Well said David, "spotto ono"

My recent "mantra" has been to draw peoples attention to those very things which fuel such actions as you have abundantly referred to, which are the 'culture of defending' the Islamic message and messenger with military, political and "legal" means.

This was summed up beautifully by my debating adversary Fellow Human (bless his kindly heart though :) when he said:

"as soon as the muslims became strong enough to DEFEND themselves,..."

(Referring to Mohammed beginning military raids on the Quraish and others who opposed him.) Interesting spin on 'defend' :) but the problem is that as whether the 'doctrine' advocates 'defensive' OR offensive actions, defense can always been spun to include pre-emptive attacks, as mohammed proved.

The abysmal lack of clear thinking going on with many posters is a serious concern.

How many of us would justify the almost religious ferver inherrant in many of the 'Neo Nazi white supremacist' movements simply because the founder said and did some very nice/compassionate/wise/altruistic things ?

NONE ! (exCEPT those who are IN that movement) what the rest of us do is "Look at the LIFE, of the founder and then interpret the message in terms of mass murders, concentration camps, invasions of other countries, slave labor racial supremacy ideas etc... its because of THESE things, that we reject the WHOLE of the ideas/doctrines/teaching of such movements, because we know that at the heart of it, eventually, the rough end of the stick will be shoved down our throats. We do NOT allow ourselves to brush over those things simply because of a few kind words or actions by the founder.

Islamic Invasions began at Yarmuk in Syria in 636,then Eqypt, Spain and almost France and had it not been for Charlemaigne at Tours in 732, we would ALL be speaking Arabic now. Then there were the Ottomans, and the remnants of their handiwork in Bosnia, the Caucasus etc (And we are told 'Islam did not spread by the sword' :)

Does anyone but the GB's hear anything other then blar,blar,blar.
What's the matter DB will they not let you into hillsong? show them your stock portfolio maybe they will change their minds. Mr Palmer no one cares the laws were brought in for the exact reason that they have been used for in this instance. If a Christian fundamentalist gives a talk about evolution you can bet it's not to advance scientific debate on the subject.

Thank you David for writing this perceptive and accurate information.
The Age and Herald Sun decline to print my letters relating the Catch the Fire case to current activities by some Muslims.
Perhaps the newspapers don't want to be the subject of a complaint of 'religious vilification!
During the hearing Judge Higgins was told about the activities of Sheik Omran and IISCA, and witnesses told him these fundamentalists were active in Melbourme, but still he found that 'fundamentalism' wasn't practised in Melbourne!

Mind you, Judge Higgins was also told (by witness Dr Mark Durie) that the Islamic Council itself had been selling/recommending a book by Pakistani Islamic militant Mawdudi, considered by some to the 'original mastermind'* of the jihadi movement and al Qaeda 40 years ago...
[*See Iranian commentator Amir Taheri, "And this is why they did it" writing in The Times, 8 July 2005
At http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html ]

Much of what the pastors said in the seminar or newsletter related to FUTURE activity - and as David Palmer so eloquently describes, we have a plethora of current activities that proves them right.

Religious vilification laws close down debate - because no one wants to be seen as 'nasty' and they certainly don't want to go to jail.
BUT the reality is that everyone still thinks what they thought before, and talks about it to friends and sympathetic colleagues - and the debate is pushed underground to fester before exploding as it did in the British race riots.

On the other hand the British authorities have been tolerant of Islamic groups that may have seemed radical and did nothing to control the growing extremism simmering under the surface.In fact by promising British Muslims a religious hatred law they offer appeasement that will only exacerbate the problems.
We need open and honest debate.
We need to get rid of the religious vilification law that restricts open discussion of religious ideas.
PS .... have you ever wondered why NO countries have 'political vilification' laws?
Jenny Stokes
Research Director
Salt Shakers www.saltshakers.org.au
For full details of the Catch the Fire case, see
http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/265

Boaz, for a moment I felt as though I might agree with your position on this, until I realised that you are exhibiting exactly the symptoms of the disease you rail against.

The law is bad, and should be repealed in its entirety. It can only inflame feelings and exacerbate divisions, it cannot resolve issues or right wrongs. That is what makes it bad law. Imagine, if you can, what would be the reaction if you were to make a formal complaint under the legislation against some public comment by a religious group you happened to disagree with (assuming of course there is one). What right would be upheld, what damage would be alleviated? None. Your sense of self-righteousness would be boosted for a while, and then you'd go on the hunt to uncover some other perceived slight on your particular brand of religious posture.

Your triumphalist "I told you so" post above illustrates this well, I think.

At least, I'm pretty sure it does, if only I could understand where it went after the "my recent mantra" comment.

To Boaz.

While depicting the murderous things the early Moslems achieved there were also the harmonious and progressive. Most cruel scenarios you write about were probably the actions of the desert Arabs who were virtually brought up in their ignorance mostly to capture maim and kill.

But remember early Islam also contained the kernel of the world's intellect in Mesopotamia and Egypt, which also contained much wisdom and understanding inherited from Alexander's ancient Greeks. In your history books, read about the Great Library of Alexandria.

I have already posted a brief history of Moslem scholars passing on Aristotelian intellect to Peter Abelard around 1000 AD, then later on to St Thomas Aquinas. In its simplicity it was called "the search for enquiry" or the "light of Reason" rather than faith. From it grew the Rennaissance, the Reformation, the ages of reason and enlightment. In fact, it has been suggested that Socratic philosophy with its wisdom and understanding could still get our world out of the mess it is now in. Socrates had a term, out with the Gods and in with Good, maybe we should all think deeply about what he meant.

George C - Bushbred

All the commentary from Muslim apologists I hear for the defence of their religion, "a religion of peace" avoids the question if asked if they know any Muslim person preaching hate or intending terrorism. Their plea of ignorance and excuse comes with, "well Christians also commit terrorist acts". As though one act of bastardery deserves another equally as vile. Is it that they actually support such acts? If such persons occupy responsible teaching positions in educational bodies or any of the Christian Churches in Australia they would be fully exposed and publicly excommunicated. Name one person, in the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church that would dare to turn a blind eye to someone planning a London type bombing? It is not happening! But it is certainly happening in the Muslim community in London.

I have attended lectures by the two Pastors and have never heard them propose acts of violence - yet Victorias Muslim Council classifies them as religious extremists. The Muslim community fail to expose talk of violence within their own community against Israel and America. They demonstrate extremist hatred against these two democratic Nations, and incite hatred. Their concept of Peace is not coexistence but the annihilation of all difference, and all subject to shari'ah law.

Until we hear them stand for principles above the pride of their religion our nation will not be secure.
1. All persons are equal apart from their religion before the State and God.
2. Democracy means assimilation and not segreation into tribal clans.

3. They begin to expose those preaching hate of any person or nation.

Generally speaking Muslim legal activists are intolerant to our way of life and personal freedoms. That is the reason they cannot tolerate Daniels' exposure that within Islam there are terrorists that are supported by the religion.

I know Christians hate the Victorian Religious vilification Law and do not want to use it because of Matthew 5:11, but while it exists the offensive language of the Qur'an itself against Christians, infidels and Jews is extremely incitful of violence and should be taken to the tribunal to have it banned from endorced public readings. The Muslim community of Britain realise the Qur'ans incitement of violence and hatred is the reason for its exemption from the British vilification law.

In line with the Judge Higgins ruling it does not have to identify any particular person if we are offended by its incitement of hatred or violence against infidels, which is evident by the actions of some of its adherents - the case is evident. The Qur'an is not a suitable text for school children because it can easily be manipulated by extremists. Because many are offended by its language it must be assigned a restricted catagory. It is not a text to be endorced by an enlightened society, even as Christians do not endorce the violent actions and laws of Moses. We can read them to discover our roots, but they are not a Christian World view.

Philo,

It could be felt some of you as regards the present global problems might be taking religous arguments too far. In fact, it could be argued that religion is being used only to further aggravate exceedingly grave political problems, which particularly in the Middle East still stem largely from both neo-colonialism and economic imperialism. As any dedicated political philosopher will agree, both Britain and America have much to be ashamed of concerning their injustices in the ME - Britain since WW1 and both Britain and the US since WW2. There have been suggestions in the "West Australian", the one prominent newspaper in our state, that of the leaders backing the war in Iraq, by their actions and their rhetoric none seem to have much of a sense of history. In a study of history in our universities, students also have to pass an elective in historical philosophy. Apparently lawyers and political wheeler-dealers do not have to study such critical courses.

By such letters to the media, maybe our public is becoming awake up, rather than being dumbed down with overdone patriotism, brought on by the fear of terrorism. The worry is that the recent tragic events in London might increase this panic, as well as increasing the hatred between the world's two most important religions.

George C - (Bushbred)

This article has very little to say about the 130-plus pages of analysis and consideration of the evidence by Justice Higgins. Its basic message is that one judge may have gotten it wrong, therefore the entire Act should be repealed.

Many judges get things wrong in decisions under the Crimes Act. Should we therefore throw Criminal Statues out of the books? Or should we get rid of the Income Tax Assessment Act because a judge makes a wrong decision on what is an allowable deduction?

Those who have studied the Act and who have seen how anti-discrimination legislation operates in practice will know that this legislation really does not do much.

As for the infantile and simplistic references to what happens in muslim community organisations, this is simply a case of centralising the trivial and trivialising the central. What really matters is that 2 fringe pastors from a fringe christian cult made highly inflammatory remakrs. One wonders what would have happened had they made the same remarks about Australian Jews.

Irfan
interesting that along with the ICV the AIJAC (Jewish lobby) was behind that legislation.

Peek at the vitriol in even the editorial section of "Islamic Sydney" from time to time you will find VERY hateful anti Jewish statements. But nothing was/is done about it...hmmmmmmm

Now.. you made reference to the 'cult' of the 2 Danny's as being 'fringe' etc, but this is a most misleading statement. While I personally take serious issue with some of the directions and claims made particulatly by Danny Naliah, they are by no means 'fringe'.

They represent a movement (of which I am not a part) which is gaining momentum by the day as evidenced by "HillSong" etc, to which prime ministers and Treasurers attend services... hardly 'fringe'. I have issues with Hillsong also, mainly the (previous) emphasis on 'prosperity gospel'.

The point you are missing in your assessment of the legislation, is that its USE was :

a) CONSPIRATORIAL with direct links to the ICV (May Hallou was employed by BOTH EOC "AND" ICV....
-spies were sent to the seminar.
-They had the outcome 'pre-decided' (they asked how Christians should treat muslims, they were told face to face "WITH LOVE" yet they went way saying "They are inciting hate"

b) SELECTIVE APPLICATION. I raised a complaint myself, which was a strong at least as the ICV complaint about a book peddled by the ABC, in which God was described as "The greatest pimp in the world" That book is "Da gospel according to Ali G" I was told by the EOC that my complaint 'had no substance'...

The point being made by the seminar on Islam was attempting to understand the 'mindset' of a fundamentalist Muslim.
Failure to distinguish between "The average Muslim" and the 'Fundamentalists' was a weakness in their presentation, agreed.

But not trying to surpess Christian free speech over. They pointed out far worse statements preached by Imams. touche :) (Judge ignored them)

Christ says "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(we're praying 4 u :)

Mohammed says "Fight the unbelievers wherever you find them"

BD,

Your way of picking two words from a comment I made then put it into another context proves the size of hate ball inside you for muslims.
It also proves to me that you are unable to sell your religious beliefs on its own: you need to 'create' an enemy in your brian to survive. Sad.

No further comments on your prejudice and paranoia.

AK

Having attended the Catch The Fire Meeting which so caught the attention of those sent there for the purpose of mischief and also a number of the sessions of the case including the final handing down of the final submission from Judge Higgins, I could be forgiven for wondering whether the three 'events' were associated.

I believe I am very fair minded, despite my strong Christian beliefs or perhaps I should say, because of my strong Christian beleifs. I find it incredulous that such a damning, one sided conclusion should have taken so long to be handed down. David Palmer is quite right and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The Steve Bracks government without question seems to have a hidden agenda to keep promoting this R & R Vil Bill against the wise judgement of other state who have rejected it completely.

Aussie

David,

The CTF event was not an introduction to others faith as they see it. The speaker context, was ‘muslims are lost in the forest and you need to find out how far arre they lost so you can ‘help’ them (ie convert them), and then went on with twisting and selective couple of words from here half a verse from there to make his cocktail for the faithful to go out there and ‘save’ muslims.
Now, when my 8 y.o. daughter ask me about Christians and I do have many friends, I explain to her that we share monotheism; belief in Jesus and also explain why they are different with no judgment from our side since only god will judge all of us for our deeds.

Now, imagine if any imam will preach that Christians are lost souls and we need to save them from their beliefs in Trinity, Jesus divinity, etc…what the world will look like?
The poisonous seed of the CTF resulted in 20,000 Christians or more are out there with a ‘clichet’ picture of any Muslims they will meet and likely to offend and question his teachings or, find out that the priests/ pastors mislead them and lose respect to the church (like what happened in Sydney last month).

Muslims understand well that for Christians to accept Islam as a religion means that it will shift the pressure of the theological dialogue on Christian beliefs on the character of Jesus in both religions (church, hierarchy, origin of sin and the Trinity).

It is difficult to ask Christians not to see us as the ‘other’, but we should find a way to respect each other beliefs. Maybe there is room for pastors and Imams to sit together and work out a plan.
AK

Ash :) there is no hate ball in me mate. There is a passion, yes.
I'll address your other comments in the other thread ('enmity') but I've 8 hrs b4 it will let me post again. I'll tackle your suggestion that I have a double standard of 'context' :) but beware, will give a very detailed account as best I can.

The CTF seminar, was not to teach people 'about Islam from the point of view that say the ICV would have us believe on their web site. It was to show the OTHER side which they DON'T speak about, but which is nevertheless very real 'Islam'.

The news today reported on the jailing for life of Sheikh Al Tamimi in the USA for the 'words' he spoke, soliciting young men to fight for the Taliban. The interesting part of this story to me is that he was reported as saying

"I do not recognize secular authority and will not seek the mercy of the court".

Which rather fits like a glove with "The world and all in it belongs to Allah and his MESSENGER"

But anyway, Ash, I'm busy putting up a ceiling and some walls now, catch you on the other thread :)
Have a nice day and weekend.

I wonder, will some Muslims try to use the vilification act to silence other Muslims? Many Muslims would like to silence the following group http://secularislam.org/

If Muslims really want religious vilification why do they not lobby for it in Islamic countries? It seems to me that there are two faces to Islam. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm

In many Muslim countries non-Muslims do not have freedom of speech, they have to pay more tax, have less rights in a court of law etc. I have an Egyptian friend who is not a Muslim. I asked her what is it like living in a Muslim country as a non-Muslim? She said "we are supposed to have equality but we know that we will never be able to hold many of the jobs Muslims can hold". I said to her, "Do moderate Muslims ever speak up for you?” She said, "yes, but they are killed by the extremists".

A religious vilification law suits those who would like to silence others.

I do hope that a time will come where there is freedom of religion in Islamic countries and letters like the following do not have to be written. http://www.answering-islam.org/openletter_df.html

For those who like to research an issue before they comment on it I recommend the following.

1. Read the Quran (The Muslim Students Association (MSA) of the University of Southern California have been kind enough to put it on-line http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ and while you are there take a look at Sura 5:33, 4:95 and 2:216)

2. Take a look at the Hadith (Islamic traditions), The MSA have been kind enough to put this on-line also http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ here’s an index if you have trouble www.answering-islam.org/Silas/indexintro.htm you might want to start with the following Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

3. Read one of the early biographies about Mohammed (modern biographies cater to western sensibilities, the early biographies are not concerned with how they make infidels feel)

4. Read the letters Mohammed wrote (here is one of them www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/oman.htm )

as usual, no one is addressing the real legal and policy issues behind the legislation. instead, we are getting into a slanging match about how nasty islam is and how all muslims are conspiring with all jews (at least they can agree on one thing!) to destroy christian free speech.

can someone please advise me in what way the wording of the legislation is in any way more onerous than tests applied in current defamation laws and anti-discrimination legislation? and when will opponents of the Act realise that their arguments could be used to repeal any legislation?

has anyone here actually bothered to study and understand the common law system and how judge-made law is developed? or is it just a heathen foreigner like me the only one who can understand and articulate australian law?

Martin Luther King said an unjust law is no law at all. He said we must be willing to disobey unjust laws, but if we do we must be prepared to receive the punishment which comes with breaking that law. By doing that it ought to prick peoples consciences which hopefully brings about reform. Daniel is a hero.

I have attended one of Daniels seminars before Sept 11. He told us to love Muslims. He has had many Muslims over to his house for dinner. Daniel referred to some verses which extremists use which they claim Allah commands. See Surah 5:33, 4:95, 9:5, 2:216 in the Muslim Students Associations of the University of Southern Californias website http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Referring to these verses gives me a sour taste in my mouth. I wish they weren't there. I wish Mohammed never wrote some of the things he wrote, I wish he never said or did some of the things he did. But as an adult I have to face the truth no matter how uncomfortable it may make me feel.

These laws are a result of how immature our society has become.

The terrorists do what they do because they believe that is what Allah commands. That might offend some people but that is what they believe. They arrive at that conclusion by studying the Quran, Hadith, Mohammed’s letters and the early biographies about him. (Isn't it odd that where they are most familiar with the Quran that they have the most trouble with Islamic terrorism?)

Dispite all that Daniel points to he says we should love Muslims anyway.

As a Christian I support the atheists right to criticize what I believe no matter how offensive and I should also have the right to criticize what he believes. We are grown ups right? We can take it.

For those who think all the prophets are the same. Take a look at this. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Roark/prophets.htm

The following may also prove helpful.

Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality by Pervez A. Hoodbhoy (Written by a Muslim professor and scientist)

Dear Irfan

I appreciate all of the articles that you write on this Forum.

I guess you must be feeling very sad - sad that so many posters seem filled with hatred and anger against Islam/Muslim - and sad that your articles seem to bring out so much Islam/Muslim stereotyping.

I was reared with Christian values - one of which is to respect the views of other people - even if I do not agree with their stand. As a Protestant I was not reared to hate people of Roman Catholic faith - on the contrary - I was reared to respect that they had a different way of believing.

It's really interesting that Islam is about Peace - yet so many posters to your articles seem to want to defame others - especially the so-called Christian posters. In the main, their posts are not peaceful.

Anyone who is a decent and fair minded Aussie must know that terrorism is not about Muslim faith.

It's easy to tell people who are angry. Their use of upper case if over the top and smells of aggression.

Cheer up - there are some of us who have an open mind with regard to other peoples' religions and cultures.

Hi Irfan, good comment – here goes:

1. Firstly, race and religious belief are not equivalent. Religious beliefs can be changed, adopted or given up – race cannot be. Accordingly, there is a qualitative difference between criticising a person’s religious beliefs and criticising their race. The first might be fair comment – the latter will never be.

2. There is no distinction in principle between religious beliefs and other beliefs a person might have (most notably, political beliefs – which are afforded some protection).

3. Laws already exist to:

(1)make inciting or threatening violence a crime (or acting in conspiracy etc); and

(2)allow a defamed person to take civil action to seek redress for defamatory comments, subject to the available defences (eg truth).

Anti-discrimination laws don’t quite apply in the way you seem to suggest. Broadly, they prohibit discrimination on the basis of particular traits, not the criticism of people on the grounds of particular traits. In any case, most anti-discrimination legislation contains exceptions for discrimination on religious grounds in specific cases (eg religious schools, organisations etc).

4. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 goes well beyond the pre-existing criminal laws and law of defamation in the following important respects: A person’s motive (or intent) is not taken into consideration.(s9); the onus of proof is reversed in important aspects; the Act goes beyond prohibiting inciting violence and extends to conduct which “incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of” a person or class of persons; and unlike defamation law, truth is not a defence to vilification.

5. I think it is a fair assessment that, rather than help dampen religious extremism (in whatever form), the Act provides a statutory framework to protect extreme religious beliefs from criticism (since more extreme beliefs are more likely to be subject to adverse comment and scrutiny).

6. Finally, in practice, the Act has not helped build religious tolerance, but has instead provided a very public forum for religious disputes to be fought out and tensions raised.

I hope this helps (tried to write more, but ran out of words!).

I agree with Kalweb's comment re Irfan's posts especially the one immediately after the London bombing. It was excellent.

However, Kalweb is talking utter nonsense when he says "Islam is about Peace". No question there are peaceable Muslims like Irfan, but where has Kalweb been this past week. Those men who killed 55+ civilians in London were not on about peace. They killed in the name of their religion, Islam.

More power to the Irfan's of this world, and no doubt he has coped a fair bit of abuse from fellow Muslims for his efforts.

Islam is at the crossroads in the West. Too many more bombings like London, whose to say how Europeans will react? Opinion has has certainly turned against Muslims in the Netherlands, that most tolerant and welcoming of nations. Will there be sufficient Irfans in the Muslim world to turn the tide within the Islamic community against the Islamiscist terrorists because if there is not, it won't be long before people in the West start to identify Islam as the problem, and not the Islamicists or fundementalists or whatever they wish to be called

Kalweb,most terrorists are Muslim.They are generally well educated and reasonably affluent.Many of your Immans are directing such hatred towards the West as a result of their interpretation of the Koran.

Islam seems to be the religion of confusion in which many violent people take refuge in.The west has invited you into their bosom only to be hated and bombed.You received no such invitations from Japan,China,Spain,India,Brazil to name a few.

Islam needs a single credible authority that clearly enunciates your intentions,beliefs and good will or continue to suffer ridicule and condemnation.

The Brits did not buckle and cower like the Spanish,they suffered the onslaught of the Nazis with constant bombing with stoic resistance .If this continues ,it will become all out civil war.

So get your act together.Condemn the Terrorists and don't try to confuse us with double speak.It only make us more suspicious.

David and Arjay

Have you ever heard of the old Aussie catch phrase - "My name is Billy - Not Silly"!!

I am female and I am not stupid as David suggests. Using such words as "nonsense" related to my posting clearly demonstrates my assertion about posters who attack the person - rather than debate an issue.

Of course I feel sick about the events [the f*ing bombers] of the past week in London. And of course I realise that those bastard terrorists are murderers of the worst kind. I have cried myself to sleep most nights.

To Fellow Human,

Go for it. mate, you don't sound like the usual Christian, but I reckon you'd make a good umpire, because you seem to be all about fair play. You also sound like you've read quite a bit, probably also read the Sermon on the Mount which in one part says love your enemy, which in Greek really means understand your enemy in a more compassionate way. So don't change, Fellow Human, you seem to be on the right philosophical track.

Best Regards,

George C - Bushbred

This is a time for the Muslim community to look at their children and ask what they want for them. They must look within their own communities and leadership and take control.

The Australian public and the world is consistantly told that the Muslim faith is a peaceful religion. And so far proof internationally you have an identity crisis.

We have young Muslims insisting that religious information is consistantly drummed into their head and this has an effect on them. This is also the case in countries like Pakistan.

The Christian faith has been consistantly revised with the generations to keep up with todays technology. It would be very hard to operate within a religion that has not.

I also suggest that Australian Muslim soldiers are trained and sent to Afghanistan and other areas fighting for their freedoms that we have refuged Cultures because of.

These countries so desperately need their countrymen back even if for the use of skills and patriotism to their first homes. This would be their parents gift and a gift to honour their parents passion of their land and religion.

My apologies Kalweb, I should have restrained myself. However I react strongly (as others on the other side of the debate do) when I see people fudging the issue.

I notice in your response that you fail to acknowledge that the terrorists in London (or New York, or one day, God forbid, Melbourne or Sydney) did their bloody deeds in the name of their religion Islam, and further we can say with a high degree of probability that in many parts of the world including Australia there were many, many Muslims who applauded their deeds. Failure to acknowledge what is the driving force behind the bombers both dishonours them and seems somewhat duplicitous. As Samuel Huntington once said (quoting from memory) "Islam has bloody borders and bloody entails". And as the main article says, that is a worry to all peace loving Austraslians.

Again Kalweb, I apologise for the "he" and not a "she" - I don't recognise Kalweb as a name - never come across it before, but then there are a lot of people on this thread using a nom de plume, in many cases disguising their gender. David is my first name and I am a "he".

Dear Kalweb,
its clear you have a peaceful and loving heart. I plead with you, not to let this cloud your mind to the fundamental core issue and reality and the 55 prophets (the London dead) who all testify to 'something' about Islam (not Muslims in general... do you understand what I'm saying here ? ) No one as far as I have seen, is condemning ALL Muslims, specially not Irfan or Fellow Human.

Now, if Islam is peaceful (and in some references of Quran and Hadith it is) ask yourself this, 'what' is turning these well educated, evena special needs teacher) Muslims into Bombs ?

Some have suggested 'cult psychology', I suggest that this is part of it, but doesn't go far enough.

When we ask "what caused Corrie Ten Boon, to confront a former SS officer (later in life) who had been in charge of her own concentration camp where she was treated with unspeakable misery and cruelty and to say "I forgive you"... you can go immediately to Christs words "Love your enemies" etc. its clear, and its based on Christ himself.

Now, I seriously doubt that our Lord would have us deny or shrink from treating any other faith with similar scrutiny.

In this case, we are trying to point out the 'core' reasons for the "only" religous faith I know of from which some adherants are carrying on acts of terror directly in the name of its own faith.

Kalweb, please look at this carefully. In my posts, I've been showing factual, verifiable core issues. I have not said in even one post that people should despise or hate "muslims" I don't suggest that.

When a doctor says "This is going to hurt you, but not harm you" he is giving you treatment that while painful is for your well being.

Just as one cannot justify National Socialism's doctrines of Jews being sub human, inspite of the nice things Adolph said, and did, one cannot separate the prophet of Islam from his own deeds which interpret the Quran.

Please see my 'nutbags' post.

BBBrad, BD

“Terrorist does what they do because they study Koran, hadith”
You are half correct. They do what they do because they fail to understand Islam and have someone who is misleading them for a terror agenda. Let me give you an example from your writing: 2:216. It actually is the end of the part that starts with 2:190 “fight those who fight you but do not transgress for Allah loveth not transgressors” (ie only defend yourselves, soldier vs soldier and not initiate/ preempt). Furthermore, the Koran is very clear on civilians ‘who who kills an innocent soul will be treated as if he killed mankind”.
Terrorist use ‘half interpretations’ to brainwash the victims who destroy their lives and thousands others. Terrorism targets Muslims and non Muslims, just look at what is happening in Iraq on a daily basis including blowing up mosques. All they want is global chaos.

I believe Imams can do a lot more on youth education and should seek wider support from the community. As for ‘why Mohamed wrote what he wrote’, we don’t believe he had the authoring choice! :):)

Philo,

Muslim community is not ‘la resistance francaise’. The Melbourne arrests were from tips from the Muslim community because last thing we want is terror in our name.

GBushbred,

Islam and Muslims can easily adopt democracy and liberal values and here is a view:

- There is a concept in Islam called the ‘shurah’ council (quiet similar to today’s senate on how it works).
- There is an advice by the prophet: “is not a believer he who rules his people and knows there is a fitter leader out there than him”.
Sounds like a good first step to preach democracy to Muslim societies. Why it is not happening? Dictators perhaps?

Kalweb,

Between www.answering-islam.org and www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com you should be able to get a balanced views on what Islam is.

AK

Actually I feel that you have all proved each others points. The one thing that stands out is that the divide within religion is still as wide as it ever was. Muslims blaming christians, Christians blaming muslims. Each one giving their own definition of history. Sad thing is, the facts are that all religion is violent and has been throughout history. The confused philo defies us to provide the name of anyone from the catholic or protestant church that has known of, or supported terrorist acts. Just one word philo, Ireland, on both sides. How many dozens of clerics do you want, Paisley is a good start. The problem with religion, is that it is so negative towards anyone that doesn't fall under its spell. As to the Victorian act, well that is just a sign of another religion, called politics, trying to assert its suppresive authority via the back door. I see from both sides, a total lack of tolerance and understanding of what the real world is about. It is absolutely clear that religion, all religion is at the root of the evil in the world. If you removed religion from the world, there would be little left to fight about. The religious are so lacking in mental security, that they have to try and convert everyone via what ever means they can. Fanatical Evangilism is the catch word of all religions, because their cause is so insecure, they can't get people to beleive in them other than to threaten, demonise, conquer or destroy. All religios scripture is filled with violence towards non beleivers. That is borne out when you look at where the world is today and where it has been over history. History is filled to the brim with the wholesals massacre of peoples the world over in the name of some god, all relgions.

Boaz,

You mentioned VERY hateful things are said by muslims against jews. Here are some quotes from the Jewish Talmud:

Moed Kattan 17a : If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Non-Jews are Not Human. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men"). Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").

Sanhedrin 58b: Jews are Divine. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, THE GENTILE MUST BE KILLED. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

Sanhedrin 57a: O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews. A Jew need not pay a Christian ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Baba Kamma 37b: Jews Have Superior Legal Status. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Baba Mezia 24a: Jews May Steal from Non-Jews. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a: God will not spare a Jew who "returns a lost article
to a Cuthean..."

Sanhedrin 57a: JEWS MAY ROB AND KILL NON-JEWS. When a Jew murders a Christian ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b: Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Baba Kamma 113a: Jews May Lie to Non-Jews . JEWS MAY USE LIES ("subterfuges") TO CIRCUMVENT A GENTILE.

Yebamoth 98a: Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b: Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b: Gentiles prefer sex with cows

Muslims shouldn't be singled out for religious intolerance.

Josh.
thank you for that rather comprehensive post.

Actually, I don't recall ANY of my posts suggesting "Muslims say bad things about Jews"... (I referred the readers to one web site, where you may have found a diatribe of Quranic and Hadith quotes against Jews by a Muslim) but I haven't to my knowledge done what you say of me .. have I ? (show please)

Now. your posts :) I smile a bit because I was also sucked in at one stage by the same propoganda, until I did my homework and CHECKED THE SOURCES :)... now, I suggest you do some homework, and you will probably end up rather red faced as you discover as I did, that a considerable degree of what you posted is in fact derived from Nazi and Communist sources. Further, you will find that some of the references simply don't exist, also, that many of them are either misquioted or taken wildly out of context, stopping at critical points to convey a different message.

In truth, you need to goto the actual documents cited, not the 'hate site' from which you appear to have gleaned them. In fact, a lot of that was quoted by a Catholic Bishop on National US TV some time back and it caused quite a stir.

My contention all along has been that the Islamist bombings are fuelled by specific aspects of Quranic teaching, and Hadith tradition and Historical narratives. Until they condemn the actions of their own prophet for these things, they won't go away.

P.S. I would not disagree that many hateful things have been said and done by ALL faiths over the centuries, including Christianity.
My other contention is that we should evaluate all such behavior in the light of the 'foundation' i.e. Scripture, specially for Christians, the life and teaching of Christ.

Saltshakers did a good report on the "Jewish hate" stuff u refer to, with original source material

I appreciate your posts, and they contribute to all of us going closer to truth. Bless u :)

Can we assume “The alchemist” is including herself in the statement, "It is absolutely clear that religion, all religion is at the root of the evil in the world. If you removed religion from the world, there would be little left to fight about".

Does she imagine she has no worldview to introduce to the whole of society? A religion is a worldview or philosophy about how society should function. By confronting people of faith with an atheistic world view has done as much damage to the world as any other religion in the last 100 years. To hold no view of where we came from why we are here or where are we going leaves us a lawless zombies. Even atheists have such a worldview they are passionate about; note the vilification they post when the subject of Creation is introduced - witness their antagonistic passion aroused.

To secularise a society does not mean to remove religion, it does mean to hold all men equal before the Law and Government. Thank to BBBrad the sites he suggested give real hope of changes to be made within Islamic society. http://secularislam.org/ .

Westminster Christianity secularised the Governments and Courts several centuries ago, and removed the courts from ruling upon matters of doctrine and conscience. The Bracks Government has endeavoured to reintroduce the State secular Courts to make rulings upon matters of theological opinion and what someone might consider blasphemy. Christians have most to loose under this system because they are taught not to take matters of offence to Courts but rather to endure. However Christians have always been outspoken about persecution and have lobbied Governments to intervene. The sanctioned persecution against religion in the USSR and China is a prime example. When Governments wish to violate personal conscience and deny personal belief with sanctioned violence against individuals is the problem. The problem is a matter of power in the hands of Government to rule over people with a particular idiology rather than to humbly serve the people. Democracy is rule by the people, not dictatorship by administrators of a single idiology.

It is easy to lose sight of the real issues where religion is involved. Alex Milner tried to bring this thread back to reality with an excellent summary of why this legislation was not needed, and how it can, and will, be misused. Unfortunately, once there is a whiff of "my religion beats yours" in the air (thank you Boaz, yet again) common sense takes a back seat.

I lived for a while in London at the height of the IRA bombings, back in the seventies. While it would have been easy to use these attacks as justification for vilifying Catholics, in whose name these acts were apparently carried out, the vast majority of folk - even those mangled or bereaved by the atrocities - saw terrorism, rather than religious hate.

Over the years, those who blindly supported the IRA with arms and finance - notably "liberal" Americans - came to realise that no cause, ever, justifies terrorist acts. The contributions dried up, and there is now at least a glimmer of hope that the individuals who still hold a lethal grudge against their fellow man will come to their senses. All this was achieved without the introduction of laws that restricted free speech.

The mistake that was made, and will take decades to unmake, was when the US embarked upon its "war on terror". It was this initiative that guided the entire enterprise into a fundamentalist Christian vs fundamentalist Muslim exercise, ignoring totally the very extremist nature of terrorism iteslf.

As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window. Which is why, amongst all the puffing and blowing, only a tiny minority of posts has actually addressed the issue of the legislation itself.

We have to stop tip toeing around the reality here.We are dealing with a substancial number of Muslim fanatics who want to impose their version of Islam on the rest of the world.

Too many moderate Muslims are in denial.Many are already trying to cast doubt,alluding to CIA plots etc.

The object of these Muslim fanatics is to make us attack the moderates as well as the fanatics so they will radicalise the moderates.They also want to subjudate the moderates and stop them from destroying the power base of the fanatics.

What we must do ,is not respond with violence.To violate Mosques is playing right into their hands.

We must however insist that the moderates take a stronger stand in stamping out this vile poison.Our community will give you all the support you need, but Muslims need to be more pro-active in in silencing the fanatics.

This will take years to change.Has the Australian Govt and the Muslim community worked out long term plans to counter the fanatics.

Being alert and not alarmed is not enough.We need all Australians to understand the problems warts and all and act on the solutions since if it is left to fester under clouds of political correctness and bureaucratic fear of being called racist or religionist,we will all suffer horrible consequences.

On George Bush Jnr and Osama Bin Laden:

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler
whom they consider to be God-fearing and pious."
-- Aristotle, 343 B.C.

On the ultimate terrorist:

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

On religion in general:

"Man is the only animal that has the true religion--several of them."

Mark Twain

Pericles,
I am assuming that you want us all to bow to your personal religious understanding of the world by your statement; "As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window". By this statement you have denied yourself any right to hold a worldview. Religion is another word for worldview. It is just that some worldviews have a consciousness of the divine presence. Atheism has been equally as irrational in human relationships in society. Evaluate China's human rights record, no god influences their laws or behaviour. Are you saying countries like China is a prime example of social administration without God?

In Britain as in Aussieland;

“New effort to ban religious hate

Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal have been unveiled by the government.
The new offence gives equal protection to all faiths. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by race hate laws.
Critics say the reintroduced plans - which cover words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm

The problem is that many people are (unsurprisingly) offended at seeing their beliefs ripped to shreds, and perhaps this law will give such people the impression that the government will support them.
If it really is just a case of "protecting the believer, not the belief" it is all rather pointless. Inciting hatred for any reason is covered by existing laws - why make religion a special case?

Philo, why do you try to belittle women, you know I am not one. You state, “Does she imagine she has no worldview to introduce to the whole of society? A religion is a worldview or philosophy about how society should function. By confronting people of faith with an atheistic world view has done as much damage to the world as any other religion in the last 100 years. To hold no view of where we came from why we are here or where are we going leaves us a lawless zombies. Even atheists have such a worldview they are passionate about; note the vilification they post when the subject of Creation is introduced witness their antagonistic passion aroused.”
The world is filled with religious zombies. Provide evidence of the world view that atheists are providing to the world and the damage it is doing. My world view, is based on the reality of the universe, not, a past its use by date fantasy. My view is logical, to why, how and where to. This Victorian law is another attempt to politically correct us all. Religion should be restricted mostly to the places of worship and the home in this country. A true secular state would stop the religious and any other groups from forcing their beliefs and standards onto us. Multi culturalism is a failure and these laws are just an attempt to stifle those that want freedom, over religious control. In Britain, they have a situation where they are in the control of conflicting religions and there are no borders or front line. You have the right wing christian politicians and the ethnic multicultural Muslims, they both think they are right so there will be no solution. Laws like these, encourage conflict. There is little free speech in this country, we will soon see less and less until we won't even be able to have these discussions. Remember, in Australia, we have no rights what so ever, except what the ruling elite allow at certain times, then they take them back, when it suits.

Dear David and BOAZ David

Thank you for your posts. On reflection, I can see how my posts must have frustrated both of you. I have been akin to an oscilating fan with my views - well, that's I must have presented.

Both of you have given me a great deal to think about over the past 24 hours - and I thank you for that.

Let me make my position clear. I am Christian born and bred - and I am usually moderate in my views. I try and give other belief systems as much as I possibly can in my fair dinkum way. I hold Christian values and I try and live by same.

I have been "soft" in my postings re Islam because I am scared. I am scared for my young family (my nieces). They are only 12 and 13 years of age. They have already said that they are scared about watching TV and listening to radio because of Islam, Muslims, and terrorism. It is not fair that they should be frightened.

I have now had a gutful of being fair! Where are the moderate Muslim people? What are they doing? Why should we send SAS back to Iraq? I want our troops here to care for us.

What about sending radical Muslim people back to wherever - to fight their own stuff?

I know that I have not presented an argument. I know this post is emotive.

Kay

Our forum arguments are becoming more and interesting, as well as intelligent enough to be progressive. But what worries us older folk so much, is that comparatively recently we've just had two wars to end wars, but things are getting more dangerous than ever. Maybe we would all pull together if we had a common enemy like an invasion from outer space.

It is so interesting that many of the nasty little wars we have had since WW2 as in Bosnia have broken out between Moslems and Christians who were held in check by a man like Marshal Tito. Was that because a more benevolent style of Marxism was keeping them more content rather than the rape and slaughter than has happened since?

However, none of us want to see a return to Communism, even though the effects of social secularism, with an armoured truck on every street corner might enforce the peace.

The worry is, that the way the world is now, either our two main religions solve their problems harmoniously, it won't be the war to end wars, but sadly the war to end everything on this planet.

Still living in hope,

regards, Bushbred

Thank you for your post Kay, there is so little grace on these forums, and it has been good to dialogue with you and others.

I think for all of us, especially those of us who are not Muslims, we are struggling to come to grips with a culture that does not seem willing, or indeed able, to blend with the dominant culture with its Christian and subsequent enlightenment heritage.

I am truly concerned that unless so called moderate Muslims (ie those who interpret the Qur'an and ahadith in a benign way) can exert influence in calming the extremists in our midst and their sympathisers, who are in great numbers than most of our politicians and newspaper editors care to admit, we are heading for civilisational catastrophe for it is not impossible for far greater damage to be done with these suicide bombings and I don’t need to spell it out.

Personally, we should have left the Middle East well alone: quite apart from the increase in suicide bombings in the West, the outcome for Christians living for the past 2 millennia in the Middle East long before the Muslims arrived in the 8th century AD has been deplorable(and there have been millions of Christians living there under conditions of dhimmitude). The problem has been oil and the presence of Israel restored to at least some of her ancient lands. What is answer to these two issues, none of us truly knows – do we

I want to out myself: "David" is David Palmer the author of the article to which these comments are attached. I think nom de plumes encourage people to say hurtful things which as "David" I too have been guilty of. I apologise, but promise to defend Christian values and understanding with full vigour and integrity as time and ability permit.

I bid you adieu for at least 24 hrs as I have now used up my alloted 2 posts for the day!

Dear Kay
I noted with strong interest your clarification of your position.
Thanx for that. You were indeed a model of moderacy :)
Forgive me if I sound patronizing here, (specially as your my 'elder' by one whole year :)... but it seems that you are at a kind of crossroads, as you pointed out, your post was more emotional than argument. Don't worry, we all need to vent our spleens at times :)

The important thing, is for all of us to chanel our passion and our faith in the right direction as Christians, which means simply putting our lives and futures in the hands of Christ. Building a relationship with our heavenly father, as described by Paul

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth all knowledge, that ye might be filled will all the fullness of God (Eph 3:17 and following)

Knowing Gods love as our daily experience, does not mean we recoil from "speaking the truth in love". Though at times we also have to speak with condemnation, as Jesus did of the Pharisees, Lawyers and Scribes (Luke 11:37 ff) But even then, it is the scalpal of healing, not the knife of malice.

As you experience of His peace deepens, this will be conveyed to your nieces.

We have peace, thru Christ, and can rejoice in the glorious liberty of life in all its abundance' as we are set free from the 'flesh' and all its trappings.

I hope you will dig deep into scripture, and be overwhelmed with regular encounters with 'Him' thru prayer, opening your heart to His Spirit, who will guide you in all things :)

"Sing and be glad, all ye children of the West,
for your King shall come again,
and he shall dwell among you
all the days of your life.

And the Tree that was withered shall be renewed,
and he shall plant it in the high places,
and the City shall be blessed."

Garra,
is it me or do some people not get the irony of your posts? Funny how 'faith' blinds some... well, not funny at all really - the trouble faith causes...

The alchemist,
"Provide evidence of the world view that atheists are providing to the world and the damage it is doing."

1 word. Communism. atheistic worldview number 1. Responsible for more deaths in 100 years that any religion in the history of mankind.

I could go on. The sexual revolution, driven by secular humanist (the other main atheistic worldview) and communist thought, has been responsible for the spread of AIDS. The increase in child abuse, rape, suicide and crime that have accompanied the secularising of western society is also fairly evident.

Don't try and get on your high horse. History shows how clearly how wrong you are.

"My world view, is based on the reality of the universe, not, a past its use by date fantasy. My view is logical, to why, how and where to."

Your worldview is only logical if you have not studied it. Bold pronouncements do little to change this.

David,

I noticed there is so many postings when you suddenly refer to Israel is usually within the bliblical context or 'restoring some of their land'. does this mean you guys don't believe or accept the international laws that considers beyond 1967 borders as under occupation?

The question is to BD, David Palmer and possibly Philo? Do you accept Intl law that these lands are 'occupied territories'?

AK

Grey,
before blaming a differing philosophical world-view (which is all the alchemist proposes), perhaps you should look to the Catholic church for the assistance AIDS and child abuse have received...

NO ONE IS INNOCENT
"God save politicians God save our friends who care
God save bin Laden and god save Tony Blair
God save all us sinners God save your blackest sheep
God save the good samaritan and god save the worthless creep"

Changed a word or two but I'm not asking for forgiveness

Philo, you couldn't be more wrong.

>>I am assuming that you want us all to bow to your personal religious understanding of the world by your statement; "As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window".<<

I have not the slightest interest in anyone bowing to my personal understanding of anything. I was simply pointing out that the original piece was about vilification legislation, while the bulk of the discussion has been religious finger-pointing. And also suggesting that this is not an abnormal occurrence here... there seem to be a heap of itchy trigger-fingers, poised to promote their particular religious slant. As for asking people to bow - not my style, pal. Could be a simple case of transference though.

>>By this statement you have denied yourself any right to hold a worldview. Religion is another word for worldview<<

This concept just blows me away - I am not permitted to have a "worldview", because this is by definition "religion"? But if I can't have a "worldview", will you permit me to hold an opinion, or am I forbidden to do that too? Funny set of rules you have.

>>Are you saying countries like China is a prime example of social administration without God?<<

Now what on earth gave rise to this little outburst? I haven't made any such observation, nor anything remotely connected to it.

I suggest you may have spent too long under that tin-foil hat.

Thanks Dan - I guess it's my strategy of pointing out the silliness of some of some of the entrenched faith-based ideologies that are expressed here. Personally, I think that the legislation is unnecessary and divisive, but it seems that the "crusaders" in our midst see it as a rallying point from which to throw rocks at Muslims. Just as well there's reasonable Christians like you around, otherwise from the perspective of this old agnostic it would seem that, based on the extremist postings of some, Christianity has the aggro intolerance market well and truly cornered.

And - I think that the most voluble of the godbotherers don't "get" my quotes at all... or if they do they obviously don't have senses of humour (Philo excepted - he busted me a couple of weeks back when I was quoting 'The Silmarillion' at Bozo-Davo).

Have a great day :)

Bozo.... my 'ad hominem detector' is bouncing off 'full scale deflection Garra :)

Don't worry, I "get" you posts, I just regret that you don't spend you available post opportunities for more analytical scrunity of my and others position.

Remember, not ALLLLLL of our posts are specifically directed at 'you' :) Sorry to shatter your world view there of which you appear to be at the centre of...

As I've said, correct me on matters of fact or flawed reasoning, not attack my integrity or ethics or 'mental balance' ("Bozo")

You may not agree with our position as Christians, and we understand that, and your welcome to attack/analyze it, as we/I have been persuing the root core of ISLAM, and amazingly, how it relates to this topic.

Some facts:

1/ Examples can be cited of 'firebrand' Islamists who have re-crucified Christ and every Christian umpteen times over in their public sermons/talks/tapes. (in Australia)

2/ No Christian group took them to task, or sought to SILENCE them.

3/ 2 pastors who speak from both experience and knowledge, using the foundation documents of Islam, run a seminar which does what I have been doing here, exposing the violent unberbelly of Islam

4/ They are taken to court BY THE ICV in line with Islamic teaching "No one may insult the prophet" (even by telling the truth about him) i.e. Sharia by stealth, using our legal system against Christian free speech.

Now if you want to detract from, rather than contribute to the debate, its your choice. I just share that sometimes your posts look just a tiny bit biased, and even infantile. (as mine are described by various contributors :)

The real debate comes to down to what is the 'true' teaching of Islam. Is there a 'moderate' and 'mainstream' version of Islam that is different to the teachings of the Qur'an itself and the established schools of shari'a law on matters of having one's hand cut off for stealing (Sura 5, v 38) or jihad against the infidel or unbeliever (Sura 9, v 5 - slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive))?
It is time for Muslim leaders to address the actual teaching of their Qur'an - and where necessary, refute its writings when they are used to justify violence.
The Islamic Council of Victoria, which complained about Daniel Scot speaking about such matters, has as the first point in its list of Aims and Objectives, this statement...
"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."
Surely one is entitled to ask how they interpret the practices and teachings of Mohammed and Islam.
Jenny Stokes
Research Director, Salt Shakers

Garra,
Cheers. I noticed the previous references. Some beautiful poetry in them. A pity that can’t be said for some ‘other’ texts we won’t speak of.

BD,
You just don’t get it, do you? It is not a matter of ‘debating’, ‘discussing’ or ‘analysing’. Your brand of ‘analysis’ has no bearing in objectivity. Your own continuous reference to various benefits of Christianity vs the ‘misguided’ or ‘violence’ of Islam reveals this. You have no objectivity. An atheist would have more credibility discussing this matter than you.

You would be better off leaving religious references out of any discussion. I do recall you admitting to involving your religion in just about all you do and say (that’s paraphrased so no need to nitpick) but you can’t get that people can have morals and values without any kind of religious belief (lets leave Philo’s misguided definition out of this). Objectivity means leaving your faith at the door and looking at something without prejudice – which is what your religious faith lends you. Like it or not.

To call the values we all espouse as Christian means no other belief can claim them as their own. And I would shudder to think what this world would be like if it were all Christian. Talk about totalitarian states!

Jenny,

Islamic teachings are two parts: spiritual and social. The first part is the usual: monotheism, believe in messengers, fast, pay the alms, pray, be good, etc.

The social defines Muslims society (behaviour in relation to each other and people of other faith etc)
The surahs you refer makes perfect sense to Muslims when explained within their context. 9:5, 2:216 and others always comes within a context in clear self defence. This concept have clear constraints (2:190) within the same verse or that follows that Muslims should:
- Do not transgress (ie stop defending when the aggressor stops)
- Defend against soldier ‘fight those who fight you’
- Do not attack/harm innocent souls.

The similar applies to Hadith for instance: real narrated Hadith by Mohamed PUB are only seven! (Including one about Jesus) there are few thousands hadiths on the internet regardless of their sources. Most Muslims like myself when we see a hadith that contradicts the teachings of the Koran we just bypass it as Mohamed (PUH) was clear we only follow the Koran (for us is the word of God to Mohamed).

I never had a problem with a moderate or even a religious Muslim as the deeper they understand the meaning of Islam the kinder they are. The problem usually lies in those who have very little understanding and get manipulated by the ideologies of political/ militant Islam (Lookup founders like Sayed Kotb, Wahabies, etc..)

Yet the line between an orthodox Muslim and a terrorist is almost impossible for a Muslims to cross unless they are emotionally vulnerable and combined with criminal intent. So many Muslims (and non Muslims) are frustrated with the Palestinians situation or civilian death in Iraq; but only a seriously disturbed person can think of ‘two wrongs make a right’ by blowing up more civilians.

Food for thoughts,

As for BD,
I looked you up on google and almost fainted: You are a member of every Muslims baching website!
Please look up the word 'passion', it is about loving. Loving to destroy something is usually called an obsession.
AK

Garra, I don't think they get any quotes, not even the ones they give from their scriptures. Grey, are you for real, “The sexual revolution, driven by secular humanist (the other main atheistic (worldview) and communist thought, has been responsible for the spread of AIDS. The increase in child abuse, rape, suicide and crime that have accompanied the secularising of western society is also fairly evident.” The sexual revolution started in christian countries, those countries are still christian. Child abuse, there is no better example of child abuse than the christian church. Most people who commit suicide are religiously orientated. Virtually all people in jail for murder within the western world associate themselves with a religion. Secularising of western countries, gave us the freedom to be what we wanted in life, and to have choice. What that did was allow people to explore their beleifs and determine where they stood, in the scheme of things. People fought many devastating wars in the last century to gain our right to be responsible individuals who could expand their knowledge and understanding. The laws that they are introducing are religiously orientated and will put us back under religious control. Religion can only work when it totally suppresses any other ideals, so it will continue to fail. The debate should not be about whether islam or christianity is right, what it should be about, is how we get rid of them both and attain peace in the world for a while. Wow, you religious people sure lose the plot quickly. Both Islam and Christianity preach the total overthrow of any that do not adhere to their dictates, anything else is just window dressing to look like they have a heart. Reality shows us that they are false.

Alchemist, Yes I am for real. This is because I have actually studied history. Although it doesn't take much to show how your own words refute you. When you talk of the sexual revolution starting in christian countries and then talk of how in these countries people were secularised to give them the freedom etc you shoot yourself in the foot. Obviously in these countries, free people used their own free ideas to influence the free country. Guess what...the secular humanists have had a long campaign, including the sexual revolution. Do you have any doubts about the religious beliefs of Freud, Kinsey, Marcuse, Huxley, Freidan, Dewey etc etc etc? Learn something about history before you spout such unplaced amazement.

Clearly you are happy enough to ascribe countries as 'christian' when it suits your purpose and secularized when it doesn't. If this is the sort of 'objectivity' that people like 'JustDan' seem to think springs from atheism, then I am not impressed.

As to child abuse, the church has no higher rate than the rest of society. But this abuse has dramatically increased since the secular humanist founded ACLU got abortion legalised. You are just another in the long line of a loud minority trying to impose your views on the rest of it.

And lets face it Alchemist, you asked for evidence of the poison of atheism, and you have it. Go peddle your lack of accuracy someplace else.

Grey,
You haven’t supported any of your claims with any kind of logical argument. ‘Secularism creates the bad things’ is all you seem to be saying. And can you explain why? Can you give examples based on factual information? Simply saying something doesn’t make it so.

As to your comment regarding child abuse. What has the ACLU and abortion got to do with child molesting in the church? A priest who rapes a child is not involved in abortion. So what made them do it? Besides weakness of spirit and mental illness?

I may not agree with Alchemist on his religious stance but touting your religion as a world saver is pretty lame. The Christian church has had 2000 years to ‘save the world’ yet it seems a little worse of than it was – and some of that blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the churches.

And where do you get the idea that I’m happy to move the goal posts for objectivity? I guess you’re a little insecure and need to blame someone for the fear you feel. See? Now that had no basis either. Not nice to cast aspersions without any basis is it?

On today's ABC radio news it was asserted that literature promoting hate is available in Muslim bookshops in Melbourne and Sydney. Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot have been taken to task for allegedly making disparaging comments about Muslims and were told to resind their comments. There is no place for subversive literature in Australia. The Muslims who arranged for Nalliah and Scot to have their day in Court, for the sake of consistency, need to ensure that the particular garbage goes.

People who incite violence should not be tolerated, whether they belong to a bikie gang, a neo-nazi political group, or a fringe Muslim group.

Christ said regarding tolerance: Matthew 5: 10 -12, "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

Verbal persecution by insults and false claims made about the Christian faith has allowed Christians to practise the graces of their religion by expressing tolerance and turning the other cheek. Any law to restrict speech no matter how misguided or offensive denies the development of Christian character. This law places Christians at disadvantage when they wish to practise tolerance rather than litigate.

This law encourages the intolerant to litigate for damages on every issue they feel vilifies them. This engages Judges on making determinations on matters of opinion and motive. This law will cause the intolerant Christian to abandon their faith for the sake of seeking financial damages. This Bill violates the clear teachings of Christ Himself as it encourages litigation. From the Victorian experience, we can see who will and who will not use these laws.
Though for Christians insults and persecution is unpleasant it happens to shape their faith and hone their thought and belief and develop character. To use this law will remove the right to practice the grace of tolerance and will now offer a process at court to seek damage. Such seeking of damages does not represent tolerance but intolerance and maybe motivated by power over another or mere greed.

It is my belief that unless a referendum is held to support such legislation this Law must be repealed, because it incites religious division and gives power to the one who pursues damages. The Australian culture has been built upon graciously turning the other cheek. This legislation will create and heighten division between different religions. This law is offensive to a democratic secular State when a person is not able to express a personal opinion about another religion or world-view without fear of litigation. This law represents the view of a totalitarian Religious State and is not democratic

The alchemist,
Sorry mate, of course you are a man. Only a man thinks like this. "Why do you try to belittle women, you know I am not one. You state, “Does she imagine she has no worldview to introduce to the whole of society?"

What I should have said by removing s and s and change the sex: “Does he imagine he has no worldview to introduce to the whole of society?"
However I am not sure how I have belittled women by changing your sex, unless you have a very low opinion of yourself; or a very high opinion of your mother. From now on I'll recognise you as, "he". Promise!

I note you refer to: "My world view, is based on the reality of the universe, not, a past its use by date fantasy." What does that mean? Does it refer to the religion of Plato animism?

Pericles,
Seems you are having a hard time following logical arguments. You made the statement that: "As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window." So it with the World, I compared China as a country that operates as a purely secular Nation. No religion is allowed public recognition not even Tibetan Buddaism, so to say your view of religion is the irrational problem of the world; then I say, a nation like China that does not sanction religion is as equally irrational when it comes to recognising individual human dignity

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

Philo, I accept your point in relation to verbal harassment; however, the incitement of violence against innocent people is another matter. Under secular law it is illegal to assault people, maim people or blow them up in the name of religion or politics ( terrorism has no place anywhere).

Philo many of us do not subscribe to the Christian Religion; many in Australia are only nominal Christians; also, there are many athiests and agnostics. At present, I tend towards being agnostic. I'm sure that if a bikie gang began to harass your congregation then the Police would be called in to settle the ruckus.

We clearly should accept a wide range of ideas and literature. However, writings that incite hatred and ultimately fuels the resolve of terorists has no place in Australia.

Section 8 Racial and Religous Tolerance Act 2001

8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious
belief or activity of another person or class of
persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred
against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or
severe ridicule of, that other person or class of
persons.

QURAN
[5:72] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers.

[5:73] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.
According to this, SPECIFICALLY the class of persons known as "Christians" (and Jews) are:
-Wicked
-Pagans (blasphemers)
-Idolaters.
-Will incur painful retribution.
-Destined for hell.

Questions.
1/ Does this incite 'serious contempt ' specifically for Christians ? (yes)
2/ Does it incite 'hate' ? (possibly)
3/ Does it incite 'revulsion for' ? (yes)
4/ Does it incite 'severe ridicule of' ? (yes)

Was this the 'motive' of the Quran ? (most likely not)
but, see section 9 of RRT

9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant <= !

http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/cbe6eadba4439759ca256e5b00213f28/$FILE/01-047a.pdf

Is this grounds for banning the Quran ?
It should be noted, that nowhere in the Old or New Testaments, is the class of persons known as 'Muslims' mentioned even once. (Islam did not exist then)

I think that there have been more than enough excerpts from the Koran and the Bible published here by Bozo and others for them both to be banned as texts that incite hatred and vilification. If you want a text to interpret to your advantage, have a go at this:

'Ah! like gold fall the leaves in the wind,
long years numberless as the wings of trees!
The years have passed like swift draughts
of the sweet mead in lofty halls
beyond the West, beneath the blue vaults of Varda
wherein the stars tremble
in the song of her voice, holy and queenly.

Who now shall refill the cup for me?

For now the Kindler, Varda, the Queen of the Stars,
from Mount Everwhite has uplifted her hands like clouds,
and all paths are drowned deep in shadow;
and out of a grey country darkness lies
on the foaming waves between us,
and mist covers the jewels of Calacirya for ever.
Now lost, lost to those from the East is Valimar!

Farewell! Maybe thou shalt find Valimar.
Maybe even thou shalt find it. Farewell!'

At least as meaningful as the other two tomes, and nowhere near as divisive :)

Garra, see you and raise you:
riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodious vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
Sir Tristraim, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Amorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his pensiolate war: not had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themelse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire abellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: noy yet, though venisoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone natandjoe.

ZENITH, n. The point in the heavens directly overhead to a man standing or a growing cabbage. A man in bed or a cabbage in the pot is not considered as having a zenith, though from this view of the matter there was once a considerably dissent among the learned, some holding that the posture of the body was immaterial. These were called Horizontalists, their opponents, Verticalists. The Horizontalist heresy was finally extinguished by Xanobus, the philosopher-king of Abara, a zealous Verticalist. Entering an assembly of philosophers who were debating the matter, he cast a severed human head at the feet of his opponents and asked them to determine its zenith, explaining that its body was hanging by the heels outside. Observing that it was the head of their leader, the Horizontalists hastened to profess themselves converted to whatever opinion the Crown might be pleased to hold, and Horizontalism took its place .. excerpt from the Devil's Dictionary.

BD,

The Koran ‘context differentiates faith and people.
- First, the translation of the meanings does not call the people of the book (Christian or Jews) ‘pagans’ but the reference in Arabic is ‘ungrateful’. Please refer to the “Pickthall meanings translation” and not a translation by a ‘passionate loving’ missionary.
- Second, the references to Christians and people of the book 2:62, 3:199 is that good believer among them having nothing to fear on judgement day.
- Again your ‘selective half truth’ beats your humanity: the verse you refer to are after Jesus conversation with God (4:109-120) when Jesus denies preaching anything but clear monotheism. The reference to those ‘ungrateful’ is that Jesus will ask God to forgive if their intent was good.
- In the Koran God blames some Christians and some Jews for not following their own messengers teachings and he refers to these people as ‘ungrateful’ similar to Muslims who don’t pay the alms for example. It is not that God ‘hates’ his own religions but he blames those who do not follow his teachings.
- Koran never talks about Muslims but always addresses ‘believers’ and the behaviour the word carries.

Boaz_D,

I understand you have thousands of postings on all the Islam bashing websites but at least attempt to be honest. No matter what you believe in you should at least be honest as people of your faith look up to you as a priest and missionary.
I also understand you are in the Muslims bashing book sales but no money in the world is worth the peace of mind.

BTW, I am still waiting on the answer to my question on David Palmer article...

Peace

David Palmer mentions 5 points in the 5th paragraph of his article. These points are somehow meant to illustrate why it should be ok to vilify islam.

i could produce a list of 50 similar points about australian christian groups. Perhaps 10 out of my 50 points would be devoted to christian cults like catch the fire and hillsong.

Does that therefore give me the right to vilify Christianity? Especially given that the English common law offence of blasphemy only applies to Christianity.

I wonder what people would say if the 2 Danny's had made their comments about Jewish Australians and Judaism. I wonder what would have happened if the ECAJ had taken legal action against CTF.

Child abuse increased when the secular community forced the religious to stop suppressing the continuing abuses by the church. The religious can't see beyond their self righteousness, constantly quoting their scripture when they have no answer, then contradicting themselves. Child psychological abuse, put that with the range of sexual abuse within the churches of all persuasions and you have a very high degree of abuse. A much higher percentage that in the secular community. There are millions throughout the world who would testify to the psychological abuse they received through the church. I doubt that the god fearing could understand how a child feels when they are told, that they will go to hell if they aren't good and don't give themselves to god, the demands of the churches/mosques and those ministering religious propaganda. BD if you ban the koran, then you must ban the bible as they both incite violence. It is sad for us all that we can't get a rational debate out of the religious, but when they have no answers, they turn to irrelevant scripture. The introduction of these type of laws will lead to the same place that it always has, when religious opponents begin jockeying for control, before unleashing their violent attacks on each other and us. The more time goes on, the more these evil forces will drag us into religious wars, with no thought for anyone but there self righteous fallacies. After all they are already trying to resurrect blasphemy laws. We should introduce sectarian and non believers vilification legislation, so that we can shut them all up and stop the evil spreading through our country. It won't be long before all major religions push each other to the point where they will lash out in Australia. With the current emphasis of the politicians aligning themselves with the fanatic right of the christian church, it is only just around the corner for us all. After all the rhetoric and spin coming from the halls of power is, prepare yourselves, we are committed to the death.

Bless you, Philo, for the elegant pretence that you misunderstood my post. I suspect you of political aspirations - answering questions that aren't put to you is the skill of a seasoned politician.

I did not say "countries like China is a prime example of social administration without God?", this was an element you yourself injected into the conversation, presumably as some form of straw man. At the same time you blithely ignore the questions on the validity of religion as "the" worldview. Tut tut.

I also notice in an earlier post that you quote the gospel of Matthew. I really would like to know why you ascribe such weight to this document, when as far as anyone can tell it was written some considerable time after the events it is supposed to describe, and largely appears to be a rehash of Mark, with a few embellishments such as the addition of the virgin birth story. What makes it - or the others, for that matter - so authoritative?

Anyone?

JustDan 'You haven’t supported any of your claims with any kind of logical argument....examples based on factual information?'
I'm sorry.. I will use smaller words next time. As I said before, the sexual revolution was a secular humanist/marxist push, essentially started by Marcuse who built upon the secular humanist education that people had been getting since the 30's in america. This Sexual revolution led directly to abortion being legalised (amongst many other things). Since this revolution, the Child abuse RATE has increased around 800% (To argue this is due to more reporting is absurd), The divorce rate rose over 400% (Half of divorces involve children), single parent households have doubled and over 30% of all births are to unmarried women. These trends are common to all countries the more they are secularised (E.g. Europe, england, and australia). This is what happens when you remove any solid basis for morality and teach people to be selfish whilst attempting to remove any influences that actually grow them. All these things are set out in the humanist manifestoes (I.e. the sexual revolution, destroying the traditional family, removing theistic morality, focus on self actualization and self(ishness)).
For other facts, Communism is a clear example of the horrible results of the atheistic worldview when the atheists find they have to force others to give up religion.
As for me 'touting your religion as a world saver is pretty lame.' I never said it was. In fact, I argue strongly that a perfect society is impossible on earth and that any system which attempts to do so will result in a totalitarian state that oppresses and murders its own people.

Alchemist '...understand how a child feels when they are told, that they will go to hell if they aren't good ...[by] those ministering religious propaganda.' You are begging the question. You assume religion is false and so teaching children these is obviously bad. An obvious logical fallayc

You complain about commitment to death and religious wars, but atheism has unleashed far worse on the world that any theistic of pantheistic religion ever has.

The sexual revolution is based on a lack of moral value? Who’s moral values. Christian values? Where’s the proof that theirs are right? Look at Christian history! Christians don’t have the corner on values/ethics. What about Buddhist, Islamic or Krishna values? Could one of these be right? If so, what does each of these have to say on the subject? If you wish to blame all the worlds evils on the lack of faith attributed to your brand of religion, go right ahead, but it does not mean that the world evils are resulting from that. Any of the above mentioned religions (and a wealth of others) could claim likewise. As stated by JustDan, your argument lacks any factual basis. And add communism, abortion rates and any other ‘evil’ you wish to your argument. None of it holds up.

Your version of evil is, like your religion, your version. Try not to impose it upon any one else. Just continue assisting with the anti-religious ammo, please!

And if we are to get philosophical, why isn’t a perfect society possible? Humans aren’t capable of it? So what’s the point of existing? If some must fail, isn’t it unfair to put people in that position? Everyone gets a chance but some must be damned? What kind of a God do you think exists? That is as evil as some of the acts committed on this planet? We can grow as a race and be better – it has nothing to do with the world-view each of us holds. But this thread is not for that discussion.

If it helps you understand the world better, hold to your faith. That is to be applauded. But you have the right to judge yourself, and you alone, by your actions. The only other thing you can do is lead by example, showing a ‘better’ way for those who are looking.

Irfan

Shouldn't you be responding to Mark Milner who kindly answered your earlier question?

Regarding your most recent post, you seem to have strung a number of non sequiters together.

In no way did I seek to promote vilification of Muslims by quoting those five examples - I was simply illustrating the point that I thought Judge Higgins made some mistakes in his judgement.

You are perfectly at liberty to cite 50 examples of Australian Christian groups or individuals. Actually, why don't you put up 5 matching examples to those I have offered - drawn as I have done from Australian newspapers.

As far as Catch the Fire is concerned, I would hold your fire at this stage - as you yourself have said in another forum, the matter is now before the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Catch the Fire and Hillsong, whether you like 'em or not, are associated with the Assemblies of God, the major portion of the Pentecostals, the second largest Christian gouping in Australia after the Catholics in terms of church going. Their President is a member of Heads of Churches in Victoria, along with Catholic and Anglican Archbishops, Moderator of the Uniting Church, etc. Calling them a cult is somewhat gratuitous and insulting (I refrain from using the fashionable but ubiquitous "vilifying").

Dear Fellow Human,

My apologies for not replying earlier re my reference to Israel.

I have sympathy for the Jews desiring to return to the land of promise. Long, long before the Muslims came and conquered the region, it was recorded in the Bible (Genesis 12,13,15,17,22, 28) that God promised the land (Palestine, but a much larger area) in a document 3,500 years old to his descendents Isaac and Jacob, (not Ishmael) from whom the Jews are descended.

But while I have sympathy for them, in their desire for a home, I wonder if it would not have been better for them to remain scattered in the Diaspora in the light of all the trouble and hatred their return after 1948 has stirred up.

So today we live with a very unhappy situation which contributes to Islamic extremism such as that expressed most recently in the London suicide bombings. That was all I was saying, nothing more. We Christians - meaning those living in regions where the dominant religion was Christianity over the past 1500 years or so - unfortunately treated the Jews at various times very poorly, which is one good reason why they wanted to return to the land of promise.

Christians of course believe the promise to Abraham found its fulfilment in Christ, but that is another story.

From another Fellow though fallible Human being

Grey,
Child abuse increased because of the sexual revolution! Woah, please prove that one. I suspect religions of all kinds have done more to pervert and corrupt human sexuality than almost any other philosophy. In Victorian England, a God fearing society if ever there was one, there were more child prostitutes ( and more of every other kind) apparently than ever since, and that in a society where revealing the leg of a piano was considered shocking. Repressive societies, it seems to me, where outward conformity and appearance are more important than what you actually do, are the most dangerous for women and children. There was a time when I was automatically suspicious of charismatic American preachers, particularly those who spouted nonsense about the devil and temptation, as active hypocrites, so many of them ended up weeping in court over charges of embezzlement, molestation and sexual shenanigans of all kinds.
Pushing things under the carpet, pretending they don't exist and don't happen, like we did prior to the sexual revolution,( you know , when domestic violence was considered a private affair, and there was no such thing as rape in marriage and children who accused their priest, scoutmaster or grandpa of "touching" them were accused of lying and punished,) is and was a recipe for disaster. Hypocrisy was about all it encouraged. Better to know what is happening, bad and good, and deal with it honestly, than hide, pretend and then do whatever you like behind safely closed doors while claiming to be a pillar of the community and, yes, I'm afraid, sometimes the church.

Anomie, Sod's brood, be me fear!

Sanglorians, save! Arms apeal with larms, appalling.

Killykill-killy: a toll, a toll. What chance cuddleys, what cashels airedand ventilated! What bidimetoloves sinduced by what tegotetab-
solvers! What true feeling for their's hayair with what strawng
voice of false jiccup!

O here here how hoth sprowled met the duskt the father of fornicationists but, (O my shining stars and body!) how hath fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement!

:P

And more apposite than I would have it be,
Ainsoph, this upright one, with that noughty besieged him zeroine. To see in his horroscup he is merkhurios than saltz of sulphur. Terror of the noonstruck by day, cryptogram of each nightly bridable. But, to speak broken heaventalk, is he? Who is he? Whose is he? Why is he? Howmuch is he? Which is he? When is he? Where is he? How is he? And what the decans is there about him anyway, the decent man?

Henceforth I shall quote from "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World", which its author wanted to call " A Short History of Bollocks". Finnegan is too much like hard work.

BD -
[5:73] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.
According to this, SPECIFICALLY the class of persons known as "Christians" (and Jews) are:
-Wicked
-Pagans (blasphemers)
-Idolaters.
-Will incur painful retribution.
-Destined for hell.

Questions.
1/ Does this incite 'serious contempt ' specifically for Christians ? (yes)
** How does this incite contempt? The Bible makes statements about non-believers, yet it does not promote ‘contempt”. How about promoting discussion? Reasoning people disagree on a lot – but because they disagree, doesn’t mean that they incite/promote contempt. Unless you are saying that Muslims aren’t reasoning? Which I’m sure you aren’t. So please explain how you reach the conclusion that you did.

I think Fellow_Human explained the interpretations well, as a REASONING HUMAN would. Given that he/she has a better understanding of their own beliefs, how is it in your power to better interpret them? If you can show a deeper understanding of another persons beliefs (more so than your own!?), I will be impressed. Seems you had more time to study someone else’s beliefs, rather than your own. How ironic.

2/ Does it incite 'hate' ? (possibly)
** See Question 1.

3/ Does it incite 'revulsion for' ? (yes)
** See Question 1!

4/ Does it incite 'severe ridicule of' ? (yes)
** See Question 1!!

Was this the 'motive' of the Quran ? (most likely not)
** Oh my, you got a question right!

Pericles,
Worthy questions to all Christians on their faith. But then that’s what faith is all about. The only issue I have with most religions is the attitude they seem to promote is that for them to be right, they have to convert everyone. I think a few examples can be taken from the Buddhists, who don’t really care if you believe or not. They seem to be more interested in your actions than the words you regurgitate. Just an observation.

Just Dan,

The references to Jesus & Christians in the Koran are so many (around 33 for Jesus alone).
The teachings of the Koran as explained are Christians and Muslims have the same good values and the teachings of the commandments. When it came to the Trinity and ‘father, son and holy spirit’, the Koran was ‘clear cut’ on monotheism. It was not about hating the followers of Jesus because we, muslims are also followers of jesus. The context of the Koran to me as a muslim is simple:
Muslims and Christians, share monotheism, commandments, belief in Jesus his virgin birth (and him being the messiah). The fence between a muslims believer and a Christian believer is the Trinity: this is where my journey end and Christians continue. It is not my judgement however since above verse is clear on that. “My side” of the story is that Jesus said God is one, follow the commandments. He said that in the Koran and some parts of the bible.
That’s all,

It is interesting that my first comment to BD long ago was to focus on what we have in common, and after so many threads of denial he took us back to what we have in common!

Garra,

Whats with the Lord of the rings “kill them all theory”?
Peace to you all,

Dear Dan :) I smile as you did my work for me. Thanx

Now all you have to do is come to grips with 2 things.

1/ The Bible does not condemn or villify one particular class of persons, in the sense of a particular RELIGIOUS faith (as the Quran does "Jews, and Christians")

2/ It was the ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF VICTORIA which used the LAW against Christians, not the other way around. Did they try to follow your advice and reason ? no, they sent 3 covert spies, to listen but not 'hear', then called the Lawyers.

In regard to your call for 'reasoning'. I could not agree more !
Sadly, the Muslims who reasoned with the pastor at the seminar by asking "How should Christians treat Muslims" received the reply "They should LOVE them" went away saying "They HATE us and are inciting hate". Dan, that is a 'no-win'. Have you noticed Irfan and Ash saying similar things ? I have.

So, Dan, what I'm saying is that such legislation as the RRT is rediculous, impotent, stupid, fails in its goals etc x 20. I would MUCH rather it not be there, and for Muslims or anyone to basically say what they like about us, and for we to be able to express our views as well unfettered.

One more thing you missed in my post, it was 'section 9'. "Motivation is not relevant".

As this legislation stands, it doesn't matter what your "intention" is, what matters is how it is perceived.
So, good for the chickens, good 4 the ducks, if Muslims are offended at being confronted with their own historical truth, Christians can also be offended at being condemned BY NAME in the Islamic scriptures. OR.... turf this rediculous law :

Reason 'Your version of evil is, like your religion, your version. Try not to impose it upon any one else....But you have the right to judge yourself, and you alone, by your actions. The only other thing you can do is lead by example, showing a ‘better’ way for those who are looking.'
Why are you trying to impose your morality on me? That sounds very hypocritical don't you think. Somehow you think that your idea of morality, that I don't have a right to judge anyone else should be enforced where as mine shouldn't. Perhaps when you stop using such confused reasoning, your name will actually apply.

'We can grow as a race and be better – it has nothing to do with the world-view each of us holds'
Actually, your belief in such is due to your worldview and disagree's with many other worldviews. Once again you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole your own beliefs as somehow above other peoples beliefs.

Enaj 'Child abuse increased because of the sexual revolution! Woah, please prove that one.' Child abuse increased with the advent of the sexual revolution in all western societies. This implies causation, or at the very least a strong correlation. As more support, the advent of the sexual revolution led the imposition of abortion on demand which treats unborn children as property (and was supposed to reduce child abuse) and a self-centered focus for raising children. Of course this approach is going to cause a decrease in the overall perceptions of value and dignity given to children.

Perhaps you can also try to understand that simply showing that some other conditions lead to child abuse does not change the fact that the sexual revolution also did.

One more tidbit :)

If anyone wonders why I am adamant concerning the 'agenda drivers' in the Islamic community (which is surely not Ash or Irfan, they are nice) here is a link which actually tells it ALL.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0404/26/a01-133933.htm

-When I say "The Muslim community will introduce Sharia by stealth" am I wrong or right ?
-Will they seek to impose, even as a minority, their Islamic culture and will on the surrounding non muslim community ? (Ham sandwiches, burial laws, Stamp duty laws so far that I'm aware of in Victoria) ?

-Is this 'villification' or..... well documented fact :) ?

Read this, and then ask "Would I be comfortable living in the vicinity of the place in question" ? Then, ask this "Why would a minority group IMPOSE its will on an outraged 'other' community, in a way where they can have NO ESCAPE from the outcome. This the most blatant outrageous disgusting example of 'unreasonable'ness and ill will, and to top it all off, the community in question (the Islamic) are hanging their head and saying "Why do they HATE us" simply because 'non' muslims do not wish to be subjected to a daily dose of blaring propoganda.

What I find fascinating about this, is the muslim 'mindset' which sees nothing wrong with its actions, calling it 'religious freedom' totally forgetting the majority of the community who do not want the sound. In other words "You don't want it, well you gonna GET IT ANYWAY" is the attitude.

This situation is an EXACT example of all that I've been driving at.
We also want 'religous freedom'.... from legal attacks.

Now.. if I'm reading this wrong, let me know :)

Hi BD,

I answered your postings on Shariaah and your offence re the Koran on Irfan's article...London muslims..

Sorry Grey,still do not see the correlation between the sexual revolution and child abuse.
In fact, I can mount a bloody strong argument that safe access to abortion and contraception has probably reduced child abuse. Saddling people with kids they do not want and cannot or will not take care of properly is no recipe for loved and cared for kids. And if you think adoption is the answer, go talk to anyone who works in the field of adoption, it is a whole other can of worms. I suspect that the growth of stats on child abuse, yes even increasing by 80%, simply means that what was once hidden and lied about and, worse, therefore inescapable, is now out in the open. And thank God (and the sexual revolution) for that.

Don't go to church on Sunday
Don't get on my knees to pray
Don't memorize the books of the Bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know Jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more

I fall on my knees every Sunday
At Zerelda Lee's candy store

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied

Well I don't want no Anna Zabba
Don't want no Almond Joy
There ain't nothing better
Suitable for this boy
Well it's the only thing
That can pick me up
Better than a cup of gold
See only a chocolate Jesus
Can satisfy my soul

(Solo)
When the weather gets rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your savior
Up in cellophane
He flows like the big muddy
But that's ok
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied

tom waits

Fellow_Human,
I must clarify I am an orthodox monotheist Christian, and do not follow the Roman construct of believing in a human god who is born in the flesh and can die as a human. The Trinity was a 3rd century Roman spatial construct to place the humanity of Jesus within divinity. Hence the very importance to them of the immaculate conception, god being born as man. The threefold name given in Matthew 28: 19 they believe to represent three persons, but their concept of the name misrepresents the singular grammer of the name as in Isaiah 9: 6 refers to the only child born. The fact is Jesus revealed the thoughts, acts, and character of God to man as the spirit of God was in him reconciling men to God. Jesus was not about reconciling men to himself - but to God.

Jesus is praised because of his actions, sacrifice, and teaching; but importantly because the very Spiritual nature of God was revealed to man through Him. Christians address God as Father even as Jesus because we believe man was created to reflect the very nature and character of God Genesis 1: 26 - 27; This we believe Jesus did.

Jesus demonstrated the overthrowing of polytheistic beliefs among Greco-Roman pagan influenced Jews that demons (jinn) controlled human behaviour. No such beings exist; they are merely conjured in the human imagination. Orthodox Monotheists do not believe that the spirits of the deceased can contact or influence the living, i.e. prayers to the dead. Such a belief is Zoroastrian syncretistic theology adopted by Romanism.

Quote Fellow_Human, "Muslims and Christians, share monotheism, commandments, belief in Jesus his virgin birth (and him being the messiah). The fence between a Muslims believer and a Christian believer is the Trinity: this is where my journey end and Christians continue."

Ah, it's not easy being, thanks so much for a touch of the Tom Waits mambo. Do you think the forces of godliness could get into a theological discussion of whether a chocolate jesus is milk, dark or white? I shall take my bad liver and broken heart away while I ponder this question.

No BD.
You missed the point. The Bible has some quite unkind things to say regarding non-believers. I simply implied (and you missed) that if the Bible can, so can the Qu’ran. And yet all it should do is promote discussion.

So, split hairs if you will:
“1/ The Bible does not condemn or villify one particular class of persons, in the sense of a particular RELIGIOUS faith (as the Quran does "Jews, and Christians"):

No, what it does is condemns or vilifies anyone who doesn’t believe that particular brand of religion. The difference being? Try not to confuse the issue here.

As to the meeting, yes, ambush is wrong and I’m sure a better way could have been found. Further, I think the law is wrong and misused. But when people like yourself continually promote you version of faith, I’m not surprised people are threatened. If a Muslim does it, it’s called terrorism, if a Christian does it? Well, now it’s called vilification. So everyone gets called names. Just shows how intolerant both faiths are.

As to Ash and Ifran, no, I have found them to be much more moderate and open-minded than yourself.

And I did not miss the s.9 Motive issue. It was simply irrelevant to the topic. You call it their historical truth – as you see it. Repeatedly I say it’s your subjective, biased opinion and you seem to miss the words. You cannot be objective, so what’s the point in discussing religion with you.

Feel free to complain if you are vilified by a Muslim. I certainly would – whether by a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any individual who belittled me because of my faith.

Ifran, Ash
Can you live knowing that a large part of your current community will always be non-Islamic? Does this bother you? Can you live with laws that do not necessarily reflect every aspect of your religion but try to find a balance to accommodate all beliefs? What is your personal stance? And what is the long term goals of your faith in this country?

Reason

Very succinct post. I think you have made your point very successfully on this vexing issue.

Pertinent questions you raised for Irfan and Ash. I am optimistic enough to believe that you will receive reasonable responses from them both.

I have difficulties with this particular thread. I believe in freedom of speech. Yet I question the motives behind David Palmer's argument.

We certainly can't tolerate, in this era fraught with reactionary sensitivities; outright vilification of any group.

We can’t become a controlled state either (eg ID card).

We currently have a federal government gathering more power to itself from state governments. This is dangerous. It is not extreme to posit the spectre of a dictatorship in this wide brown land of ours. Something I would not have believed possible before.

“One ring to rule them all, One ring to bind them”. Oops just slipped out – apologies to Garra.

We need freedom of expression plus constant vigilance.

I think the recent cooperation between victorian jewish and muslim peak bodies in response to the hate-books sold in salafist bookshops is an example of how such legislation could prove useful. These bookshops were threatened with legal action under religious vilification laws.

David, I am at liberty to discuss the wider policy issues involved in the debate. If my comments are potentially in contempt of court, so is your entire article. We can discuss the policy issues but not the contentious matters on the appeal. And there are other things we also cannot discuss. However, I won't bore you with free legal advice. I am sure you can get your own advice on whether your article might represent some kind of 'sub judice' comment.

Hey Reason, thanx for your thoughts. (this is for Ash also)

At the outset, let me clarify.

1/ The Quran absolutely by the plain meaning of language 'does' villify Christians and Jews in many places,(if for no other reason than I 'feel' it -if for example that were the case)
I've listed the ways 'Christians' are described, and you have seen it, I don't need to repeat.

2/ I don't worry in the slightest about such references, I understand fully that they are a statement of Islamic perspective, offensive and villifying as they technically are. I don't 'feel' vilified by them because I reject any notion of divine authority behind them. There is nothing to worry about. I don't even get offended when the general populace use 'Jesus F-*-G Christ' in order to convey their lack of vocabulary to others. (though the 'cringe' factor is pretty high)
They speak from ignorance.
If they embrace Him as Savior, such things are as if they never were.

3/ The reason I'm making such a fuss about the Quran , is that I don't want the silly legislation in place in the first place, further, I don't like being 'oppressed' to the point of not being able to use the Quran in explaining my understanding of the Muslim mindset to anyone I choose, publically or otherwise. Remember the Lawyers statement for the ICV ? => "Your Honor, ban the defense from reading the Quran because this is further villifying my client"

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If the Quran can say I'm 'wicked' etc simply because I'm Christian, without question this is inciting hate. It is ESPECIALLY SO, in the light of the Judges comment about the 'reasonable person' criteria. Which boils down to "If you claim so and so is 'wicked' then a 'typical' hearer will be incited to hate them"

Consistency demands we are free to use Islamic material in explaining their mindset. (whether they like the method or not)

Reason, another point :) its a 'legal' one. The legislation does not cover the class of people you mentioned, for villification to have occurred, specific targets have to have been mentioned. "Muslims" "Christians" "Buddhists"

"Unbelievers" is too broad - in any case it is not a 'religion' (for the purposes of the Act)

To be fair also, the Bible contains a lot of material in regard to unbelievers, but lets not forget, generally it refers to them as lost sheep, whom the good shepherd is continually searching for.

Those who are condemned are 'haters' of God, who a) Know God is real, but b) knowingly and willfully hate/rebel/oppose him.

"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (from Romans 1)

Do you see the word 'supress' ? Do you see 'Wickedness' ? They know God, but supress the truth about Him and willfully persue a life of wickedness and debauchery etc. Are they judged in this life ? nope, but one day 'the wages' of sin will have their payday, when Christ returns.

It is our task to proclaim the Love of God, His invitation to restoration of fellowship with Him through Christ and also the justice of God, it is not our job to physically attack people who we don't agree with in His name , nor is it our calling to 'legislate' faith.

keep up the interesting interaction.

Reason, you can't discuss religion with either side, the only reasonable answers are from non believers. Religion is a brain disease, saying one thing then doing the opposite. Both sides constantly repeat the same old lines over and over. This is a psychological illness, caused by an inability to understand reality. They try to cover up this disease by attempts at total control. It is okay to class their opposition and non believers as being the problem, can't see, that all religions have responsibility for religious violence in the world. Both sides constantly fail to address questions about their aims and methods. They can only quote their scripture, because they are inadequate when it comes to reason. Australia is one of the only countries left that isn't under full onslaught by the religious. That is rapidly changing as can be seen by both sides upping the stakes, forcing confrontation between the varying religions. Naturally the denials will come thick and fast, this is standard practice for the addicted unwell. Look at the history of religion, it is overflowing with violent and destructive acts. I doubt that you could find a time within the last thousand years, where there hasn't been any violent religious confrontation. I would still like either side to explain what religion has brought to this planet, that has been of benefit to its progress. Oops almost said evolution, but that may be deemed vilification or blasphemy, we can't have that, by their actions throughout the world, we can see how intolerant all religions are. One definition of brain disease, is the afflicted can't maintain rationality when faced with reality. Religions will not admit to their failings or agenda. Their approach, denial, confrontation, abuse, then violence, even against their own. It is the nature and course of their disease. Why do non beleivers become involved in these debates, they want to understand the disease, so that they may help find a cure or vasccine for it and relieve the world of its destructive effects

BD,

You have an interesting ‘am not listening! Am not listening!’ attitude my friend.

1. The criticism in the Quran cannot be a vilification because it balances the criticism with love and rewards for good Jews and good Christians. Vilification is if someone says “All Jews” or ‘All Christians” are not good. This is not the case in the Quran at all but of course you knew that:):)
2. The Quran described Christians in general in very affectionate terms “The kind hearted, followers of Jesus” “Jesus followers have kindness and mercy in their hearts”, “If you trust them they will live up to their promises” etc..The only criticism that you are talking about is blurring the first commandment “God is One” with the Trinity doctrine.
3. The criticism you are referring to in the Quran mostly by Jesus (Note his quote on the commandments in the Quran is almost identical to the Bible). The Quran criticizes anyone who compromises on the first commandment (same as the bible and the Torah).

As a muslim, I know that:
- In Jewish teachings only Jews are God’s people (race) and only Jews will go to heaven.
- In Christian teachings only those who accept the Trinity doctrine, church, original sin will be forgiven .

Now, I couldn’t care less beacuse my beliefs make natural sense to me. Muslims are not running around asking other religions to accept them or change their scripture to include them.

If you really believe Islam have no divinity at all as you said, then you should be even more relaxed than I am.

AK

Dear Fellow Human,

Two points in respect of your last post.

You choose to say that "In Christian teachings only those who accept the Trinity doctrine, church, original sin will be forgiven".

As I Christian I can say we never, ever, put it this way.

We choose rather to quote texts from the New Testament

Typical texts include the following:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". Acts 2:38

"All the prophets testify about him (Jesus Christ) that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name". Acts 10:43

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace” Eph 1:7

In other words, in Christian understanding, forgiveness comes about through repentance and faith, faith in Jesus Christ that through his sin atoning death upon the cross we find the forgiveness of God.

The doctrines of the Trinity, Church, original sin, etc are teachings drawn from the Bible concerning the nature of God and man.

Salvation (forgiveness with God) however is a matter of believing in Jesus, committing your life to him, recognising that on the cross he became the sin bearer.

In another text, Jesus himself said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. John 14:6

Dear Fellow Human,

On another point you claim: “Muslims are not running around asking other religions to accept them or change their scripture to include them.”

What Muslims are running about doing (or would like to do) is extending dar al Islam to replace dar al harb including in Australia.

And sure, Muslims might not ask us to change our religion but they will treat us as dhimmis, subjecting us to all kinds of humiliation and degradation – just ask the Copts in Egypt what it is like to live as second class citizens in your own country. The treatment of Coptic Christians by the Muslim majority in Egypt is a disgrace.

….from another Fellow human and one who doesn’t want to live as a dhimmi

Reason,
Your unreasonable definitions on terrorism and vilification demonstrate a lack of understanding of the terms.
Vilification: an expression to defame, slander or speak disparagingly about a person / group.
Terrorism: an act to threaten violence or create extreme fear in another.

Eg: X might attempt to vilify Christianity, but this doesn't cause concern because it's been happening for 2,000 years - it rather shows a perverse mind. However if X meant by words to terrorise Christians X has failed, as we're not afraid.

BD and myself don't consider moderate Muslims like Ash and Ifran terrorists; but within Islam there are those who read the Qur'an and interpret it that they are to kill infidels, and they do. An infidel anyone not follwing Allah's laws.

Read the news, and you will realise Pakistan trained Muslims see killing nonmuslims as their responsibility before Allah. They are taught: First allegiance to the laws of Allah. I have heard Muslims say this week there are reasons to kill those who defame Allah or his prophet.

The Pakistan born Daniel Scott had his nephew murdered in Pakistan in the last 12 months in the name of Allah. Daniel was convicted under the reintroduction of primitive blasphemy law in Victoria, but he did not threaten death to Muslims. This law has reintroduced the State back into rulings on Religious matters. I happen to believe in separation of Church and State. Under this law Salmon Rushdie would be imprisoned in Victoria.

I hear Muslims calling Daniel a Christian fundamentalist terrorist. I know the man; he is a gracious man, who speaks of his experiences with Pakistan Muslims. He may seek justice under law for the death of his nephew; he does not seek vengance by death to the murderers in the name of the Justice of God.

Fellow_Human,
You constantly bring up the doctrine of Trinity, this is not a NT teaching. It is rather a construct of understanding used by the Gentile Roman Church. Jesus clearly taught his unity with God not a diversity - Trinity is a mathmatical construct to satisfy spatial Roman minds.

Vilification and Multiculturalism?

Those adopting Multiculturalism as the feature of Australian society have not appreciated the diametrically opposed world-views that feature in some religious cultures. Christian values have existed for over 200 years, with peacefull coexistence with many religious practises. Since the establishment of the Department of Multicultural Affairs one dominant theme has emerged; that all cultures have equal right to participate in Law making. Christians and Muslims will be diametrically opposed on issues like: the freedom of the individual to personal belief based upon conscience, including the belief of atheism.


Multiculturalism should accommodation difference, Democracy will allow such difference. Muslim shari'ah law is based in totalitarian values and it's their influence upon the Religious Vilification Law that underlines their attempt to silence the right of their opposition to express a different opinion. The Australian Multicultural Foundations in Victoria funded by State Government has actively promoted the acceptance of Islam.

The Religious Vilification Law established was not to modify conflict but rather to silence opposition behind closed doors. The Multicultural Foundation deliberately planted spies in the conference of Catch the Fire to note things they felt offended. CtF had no strategy to vilify Muslims personally but rather to understand their world-view, their holy writings upon which they base belief and law. If those deliberate Muslim plants in the meeting did not personally believe the Qur'an and the Hadiths but they personally chose to be offended so they could bring a case before the Tribunal. This action was a deliberate strategy put in place before they attended the Seminar. Therefore we recognise Muslims take exception to points of view expressed about the Qur'an that differ from what some believe.

If such Religious Vilification Law is to silence difference, then this undermines Multiculturalism and Australian Culture and is an attempt at Totalitarianism, where all opposition is punishable, eg Salmon Rushdie. Australians want the absolute right to express a contrary opinion even if their opponents do not like or are offended. Therefore keep Australia a free Nation from laws that stifle expression of difference

David, you should attend more inter-faith gatherings. Your whole concept of who Muslims are and what they want to do to Australia is just way off the planet.

It really surprises me that a senior official of a major protestant denomination could think like that. If these are the sentiments you harbour, I might suggest Waleed Aly and the Islamic Council of Victoria team give you a call and invite you out for lunch. Then you can meet real Muslims making a real difference to Australian life.

If you are scared of Muslims so much, perhaps you should close your account with the National Australia Bank (if you have one with them), especially considering the NAB appointed Ahmed Fahour is their CEO. And make sure you never buy a mobile phone from Crazy Johns. And never have anything to do with his biggest contractor, Telstra.

I hope you accept an invitation to dinner or lunch with them. Fear not, they won't poison you.

ASH.... will you puh-lease stop doing my work for me or I'll start to feel redundant :))

THANKyou.... for illustrating with consumate perfection, (again) the very point I've been making all along, with my 'The Quran Villifies' line of thought.

Here is how it's gone so far:

A/ I claim (for reasons of discussion) "The Quran vilifies Christians"

B/ You claim "Not really BECAUSE the harsh words are balanced out by loving words" AMEN.. ! YES YES.... and add another YES.....

NOW...... you understand 2 things:

Why we Christians are so passionate about the Catch the Fire issue,
-the VERY SAME thing happened as you have just manifested.

-The pastors DID say somethings which may be upsetting to the Muslim community.
-As far as I can see, they spoke TRUTH, but even if they spoke from 'conviction'. They spoke from the heart.
-A 'MUSLIM' asked directly 'How should Christians treat Muslims', the pastor replied LOVE....LOVE....LOVE them...... (even if he did NOT say that (which he did) the BIBLE IS CLEAR "love your enemies" etc.
-The Muslims (spies in social conspiracy of the most repulsive kind in reality) Then went back and said 'They hate us'.

So, here we have me, quoting the Quran, 'it villifies us' and you saying 'the words of love balance this'

What I say now is...'GAME-SET-MATCH' :)))

We Christians have as much interest in taking Muslims to court over the harsh words in the Quran as we do in gaining another hole in the head, which is why UP TILL the Muslims took us to court, there WERE NO such actions by Christians. (but now, bookshops spreading anti Christian HATE have been busted,validating the CTF claims and they were referred to in evidence BY the evidence of Mark Dhurrie)

But NOW..... we have to defend our freedom of speech, freedom of belief and freedom of expression, so, $300,000 odd dollars later, the case continues. I strongly suggest you advise your buddies at ICV to get real, and get OVER their pettiness :)

Good for the goose, good for the Gander :)

BD, Philo et al - all christians are good, would never inflict their beliefs on others, have never persecuted anyone, will go to heaven (going to be rather lonely), accept other people's POV, love everyone, are never spiteful, petty or mean, accept that there is good and bad in everyone, never 'shout' in internet postings, never quote from their bible thinking this will win an argument with people who don't believe in their bible, respect women as equals (this is why we have a female pope, priests, ministers etc) never attack other religions and never rant on and on and on.....

If I ever considered becoming a christian thanks to the above representatives I have been completely disabused of such a notion. Perhaps this is why we do need the religious vilification legislation because, as evidenced on this forum, people do need protection from christian fundamentalism as well as protection from any other religious fundamentalism.

I will still listen to John Cleary however - he is pleasant, moderate and caring - very non christian qualities apparently.

Xena, I'm with you, the more fundamental a person is in their religion the less flexible they seem to be. I have met lots of people professing a humanist philosophy who act in a more becoming manner to their fellow man than supposed religious people.

I think that if Jesus was to come back right now he would be kicking over tables (computers) of some of the Christian posters on this thread, David_Boaz would be one of them. I have given the reason for this position in another thread.

Come, come, Irfan, not so patronising!

Despite all the bluster of your response to me I notice you don’t deny the dar al Islam (house of peace) dar al harb (house of war) teaching of Islam, which of course you can’t!

You and I know perfectly well that Islam and Christianity are world wide, vibrant missionary religions in competition for the souls of men and women. Let us talk frankly and openly of these things.

The point that you seek to avoid is that the experience of Christians (and Jews and others) as dhimmis in majority Muslim lands has been wholly negative for them, whether Coptic Christians in Egypt long before Muslims arrived, or Daniel Scot’s experience as a second generation Christian convert from Islam in Pakistan (falsely) accused of blasphemy and forced to flee his own country, but thankfully accepted as a refugee by Australia. I simply do not want to see that ever happen in Australia. I agree with you that this is highly unlikely simply because the proportion of Muslims will remain low.

However let us see how the experience develops over the next 20 years in Europe given the much greater and increasing proportions of Muslims in an effete and declining European civilisation no longer even able to acknowledge their Christian heritage in the recently drafted European constitution.

As far as the Islamic Council of Victoria is concerned, to the extent that they truly present a genuine moderate voice for Islam in Victoria, more power to them I say – but they don’t speak for all of Islam in Australia, as you well know and as my articles in small measure documents. Their action against Catch the Fire Ministries and Pastors Nalliah and Scot, including the duplicitous, underhanded placing of Australian converts of Caucasian descent in their Seminar did not impress Christians nor fair minded Australians more generally, and only served to demonstrate how nervous they were that any Christian knowledgeable of the Qur’an and aHadith should actually start quoting from these documents, informing their fellow Christians of Islamic beliefs.

Dear Irfan,

To continue our dialogue.

You are right to say that I am not involved in interfaith activity – this should be no surprise to you. I know of no evangelical Christian who is. This doesn’t mean I have not known or conversed or worked with Muslims, indeed my wife and I for several years invited Indonesian students into our home for a meal, took them on trips, etc, and they invariable were Muslims.

As for interfaith activity, if Muslims care to involve themselves with liberal Christians and Jews and see advantage in so doing, that is their business. You just need to understand such church people are not representative of the great bulk of church going Christians. For evangelical Christians, interfaith worship is out of the question, for while you and I worship the one true God (unlike the self declared atheists who populate these threads), we have different conceptions of him, and different conceptions as to how we please him.

The only discussion I would desire would be between authentic Qur’an and aHadith affirming Muslims and authentic Bible affirming orthodox Christians who believe and practice fully as possible their respective faiths with, hopefully ,a genuine respect developing over time between both parties. Such contact and discussion could lead to an exploration of matters of mutual interest such as ethical issues. I could under the proper circumstances be a part of such a discussion.

By the way, I would like to see your answer to Kalweb’s question re Taher Taiba on Waleed’s thread, because this man’s views, if genuine, are a real worry and should be to the wider Muslim community.

Perhaps I might leave our discussion at this point, with right of reply to yourself, should you so choose, lest the matter become too personal. No doubt we will dialogue on other threads.

I wish you every blessing from the one true God, whom we, in our differing ways, seek to worship; before whom we can only bow in worship and adoration as penitents pleading his grace and mercy!

Christianity is primarily concerned with the character of God as revealed in human life and character, we were created to express Godlike qualities (Genesis 1: 26). Christianity is not a bunch of religious rules to obey; it is the personal freedom to live aspirant abundant lives above rules in spiritual union with God. It is not defined by strict adherence to National or Religious laws, or religious ritual and saying repitiously prayers. It is defined by recognising the presence of God in Jesus Christ, expressed in forgiveness and a forgiving spirit, positive lifestyle that blesses our fellow man, and responsible behaviour that manages and sustains human society and this planet.

A Christian view of Jesus is that he fully revealed the mind and heart of God by his character, acts of compassion and words of wisdom. His conception was natural from the line and seed of King David, but his spirit was the very expression of God to all men. Christians do not (should not) worship a human Jesus but the eternal spiritual character he revealed, i.e. very God. To understand this is to understand the teaching of Christ about being spiritually born of God.

The claim that God / Allah created a single sperm in the womb of Mary without a man is false and unsupported by Jesus’ teachings, the texts of NT doctrine or the writings of the apostle John or Jesus elder brother James (son of Joseph). The fact is the purpose of Zacharias was to raise a child in Judah to be a deliverer from Gentile Rule, a King to free the Jewish nation. In this concept Jesus was spiritually born of God for a specific purpose, similarly Mary and also John the Baptist (Zacharias own son from Elizabeth). Mary’s spiritual calling was to nurture and train the Saviour; John’s was to be the prophet to prepare the nation by repentance; and Jesus initial purpose was to be King (Isaiah 9). However the prophecy of Isaiah 600 years earlier stated he would be rejected by the nation and fulfil the text of Isaiah 53

People, let’s give this thread to the crackpots. Seems they are here enmasse now.

One last parting shot:
If you Christians represent the ‘best’ of your faith and explain Christianity as it should be – that is that everyone should turn to Christ, who will save you and lead you to love, happiness and good life – then I for one am happy to avoid that style of life.

My understanding of Christianity (from a Catholic upbringing and religious education for the first 15 years) is that God accepts you as you are. He/She judges you on your actions and the intent in your heart. He/She does not particularly care what Dogma you choose to express these things.

Now you Christians have written and referred to a mountain of ‘evidence’ to ‘prove’ why Islam is a bad choice for the soul. You have ‘explained’ why Christianity is better and in some cases ‘enlightened’ me with why human cultures can never mix, survive or work together. Wonderful discussion from the religion of peace, tolerance, understanding and acceptance. Just beautifully illustrated as to why your faith should be feared as much as any extremist/zealot. Your kind are really no better than a bomber – at least they stand up for their misguided beliefs and don’t hide behind insidious ‘logic’ and deceitful ‘kindness’. Just look back over your statements and tell me there is no hypocracy… forget it. You’d never see it!

You are fearful, paranoid and decidedly one-eyed. I wonder how your church led you there?

As I have stated a number of times – practice what you preach.

To the moderator: I’m not sure if this counts as flaming but I hope not. My apologies if so. If you have any guidelines..?

Reason,

I can appreciate your views about religion from your Catholic upbringing, what I don't quite get, is why you did not actually check out the scriptures yourself, and struggle to find if you were being fed the 'right milk'.

You demonstrated one of the most bigoted attitudes I've seen for some time, calling us 'Crackpots' :) bless you my son/daughter, but that is plain bigotry :)

Its all good.

Actually Reason, I think you have misunderstood the intent of those you claim are saying "Cultures cannot mix" etc etc...

Simply 'being' Christian is endorsing the ability of Jesus to bring people of diverse backgrounds TOGETHER. In terms of political alleigance of his disciples "Simon was an 'insurgent' (zealot) and Matthew was a TAX collector, Peter was a Fisherman etc."

Ethnicity 'blood' and culture are VERY thick, as shown by even the early church where we find "And they all had everything in common, no one was in need" in Acts 2 then a bit later we find

1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food."

So.... human nature... revealed :)

This is similar to how legislation reflects the interests of one party over another, its 'what people do'. So, please don't complain when the 'aggrieved' party speaks up about an injustice done to it.
In this case, the denial of free speech and expression of opinion.

Reason

The extreme intolerance, racist and just 'general-anti-anything-except-them' expressed by the far right fundamentalist christians on this website are reflections of a conservative movement called "Christian Identity".

A website which can edify you on the aims and ideology of this relatively new movement can be found at:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm

The Christian Identity movement is a movement of many extremely conservative Christian churches and religious organizations, extreme right wing political groups and survival groups. Some are independent; others are loosely interconnected. According to Professor Michael Barkun, one of the leading experts in the Christian Identity movement, "This virulent racist and anti-Semitic theology, which is practiced by over 50,000 people in the United States alone, is prevalent among many right wing extremist groups and has been called the 'glue' of the racist right."

The posters here may well deny any affiliation (wouldn't you?) however the views they continually express on this and other threads concur with the narrow ideology of the Christian Identity.

Genuine, sincere Christians do not hold these extreme views. Please don't judge all Christians by these bad apples.

This is why I am suspicious of David Palmer's article. I believe in free speech but should we be free to vilify whomever, whenever as has been the case with many posters here who have posted demeaning and divisive statements about Islam.

Extreme religious views are hostile towards others whether they be from Christian, Hindu, Islamic or whoever.

Fortunately the majority of people are smart enough to see these intolerant extremists for what they really are and will always speak out against them as is happening here.

Xena, Just like Christian, denial, refusal to take responsibility for your own life and the constant attempts to justify what in fact is unjustifiable. You want to bring to this country what religion has brought to other countries of the world, death and violence. Religion is a disease, the facts don't support anything that the religious say regarding the reality of the world. Religions support brainwashing of children into fearing even their own religion. I have rarely met those that on a personal level are not good people. But I have yet to meet one religious person that can accept they may be wrong. When it comes to the non believer, you will find they are willing to look at all paths in life. The religious can't do that, all they do is recite over and over meaningless words that promote animosity and hate. They try and out do each other by making out that they are open, kind and understanding. Then they try to blind everyone with their interpretation of their religious works. When that doesn't work, they start subtle abuse and put downs of their opposition, then ridicule anyone that can't accept their fantasy. I just hope, and I won't hold my breath, that a cure can be found for this large mass of mentally ill people around the world, that are becoming sicker and sicker by the day. When this illness reaches its zenith, all the religious will have in their hearts, is hate and a desire for revenge no matter what the cost. Historically, if you look at the symptoms, you will see that they are re-creating themselves. This country, has one last opportunity to stop this disease from contaminating us all, but that can't happen, the disease has already infected the politicians, they are all acting under its influence and control. The introduction of religious vilification laws, that allow for non believers to be vilified, is just a sign of how repugnant this religious disease is to us all that have the sense to see what reality is.

Freedom of speech is the issue. We need to be able to speak freely not just for ourselves but for the sake of non-Muslims who are oppressed in many Islamic countries. We do the oppressed no favours when we ignore their plight in order to be nice to Muslims.

Those who say there is no right or wrong and that all views are equal are weakening the west. Evil must be condemned, but you can't condemn something as evil unless you believe something is good. "All denuciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind". Relativism is undermining the wests ability to stand against Islamic extremism.

Relativists are the enemies within the gate. They say all views are equal but as soon as you say you are right and others are wrong they are quick to say you are wrong for saying that. But if all views are equal they cannot say your view is wrong. Relativism is intellectualy bankrupt and opens the door to all kinds of evil.

See the brilliant book "The Absolutes" by James Robison http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842368973/qid=1122344990/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1965682-7704634?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Some people will do what ever they can to silence others, whether it is the use of PC or simply labelling them fanatics. To see how Islamic extremists have been trying to silence people all over the world read the following.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm

For those who like to attack religion but have forgotten how many people have been killed in the name of athiesm (eg. Pol-pot, Stalin, Chairman Mao etc). The following is a good read.

6 Modern Myths by Philip Sampson (Phd Sociology)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083082281X/qid=1122344593/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1965682-7704634?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

And for those who think Muslims and Christians are equally tolerant and open to debate and correction see if you can find a site policy on the Islamic sites like this one.

http://www.answering-islam.org/policy.html

Alchemist, I'm not sure that I fully understand the point you are trying to make with your last post that was directed to me. I have stated previously that I am an atheist. So maybe you were preaching to the converted - to coin a rather ironic phrase.

Now I have been deeply troubled by the extreme position taken by some of the christians on this forum. That is why I posted a linked to information about 'Christian Identity' which shares idelology with many of the posts placed on this forum.

The antipathy towards myself, Muslims and different cultures by these posters is appalling. However, I know that there are many people who are religious and who are tolerant and inclusive of differing races, creeds etc.

I believe that it is the extremists of any belief system that create the catalyst for terrorism.

I don't share your belief that people who are religious are necessarily mentally ill - superstitious maybe. But it is just as extreme to paint all religious people as mentally deficient or sick - I find that just as divisive as the extreme posts from the fundamentalists.

I do agree that the world would have a lot less to argue about if there was no religion - but I don't see that happening. Religion is a source of solace for many people. And there are many very good people who are religious; Bishop Spong and our own Father Bob Maguire for example.

Sorry Alchemist but I found much of your post as extreme and divisive as the extreme christians.

Thanks Xena! Very few really understand The alchemist. If we could only understand his idiological basis for an ordered society. We know what he does not believe; presupposes a negative life.

Anti-semetic Christianity - I have a dear nephew an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. Twelve years trained in King David College Sydney, two years Hebrew studies in Israel, five years University Israel, two years in USA, now resides in WA as a Rabbi, I hardly qualify as an anti-semetic extremist.

The alchemist
Do you classify an extremist as one who will use violence to achieve his/her goals or merely one who opposes your philosophic position? You make no contributionto the issue of this debate on freedom of speech / vilification, but prefer to continue to degrade and vilify those you disagree with. It may be Australia has afforded you the right to vilify, stop the vilification and post your defence of your right to degrade all religions.

Check the following Quote from your posts. DOES IT ALSO QUALIFY UNDER THE SAME DEFINITION YOU DEFINE OTHERS POSTS? "When that doesn't work, they start subtle abuse and put downs of their opposition, then ridicule anyone that can't accept their fantasy. I just hope, and I won't hold my breath, that a cure can be found for this large mass of mentally ill people around the world, that are becoming sicker and sicker by the day. When this illness reaches its zenith, all the religious will have in their hearts, is hate and a desire for revenge no matter what the cost. ...This country, has one last opportunity to stop this disease from contaminating us all, but that can't happen, the disease has already infected the politicians, they are all acting under its influence and control. The introduction of religious vilification laws, that allow for non believers to be vilified, is just a sign of how repugnant this religious disease is to us all that have the sense to see what reality is."

I suggest you research the Vilification Tribunals records of who has brought cases for judgment. How many atheists have been charged

I have not been discussing anti-semitism. I have been talking about the Christian Identity movement in general. I do know that Philo has a very conservative interpretation of the bible. I have not claimed that he is anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is merely one aspect of this conservative group and doesn’t necessarily apply to all.

A very conservative interpretation of the bible leads to the christian identity's conservative and right-wing agenda. They are exclusive and have been responsible for a lot of terrorism on their own part eg; anti-abortionist Clayton Waagner.

Anti-Immigration is also a part of the agenda – many posts here have been against immigration – not all from Christian extremists, however enough have been placed.

In fact the hostile nature of many of the extreme Christian posts is what prompted me to investigate this phenomenon. I find it hard to reconcile a belief in the very peaceful and quite left wing Jesus Christ with the narrow and hateful posts of many self proclaimed Christians to this site.

Like Islam, Christianity professes to be about peace for all people. And like Islam, Christianity has been hi-jacked by those with a conservative controlling agenda.

Apologies Xena, I meant to say, just like the Christians, not actually referring to you. Bbbrad, Stalin, pol pot, Mao, all ideologists, just like the religious, just more violent. Real non believers don't have an ideology, just an acceptance of the reality of the universe. Philo, I agreed with your post, multiculturalism and vilification. Attacking me doesn't do your cause any good. History justifies my statement about all religion being the same evil thing. No amount of buck passing will change those historical facts. Because I have the belief that it is I who are responsible for my being and not some fantasy that I can pass the buck to, then be forgiven no matter what I have done, you try the insult ploy, saying Iv'e had a negative life. The sadness I have for you, is nothing to the sadness for those throughout history that have suffered, so the name of god can be imposed upon one and all. Philo, confused again, nonbeliever vilification does not refer to us being charged, it relates to us being unable to bring charges against the religious for them vilifying us. I am a dimensionalist, we see us as a part of an ever changing and evolving universe. A universe that has many different dimensions that intermingle with our own. For us what's important is to open the door between this 3th dimension and the 4th. Once we open it, we may see where our destiny is leading. As some of us have come to this understanding, we may be able to take our consciousness with us on the next step in our evolutionary path. Wow, look at all those horrific words I have used, evolution, dimensions, reality. I am sure that you will have no trouble mocking me, so go for it, I love it when you all get uppity, abusive and so confused, then role out illogical scriptural waffle. There is but one really big problem in the world at the moment, undeniably, that is religion.

Wow, alchemist, quite a rant!

You say, (and I think I could actually understand this part), "the sadness I have for you, is nothing to the sadness for those throughout history that have suffered, so the name of god can be imposed upon one and all" Stalin religious, Mao religious?

But yes, men have used religion to oppress others who disagree. Human nature is such that men and women will use means at hand to oppress others and no weapon in the armoury is more powerful than religion, so I suppose atheistic materialism as practiced by Stalin et al is a religion, so to some extent I'm with you alchemist, though if you now say "I’m holier than thou", I say, “beware, for pride comes before a fall”!

Jesus had a rather famous saying on this subject: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”

We seem to be a fair way from the topic……., but I guess the thread has pretty well dried up.

Islam is not the only ideology to cause terror.

Communist China has done much to beat people into accepting their ideology. I just read an interesting book about this called "As Bold as a Lamb" by Ken Anderson. It is the story of a Chinese pastor who was put in a prison camp for 20 years. Every day after hard labor and sheer exhaustion he had to endure 2 hour long lecturers as to why religion was false and atheism was true and why the communist ideology was the correct one. He was seperated from his wife and family (his wife died in another prison). The case is not unique. Many many people suffered the same plight.

By the way, interestig post Xena. You wrote

"A very conservative interpretation of the bible leads to the christian identity's conservative and right-wing agenda. They are exclusive and have been responsible for a lot of terrorism on their own part eg; anti-abortionist Clayton Waagner.

Anti-Immigration is also a part of the agenda – many posts here have been against immigration – not all from Christian extremists, however enough have been placed."

You forgot to mention how Christians like William Wilberforce abolished the slave trade in the British empire and how eventually this led to the abolish of slavery in the Islamic world.

You also talked a lot about terrorism. You managed to name just one man who called himself a Christian who did something extreme. I don't suppose you could name another 15 so called Christian terrorist attacks so we could at least reach the same number that are being commited by Muslims in places like Iraq almost every week? I wonder how many terrorist Christian organizations you could name?

Xena, I think it is wrong to kill those who perform abortions. But think about this. If a few hundred years ago one man killed another man for trading slaves and he hated the slave trade what would you think about that?

If you lived 200 hundred years ago and someone said to you, "If you don't support slavery then don't buy a slave. If other people want to own a slave isn't it their right? How dare you interfere with their choice!" How would you feel? Would you respect their position and remain silent? The person who looks at owning slaves as everyones right is saying that slaves aren't human. The person who says that women should have a choice to kill their own child are saying that a fetus is not human. Pro choices and pro lifers both believe that innocent people should not be killed. The issue in the debate is, "Is a fetus a human being?" If they are they are innocent and should be protected rather than killed.

It is hard work trying to bring everyone down to the same level.

Here are some things we should be concerned about.

The punishment according to the Quran is cutting off the thieves hand which is enforced in Saudi (not by an extremist group but by a government.

Now, imagine you are a politician in Saudi Arabia and you say in parliament, "I think the punishment for thieves should be a fine or prison sentence" and someone yells out (as they are prone to do), "Do you think you know better than Allah? Do you think you know better than God!?" Now you are in trouble. You could be labelled an enemy of Allah (See Surah 5:33 to see what happens to the enemies of Allah http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ ). Perhaps this is why some Australian Imams are saying that the Sharia is non-compatable with democracy? Islamic Law (Sharia) is very detailed.

It would seem that Islam is not compatable with democracy (I suggest you read Romans 13 to find out the Christian view regarding government http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013&version=31 )

Christian terrorism
From Wikipedia,
Christian terrorism refers to terroristic acts or doctrine motivated by the promotion of Christianity, either putatively or actually. Examples include the assassination and threatening of abortion doctors—such as James Charles Kopp's shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian, and the tactics of strategic rape and abduction of child soldiers by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda—linking each of these examples is the claim by those committing the acts of terrorism that such acts are performed in furtherance of Christian goals or teachings…
.

….. Often, their activities are rooted in pre-existing mutual hatred, such as the case is with the conflict in Northern Ireland, which has roots traceable as far back as medieval England. While some of the Christian terrorist groups active today may be motivated by the prospect of converting subjects to join their faith, others have territorial/political motives for fighting. Still others have more in common with Nazi ideology than with religious ideology, and work primarily with racist ideals, such as white supremacy.

List of Christian Terrorist Organizations
• Christian Identity movement
• Ku Klux Klan (A racist Protestant Christian organization. )
• The Order (1980s-present)
• Lord's Resistance Army (Christian/Pagan/Muslim) (1987-present) (Uganda)
• Nagaland Rebels (1948-present) (Nagaland)

Monday, July 18, 2005
Christian Terrorist Rudolph Sentenced
What the Rightwing Press Will not Say

Notorious Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph was sentenced to two life terms on Monday. The one-time fugitive had carried out four bombings that terrorized the southeastern areas of the United States. Among his crimes were the blowing up of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed a policeman, and a bombing of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia.

As his sister-in-law made clear, Rudolph is driven by the ideology of the "Christian Identity" hate group. Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing was likewise connected to Christian identity and their "Elohim City".

Source: http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/christian-terrorist-rudolph-sentenced.html

Christian Terrorism in Northeast India

Here on this page you will find several reports and news items on the shocking amount of terrorism caused by the Christian militant groups in Northeast India,

Source
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm

Trinity, I looked up the sites you posted. Did you look up mine?

The Klu Klux Klan hay?

I find it strange (if what you say is true) that the once head of the Klu Klux Klan Johnny Lee Clary became a Christian. I also found it interesting that Mr Clary only knew a couple of Bible verses when he was the head of the Klan. If the Klan is a Christian organization it is one which doesn’t pay much attention to the Bible. In fact that was one of the things that eventually led Clary to read the Bible to try and find verses to support the Klan’s view. The end result? He came to Christ and now defends black people and has written books which expose the Klan. Here is Johnny Lee Clary’s story http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/Life%20Summary.htm

You mentioned the "The Christian Identity Movement"

I met one of these blokes once and he knew next to nothing about the Bible. In Martin Walter’s “The Kingdom of the Cults” he shows how the Christian identity movement (or British Israelism) twists the Bible to the extreme (to say the least). Below are some links to the Christian identity movement

http://www.carm.org/list/christian_identity.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html

I looked up the LRA on the Wikipedia

Quote: "How the leaders of the LRA reconcile their apparent Christian beliefs and their campaign of terror and bloodshed is not understood".

Isn’t it odd that where there are lots of Muslims who know the Quran well there is a lot of violence against non-Muslims but most of the violence by these "Christian terrorist" organizations happens where there are few Christians who don’t seem to know the Bible. If Christianity is really so violent shouldn’t the majority of attacks by Christians be happening in places where there are few non-Christians and lots of Christians who know the Bible well ? Islamic extremists know the Quran very well.

Here is a copy of the letter which was written by Mohammed to the Omani people which is on display at Sohar Fort, Sultanate of Oman. http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/oman.htm

Jesus never said or wrote anything like that.

To the conservative christian contingent - it is very upsetting to have your religion criticised isn't it? Makes you sad, angry and defensive. You feel that you have to fight back don't you - after all its your belief system that is at stake here. How dare others insult your religion! So you churn out the hyperlinks, the arguments as to why your religion is better than anybody else's. No one understands how you feel.

Well, maybe someone does understand. A lot of Muslims must be feeling sad, angry and defensive right now. Perhaps it is time to stop with the criticism and start with the co-operation and respect for one another.

Just a thought......

A follower of Jesus Christ does not have to defend Him, his life stands alone from any defence we might like to make. Our defence is inferior to his character and behaviour. Examine Him, apart from his followers.

The term Christian Religion is a system of belief held that may reflect some of his teachings. We may be ashamed to defend this as it is often corrupt, and controlled by men with evil intent.

Any religion / idiology that is enforced upon a person denies the individual the right of choice. Jesus gave choice, he said any one who follows me must take up his cross. It is the choice of self denial, of any aspirations for power, control or pleasure.

The alchemist,
You state you are a nonbeliever, then go on to explain the basis of your belief. If you class yourself as a believer in "dimensionalist evolution" I would think that if any one who vilifies you as a person to incite violence against you for your belief you could bring a case against them in Victoria as an unbeliever in your religion / idiology. You do not have to be identified as a believer in a God. Buddahists do not believe in deity. Howeve you might need to register your world view to have it recognised. However I see the removal of the right to criticize as dangerous, because I know you are good at it, and I do not wish to have you silenced just because you do not agree with me.

Quote, "Philo, confused again, nonbeliever vilification does not refer to us being charged, it relates to us being unable to bring charges against the religious for them vilifying us. I am a dimensionalist, we see us as a part of an ever changing and evolving universe. A universe that has many different dimensions that intermingle with our own. For us what's important is to open the door between this 3th dimension and the 4th. Once we open it, we may see where our destiny is leading. As some of us have come to this understanding, we may be able to take our consciousness with us on the next step in our evolutionary path."

Since we are not as advanced in our evolving then please make no derogatory comparisons with past human failures of religions, they were closer related to inferior species - not as evolved. Since you are so much further along in the evolutionary tree and have evolved into a superior society with superior intelligence; I was wondering can you let us into view this superior social structure so we can droole with envy at your advanced society, us religious beings so inferior holding hope in a superior afterlife.

I reiterate my previous post >>A lot of Muslims must be feeling sad, angry and defensive right now. Perhaps it is time to stop with the criticism and start with the co-operation and respect for one another.<<

It would progressive and heartening if we collectively could extend the hand of friendship to our Muslim people in this horrific time where their religion has been poisoned and hijacked by the lunatic fringe.

It would behove our christian people to desist from the mud slinging (as I and others have demonstrated it is not pleasant to have your belief system derided) and offer compassion and solidarity in an effort to defeat the terrorists.

Failure to help each other means the terrorists have won.

A little less smugness and a little more humility would go a long way towards defeating the terrorists among us.

Sorry philo, confused again, dimensionalist evolution is not a belief, but theoretical science. If it turns out to be the right theory, then we go with it, it if turns out to be the wrong theory, then we change our direction. This is how science has evolved, we understand there are dimensions that we can work within, if we find the right approach (nano technology, quantum mechanics). That is not a belief, but an evolving science. Xena cries for understanding, as do others from all persuasions, but in practise, there are no real attempts at healing the rifts between each legendary fantasy. It is not the belief that is wrong, but the implementation of that belief. All religions stand in the same room, they are just looking at different parts of it and refuse to see that the room contains many different things and not just what they can or want to see. If you put 3 people in a room facing each other, then asked them to tell what they see before them, each would give a different view of the room. This means that everyone is right from their own point of view, but they are not right when it comes to the actual reality of what is in the room. The religious only wish to see one part of the room, their own and they don't give a hoot about what anyone else may see. So we have the situation of the religious looking at each other, screaming, you must see what I see, but I mustn't see what you see, for I can't be wrong. Sad to have such tunnel vision and miss out on so much more of life, because of the entrenched fear of difference. Personally, for philo, my approach to life has enabled me to spend the last 30 years without illness, colds or viral infections and with a body that belies its years. It has also shown me that passive resistance assists in the humble understanding of life and the universe, along with a good laugh at oneself, which helps enormously.

Achemist

Conur with your last post. The room analogy is good - one could also use the blind men and the elephant.

Just one request, please use paragraphs, would make your posts easier to read. Also a good way to define a particular point without resorting to capitals.

Interesting how the CC's (Conservative Christians) can't see the connection between posts vilifying their religion and their negative rant on Islam. Seems it is OK to pick sections out of the Koran (which is based on the bible) to prove how 'bad' muslims are. But when I or others do it to them on comes the theological argument.

My point with the posts about Christian Identity and so on was simply to show that all religions have their bad side. And again I say that it is not going to end terrorism by ranting about how bad Islam may be. I disagree with much of Islam as well, but I do not believe it is progressive to write a lot of hate filled posts about it. I have clearly demonstrated the futility of a negative christian rant - just gets everyone defensive doesn't it?

It is like trying to communicate with concrete - does being religious mean being losing the ability for critical thinking?

I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.
Mohandas Gandhi

Xena, have you considered that it might be your own dislike of Christianity, even, dare I say it, hatred towards those of us who wish to be identified as Christians that drives you in your criticism of us?

I don’t know to what extent you understand dar al Islam and dar al harb teaching of Islam or the subjugation of minority Christian and Jewish populations in the Muslim world as dhimmis (try googling dhimmi and dhimmitude). Christians tend to be aware of the history of their relations with Islam. By the end of the 4th century, North Africa and the Middle East were largely Christian, but all that changed with the rise of Islam in the 7th and 8th century and the conquest and forced conversion of these largely Christian lands. As late as 1453 or thereabouts, the Muslims were hammering at Vienna’s doors.

Christians are simply concerned that there should not be a repetition of these things today. Recent events demonstrate that there are at least some Muslims who would not only like Australia (or Europe) to become a Muslim nation (as all Muslims wish, just as all Christians wish Australia to be a Christian nation) but are prepared to use extreme measures to achieve that goal.

You and I may agree this is all unlikely, certainly in our lifetime, but it is good to understand these things and to be vigilant.

As for Johnny Rotten, you are extremely presumptuous to suggest that reason is not involved in (Christian) doctrine or that (Christian) doctrine is in conflict with morality. I cannot imagine a higher form of morality than that taught by Jesus Christ, can you? I suggest the difference between us is that the religious do not deny the supernatural which to us is an entirely reasonable thing, forming part of our identity. St Augustine once said that “the human soul is restless until it finds its rest in God”. This has accorded well with the experience of millions down through the centuries of time and a few stroppy aggravated and aggravating atheists are not about to overturn that.

Alchemist,
So you believe stable society should be founded on changing opinions and values of scientific theory: your own theory being the best practise that could eventually prove to be fantacy. If shift in scientific opinion happens to be your foundation for social behaviour; then allow those who prefer a stable definition of the psychological sciences to hold their opinions. Whose’ scientific opinion is keeping you updated? I happen to believe in the unchanging Designer of a changing universe who said 600 BC about man that empirical knowledge would increase (Daniel 12: 4), not the latest theory.

“Directional Evolution”
1. Is there ordered rational unfolding or random mutational developments in the genes?
2. Is all new ideas a progressive improvement in intellectual theory and experiential knowledge and temporary absolute?
3. Is there conscious life in level 4 beyond the present?

How did you form this view?
1. Taught by others past opinions / theory
2. Came by personal intuition, a hunch you felt to be right today
3. A conclusion drawn by empirical stable scientific research
4. Is your desire to be right merely a fantacy?

Will the human genome reach the 4th dimension before human abuse or an asteroid destroy the earth? Does the Christian teaching of the higher human consciousness for the righteous pure, in the eternal spiritual afterlife, compare?

Is evolution an unfolding of latent power from within the human genome to higher conscious life form or random accidental mutations; if so then I suggest you stand back and let it just happen directionally or randomly. Otherwise you are imposing intellectual design to change a natural evolutionary direction. You are causing change in direction by Creatorial design. Let it happen! Do not concern yourself with religious fanatics they will pass and your kind will reign supreme in a 4th dimension, or your kind will impose their view on all latent developers.

When we know the opinion you are advocating we can evaluate and critique it as an answer to the conflicting opinion of the human condition. However, beware you may be vilified as an unstable deluded fruitcake

David,
I totally agree with your last post. Excellent! Atheists assume they are the only ones with the right way, all the truth and the ultimate enlightenment.

Quotes like this,"It is like trying to communicate with concrete - does being religious mean being losing the ability for critical thinking?" Critical thinking?

“Unstable deluded fruitcake?”

It’s difficult to be reverent while giggling, sorry. I feel that if the legislation will simply provide a forum the equivalent of this thread, then yes get rid of it

Been fishing. Made a loaf of unleavened bread (organic) fish on toast, fed the crew drank some Tasmanian wine, had to try and stop laughing. It is enlightening when the religious provide us with their best moral and ethical outbursts, enabling us to understand where they are firmly stuck. Note, the examples of their moral teachings, always resorting to violence, semantic or physical. Thats why we are about to suffer another religious war.

Explaining to the religious what possibilities may lay before us, is impossible. An ordered society is one that should be based on evolving understanding, not questionable fantasy. It also should be based on the acceptance of difference and not enslavement to violent fallacies.

Theoretically it's reasonable to assume that our universe may be a drop of water falling from a tap, when it hits the ground, the universe we know may just splatter. This fall from the tap may take in our concept of time, billions of years. In the concept of time from the taps dimension, it may be one second. I am not saying that this is true, but it is more theoretically possible than someone who doesn't exist, that preaches love peace and harmony, yet within the example provided by its follows, it is filled with hate, violence and all manner of immoral acts against the life forms of this planet. Not very progressive or ethical.

Good fun, drawing out the reality of how the religious really do express themselves and implement their beleifs, just like fishing, dangle the bait and they bite ferociously.

Dear god, or Jesus, please come back and rescue all your follows, and take them to heaven. So that they may share with you and each other, their example of the good life you offer them.

Signed, unstable, deluded fruitcake,(organic, with lots of fruit, nuts and wholemeal grains).

PS, By the way, fruitcake is the most popular cake in the world, made in most countries and provided for most festive occasions, because of its variety, taste and ability to bring pleasure to those that indulge in it

I'm w/you hutlen. Anyways 'ere's another little kernel for the thread.

Seems there’s a small group here who love to dish it out but can’t take it. They want freedom to cast aspersions on other religions and belief systems, but, as Xena has clearly demonstrated, can’t take it when their own belief system is criticised.

Looks like I’m going to be ‘presumptuous’ again, here’s another couple of quotes from Gandhi.

(For the intellectually challenged – my previous post was about religion in general – not a specific religion – the following refers to religion in general too. And BTW ‘reason’ has not been demonstrated hence the post).

Therefore I submit the following from the wisdom of Gandhi.

I hope this is self explanatory – don’t have time to spell it out.

“A religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”

And here’s another one for people who are swift to anger as a result of their arrogance

“Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.“

Now I guess the 'fruits' will slap my wrist again.

Aaaahh freedom of speech gotta love it.

This is unmitigated hogwash Alchemist - too much Tasmanian wine?

I have no difficulty in accepting differences of opinion.

Rather, it seems you are the one having the difficulty in accepting that the religious might have an opinion they wish to express and will not be cowered by the kind of bullyboy tactics you and your fellow lazy God haters like to employ. The only posts "filled with hate" and "violent fallacies" appear to be those of your own and fellow GHs.

It sometimes helps to read what you've written before you post it, but perhaps you enjoy rhetorical flourishes - saves you the effort of actually, thoughtfully, interacting with your opponent.

I see no evidence of 'god hating' in any of the posts. Rather there is a dislike of being dictated to or arrogantly dismissed.

The nature of a debate is that people submit differences of opinion. If every one agreed with each other then it wouldn't be a debate.

It is one thing to state that you have no difficulty with differences of opinion. It is quite another to demonstrate that ideal. To date people have been called presumptuous, god hating, christian hating and now lazy!

Of course you have no difficulty with differences of opinion - provided they are all yours.

I think Trinity's post summarises what I find distressing about the antics of a number of the persons contributing on this thread.

Trinity says, "I see no evidence of 'god hating' in any of the posts." Without naming names a good few of the virulent anti Christians on this thread have already identified themselves as athiests. If you prefer "God deniers" or "God forsaken" we could try those descripters. If our athiests love God and seek to follow his ways whether in the Bible or Qur'an or some other holy book then they can tell us so.

Trinity says "Rather there is a dislike of being dictated to or arrogantly dismissed." We too think likewise of Trinity, et al! Touche.

Trinity says, "The nature of a debate is that people submit differences of opinion. If every one agreed with each other then it wouldn't be a debate." Agreed

Trinity says, "It is one thing to state that you have no difficulty with differences of opinion. It is quite another to demonstrate that ideal. Agreed, but this cuts both ways Trinity!

Trinity says, "Of course you have no difficulty with differences of opinion - provided they are all yours." How blind can you be? Are you any different or Xena, Johnny Rotten, or The alchemist? Take a look in the mirror, it might help.

I am happy to debate the issues and will debate them with people who care to debate issues and stick with the issues. My last post was one of desparation faced with The Alchemist, following a time worn pattern, playing the man and not the issue.

I find it somewhat ironical in debating athiests who critise Christians for calling attention to dar al harb, the nature of jihad, etc to know a) Muslims utterly reject atheism and would take the prescribed action against such persons under Sharia law should it be the law of the land, and b) that I have more in common with Muslims than an athiest ever would.

I think we can all recognise the problem with being human - we sin. Sin is the offence of degrading the image of God in another human, of violating their person by neglect or control, by verbal or physical violence. The incarnation of God in human character is expressed in perfect speech, unchallangeable wisdom and action that enhances the lives of others. As Romans 3: 23 says we have all sinned and fallen short of the image of God. Acknowledgement and confession is in order, if we have not sought the best for our opponents. May we be forgiven?
_______________________________________________________________

At one time popular science theory defended the fact that the Earth was flat, and Colombus was a fool for denying this and sailing off the edge. Unfortunately the fool turned up to a red faced audience. Therefore following popular theory science is not a foundational truth. We would consider persons holding such views today as stupid, and there are such persons. Do we ignore, vilify, or abuse, or rather endeavour to challenge their conclusions. I would think best practise would be to endeavour to pose relavent facts that may challenge their view. This is not hate or vilification as some espouse, this is bringing things to their attention. Yes it might offend them and they might feel intellectually threatened. Do they take us to the Tribunal because we challenge their thinking? Atheists and agnostics have been challenging Christians for the past 2,000 years, we can take it, and we prefer not to silence our opposition with charges of vilification as they keep us checking on the facts and building tolerance. We all dislike personal abuse that degrades our image.

What was this thread about? Oh yes David Palmer’s desire to have the vilification laws repealed. For a while there I thought it was the lets trash everybody’s POV hour. I am toooo modest to say that I am the only target for the seriously Christian (joke Joyce).

Well David has succinctly demonstrated why he wants the laws repealed, because he wishes to further hatred against Islam – just read his posts –very negative opinion of Islam. Yet when other posters say negative things about his religion – ooo er don’t we get touchy.

I believe in freedom of speech – I don’t believe in the promulgation of hate. How do we monitor this? We create vilification laws.

The final irony in all this is that before this thread began I would have agreed with David Palmer.

Being of a liberal POV I did think that may be the Islam community over reacted.

However, I have changed my POV because of the anti-Islamic posts that appear from the usual suspects (Yes Philo, BD & DP) and also because of the insults that accompany these posts “presumptuous, god hating, christian hating …lazy” and the latest “"God deniers" or "God forsaken”.

My mother always told me if you can’t say something nice then don’t say anything at all.

Judge Higgins stated in his summary that Pastor Scot had "failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal translation of the Quran and of Muslims’ religious practices which were not mainstream."

What I find interesting is that here we have two former Muslims slagging off at their previous religion as a means of promoting thier status in their new religion, Christianity. Is this sour grapes?

Have they ever critically appraised other religions in the spirit of ecumenical debate and unity? Why just focus on Islam?

The vilification laws are there to provide parameters for religous zealotry which may caused people to transgress these same laws.

Following Palmer's logic, lets repeal all hate laws that are not conducsive to what he and Catch the Fire ministries thinks are not in like with free speech. Yeah sure!

I'm not a Christian and don't believe in their Jesus stories.
I'm not a Muslim and don't believe in their beliefs either.

But I would defend laws that ensure vilification does not occur between the two or with my own beliefs.

I'm with Trinity.

To Ranier, Trinity and Xena (Alchemist will scrape in when he learns to use paragraphs :)

I've taken a deep breath, and would like to work towards a better understanding and embracing of our divergent viewpoints.

Pity we can't all get together for a coffee or something, but state boundaries seem to preclude that idea, but I'd sure be willing.

I'm trying to understand how we are 'advocating hate' or are 'anti muslim' etc, by simply posting truth. I'm not talking about 'opinion' here, I'm speaking about plain simple truth, about the fundamentals of that faith, and its founder.

Let me clarify one thing, when we do that, the usual reply is 'But what about the crusades (and every other 'bad' example of supposed Christian behavior throughout history) .. well on those things David, Philo and myself would stand shoulder to shoulder with all of you in CONDEMNING such actions.

The reasons are simple. Christ's teaching and life in no way support such actions. It's not rocket science.

What I am struggling with awefully here, is that you guys/gals are not seeing that Mohammed was different. When (to use just one example) we say "He tortured", and provide a quote from the Hadith, an islamic source, we are 'hate filled anti muslim'.. Are you suggesting that Muslims have no interest or don't base their mindset on their own foundation documents ? This totally escapes me.

When the Koran says "Some you killed, (600-900 males) others you captured (women and children)" and we say he was a 'mass murderer' you again charge us with 'hate filled intolerance'.

I simply do not get this. Pointing to Hitlers writings in Mein Kampf as a source of National Socialist mindset about Jews especially, is in no way invalidated just because a Nazi Doctor discovered the link between Lung Cancer and smoking.... or is it ?

I'm guessing that too much exposure to a liberal view about 'others' is too ingrained for reason to prevail. I'm happy to be corrected on this.

BOAZ_David, have a look at your response to references to your own foundation document and the actions of the father of Jesus. Plenty of wholesale killing there including the murder of children and others.

You appear to insist on treating such incidents in a different manner to the manner you treat incidents in the Quran.

"Are you suggesting that Christians have no interest or don't base their mindset on their own foundation documents ? This totally escapes me."

Let the followers of the religion whose foundation documents are without sin cast the first stone.

R0bert

Part 2.

The events we relate to you all, are not in dispute by Muslims, (except Ash will tell you that just the ringleaders of the Banu Qurazya were executed) they are rationalized.

The oppostion to the War of liberation in Iraq, comes mostly from "Sunni" Muslims. How much trouble are we hearing about from Shia Muslims these days ? pretty much zero. Why ? Because instead of an 'oppressed majority' they are now a FREE majority.

Yet, "Disillusioned British Muslim Youth" are trying to dictate UK foreign policy to 'get out of Iraq, and other Islamic countries' umm if they did .. right now .. would it be 'peace and tranquility' or a Shia/Sunni/Kurd blood bath of proportions to boggle the mind ? So, we need to ask, 'who are' these 'British youths'... hmm I suspect they are SUNNI.

So, back to the legislation, and for Ranier's sake, the CTF case.
Dude, Danny Naliah was not formerly a Muslim so please review your facts. http://www.catchthefire.com.au/ see biography bit.

If the legislation was implemented even handidly, it would be less of a problem. But when on the evidence (again from personal experience with the EOC) it is used as a 'selective political tool' to protect the interests of particular constituencies, the worry flags go up to full mast.

Truth, should NEVER be viewed as 'vilification'.

Someone said once "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized." .. (do a search) i.e. missing reality.

Vilifaction is this.

When quoting Jesus 'driving out the sellers in the temple' one interprets this as meaning "Jesus hated the Jews" and promotes the idea.
When in fact, he was attacking 'specific' individuals who were using the Temple for profit. That (mis)interpretation about Christ hating Jews cost the lives of around 6 million people.

Solution: correctly interpreting the text. All we are asking, is that truth about Islam be recognized as it is, not as people would like it to be based on 'liberal social values'.

BD >>Solution: correctly interpreting the text. All we are asking, is that truth about Islam be recognized as it is<<

Only if the truth about ALL other religions, including yours, be recognised as it is.

Now do you see how truth can be used to inspire hatred?

If you have German friends do you constantly remind them of the truth about nazis?

I'm Tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual, religion or culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by Australians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, American, tongues, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our National Motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it in our schools.

If we offend your old culture, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because we are part of our culture. If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like (A Fair Go), then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.
This is OUR COUNTRY, Our Land, and Our Lifestyle, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, our non believing, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

Alchemist, thank you for your thoughtful piece.

I hope to do some work on the topic of multiculturalism and its limits, a topic the recent London outrages have caused quite a few to reflect on. In my own denomination, a striking feature is the high proportion (maybe as high a 15-20% and growing) of people other than of European origin: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic speakers from various middle eastern/north African countries, Sudanese, Samoans come to mind. What binds us together is a common (christian) faith, but also a shared pleasure in living in this nation where we have some many privileges, freedoms, etc. However, it is not easy integrating all these different people because, despite a common religion, there are real cultural differences.

The London bombing highlighted the alienation of a small but significant proportion of Muslim young people. Integrating people who share the values and world view of the predominant religion (Christianity, however much that may be despised by some) is one issue, but can that be done where the religion is very different and where there has been an unhappy history between the two? That is a legitimate question to ask.

Now I can hear the atheists among you saying a plague on you both! However atheism is not the answer. In a post today Spengler (Asia Times) has written, “Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.”

I think all the indications are that the West in its departure from its religious foundation is dying, not least through its failure to maintain an adequate fertility rate. Muslims are holding up well on fertility, church going Christians likewise. Demographic studies suggests the world is heading in the direction of more religion, not less. Basically, infertility is slowly killing off the secular world, it just hopes it can recruit sufficient from the religious to hold its end up. This will become increasingly unlikely

Dear Xena,

In reply to your post on the 28th of July.

I don't like it when people attack what I believe but I support their right to do so. If someone tried to use physical force or the law to silence those who criticize what I believe I would oppose that person. People have a right to criticize what I believe even if it hurts, but I have a right to defend what I believe.

If someone attacks what I believe I will argue the case for why I believe what I believe, I will not take the law into my own hands and physically attack that person. Neither will I try to get the government to silence that person.

If I was walking down the street and some people yelled out, "lets kill Ali!" I would come to Ali's defence. Not because I agree with Ali but because he is a human being made in the image of God and as such he has intrinsic value. (If someone tore up a picture of you what would that say about what they thought of you?)

People cross the line when they encourage others to take the law into their own hands or silence those who disagree with them. That is what many in the Islamic world are trying to do.

In the Quran Muslims are told that Allah will strengthen them to take vengence on their enemies. That is why Islam is having so many problems and why freedom of speech is not exactly a strong point in the Islamic world.

Is it wrong to say others are wrong? No it is not but we must be willing to examine the evidence to see if that is the case.

If we say we should not say things which are offensive to others then we cannot say Neo-Nazis are wrong.

This debate is no small matter because it is freedom of speech which is on trial.

I strongly recommend the book "The Absolutes" by James Robison for anyone who really cares about freedom of speech.

I've met Muslims who are very kind people. I've also met Muslims who defend the Taliban.

How then do we get to the truth?

Find out what the Quran says about Jews and Christians.

If your not a Muslim, Jew or Christian according to the Quran you are a pagan.

So then, find out what the Quran says about Pagans and what should be done to them.

This is not an attack, if the Quran says nice things about Pagans Trinity and Xena and others will feel wonderful when they read those verses.

I did a search on an Islamic website for the word pagan, Sura 5:82 was very interesting.
http://www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?UserString=pagan&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dquran%2B%26as_q%3Dsearch%2Bengine&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on

But isn't it odd that I search for pagan on the Muslim Students Association website only found pagan mentioned in 3 verses but the site above I found three pages of verses about the pagans. Perhaps the Muslim Students Association don't want people to know just how much love the Quran is spreading.

I'm concerned about what is happening in the world. Is Islam really peace loving? What should be done to the enemies of Allah according to the Quran?

I wont say because that might be offensive to someone.

But if you want to find out how kindly Muslims are to treat their enemies read Sura 5:33 which the Muslim Students Association has been kind enough to put on-line so that they can spread the message of love toward those who refuse to become Muslims. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

Isn't all so happy and joyful!

Alchemist, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that there have been people in this country who are not christian, whose primary language is not english and whose ancestors have been here for a long time.

Not just the indiginous people either. Afgan Camel drivers are a significant part of our history, the Chinese have played a key role at times and probably others who do not come to mind at the moment.

We pale coloured english speakers might form the majority of the population (BOAZ_David has provided stats on that elsewhere) but we are not the only ones with a legitimate interest in this country or the direction it goes in.

I'll accept that the newly arrived have the freedom to go elsewhere if they don't like the rest of us. In fact I would prefer they exercised that right if their idea of a good country is one where I have to follow their religion (or the behavioural codes which go with it). That is a different concept from saying those who are not pale skinned christians have no say in the manner the country grows.

R0bert

BBBrad

On 28th I wrote "To the conservative christian contingent - it is very upsetting to have your religion criticised isn't it? Makes you sad, angry and defensive. You feel that you have to fight back don't you - after all its your belief system that is at stake here. How dare others insult your religion! So you churn out the hyperlinks, the arguments as to why your religion is better than anybody else's. No one understands how you feel.

Well, maybe someone does understand. A lot of Muslims must be feeling sad, angry and defensive right now. Perhaps it is time to stop with the criticism and start with the co-operation and respect for one another."

Now BBBrad, unless I'm missing something here your post does not in anyway provide a response to the above. If I am wrong then please elucidate.

So you continue with yet more hyperlinks which yet again shows some of the worst of the Quran. Give it a rest. I know there is very bad stuff in the Quran - there's good stuff too - just like in the bible.

I get it why can't you?

How are your posts helping? As Rainier and Trinity said all you are doing is providing very good reasons to have vilification laws. If you want I'll post some negative stuff about Judaism for a change - does that help?

You really don't do much self reflection - do you read through your posts before up loading them?

Words fail me.

This is one massive fruit cake and I think I swallowed one too many nuts.

Overview of the Decision:
1. The Act
Justice Morris spends most of the first four pages out of eight page discussion on the actual Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and how it should be interpreted...
a) Free speech
He notes that there has been "community concern that Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 impairs legitimate free speech about racial and religious matters." He says this is not the case. (Paragraph 1)
Justice Morris says "The Act is reserved for extreme circumstances: such as where a person engages in conduct that inflames others to hate a person or persons because they adhere to an idea or practice or are of a particular race." He says this claim by Fletcher is "preposterous".

b) Intention of Parliament
Justice Morris notes the intention of parliament as set out in the preamble: "The Parliament recognises that freedom of expression is an essential component of a democratic society and that this freedom should be limited only to the extent that can be justified by an open and democratic society."

b) Incites
Justice Morris refers to Section 8 of the R&RTA and says "The key word is "incites". In its context, this does not mean "causes". Rather it carries the connotation of "inflame" or "set alight". The section is not concerned with conduct that provokes thought; it is directed at conduct that is likely to generate strong and negative passions in the ordinary person. An example of such passions would be where persons are so moved that violence might result." (Paragraph 5)

cont:

c) Religion vs the 'person'
Justice Morris clarifies that statements about a religion are not covered by the law.
He says "The Act is not concerned with the vilification of a religious belief or activity as such. Rather it is concerned with the vilification of a person, or a class of persons, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of the person or class.... The law does not stop a person from engaging in conduct that involves contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a religious belief or activity, provided this does not incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or a class of persons on the ground of such belief or activity. The law recognises that you can hate the idea without hating the person." (Paragraph 7)

d) Religious Tolerance
Justice Morris said "But, just as religious tolerance is a human right, so too is free speech." (Paragraph 8)

e) Genuine religious purpose
Justice Morris concludes "... Hence, in my opinion, a genuine religious purpose may include the purpose of asserting that a particular religion (or, indeed, no religion) is the true way; and that any way, but the true way, is false." (Paragraph 9)

The full decision is attached and is on the VCAT website at
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Listing-Home+Page+News-Anti-Discrimination+List+Decision?OpenDocument&1=Home~&2=~&3=~&REFUNID=~

Holding a difference of opinion is not hate or the incitment of vilification. Freedom of speech is just that the right to express a contrary view.

'Teacher: Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second... Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What's the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?

Teacher: No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?

Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather I think it's dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone's opinion.

Teacher: This should prove to be an interesting semester.

Another Student: (blurts out) Ain't that the truth. (the students laugh)'

From Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl's book "Relativism"