What is the On Line Opinion record for the number of posted comments? Is it already held by Irfan Yusuf? Is it over two hundred?

Boaz,

I will second Pericles that I feel we are finally getting somewhere:

1. 'No' you are not responsible of Islamist fundies or others. My point is : Australia is a great country and its greatest asset is diversity and harmony, the fact that we have different ethnicities and different beliefs should add to the wealth of the country and not divide it. Community leaders like your self (you mentioned you are an esteemed missionary who educate thousands of people) have a responsibility to promote what brings us together. If the likes of Fayez and Hilali promote fear and hate, and you do the same, what kind of world we will be giving our children? You should lead and act responsibly.

2. You know that 99% of Muslims do not know or believe in 95% of the hadith (as you know what conflicts with the Quran is discredited). If you are into promoting 'awareness' as you claim, then promote what the majority fo muslims believe in not the nut cases.

That's the only way I know to make a better world.
Peace and have a good weekend,

T

"It's right there staring you in the face TRTL.

It's in Irfan's writing. It's his way, use the base emotional appeal to attract a few pointless posts."

Well, I suppose if it was staring me in the face I could be mistaken for thinking you'd be actually able to provide hard examples of this vague 'base emotional appeal.'

And here I thought the goal of blogs such as these was to encourage debate. As to whether they're pointless or not, I think that's up to the people posting them. In any case, I hardly think it warrants calling someone nasty or venomous.

As for the notion that few religions are going to claim the more unpleasant acts of god, I couldn't agree more.
I've discovered however, that just taking potshots at religions is akin to spitting in the wind. The religious have spent thousands of years crafting responses to the contrary aspects of their faith, while the non-religious know all this superstition is foolish anyway.

What I find more relevant is the role of moderate speakers and fundamentalists (be they of any religion) in society - if we are indeed headed for an ideological conflict with fundamentalist regimes, then how will we treat the moderate majority who just want to live their life and believe in peace - what of those who have lived in Australia for many generations?

In assessing the three speakers this article highlights - Irfan, Disraeli and the notorious sheikh, who is the more reasonable speaker? Not Hilaly - nobody would try to argue that notion.
Irfan however hasn't expressed the same kind of vitriol - but the reaction to his fairly constrained piece has been quite extreme.

Which brings us back to the issues of extremism - how do we treat our moderates?

TurnRightThenLeft you are effectively saying in your post that it is important what extremists say because they lead the religious and so moderates need to speak up. If that is the case then there is no such thing as moderate because in religion there is only leaders and the led. Those who lead will be fanatical because religion has always been led by making aggressive stakes of claims over what god says , thinks , does and wants. The moderate will always follow for in their superstitious beliefs it is bad luck to go against god. Religious material is imbued with the discourse of conflict, struggle and enemy. Existence is seen as conflict and struggle both within the believer and exterior to the believer. Religion is a philosophy of fuedalism of both the self and the world. God is a radical concept , it is faith reliant not truth based and so god will always be and can only be captured by the fanatic and the fanatic will always lead the moderate.It is not moderate to support the notion of god only comparitively moderate compared with the fanatic.

"It is not moderate to support the notion of god only comparitively moderate compared with the fanatic."

In a way I agree with you, though I think this is an issue of semantics.
When it come to religion you have a sliding scale of belief, or fanaticism if you prefer - though as fanaticism is a term that specifically refers to extremists and the bulk of the world is religious, I'd say it isn't the right one.
I am using the term moderate simply to define the opposite of a fanatic.

There can be no question that moderates do exist - they are those who aren't preaching violence or conflict.

All of this refers of course, to the notion of the institutionalised god - the god of religions and superstition.

I disagree with you (from posts in other threads) when you say that as an Antitheist you believe god is a product of superstition.

In many cases they are inextricably linked, but it doesn't have to be so.

Those who question the nature of existence and whether there is a driving force, not even necessarily an intelligence, may not adhere to dogma or ritualism.

Now while we disagree on plenty of things, I dare say that you and I and Betty would all be much happier if the world didn't have all this religious superstition.

The thing is - how would you dismantle these religions?

If you were planning to crack down, drawing lines as to what is a religion constitutes nigh on impossible - if you define it as a belief in god, you'll include plenty of people who eschew ritualism.

It would be impossible any way - most of the world is religious and wouldn't give it up without a horrendous fight, which is what we should be trying to avoid.

Then there is the treasured western ideal of being free to believe what we wish. Witness the oppression of the Falun Gong in China to see what happens when you discard this ideal.

Let's have a brief competition on OLO.Let Irfan list all the negative concepts and innuendos of the Christian faith,ie the teachings of Christ;and let David Boaz do likewise for the teachings of Mohammad.Let's exclude the old testaments since both faiths see it as a common pillar of their belief systems

Will David and Irfan have the courage to engage in such an exercise?