Bashir Goth,

thank you for your impressionable prose, but even as a Westerner of British stock who would rather be a Christian, I do not find in your posting any reference to what is the main cause of the worrying attitude that most Muslims have of the Western world today, particularly what some are calling the Anglicised Alliance, America, Britain and Australia.

We to go back to the 1900s when Great Britain ruled the world and America was on a colonial jag like her former Motherland, taking over what was left of Spanish possessions adjoining the body of the United States and across the Pacific.

Apart from the Islamics, non-Anglicised Western countries must be concerned with such Anglicanised arrogance, so revealed in the Alliance that unlawfully is still occupying Iraq. An alliance which would have found full favour from Cecil Rhodes, his admirers still part of undercover organisations such as David Rockefeller's Trilateralists and the associated Bilderbergers, both well backed by Bank of England cash as well Wall St currency.

It could be argued that Muslims are just jealous - and to be sure it is all part of the hatred. But a hatred more fired up by the virtual takeover of British colonialism by US imperialism along with similiar pirate tactics in the change from gunboat diplomacy to missile diplomacy. Also implanting a special type of democracy to a backward world, but while on the job well on the rakeoff, formerly with the Brits it was gold, diamonds, tea and coffee, and now with Pax Americana, oil, gas and the dumping of cheap subsidised grain.

Small wonder the Muslims have got a grouch, and the Heavenly Hosts up there saying - will those Yanks and Brits down there ever learn?

Brush :) your post was a classic mate. Congratulations. You attributed the foibles of 'human nature' which have applied, apply, and will ceaselessly continue to apply to all humans wherever they be, irrespective of race or creed, to just one stream of culture and history the 'Anglo'. Its called 'Rule or be Ruled'.
They are the only 2 alternatives in life. I'm sure the main problem the Spanish had with the Yanks taking over their terrority (which they had taken from the Indians) was purely that issue, and its associated baggage of human and resource exploitation.

I don't condone such things for a moment, nor does the Bible:
"All...... (repeat) 'ALL' have (are, and will continue to) have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God" Bible bash ? :) or observation of reality. OOps.. I forgot, Greens and Democrats and Labor people don't sin :) Its only the libs ....or even worse, Family First, WOW.... and all the rest of those "Right Wing Rude, Rampaging Hyper fundamentalists"

So, Brush, where does one look for a solution to the human dilemna ? Certainly not to the corrupt and manipulated U.N. nor to the twisted and 'interest soaked' concept of International Law, (which will be interpreted by various states in terms of their perceived national interest and convenience. (stop me when I'm going wrong here :)

IKEN Your post would have been more accurate (in my opinion) if it had said "When different 'PEOPLE' are put together, those things which define them and make them different, can be a source of conflict' Religion is usually just a symbol of difference, you neglected race and language and the competition for resources and one more thing 'selffffffishness' :)

I point to Christ, and the idea that 'new people' make good societies, not 'new systems'. Brush, review John the Baptists call to the masses mate. What is the world where 'God rules' (in HEARTS not parliments) like ?

"11 John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

Bashir Goth

I agree with the sentiments of your article. Christians have similar difficulties with their interpretation of the bible. Your approach of common sense as opposed to text sense makes perfect sense to me and it is a shame that christian fundamentalists won't understand the succinct message you have published here.

A little less preaching and a lot more loving would be a good start.

Thank you.

Give us a break Boaz-David, go and reconsider the parable of the Good Samaritan or the story of Jesus knocking over the tables of the money lenders in the Temple. Some of the most wicked ( sinfull?) comments made on this forum are made by so called Christians. That warmongre of Ireland, the Reverend Ian Paisley; would be proud of some of the comments spewing out by Christians.

Bashir makes a good point about fundamentalists of any religion, perhaps a parable for our time? Continually quoting Bible passages only puts you deeper in the hole you are making for yourself.

Well stripe me pink and call me Shirley, I've misjudged Boaz.

He wasn't the only one who missed the main message, it turns out that a solid fifty percent of the forum shares with Boaz the need to isolate this as a Muslim issue. He prattles on about the Bible, bushbred talks of Muslim jealousy, davo targets Muslim immigration ("should never have been let in, especially en masse"), johnmassam selects pieces of the Koran for discussion.

It isn't about Muslims. It's about the mentality of the fundamentalist. Any fundamentalist. Any religion. Anywhere.

Listen again to Bashir Goth's words.

>>There is a huge vault between us. It is a divide between people consumed by religious thinking and who see everything through a religious prism and people of humble common sense who see things as they are.<<

>>These [fundamentalists] make a habit of covering themselves with clouds of pomposity; they like to hide behind out-of-context religious jargon; they love to reach out for history and holy texts to run away from taking a responsible position on obvious common sense issues.<<

Fundamentalism, of any colour, is the problem. It provides people with a justification (to themselves) for not having to think (for themselves). Boaz's particular brand of evangelism is living proof of the ability of an apparently literate person to "fundamentally" direct any discussion to the cul-de-sac of total immersion in a single view.

Interesting article. However, it makes a somewhat bigotted and illogical point.

Essentially, it argues that 'common sense' is the proper way to interpret reality. But on what basis does it make this claim? It can only make this claim based on a number of assumptions about the nature of the world and the universe. So why should anyone choose those assumptions over others? Bashir essentially feels that if everyone was as enlightened as him, the world would be all rosie and happy.

Even the choice of the words 'common sense' is self-serving. If it is 'common' sense, then why do so many people not have it? Clearly Bashir is seeking to try and gain the 'rational' ground by his choice of words, and I believe many will agree with him simply because the also disagree with the extremist terrorist muslims and terrorist attacks.

Yet the problem isn't that some people have 'common sense' and some people have 'text sense'. Common sense used to be that you could beat your own slaves. Common sense used to tell us that women are too emotional to vote.

Bashir. Instead of trying to cast the problem as one between the religious and the non-religious, essentially trying to force religious people to abandon any public effects of their faith, perhaps you should deal with the real issues of competing worldviews.