Response David BOAZ:

Two points:
1. We live in a democracy
2. We have almost 100% literacy

This majority you speak about must be non-citizens because they don't vote for candidates or political parties who share your views.

Quoting Peter Costello:
"[An] Australian citizen [is] expected to subscribe to certain values – loyalty to the country, respect for the rights and liberties of others, a belief in democratic Government and respect for the law ... If they embrace those values we can all live peaceably with each other, everyone will have their rights and liberties protected but people who don’t embrace those values then it risks the freedom and the liberty of others. ... We need to respect these values if we want our country to remain the kind of place that it is – free and open and tolerant. And that is the kind of Australia I want. I think that is the kind of the Australia the overwhelming proportion of our population wants."
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/2006/018.asp

These comments are in contrast to your views, and also suggest they are not supported by Australians. And your critique of the UN has nothing to do with the interest Australians have in promoting justice in other nations.

Oil has nothing to do with the topic.

I think you've lost this argument. Nothing in the last series of posts shows that your criticism of Bashir Goth is justified and your post of 27feb2006 2:03PM remains unsupported by any objective or persuasive reason, its just your own thoughts.

David....
I think you are misreading Peter Costello's very 'diplomatically put' statements.

I totally agree with his view, but lets remember he also spoke specifically about a particular minority and 'other views of law' in this context and thats why there are a lot of unhappy Muslim leaders right now.

The point of his statement was to underline that we ARE tolerant, and that if anyone tries to change things in an 'intolerant' way as in introduce Sharia law, then they are most UNwelcome.

Lets also remember he said "And if people wish to introduce some other legal system, they should be stripped of their citizenship" (words to that effect to my recollection)

So, I feel my position is vindicated by objective evidence. I really am not out to 'win an argument' so lets not go down that track.

I'm more concerned to alert people to the 'ravenous wolves' that reside under the 'sheeps clothing' of many radical Muslims.

Re the article, my main point was that Bashir outlined many things done by the West, but did not do so for the expansion of Islam, and he should have. The underlying message was

"Islam is misunderstood, and it is misrepresented, but basically its a wonderful faith"

and that.. I take great exception to.

BOAZ _ David

Hi mate. I found the last paragraph of your most recent post very thought provoking.

Cheers
Kay

I don't know what is so thought provoking about it.

David BOAZ is not actually quoting from the article; it's not what the article is about. This is so typical of BOAZ posts, saying Z person believes or says X, when it's simply not true or even evident. For example the Hume Council "ham sandwich" OR the Hamtramck, (Michigan USA) neither of which were explained factually, just an immediate jump to a false conclusion.

This is what David BOAZ said (27 February 2006 2:03:43 PM):
"We also actually have little problem with such belief systems in 'their' countries. Encroachment on ours by stealth or aggressive minorities is the worry." or in the last post: "'ravenous wolves' that reside under the 'sheeps clothing'".

He is unfairly implying that muslims cannot or do not want to live under Australian law OR worldwide that muslims do not hold democratic beliefs. Note the words "aggressive minorities".

What Peter Costello is saying is ... actually I will find a quote:
"... if you want to have tolerance of all religious faiths, you are going to have to have a secular state ... You need a secular state which DOES NOT favour between religions. You need a robust acceptance of the rule of law that governs everybody regardless of their faith or their culture or their language. You need a respect for the rights and liberties of others because I will never be able to practise my religion and my culture if there is somebody that does not respect me." http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/2006/021.asp

I assume that the use of 'You'/'I' applies to any Australian -- not just Peter Costello personally.

Keep in mind the totality of his criticism of Bashir Goth is that he still believes in Islam. Peter Costello is talking about the "rule of law" where everyone is respected regardless of their religion.

Big, big difference.

And the rest of the Peter Costello's quote:

"And we can only do this under an agreed set of facts of rights and liberties.

And then where is this rule of law going to come from?

Well, in a democratic society it has got to come from the people and so what I am arguing very, very strongly is for a framework within which we can have a robust diversity and tolerance.

But, if our tolerance moves to such an extent that we say it is actually optional whether you have a secular state, or it is optional whether your laws come from a democratic legislature, or it is optional to recognise the rights and liberties of even people you do not agree with then that will compromise all of us.

So, I am actually for robust tolerance and diversity but my point is we have got to have agreement on the values.

And there are some values that are so important to that that they are not optional values.

And we have got every right to ask people to subscribe to those values.

If we want to have freedom of speech in this country, you have got every right to say to people you are not allowed to bash up somebody because you disagree with their views.

Every right to say that because if we do not say that we are not going to have freedom of speech and that is why I am putting forward here I think we have got to be quite unambiguous about those values.

I think we have got every right to say them and I can assure you I intend to keep on saying that."

Bd, "Islam is misunderstood, and it is misrepresented, but basically its a wonderful faith" and that.. I take great exception to.”

Isn't that what you say about christianity, misunderstood, mis represented, but is a wonderful faith. Same god, same origins, same illusions, same false statements.

Numbat, I see them as writers of history, not plagiarisers, as to their honesty or moral codes, I can't make a judgment on them. But weighing up the verifiable evidence, with some intelligent research, rather than blind unknowing faith, is how you can gauge what is verifiable and what s not. Considering the documents I referred to were written many hundreds of years before the old testament, and they were accessible to those who wrote the old testament, shows the veracity of their works and where the bibles originates from.

“This Supreme Immortal Creator does not need to nor does He plagiarise any writings by mortal, farting, dribbling,piddling, totally biased and absolute lying humans.”

I believe you are referring to yourself, so I accept you admittance of fallibility. Considering you believe that you are made in the image of your god, it is totally acceptable for you to describe that image truthfully, as your quote states.

No I don't have a copy of the "The Da-Vinci Code" , nor have I read it or seen the TV show on it, just news comments. As to the works I described and many others, they are a part of a true theologians studies, if they aren't then they are lacking in education. But then again I can see how truly educated in theological history you are, the hallmark of a true monotheist.