Ahhh, if it isn't my two favourite little neo right religious maniacs in the same place - God / Allah / Buddha be praised! Were to start. Lets start with the observation that numbat who I have effectionatly, designated as the brain dead bat; is my preferred neo religious fascist because he is so transparant and therefore easily ridiculed. His raving rants are almost a breath of fresh air to his odious little colleague goodthief, who slides through these forums announcing his wish for 'dialogue' with 'subcultures'.

In this country, you odious little creep, there is no such thing as subcultures; there are australian citizens of many denominations who are part of our multicultural nation. If you don't like it, then pack your bags and head to the US, where the evangelist scumbags are running the country. But in this country, if you want dialogue, then I suggest that you and your culturally / intellectually challenged christian bretheran learn some cultural manners.

I am a horrible, horrid old socialist fifth generation pagan but I can't help notice that on this forum, I have seen people of Islamic persuasion, attempting to engage the rest of their society on important issues with politeness and courtesy. I find it revolting, that patronising little intellectual wimps like you and your jackbooted brethran; hijack my fellow citizens with your infantile arguments.

It is places like this forum, that we are going to keep your infantile rubbish out our parliament - this is not Germany 1934 circa and Islam is not the Jewish culture.

coach - you say, "deny this and you're not a muslim"

Actually, I think muslims can believe what they want. If one decides on a different interpretation, that's their business.

It certainly isn't up to avowed christians to say who is and who isn't a muslim.

Well, if you have that right, try this on for size: I'm going to say you're not a christian. How's that sit with you?

So much is being argued in the Muslim-phobia against Muslims but what is totally overlooked is that the scenery created will in time to come perfectly fit Muslims.

Take for example John Howard providing about $9,000.00 per student to the Christian Brethern, despite this being unconstitutional. Peter Costello providing tax breaks for churches, such as 2/½ million for a Melbourne Catholic Church for restoration. And on and on it goes.
If I were a Muslim (I am not) I would applaud the government for doing this and as much other unconstitutional conduct to provide funding to Christians, then I would tell my flock to breed and breed like rabbits and so to slowly take over the country and its parliament and there you are, all the laws otherwise unconstitutional now with the bias High Court of Australia held to be constitutional valid will enable me to lawfully (albeit unconstitutionally) rob Consolidated Revenue blind by spending money like anything on praying facilities and other religious schools holding religious councils (as John Howard has introduced albeit unconstitutionally (See Section 116 of the Constitution) and the Islamic religion will flourish like anything and then do onto the Christian, the Jews, etc precisely back as to what they did onto Muslims when they were in power. Australia would be turned in a fundamentalist country and so not because Muslims caused this but because John Howard, Peter Costello, Tony Abbott and others so much abused their powers to create this opportunity to do so, which otherwise had been unthinkable to do.
As such, the message is clear, if you want to continue this Muslim-phobia just be careful what you are doing as rather going against them you might just create the very good conditions to turn Australia into an Islamic state!
That why the Framers of the Constitution created Section 116 of the Constitution to keep religion out of politics, and we better heed their warning!

It is interesting that you haven't told us how all these actions contravene Section 116, Mr Schorel-Hlavka.

In full, Section 116 reads:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth"

The examples in your post are:

>>John Howard providing about $9,000.00 per student to the Christian Brethern... Peter Costello providing tax breaks for churches, such as 2/½ million for a Melbourne Catholic Church for restoration... much other unconstitutional conduct to provide funding to Christians... spending money like anything on praying facilities and other religious schools holding religious councils... <<

Now it may be that you have a different Constitution in mind, but as far as I can tell, none of these acts is in contravention of Section 116.

Are they establishing a religion? No.

Are they imposing religious observance? No.

Are they prohibiting the free exercise of any religion? No.

Are they requiring a "religious test"? No.

It might be unwise of them to fund, favour or otherwise support one particular religion over another, but it most certainly is not unconstitutional.

Netab, I wasn’t informed that this Forum is your turf and that contributors are expected to win your admiration and affection.

Though you seem to disdain it, it seems to me that most people are here for ‘dialogue’. I was having a reasonable exchange with Fellow Human until you stuck your nose in. No-one but you has had any difficulty with the word "subculture". You’re correct about its meaning, but it’s small technical bikkies. Perhaps if you were yourself more careful with language, your criticism would have more bite. (For the same reason, I won’t take your comments about courtesy all that seriously.)

But, why offer the subculture criticism at all? Obviously to provide a teeny weeny hook for your proprietorial pretentions and your expression of hatred.

You seem to fancy yourself as a predator, astride the chest of your victim, dripping venom into their eyes and mouth so they’ll sicken and die. Yet, you are armed only with a keyboard: so much hatred, but only your finger-tips to express it with. The venom is real, but all you do is drool on your victim’s shoes, which is annoying but not fatal. You’re like a lion with ill-fitting dentures instead of natural fangs: so much saliva! The swaggering hunter-baron who is just an incontinent nuisance.

Don’t mistake this for the beginning of a course of correspondence. You’re welcome to respond and to have the last say. Next time I see your lips moisten, I’ll just move my shoe.

Numbat,

You said
"One day you F_H will accept Christ and God the Father willingly.
By the way you say that pagan moslems see Christ as a Prophet - no mate He is the Son of God as the Scriptures PLAINLY say"

Seems you know very little about both Islam and Christianity:

Muslim faith believes in Jesus son of Mary as a prophet of God and we believe that the 'father' as you call it is the only divine entity. The Trinity according to your own history came about the year 325AD (please re-read article by P. Sells on OLO). Older versions of the Bible (such as Gospel of Barnabos and others) were discredited and only those that were vague enough to allow a room for the Trinitarian philisophy remained. Islamic theology is identical to pre Trinity christians and today's christian unitarians.

I appreciate you like to contribute to the 'Islam bashing fest'but at least study the subject a little more before you start talking.