Sancho: "I am happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity."

Well at least you have that in common with the Boazys of the world, except you're more honest about it.

I wish it weren't so, CJ, but the time for balanced response and negotiation is past. For once, the bigots were correct from the start: muslims only understand force, and see the humility and peaceful processes of a superior civilisation as a sign of weakness.

And thanks, Boaz, but I'm well aware that you only object to Islamic fundamentalist domination because it interferes with your wish for Christian fundamentalist domination. I'll stick with the principles that made Western society great: rationalism, secularism, and free speech.

And as for the website, I'm amazed it's legal. Why don't you simply cut the overheads and pool your resources with Stormfront and the other white supremacist organisations?

Woops, only 1 run to go until yet another century ...

I'm not trained in philosophy or political science (I envy Ayaan Hirsi Ali her training in the Netherlands), but it seems to me that Judeo-Christian (tradition/ values) is a shorthand which is useful, if a little misleading.
The socially useful bits of the Old Testament (the law-like stuff, as can be expected from a group trying to establish itself as a community), which are common to most religions, have been incorporated into the West's legal systems so that people can get along. This took some time, of course. Resisting those in power who did not wish to have their power challenged always does: not only time, but also blood. The dominant religious system (christian) provided these laws.
However, during this process, christianity had its teeth pulled. Enough people in the West came to think that peoples' reason, rather than some powerful clerics, should make laws for the common good. The christians lost this arguement, and have now not only come to accept this state of affairs: many (but by no means all) see improvements and whilst some might pine for their old status, many don't want to go back to being ruled by some powerful clerics (shall we mention George Pell here?) Thus the Judeo-christian heritage has also come to be a reference to rights and freedoms which the powerful christian clerics opposed then and of which many would oppose now.
I think it is clear that this heritage has been the most influential on the development of Australia's culture, but no-one has said it is the only. And I would not hesitate to say that, had Australia been Islamicised in either the way Indonesia, or parts of India were, Australia would be vastly different. And worse.

Dear Sancho.....

thanx for the feedback, I'll respond with a couple of counterpoints.

1/ The website is run by Jews, Christians and Athesists, of various ethnicities.. hardly a 'white supremacist' thing.
2/ I object to Islam not because I want a Christian fundy replacement, but because of the observations you make yourself about the impact of Muslim communities on us. (socio/cultural/political)

In fact.. at the VCAT court house, as we 'protesters' were discussing things, the issue of 'religious tyranny' came up (it was on one of our signs) and I made the quip (as a Christian) "Sheesh...I don't even want US to have too much power" and at that, the receptionist who was actually listening from a distance suddenly looked up in surprise.
Trust me.. the last thing I want is a "Christian" government, I wan't a government which reflects the values of the community, and I have to accept my own part if shaping those values. As a Christian, I promote values in the democratic process which I adhere to. Just like those of other persuasions do so.

The worst periods of Christendom have been where the State has been "Christian" in name if not heart. Christianity flourished and grew in the context of pagan emperors, we don't need a 'State' to grow and survive, we will use our lounge rooms.

So, I come back to my recommendation to you personally, to seek... in the Gospels.. the real Christ.

In terms of political forces against us, the NewYork Times is a classic. The plot to blow up JFK airport.. BIGGER than 9/11 was placed on the front page of virtually every American newspaper (reportedly)..but that one. The NYT put it on page THIRTY SEVEN and the front page was some "Indians making bricks". That is beyond bias, its almost treacherous.
Apparently they feel that 'terrorism' is a strong "Republican" issue so they avoid mentioning it.. "maybe it will just ... go away"?

Sancho: "I am happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity."

Did you ever learn the story of The boy who cried Wolf" as a child?

Anti-muslim advocates have spent so much effort bashing Islam on any pretext they can find that any genuine issues which do exist will be lost in the maze of half truths, misrepresentations and outright deceit.

There are some cultural issues with some groups which we as a country could handle better if we could discuss them reasonably. Instead we have some determined to smear all muslims based on the behaviour of some who happen to originate in the middle east and the issues get lost.

If you do have genuine concerns you and those who take the same approach defeat your own purposes.

As CJ Morgan says though at least you are honest about what you are doing.

R0bert