B_D, I think CJ mistook me to be contemplating a ban.

CJ Morgan, A few odd things:

i) I’m half sympathetic about your special dispensations point.

ii) I’m not talking about banning Islam, Christianity, socialism, atheism or any other ideology or viewpoint. Just talking about being vigilant about any group which is a threat to peace and freedom. I’ve tried to take a soft line on Islam for some time now, and it’s getting increasingly difficult. I now see Islam as a threat, until someone can show me that the majority of Muslims in Australia are happy to live with the rest of us in peace without upheaving the community or damaging it.

iii) I don’t see Christianity, socialism or secular humanism as posing a comparable threat. But, if they do, they should be watched.

Runner, I agree that secular humanism is not exactly neutral, and that some of the so-called freedoms it says it stands for are evil – eg the freedom to kill the unborn. However, although some of its “freedoms” are serious problems, I think secular humanism tries a lot harder than many others to be ethical, and I also think it’s one of only two environments that Christianity can survive in.

The other environment is a Christian theocracy, which I’m not keen on because:

i) I don’t think it’s what Jesus had in mind, when He established the Church to tend His flock and stand against Hell. The flock, of course, consists of people who choose to belong: a theocracy too easily destroys choice.

ii) Some of the Christians who fancy a theocracy strike me as pretty scary.

Pax,

From BB

Though most of the points from both sides are historically sound, they are not thoughtful enough to penetrate deep into the worrying religio-politico conflict that our world faces right now.

With such Moslem bashing from our Christian right, as if Christians over the centuries have been as pure as the driven snow, we tend to forget that WW2 was begun by a Christian nation Britain declaring war on another Christian nation, Germany.

A Germany which under Nazism was determined to expand as well as prove itself a master race by getting rid of Jewry, a Jewry which with its natural knowledgeable aptitude might become even a part of a Germanic rulership.

Furthermore, Christian Germans would not have become Nazis unless there was a horrible religious righteousness that they believed in which even before Hitler and the Vermacht began the war, homosexuals and even Gypsies were being placed in concentration camps, to be executed if they tried to escape, German Christian bishops calming their congregations by informing them that if they truly believed that the soul could never die, those born with unrighteous twisted emotions might be born again on earth as normal persons.

Not far back from the Nazis, of course, was the burning at the stake by Christians, as well as the torture chambers forcing a needed truth out of persons that justified the torturing.

looking well back, and with us now absorbing many peoples of many colours, we need to be careful that those so-called steel-like honourable tenets we boast about might be in for a testing time – even proving that they were racist, even the Klu Klux Klan in the American part of it.

If that is still true, and the Bush regime gets its way through Saddam’s Sunnis being forgiven in Iraq. If we refuse to discuss peace by sharing the blame, and by asking or offering forgiveness, as so many clerics and academic historians ask us to, the only answer will be more war war war, leaving our world pretty well broke, and in more of a state of uncertainness than ever.

Same old, same old, Boaz. Yet another tiny storm in the most minuscule of teacups.

I noticed that the point was made in the same article:

"Over the past two years the licences of 306 drivers were revoked or suspended, including those who refused to carry the blind and their dogs"

So, what do you have? A few bigots who don't observe the rules of their chosen occupation being weeded out. Hardly an earthshaking event. Not really worth bringing up at all, unless you are determined to foment hatred between communities, wouldn't you agree?

Anything more recent than 2006, by the way?

Let's go back to your earlier rant, shall we?

>>HOW DARE .. let me repeat that HOW DARRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Muslims students try to restructure our whole educational time tables at Uni's to 'suit their prayer times'? Good GRIEF.. there is not enough space in 350 words for all the exlamation marks I WANTED to put after those words<<

When I was at school all those years ago, we had separate prayer arrangements for each religious group as a matter of course. Nobody made a fuss, even when some of the groups were given days off that their fellow-students were not. It doesn't seem to me that asking - politely - that there are some allowances made for their religion is in the slightest unusual or noteworthy. It certainly doesn't warrant the over-the-top frothing at the mouth quoted above.

The only possible reason for your intemperate and near-hysterical response is that you choose to use every single opportunity to rant against Muslims. It is this behaviour - not your particular religious leanings - that I take great exception to, and will continue to do so whenever you give me occasion.

Which tends to be pretty much daily, wouldn't you agree?

BB, I’m not sure if you regard my posts as “Moslem bashing from our Christian right”, but anyhow I don’t see how pointing out the past sins of Christianity is relevant to a discussion about the present sins or dangers of Islam.

Even if we open up the discussion about the present, I think all the Christians online are fairly candid about the dangers presented by some Christians. We just see the dangers of Islam as more pressing. If it was only Christians pointing out this danger, you’d have a case for saying that there’s some kind of proselytising rivalry behind it. However, it seems to me that this concern is shared by the general community.

Are you saying that Islam does not present a danger?

The question is, I believe, what is to be done about that danger? Ban Islam? No. Smash up their communities? No. Bury our heads in the sand? No. What, then?

In a practical sense, we might not be arguing about much here.

I suggest that some kind of vigilance is needed. And a willingness to say “No” if ever some request for accommodation or special treatment is made that seems quite unreasonable. Maybe we do this anyway. Maybe. But, I’m concerned that the saccharine side of politically correct multicultural secularism is disinclined to do this, and is easily taken advantage of. I like multicultural secularism, but it occasionally lacks gonads.

Pax,

goodthief

'The other environment is a Christian theocracy, which I’m not keen on because: i) I don’t think it’s what Jesus had in mind, when He established the Church to tend His flock and stand against Hell. The flock, of course, consists of people who choose to belong: a theocracy too easily destroys choice. ii) Some of the Christians who fancy a theocracy strike me as pretty scary.

I agree with you totally on this. I believe that one day Jesus Christ will rule the earth but we are not to take matters into our own hands. We are called to be His hands, feet and mouthpiece.

I strongly believe democracy is the best current form of Government. What I object strongly to is the silencing of any voices other than secular humanism which is anti Christ in many ways. It is also extremely untruthful when it comes to calling evolution science, abortion as termination and pornography as harmless entertainment. Often secular humanist would rather be apologist for Islam and enemies of Christianity because they know one day they will face a Righteous God. I just pray that as many as possible find forgiveness in Christ before that day.

Paul.L.
Like all neo-con apologists, you’re the one that’s struggling.

If you look at the photo caption it’s clearly dated as 1985. These Afghanis were being met at the Whitehouse and although that pre-dates the Taliban, they were the actual forerunners of that group.

These were the same "freedom fighters" that morphed into the Taliban ten years later. The same ones trained, equipped and funded by the CIA to fight the Russians. That same year Reagan asked the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea. Even they knew who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Osama Bin Ladens really were.

I recall that in the 1980’s the Christian Coalition and other rightwing religious groups supporting Reagan had a “Biblical Checklist” by which they wanted all Senators and Congressmen to be judged. One of the items was that if you didn’t support al-Qaeda and its Mujahideen allies, you didn’t deserve to be in Congress.

It’s also somewhat naive to suggest that money was being paid to the Afghanis to simply hand over to struggling farmers to simply cease opium production.

I’ve been watching the international drug trade since the days of the Nugan-Hand Bank and there is a significant difference between what is blandly reported in the media and the facts on the ground.

Since a low production point in 2001, once Taliban banned poppy fields have mushroomed again. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan produced 8,200 tonnes of opium last year, enough to make 93 per cent of the world’s heroin supply. All this under the control of the current regime.

(Cont)