Fellow human. When reality begins to surface within religious illusions, don't respond, call up irrelevance.

JJH, there are arguments for your A-religious theory, but Nazi's emblems and symbols, are deeply religious. They were also supported by the christian churches throughout Europe. Many non religious regimes act disgustingly. But don't forget the millions of indigenous peoples of the world that were destroyed by bringing god to them.

There is little difference between any religion throughout history, they take it in turns to bring their violent wrath to the world.

In my youth, there were many times when I sat through sermons meant to demonise and vilify those of other faiths and christian factions. It still goes on today. Laws that uphold religious fallacies are the problem, as can be seen throughout the world.

Bd, everyone understands the mentality of christians, it is just the same as muslims, the only difference between all religion, is the timing of their constant attacks on reality. Plus the pathetic attempts to enforce by whatever means they can find, their religious delusions.

Whats gods answer for the historical and continuing reality of what religion really is.

I for one will enjoy watching, as the religious look with futile hope to their god, to rescue them from the destruction they have bestowed upon this planet in the name of their god. It is not a pretty picture that confronts us for the future.

So you had all better get on your knees, and pray to futility, as you always do. The results will be the same as they always have been, no reply, or offer of help. No, I am coming to sort you all out. No, stop the destruction you are causing. No help to change things for the better.

Come on, where is this god when it is needed to save what you all say, is its divine creation.

Answer, there is no god, just a reflection of the emptiness within the heads of the religious. So you can't vilify religion, it vilifies itself by its history, present methodologies and actions around the world.

BD,

Women in Islam: (part 4) legislates women rights in keeping maiden name, financial entity, right for inheritance, to be supported by the husband. It even defines her right not be dated in secret if a man asks her.They are equally mentioned in every verse as equal believers, which I have not seen in NT or OT.

The verse you chose deals with the obligation and punishment of the wrongdoers to their families (the word “Nashez” could mean anything such as abusive, beating children, etc.). It is not a ‘command’ for a man to beat his wife.

The Quran is contextual and cannot be taken literally and the meaning must be interpreted in today’s format. Today, there are legal systems that deals with abusive wives or husbands.

Islam is not a blind faith religion though some people think of it that way. Every few verse in the Quran, Muslims are asked to think.

How do muslims sees it:

1. Those who believe in it without having to interpret it.
2. Thos like me who interpret the context for modern days.

Questions BD,

a. Why do you always need to compare to Islam: Don’t you have confidence in your religion by itself?

b. If you only satisfy your needs by comparing it to what other have, don’t you at least feel a moral obligation to compare quote to quote and context to context? It sounds like you have little or no faith in the logic of your beliefs the way you pick 2 words or half a verse…

c. I contribute to forums to help promote harmony and fight extremism. Why don’t you comment on the Christian Taliban movement (Neo-Cons) in the US and its expanding arms in Australia and the UK? Your comments on “Katrina happened because Israel evacuated Gazza” and the denial of global warming cause “God will come down and resolve everything" is much appreciated!

Alchemist,

As long as everyone have his own truth and sees it that way life is good. The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else

Kactus asked me: Do you think that I am wrong to call a person's attention to the life and actions of their leader and to ask that a person to condemn him for those actions that are vile and repugnant?

Of course not! I support open and passionate debate but I draw the line at this questioning /calling attention to translating into a broad brush condemnation of minority groups, religions that leads to violence and exclusion.

I call into account John Howard and Kim Beazley for their lack of moral and political courage all the time - this does not mean I am calling attention to some kind of immediate responsibility that all Australians have for this inadequacy. The same could be said of Catholics and the Pope, Americans and George W Bush.

But it seems to me that those who are ethnically and culturally different from the 'majoirty' require a completely different approach. Why?

Read some of the other posts here position themselves as "spokespersons" for all Australians and you'll see my point in reverse.

And specifically if you have the patience and intellectual stamina to engage with a cultural and philosophical Luddite - ask Arjay for his opinion on anything. He’ll always good for it.

• Col Rouge, Yes it was a physical and unprovoked violent attack.

Dear Fellow Human from another human being,

At first sight, your statement, “The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else” has a certain attractiveness to it.

The problem is when you stop and think about it.

Most of us, at some time or other, really do think we are on to “absolute truth” (even those who fashionably deny the existence of such a concept) and that everyone else should sign up to our version of absolute truth as well. The classic is the teaching of evolution. Most of the scientific fraternity and all who find the theory a necessary buttress against the claims of religion are adamant that the theory is fact and under no circumstances may any form of theistic creationism raise its head above the top of the bunker otherwise off go their heads, loss of preferment in academia, etc.

Christians (and I would suspect Muslims as well in their own way, though I can’t speak for them) do believe in absolute truth – the truth of God revealed through Scripture and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. However, I don’t know of any Christian, certainly not for a very long time, who would seek impose their vision of absolute truth on anyone else. After all, religion is a matter of the heart. I would be interested to know how a Muslim would respond to the same issue.

Dear David,

That is a very good contribution.
I am a Muslim and would agree with a lot of above.
I guess I was trying to point a fine line of balance: I do believe in my faith strongly but guess I learnt to accept people for who they are and what they are.
The point is even if I believe in universal absolute truth, there is practically no way to prove it to anyone else because people are simply different. Being a Muslim growing up in Catholic education, I was in atheism land for few years before going back to Islam. But the truth is, we believe because we believe. We process events, thoughts, logic, emotions and impressions differently like fingerprints.

I had similar discussion in 1983 with a French monk in my school on the same topic, a Muslim should have a lot less reason to impose his/her beliefs since according to our faith:
- Christians and Jews (Named as people of the book) should be left alone as God judges our differences and our intent at the end of days.
- Everyone‘s deeds are his own saviour. We should only explain when asked or correct when mis-interpreted.
Again I am only stating how most Muslims view it or modern days Muslims view it

Dear Fellow human

Great to make music with you.

Just a small point, but actually to us a big point:

We say, and we believe with experience on our side, we are never good enough to merit God’s favour, but God in His mercy and great love was gracious in sending his Son, perfect man to secure acceptance with God for all who put their trust in Him. We say we can never be our own saviour, but rather need a Saviour and Jesus is that Saviour. Whatever good deeds a Christian might ever succeed in producing are simply an expression of his or her gratitude to God, and indeed are His work in us. Glory be to God.

Good to dialogue with you. God bless you brother

Dear Sylvia,

I do hope you are right regarding the Supreme Court throwing out Judge Higgins’ decision, but again, I do think you are jumping the gun.

We just do not know what will happen in the Catch the Fire Appeal which

What is clear is that two judges both sitting in VCA, in two separate cases, have given the Act two very different interpretations. If Justice Morris’ is found to be the correct interpretation (but this is NOT being tested by an appeal as far as I know), I for one would be feeling a deal more relaxed about the Victorian legislation.

But, hey, why have the legislation in the first place?

No one has demonstrated, including Waleed Aly and his mates at the Islamic Council of Victoria, nor for that matter were called upon to demonstrate, that the two Pastors actually did in actually fact stir up a hornet’s nest of hairy chested Christian to go and sack Melbourne’s mosques. The Seminar occurred over three yeas ago, and still no such action!

But in the meantime on the account of a perceived threat of Islamic suicide bombers/terrorists, we have news of new draconian measures being proposed by the Federal Government, measures that show up the Victorian legislation as a rather farcical sideshow of an affair.