All religions are merely opiates for the masses too dumb to think for themselves.

For example, by what right does a parent have to brainwash their children about old books and the so-called people in those old books that have never been proven to have actually existed.

It is as lunatic as someone finding a copy of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books and a copy of Harry Potter and claiming they were real worlds in conflict and going to war over them.

They are old books. It is the interpretation of those old books that cause the troubles of the world and that needs to be recognised by all these people who believe in their imaginary friends.

"All religions are merely opiates for the masses too dumb to think for themselves." - M

But like tobacco it is addictive. Only 44% of people voted for Hilter in 1930, after-which he wormed assession to Chancellorship, upon the death of Hindenburg. Though a near-atheist* myself I recognise relion has given us templates of design important to science, laws and organisation principles. Look under Shamanism we were little more thean ferrel animals, after priesthood of UR, Sumer, we developed and developed.

Yet, after the Great Divergence, we should have started seeing the truth, and stared to caste aside our training wheels. Perhaps, in 2500, we will have globalised democratic secular humised societies. "Wouldn't it be wonderful" - Eliza Doolittle

Today, I agree with the "righties". Iran is potentially very danagerous and must be stopped developing ERWs. Chamberlain didn't recognise he missed the point of appeasement and probably should have arranged an accident for Hilter, to save millions of lives. Churchill, whom I find lived in the wrong century [he didn't understand physics rather than chemicals could produce a nuclear weapon and he ordered trench diggers for WWII!], was correct about Hilter, but was ignored.

*Absolute Theism or Absolute Atheism suggest human infallability. We can't know ourselves to correct to that absolute degree.

I have to agree that there are elements of racisim in the current debate about the effects of radical Islamisim and its incursions into Western countries especially Europe and Britian. Daniel Pipes is formost in this discussion and his Zionist stance is obvious in much of his writing. However 9/11 has changed the perception of Islam in Australia and hightened the view that there is infact a war between the moderate, traditional Muslims faithful many who have lived in this country for many years and a more radicalised element that identifies with a Suadi based radical Islam. I for one am very sensitive to any push for changes to Australian law that accomodates elements of Sharia law. All citizens need to be judged under the same system of law. The formation of what are Muslim ghettoes in France and other Euorpean countries has the potential for huge social dislocation and division. Australia is a long way from this occuring and I believe our natural success at giving all an opportunity to be successful and intergrate will stop this occuring. The issues however can not be stifled by cries of racisim.

It is certainly a fascinating glimpse of Mr Pipes, who is quite clearly the role model for more than one contributor to these threads.

The parallels between Mr Pipes and Sir Oswald Mosley haven't been made very strongly so far, but that is possibly because Mosley is so far back in history that few have heard of him.

A quick history lesson for those in the dark.

Sir Oswald led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and was a highly intelligent man and a powerful orator. He consistently denied that he was anti-Semitic, claiming he was simply being "patriotic".

Mosley's most famous defence of his anti-Semitism sounds so much like Boaz Pipes, they might be channelling the man:

"We will not tolerate within the State a minority organized against the interests of the State. Jews must either put the interests of Britain before the interests of Jewry or they will be deported from Britain."

Uncanny, eh?

What is being peddled here in the slightly hysterical opposition to a very moderate and well-reasoned piece, is the fiction that all the bad bits of the Qur'an are not only gospel, but are driving the agenda of Muslims everywhere. It's a tired argument, but it's proponents keep on keeping on.

At some point they will realize that they are the problem, not the solution.

Like Mosley.

Pericles, I don't recall the Jews calling for "Jewish" law to be introduced in pre-WWII Britain. Jews fought honourably on both sides (particularly the Central Powers) during WWI. There is a world of difference between the treatment of Jews leading up and during to WWII and the alleged "ill-treatment" of Muslims. Jews were merely "perceived" as enemies, and their actions were merely those of a tiny minority trying to get on in a Gentile world. How many civilians were blown up by Jews in terrorist bombings?

Contrast this situation with that of Muslims in the West. They call for a great many things to be changed in their favour, from the law of the land to what's available in school canteens. In some areas they are concentrated in such numbers that the authorities cave into their demands. On top of which, most terrorist actions (and casualties) around the world today involve... well, not Jehovah's Witnesses.

In other words, the actions and words of Muslims brought a reaction upon themselves, while attacks both verbal and physical on Jews were a form of scapegoating.

Qadri's article looks suspect from the first few lines. Any discussion of Islam which mentions "racism" is on shaky ground (and it shouldn't be forgotten that true racism is pervasive in Islam, including in passages in Quran, their actions (eg slave trade, foreign workers in Swordy Wahhabia) and language (God speaks only Arabic)).

Qadri also mentions Ahmedinehad of Iran, and while mildly condemning the Holocaust denial gabfest held there, fails to mention the Iranian president's repeated boasts that "Israel will be wiped off the map".

Frankly, I'd like to hear about something positive Muslims have brought to the West. I'm sick of their whining and perpetual state of victimhood.

All religion calls for special treatment for its beliefs and their proponents; that's what makes it religion. We don't need special treatment for Islam, all we need is to assert the predominance of the secular humanist values of reason and democracy. In a democracy we have a duty to obey the decisions of our duly elected representatives: in return they have a duty to explain the basis on which they make those decisions. If they can't explain why, we can get rid of them. None of this applies to religion: authorities who claim to have a hotline to God are not obliged to explain or justify their actions and commands. This is clearly incompatible with justice, tolerance and progress.

Any critique of Islam must recognise that it is just doing what Christianity would do if it had the power -- and still does, when it can. Both Blair and Bush have asserted their Christian beliefs played a part in the invasion of Iraq. If they had admitted to it before the invasion then we could have made an informed decision about their rationality, and many thousands of lives might have been spared.