What a master of the severe understatement Father Dave Smith is. According to him in the response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons, “Public protests have been held, embassies have been closed, and there has been some violence”.

Some violence, Dave? How does he account for the report in The New York Times dated February 24, 2006, which says that more than 100 people had died in Nigeria in tit-for-tat sectarian violence in the wake of the cartoon controversy?

The Washington Post of February 16, 2006, also reported the deaths of about a dozen people in Afghanistan and five people killed that week in Pakistan in cartoon protests.

The Guardian newspaper of February 20, 2006, also noted that a Christian church in Sukkur, Pakistan had been burnt down by enraged protesters.

Free-thinking Dave also decries the notion of free speech as a “load of rubbish”, which he sees merely as a tool for depraved Westerners to show their “moral and cultural superiority over our Islamic brethren in the East.” How then does he account for the republication of the offending cartoons in countries such as Jordan, Algeria and Yemen? This was done by Muslim journalists.

Dave also complains that our free press has not reported on the protests in “a fair and balanced way”, and that this “free press” has somehow left out reportage of the fact that most of the protests have been peaceful. I would like to direct Father Dave back to The Guardian of February 20, 2006 which goes on to note that:
Protests in Indonesia against the cartoons have been occurring daily, but were largely peaceful because most religious leaders preached moderation.
In Istanbul, tens of thousands of people joined a peaceful demonstration, chanting slogans against Denmark, Israel and the United States.

No mention of violence in those paragraphs, Dave.

Perhaps the worst aspect of Dave Smith’s self-righteous hyperventilation is his slur against other parents, alleging that “Our kids are running amok with sex and drugs.”

There’s nothing ‘amok’ about my two teenaged boys, Mr. Smith.

Smith describes that with which he disagrees as a load of rubbish. Many will think that his article is also a load of rubbish.

Its true that Muslims do not appreciate jokes about Mohammed, so:

1. why did they not riot, burn and kill when the cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper 6 months ago?

2. why do Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia continue to produce vile Nazi-type cartoons showing Jews as vampires sucking the blood of 'gentile' children, and Christians as murderous 'Crusaders', ad nauseum?

The truth is that Muslims wish to feel free to insult non-Muslims, but come over all outraged when they are insulted in turn. In other words, they like to dish it out but they cant take it.

The cartoon debacle has shown the world the yawning gap between Islamic religious Fascism and the West. If Muslims hate to see their prophet maligned, perhaps they should take the feelings of others into consideration from time to time.

However, I do agree with the author's opinions about the removal of all censorship. I have felt much the same way when my own beliefs and sensibilities have been insulted - however, I did not cut the throats or otherwise threaten the people who insulted me. Therein lies the difference.

Dear Dave,

Thank you indeed for the thought-provoking piece!
You saved me from losing faith in human beings in general.

It is beyond me why the majority (in any culture) cannot just get past the stereotypes. It has been 163 years since Hans Christian Andersen published "The Ugly Duckling", yet, in the 21st century, we continue to portray "the other" as "ugly". Why are we so superficial?

It has been quite a while since I wrote something -- I was too saddened to write. But now that I have read your article, I have been reassured that the world still is a nice place to live: there still exist some people who are honest, thoughtful and upright.

Thank you for bringing the motivation in me to write again!

Neyeefa
saddened about what ? Some robust comments in a debate forum which are critical of Islam and its founder ? Good grief..

If the criticism makes you sad...why ? its either true or false. You as a muslim should engage on the specific criticisms and counter them if possible. If the criticisms are valid, and well founded, then it might be time to reflect on the foundation of your own life.

DAVE.. neglected to point out a very important issue, highlighted by Dee, that the cartoons had been 'out there' for 6 months then 'suddenly' there was outrage !

Most of us now know that the outrage was fueled by Danish Muslim clerics who did the rounds of the Middle East claiming images of Mohammed being mounted by a dog during prostration in prayer, and another claimed to be making him look like a pig; were the ones published in Denmark.. THIS WAS UNTRUE...but the damage was done.

So, it is not the 'abuse' of freedom of speech which is to blame for the 100s of deaths, mostly of Muslims, but also some Christians (Nigeria) it is the DANISH MUSLIM CLERICS. (yes.. I shouted that)

I will agree to laws preventing the insulting of faiths on the day that the community agrees also to ALL movies being restricted to ALLUSIONS of sexual activity, and ZERO portrayals of 'actual' sex on screen. The fact that 'this is what people do' is NO excuse for showing it. Most people with very few exceptions confine sexual activity to the 4walls of their bedrooms, WHY should it be any different on screen ?
Sexual activity on screen is done for ONE reason.. $ yep..that's it.. DOLLARS, MONEY, filthy Luka., grab effect etc... Why on earth do we willingly degrade ourselves by continually submitting to the pushing of the boundaries of modesty in the name of 'artistic freedom' when we all know its about money !

So, sure.. lets stop insulting other faiths.. and lets also stop racing headlong down the slippery slope of social moral depravity to a Christless eternity

Takes 2 to tango.

They should be emotionally resliliant enough to handle it, and the idiot should not encite rage by drawing it. Stick to Tin Tin and spiderman.

Both heads need pulling in, if the drawer knew about his topic, he would have known the outrage it would create therefore it was a premeditated decision to antagonise.

Over reacting is not the way to deal with it, that is the way of savages. Rise up with 21st century means, not with violence and affray.

This decision to help further estrange the Muslim community from everyone else by knowing the ramifications of the cartoons is dispicable. I ask you, who is pulling his strings?

Aren't all cartoons meant to antagonize,stir,get reactions and for fun?
Why should muslims world wide ,be indifferent to them because they were told that they were bad 6 months after being published?

What and who incited them to kill,terrorise and destroy and who provided the new Danish flags and US flags?

Open your eyes of understanding, it is another plot to denigrate Christians and Christianity,western world and freedom of press. Come on!

Everyone stop Muslim bashing.

I agree about provoking thought etc, but what thoughts is this meant to provoke?

Say you go and draw things about the most important thing to me, i will be outraged too. They have a right to feel this way.

If cartoons are meant to degrade and anagonise, who are they entertaining? The target market MUST BE non muslim people like you who are afraid and perhaps racist. Give you narrow minded people a laugh at others expense.

This is dispicable and whether it is muslims or whoever, it is wrong.

Give these guys some understanding, and treat others how you would like to be treated. You dont need to be on any religious side of the fence to see that

None are so blind as those who cannot see, Dave.

This Letter : Alex Epstein from the ARI institute sums it up nicely:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr010=ugiqv1saj1.app7a&page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021

It was not published in the Green Weekly. Hmmmm I wonder why.

The whole cartoon affair was an exercise in hysterical stupidity and not worth all the time taken up with it.
The question should be asked,why did the Danish imams cart them all over Europe and the Middle East? What was their reason for doing so?What did they hope to gain from doing so?
The answers may be enlightening if someone answered the questions honestly.

Savagepencil,Leigh,dee,dobbadan and ALL, have all said what needs to be said,and the Alex Epstein article is spot on as well.
What bemuses me is that writers like Dave Smith and the gaggle of apologists for the Islamacists that have gone before on OLO have peddled the line that it is we who are wrong.
No Mr Smith it is you who are peddling rubbish. The dopey cartoons were first published in an Egyptian news paper. Further Ismalic art which they are continually telling us how wonderful it was/is, actually has innumerable depictions of Mo.
As for jokes about Mo, one only has to look at his record of complete deviancy to see what a joke this religion must be.
By the way we brought up three children all university graduates none of whom were into drugs et al, never in trouble with police and had no need for any sort of mainstream religion in order to be good people.

Denmarks, Jyllands-Posten Daily Newspaper is blamed for publishing the cartoons of Mohammed not the Danish Government , why is every one avoiding the truth, 128 Newspapers around the world published the cartoons, The major shareholders/owners of those newspapers, all belonged to the same God Club, so you would have to say the cartoons were a deliberate act , hatred of Muslims is what drives their mindsets. they will do anything and everything to keep stiring the hatred, I find it hard to believe there is any freedom of the press, because we all seem to be afraid to call a spsde a spade,all the information you need can be found in 'Wikipedia"
Free speech, or hate propaganda, there has to be a line drawn, if free speech/propaganda destroys freedom , how can you say the press is free , when newspapers have to accommodate, religious and political fanatics,

Father David Smith is correct when he points out that there is no absolute right of freedom of expression in any western country. Therefore it is a valid point to consider at what point we draw the line.

In western societies, the notion that art, literature and filmatic creativity should not unduly suffer from the heavy hand of censorship is a noble one. By giving creative people the freedom to explore social issues, our societies have evolved by critically examining the basis for long accepted values, as the changing times alters the basic premises upon which our contemporary values and attitudes were built.

Father Smith apparently feels that we in the West should display more espect for Muslim culture by not insulting their religion. If I had any respect for the Islamic religion, I might have agreed with him. Personally, I was affronted by Piss Christ and I am not even a Christian. I did not consider Piss Christ a work of art, just a pointed insult. Yet I laughed my head of at "The Life of Brian" and I knew devoted Catholics who never missed a Dave Allen show. The ability to laugh at your own beliefs and other people's beliefs is a healthy one. It displays a persons ability to understand irony, a significant marker for intelligence.

But in my opinion, the Muslim religion is desperately in need of criticism and some serious lampooning. The Muslim faith is not merely a religion, it is entire cultural system which includes dietary, political, legal and social beliefs. That any such wide ranging cultural system should be considered above any criticism or parody is an idea that can only be considered extraordinary and totally repugnent to western intellectual thought.

Father Smith may have a point when he states that the West can hardly lecture Islam when our children are getting into so much trouble. But at least our kids are enjoying themselves and having fun. They are not worshiping a death cult which encourages young people to become suicidal mass murderers for a God.

Yep,we are seeing it already; ie other religions riding on the back of Muslim Facism.Religions aspire to absolute truths that can subjugate the masses and we all know in our real world that there is no such reality.Religion has nothing to do with being close to their perceived creator,it is about the power of those at the apex.

If you want to be really religious,have faith in yourself and have the courage of your convictions.

Just today I've heard an hilarious development,apparently many Muslim women are beginning to divorce their men folk,and guess what?Under our laws they are taking their arrogant husbands to the cleaners.Imagine if you only had two wives with children and normally one wife gets 80% of the assets.That means two wives get 160% of your assets.Muslim men would have to rely on reincarnation to pay off their debts.Perhaps they should all become Hindus and pay homage to the humble cow.

No wonder Muslim men want Shariah Law introduced into Australia,their wives now have the real power to destroy the reality of their sexual nervana and any illusions of 72 virgins in the here after.

Poor Father Dave, those nasty university lecturers upset him talking about homosexuals and other unpleasant things not fit for public discussion, but they drew the line at making jokes about pedophilia! How unreasonable! Could it be because pedophilia hurts children and is therefore wrong, whereas other sexual practices (even ones the church might disapprove of) are people's own personal choice and not wrong, even if Father Dave thinks they are.

Bottom line, free speech is fundamental, and freedom to criticise faith based belief systems is particularly crucial. For want of a better word, a society that allows this criticism is more "advanced", Father. After all, the question has to be asked, why are religions so afraid of comment, criticism and humour?

David Smith – a fool, a knave and if not an outright liar, then your poorly researched subject has to be placed in the same category as Norma Khouri's “Forbidden Love” and of course Helen Demidenko’s little discourse - but why let truth get in the way of a good story?

I suppose you are so busy peddling your meaningless pap from one of your alternative pulpits, that you would not have found the time to do some real and relevant research into the cartoons in the first instance – I could do that for you – but why feed a slothful, vacuous mind?

Why has no one here gone to the origins of these bloody cartoons in the first instance? All the stupid Moslems and equally moronic god botherers have honed in on the actual publication of them instead of the reason behind them in Jyllands Posten – a few have actually come out with the fact that an Egyptian paper actually published them six months previously – WITH NO OUTRAGE – fancy that?

It was not until a delegation of Danish Muslims, led by Machiavellian Copenhagen imam, Abu Laban fabricating further cartoons not appearing in Jyllands Posten, with the intent purpose of fermenting sectarian violence in the Muslim sector of the middle East.

The CT Blog revealed how a delegation of Danish Muslims, led by Copenhagen imam Abu Laban, toured the Middle East in December and showed fabricated cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a very offensive fashion, even though the pictures had never appeared on Jyllands Posten. He lied on Danish Television condemning the boycott then went on al Jazeera commenting gleefully (in Arabic) on the effectiveness of the boycotts.

Lies? Postulation on my part? – Check for yourselves on this acquired and translated lie-filled pamphlet spread by the Danish imams http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/files/danish_letter.pdf. (.pdf file) and for the other false photo of Mohammed as a pig - http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54

As for the so called fatwahs maybe this cartoon would suit Salam Zreika – or maybe she really does not want to be all that equal? http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/FromHomeToGrave-X.gif

“I am not convinced that eradication of all censorship is a sign of a progressive society.”

So how much censorship is acceptable Dave?

Who should decide what is to be censored and is not? – you or me?

I am OK if it is me, I know and trust my judgement but I do not know you and do not, therefore, trust your judgement to censor fairly.

“They stopped short on discussing pedophilia in such detail - thanks be to God.”

Dave must do his discussing in more genteel circles than I.

The ladies of the Church auxilary must have nicer topics to talk over, knitting patterns maybe.

“We just draw the boundaries at different points.”

Yes we all apply “subjective judgement” differently. Hence, setting any standard for censorship is going to result in different “subjective judgements” being made, depending on the priggishness of the censor.

At this point I would like to state, for the record, my personal mistrust of all institutions of a religious nature based on their proven record of abuse of trust and suggest anyone who thinks a religious background, even that of a parish priest, is reasonable qualification for anything is a fool.

“We in the West are at a different point culturally. We have become hardened to religious humour that targets our cherished beliefs.”

- And Islamists need to grow up too.

Supporting the views and sentiments of savage pencil (nice name), leigh and others from the enlightened side.

As Arjay so rightly points out “Religion has nothing to do with being close to their perceived creator,it is about the power of those at the apex.”

That dangerous quest for "power" applies to the proponents of Christian as well as Islamic “religion”.

Father you add to the reason I no longer attend church, you also manage to find much more goodwill in those who protest than I did.
Those signs held by the protestors inviteing murder and hate carry far more weight than your post.

Nayeefa and those sympathetic to clamping down on such cartoons......

Did you notice that Kekenidika described 'Christians' as 'moronic' :) ? (p.s. kk that cartoon was a hoot :)

Arjay also throws the odd shovel of mud on us, and how do we respond ?
Well.. to me its like water off a ducks back, not that I don't care.. quite the reverse, I do care.. as Jeremy pointed out (but used one critical word incrrectly) "There are non so blind as those who WILL not see" (as opposed to 'cannot' see)...

As far as I'm concerned, the criticism and lampooning and mud slinging on Christians is sometimes quite deserved, and lampooning of Jesus is quite rare I find, because there is little in the source material to run with.

-He lived for others not himself.
-He gave His life on our behalf, for our salvation.
-He spoke repeatedly about the Heavenly Father seeking lost sheep.
-He healed the sick, and gave sight to the blind.
-He cast out demons.
-He calmed the storms and wind.
-He offered a standard of righteousness that apart from Gods indwelling presence none of us can achieve.

So when you think about it.. not much to use for 'lampooning' without a sense of guilt I'd say.

-He did not... surround himself with women and indulge his sexual desires with them.
-He did not accumulate power and riches.
-He did not invade any country, kill any mocker or hunt down any insulter.
-The one occasion where a disciple (Peter) attacked an arresting officer, he healed the wound immediately.
-He did not repay evil for evil.

So..whats to lampoon and laugh about ? not a whole lot.

Those who choose to riducle Jesus will hear all their words replayed syllable by syllable again one day, in His presence if they leave this life unchanged.. we Christians do not have any part in 'enforcing' "Jesus friendly" behavior in that sense. Our job is to proclaim Christ, Savior and Judge, Forgiver and Renewer, as The Way whereby mankind can be reconciled to the Creator.

DESPERADOS,

When a Rat is cornered ... it is unpredictably defensive and dangerous.

Islam - post 9/11 - is in such predicament. They are cornered, with the free world spot lights pinpointing at them.

What the world is seeing and learning about this evil cult is "Ugly".

Jesus conquered Satan (death) by dying on the cross and resurrecting Himself.

Jesus gives New Life - His Church (His disciples) on earth are His witnesses until His return.

Jesus will judge those who did not accept Him as their personal Saviour and Lord of their life - “the non-believers” like: Muslims, Pagans, Idolaters, etc... all who got caught by Satan's earthly Scams and Religious Bondage.

Jesus never promised Peace on earth - the worst is yet to come he said.

That END day is approaching. No one knows the date or the time (purposely if not freedom of choice will be jeopardized).

Satan knows that too and is most active especially in the False Religions Sectors.

Boaz David I'm not throwing mud at you.I respect anyones beliefs so long as they respect mine.I don't care what God people want to believe in since I don't profess to know the answers either.I am suspicious of those who do however,since to know all the answers, simply removes the purpose of living.

I've been through the religious bit,I've seen nuns whip boys all over their bodies with canes,yes even across the face.There were both cruel nuns and gentle and loving ones.I've seen what religion can do to priests,seen a few go to the lunatic asylum,some get married and some commit suicide.The Muslim Religion is about where the Catholic Church was about 500 yrs ago and that is why I bag it so much.

If religions weren't so cruel in the past,maybe the pendulum wouldn't have swung so far and we would have a more ethical and disciplined society today.

First of all the guy's name is Mohammad. Not "prophet." He is not my prophet, for sure.

This is not just about free speech. And this is also not only about "what is acceptable" in humour, speech and daily life.

This is about a group of people who want to impose their beliefs on us and even enslave us. This is about whether murder, torture and oppression is acceptable or not. This is also about a man that did some of the most disgustiong and vile things imaginable.

Quote from http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm.
Know that all who curse Muhammad... or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear.

In past posts I have put references and links to sites that document cases of torture, slavery, rape, murder and even wife-beating by Mohammed. Islamic sites!

May I add another:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

Read it carefully. Yet this man -- who sees nothing bad about splitting open a women who criticized him -- is the "great moral leader" and "role model" for Muslims everywhere.

This is why things are getting worse. This is why moderate Muslims are either deceiving themselves or lying to you. This is why hate, rape, crime and murder will continue and increase.

You cannot love and respect Muhammad and be peaceful and tolerant. Have you ever met a Muslim that didn't love Mohammed? Do they really know what he did? Do they care? Think about it.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

How about it, FH? is this guy really a "Mercy for all mankind"? You other Muslims here - was Mohammed a good person? Should we respect him?

John Kactuz aka Kactuzkid

The Danish Cartoons and faithfreedom.org

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Rajesh60305.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Quote: "If a few mild cartoons can make Muslims so angry, Sina's web-site deserves an atom bomb. But why is the Muslim world so uncharacteristically silent? Faithfreedom.org is read by more people than those cartoons were originally seen in Denmak."

Denmark is known for its tolerance to other "Social evils" which has seen a dramatic decrease in citizens participation of those "Evils".

The level of maturity and wisdom has nutured a society of good will and understanding.

It was the "choice" of the Newspaper and editor that is in question?

What was the agenda of this newspaper and editor, although it had ridiculed other religious denominations in depicted in cartoon character

All Forum contributors should READ the reference provided by Kactuz

Please do so... please.

It is one of the clearest explanations of Islamic views on criticism of Mohammed. It shows clearly how the religion was held together and expanded by the continual threat of death hanging over even an INDIRECT criticism of Mohammed.

By simply referring to Mohammed as 'your' companion, (as in 'not mine') to Khalid bin Al Waleed (MOhammed's major hit man) Malik ibn Nuwayra was killed.

Such incidents are used to support the Shafi and Hanifi schools of Islamic law emphasising death penalties for critics of Mohammed (may the judgement of Almighty God be upon him).

Let us be under no illusion. We are at war. bullets are not zinging past our ears yet, (except in Cronulla) but words are.

Stand true, stand strong Australia. Support the 'Emporer' in his role of deterring the evildoer (Romans 13)

The difference between the media/government and forums like this, when referring to 'terrorism' is that we give it the correct name.

Could it be that the violence demonstrated all over the world by “outraged” Muslims was, itself, orchestrated?

"…the “outraged” imams nonetheless launched a planned, concerted campaign (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1702104,00.html) to deliberately whip up Muslim “anger” by sending a delegation throughout the Islamic world handing out a 43 page document containing 15 images… instead of 12. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile deamon (sic), the second shows the prophet with a pig-snout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. Apparently, the 12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious hatred."

"Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the 21 Danish Muslim organizations which organized the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/668

"Their 'explanations' were biased and inaccurate. The Danish-Egyptian Dialog Center in Cairo says that after meeting with the Muslim representatives from Denmark the Egyptian press has claimed that Danish newspapers are waging a campaign against Islam, that Copenhagen plans to introduce a state censored version of the Koran, that a Danish film is underway to show how horrible Islam is, and that the matter involves 120 cartoons – not 12.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/646

It took four months to do the job to the extent that the western mainstream media at last picked up the story of what appeared to be "spontaneous" Muslim "outrage".

The editor of a Jordanian newspaper that suggested Muslim anger was unreasonable, was sacked and has now been arrested and jailed. Al-Shihan had run the cartoons, arguing: “What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage taker slashing the throat of his victim?”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jordanian-newspaper-editors-arrested/2006/02/05/1139074095486.html

Yes, I believe in free speech, but should anybodies religion or belief be ridiculed? NO!!

Nobodies..

In our current society, these cartoons do constitute free speech.
It is speech. People are free to speak this way.

They may not be nice, agreeable, kind and fair.
They may even be rude, and offensive.

However, if we do not retain the right to publish such cartoons, we will either
(1) create a double standard, where Islam has a privileged 'sacrosanct' standard all of its own, or
(2) we will have to begin a huge - massive - censorship program, beyond imagining, in all areas of current media.

No double standard I say.
And yes, why not lift the standard of public debate and criticism while we are at it, - but in freedom of will, not religious legislation.

Nothing Muslims can say makes the free world feel insulted,so they have to resort to intimidation and threats of violence.Muslims on the other hand feel easily insulted by comments of the free world.

Either Muslims don't have much faith in their belief system and thus feel inferior to the free world ie [feel compelled to prove a point] or they are a bunch of power hungry facists driven by the ideals of the Koran and deep seated insecurities created by a flawed philosophy.

Surely if someone has discovered the essence and nature of the universe,they would be at peace with themselves and have no desire to seek control over others.People will naturally gravitate to a self fulfilling philosophy that sustains itself and grows with the natural order of their new experiences.

Rena, I'm not sure if it's possible to have free speech without saying potentially offensive things about anothers beliefs - different to deliberate ridicule but that line can get pretty mirky at times.

As an example from our own culture
- most christains believe that my life is so foul that I deserve an eternity of torment and suffering for my sin (or if not mine then Adam's - women are not important enough to pass on sin or so I've heard which is how Jesus avoided inheriting Adam's sin). That concept is a key part of their gospel without which their Gods wonderful plan to get me out of the consequences of breaking his rules does not hang together. Quite frankly the claim that no matter how well I live a just god will sentence me eternal damnation and torment unless I accept his good news plan is quite offensive.

Likewise my views on that particular plan and the associated god are somewhat offensive to many of those who regard that god as loving and just and who think the plan is "good news".

Maybe in the ideal world we'd all just keep our views to ourselves, in the meantime ridicule is a lot healthier than hitting each other.

In regard to the cartoons I suspect that some of the motives may have been to inflame a difficult situation but as a bystander to the European situation (and the Sydney one) it seems that this maybe part of a response to attempts by some adherants of the muslim faith to try and force others to change to accomodate their views on how things should be.

Not much fun for muslims who do respect the freedoms of those around them but one of the realities of life, hopefully they can take some comfort in the knowledge that the main target of the cartoons is those who use their faith as justification to make war on others. Those people who are the enemies of moderate muslims as much or more so than enemies of non-muslims.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert,

You have definitely crossed the murky line yet again.

What’s going on man? Sometimes you sound quite reasonable then it’s like reading another poster.

The real “offensive” part is not God’s plan for your total freedom but how YOU ridicule God. Can you hear how childish you sound?

You have obviously been hurt in the past, but is it really worth risking the rest of your eternal life because of your unsubstantiated stubbornness and stupid pride?

Arjay,

Agree – Muslims fell insulted when people point at their religion. They don’t realise that the insult is Islam.

Rema,

I don’t see anything insulting about revealing the truth about your religion or anybody's. People do that all the time in a free society.

If they use metaphors, cartoons, posters, or verbal ridicule – the message is the same isn’t it?

Can you find someone who can defend islam from our accusations?

Check some of my recent posts to Fellow_Human – He couldn’t refute any. Could you?

Coach,I'd rather laugh in hell with Dave Allen for 30 minutes than spend and enternity with some boring authoritarian Allah,Yahweh or Christian God.The finality of of my being does not frighten me into submission to believe in some false belief system.To face the reality of our mortality takes more courage than being a do gooder that aspires only for rewards in the here after.I do good deeds because I want to see a more enlightened future generation.

The Traditional Religion view of our consciousness is indeed very limited.

coach, which part of my summary of the christian "sin and judgement" thing was incorrect? I intended to be somewhat provocative in the phrasing to make it clear to even the most oblivious how offensive that portion of the christain gospel is when you strip away the bubble wrap.

"For all have sinned and fall short" is an ugly concept when you consider who supposedly made the unwitting participants, who supposedly set that unachievable standard which all have failed to reach (except his own kid of course) and the punishment he supposedly has planned for all who don't meet the standard - except those who choose to acknowledge their own worthlessness and their utter dependancy on him.

The gain for some (but not all) of you is that you can stick your "Christains aren't perfect just forgiven" stickers on your lives and get on with a belief that how you live does not matter.

I've never found an "Agnostics aren't perfect, it just does not matter" sticker that I was comfortable with so I go on living on the basis that how I live my life does matter - to me even if I can't justify a long term meaning.

Christians can make the same kind of choice, they can decide that God has done the work and they will honour that by living their lives as well as they can or they can say Gods done the work, I don't have to do more and live worthless lives. Variations of the above probably apply to most belief (or lack of belief) systems, people can choose to do the best with it or use it as an excuse to live small lives.

R0bert

Amazing how the armchair nazis here will even have problems with a Christian priest telling the truth.

Consider this. Jakarta is a city of over 15 million people. How many people took part in the protests accounding to reports? Around 200.

Can anyone tell me about the cartoon protests in Uzbekistan? Or Mauritania? Or Bosnia? Or how about Bruneii? (Did I spell it right?)

For those here able to read English, please click here ...

http://ihsan-net.blogspot.com/2006/02/ignore-critics-muslim-response-to.html

Irfan come on, is this the limitation of your intelligence?Mere "Arm chairs of Nazis?"Really you'll have to do better or suffer the superior freedoms of the west.

You haven't even attempted to refute my concepts or those of numerous others who have laid bare the foibles of the Muslim philosophy.

As I've stated previously,it is your own women who are the archilles heal of this Muslim male arrogrance,and under our laws,if you don't treat them as equals,they will take your arrogrance to the cleaners.

There is no way Shariah law will save you,since we detest Taliban Facism.

There's certainly a lot of drivel about these so called 'offensive' cartoons. Let's remember that the Danish newspaper in question is little known outside Copenhagen and nobody gave an actual toss untill Danish mullahs distributed them worldwide, in spite of their alleged offence of any depiction of their skyfairy of choice. These mullahs knew what they were doing - giving their fellow muslims a reason to slip into their default mode of killing and setting things afire. lets not forget those cartoons had a point. The apologic tone of some politicans and the press towards islam's anger management problems is sickening. after all, do americans riot when The Simpsons or Family Guy comes on TV? That this small democratic country with free press and a open society is subjected to a ridiculous organized campaign of lies and hatred is almost unbelievable. i really think if some people don't like free speech they can move to Iran.

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

have a gander at these cartoons. smell the hypocrisy?

Arjay,

I’m a fan of Dave Allen. He was mainly attacking catholics as any good Irish would.

I don’t know where you got the impression that eternity depends on our good deeds.

The only way to God is Jesus. Not religion.

R0bert,

Your misconceptions of “sin and judgement” are no excuse for amusing yourself and making pathetic jokes about it.

You choose to live the life you want and adopt the beliefs you fancy – that’s God's grace and your free will in action – just don’t make fun of Him, it just shows how sick you have become.

For someone who claims to have known God once, to turn to a moronic imbecile is not like you R0bert. You sound like some drunks in Central Park.

"For all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory" is the verse you were trying to quote. What it means is whatever you try to do cannot match God’s perfect Holiness. Any imperfection is unacceptable to God.

Harsh reality maybe be but it would have been real torture if God did not provide a way out.

When Adam and Eve fell short and disobeyed God – He didn’t just kick them out of the garden into hell, He provided clothes for them made of animal skins – killing for the first time was a sign of the ultimate sacrificial provision to come (Jesus).

God also put angels at the garden gate to “protect” the couple of re-entering and sinning again.

Jesus being the fullness of God Himself is also pure and sinless.

Sin entered the world with Adam (and Eve) and was taken away by Jesus.

When you’re drowning you are utterly dependent on your rescuer’s hand. It does not make you worthless. Just thankful.

Will that experience make you a good person? Perhaps not. But the fact is you have been rescued because you accepted the saving hand.

If you chose to ignore your life saver instead, and told yourself “I know better”, relying on your own intellect and willpower… could you ever save yourself?

coach, we are well off topic here other than the exercise of free speech.

Your drowning analogy is a start but you missed some bits.
- The rescuer is supposed to be one of your parents.
- You are genetically engineered and the parent skipped the bit that would have made you a natural swimmer.
- They made sure you never had swimming lessons, first time in the water is the only time.
- They tossed you in the water with some weights tied to your ankles (if everybody fails the test is set up that way).
- If you do happen to stay afloat you are left in the water anyway because their first kids drowned when he was tossed in.
- You only get rescued if you are prepared to go on about how good a parent they are and how bad a swimmer you are and promise to do what they say for ever more.

In that light I'm making for the shore of that island and I'll stay as far away from an abusive parent as possible. If sin is a consequence of free choice some should pass the test, the fact that everybody fails suggests that while we might have been given free choice about individual sins in total our makeup is such that we don't have free choice in that area. If your fantasy world existed it is a rigged game designed by a god with some serious issues.

Thankfully it is just a sick fantasy but unfortunately some take it seriously.

R0bert

What religion are you talking about, not Christianity.
- The rescuer is supposed to be one of your parents. (NO, He is supposed to be parentlike, He is an analogical father, not a genetic father. Father is the closest analogy we have, not the real situation)
- You are genetically engineered and the parent skipped the bit that would have made you a natural swimmer. (if God had made us sin free we would not be free, no free will.)
- They made sure you never had swimming lessons, first time in the water is the only time. (our time in this world is the swimming lesson, don't pass the lesson don't go on to the real experience)
- They tossed you in the water with some weights tied to your ankles (if everybody fails the test is set up that way). (the test is learning to distinguish sin from good, by age fifty some may have learnt, but at age 20 no one has much of a chance, so everyone is sinful, but some can recognise this and SEEK to change)
- If you do happen to stay afloat you are left in the water anyway because their first kids drowned when he was tossed in. (actually the first kid was thrown in to rescue the drowning, and succeeded)
- You only get rescued if you are prepared to go on about how good a parent they are and how bad a swimmer you are and promise to do what they say for ever more. (except they do not give you laws, so you have to make your own (promise to do what they say). And when someone saves you in the swimming analogy, what kind of an absolute ingrate would you be if you refused to thank the person, and then refused to even say that it was a good thing that they saved you (risking their own life)(good parent they are). And refused to admit that you were out of your depth in attempting to swim that far out (how bad a swimmer you are))

fida mae,
agreed that Father is analogy in terms of understanding of the christain God but working with coaches drowing example parent comes close enough.

If everybody sins it does not seem like we actually have an overall free will either - as I said we apparently have "free will" regarding individual sins but are not equiped to deal with the totality.

If the test mark is 100% everybody should have a fighting chance at the start, the fact that apparently nobody except the "real" son passed the test is a pretty good proof that the test is rigged.

The first kid I was refering to was Adam - original sin passed on down through the generations. Plenty of christains hold to the view that we stand condemed by Adams sin if not our own - Jesus avoided this by not having a human father.

Not much of an ingrate if the rescuer pushed me in that far out without my consent. None of us have any choice regarding involvement in this game the christian god supposedly plays with our lives, there is no point where we can choose to opt out (oblivion is better than playing your gods games). Basically the christain gospel seems to boil down to suck up to the christain god or get punished for ever.

I see no reason to be grateful for the person who takes me out to sea, pushes me off the boat then offers to rescue me so long as I recognise how great they are and how silly I was for swimming that far out.

R0bert

'oblivion is better than playing your gods games' - I assume by this that you find no joy in life? This is the ultimate proof of the hate involved in athieism, I guess there isn't really much to say once we see that you are antilife, but here goes.

Perhaps a better analogy would be scooba diving in the most beautiful great barrier reef, plus you are not in any direct danger as such, so perhaps rather than drowning a better example is being stranded far from your parents but with plenty of other people.

Suddenly that so called evil god has not pushed you into a dangerous situation, but rather a paradise. When he dropped you of he warned you and all the others to try and live well in community and to look after each other. He said that if anyone is cruel or antisocial or was destructive in the community you would be staying there, rather than coming home.

You decided to look only after yourself and went and lived secretively on the other side of the island, partly to get away from the christians who you are prejudiced against. The christians had no trouble living together, or with the 2% of Muslims there, they might not agree on much, but both cultures are totally imbued with manners and neighbourly love. Since OLO is not available, everyone gets on fine (speaking face to face rather than impersonally).

When the boat comes back you are still of hiding and seeing as you have not lived in community and loved your neighbour no one remembers you to look for you, there is a storm coming so they don't have time anyway.

regarding your points - Ofcourse we can become equipped to deal with the totality, through wisdom and life in the spirit.

fide mae, changing the context of the discussion does not really address the issue. Coach used a specific example which I responded to, if I have to keep following a moving target we will waste a lot of our own time and add further annoyance to others who are already heartily sick of religious arguments. I don't believe that your example bears any real relation to the kind of gospel preached by most of the evangelical church (nor much of the rest of the church). I'm trying to address mainstream christain claims in my responses to coach, BD and others who continue to use this forum to attack everybody elses beliefs while claiming a special place for their own.

I'm most definately not anti-life, I love it with a passion and don't want it to end while quality of life is an option but if I really believed it was a choice between
- a package of some years here followed by an eternity of either worshiping the christain god or torment
- oblivion
then the latter has something to be said for it. We make similar choices daily, whenever we deny ourselves something we like because the consequences of that thing are not worth it. I don't eat every piece of chocolate available to me because the consequences of eating too much chocolate are more than I wish to accept, that does not mean that I don't like chocolate.

I'm convinced enough that what awaits is some years here followed by oblivion. I've got over the reality of my own mortality and intend to make the most of what remains while it I can.

I'm not sure that it is fair to blame OLO for all the conflict between christains and muslims - Graham might be able to tell us how active they were in Serbia/Croatia some time ago or how many of the members are based in the villages in Indonesia. I suspect that OLO has had a fairly low profile in both yet some christains and some muslims have shown ability to have conflict without OLO.

R0bert

"If the test mark is 100% everybody should have a fighting chance at the start...the test is rigged."

The fact that Jesus was a human proves your point wrong, although Jesus was the son of God, he was totally human like you and me, either of us could live a reletively blameless life if we were dedicated as Jesus was. This discussion is also beside the point, Jesus came to heal. All we need recognise is that only God can be totally holy, this world is not a test but a lesson. (your statement assumes it is a test)

"original sin passed on down through the generations. we stand condemed by Adams sin "

we do not stand condemned by original sin, but in need of redemption/salvation/sanctification, if we were condemned these would not be possible. If you think you are a whole person with no need for betterment then I guess you could argue this point.

"Basically the christain gospel seems to boil down to suck up to the christain god or get punished for ever. "

Christians do not suck up to God, but are ok with themselves to such a degree they have no problem recognising the flaws in human nature which are not found in the perfect God. Christianity is the only religion where its God asks its adherents to work with God as partners rather than slaves (islam=submission=slavery).

"I see no reason to be grateful . takes me to sea, pushes me off the boat then offers to rescue me so long as I recognise how great they are .. silly I was for swimming .. out"

I have no problem in thanking God for my life and the life of creation AND for offering to save us and offer us everlasting life as well. Just as I would not want to live with a person such as yourself with no morals, God does not wish to live for ever with people without morals. Big deal, as long as you recognise that heaven is His realm, how can you expect to set the rules?

fida mae

Where do you get the idea that R0bert has no morals?

Really hanging out for your answer.

I have been reading his posts for a very long time now and if anything he strikes the reader as a person with very high moral standards.

Can you point out clearly just where he has been immoral?

Thank you

Scout, I rather suspect that she is just exercising her freedom to insult. It may be that fida mae's "morals" are arbitrary rules handed down by God in which case her comment is true. I prefer the term ethics because morals are too often associated with those arbitrary commands of god rather than an actual values system. Thanks for your support, I take my ethics fairly seriously.

I would also like to know the context fida mae made the comment in. There are certainly plenty of the christain Gods commands that I have not broken in action, the eyes beat me on some but I'm in good company on that one (check with BD). In some cases they have lined up with the combination of my ethical values and situation - no ethical way to commit physical adultery if it involves betraying the vows of marriage or being dishonest with a partner. No personal interest in homosexuality etc. Some sex outside marriage (not while I was a christain) and happy for more but no cheating on partners in doing so or use of people, rather two adults giving and receiving from each other.

It will be interesting to see the explanation of fida mae's comment.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert, the change in analogy was necessary because you took an analogy about salvation, and asked questions regarding the whole of life. I hope you see that this is the case.

Robert, your terminology of ethics vs morals was basically what I had in mind in saying that you have no morals, as these are generally seen as being influenced by God. Whats more I agree with dostoevski (or however it is spelt) regarding the nihilism of atheism, so I do not think it is really possible for a commited (as opposed to ignorant, who can be good) athiest to be a good person.

Scout - I have never found you or Robert to come across as having any morality based reasoning.

Just with the space left I thought I would answer Robert's questions about why one could intrude on a polygomous relationship. For me this is a purely secular/political question and need not be referred to religion (as no Christian would do it). The reason that it is acceptable to interfer in such personal matters is that these relationships involve people you have chosen to ignore, children who have no say in the situation. The role of government has a history of stepping into the private sphere where the life or development of a child is at stake. an example being children with drug addicted parents who need to be taken out of a psychological and behavioural nightmare. Given psychology's (which I only trust to a certain degree, but in this case seems well researched) findings regarding the pros and cons of parenting, there seems little doubt to me that polygamy is bad for children.

Hey R0bert

I always thought of morals as pertaining to the personal and ethics to the collective. So I did a check on the old dictionary and came up with the following:

Moral
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.

Ethical
Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

I will be interested to read your POV.

Now, I suspect that Fide Mae’s simplistic dismissing of us both when he/she posted:
“Scout - I have never found you or Robert to come across as having any morality based reasoning.”
is based upon Fide’s opinion of people who do not believe in religion or who do not believe in exactly the same religion as he/she.

There is no evidence of her/his claim – just an obvious desire to judge.

Morals or ethics are inherent in most human beings – the exceptions are generally categorised as socio or psychopaths – having no conscience means having no moral or ethical base.

One of the reasons for the success of the human race is our ability to co-operate with each other. While we are free to act as individuals, this may not always be for the greater good. Hence the need to find balance between acting selfishly (survival of the individual) and unselfishly (survival of us all if we share resources). Of course we are venturing into philosophy here and I make no claim to being well versed in this subject – I just find it (philosophy as an alternative to religion) very satisfactory as well not needing any belief in the supernatural and thereby, not needing to suspend my disbelief. For example; virgin births and the like.

As for Fide mae, once again we subjected to a form of emotional blackmail; for not believing in religion, we are cast as having no morals – arrant nonsense! Once again I am probably wasting my time with the likes of Fide Mae.

Fortunately not all religious people are as narrow in their views as Fide Mae or, for that matter, Muslim extremists.

fida mae, sorry about the delay in responding - I missed the updates somehow. "so I do not think it is really possible for a commited (as opposed to ignorant, who can be good) athiest to be a good person." - I do clasify myself as agnostic rather than athiest, I'm convinced that the christain god does not exist as described in the bible and preached by the christain church but can't answer for every other possibility of an intelligence behind the universe. Not core to your point but relevant.

Your belief that those who don't believe in a god (and take that seriously) cannot be good people says a lot more about your own inability to understand other viewpoints than it does about mine or scouts morals/ethics. My experience has been that the central issue is about the kind of person that someone wants to be rather than what their beliefs are based on. In my own case I have to accept that I don't have an absolute standard and that the values/morals/ethics I choose are somewhat arbitary but I'm OK with that, it's not as scary as some may think.

Many live their life with a belief in an all knowing God and still lie and cheat their way through life while others use the same belief as insipration to live lives worthy of what they believe to be their calling. Maybe you should mix a bit more with people who don't believe in God and who take their values seriously - there are plenty of us out there. If you can put aside a belief that the only real values come from God you might be surprised by what you find.

Scout, my main reason for prefering the term ethics to morals is because so often morals is taken to mean a specific code of sexual conduct handed down by god and I clearly reject that as a basis for my own choices. Maybe it's time for a new word for personal conduct arising from a sense of right and wrong. Thanks for the research.

Robert

fida mae, time for the other part of your post. I agree that if legitimate independant research shows signicant risk of harm to children then there is a place for intefering in peoples domestic arrangements. I've not seen any research on the issue of outcomes for children in polygamous households.

That was the answer I would have liked to have seen earlier in the discussion from those so outraged at the idea that muslims might want to practice polygamy in Australia - not that their God might not like it but a valid reason for society to become involved.

It would interesting to see both the research and the context of the research such as
- Who funded the research - was it funded by "Focus on the Family" or similar?.
- What is the baseline standard for outcomes for children - intact two parent families in the same communities, single parent families, two parent families in the western world vs polygamous families in the third world etc.

R0bert

Dear kactuz.
I would have written to you a lot sooner. You sound very angry. I get real angry when I see Muslims sinners leading with there anger and hatred against westerners with there lies. Sister Brother my family tree goes back to the rulers of Mecca when the prophet took over. And after they slaughtered his family members he still let them live in Mecca peace fully.
Brother I am so disgusted when I see a Muslim become happy when they see a suicide bombing there are Muslims who follow hadith and have never read Koran. I belive it is hadith that controls men and women in Islam. My wife and I read Koran every night I have read it a few time. And this that you say, no hadith in the world can back it self when it makes these evil lies about our prophet. Yes brother the ottoman and all other Arabs became very evil and started committing these crimes. Kactuz that’s why god broke them up, god gives power to which he please and god has given it today to us the western world. Sister Brother Islam is getting lost through hatred and anger. 90% of Muslims are losing religion I think they are to proud to say they are losing there faith with what’s happening around the world I challenge any body on the face of the earth to back up a claim like what you have said and kactuz, I was not there kactuz. I only have the Koran to back my claims.Please I respect what your saying because what you have seen and I don’t blame any one else for thinking the same. But my religion is not evil, studied correctly through Koran I am taught by my father to love and respect my mother three times more then him. Koran speaks of equality between men, women, Jew, Christian and Muslim. Islam means peace. Muslim means to surrender your pride and sole to the Jewish and Christian god Allah. Just so you know Allah ( illah ) al means one lah means god.