The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Prejudiced pundits fuss over sharia > Comments

Prejudiced pundits fuss over sharia : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 15/2/2008

The debate raging over the Archbishop of Canterbury's reported comments on sharia law has failed to address what sharia really means.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I heard the Religion Report on ABC's Radio National that you refer to, Irfan.

It was interesting that the person chosen to discuss the speech was none other than Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan. No bias there!

To be fair, they also asked a Muslim scholar's view; he just happened to be a muslim scholar who opposes sharia law.

But I can't say I have much sympathy for the idea the archbishop supposedly suggested. I, personally, would be opposed to anyone who tried to introduce separate legal systems for different groups. It goes against everything I believe in.

Cheers,

Rhys.
Posted by Rhys Probert, Friday, 15 February 2008 10:31:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't care what one middle eastern superstition says about another. I don't believe that any middle eastern superstition has any place in the administration of secular laws or the running of a modern democratic State. Why not include Hindu and Buddhist laws if we are going to involve superstition in our legal system? Churches of all kinds have demonstrated for the last 3000+ years that all they care about is the power of their priests and amullahs and rabbis and whatever.
Posted by HenryVIII, Friday, 15 February 2008 10:57:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems only fair to me as an Indigenous person in Australia for Islam to impose its religion on the English, giving they imposed there's through the sword and the gun on every Indigenous people's around the world the invaded.

The western world should not fear Islam but rather concentrate its efforts to remove all form of fundamentalist religion that endanger our secular societies. Personally I am more concerned with the rising rich christian fundamentalist religion in America, than I am with some poor Islamic farmer in Iraq
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 15 February 2008 10:59:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its pretty clear what sharia means.

We just have to look how Al Quaeda and Hamas act in areas under their control to understand that.

In countries at peace under Sharia, we can see too.

MMM, mm. Oppression of women, execution of political opponents and gays, suppression of free speech.
Posted by ChrisPer, Friday, 15 February 2008 11:31:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When did become ok for op-ed writers to write blustering articles about speeches they didn't read, and other writers to respond to those articles but still not engage with the issue? It's like report the controversy and respond to the controversy. Bugger the truth as long as we can engage in meta-hypothetical rant.

When did this become accepted journalism?

I mean, I can appreciate the humour of the picture of the disarrayed Islamic polity, juxtaposed next to the caricature of Islam as a monolithic menace, but it's still a superficial piece that unwittingly confirms the contention that sharia law was ever proposed in the first place.
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 15 February 2008 12:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish Rowan Williams was our Archbishop, what an ingenious way to get the Press in every English speaking country to say something to stir up circulation!They'd have to be paying him! "Wouldn't they?" Hey another thing- "Isn't the QUEEN the head of the Church", What a pity Dave Allen the Irish T.V. personality is not still sitting on his chair. He used to say "Goodnight and YOUR God be with you!" It's just like Rugby or Aussie Rules, bugger the rules, your Team is always in the right!
Posted by TINMAN, Friday, 15 February 2008 1:58:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yindin, I just wonder what would have happened had the "indigenous peoples" throughout the world obtained a monotheistic superstition and guns and swords before those other "indigenous peoples" who got them first. Would've have been the same old thing in reverse. Face it; all human beings of whatever colour, armament and superstition are pretty awful to each other for a lot of the time and fairness has never been an issue. Even the"indigenous peoples" have their own ethnic cleansings and ethnocides. First bloke to make a club was ever the winner. We can ALL do better. Which does bring religious superstition back into the picture as providing a framework for social behaviour, and sharia law seems more mediaeval and brutal than christianity of the modern sort. Which is why Rudd said "Sorry" the other day.
Posted by HenryVIII, Friday, 15 February 2008 2:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What do we do about islam and arabs ? They are such 7th and 9th century people living in the 21st century. They are so backwards
and primitive, I see no hope. islam is going to keep them in the pre dark ages forever. As long as they believe in mohammed and the koran, they are destined to be backwards and will not make any civilizational progress. They are a lost people, condemend to the past, they will never make any forward progress, nor any contribution
to the present, and civilation, as we know it. What do we do ?

DeepDarkOpps
Posted by DeeprkOpps, Friday, 15 February 2008 3:14:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trying to justify islam is an insult to the Western world, unless you are addressing the left, which is also an insult to the Western World.
The world has progressed beyond the 7th and 9th centuries, unless of course, you are an arab or a moslem. Time and civilization generally move forward, unless you live in the dark ages of the moslem world, where time stands still or goes backwards. The arabs and moslems are an insult to civilization, probably beyond hope. The real question is, what does Western Civilization do to combat the barbarians at the gate. I know the answer, but am reluctant to be the first one to state the one and only answer. America and the Western World, due to polictical correctness, are reluctant to say what lies ahead. We will see it in Europe, probablly in France first, but maybe Belgium or the Netherlands. These are the areas most at risk and Europe has a very violent history. The Europeans, in spite of there seemingly cultural and political surrender, will finally come to grips with reality and take drastic measures to rid the continate of the moslem invaders and colonizers, who will no assimilate into European socitity.

May God bless Europe and allah be dammed. This is Valentines day, but not in most of the moslem world, it is forbidden, love and affection are not allowed, at least in public, in that dark ages land of the dark ages, sand people barbarians.

DeepDarkOpps
Posted by DeeprkOpps, Friday, 15 February 2008 4:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you some kind of troll, DeeprkOpps, pretending to be a nutty right winger? If you are, wind it back, or the men with white coats will be there soon.

If not, wind it back - you will enjoy life more.
Posted by ChrisPer, Friday, 15 February 2008 5:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clear things up:

SHARIA is a broad code of conduct governing life, from dietary rules to clothing.

Where does it come from? - Sharia meaning "way" or "path" is derived from the teachings of the Koran, the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and the rulings of Islamic scholars. There are five different schools.

How is it applied in states? Sharia is law in some states. Many Muslim countries have adopted elements of Sharia governing inheritance, banking, marriage and contracts.

What are hadd offences? The popular understanding of sharia - such as stoning of adulterers or severing of thieves' hands - relates only to certain criminal offences known as hadd offences. The penalties for these are not law in most Muslim countries but have become a potent symbol of sharia through application in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan, under the Taliban.

I think before any one of us makes any additional comments - we'd best
be sure we know what we're talking about. What can we "infidels"
possibly know about the workings of the Muslim world?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 15 February 2008 9:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AWWWW PLEASE!!

Have a heart Dumkopf; we already have more than our fair share of nutters here..
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 15 February 2008 10:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“What sharia really means” is that Muslims do not believe they have to respect the laws of infidels. It means separate laws for different people. This, of course, is impossible under democracy – but sharia is not about freedom, equality and democracy. It is about Islam and its rule. Under sharia, infidels have less rights because the Quran says Muslims are “the best of people” and non-Muslims are to be subdued.

Obviously many Muslims believe that to be ‘real’ Muslims, they cannot be ‘real’ citizens of democracies. It means the Archbishop believes that the Western state is incapable of creating just laws for Muslims and so Western democracy is unfair to Muslims because they do not feel “comfortable” having to follow (some or any, he wasn’t clear on this) Western law. Archbishop Williams believes that having one law for everybody is “a bit of a danger.” Williams was not clear on what is to happen when a Muslim has an issue with a non-Muslim and stills feels “uncomfortable.” Is the infidel to submit to sharia? What the archbishop wants is the evisceration of British legal system.

Notice that the only religious group that cannot be expected to conform to a country’s law (or that does not believe itself to be equal to others) is Muslims. The archbishop is giving aid and comfort to the wife-beater, to those who force marriage, to those who do FGM and mistreat women. (I refer you to the study: "Crimes of the Community: Honor-Based Violence in the U.K.,") Substitute the word “community” for “Muslims”

As I have said before here, the fact is that Muslims are not honest about their religion and their dear Prophet.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html

Everywhere Islam dominates, we see hate, violence, death and oppression – and the archbishop wants this for us. I have not yet found a Muslim that can explain why they say “Praise be unto him” after the name of a man who did the vile things Mohammad did, according to Islams own traditions.

Irf, some of us know Islam, your dear prophet and sharia.

Bad times are coming.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Saturday, 16 February 2008 3:19:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The response to the Archbishop's speech has exposed the gross ignorance and prejudice of so many in the Western World towards anything deemed even remotely linked to Islam.”

Gross ignorance and prejudice? Or, is it simply people sick and tired of threats from alien beliefs to their way of life, in their own country? Islam is set on ruling the world. Only suicidal, left wing idiots like the Archbishop want that to happen.

Irfan advises us that a comedian – yes, a comedian! – has decided that people in the Middle East know more about western culture than we know about theirs. Citing an unknown comedian of Middle Eastern background is a bit desperate!

As for, “Once again, Muslims have been forced onto the front page, to explain themselves and justify their faith…” – well, in Muslim countries, non-Muslims rarely get the chance to do even this before Muslim lunatics call for their deaths.

We ignorant Westerners should remember that Irfan Usuf’s academic, provable qualifications are in Law, not religion. He often tells us infidels that we know nothing.

If we want to find out more, this amateur theologian is probably not the best source of knowledge. He should be treated as an individual with interesting views.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:14:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leigh,

Now that's the most intelligent argument that I've heard yet.

Of-course some people are afraid of anything that's "different" to the norm and often perceive things as a threat. That's a human trait.

However, education is the key to overcoming prejudice on both sides.
At least it's worth a try.

But then I suppose I'm looking at things from a 'Western' perspective.
And as I've often been accused - through "rose-coloured" glasses.
But, isn't listening and learning - better than ranting and raving?
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little bit of shove here, a little bit of push there, a few jokes about it now and then and gradually it comes into peoples' minds that the old Shariah isn't too bad, nothing scarey about it so we will try it out a bit just to see if we like the taste. After all, mustn't upset Muslims and be racist about it must we?
And before you have registered, the little bit becomes quite a lot then a lot more until it has set like concrete and becomes the norm.
Be warned,be alert.
Our laws are suited to our way of life. We need no other.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 16 February 2008 2:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sure when we speak for sharia law we mean very different things and we misunderstand each other. We must be specific and detailed. I am sure I agree with the most of the sharia law, the most common, the everyday issues and I disagree with everything violates women rights, human rights and does not comply with our basic philosophy of justice. We do not stone to death for adultery, we do not cut the hand of a thief, etc. Sharia law is only in a small number of Muslim countries. Do not forget that Saudi Arabia's monarchy, continues the sharia law and its existent of cause our support and guns. We are hypocrites when we attack the Muslim people for the sharia law, when they are innocent, none asked them what they want, no democracy at all and we support the regimes who violate basic human rights and use the sharia law for their own benefits
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 16 February 2008 5:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan misses his lawyer's brief. If "we won't be seeing a sharia state on either side of the Tasman", it will not be because imams cannot agree on its liturgical issues or because they don't want it, but because the overwhelming majority of Australians will stand against it and will never allow their governments to legislate an act that would bring sharia even as the most minor part of an Australian secular legal system.

http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com
Posted by Themistocles, Saturday, 16 February 2008 7:06:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What people seem to be forgetting here is that Islam is not just a personal religion, it is also a political movement intent on imposing its law and regulations on the the whole world. If you doubt what I say, there are many examples on You-tube and other internet web sites of Muslims actually saying what they want and have decided is to be the fate of the west. What is more, it is all contained in the Koran, including their modus operandi.
We would be stupid to ignore what they are saying, thinking "it couldn't happen here" etc.
They have already announced their intentions and they started many years ago trying to implement their agenda. Well before 9/11.
The Archbishop's comments are really stupid. You can't have just a "little bit of Sharia"- as soon as the principle is accepted, the Muslims will push for more and more.
I really hope that the tolerant easy going people in the west will not let down their guard and allow the Islamic takeover, but due to the number of apologists for them in this forum and others, I fear that they will win.
Unfortunately things will have to get a lot worse and the proportion of Islamics in Europe will have to get bigger before the average westerner will start to wake up. By then it may be too late, if it is not already.
Appeasement will not help against such an implacable and determined enemy. When will westerners get a back bone, and unequivocally state "no more"?
Posted by Froggie, Saturday, 16 February 2008 8:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bless you Foxy :)

"But then I suppose I'm looking at things from a 'Western' perspective.
And as I've often been accused - through "rose-coloured" glasses.
But, isn't listening and learning - better than ranting and raving?"

Does it occur to you that some of us have:

Listened...
Learned...
Researched..
Tested..
Weighed up...
Observed...

then the shock was so much that it triggered 'ranting and raving' :)

Not all 'rants' start out that way.

I have 2 agree though with you.. about looking at things from a Western perspective..I'd even say 'secular'....

When you or I or we, don't have any ideology which calls us to 'conquer the world'.. we tend to project such tame approaches to life onto those we don't understand.

I guess there were many Jews who would have given a positive spin to Mein Kampf had they read it b4 the gas chambers.

The only thing between 'words in a book' and mass graves is sometimes just a bit of....time.

While not wishing (this time) to overstate the case.. let's just say there are some things to be concerned about.

Most of us see 'accomodation and tolerance' in Williams call, but the thing is... part of actually learning about Sharia is realizing its a package deal.. it goes with the Muslim territory.

Haad this.. or haram that.. or halal something else.. its all 'Sharia' and if one Country does and another doesn't enforce the total package, it doesn't really alter the package itself. Sharia is linked directly to Islam.. and to Mohammad.. and to the warlike history and doctrines of this rather large cult.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sharia issue is just another example of the Muslim capacity for self-deception that exceeds all credibility. Here is an example: I recently posted to a WashingtonPost article Bloody Ritual, Modern Meaning on “the Advance of Islam” about moderate Muslims changing Islam (yeah ,right).
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/01/ashura.html#comments

It was a story about the Ashura ritual as practiced by shia Muslims. The author says that the Ashura is a “test of love and devotion.” After reading the comments and checking other Muslims sites I noticed that most Muslims had no actual idea of the story of the Ashura and Karbala.

So I posted a short history of the Ashura, about the first 50 years of Islam and the events leading up to that tragic battle (and then reposted a correction) almost 1400 years ago. So then a Muslim informs me that it wasn’t Muslims that killed Hussein, the hero of the story. Oh? So who did it? The facts are that the Ashura was the climax of 50 years of hate and fighting among Mohammads household and heirs during the ‘golden era’ of expansion (ie, killing and conquering infidels) under the four righteous caliphs. The fact that this era was marked by violence as Aisha (Mo’s wife) and her family fought Fatima (Mo’s daughter) and Ali (Mo’s cousin) for power and riches is lost on Muslims. After many complicated disputes over many decades, Hussein and his army (Ali and Fatima’s son) tried to regain power against the larger army of Yazid (Aisha’s group). At the end of the day the head of Hussein ( Mohammads grandson) and even infant greatgrandson were carried away in bags by the victorious MUSLIM army. Oh yes, 3 of the 4 Righteous caliphs were murdered by Muslims. The events are fairly clear, but Muslims use words like sacrifice, martyr, and purity of Islam when describing the battle and blame it on the “enemies of Islam,” of course.

When we say that sharia is bad and point to its results, Muslims tell us we are ignorant or tell us it is only for Muslims (not true!)

to be continued!
Posted by kactuz, Sunday, 17 February 2008 7:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I am trying to say is that facts mean nothing to Muslims. Islam is perfect, therefore any criticism of Islam is either (insert excuses here) or must be silenced. Even when Muslims kill each other it is the work of evil infidels. There is no end to the ignorance, excuses, omissions, distortions and lies when it comes to Muslims and Islam. Thus, when a Muslim hears criticism of Islam (as in the case of Irfan and sharia here), because it can only be the result of “gross ignorance and prejudice."

The hate and violence in the Quran mean nothing to Muslims. Take this verse from the book of Plunder
http://islamawakened.org/quran/8/67/default.htm.
Notice there are 15 translations. As I understand it is says that “to be a real prophet (like Mohammad) you must capture/enslave people and do a lot of killing/tyranny on Earth. Man wants the good things, but Allah wants the end (of life). Allah is really smart.”.

The hate and violence in the hadith, the Islamic traditions about the life of Mohammad. also mean nothing. Muslim always have an excuses To help them I have written a page on things they can http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html

I was reading this week one of the stories in the traditions about a woman being pulled apart by camels as punishment and Mohammad taking her daughter. Do the thousands of pages full of morally repugnant stories bother Muslims? Not at all! They consider him to be a great moral example to be followed.

Look at current events. Muslims have been rioting in Denmark for 5 days (burning schools!). Look at Muslim actions all over the world. Do Muslims ever ask themselves why it is always Muslims? No need. It is always the fault of others (see page above)s. Remember Islam is perfect.

Once again, I am saying that the situation is probably hopeless. Muslims, all Muslims, are either ignorant or dishonest about Islam (except for the radicals). They want power and special privileges and to hell with our freedoms and us.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/liberty.html

The future will not be nice. I blame Islam.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Sunday, 17 February 2008 7:22:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan wrote:

"Given that our imams cannot even agree on such simple liturgical issues, one can hardly expect them to provide much guidance on the implementation of sharia in a Western country. With that in mind, I feel I can confidently predict we won't be seeing a sharia state on either side of the Tasman at anytime before the next ice age."

And for that let us be truly thankful.

However I would prefer a more robust defence against sharia than inept mullahs.

Then again with judges like Sarah Bradley we already have something that is arguably worse than sharia.

See:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23215930-2,00.html

Impeach Judge Bradley now!
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 17 February 2008 8:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomas Jefferson said:

*The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.*

Tertullian (early Church father) said

"We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed"

Personally.... I'd prefer to avoid EITHER scenario. If we ever arrive at the point where the only recourse of freedom is the blood of patriots to dethrone a tryrant... we have only ourslves to blame.

WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY... which means.. that what happens.. does so because WE, "the people" allow it or vote for it.

Understand this...and you will understand all that I write.

The Christians grew, in spite of persecution.... the Gospel triumphed over Rome...without a shot being fired.

Sharia law.. in principle, does not allow the Gospel to be preached or promoted. A 'little bit' of Sharia law, is not an accomodation...it is a threat.

I've never in all my years of reading seen any social group which is ultimately satisfied with just a 'little' bit of their agenda.

ALL History teaches against that idea.
ALL common sense cries out against that idea.
Current events testify against that idea. (Danish riots A-GAIN..toDAY)

The classic example is the Gay lobby. "Oh..we just want to it decriminalized"

Then..... "Now we want same rights of marraige, adoption..IVF and we also want your children to be educated that being sexually devient is 'normal'".

Farrrr better we fight these things out now..using nothing more harmful than 'words'... than things get to the point where the blood of patriots must be spilt.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 17 February 2008 1:35:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz wrote:

"The classic example is the Gay lobby. "Oh..we just want to it decriminalized"

"Then..... "Now we want same rights of marraige, adoption..IVF and we also want your children to be educated that being sexually devient is 'normal'".

Well Boaz, sharia is hardly a "gay friendly" legal system. So from your perspective sharia might have a few benefits.

See:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311025,00.html

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learned.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 17 February 2008 1:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
StevenMeyer really knows what he's talking about. When I want serious news, I always go straight to FoxNews. They report and I get to decide.

Of course, in Steve's religion, they love homosexuals. I wonder what the Old Testament law says about homosexuals. Obviously, the Torah encourages people to explore their sexuality, doesn't it?
Posted by BOZO_DAGWOOD, Sunday, 17 February 2008 4:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOZO_DAGWOOD wrote:

"I wonder what the Old Testament law says about homosexuals. Obviously, the Torah encourages people to explore their sexuality, doesn't it?"

Christianity and Judaism are, on the whole, both unfriendly towards homosexuality.

And that raises an important point.

It is essential that we maintain a firm division between religion and the state. Secular democracy is our best guarantor of freedom. Otherwise we really shall be back to the point where people are persecuted for saying or doing things the religios don't like.

So when the head of a partially state funded Church advocates giving special recognition to religious courts, or when a Muslim pundit tells us that sharia is not so bad after all, we should smell a great big rat.

Or, perhaps, we should see a great big Trojan horse.

What's next? Special courts for Sikhs, Hindus and Satanists. The reinstatement of Ecclesiastical courts?

Some other points.

--As a matter of plain fact, the mainstream of neither Christianity nor Judaism advocates the criminlisation of homosexual acts anymore.

--Foxnews was actually quoting a story that appeared in the Times of London. Here is a link to the original story.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece

If you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the Times' report let's see it.

In case you consider Amnesty International a reliable source you may wish to consider the case of Zohreh and Azar.

See:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17638

I have written to Amnesty International telling them I shall not join a petition calling for the sentences of Zohreh and Azar to be "commuted."

The pair should be released immediately and unconditionally.

After all, what is a "reasonable" punishment for adultery?

How about life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years?

Zohreh and Azar are sharia in action.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 18 February 2008 10:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ,

Thomas Jefferson also said –

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

“Every generation needs a new revolution.”

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

“The way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them.”

In addition it seems that most people still can’t tell the difference between a religion and the national culture of a small minority of that religion. For example, some Muslim women have even been oppressed into becoming Prime Minister and the majority denied the opportunity to be forced to wear burkhas.

With all the rabid nonsense that keeps springing up almost daily, it’s no surprise that secularism is increasing.

I also suspect that BOZO-DAGWOOD may be your evil twin (or your conscience?)

Cheers
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 18 February 2008 12:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what do we do as Western Civilization, against the barbarian, Islamo-facists, racists, supremicists, who want to conquer and submit or kill all that are not submissive to islam. Do we take it(I don't think so) or do we retaliate. A first strike, a continuous, ever going offensive, until the arabs and moslems are put out of commission. A threat to Western Civilization is a threat to all civilization, the world would be a very different and disorganized place without America and our allies. As for our allies, we have many, the lefties hate America, the rest of the world loves us. That is why America is the destination of all the worlds people, whom wish to leave their native countries and migrate. America is the preferred destination.

DeepDarkOpps
Posted by DeeprkOpps, Monday, 18 February 2008 1:38:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Gospel took away the sharia laws. Sins of course remain sins however they can be dealt with in better ways that stoneings, floggings, amputations and so on.
Jesus Our Lord took away the sharia of both the Jewsish kind and of the Islamic kind.
Look no further than the Gospels.
Those who bad mouth the Catholic Church need to be reminded that all of your pre politically correct university brainwashing and media brainwashing ( ie real history) shows that universities, science, education etc all came about because of Catholics primarily.
Wake up and be grateful for the benefits you have even in theis post Christian age. The problems in the Western world today are the result of turning one's back against Chrsit and His One True Church.
Chrsit dealt with sharia. Read the Gospel and wake up. No need to reinvent the wheel nor to replace sharia with pagan positive law- all are a crock of poop; positive law does not help Muslims jst as sharia doesn;t help them either. They need the traditional Catholic teachings and so does the rest of the paganised Western world who provoke the Muslims.
Posted by Webby, Monday, 18 February 2008 6:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O'Connor is spot on.
LONDON (CNS) - Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster distanced himself from remarks made in a speech by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, but he added he was "saddened" by the way the archbishop had been misunderstood.


Cardinal said:
"I don't believe in a multicultural society," he said. "When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land.

"There are going to be certain things which might clash in the overall culture of the country. That's where one has to make a judgment," he said.

"There are aspects of Shariah that are practiced that we certainly wouldn't want in this country. The laws of this country don't allow forced marriages or polygamy," he said, adding that governments had "a right to make sure that those laws are kept."

The cardinal said that multiculturalism had "meant a lessening of the kind of unity that a country needs."

"It is not enough for people to live within their own cultures and then say 'We'll live within the freedoms that are given in this country within a totally separate culture,'" he said.

"Of course you can keep the variety of traditions, but when you enter this country there are common values which are part of its heritage, which should be embraced by everybody," he added.

The cardinal, one of six children of Irish migrants, said it would be better if Muslims contributed beyond their own families to the common good, saying they would then "become a normal part of this country and, indeed, cherish those values that should be common to everyone."

"Everyone in Britain must obey the law and, therefore, the question of how one can be a loyal British citizen and a faithful member of a religious group is a very pertinent question," he said Feb. 10
Posted by Webby, Monday, 18 February 2008 7:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOBBLES... *phew*... at least HE is the evil one :)

Steven.. mistyped that thing about the Gay lobby.. I was just using it to show how none of these 'equality' things is ever static or satisfied. Its always incremental.

Christianity absolutely condemns in the harshest terms.. homosexual behavior.. unquestionably and uncompromisingly. BUT... there is no call in the New Testament...for either a State... OR.. for the physical punishments of the Torah to be implemented as state policy.
The condemnation of homosexual behavior is stated.. thats it. The judgement is up to the Almighty. (Romans 1 for those interested)

Derekops.. I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, but not the literality. YES.. we need to 'do' something, but 'retaliate' is kind of after the horse has bolted stuff.
I'd much rather see a concerted effort to mould and shape young Australia in terms of knowledge of and appreciation for

-history.. going back as far to the time of Christ up till now.
-civics.... public behavior.. respect for elders etc.
-ethics... and preferably a foundation for them.

Sadly, as I think about that.. I'm in conflict with those who say 'secular' government. Not because I don't support it per se..but because only with some kind of religious input will the State have an enduring basis for ethics. MIUAUG has never worked and never will.

I guess we have to live with the reality of a friendly (I hope) tension between the Spiritual and the Secular at government level.

I absolutely draw a qualitative line between Sharia and say the Westminster confession, which does enter the field of civil law.
I think the harshest the WC is.. relates to magistrates fining those who work on the sabbath.... but I need to study it more.

Ifry..ultimately "Sharia" stands for Islam.. therein lies the problem.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 18 February 2008 9:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

"It also hasn't stopped claims that an entire legal tradition developed over a period of 1,400 years (and still developing) is little more than a system of non-anaesthetic amputations."

I thought all amputations were now done under anaesthetic. ... On reflection ... I suspect, beheadings and stonings are not.

Steven,

"Impeach Judge Bradley now!"

I agree with you.

Where is UNICEF? I know they do a lot of reporting and, indeed, wringing of hands ... but how effective are they, and what actually do they do on the ground?
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 1:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Middle Eastern nations have lied by signing the United Nations 1948 Declaration on Human Rights which includes religios freedom paragraphs. A Roman collar, crucifix, bibles, Catholic Mass Lectionary, Missals and the Mass worship are forbidden in Saudi Arabia and some otehr Middle Eastern nations.
Lying and signing international legal documents seems to be OK for some. The U.N. needs to wake up and enforce compliance.
The use or not of anesthesia for amputations, steonings etc is beside the point and another example of moral relativism( a tyranny according to Pope Benedict XVI). Objective moral norms needs to be upheld in the Middle East by UN member nations to publicly state that such Mosaic and sharia punishments are contrary to objective morality.
Jesus said that big sins lead to Hell if unrepented of however, stopped the stoneing of the woman caught in adultery; Jesus though allows the death penatly as does the Church traditioanlly for treason, 1st degree murder, rape which affect the common good of society.
Posted by Webby, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 7:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sharia law on this side of the Tasman? Are you for real Irfan or just testing our knowledge to see if we are aware of what goes on between the four walls of your Mosques?

Sharia law is alive and well in oz, how else would your Imams accommodate for polygamy within their flock to survive under our Australian laws?

Women in Islam are inferior to men under Mohammad’s "sacred" law, should they resort to any fairer legal system creates such a threat to Islamic men (not to mention great job insecurity to all their imams).

Sharia law is just the foot in the door to Islamise a country were Islam is not the ruling majority – such a country is called “darul harb” or the house of war. Islam is not at home until Sharia is implemented (such places are called: darul Islam)
Posted by coach, Thursday, 21 February 2008 1:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Gospel is about objective truths found int eh person and the words of Jesus Christ. Islam is diamentrically opposed to the message of the Gospel in all respects.
Muslims who really beleive in Islam should either get out of thier ignorance and for many others in that religion should stop PRETENDING that they do not know the difference between the Gospel and the Koran.
On the subject of MARTYRS for example Catholics know that to become a martyr, is when someone kills you for holding to faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel; in Islam it is the opposite- you go out and kill others and explode yourself in an act of suicide. Such ignorance by many ; wilful sin for others.
Islamic Heaven with 72 black eyed houris comes form the pagan religions as Islam is a mishmash of Judaism, Catholicism and some gnosticism and the surrounding pagan warlike sensual religions in that region. It is the pagan part that Islam takes up in jihad, alleged martyrdom and a sexual Heaven.
Posted by Webby, Thursday, 21 February 2008 1:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both Islam and Christianity are nothing more than fantasy role playing cults. It is pure stupidity to incorporate religious views into law. Proof of this is in every single legal system which has ever done so. Sharia law in Britain is no different than forcing Australian Rules football rules on to the British people as law. Ifran takes superstition too seriously and did not consider the fact that Islam is not important to those who do not belong to the cult. Certainly there are many Moslem Javans who know nothing of Dyak culture and indeed the Dyaks recieve less respect from Moslem colonists than the Middle East recieve from the U.S and Europe who are not colonising them. It is simply not important for non Muslims to understand Islam and nor should it be. People have lives to get on with than to have to become expert in every superstition that exists. Gods be offended , let only he who is god say so, everybody who claims offence on gods behalf, or speaks for god is claiming to be god.

The Prejudice that all the West is the same is also glaring in the article. It is ignorance to think of the West as a monoculture, oblivious to the difference between Britain and America, Australia and France, Brazil and Portugal , Spain and Mexico, Holland and Greece, Argentina and New Zealand. Im not even sure Perth dwellers are the same culture as Melbournites.

Any religious influence over law and politics is offensive and morally corrupt.
Posted by West, Sunday, 24 February 2008 4:31:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All legal systems under Western Civilisation as well as non Western ones under Christian influence have all has thei laws influenced by the teachings of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament and the Church. This is not offensive but something really good and morally objective.
Your fantasy of some kind of non religious and false assumption of fairness and rationality by doing so is partially realised today in the evil of family court legislation since 1974; pornography and lack of censorship that has increased lust and sex crimes.
Crimes against persons was properly protected by Church teachings which are instructions on the Gospel. Since secualr and politically correct laws in the post Christian new century there is more crime against the weak, the vulnerable, against women and children.
Posted by Webby, Sunday, 24 February 2008 5:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I completely disagree Webbly , secular law and the concept of state grew out of the need to protect humanity from religion. The modern English legal and political system is born out of Henry's proof that the Roman Church is a falsehood and later modernised as a response to the terrorism of the puritans. Mormons are complete slaves to their pre-scientology cult. King Wenceles declared his state was greater than god and saved lives condemned by the church.Every instance where religion has an influence on politics tyranny reigns, you only need to glance at the monuments of great evil , Salem , the Bible Belt , September 11, the Taliban.

All religion is offensive , it should not be my problem what your superstitions are as it should not be your problem what my superstitions are. All religious beliefs are immoral for far too many reasons to list here and a person who does not hide his spiritual beliefs can be only no good. Principly at the core since no god can be offered , only the falseness of scripture and hear-say and again only based on childish notions of magic and the supernatural. Of course this means all gods are false and then it stands no religion is justified and so all religious law is injustice ,and of course injustice is evil.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:03:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I completely disagree with you West, secular law in France and the then German States grew out of the hatred of the one true God and of His One true Church. France guillotined many from mob violence known as 'the peoples' courts/tribunals' ( sound familiar?) and German Princes wanted to increase their wealth. Secualr traders from Holland and England didn't wish to have Church constraints upon their lust for mammon and slavery. Modern man needs protecting from himself eg abortion, decline in Europe's population due to 1 child per family now in 'catholic'?/Spain. We actually need more religion and soon the West will get it when black African and Asian Catholic priests, brothers and nuns will come in droves to re-Catholicise the one true Gospel to our shores and also to the UK and Europe. Thanks be to God.
Posted by Webby, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 3:14:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I still disagree withy you Webby. Every instance where religion has interferred with politics results in the abhorent abuse of human rights. The belief in god is possibly the greatest moral cancer known to man. Morality is a good example of the source of the problem. All of the largest religions have bad values and teach imorality. They all claim to be moral, to teach anti morals as a point of propaganda on behalf of a religion. The only good Christians or Christians capable of a moral life or Muslims capable of a moral life all lead a secular life style. for that Jesus is a good example to use here (pretending he was real and not just a fictional character) because Jesus was an exclusionist and taught exclusionism which is why Jesus was in fact evil.The core value of Christianity was always ethnic cleansing, due to the fact that Jesus preached exclusionism and so we have it. Not that any other religion is better , but of course the fact that all religions are based on supoerstition and egoism there is more to the story. In a nut shell Tthe only people saying Christians are good are Christians only , the only people who are saying muslims are Muslims only , and god is a lie so why should religionists be believed anyway and they deny factual history destroying credibility as well as all that being immoral anyway. So we are better off living in a justice ruled free democracy as secularist will have it than under the Taliban as religionists will have it.
Posted by West, Thursday, 28 February 2008 9:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human rights came out of the Catholic tradition with law, education, universities, science. Politics is not a vacuum and interaction, not interference, by religious people is at least as equal as others who give their input. Idolising or fearing dictators, totalitarians, evil men and their bad decisions is the moral cancer; not God. You are not talking rationally as is the subconscious assumption you are working from West and the sleight of psychological hand you are pleading your viewers to go along with your unsubstantiated grudge against a Creator you do not wish to get to know. You are confusing the evil morality of false religions with the one true religion which is Jesus and His one true Catholic Church. You are equating the moral systems of the Catholic Gospel with other religions. They are often diamentrically opposed and so equating them as "as good' or 'just as bad as one another' is called the sin of religious indifferentism. This is a heresy( heresy meaning a choice to do wrong thinking by holding a wrong belief not consonant with truth). The Catholic Church's apostolic authority comes from the One True Truine God.

The 'morality' of secularists and atheists isn't all bad but ONLY insofar that they agree with Christ's Gospel. Secularised or moderate Muslims decide NOT to uphold the Islamic teachings to the extent that they differ from the Gospel. In other words moderate Muslims or secularised Muslims are conforming common sense and conscience which is not the monopoly of Catholics. They are not really Muslims and this is a good thing.My church teaches that the natural law is in the hearts and minds of even non Catholics, such as Muslims, Buddhists and yes even you as an agnostic or atheist. The only difference for a Catholic is that conscience cannot be used as an excuse to do one own thing as the Gospel upholds the conscience in total.
Your last 12 lines dear West are irrational. A bad look. Arrogant monopoly on rationality is meant to be the atheists' drawcard. Doing your cause an embarassing disservice.
Try again.
Posted by Webby, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course you are wrong webby. The Catholic church was one of the greatest persecutors in human history and based on the dictatorship of popes who rules through violence and lies. Only a few hundred years ago the church supported slavery and its official position on Africans and native Americans was that they were not human and had no soul. The persecution of the Jews , the witch burning , the inquistion , the bonfire of the vanities was finally bought to Justice by Neopolian and the Vatican was only ressurected by Mousolini and so the church continued its persecution of peoples through Franco, Hitler, Mousolini and the Catholic party in Slovakia and Poland. Very few other cults could claim to have indulged in such evil as the Catholic Church , even today Rape victims in central America and Northern South America are being persecuted by oders from the vatican. The title the devils banker has certainly been earnt by the church. The Church has not even compensated those of the stolen generation that they abducted from the great hoard of loot the church greedily bled from the developing world.
Posted by West, Saturday, 1 March 2008 1:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course you are wrong West. The Catholic church gave refuge to Jews being persecuted under the newly created Lutherans. Jews and even Catholics fled to Rome for protection against the Inquisition in Spain. Yes, they got the Pope's protection. Greatest persecutors of the world and of the Church were actually heretics whever they achieved political power eg the Hussites, the Cathars, the Protestant Elizabethans and the Puritans of the UK. Catholic power is legitimate to maintain order against heretics and cults. Worst dictatorships are secualrists liek Mao, Pol Pot , Stalin and other secualr dictators.
Franco kept the romantised at the movies view of Communists at bay. Chief Rabbi of Rome Israel Zolli converted to the Catholic Faith during WWII and took Pope Pius XII's Christian name as his new name upon baptism. All Israel's founders from close of the WWII, through the late 40s and 50s and 1960s praised the Catholic Church for saving the Jews. Church never held that Africans and others had no sopul and never supported slavery but like St Paul called for equality in charity between master and slave as the Church had no power over the secualr powers. When the situation changed the Church was pleased that the secular States made the long overdue changes re: slavery.
Posted by Webby, Saturday, 1 March 2008 3:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let us not be digressed by what the Christians did a few centuries ago, or even now. The important issue is what the Arabs and moslems do today and it is not a pleasant picture, I'm sure you all read the newspapers and/or see the the TV news. The Dark Ages sand people are an insult to Western Civilization and the rest of the worlds civilizations and besides that, they want to cut our heads off, if we don't believe as they do, or don't want to become submissive to arab/moslem/sharia law. The religion of peace is a sick joke, it really is the religion of intolerence, submission, conquest, dark ages concepts and all the other black things we can ascribe to mankind. But, Islam it is not really a religion, it is a primitive, fascist, polital system with a very primitive religious component. All you women, especially the feminists, are you ready to wear veils, hijabs and all the other oppressive outfits proscribed by the moslems ? Where is the feminist protest about the treatment of moslem women ? I hear nothing, except that you are oppressed by Western man and care nothing about the really oppressed women of the world, the poor moslem women, nobody to speak for them.

DeepDarkOpps
Posted by DeeprkOpps, Saturday, 1 March 2008 6:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why the Fuss About Sharia Law?
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=988

"Should a society lend legitimacy to a legal system whose raison d’être is the destruction of that society? Moreover, how should a society treat a legal system that obligates its faithful to use violent jihad to accomplish its goals?"

"The chorus of objectors at this point is predictable: Who says that Shari’a’s goal is world hegemony and its method violent jihad? The answer of course rests with the Shari’a authorities who have addressed this question over the past 1,200 years."

"Dow Jones & Company, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, employs Mufti Taqi Usmani, a world-renowned Shari’a authority. Sitting as one of the most esteemed members of the Dow Jones Shari’a Advisory Board, Usmani informs Dow Jones which companies are Shari’a-compliant for admission into the Dow Jones Islamic Index."

"Usmani has ruled in line with Shari’a’s 1,200 years of jurisprudence that violent jihad against the infidels in the West is an ongoing obligation. In fact, he has dedicated an entire chapter to the subject in his book 'Islam and Modernism'."

"A civil society that is not prepared to make distinctions between anti-Western theo-political legal codes and innocuous religious ones could eventually find itself engaged in a battle for its very existence."

This is the fuss Irfan.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 7 March 2008 12:06:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philosophically the definition of human puts each world as the others dystopia. Islam defines the human as a slave of a god. Secular society defines humans as intrinsically free. As we plainly see even Christians cannot fully grasp the concept of freedom. To Islam explaining freedom is akin to explaining infinite dimensions, its just not on the radar. Islam will always be offended by freedom and the concept of self responsibility as the secularist will always be offended by slavery and devotion.

Britain is a secular society , religion has no place there. It is good that the belief in god is tolerated by the British but those who belong to cults that believe in gods should show their hosts much more respect than has been given.

Afterall those who believe in god believe in heaven or paradise and so that is their only home. They are only guests on earth. To us who respect life and know we only have one short one our homes are the earth. Save sharia law to impose on god, it is not welcome where there is freedom.
Posted by West, Monday, 10 March 2008 3:59:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear West
Philosophically you are half right. In Islam one is a 'slave of Allah'; secularists are not as "instrinically free" as you might think. Unlimited freedom is a nonsense and atheists and agnostics who put forward this nonsense are being anti intellectual. The atheist Habermas of Germany agrees with Pope Benedict XVI on many aspects to freedom and how freedom comes with responsibilities and necessary controls. This is because an immediate examination quickly shows that sexual licence, unbridled corporatism in the market , lack of censorship on violence, incitement to violence and so on actually curtials the freedom of responsible members of the society. the definition of human puts each world as the others dystopia.
Catholics and the denominations have actually grasped what true freedom is about. It is just that your assertions and others emanating from what has become the new secualr culture over the past 50 years simply doesn''t acknowledge objective truth and responsible freedom, restraint ( 'carrying of one cross daily as invited to do so by Chrsit so as to become worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven).
Classicism in understanding has been rejected by modern universities and theology depts reduced or eliminated. Such is the slavery of secuarlism in its denial of theology as the Queen of the sciences ( not just the empirical ones) and the denial of philosophy as being the hand maiden of the Queen. That is the fault of the secular West.

Britian is on a downhill slope of its own politically correct making. Hillaire Belloc and especially G K Chesterton foretold of Britian's decline as it has rejected the Catholic Faith long long ago.
Posted by Webby, Monday, 10 March 2008 9:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Webby
Your assertion that atheists and agnostics put forward "nonsense about unbridled freedom" is very insulting.
Most atheists and agnostics are very moral people, and they are so, not because they are afraid of being condemned to hell, but because it is the right thing to do.
They are probably more moral than many religionists in that sense.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:53:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Froggie

Your own post is in itself just another tired, worn out example of reverse prejudice against the majority of people who beleive in God. It is not an assertion but an observable fact in legal systems throughout the Western World, our universities, social instiutions, education, parenting etc- that morals and ethics without God are not alwaysmoral or ethical at all. Atheists and agnotics are a mixed bunch, as are religious, however the record of totalitarians shows that atheists and agnostics are in the majority of 20th century evils as well as preceding centuries. Going one step further,many supposed athesits and agnotics are not REALLY athesits or agnostics at all but are just wishing to follow their own wills to do evil agaisnt their fellow man. Only total ignorance excuses from Hell. Fer of Hell is not the best of motices to do good but it is still a good and valid motice according to the Scriptures and Church teachings; the surpreme and best motice ie love of God and fear at offending such an infinitely good and loving God in Christ is what we should aim for through prayerful living. However the baser motives , having been put to Church Councils now form part of teaching to include even the imperfect motives of pure fear of Hell so as to not committ evil. But I myself prefer the perfect motivation of loving God for His own sake in light of what He did for us on Calvary.
Froggie mate, your last paragraph is just a way of avoiding taking up and praying for an increase in Divine and Catholic Faith in your life. Do you really think that religious people have to slink away at such assertions and bow to this mantra? Come on mate.
Posted by Webby, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 7:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Webby Christians are also slaves , slaves to superstition. The fact is you have never heard god , touched god , never met god , never read anything written by god , never read anything written by somebody who has seen god, you have never seen god either, God has never spoken , god has never done anything, god is your imagination , your fantasy , your superstition , what you say of god is what you say , not what god is , no you no more of a god than you know of the contents of page 32 of my diary , all you say and think of god is your invention. You are not alone , Moslems too are people who live in complete denial of reality and truth just as you do , as anybody who believes in god. God reflects your prejudices, your lack of understanding of morality , your ignorances , God is your slave , he does only what you say he does. You can accuse the world from your tower of blindness as Moslems and Hindus do to you, but the sum of it all is you and every person who pushes god is certainly wrong and you and every god believer does not have a born right to push their superstition.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 7:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear West, So let me get this right. Slavery to God is not the message of the Scriptures. 'Superstitio' is from the Latin and means false worship. The Catholic Mass and the Mass of the Orthodox is true worship as it was authorised by Jesus in His Divine Person when He walked amongst mankind. His chosen Apostles followed what Jesus did at the Last Supper and that is how we have the Mass today; it is Calvary made present at each Mass and the structure follows elements from the Judaic worship too which the Apostles were raised in. Jesus is the only founder of a religion who has claimed to be God and has fulfilled all the prophecies and confirmed by His words, deeds and especially miracles who He is. Jesus said that He no longer calls us servants but friends; no mention of slavery. Fact is I have heard God through the Scriptures and through the Catholic Church which is the true and one and only Church founded by Jesus who is Divine.
All Catholics meet God in prayer, in all of the sacraments especially Holy Eucharist at every Mass. Jesus died for all of us as we are sinners when He died upon the Cross, He rose from teh dead and we are reminded in the Last Supper that in the Eucharist He is even MORE intimate with us, and with you, if you want Him, by receiving Hm worthily after making a confession of sins and then going to Mass. You can go to Mass each day in the suburbs, the city. Every Catholic church parish is another Bethlehem ( House of Bread) in which we receive Our Lord Himself- in His RISEB and Glofified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Far surpasses even visting the geograhpical Bethlehem itself. Why go tour when you can be with God anytime by going to Mass and participating fully ?!
Posted by Webby, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 10:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy