Interesting reactions. The invective comes from all quarters, and I'm only allowed two posts a day. Ho hum.

Sonofeire wrote:

>>I doubt if I have ever read a more infantile statement. So, "Pericles" wants to BAN proselytizing! Astounding!<<

Quick reminder. I said “It is deceitful to put a 'right to proselytise' in the same basket [as freedom of worship]. It would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities"

The reason the statement is deceitful is that it seeks to equate the peaceful act of worship with the aggressive act of attempting to force one's beliefs on others.

As VK3AUU wrote earlier,

>>Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs<<

Surely a ban on proselytizing would be a useful tool with which to curb this activity, no?

To which I expect relda would object, what about 'al -Taqiyya', they'll only pretend to conform, it's in their religion that they are forced to lie.

Perhaps an explanation to us all about the differences between 'al -Taqiyya' and “the fifth amendment” might be in order at this point.

Somebody can explain the subtle difference between lying, and having the legal right to not tell the truth.

relda further suggests:

>>Moderate Muslims in a secular society therefore need to denounce certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures.<<

Would you ask the same of Christians in a secular society, that they denounce “certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures” - starting, perhaps, with those that CJ pointed out?

If not, why not?

And Boaz.

>>Rarely if ever, have I seen Pericles actually examine the issue (on Islam) before the ad-hominems come gushing forth... Pericles..! are you just plain stubborn or ignorant? <<

I leave it to you to “examine the issue (on Islam)”, Boaz.

What I do is point out the flaws in your approach, the double standards, the selective use of one gospel or the other, and so on.

And you just hate it when I do that.

It amazes me how many articles are written highlighting the differences between Christianity and Islam. You would think that we are at war in this country. The reality is that the religion of secular humanism causes more death and destruction in Australia than all religions put together. The murder of the unborn , the violence of the 'environmentalist', the rebellion cause by ignoring the obvious sinful nature of humanity, the promiscurity promoted n schools has led to more suicides and drug use than all religions. The pathetic attempt by CJ Morgan and others to demonize the Christians by the twisting of Scripture is typical of those with their own agendas.

Thankfully many can see that most (if not all) attending bible believing churches are no threat to our society. The same can't be said for the secular humanist who have set themselves up as god and judge of all except for their own small minds.

Pericles,
“Would you ask the same of Christians in a secular society, that they denounce “certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded within their own scriptures?” – Yes certainly. But I’m not actually sure of the principles to which you claim C.J. Morgan was referring – rationality is not a principle but a given, some just don’t use it - generally preferring not to, as it’s easier. Neither do I have a problem with science or its method – nor do I regard superstition as something particularly sane.

Our secular society is currently robust enough through adherence to some basic principles (as found particularly, but not always exclusively, within the Judeo-Christian tradition) - which also includes honesty. You may dispute the tradition that has given us our arrival – but you need also re-write history if you wish to validate you opinion. Our demise will also probably occur through a failure to appreciate this.

‘Whistle blowers’ and the like, whilst generally creating discomfort in areas of intitutionalised or individual corruption, generally have their actions validated. Where moral relativism occurs, along with an abandonment of the universal ethic, corruption will have little impact on our sensibilities. There are some values that are actually worth striving for, if not, defending...

FRANK feel totally free to analyise and highlight 'my hypocrisy'.. but all I ask is that you do it in a valid way.
I asked Pericles a question involving an important emotion "stubborn" and a state of mind "Ignorant" I mean both of those as questions to him, because he keeps coming back with sweeping generalizations, in the face of weighty evidence to the contrary.

That's why I ask 'stubborn'? I would ask the same of you.. evidence, reasoning and fact seem to mean little to you.

I've tried to debate 'specific' points, and all you do is come back with irrelevancies. Now.. 'Ignorant' or 'stubborn' may equally apply to you, just as 'hypocrite' might apply to me. Its up to you to demonstrate such.

I still await your 'other scholars' opinion on surah 65:4 which supposedly will show (based on sound contextual exegesis rather than speculative romantic isogesis) that the Quran does not permit marriage, sex and divorce of pre-pubescent children.

FRACTELLE says "Belief in religion requires suspending intelligence and reason"

I challenge you Frac.. read 1 Corinthians 15 and see if you can sustain that lamentably false statement.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

Last but not least Perrrrricles.

"What I do is point out the flaws in your approach,etc."

er..no P, you don't, you decide b4hand that my approach is flawed then you scrape together some ad homimens and feel you have made your case..

You referred to '9:29' as being 'but one single verse' on which I make my case for Islam being warlike..but not so, I back that up with showing how THAT very verse is used in a context of invasion later to justify that very thing, by Mohammads closest companions.
Mohammad himself repeatedly refers to it Sahih Muslim book 1 Numbers 29,30,31, 32, 33 (and MANY others)

How much do you need Pericles. Even imams in Muslim countries speak of it..but you ? you want hear of it. Amazing.

You condemn Mohammad and his disciples of cherry picking when you claim I do so.. because they use the very same verse, that's simply irrational.

BOAZ

Your prolific postings do your cause no good. In fact, a cool assessment of the feedback here on OLO suggests that you alienate the majority. Only a minority of rednecks seem to be on your wavelength (although sometimes I wonder even what they make of some of your rants).

Why don't you go away and do a rigorous course of study on comparative religion, philosophy and logic? You - and OLO - would be all the better for a bit of scholarship and an improvement in the way you present.

I'm very grateful to David Palmer and Mark Durie for decoding A Common Word. I'm afraid I was one of those taken in by it when it came out - except for the passage that said Christians are not really agreed/concerned about Jesus' divinity. Even in my most saccharine moment, I knew that was a try-on.

Still, allowing for the disingenuousness (to put it mildly) of A Common Word, it doesn't follow that the dialogue shouldn't happen. Talking is still better than not talking. Even without much trust at the outset, talking can still achieve a great deal - so, I don't see a downside, so long as the Christians participating are more canny than I am.

Although each group is very enthusiastic about God, they could still explore common ground expressed neutrally. Each would have their own scriptural rationale, but that needn't intrude into the discussion or into what is agreed.

For example, if they were to agree that human beings are of equal, and enormous, value and must be permitted to believe what they like, they needn't explain why. Just agree to it. Of course, it seems that the meaning of key words would have to be spelled out very carefully, so that it really is an agreement.

This freedom would cover all religious belief and also agnosticism and atheism. This is just an example. My point is that, although it would be nice to agree about our reasoning and not just our conclusions, we might have to settle for conclusions.

Speaking of agnostics and atheists (and other religions), I would not limit the dialogue to Christians and Muslims. We "have to start somewhere", I suppose, but Christians and Muslims are not necessarily the best pilot for this exercise.

Pax,