REASON
Thanx for the opportunity to share something on the matters you raised. (I appreciate the passion by the way :)

With regard to most of those events/actions you put forward, can I urge you to do a simple exercise. Look for any justification for them in the New Testament. The gospels/Teaching/ life of Christ is a good place to start. If you don't find any justification, please refrain from referring to them as 'Christian' in character.

As for me being 'evil' I have to agree. Paul said "I am the foremost of sinners, for I persecuted the Church of God", I haven't quite reached systematic murder yet, (as Paul had). .so perhaps I have a way to go. But that my social comments are distasteful in the extreme to some of different persuasion, I have to agree.

NOT EASY BEING.
I take on board what you shared, and have to simply point 'To Christ' and see if our Lord taught/urged such things ?

PERICLES/RHIAN

I am Christ's first, Australian Second. (shock horror :) and now I can already hear the howls of 'you hypocrite'.. well slowww down all.
The IMPORTANT point to make, is that there is no conflict between the two. We are are called to be 'salt' and 'light' not an ak47. We are called to be subject to the authorities, (Romans 13). But I make the point, that in a democracy, our voice and values are as valid as anyones, and if some bright spark deny's me ham sambo's, I'll make a noise about it.

We then see by the example of the early Christians, that even persecution is not enough to extinguish the Word in peoples hearts.
I know of no example prior to Constantine, (300yrs)where "Christians" used violence, after that, it was 'State' run.

If the State called on us to worship John Howard's image, or to deny Christ, under pain of death, then there would be a lot of executed Christians, and not from any terrorism, as we will not do that.

BD, there's a name for your claim that violence was employed by the state, rather than by Christians. It's called sophistry. You seem to forget that the separation of church and state is both relatively recent and imperfectly realised. One of the earliest proponents of a secular political system, the C14th Marsiglio of Padua, was taking direct aim at the Holy Roman Empire in his work. It's not that easy to deny the Christian provenance of an empire headed by the pope. Funnily enough, BD, Marsiglio was greatly influenced by Averroes (also known as Ibn Saud). Guess the ethnicity. By the way, BD - it's a ham sandwich, nothing more. Get over it. You do yourself no credit carrying on about what is, when all's said and done, a trifling thing. Or by whinging about local planning issues in Bullscrotum, Wisconscin, or wherever it was, because Islam is involved. I warn you now, one more ham sandwich comment, and I'll start making tasteless jokes about Mama Cass.

David:

You say that "The IMPORTANT point to make, is that there is no conflict between the two"

Quite so.

Incidentally, I think there's a better scriptural analogy than yours - when the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with a politically loaded question about whether His primary loyalties lay with the state or His faith, He gave the answer “Render … unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22.15-22; Mark 12.13-17; Luke 20.20-26)

In other words – as a hypothetical question, it’s a false dichotomy, so get nicked. Or, as you say, “there is no conflict between the two.”

You are right to say that, when absolutely forced to make a choice between allegiance to the State and to their faith, many of the early Christians chose their God. So would you, so (I hope) would I.

I don’t see how we can impose different standards on Muslim Australians, Jewish Australians, Sikh Australians ….

When we demand of any Australian that they prove their loyalty by affirming a priority of allegiances that we do not share, we are indeed hypocritical (not to say also insulting, bigoted, and lots of other unpleasant adjectives). And our motives are no more innocent than those long-ago Pharisees.

There is no attacks on the muslim community because Australians are not tribalistic unthinking animals, unlike some. This is not a testament to any multicultural policy, rather it is testament to our tolerance and ,in some cases, over-understanding. Have a look at the statistics(if Don Weatherburn hasn't already burnt them all in the great witch hunt) or check out the comments by ex-police commisioners or ex-police officers such as Tim Priest; muslim gangs amd asian gangs roam sydney selling drugs, intimidating civilians and gang attacking(even raping as we've seen)innocent predominantly white males. Darling Harbour or George St on a Friday night. Our people are being ethnically attacked , bashed and many a year are murdered all by these racist gangs. Still, our culture of understanding and non-tribalism (non-mob mentality)has not led group of white vigilantes even once down to Bankstown or Cabramatta to break up some shops etc. Not even once has there been a racial attack by a gang of white men on an ethnic. After 911, while there was talk of a backlash against muslims, I clearly remember that about 2 mosques were spray painted on, a couple had their windows broken compared to twelve churches being attacked, four were 100 years old and were burned to the ground. Some backlash. It is the same with Indonesia. A group of Asiatic-muslim supremecist racists blow us up in Bali, Mariot and our Embassy and there was no retaliation, why would there be against innocent asian muslims here in Aust. However, on the other side, when some harmless white powder was sent to the Indonesian embassy there was open debate about a possible backlash or boycott of some sort. Who is racist here? European Australains are the glue that holds this multicultural mess together. And it is only a mess because some of the groups we invited are coloured Neo-Nazis, or KKK.

ANOMIE .. 'mama cass' ? err *curious look*

RHIAN
..oops.. hang on, before I speak, let me finish wiping off the blood from the 'bigoted,insulting,hypocritical' wounds inflicted by your last line :))

I'm kidding. As Scripture says "Come, let us reason together"....

Following through on that, Caesar has a responsibility for national security (Romans 13) and given the abundance of evidence of how Islam behaves in Western societies, its ingrained inflexible attitudes to others (Hamtramck USA being a classical example)
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0404/26/a01-133933.htm
and outright statements by prominent Muslims (caught when addressing their own mob) and coupled with the recent London events, and the basic Islamic mindset, suggest strongly that restructuring social policy on immigration and multiculturalism are wise moves toward those interests.

Matthew 23
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

Fighting words ! :) but this describes Islam as much as the Pharisees.
I'm not a universalist I'm afraid, I believe in sheep and goats, and John 14.6 if you get my drift.
If we don't address our evolving social situation with sensible policy, we will be blessed with the sentiments of fellow poster W.S.Burns which is how the 'man in the street' reacts when confronted with a sense of outrage+powerlessness.

On ya Burnsy, but cool the emotion a bit mate, a few sources would helpful when quoting Kaysar Trad ok... :)

Rhian, I'm sure both of us would be the first to pick up a bruised or battered Irfan or Fellow Human and nurse them back to health, as we would for a wounded Nazi soldier, hoping to show them that its not "them" we detest, but the ideas they represent.(and the impact those ideas would have on our own lives and social fabric)

We should apply standards to religions, based on their specific goals.

Buddhism is about personal enlightenment, not political restructure. Christianity is about 'repentance, forgiveness, renewal,salt and light', Islam is about cultural, political, spiritual domination of all others

David,

“Islam is about cultural, political, spiritual domination of all others”? Ouch. I’m no Muslim, but I thought Islam was about peace and conformity to the will of God.

Sure, there are Muslim fanatics who want to place the whole world under fundamentalist political and religious authority, and who are willing to use violence to do it. There have also been (and still are) Christian exclusivists and fanatics who want to do much the same thing, bolstered by texts like John 14.6 (I am the way; I am the truth and I am the life; no one comes to the Father except by me) and Matthew 28.18-20 (“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations…”). Think of the religious rationalisations behind Western empire building, for example.

Both types of fanatics are wrong, both are dangerous and misguided and arrogant, and neither should be taken as representative of their faith or its practitioners.

Incidentally, I don’t equate either Irfan or Fellow Human with Nazi soldiers, wounded or otherwise.