Melanie is insightful and articulate in presenting complex issues. I have found no one better in their research, detailed analysis and clear thinking.

Why should we be surprised that a secular humanist organization would have extremist visiting them. As I have stated many times those holding to the dogmas of secular humanism have more in common with the Muslim brotherhood than most. They both have a death culture and are dishonest in their dealings.

CJ... what I can't figure out, is why you attack me for attacking ideas...then defend 'freedom of speech'.

At least you seem to agree on the "odiousness" of those ideas I often attack.. and I think if ur honest, you would take the view that Jesus presented views which could never be described as in the slightest bit 'odious' ..though I concede that to a non believer the concept of a 'lake of fire' might seem a tad that way.

I have no argument with you ripping into such things, after all, you would be in good company, though their anti Christianity is probably more eleoquently expressed ie.. Thomas Payne and company.

The reason I attack the ideas and foundations of Islam, is as much because I'm a 'person' who is not Muslim, as it is because I'm Christian.

I don't see any threat to my freedom to disbelieve in Christianity from what I read in the Bible.. particularly the NT. The only threat is in the next life, not this one. But Islam by nature is different. That one.. is a threat in 'this' life.... hence my rather passionate 'Islamophobia' as you describe it.

Free Speech.. now.. you have been waving the flag rather vigorously in this thread. and you defend their right to promote those ideas, so.. (curious look) why do you attack me attacking them ? :)

Far better to share in the attack (on the ideas) and then, make your own attack on Christianity separately if you feel so inclined.
I relish such opportunities to interact and explain the Gospel in so doing.

Yep.. wierd man...wierd. "I attack ideas, you attack 'me', then you defend free speech" *wanders off bemused*

runner: "Why should we be surprised that a secular humanist organization would have extremist visiting them"

Which "secular humanist organization" would that be - St Anthony's College or Griffith University? Are you suggesting they "have a death culture and are dishonest in their dealings"?

More to the point, do you actually think before posting your idiotic fundy missives?

Boazy: "CJ... what I can't figure out, is why you attack me for attacking ideas...then defend 'freedom of speech'."

While it's noticeable that Boazy's toned down his ad hominems and his blatant rabble rousing lately, the quality of his logic hasn't improved a great deal. While I think that everybody should be free to express their ideas, that certainly doesn't imply that they or their ideas are immune from criticism. I agree that it's always preferable to "attack" ideas rather than people. However, I also think that people who consistently and repetitively express hateful or plain stupid ideas, in the face of rational criticism, shouldn't be surprised if they become personally identified with their discredited ideas.

Phillips' article is ultimately a plea to silence a prominent Muslim, whose sincerity she impugns at every opportunity. Do Boazy and other Phillips fans agree that people like Ramadan should not be allowed to present their ideas in public forums?

My dear CJ

You have got yourself into such a knot that alas, I neither have the time or the inclination to sort out all the ambiguities which pepper your statements. However perhaps you could clarify a couple of your "doublespeaks" for me:

1: 'As eleoquently expressed by someone else in another thread: "Dickheadophobia is not the same as Islamophilia"'.

Since it is rare for me to debate issues of an Islamic nature, I request you supply me with a link to the thread CJ or is the above claim another fallacy?

2: If you must stoop to calling me vulgar names such as Dick/head (profanity monitor!), may I advise that the particular name of "Dick/ head" is not appropriate. Perhaps "Muffhead" would be more fitting?

3. "others I don't recall writing at all"

Tsk tsk CJ. Do you also suffer amnesia or is the above yet another fallacious statement?

Actually Dickie, everything's CJ has said has made sense, and the only knots are the ones I can see you attributing to him.

You're implying that we can't criticise those who attack radical Islam, or we must support Islam, is that about right?

I've very little patience for radicalism in any form, be it Islam or Christianity. What I object to is this constant barrage that Islam in its entirety is evil, when there's a billion odd muslims out there just wanting to live their lives and be left alone.

What's more, I think it's people like boaz that are making the situation far worse. For all their supposed caveats that not all muslims are evil, but the religion islam is evil (not just fundamentalist islam, mind you), coupled with a constant ongoing barrage against them... well, I think he's stoking the fire.

Read this article to see why: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23337783-7583,00.html

I think it's also possible that deep down, he wants conflict to exist, so Christianity can triumph in the good old fashioned way.

There's no shortage of criticism of radical islam. It's valid.
It's just these sideshows, and those that make use of it for plain old bigotry that bother me.

Dickie, the 'dickheadophobia' comment is here. Though I don't know why you're insisting on the link, because it seems irrelevant, mentioned only for colour:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1555#29722

Technically I don't think he actually called you a d!ckhead. Plus, you haven't really addressed any rebuttals he's put to you to defend himself.

I for one, also find radical islam repugnant, though I find those who attempt to suppress free speech even more so. It's just that I find most critics of radical Islam aren't just critics of radical Islam, they also love to exaggerate, while also attacking moderate Islam and even anything that isn't also of a conservative bent.

This is basically what CJ's put forward, but from what I can see, you're attributing a false view to him, and making out that he has to support radical Islam, when no such logical connection exists.