CJ,

Islam is not just a religion, but also a legal, political and social system that is applied to all and sundry - believers or 'apostates' alike.

Christian Churches have their own laws and these are generally restricted to believers - I doubt you would fear ex-communication a) because you don't believe in it and b) because you don't get physically punished - but, Islam applies its laws (like the Church of old) to everyone.

As you have noted, Islam 'applies' to many nations and cultures and this is historically due to initial conquests and continued state sanctioned suppression of religious freedom. Whilst some of the Americas were subject to Christian conquest, they have developed into states where religious freedom now exists.

As you note, belief is beyond race, and that is what gives me the willies when people at Camdem are labelled racist when opposing an Islamic school. They may well be intolerant, but, not racist.

If they were opposing a Nazi, Communist, Moaist, or some other 'facist' type school, then we may (would?) be supporting them.

If Islam was only a tolerant religion, then, we needn't have all this debate.

Reality check - it's a minor thing, but I'd qualify your last statement. You say, "If Islam was only a tolerant religion, then, we needn't have all this debate."

I'd respond that you can't lump all muslims in together. I will concede that the majority of muslims living in muslim dominated countries do display a high degree of intolerance, however it's not the case with all muslims, certainly not all living in the west, not to mention the many avowedly secular muslims living in places like Turkey.

So yes, it may hold true for the majority, but to claim all are such, is to commit the same sin of intolerance.
That being said, I'm not saying it's necessary to accommodate those who are so hostile to western ways of thinking. But we don't do anyone any favours by cataloguing all muslims as the enemy.

Actually, we do the extreme imams favours by doing that, which is precisely how they wield power. I for one, am not willing to hand them more power by giving them more fuel for their 'the west is the enemy' mentality.

This is a good piece. It highlights the genuine threats, as well as the not so genuine. We should be supporting moderate muslims in their endeavours at reform, but in a subtle manner, and we should be reconsidering things like US foreign policy, which is actually a boon to those who make use of the image of a western monolithic enemy to assert their own control.

Hell, if we weren't doing such a good job of playing ignorant-cowboy-gunslinging international politics their job would be much harder.

CJM to counter that religion is not part of a culture is also nonsensical. My apologies for not rigidly conforming to your definition of Muslim. Got me again. Once again very good at arguing both ends of the stick when it suits. What ever happened to common usage so oft used as justification by English teachers.

You know the point I was making and it has nothing to do with race.

In addition you deliberately ignored the point about stifling debate and the negative social impact that results. Why is it that only individuals who possesses certain traits and have celebrity status (anointed by the media) are allowed to make statements that others would be maligned for? Please explain CJM.

The racist mantra is getting very transparent after trendsetters over using it for 40 plus years. Why don't you employ the preferred insult used by the Islamists who never do any wrong -- Your mum.

What ever happened to the true definition of a racist -- someone who thought that the colour of ones skin made them inferior? However, I would like to applaud your use of the term bigot as it has almost passed out of use due to the extremely liberal interpretation and usage of the racist term.

You CJM are an awful bigot as you immediately label one a racist when they do not articulate your views using your terminology.

As for my lack of understanding of attitudes and behaviours & culture of a collective group with recent ancestry from Middle Eastern countries; I have experienced hundreds of hours of interviews with parents and adolescents which has afforded me a perspective grounded in their reality as lived in Auburn, Granville, Parramatta, Bankstown and Merrylands. The difference between theory and practise.

Recently, the former Jordanian Minister of Religious Endowment told Al-Aqsa TV that Islam will conquer the West.

He didn't stop there. He also said that Spain is an Islamic land that should be retaken -- and America should begin to realise "end is near."

Here's an excerpt from the remarks...

"Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic. Furthermore, we will reach beyond those countries. We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again.

"We say now that America and the EU will come to an end, and only the rising force of Islam will prevail."

The remarkable thing is, these Islamists aren't the only ones predicting the downfall of the West...

In the Los Angeles Times, national security columnist Fred Kaplan has written that President Bush's "follies" have accelerated the decline of American influence. "For half a century, we had been a super-power," he wrote. "Now we're upper middle management."

And Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, has argued that the world is now in a post-America phase where the United States will not have the influence it has enjoyed in recent decades.

C.J. Morgan - the "article which will inevitably draw the Islamophobes like cats to exposed meat"

Have you ever even considered that these "islamophobes" have a right to attack that religion, and that rather than being "phobic", which suggests an irrational fear, they are simply "fearful" of Islam, which is a completely different thing.

This fear is eniterely rational, as the thousands of examples serve to prove.

Also,people who respond to criticism of the "other" (whether Muslim or Hindu) with a complete shifting to their own culture think that they are being responsible and "anti-racist", when in fact they are extremely patronising and selfish, because rather than try to help a culture that still struggles with severe illiberalism they want the world to look at their own culture for being evil.

This is okay in itself, however, not when your own culture is extremely liberal and tolerant, and the "other" is not. All this is doing is ignoring it which simply means that the people of this "other culture" are worthless to you.

This type of person is tantamount to a rich Prince screaming about being poor, simply because the Prince in the next castle has more toys. He could only complain about being poor if he hadn't even considered the commoners and peasants outside the castle walls - they are not part of the human race to him.

This is the "leftist", racist mentality when it comes to the "other".

a sourced editorial

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person, who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country