Irfan two wrongs dont make a right. I consider the Exclusive Brethren a social terrorist organisation and yes I believe they should be treated the same way as violent terrorists. I think priests as anybody who abuses children should be punished for abusing Children and the churches who protect child abusers should be disolved in this country. Mosques which harbour or foster terrorists should also be disolved. The similarities between Islams reputation and the Catholic churches are strong. Islam is identified as terrorist fostering and the catholic Church is identified as child abuse. I try not to but I cant help think of Catholic parents as irresponsible for allowing children near their cult institutions. Anyway brainwashing children into god belief is child abuse in its self and all cults are guilty of that.

The important thing is if the belief system was true and perfect terrorism or child abuse would be impossible. Obviously if terrorism can occur in the name of islam or a priest of god can molest a child then that whole religion is corrupt. It does reflect on other believers because they accpt that corruption when they chose to have a religion. For the crimes of both Christianity and Islam all members of those religion must accept their burden of guilt for those crimes because they stay in their "club" in full knowledge what that "club" is capable of. Unlike a secular police force or government body which has commited a crime religion cannot reform and repent because the ideology of superstition devotion remains.

West - have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He actually refers to religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse, and rails against the description of "a Muslim child" or "a Catholic child" on the basis that they have never had the right to make an informed choice on the matter.
Whilst of course, the vast majority of parents have their hearts in the right place (inculcating their offspring with a solid moral platform), I can see his point. Also, when one looks at the extremely high association between one's religious upbringing as a child and the persistence of said religion into adult life (I think Dawkins quotes studies showing around 7 in 8), it is not difficult to cast religion as a predominantly cultural, rather than devotional phenomenon. Hence, we end up with people fervently espousing the veracity of the beliefs of a club into which they were born, through nothing else than an accident of birth.
Whilst these comments are directed at religion in general (and anyone who is prepared to commit violence in the name of an unprovable set of beliefs), Islam worries me particularly, due to the disproportionate number of random, indiscriminate violent acts committed in its name.

Stickman no I have not read Dawkins, I don’t feel I need to. There is no real debate, god does not exist. Claims of god are based on preferences of those who suffer a chronic interdependent syndrome of mortality crisis and moral panic.

Obviously children are born without a belief in gods, ghosts or spirits. It is not until the monsters under the bed stage of development can a child begin to use the imagination to go beyond personality fetish of objects and pictures and construct an abstract belief in something that does not exist. It does take brainwashing to believe in god and it is a form of child abuse. The parent or institution is burdening a child to a life of mortality crisis, moral internalising and bondage to superstition. Consequently it is quite likely the reason why religious children and teenagers always appear to be freaked out and living in a state of surrealistic unreality.

"However, i have never heard of a priest advocating, from the pulpit, that pedophilla was OK or to break the taxation laws, or any laws."

I've never heard imams preaching against tax. I first heard about it when it was in the paper. Still, I guess I am no longer part of the vicious and ficticious Islamist conspiracy to take over the West.

Irfan,
Seeing that I made the comment you quoted, I will respond to your post.

I do not know if the ultimate aim for Islam is to take over the world or not. However I get the message that the more Muslims that are in a country the more social problems that country has. This is of concern to me, as I do not want us to have the problems that many European countries appear to be having.

Add to this, that one wonders WHY devoted muslims want to come and live in a country governed by non-muslims. Is it simply because Islamic rule has stuffed up the living and economic conditions of the Islamic countries? Maybe they see themselves as pioneers for Islam!

"However I get the message that the more Muslims that are in a country the more social problems that country has. This is of concern to me, as I do not want us to have the problems that many European countries appear to be having."

So you are now limiting the problem to European countries. Are we an EU country? Do we pursue the sort of assimilationist policies of France and Germany? And what problems is Singapore having with its 15% Muslim minority? Perhaps you can ask Lee Kwon Yue when he arrives in Australia in a fortnight.

Also, in what sense were the Cronulla riots and the Sydney gang rapes caused by Islam? Does Islam teach men to rape women? If it does, what textual evidence do you have to support this? And no, by evidence I don't mean something that JihadWatch has manufactured. I mean what evidence do you have that Muslim religious jurists have interpreted the texts to deduce a ruling that rape is mandatory.

"Add to this, that one wonders WHY devoted muslims want to come and live in a country governed by non-muslims. Is it simply because Islamic rule has stuffed up the living and economic conditions of the Islamic countries?"

How do you define "Islamic rule"? Are you suggesting that Muslim-majority states are all ruled as theocracies? What evidence do you have for this contention?