speech, when those who exercise it to protect what has been ours since our inception are hauled before a tribunal and punished, is an irrational nonsense, a widespread social delusion.

We are increasingly an insane society. These posts, let alone the original essay (which is not surprising, considering the youth and inexperience of its author) merely advance that perception in my mind.

I realise this post will not stop the babbling. Will probably spur it. Fair enough.

We are busy blogging bees, busily building the new Babylon.

Just remember, you read it here first.

Boaz
This seems more like politics than religion. We use words or language to describe God, and have tried to even incorporate logic at times into our thinking of God. But perhaps God does not use words or logic, and these are just man made constructs. Instead God uses spirit or conscience or will rather than language.

Remove all language and Christianity and Islam become like two long lost brothers who have a very similar God within them. But these brothers have lost sight of this because they are using too much language in their thinking of God, and that language has now become too political.

However I have to qualify all this by saying that there are other families of religion also.

Yeah, OK Pericles, I studied philosophy too, so I am aware of all the silly little mind games philosophers play. My favourite quote is from Plato (Phaedo 69b):

"Any system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."

You say that "reality is a construct of language". Really? Well, let me assure you that I am really real and not just a construct of your language. If you doubt this, let me know where you live and I will come over and pour a cup of boiling water on your head. Then we'll see if you still think reality is just a construct.

Welcome to the real world buddy!

Furthermore, when it comes to determining reality, you ask: "Who is the judge here?" I respond: "How about putting it to a jury?" Hands up all those who think Hitler was right in killing all those Jews? And gypsies? And mentally disabled people?

And if you really believe that there is no-one who can judge what is right or wrong or what is real then why are you on this forum arguing your case? You obviously think you are right and others are wrong.

But perhaps I am mistaken. If so, and you really do believe that it is impossible to judge what is real, then I expect to never ever hear from you on this or any other forum ever again. If you do continue to contribute then it will be clear to everyone that you are deceiver and a liar.

AK

Hey Aslan, you clearly also find it too pathetically easy to paint the moral relativists into a corner using their own discombobulated dichotomies. Problem is, explaining to them is typically pointless, as I wrote about at http://www.oz-aware.com/pointless.htm.

Mind you, here's a great chance for Pericles to prove me wrong. All he has to do is let you know that, well, in fact, he was wrong and you were right.

Don't hold your breath, Aslan. Only truly moral people find it easy to admit they are wrong. And moral relativists cannot, by definition, be truly moral.

Diary note to myself: I really must write about that beast a long time ago described as "A Moral Imbecile"....

Wow! I'm so impressed. It never occurred to me when I first took up my virtual pen on this forum that I would meet such towering intellects, such incisive thinkers. And there was I, imagining that Australia was a thought-free zone. Silly me.

Before I go on, may I thank Aslan for his unintended compliment. I have never studied philosophy. As it happens, I even avoided having my brain washed by those wussie left intellectuals at university, so what you see is life experience, pure and simple. No academic fashionista stuff, just the result of going out and meeting people.

Despite this handicap, I have a working knowledge of the Greek philosophers and their different opinions. If I had to choose, I'd park my butt with the Epicureans - Plato was a bit too black-and-white for me, always trying to convince people that there was only one way to look at things. Plus ca change, huh?

I know you aren't listening Aslan, but just for the record, I did not say "reality is a construct of language". What I did say was that i) the folk who were bashing the idea didn't understand it and ii) trying to compress a complex thought process into a sound-bite is dangerous. So, by all means pop around and pour boiling water over my head. The knee you find connecting with your groin as you do so will also be a construct, formed from our dialogue.

As for you, ozaware, I'm excited to meet you. I love your website, although it needs less hysteria and more sober reflection - there are far better ones in the US that you could learn from. Here's one that has class: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/

What always puzzles me when I look through them - and you can perhaps help me out here if you have the time - is... what happens next?

I know it might seem a trivial question to you, but it is the same one that crosses my mind when I read a Green manifesto. Even if I were to agree with what you say, and we all go through the revolution - you with your "take back paradise" and the Greens with "save the planet" - you still have at some stage to live, as Aslan would say, in the real world. And what might seem a glorious ideal to you (or the Greens) might turn out to be a big mistake when we wake up the next morning and find that not everybody in that real world sees it our way. One of the abiding facts of Australian life is that we like it comfortable. Nice and easy, don't rock the boat, she'll be right comfortable. Just ask John Howard, he'll tell you straight: that's what they want, and don't you forget it.

One final thought for Aslan, if he gets this far. Your challenge to me went as follows:

"And if you really believe that there is no-one who can judge what is right or wrong or what is real then why are you on this forum arguing your case? You obviously think you are right and others are wrong.

But perhaps I am mistaken. If so, and you really do believe that it is impossible to judge what is real, then I expect to never ever hear from you on this or any other forum ever again. If you do continue to contribute then it will be clear to everyone that you are deceiver and a liar."

If this forum is only available to people who have already decided what they think, then yes, I'm in the wrong place. I happen to believe that discussing issues before making up my mind is a good thing. So for a start, I do not think I am right and others are wrong, and for seconds, I have been on this planet long enough to know that there are actually more questions than answers, so right now I'm in the majority.

And finally, I don't judge. I know that is a categorical statement, and sure, faced with that "how would you judge Hitler" chestnut, I would be happy to say yes, on overwhelming evidence he was a tyrant along with Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Vlad the Impaler and a few other blots on history. However, if we back off from the bleedin' obvious for a moment, in my view it is much harder to take the same tough stance on the minutiae of our existence. So I take the easy way out, don't leap to conclusions, and listen a lot. Receptus ignavorum, Mr Harden once told me, but hey.

Have a great day.

Pericles, I assume this will be your last post here, now that Godwin's Law has been invoked. I enjoyed the ride, and I hope we will see you again on OLO.

Absolutely, Grace. One has principles...

ASLAN..heel..heel :) ok..now ur back under control.. no more cups of hot water .. even on blessed Pericles, who..'does not judge' :)
I seem to recall a few barbs toward me about 'PB on the condecension scale' and.. "thats just arrogant" but hey.. it IS a nice day.. in fact..its a nice day to RETURN TO THE TOPIC... grrrr
You guys are getting too personal here.. Still, there was valuable stuff in all your posts.
As for language constructing reality. I don't agree.. we are confronted by reality.. events..and we find language to explain and interpret it. Enuf on that.

WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY
I heard last night that Keith Windshuttle has come out with a book on the White Australia Policy, and he even goes so far as to say it was not a 'racist' view, because it mainly focused on the chinese rather than all asians. I've come to the view that the idea of a White Australia, or even a BLACK Australia, or a YELLOW Australia is a great idea. wooooo I hear the shouts. But looking at this in an objective way, based on human nature and human experience who in their right mind would recommend to Serbs to become 'fruitful contributing citizens in the middle of Kosovo' ??? or vice versa.


MONOCULTURAL AUSTRALIA
I would extend the 'white/black/yellow' idea to the current TOPIC, and for the same reasons. Islam/Judao Christian. Blind Nellie can see that the world secular humanists believe in does not actually exist outside the trendy leftist coffee shops. In the real one, identifiable communities compete for influence and slices of economic,cutlural and social cake. Has the issue of changing the language of education in some areas of the USA to Hispanic cropped up ? or am I imagining this ? The smart money is on those who would forsee such an event and who would control immigration and policy to prevent the subject ever even arising.
The more different those identifiable groups, the more they will compete. I actually think Homer Simpson may just be able to see this.

MULTICULTURAL DANGERS
When one significant difference happens to include the 'violent overthow of the bourgoise state or the establishment of the Kingdom of Allah and his Apostle in terms of the well established history and doctrinal basis of such groups... there is ample justification to have some of that smart money on people who can 'foresee, forwarn and forACT'

Pericles.. I note that ur taking some flack here brudder :) my sympathies, but one thing I know, is that this debate is healthy. (apart from knees in groins and cups of boiling water ..tut tut).. its bringing issues of great importance into a public arena.. and because it is serious debate..no one is going to te-RRT-orize us :)

WHAT NEXT: <== this was probably one of the most important questions raised in this session. For me, given that sufficient political consensus could be achieved, I would begin to modify the education program to mainstream the values agreed on. Specially in terms of Cultural identity. As for history, if we don't know how we got to 'here &now' I doubt that we will have much of a clue about getting to 'there & then'

PERICLES .. in all you have said that I can see, I dont find much by way of 'ALTERNATIVE' to what I and OZ and Azlan are suggesting.
waits.......

GRACE you are too 'full of it' :)
("Grace" that is..undeserved favor) u have hardly said a word here.. we need your maternal stare gazing at us through your posts.

and as for Godwin's law.. I invoke QUIRKS EXCEPTION :)

Pericles, you say you are 'excited' to meet me. I can take that two ways. If it's a sarcasm, well, I'll just move on. If you actually mean it, I'm happy to expand.

I do, by the way have an answer to your 'what now'? question and it does not involve some kind of 'expirement that may go wrong' as you seem to presume would be the case.

I'm writing this in a helluva hurry as have much work, little time. However, over the next few days, hope to get back here and respond/ answer---depending on whether Pericles was sarcastic or for real---let me know. This stuff is seriously important to our future social well-being and one must therefore not jump to conclusions.

Also have a response for Boaz' "confounded by reality" and some other comments. There's a 'simple' and enlightening explanation, Boaz. When time permits.........

And Grace, your assumption that Pericles has signed off may be, I hope, a little too presumptive. I suspect that, although he did put an intellectual foot into a bit of philosophical poo, he has much to contribute that may be valuable.

Final quick thought---much of these last posts are rather off topic. Maybe we should start a new thread somewhere else? This stuff could help a lot of people learn whole new perspectives---and God (sorry atheists!) knows, we sorely need some
new' thinking outside the ideological box that most Aussies have become trapped inside--what a horrible sentence, if I had more time I'd fix it, but you hopefully get my drift...

Perhaps I could write a piece for publication on OLO - but someone would have to persuade the editor--who, like Grace, has rejected me...(darn that's two women in a week!)--to go along. I'll also re-approach her (the EDITOR!). If anyone else puts in a word as well, it'll maybe help.

Over and out for the next day or three...

OZ.... I didnt say 'confounded'...I said 'confronted'....

*BOAZ hands OZ a higher power set of glasses*

By the way people.. my comments in the last post about white yellow black etc.. were intended to stimuate discussion :) Like the unions, some times we have to begin negotiations with a request for 150% pay rise.

GRACE

Given that u appear to be on the leftish side of the political spectrum. You might be interested to see the work of Tony Campolo.
He is quite interesting, and controversial.
Check this site out, have a listen to one of his messages as well as look at the ministries section.
http://www.tonycampolo.org/

As for his messages, "The Church: God's Instrument for Changing the World" contains some insights.

If ur bored, try "Its Friday, but Sundays comin"

Boaz,
Just getting back to something here. Do you think religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, (see they can reside side by side), have become too pedantic and now rely too much on language and religious text. Language is limited and not a very adequate way of fully experiencing God, and language can also lead to theocracy, demonising others etc.

I guess I’m looking for middle ground between the religions for dialog. Can’t have a war. Too many people will get killed (even me).

Boaz, we're teetering on the brink here, but I'll accept your Quirk's exception for the time being.

However, I'm not sure that shifting the discussion from "is demonizing Islam a productive strategy" to "should we aspire to a monocultural Australia" is particularly appropriate. So if you'll allow, I'll back off this one until someone posts a more relevant article that we can debate.

Hi Tim...

in general terms u can speak of them side by side. But to take the issue really seriously, one has to look more closely at each one.'
Its neccessary to analyse the 'political, social, legal implications'
of each one. Its not a matter of pedantism, its an unavoidable task.
I'm not interested in any war, or victimization or demonization.
But I am interested in a true understanding of particular groups in society.
Your view is very tolerant and commendable. It's also rather broad and seems to be a projection of the liberal democracic view of 'others'.
I suppose I'm a tad biased :) having experienced life under a moderate Islamic government, which translated a few times into personal oppression against me including the threat of imprisonment without trial for who knows how long. I don't hold that against them specifically, I hold it against 'human nature' .. its how we tick.
I guess for those brought up in Australia, you can only speak about the 'here and now' and our generally peaceful tolerant society. and we shudder at the thought of some of the social disruption going on in other places.
But if u can identify specific verifiable attacks on our way of life, attempts to change laws, in ways which effect you, your freedom to be 'you' etc.. would you not be a little concerned about 'Thin edge of the wedge' ?
That is the point, where I will say "This is simply the outworking of such and such a doctrine that these people hold" and you might say "Well.. a bit of give and take never hurt anyone, and hey.. lets accomodate as far as possible".
Have a read of some of OZAWARE's stuff on his web site. He gets written off as 'ultra rightwing' as suggested by Pericles, but it should always boil down to 'is this verifiable as an issue of fact'
Example: Some anti semitic web sites will claim that Jewish sanhedrin decisions delared that u can 'steal and defraud' from gentiles and a host of other things. I tried to check their sources, and found them dodgy and unfindable. I could find the volume they mentioned but not the actual reference. I then found a Christian site (John Mark Ministries) which looked in scholarly detail at these claims and found pretty much all to be 'non existent', wrongly quoted or the such like.


Other sites say a lot about Jews controlling media,(USA context) and u can actually filter out the 'factual' from the fanatical in what they say. The same is true about Hindu sites which are vitriolic about Islam. Usually u just have to prune out all the adjectives :) to be left with facts. But when in doubt, further reading might be needed.

If this doesn't answer ur question, try again :) always welcome.

Boaz,
I think I understand what you are saying. We can become too complacent in Australia. I was visiting Morocco years ago, and had to get out. The government put up the price of bread, and this caused massive rioting in the streets. People were being trampled to death. The government kept closing then opening the borders, so I just decided to get out when opportunity arose.

Different here, rows of bread in miles of aisles.

Oi! Boaz

Don't go putting words into my mouth.

"He gets written off as 'ultra rightwing' as suggested by Pericles"

I said no such thing, nor did I suggest it. I gave up putting people into right- and left-wing boxes shortly after the smoke cleared from "the collapse of communism".

As a rule of thumb here, you can say anything you like about me, my ideas and my principles, and you won't upset me in the least. But if you ascribe to me words that I did not use, or soapboxes I don't stand upon, I'll get cross. Yo capeesh? Grazie paisan.

PERICLES ! and everyone

As for you, ozaware, I'm excited to meet you. I love your website, although it needs less hysteria and more sober reflection - there are far better ones in the US that you could learn from. Here's one that has class: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/

There u go again, busting me for drawing reasonable conclusions from what appeared to be sarcasm :)
"I love your website"
"Less Hysteria more reflection"
"you can learn from the ('ULTRA RIGHT WING') National Vanguard mob.

Ok.. I was too adventurous with my assumptions, but then I can't see your face as u type this stuff.. so went with gut feeling, based on my cumulative image of your apparent position. Annnnyway.. if I got it wrong ... AGAIN.. I'll slink off to my room and THINK about it :)

Ozaware has some very valid and important well researched views, and an obvious committment to those views for the betterment of the nation as he sees it. While I share a lot of those views, it might be for mildly differing reasons.

But.. BACK to the TOPIC....

Aslans point, "is Islam bad.." ? etc.. and mine, about 'competing sub groups in society' where competition is exacerbated by the degree of difference between them and whether to refer to these things is 'demonizing' or valid social criticism.

CREATING and DEMONIZING the 'OTHER'.
Demonizing, as it is usually practiced seems to attempt to debase and dehumanize and attritubute characteristics all of a negative nature irrespective of the truthfulness of those statements to a religion,or race with a view to whipping up public zenophobia where the goal is harming,lynching,slaughtering them. (this is most powerful when actually using half truths).
As I see it, there must be a scale. Where at some point, legitimate social commmentary can become 'demonizing'. The meter would be usually bouncing off the 'demonizing' end during election campaigns and times of economic hardship.

A classic example of this (political) is the case Deen v Lamb [2001] QADT 20. That involved a
complaint by a Muslim who was the Chairman of the Islamic Council of
Queensland. It related to a Federal Election and a pamphlet disributed by one of the candidates. (which quoted from the Quran in a way which suggested Muslims would not obey the law of the land)

Legitimate Social Research
will look at groups and their goals in the normal course of their work, even if they have the ultimate goal of political influence in mind which they may seek to achieve through normal and peaceful lobbying.

So, the question arises "Is there anything to be concerned about from the influence of the Islamic community on our legal, cultural and social texture" ?

Here are some examples of what has happened over recent years.

1/ Burial laws have been amended or an exemption from the Racial Discrimination Act has been granted to allow Muslims to bury their dead in a shroud, rather than a coffin (Vic)
2/ Hume Council (Melb) which has a 12% muslim constituency, (and the mayor was muslim) in 2003 decided NOT to offer Ham sandwiches to the 78% of the constituency because it conflicted with Islamic food laws. (Did it occur to them that a) Ham sambo's are a fave of the others or b) that to put out a table of halal food for the Muslims would be the obvious way around this ? nope)
3/ Stamp Duty Laws (vic) have been amended to facilitate Islamic type loans where no interest is allowed. (As the law stood, they were getting whacked two times for stamp duty as they had to somehow remortgage the property in some interest free manner)
4/ Emergency services are required to treat Muslims differently due to religious sensitivities. (they are the only group out of the major religous groups who have a problem with removing an abused child from a family for its own protection)
5/ NSW one labor seat was subjected to branch stacking by the Lebanese and Palestinian muslims to put up a candidate of theirs who would promote 'anti israel' policies in Parliment.
6/ Islamic council of Vic used the Racial and Regligous Tolerance act IN COLLUSION with the Equal Opportunity Commission, to silence the 2 pastors from the Seminar on Islam, claiming religious vilification.
7/ Islamic schools are studying material which is highly suggestive of the achievement of an Islamic replublic 'at the right time' in Australia. The terminology used suggests that this would happen in a way similar to how Mohammed took the City of Mecca.


CANADA The muslim community lobbied for and was granted the use of Sharia law on civil matters in Canada. (when will they lobby for punishment of apostate muslims ? or.. laws preventing proselytization of Muslims ? )

Looking at world trends and taking the above together, I feel it indicates a fundamental cultural and social incompatability with the existing cultural texture of Australia.

All the above material is adequately sourced and referenced, and if anyone wishes to see them, I'll provide them happily.

Here is one very telling example, from the ICV website: GOALS

http://www.icv.org.au/abouticv.shtml

1/ To vigilantly maintain and apply the true Islamic doctrines as, contained in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed (May Allah's Blessings and Mercy be Upon Him) at all times in the carrying out of the objects of this Constitution.

2/ To vigorously and vigilantly combat and correct any misrepresentation of Islam.

Now, what this means in practice, as evidenced by the Catch the Fire case, is that "Any truth about Mohammed, which might cause people to have ill feeling toward Him, or Islam, must be supressed with the utmost vigour at any cost.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

If mohammed is described as a 'murderer' it is clear from their own history that this is true. The hadith describing this even USES the word Murder.
The murder of Abu Jahl (4434)
The murder of Ka'ab the evil genius of the Jews. (4436)

If he is described as 'very horny' to be vulgar, its also true, he is said to have the sexual strength of 20 men.
If he is described as a 'megalomaniac' as we understand the term, it is also true "The WORLD belongs to Allah and HIS APOSTLE"

If he is described as guilty of torture, this is also true. (cutting off hands, feet and gouging the eyes and leaving to a slow death)

If he is described as holding his followers obedience by fear. Also true. "Case where a muslim can be killed.. "..and if he deserts his deen(religion)"


CONCLUSION:
Given that the GOALs of the Islamic Council of Victoria are to promote Islam "as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed"
and to DEFEND his good name... One is hardly surprised by either the tactics used in persuing this, and could be reasonably concerned that if the example is taken as THESE GOALS imply, (and there are groups in Melbourne who are less than moderate) it would be reasonable to claim that this is not 'demonizing' but legitimate social commentary and a raising of public awareness. The goals do not state "as practiced by the holy prophet 'on his good days'.... It appears also that the Quranic injuction against murdering fellow human beings somehow escaped the attention of the one by whom these supposed revelations came and its tempting to ask "If he.... could/did not fulfill this, why should anyone else, and who is more ISLAMIC than the prophet of the religion ?

Guilty as charged, Boaz. I must confess I thought I had signalled it loudly enough as sarcasm, but in retrospect I can see that I wasn't blatant enough. Next time I'll remember and put a little note against it.

I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with your views on ozaware'as web site (he and I aren't talking 'cos of my sarcasm). I see only an amateurish, and very arrogant, piece of self-promotion. It is only half a step away from those tiny-blue-script letters that complain of voices and secret government conspiracies.

Have a great weekend.

Pericles
you too have a good one :)

I agree about getting some basics organized or sorted out as per your post on another topic I think.
Give me your thoughts on how u want to address that.

BOAZ_David, can you please email me at biblical_hermeneutics/at/yahoo.com (/at/ = @, of course).

AK

Oi Periscope..

If you and oz are not talking, but you and I still are.. there is a reason for that :) you might detect it within the lines of the intro to this interview below.
check out this web site about a substantial brain of atheist might:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

I had never even heard of this guy until 2night.. like u said "I must get out more" (Aslan pointed him out)

*waddles back into his burrow*

TEAM.. I'll be interested in seeing if my email to the chairman of the Islamic council of vic produces any results, I invited him to come or send some rep to our forum to defend their faith :)
So, I went not just to an 'other' but to the CHIEF "other" himself.

keep up the good work and rip into me if u feel I need it.

People,

Following is a very good article by L. Maher published in the Murdoch E-Law Journal entitled: "Free Speech and its Postmodern Adversaries". It is very interesting and touches on many of the points we have discussed on this forum and others including free speech, censorship, vilification, postmodernism, social and language construction etc etc.
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v8n2/maher82nf.html

AK

Pericles
>>>>(Ozaware)and I aren't talking 'cos of my sarcasm).

response: that must be your decision since this is news to me. WERE you being sarcastic? In my last communication I asked you to clarify.

>>>> I see only an amateurish, and very arrogant, piece of self-promotion. It is only half a step away from those tiny-blue-script letters that complain of voices and secret government conspiracies.

response; I cannot respond to ad hominems and generalisations. I've alse been referred to in these pages as being 'hysterical'. Please give me some specific examples and let's see how we deal with them, hmmm?

Amateurish? Yes, probably so. My delivery may well be amateurish, but I publicly challenge you , Pericles (or anyone else for that matter) to rationally debunk anything meaningful in the actual content of the oz-aware website.

Go on, this is a direct public challenge. Put your intellectual money where your mouth is, bud!

I am more focussed on the message than the delivery, which is the exact inverse of almost everything written today. Remember, Peri, as is often and clearly stated in the Oz-Aware website, I am a mere messenger. There's not much there that's "my" opinion.....

As for the 'arrogance'---well that's a relative term. Give me an example of that too and let's see if it it actually 'arrogance' or simple truth. Having said that, perhaps what you perceive as arrogance is simply deep knowledge and experience that refuses to waste time with ignorance or idiocy---because Peri, mass ignorance absolutely abounds in this society. It is an ignorance literally born of inexperience---when one is living in paradise and 'having fun' all the time, there's little of value to be learned.

That has been the reality in Australia for the longest time and when the fit hits our social shan the vast majority of people---like yourself, obviously----will not nearly know what hit them.

One can 'be diplomatic' and offer feelgood views to make oneself popular. In that way one is merely part of the general corruption and downhill slide.

Or one can step outside of the p-in-pocket mobthink and tell the not-always pretty truth. As history has repeatedly shown, this is always the quickest way to get crucified. Why do you think those in power nailed the Truth Teller two thousand years ago? Recall Copernicus and the earth not being the centre of the universe? Galileo? Bruno and his 'arrogant' views about a flat earth? My history may be faulty, but the fundamental facts offered are way too solid for anyone to debunk. Go ahead and try....

Being pilloried by the mob does not necessarily mean that one is wrong. In fact, it's usually a good sign of being too accurate for comfort.

Re-read my previous post Pericles. I'm always willing to 'talk'.

Leave our real---and growing---problems unattended long enough and the swing to 'right wing' one day in this country will take your breath away. In comparison, I'd then be seen as a 'wimpish moderate'.

And if you choose to no longer communicate, that's OK---just remember in ten/twenty years' time that I warned where this society is going---and it is thinking like yours (which view, I estimate you share with 80% of the educated population) that is taking us there---guaranteed.

And if you call such statements 'hysteria'.....well, that's your perception and time will tell who has the more accurate vision....

GOOD !!
the cosmos is restored.. OZ and Periscope are talking :)

Keep it up Pete, those challenges are good

Ozaware, let's see now.

"As for the 'arrogance'---well that's a relative term. Give me an example of that"

How about:

"Only if the reader thoughtfully follows all of the lessons to be provided in this Project will he or she eventually be able to make a competent judgment"

That's a "relatively arrogant" statement in my book.

Your other 'challenge': "I publicly challenge you , Pericles (or anyone else for that matter) to rationally debunk anything meaningful in the actual content of the oz-aware website."

You ask that I track down something meaningful in the content of your website. Regretfully, I failed at this hurdle.

But have a wonderful day anyway. Keep listening to the voices.

guys ...guys....

Boys, you have wandered far from the topic.

I’ve just checked in with what Scot had to say.

Roberto may have had a point in describing Scot's contribution as "a piece of intellectual drivel", though that does seem a bit harsh and Scot probably did get a good mark for it.

Ben P does seem to have put his finger on the pulse when he pointed out Scot’s lopsided treatment and it was good of Scot to acknowledge his error in only focusing on the “ingrained desire” of the West to have “a villain worth hating – the other”. I suppose that was just a bit of that "self loathing thing" that is endemic in academia and the left generally.

I would like to take Scot a little deeper into his analysis and I do so from an unashamedly Christian world and life view, for I am what Grace would call a “God botherer”, though I fear she may be “God forsaken”, though at another level I do admire her courage, but fear it is misplaced.

Firstly, I think Scott is correct to say that we demonise our opponents and fear that Pericles and ozaware may have done that to one another. Boaz, bless him, has a gentle spirit and I do like Aslan.
But let’s be honest. We all suffer from the same disease: SIN: rebellion against God and his ways and purpose for us, love of self and to hell with my neighbour if he stands in my way.

Going on.

I do almost agree with Scot that there is “no objective standpoint” though I think some are better than others at it and of course the Bible as the Word of God has all the objectivity that could ever be desired, so I claim without a blush.

Where I think young Scott is sadly adrift is in his apparent endorsement of the claim that ‘“reality” is a mere construct of language’. Not so fast! I think Scot is confused and is in fact confusing reality with propaganda.

I haven’t read Salman Rushdie’s “The Sataniuc Verses” but I have read Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilsations” and when Huntington says, “the underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power”, he is attempting to describe with language the reality of what he observes (and others too have observed). Likewise his statement, “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards” attempts to describe a reality that my Sudanese friends, fleeing Islamic persecution in their home country have conveyed to me. You don’t have to agree with Huntington, but you should at least ask to what extent he is in fact describing reality. I would say not far away. Try reading Bat Ye’or’s books – her latest on “Eurabia” is about to be published or get on Daniel Pipes’ website or http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ and have a wake up call. And no, I don’t think all Muslims want to engage in jihad, at least of a violent nature, but there are enough that do to be a worry.
I would have liked Scot to have reflected on the fatwa placed on Rushdie. Is the fatwa simply “a mere construction of language” or language devised to give expression to a clear intent to murder the man?

I think also Scot could brush up on his history: the Crusades happened in response to Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and the harassing and murder of Christian pilgrims journing to the Holy City. His statement that “European imperialist advance of the early 19th century….. an act that justified murder, rape and enslavement” is way over the top, laughable, even reprehensible, vilification of the worst sort since those involved are long dead and at the very least this statement should have required a rewrite of the essay. Scot, please explain why the most vigorous branches of the Christian Church today are to be found in Africa?

At the end Scot asks whether we will succumb to the pictures Rushdie, Huntington, et al construct. No, we take them with a grain of salt, and in my case I certainly take Scot’s picture with a grain of salt.

DAVID !
me? gentle spirit ? :) thanx. Its good to see someone who is prepared to take time to closely analyze Scotts piece. I tended to just take a few juicy bits and go to town on them. You would well know the illustration of Paul about "the Body" :).. we need the nose, the ear etc etc.. all work together. So its all worthwhile.
Amen to the point about 'language describing reality' thats more the case. It actually depends on the people saying it, and their motives, as u pointed out in regard to propoganda.

David, I take exception to your implying that I have 'demonsied' Pericles. Read my posts re him again and realise that I (a) point out he made an intellectual mistake and (b) invite him to dialogue/debate.

There is no slur or 'demonising' Do NOT tar me with the bigots brush! Please retract the statement.

Also David, when you say that there are 'enough of the radical Islamists to 'be a worry', you grossly understate. That very same Daniel Pipes estimates there are 100 million in that 'radical' fringe of Islam.

Pericles, I'm disappointed. The "arrogance" your speak of is actually a simple statement of fact. As I say in the oz-aware overview, if a person does not know how to add 1 + 1 how can you expect him to add 1546 + 3452?

Therefore by your standard it is 'arrogant' for a maths professor to state that a student is incapable of doing the math.

Nuts, I've wasted time with you. And your next wisecrack clearly confirms that.

In fact, I'm outta here--got more meaningful things to do than intellectual navel-gazing. Those who need to, know how to find me.

DAVID.. your insightful analysis might be fruitfully applied to a piece by Philip Mendes titled

"There is no place for moral judgements in Australia" may 2005.

What I found curious is that he is Jewish, and co-edited a publication with a man named LEVEY.. see my comment on the article about ancestry etc. yet he makes statements like the above.
Truly amazing.

Wherever conflict exists, a religion is involved somewhere. Let me remind you all that we are hurtling through outer space clinging to a revolving ball of molten rock. Please go outside and be kind and helpful to whomever you might see.

I agree with Brownie's point that "wherever conflict exists, a religion is involved somewhere" I also put it to Brownie that where tragedy exists, whether tsunamis or whatever, religious people are to the forefront. What does this prove? Simply that you can't escape religion. Why? Because religion is part of humankind's makeup.

I wouldn't feel too good if I had convinced myself I was "non religious", considering the death and mayhem wreaked by the Nazi's (who owed far more to Darwin than any religion) or Stalin or Mao.

Interesting to observe the current phenomenal growth of Christianity in China.

As far as "go(ing) outside and be(ing) kind and helpful to whomever you might see", I think Jesus had quite a bit to say on personal relationships. Try these testers out: "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbour as yourself".

Brownie
good thoughts of course. But very naturalistic and do I realllllly need to show that they might only be valid to 'you' ?
I put it to you differently. Religions are only involved with most conflicts because people identify with them. The conflicts themselves are less about religion and MORE about resources. This goes back as far as (and to the very beginnings of man) Abaham and Lot (read the story) where "Abraham and Lots herdsmen started fighting due to lack of grazing" THAT... my friend is the most fundamental reason for concflict. Please think deeper than that last piece of humanistic propoganda that you heard. and PUH-lease read some history.

The demonising of Islam is gaining pace. It is also spreading to any one who might think the war at present is unjust at the very least. I am with the Pope on this one.

It suits the purpose of those inclined to war to demonise the opponent. Just look at the images in the earlier "offical wars, numbers 1 and 2", it makes killing the designated bad guy easier. It would also make it fun, if you are to believe a senior American Military man; it is simply part of the standard war time propaganda.

To recognise it as a process of demonisation is far from "intellectual drivel" as some might see it. It is merely a simple observation. The sad fact remains though that to dismiss such an observation is reminsicent of fascism. But why arent I surprised?

The line has been drawn in the sand by most of the media and the process of demonisng Islam is almost complete - the ABC remains the exception; The print media is more and more throwing up the "if your not for us you're against us crap. It is becoming a crusade - just read the God Bothering analysis of Americas God given status as upholder of freedom on Peter and Helen Evans web site in the US. he is a returned man and she an office bearer in the heritage Association; read their stuff and be afraid, be very afraid. They have been ordained by God, or so it would seem.

Closer to home Bolt A, for example in the Herald Sun has championed this war and the cause of Bush and Associates since the prospect of war was raised - at one time in the press he noted that "it was time to stop talking and start shooting", in what I thought was a strange homage to the silly cowboy imagery the USA often throws up - "wanted dead or Alive"; an article in the documents of the project for the new American Century uses the imaeg of Liberty Valance for example in one of its arguements for unilateral action as if the romaticism of the old west has some basis in truth. Bolt A certainly is a strong critic of Islam. he is also a strong ctitic of anything remotely left, or intellectual or anti family - he even thinks Finding Nemo had a green/anti american sub plot.

More recently in the Age one of the columnists was taken to task, at least in the letters section, for a position she adopted on 'leftist feminist writers" and their relative silence ( measured by what criteria I'll never know) on the practice of female genital mutilation. It would seem that by not publishing a plethora of articles condeming the practice over the festive season or in the lead up to the Iraqi election they have betrayed womankind. - The article in the Age goes to imply that those on the left opposing the war were also now giving tacit approval to any and all the intolerances displayed by those who now should be our sworn enemies over and above FGM.

So as islam is being demonised so are those who believe a war directed against them - and that is what it has become - so are those opposed to the war; the stain of the propoganda is merely spreading to encompass a larger pool of "sympathisers" -

I am now and always will be Inkeemagee.

inkeemagee.
You have again mentioned an important point. A point which has been the focus of some of my own posts. But also that of others.
CRITICAL QUESTION.
The issue is: Truth or "demonizing" ??? If you are demonizing someone you will take the truth, bend it, adjust it, amplifiy it and add a host of suitable adjectives to embellish it further. When u have finished with all this, you have successfully demonized your opponent and made him easier for UNthinking soldiers to kill him. Every fact I mentioned above was true. I added no adjectives, I did not bend, add to, enhance or embellish.

If I was to "demonize".. the simple example is to do this:

Mohammed tortured some people by cutting their hands and feet off and gouging out their eyes and leaving them to die slowly in the deserte heat"..<== so far its FACTUAL from their own sources. Now.. to the 'demonize' part >>>>>> "And..sooo this moron, filthy scumbag wanna be prophet, who is the devil incarnate, who calls people to follow his highway to hell, who is beneath the dignity of anything remotely resembling a human being.. DEATH DEATH to allll like this"..... getting the picture ?????? That is the difference between demonizing and reporting factual information.

I don't think I've seen such rantings in Andrew Bolt, but if you have. please give me chapter and verse and I will happily look it up.
We can then apply the test of 'truth' or 'falsehood' to the material so presented.

Muslims, are people just like all of us. Deserving of our compassion. Sadly, the religious system they have been brought up with, has certain values in it which make it dangerous. "If u insult the prophet u will have to pay" (with ur life possibly) and they are the words of Migrant muslims in France, not Saudi Arabia.

Oh..one more thing. WHO ATTACKED WHO IN 911 ???? just a small question. Was there a 'war on terror' in the way we know now before that ? Who attacked US soldiers in Lebanon, (peace keeping force) and murdered over 200 in one go ? Who blew up the US embassy in Kenya ? strange..I dont recall any 'arab' embassies being blown up by US terrorists ? So.. this is the point where u start to talk about 'predatory economy and neo colonialism' of the USA which 'caused it all' right ? Where upon I direct your attention to EVERY empire or great power over the WHOLE of history that has done the same. Not saying that to justify any of those things, but I'm saying it is no 'less right' than the Ottomans, the British, the Dutch, the French, the Spanish, the Abbbasyds, the Umayads etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Its rather lame and indicative of either a biased or shallow mind to isolate ONE country in ONE time of history and try to suggest it is the 'great satan'. We are ALL the great Satan in embryonic form and our need is of redemption, renewal and transformation in mind, will and spirit.

Just a few lines - i haven't read all the comments here, it would take too long. Richardson is criticised/condemned for apparently asserting that reality is a mere construction of language. As far as i can see, he's not making that assertion, he's summarising the critical theorists' position.

I myself don't hold to that position, but i'm not sure that it's illogical, and it certainly isn't meaningless. I believe it was Wittgenstein who wrote, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, that 'the limit of my language means the limit of my world' and 'of that which one cannot speak one must remain silent'. Now, Wittgenstein knew a thing or two about logic. Anyway this issue has a very long philosophical pedigree and is unlikely to be resolved in this forum. I have to say in any case that holding to such a view about language and reality does not facilitate bigotry or intolerance, as some here have claimed, quite absurdly.

Basically, when stripped of its academic gloss (and there really isn't much of it) the article is essentially a plea for careful analysis of authors' constructions and awareness of alternative constructions. A plea for critical thinking. Not very original, but, as i think Kierkegaard wrote, the truth may be boring but that doesn't mean that it doesn't bear repeating, over and over.

Luigi
amazing self discipline there.. sticking to the topic :)

Greetings Luigi - thank you so much for your

'Wittgenstein who wrote, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, . . . 'of that which one cannot speak one must remain silent',

which I might quote to various males over in another debate about women's rights and their own bodies. regards, ms. browni

Brownie
we are in this together. male and female. I sense you see it still as 'them/us' ?.. sad. Where would we (males) be without you ? Where would u be without us ?
Get with the program moite, mutually contributing to a better life for us all.

Luigi, can I add my thanks to Brownie's, and for the very same reasons. It is hard to get a word in edgeways on this website, dominated as it is by a small cabal of men with a very narrow view of the world and no sense of humour.

Welcome back Grace

I wont say zip..

"Try these testers out: "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbour as yourself"."

Does that include homosexuals too, David?

Ron,
I see where u are going with this. Let me respond by saying that in the normal realm of things the answer is yes, but in the moral realm it is a resounding no. The Bible makes unmistakably and abundantly clear, that there is an uncrossable line between moral right and moral wong. Homosexual, bestial, and incestuous behavior are all on the 'wrong' side of that line. So, if ur asking me if I'll help a homosexual who has been beaten by robbers and left for dead on the side of the road, of course I'd help, but if he asks me 'is my sexual behavior acceptable'? then the answer is no.

holy cow and jesus christ! you two HOMOPHOBES bickering about what people do at home behind closed doors when IN THIS POST ASLAN has told us:
"They will laugh at you, and WHEN THEY DO take the country THEY WILL KILL YOU unless you submit. If you knew anything about Islamic history you would already know this."

CAN WE PUT THIS GUY AND HIS MATES ON THE SAME PLANE OUTTA HERE AS THE 104 YEAR OLD CHINESE LADY.
Scott Richardson argues that we should resist them and us dialectical analysis.

Dear Brownie,

If Islam takes Australia (and that, BTW, is their stated goal) I will voluntarily leave, and you my friend will be sitting in the seat next to me - if you haven't already taken an earlier flight.

AK

Brownie dear :)
I'm sorry to have to mildly speak a chunk of truth in love... (thats Christian speak for put u straight :)

This issue for goodness sake is the shape and mood and values of the community at large, not the specific focus on just ONE issue. It so happens that is a rather volatile one along with the usual batch of lefty ones "women" and choice etc ...
Brownie, deep down we all want the same society, caring, loving, self sacrificing. That's the good news. The bad news is that there is such a thing as morality, and it means that if we give way on our standards, we are miserable, and the community, in time will just flush itself down the gurgler as most who were not able to see the 'end' while playing the game have gone. E.g. the Norse who settled Iceland, destroyed themselves in spite of good advice from the Inuit who told them now to survive. They actually chose to starve to death rather than humble themselves and accept the advice of the 'stupid Inuit'.
Call me homophobe, call me stupid, its all good :) u can give me any name u like. But I'm encouraged that you called on the name of Jesus in the beginning of your last post. He is also your last hope.
Blessings

David - it is good to know you will be able to holiday safely in Fiji.

A need to stop demonising Islam and get to the crux of the present global crisis.

On a recent Lateline programme an American commentator gave the real reason for the shocking human relations now existing between Christianity and Islam. It is not entirely religion. He did not mention the term “blowback” but the term itself was originated by the CIA who warned that their tactics against Middle East nations, and certain Third World countries could cause international friction in the future.

The above would not surprise anyone studying International Relations. As the US commentator pointed out, most Islamic terrorism has been carried out not by poor or destitute Muslims but by mostly intellectuals, including university students. Such was proven in 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings, and of course, every one knows bin Laden is well-educated and belongs to well respected Saudi-Arabian families.

A public reaction could be, unfortuntely, that people desperately fed-up with news of Islamic attacks, would entail either to close down our Humanities areas, or put the curriculums under surveillance, as was done in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

However, this would not get to the core of the problem, but only make it worse, because former students who had learnt about “blowback” and “payback” might also need to be quietened down with a warning.

As intimated by the American commentator - part of the answer could be for both America and Britain to get out of Middle East territory admitting they’d only been in there since WW1 mostly for oil and strategem. And if our Forum wants more evidence of American plans to overlord the globe, Muslims included, think about the pre-9/11 White House publicised New World Order as well as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Certainly not the way to maintain friendship between our world’s two largest religions.
George C - Bushbred

I've rarely read such a reactionary outpouring of postcolnial blah as this. Here's deconstruction for you -- the way in which the so-called author betrays his slavish adherence to critical dogmas. Not that we can blame him, when droves of students are force fed a diet of half-baked Spivak-esque assertions, and then patted on the back for regurgiatating them. How nice it must be for these students that they are no longer expected to take risks in making proper critical evaluations!