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