Philo you did not understand the point I was making. There is a huge difference between people having religious beliefs and enforcing those beliefs on others. Govt is about many things. So your example of other countries is ludicrous, none are modern secular democracies. Hawke and Keating were both agnostic prime ministers.Even Howard is now accepting a free vote on 486. I am still pretty convinced that Clinton is agnostic, but could never admit it in US politics. Considering that only about 8% of Aussies even bother to go to a church or whatever, luckily we live in one of the most secular countries on the planet!

The point I am making is this: If your version of democracy accepts that 51% of the population can enforce their religious views on the rest of us, as the religious right and Vatican often try to do, then don't be amazed if fanatical Muslims do the same. Your philosophies
have to be consistant, not one law for what you like and one for what you dislike. Alot of the wars in Muslim countries have been about this very fact. When salafists tried to take over Govt through the ballot box, as in Algeria, the writing was on the wall and next the military took over. The same in Egypt and Turkey. Religious tyranny exists in both the Islamic world and in our world. The only way to solve the problem, and there will be continuing wars unless it is solved, is if we accept the principle of a secular govt, where people have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

Abortion in the first tremester for instance, should be seen as a fundamental human right of women. The Vatican's constant campaign against it, based on their theology, is no more then trying to impose religious tyranny. To me they are similar to the Muslim fanatics, just slightly different theology, thats all.

Yabby,
When I talk about secular governments I mean attending to the everyday physical and social needs of protecting and running a country. That is the principle of Christ outlined in the NT that God sends rain upon the just and the unjust alike. Religious people have these needs equally as much as the non-religious. They are the human needs of all persons.

However when issues like the value of a human life come up, or 'when does human life begin?' it touches on the very foundations of one's belief. If we object to murdering perfectly healthy babies at six weeks after birth, for those who value human life, it becomes a problen if we murder them at six weeks utero if we consider them human. Conscience then causes them to act with outrage, just as you might outrage at the Western coalition killing Sunni Muslims in Iraq because they car bomb Shiite and moderate Muslims.

You are already governed by a set of agreed morals that are enforced by the State. Morality is based upon the agreed morality [religion] of the people and administered by representative Government. For instance Tony Abbott will speak with conviction on his position and if all representatives of the people agreed then that position would become law. The State would no longer in his opinion and the opinion of the governing body, fund or sanction the murder of human life.

If on the other hand human life was of no value unless it served the agenda of the State then that life would be destroyed, eg, as in the case of the supposed Catholic Hitler. He was attending to what he felt was secular needs for Germany. He was NOT attending to the religious needs of the Germans. He had no religious mandate to murder Jews, he felt they did not serve his secular State.

Mr P. Pig - thanks for the detailed response. I'm not sure I'll get to address every point but I'll hit the ones which stick out to me.

Do I believe the claim of a large number of fingers cut off. Not if you mean "Am I convinced it happened?". I have no proof either way on that one. I do think FH believes it happened and given the scale of horror that was happening in that part of the world it may have. I'm aware FH and I hold significant difference in beliefs on a number of issues. He has devoted his life to a God I don't believe exists (as have some of his chief critics).

Should muslims and others be challenged about their beliefs? Yes if they attempt to shove them down our throats or want special treatment because of those beliefs, no if they are not hurting anybody else and don't make a big deal about those beliefs. I don't think FH has made a big deal of the previous point.

Why do I want you to reread the article? Because your continual focus on the above issue does not seem to have anything to do with the topic. I think the topic of the article is important to our understanding of the threat posed by extremists and how we might address it. If widely understood it gives us a much better opportunity to work with moderate muslims to counter any such threat. If not understood fear and agression by non-muslims may push yet more muslims into extremist fringes. If any attempts to join into mainstream society are rebuffed then we increase anger and increase the chances that some will move to the extremist fringe.

Why is muslims not giving up their religion relevant? Some posters appear to act as though they think continual attacking of the faith of muslims will somehow achieve something - sorry if I've misunderstood your position on this.

I know I have not addressed all of your points, that is a combination of saturday evening tiredness and word limits etc.

R0bert

Philo, correct me if I am wrong, but your post implies that you think that religion has some kind of patent on morality. Wrong! Humanism and its implications go back to the times of Aristotle and Confusious, when your Jesus was not even yet a twinkle in Joseph's eye :)

Today's morality is guided by our common philosophy, in which religion is but a minor irritant. Abortion, sex outside of marriage, gay partners, sodomy, oral sex, are basically peoples private business and no business of the church, apart from its flock.

There is a huge difference between a person and a potential person. Words like "killing 6 week old babies" are purely religious rhetoric and would be laughed out of any court, where science and reason would prevail. They are not just semantics, but massively huge differences. Under the catholic defintion of sanctity, every time one of the billions of sperms met one of the millions of ova, that are flushed down the worlds toilets every night, a massive tragedy
of murder would happen! We need to be a bit more real then that in our philosophies, whatever the religious dogma.

The thing is this. If you accept that Catholic tyranny is ok, then you should accept that Islamic tyranny is ok. If Muslims make up 51% of the future Aussie population, if you then are expected to bow to Mecca 5 times a day to be socially acceptable, get used to it, its part of your philosophy as your preach it today

Both R0bert and Yabby have made pertinent and significant points.

Morality is separate from religion - I tire of the holy rollers who persist in sitting in judgement on others. As a humanist, I perform volunteer work, give regularly to charities (non denominational). Help others, whenever I see the opportunity to do so. People who do not believe in a god do not need any religion to make positive contributions to this world.

It is arrogant to assume a more ‘righteous than thou’ attitude. As Yabby states: we no more need rule by Christians than we do Muslims or any other ‘ism’.

I find it interesting that Howard only recently (since embedding himself with Bush) declared that he is a Christian – I doubt his sincerity. He is adept at taking advantage of whatever direction political winds are blowing.

As much as some would like to believe, we are not under total rule by Christian fundies – there are enough numbers to ensure that this won’t happen. Fortunately women can still vote. We vote for control over our own lives.

Didn’t Jesus say something about judging yourself before judging others?

I judge Kactuz to be a broken record – can’t see past the veil to the human being beneath.

I judge F-H to be defensive – understandable given that his every contribution is questioned and attacked simply because of his belief in Islam.

I am as a guilty as others here – I judge Philo to be bereft of a sense of humour. (BTW, Philo, I abhor communism for the same reasons I abhor control by religious zealots).

I am guilty; I am human.

It would appear that there are those who believe that there are the wrong kind of Australians; who don’t believe in freedom of expression and persist in attacking us for not conforming to their beliefs.

Fellow Human: I had nothing more to add but your last post was too ripe, not to mention inflammatory, to ignore.

"First 2 fingers time 8000 is 16 and not 32,000. You are seriousley bad at math."

Consider both hands, 4 divides 32000 rather nicely. There is something perversely satisfying about watching someone make an elementary arithmetic oversight in their proof of my innumeracy. I imagine you are not feeling very bright about now. Also, I am a much better speller than you, "seriousley".

"Second, all stories on the internet related to this massacre is sickening, yet this does not seem to bother you or meredith much. You are just interested in % of lost fingers versus noses and ears..."

The mock indignation concerning my supposed bloodthirstiness over how I refer to your imaginary event is a bit hard to reply to. I cannot be cruel in not being suitably reverential and sorry for something that never happened. You have internalised the lie and continue to argue as if it were true. I believe you are the only person to have mentioned noses and ears.

"Sorry but this is just sick..."
Indeed.

Robert, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. Perhaps it was naive of me to expect to receive such an answer. Instead you provide a paragraph of shifty evasiveness. Or perhaps you did a course in conflict resolution somewhere. Also, this serves to rather nicely highlight your hypocrisy with respect to your claims about BD never wishing to be pinned down. I leave you now to return your head to its obviously preferred position, wedged between the buttocks of Fellow Human.

Enjoy.