Wrong, the Bible is a theological text and it must be interpreted that way. The author's intent, audience and cultural context must not be divorced from the interpretation of their words. You cannot interpret the Bible with a Western, materialist, modernist mindset and expect to understand it. To have any chance of knowing its full meaning you must spend many years learning about Judaism and historical Israel. The Bible is not a rule book for modern Western life. Once you interpret it, you must then extract the timeless meanings and principles, and only then can you seek to apply it to what it says about humanity and how we shall live. Call this cherry picking and I'll call you ignorant. That's not to say that Christians and their non-Christian critics do not cherry pick. Some Christians cherry-pick or prooftext to support their own prejudices, not to support the views of the Bible's authors. Likewise, critics of Christianity cherry pick verses in the Bible to show how ridiculous it is as literal rule book for Western modern life. Both of these cherry-picking groups make little attempt to uncover the meaning and application of the verses they quote. They both argue from ignorance.

CJ Morgan predicts that a secular form of Islam will arise.

In Australia that process may be more advanced than you think. Here is a link to the text of the speech the appalling Hanan Dover delivered at Bankstown.

http://www.zip.com.au/~josken/islamf~1.htm

Ms Dover's distress at the relaxed attitude of Muslims towards homosexuality is clear.

Snippets

"Homosexuality is haram within Islam?

"... surprisingly, in a study I did last year, 30% of Muslims from a sample of about 82 Muslims did not know if homosexuality was immoral or even thought it was OK."

(Oh dear!)

"I will tell you all something that is scary. I have come across counsellors who work in our area who say they are Muslim…They told me that Islam should move on and accept homosexual behaviour..."

(Ms Dover's worst nightmare come true?)

End snippets

In the US we see movement as well. I wonder what Hanan would make of Laleh Bakhtiar's attempts to re-interpret the koran.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25koran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Or how would Ms Dover like the "progressive Islam" of the Akhtar family?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7265021.stm

Snippets:

"The Aktar daughters are pursuing careers as a lawyer, businesswoman and dentist. Their emancipation has not diluted their sense of being Muslim, but it has changed it.

"Sheema wears shorts to play soccer*, but sees no conflict with the duty to behave modestly. They feel bound by the duty to pray, for example, but not at five set times each day.

"Mino Akhtar says connection with God is what counts."

End Snippets

*Thus depriving us of the sight of burqa clad women pursuing a football!

The Akhtar's sound like the Muslim equivalent of American Episcopalians.

What's next?

Gay Imams?

Gay marriage in Mosques?

I was a bit torn by this article. Some of it I could agree with. Some of it just seemed to end up being another example of Islamophobia.

So under the guise of defending secularism there is a massive attack on Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe, but I have niggling doubts about the intentions of the author.

But the clincher for me was her unsubstantiated comment:

"The existence of religious conservatism in our society is certainly not specific to Islam. What is of concern is that while support for Christian conservatism is generally associated with the political right in Australia, support for Islamic conservatism often comes, perversely, from a left acting in the name of some misplaced white guilt."

I am on the left. i feel no misplaced white guilt. I do not support Islamic conservatism. In my left circles i know of no one who does. this is an urban myth that conservatives peddle. Without evidence. But most of the article is without evidence, other than citing the rantings of one particular fundamentalist. Should we ban this person, Bronwyn?

You also say:

"Less public, but more immediately worrying, has been an attempt by Islamic conservatives to dictate the content of curriculum in another branch of the National Centre for Excellence..."

This looks like The Australian's rant against a mere $100,000 grant writ small. Does the fact that a major Saudi Arabian company hold 6 per cent in news corp cause any discomfort?

In any vent every faction within and outside Universities tries to impose it views, as far as i can tell. When i was teaching at a university the faculty was run by a group of narrow minded Liberal types for whom any suggestion for change was anathema. Where is the attack on the essential conservatism that plagues universities and turns them into sausage factories for capitalism?

No, I'm not sure about this article at all. Pas bon.

Two important facts that are frequently ignored (in this instance by Boaz, runner and rogindon) are that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and has already had a renaissance.

Both facts are relevant because:

a) Six centuries ago, the Christian world looked just like the modern Muslim world: theocracy, superstition before reason, and holy wars against the infidel. Christians who condemn Muslims are simply condemning their younger sibling for being immature.

b) Although modern Islam is like some horror from the dark ages, it once cultivated the most tolerant, liberal, educated and enquiring cultures on the planet. Claims that the religion is impervious to change are obviously false. If a strongly secular society can civilise Christianity, it can do the same with Islam, but we have to stick to our guns.

Sancho,

What you write is correct to a point although you display a complete ignorance of the teachings of Christ compared to the teachings of Mohamed and also many of the secular humanist of today.

Well said Sancho.

paulr - you act as if there actually is a concrete interpretation of Christianity.

There isn't.

Of course, ask any denomination, and they'll tell you 'theirs' is the one, be they Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist... you get the idea.

I don't think the article's poorly informed at all. Nobody's suggesting Christians don't have the right to vote.
They just don't have the right to vote religious standards for the rest of us, that is, standards that are based solely on religion.

Which is as it should be.

runner, you've refer to secularists as 'earth worshippers'. Frankly, that's about the most ignorant label I've heard for secularists. People without religion have no need for worship. Perhaps before you call others ignorant of secularism you should attend to your own blatant biases. What's more, it would appear the more devout Christians regard Islam and Christianity to be in competition.

Secularism has no time for either. So I'll listen to the words of secularists over fundamentalists of any stripe, especially when they're discussing a religion which isn't theirs.

In other words, you and boaz can't speak objectively about Islam.

Also, runner, you keep citing that people are seeking a preference for christian schools, but the stats say religion is declining in Australia. The 'failure' you speak of, is a lie you keep repeating, heedless of the many times myself and others have explained it to you, perhaps because you wish it to be true.

rogindon - I don't see how the first point is relevant. Yes, secularism spawned from Christianity. So?
This article, for the most part, discusses the situation today. I don't see how that has any bearing. The fact that secular governments are far more successful is undisputed, and that's perhaps because modern Christianity, by and large, is less fundamentalist and extreme than many aspects of modern Islam.