If my experience with the Lands and environment court is anything to go by, a decision by them, firmly based on “anti-community” lines, will result.

So by that rule of thumb, the application for the school will eventually succeed.

Pigs’ heads or pigs’ bums. All this prating about bigotry versus planning laws is a total waste of time and a demonstration of the naivety of some people who think that locals are not going to react to attempts to implant alien institutions in their midst.

Ordinary Australian citizens have almost no say in their day to day lives, let alone stupid Government immigration policies which encourage people to come and live among them who have nothing in common them or the Australian ethos.

Nothing is more natural and understandable than this type of reaction from frustrated people who perceive that their existence is being threatened by aliens.

Witness the recent reaction of black South Africans to other black Africans arriving in their country.

It’s happening all over the world with the ridiculous theory that population movement on a grand scale is OK. It will get worse until governments come to their senses.

If Irfan could explain how in parts of London, France and Holland the Muslims have produced 'no go areas' for the whites and non Muslims. (Oh I know it is those rotten white oppressors). Why would it be any different here? Do not the Muslims here share the same beliefs as those of Europe? The secularist in England and France have been to gutless not to prevent their own countries to be Islamised. They have been to busy loathing the Christian element in their country. They are now reaping what they have sown. I hope we don't end up the same.

Irfam,
What can one say that is meaningful?
The problem with Black Letter use of the law is that it can be used to protect the admirable and excuse the unconscionable from time to time.
Clearly this school plan rejection is proof of the latter i.e. the rules were to excuse a modern obscenity, racist/religious intolerance.
If the rules were broken then there are other avenues of redress. However what can’t be externally controlled or excused is the sewer sores that stand in for public opinion in Camden. That is not to say all residents hold these contemptible views but one wonders where are the backbones or the sense of “a fair go!” of those who don’t?
Likewise that Recalcitrant renegade from the reformation era Reverend Swamp Mind is clear proof that neither the best, brightest or intelligent necessarily make it in to politics.
Then again many of us have seen this all before. With every new (ethnic or religious) group the same old xenophobia gets an airing only the targets change.
First Blacks then Refos, Wogs, Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese etc all with their derogatory names. Yep, Anglo Australian’s have a consistent (but universally proud?) past. And this from the Aussie concepts of a fair go, mateship and ANZAC traditions …..Go figure!
The slight is on all Aussies.
In a Democracy everyone is entitled to have their say regrettably that doesn't guarentee the quality or morality of that say but it does colour the democracy. That should be up to the Country’s majority to decide on the nations not those from dark corners where good sense has been forgotten. We should all heed John Donne’s poem “For whom the bell tolls”. Read it, it’s truly wise words in these (or any) times.
I do comfort my self that the attitude of many or the Camden residents is clear immutable proof than not all movements in evolution are necessarily forward.
Therefore I refer to the “Tranquillity Prayer” when it says “give me the strength to accept what I can't (change)” I would add “and (justifiably) ridicule it."

Irfan,
Why do you conclude that Camden locals erected the pigs head/flag display. Apparently there was no written message with it. So what was the intended message? The message I read is from Muslim radicals saying 'Aussie pigs, keep out'. A clear warning to non-Muslims.

I believe you would find, if you cared to look closely, that most objections to the school were to do with an infiltration of Muslims coming into Camden. Muslims have a poor reputation which would result in lowering the property values in the area and a lowering of the social amenity for the existing locals. This has happened in other areas and there has now been a lowering of buyer interest in Camden real estate since the school proposal was made.

Most people could not care less what religion others follow, but they will object to people of poor repute moving to their town and reducing property values. It has little to do with religious bigotary.

It remains to be seen if the councils reasons for rejection will stand up in the courts.

Mr right and runner,
Your irrational fear is palpable I suggest you take a double dose of facts and have a good lie down.
Mr right.....Ntural? for whom? I suggest you read a little more about Aussie History and what it means to be civilized.
runner.....2% muslim population in England and 4% in France? Muslimizing the countries? Talk about xenophobic paranoia!
Food for thought what are you going to do when Global climate change comes. Us with 20 million and say Indonesia with 220 million and 2 billion Chinese, 2 billion indians and a billion others on our door step? That boys will be a fight we can't win. Paraphasing Monty Python said "with that many we had better hope they are more tolleant than you". Reality shows that the delusion of White (anglosaxon) Supremacy is is up to its quarter deck and sinking fast.

I think that "examinator" might like to take a look at some FACTS too! According to the French embassy in London an estimated 3.7 to 5.5 million French residents are Muslims – or between 5 and 9% of the population. Not 4%. It is an estimate because religious affiliation is not recorded as such in France. (An Act of 1872 prohibits the recording of religious affiliation.)

According to Wikipedia Islam is the second largest religion in England and Wales with a total of 1,546,626 adherents or 3.0% of the total population. This figure comes from the 2001 census. As birth rates amongst Muslim communities are higher than in non-Muslim communities, the percentage of Muslims amongst England's total population has no doubt increased considerably.

In London, Muslims make up 8.5% of the urban population (2001 census) and a recent survey has indicated that the most popular name for baby boys born in the United Kingdom in 2008 will be Mohammed.

As for the whole tack taken by Irfan Yusuf in this article perhaps a piece from Farooq Sulehria that appeared in Pakistan's The News on June 17th should be read as an antidote. As the author notes: "Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world".

Farooq's article is entitled "Blaming Others", which is what Irfan and Keysar Trad are true champions at. The article can be found at http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=11885

Savage, the URL you posted doesn't work. Then again, you'll probably claim it is the fault of the Muslims. They're all in it together, aren't they. All conspiring, just like the Jews did until 60 years ago.

Jeeezzz, exterminator, give it a rest. All we're trying to do is defend our communities against people who are different from us. And you know what that means don't you...yes - that means they aren't the SAME as us!

Different clothes, different foods, different views on women and worst of all, some of them even look just like the people we see on A Current Affair threatening to blow up things.

Stop being unAustrayan and start realising that the more we let DIFFERENT people in, the more conflict and hatred this will stir up among people who are just like us.

Or something like that.

Irfy...perhaps.. just remotely perhaps.. the Camden reaction has to do with the religion..not the race..

VISIT TO RMIT.... Today I made a visit to RMIT based on reports of a particular group of protesters who want a Mosque for their exclusive use.
Apparently this issue has some history where there were some rooms allocated previously for Muslim prayer, but as the new multi faith 'Spiritual Centre'( as the RMIT management saw it) or the 'Mosque' as the Muslims saw it drew near to completion, it was pointed out that this facility would need to be 'multi faith' and not for Exclusive Muslim Brethen.

The Muslims reacted very negatively to this, and are holding friday prayers in the main road between buildings at RMIT in protest.
They are assisted by the leftoid/regard mob who are petitioning for them to 'practice their religion'.

I showed the following large wording to a friendly Muslim Phd student from Libya:

Heading "Social and political research"

"Muslims do not believe Christ is the Son of God, may God curse them and destroy them"
"HATE SPEECH"?

As he read it, he agreed YES this is 'hate speech'.... I then turned the sign around displaying the very same wording but from the Quran, chapter 9:30 where Jews and Christians are condemned and cursed.

He fumbled for words, then tried to re-assure me "This is just for the Jews"... But Christians are specifically mentioned.
I said "Your presense here and the LOUD public declaration of "mohammad is the messenger of Allah" is an insult to non Muslims.

He understood this but replied "But this is what we believe.. from God"

He also affirmed that with Islam, if you leave, you should be KILLED.

So..as I said. maybe it is the nature of the religion which Camden residents are against?

"Today I made a visit to RMIT based on reports of a particular group of protesters who want a Mosque for their exclusive use ..."

Boaz's church regularly allows Jews and Hindus to worship there. In fact, I saw a statue of the Hindu God Shiva with candles and burning incense at the altar. Isn't that right, Boaz? Your church is a firm believer in multi-faith services and would never insist on exclusivity to its premises.

Practise what you preach, Boaz.

I live in Europe - an expat Aussie and I can tell you one thing for sure: it is not the percentage of muslims it is the fact that they are here and they have a very disturbing effect on the community whether you like it or not and all I can say to all Australians is "STOP THEM NOW" or suffer their influence and its not nice.
Girls are murdered because they have dishonored the family, boys are forced to participate in religious bigotry or they are regarded as anti islam - it goes on and on . The islam - muslim 'cult' is from the dark ages and has no place in our modern society just like scientology has no place either or for that matter any of these outdated brainwashing movements.
Before you daydreaming ideologists that live in the soft protected belly of Australian society start to be very "liberal" (in the American use of liberal ie secular progressive leftists) you should come to parts of Europe that are infested with these madmen.

Christians and catholics rape children.

"A devout Christian who killed a man and injured his wife in a frenzied axe attack after they told him they were atheists was jailed for 18 years in Australia yesterday."

"On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God. "

Bozo Dagwood - what a name to conjure with. Anyway, I am sorry that the link I provided doesn't work - but that doesn't mean that the article doesn't exist. In fact I just found the article again by Googling the author's name and the article title. So do that at Google by using "Farooq Sulehria" + "Blaming others".

As for the rest of your post why on Earth would I claim that the supposedly broken link is the fault of Muslims? And just because I have grown tired of tedious rants by Irfan Yusuf and Keysar Trad, how does this justify the rest of your idiotic tirade?

There is absolutely NO comparison between the position of Muslims today and that of Jews in Europe 70 years ago (or 60 years ago). Adherents of the Islamic faith constitute about 20% of the world's population. They are hardly a small minority community that has been subjected to centuries of persecution as the Jews were in the 1930s.

In fact here is an interesting point of comparison. In the past week a British Muslim woman has been awarded £4,000 for "injury to feelings" after a hair salon owner refused to employ her because she wore a headscarf to a job interview.

Please tell me where any Jewish person in the 1930s were awarded compensation for "hurt feelings"?

And please don't try to tell me that this British Muslim woman doesn't exist either. Her name is Bushra Noah. Google that!

Unfortunately racism persists. The following are the words of Mr. Right: "alien institutions ... nothing in common (with) the Australian ethos ... existence is being threatened by aliens".

And by Banjo: "infiltration of Muslims ... people of poor repute ...
reducing property values".

It is disheartening to see such hate.

Hi Irfan,

It’s a sad state of affairs. Politicians say they support multiculturalism, but obviously they don’t. The Cambden council instead of welcoming Muslims, bars their way. It’d be nice to see the day when socially responsible governing displaces rhetoric. Sorry mate

Bozo

the issue here is publically funded facilities which are non sectarian.

Our Church was built with our own money and our own sweat.(plus a bit of blood) We run play groups and various youth activities where many non christian people come along. But we don't allow Muslims or any other faith to practice or promote their religion in our building. Gee surprise surprise.. because we OWN it and our faith does not support any other Gospel than that of Christ.

A totally different situation from a public educational institution funded by tax payers.

As the RMIT chaplain told me later, the buddhists and Jews started asking for 'their' facility also.. in the end, RMIT decided on the most practical and fair course of action (not to mention less costly to your pocket)

ONE 'multi' faith spiritual centre which can be booked by ANY faith for ANY time, and during the booking it is exclusively for their use.

Now.. if you are intolerant of this very just and balanced state of affairs I suggest you goto the nearest 'spiritual' centre of your choice and do some reflecting.

You are sounding most intolerant there you know.

Sadly there will be no peace in the world until religion has gone the way of the dinosaurs and we are all coffee coloured.

Haralambos,
You find it impossible to dispute what I said, so you trot out the old slurs of 'racist' and 'hate'.
Firstly Muslims come in practically every ethnic group in the world, including anglos. So the slur of 'racist' is just garbage. Secondly, I do not 'hate' anyone. The simple facts are that Muslims have a bad reputation and any number of them moving into an area lowers the property values because non-muslims do no longer wish to buy property there. You may think Muslims do not deserve that reputation but the fact is it is there. I do not know of any community where muslims have infiltrated which has had a possitive effect on property values.

The objections by Camden residents is not because of religion. If they thought the school would have a possitive effect on property values and enhance social amenity, people would welcome it. But they do not foresee that and they object for the same reasons they would object to any development they thought detrimental to their community.

I think you and irfan, and some others , are simply trying to portray Muslims as victims. If the poor reputation of Muslims, in general, is brought about by the conduct of the Lebanese Muslims, then it is up to other muslims to correct that so their reputation is improved.

Then such a development would face little opporsition.

Sheesh. So if Muslims live all together in the same suburb then they're "refusing to integrate", but if they try to spread out in the community then it's "we don't want them here". I wonder who really has the problem with integration?

Irfan - entertaining and astute as always. I'm not sure what was more amusing though - your article or the chorus of muppets who crawled out from under their rocks to confirm your hypothesis.

What a sad little band they are.

But the gold medal goes to (so very aptly-named) Banjo, with the "property values" argument. Here's a good solution Banjo - to protect the value of your tin shed and the busted sofa that sits outside on the front porch, let's round up all the Muslims and stick them behind a wall inside Greater Housing Enterprises That Totalise Our Security.

Then we can criticise them for only living with "their kind", right?

Steel writes 'Christians and catholics rape children.

Face it Steel you can't show how Jesus endorses this anywhere. On the other hand you guys murder the unborn and call it termination. Your secular philosophies have more in common with Islam that you would like to admit. Maybe that is why you defend it in a perverted way.

Irfan, you are the offensive one with your opening blasphemy " Sweet Jesus.....". Do not take the Lord's name in vain.

As for Camden, forget the planning laws.
In Australia's national interests we shouldn't have to put up with
Islamic schools ever being built. Racism is, like the word "fascist" just another overused word from the Left university set atheists since the hippie days of the 1960s. It is boring and a fad that ought to be long past.
Australisn who are patriotic( and yes patriotism is a virtue) have every right to protest against more Islamic schools being built here.

Iraqi Christians are flooding into Jordan and Syria. The media is silent. Any Muslim 'social justice' group to speak out and do somehting like Christians do? Nah, thought not.

"If it [the school development] does get approved, every ragger that walks up the street's going to get smashed up the arse by about 30 Aussies."

This reads like incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is not protected by free speech. People who make comments like this should feel the full force of the law.

Question:

Is this sentiment rife in Camden? Or is the media broadcasting the comments of a few Camden residents and thereby implying this is the way Camden people think?

Is the person who spoke these words as representative of the people of Camden as, say, Taj Al-Din Al-Hilaly (uncovered women are meat) is of Muslims in Australia?

Is the ABC, and Yusuf Irfan guilty of promoting "Camden-o-phobia?"

Is this a case of vilifying a whole town because of the words of a few individuals?

If we can defame the people of Camden in this way because of the comments of a few individuals is it legitimate to depict Muslims as gang-rapers because of the actions of a few Lebanese Muslims.

Here's what the ubiquitous Keysar Trad had to say about that:

"Keysar Trad, vice-president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, said: "It is certainly a disgrace to our community that people who were born to a Muslim family would commit such heinous crimes." But he went on to say it was "rather unfair" that the rapists' ethnicity had been reported "because these boys themselves have completely disaffiliated themselves from their culture or their religion".

(See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html)

Are we smearing the people of Camden?

Just asking.

This article is a nonsense. If Jesus were to turn up in Camden dressed as a 60s hippie, an Elvis impersonator, or an Elizabethan dandy complete with ruff, he'd get short shrift, let alone Middle Eastern garb. If Jesus were to turn up in a "modern" Islamic country, how far would he get telling everyone he was the "prophet Jesus reurned to save the world" given that Mohammad is claimed to be the "seal of the prophets"? Not only would Jesus be given short thrift, he'd be murdered as a "blasphemer"!

If Jesus did indeed turn up, I'm sure he'd manage to find modern clothes, and not feel compelled to dress in a centuries old costume. I'm also sure a nun wouldn't be looked at askance in Camden, either, no matter how archaic her dress, because nuns aren't associated with contempt for Australian values (think: Benbrika), placards exclaiming "death to the unbelievers" nor horrific videos of beheadings, explosions and mass mayhem.

The "Taj Mahal" comment Irfan quotes is reasonable, given the way other suburbs and indeed countries have gone after Muslims have arrived in numbers. Islamic school? How about a new mosque since so many Muslims have moved into the area. Of course, the minarets HAVE to tower over every other building in the vicinity. Perhaps a few Camdenites have visited Lakemba? Maybe they've even walked the streets there and experienced the glares from the dudes "dressed like Jesus"?

Nativity plays? One could well imagine the participants dressing up "in period". The audience? Well, flowing robes just aren't fashionable. Bethlehem? It's worth noting that the once majority population of Christians is now under 20%. I wonder why Christians in Bethlehem, Nazareth and other "Palestinian" towns are leaving in droves?

ifran, for a lawyer trained to go after all 'relevant material facts' to issues, this article on this important issue grossly lacking of it...

what does an islamic school do...if they teach with excellence the same material every other child in Australia learns, and an extra curriculum on islamic issues eg "It balances a challenging curriculum, diverse activities and Islamic teaching according to Qur’an and Sunnah (exemplaries from Prophet Muhammad SAW)." from victorian muslim school http://www.wicv.org/school.html

then I would like my child to go there for a year...so that she may learn of a new culture as well...but if the products of this schooling is 'closed minded robots' at the whim and command of their religious leaders...then continued existence of the school itself becomes the issue...and I would say same to any school producing same...including 'feminist sista robots'...

so more information...hopefully by posting or follow-up article...

and to 'property prices'...so if I am shown a street and told everyone of the children here is force separated from their genetic father by their mothers...but its very Australian to do this...so I should buy a house my child and await the inevitable...dont think so...its how well a society deals with its imbalancing forces to keeps its harmonious developing people what determines it survival or otherwise...muslim, anglosaxon, japanese...or mix of all in one is truely less relevant...

so what will be interesting is if populaton of camden is given details of schools curriculum and their own kids can go there, and given option of taking 'classes on islam'...if it will make a difference...or are they acting as 'closed minded robots'...if so then the current school teachers of camden must go...after acts accountability and consequence addressed...

Sam

What I miss are the TV news clips of the wisdom espoused vociferously by the redneck Cowgirl from Hicksville. What I don't miss is her stupid hat.

BD: "As the RMIT chaplain told me later, the buddhists and Jews started asking for 'their' facility also.". Gee, what a terrible state of affairs. Has the RMIT chaplain just discovered that Australia has Jews and Buddhists on campus? How disturbing. And why shouldn't Jews have their own prayer room?

StupidPencil: "a British Muslim woman has been awarded £4,000 for "injury to feelings" after a hair salon owner refused to employ her because she wore a headscarf to a job interview. Please tell me where any Jewish person in the 1930s were awarded compensation for "hurt feelings"?"

Anti-discrimination laws are a relatively recent phenomenon which have arisen because of increased consciousness of racism, most of which has been perpetrated by your lot - white Christians. Your lot who showed their love for Jews by murdering 6 million of them. And your lot stood by while Bosnian Muslims were massacred. White Christian extremism.

"In Australia's national interests we shouldn't have to put up with
Islamic schools ever being built. Racism is, like the word "fascist" just another overused word from the Left university set atheists since the hippie days of the 1960s. It is boring and a fad that ought to be long past."

See, Webby, this is what happens when you forget to take your tablets.

Irfan

Good article. Unfortunately the resposnes of many - unAustralian, different, Hitler! - just go to prove your point.

We need to unite against this racism. Only when workers begin to move as workers do I see the possibility of overthrowing the false god of racism that so pervades sections of the Australian working class and has done since colonialism arrived here and capitalism developed.

Doing away with denominational schools altogether would solve this little problem. Everyone gets the same education with religious studies overseen by parents, church etc.

Why go to school to nurture distrust of others? You can see on this site what is likely to happen once faith in one god comes up against faith in another.

Passy,
What race is Islam, again?

Hitler,
You'll be happy to know your book continues to be a best-seller in Muslim countries. Makes you feel all warm and glowing, doesn't it...your work still goes on.

Mercurius: when Muslims move into a suburb they don't do it in dribs and drabs. They, if not "take over", swamp other groups. Can you name a Catholic suburb of Sydney? No? There are quite a few Muslim ones, Punchbowl and Lakemba, for starters. Then, it is they who erect the invisible walls of the ghetto, and refuse to integrate. Worse, they try to tell us how we should live. No thanks.

"Hitler" has been suspended indefinitely. I'd appreciate a "heads-up" if anyone else like this turns up on this or any other thread.

I don't want to enter into an inane "let's defame each other" game with you Bozo_Dagwood, however I would note that referring to me as StupidPencil in your post of Saturday, 21 June 2008 4:42:26 PM is quite offensive.

Sadly this seems to be the way of those who want to take on the role of Islamic or Muslim defenders. Smear people by saying that they are racist - when Islam is a belief system not an ethnicity - and disparaging their opponents in screeching tones.

I find it interesting to note that you are keen to disparage "white Christians" as a whole and find them culpable for the Holocaust and what happened to Bosnian Muslims in the mid-1990s. Somehow I even get tossed into this mix as the "white Christians" are referred to as "your lot".

The trouble is Bozo is that I am NOT a Christian - I just happen to find Islam the most asinine of the monotheistic faiths and some people who defend it or speak up for it some of the most dreadful hypocrits.

I was also intrigued as to how "white Christian extremism" was playing a part in the events in the former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s? Which made me wonder whether you might also consider the ongoing genocide in Darfur as "Arab Muslim extremism"?

Bozo-Dagwoods commment "White Christian extremists" is probably actionable as it is definitely racist hate speech.

This mentions race and religion. Though 'white' includes many ethnicities, for the purposes of the Hate Speech legislation I think it comes close enough to being culpable.

BOZO... regarding "why shouldn't Jews (and all others) have their own prayer room?"

It's really very simple..

1/ Why does ANY faith need 'separate and exclusive' prayer rooms?
could it be an inherrent 'disdain' for non them? which of course is possibly racist, and definitely discriminatory.

2/ Practicality: If you were the boss of RMIT I can envisage pretty much every 2nd room being an 'exclusive'prayer room for evey whacko religion in the country and theirs plenty.

In my view, every religion should accomodate itself to the fact that they are at an educational place not spiritual.

Mercurious is a classic :) I mean... if he was on a plane which was hijacked by anti Jewish fanatics, his name would be an immediate giveaway and possibly a death sentense.
I can imagine his plaintive cries "But..but..I am an atheist(?) a secular person..er..I believe in a 2 state solution.. I believe in the right of return for Palo's" etc..

They would look at him and just say "JEW" and put him at the top of the list for 'special treatment' in the event of police intervention.

It's always easier to speak about sentimental fairness and justice and rights etc when there is no gun pointed at your head because of your religion or race.

The real world in our patch might not be like that 'today' but based on some videos circulating on youtube, one wonders about 'tomorrow'.

The prudent citizen thinks ahead.

Australia is a constitutionally a Secular Country that means no religion is acknowledge as better than another.
Recently a Uni maths professor did the numbers and showed clearly that at current birth rates differences in the UK and given sociological proven facts. It would take SEVERAL hundred years to be the dominant religion in the UK. This is FACT.
In truth I am from an Anglo Saxon family but I’m as different to you as chalk is to cheese so what.
As for me being “un Australian” how would you know? Do you know my military record, my community work, education, my family, my eating habits even my religious persuasion which is not Muslim.
There is no such a thing as the average Aussie, American etc except in the statistics. If the census had asked “which do you think more about religion or sport (recreation)” and/or “Are you a practising Christian (regular Church attendance) or a nominal? We all know what the result would have shown.
How many of you can quote the Ten Commandments in order, John 3: 16, the 23rd psalm? All foundations of Christianity?
The same applies to Muslim numbers. Dads counts his 5 children but are they? As time goes on intermarriages, lapses maybe 2 will still be active 20 year on. This assimilation has been fact for thousands of years read history, e.g. the reason for the Mayflower invasion?
If there are so many Real Christians why then are Church Attendances overall dropping?
It has been shown that the richer a family/society is the less the overall birth rate is. Otherwise why is our govt paying women to have more babies?
Finally Global warming and 4 billion foreigners on our doorstep in shrinking space and ability to feed themselves, being intolerant is a poor long-term survival strategy. Sooner or later we are going to have to hope they’re more tolerant to difference than we are. America coming to our rescue? They’ll be too busy with their own problems. Perhap's you're praying for Armageddon.

Irfan,

I'm tired of your oh so flippant comments about women wearing Muslim headscarves.

A person wearing a headscarf is sending a signal indicating their difference and superiority to those not so attired.

Imagine if someone wrote a similar article entitled "Sweet Mohammad".There would a baying for blood for showing such disrespect for the great prophet.Irfan is allowed to have his smug little jibes at the Christian faith in this article,but woe be tide anyone who does likewise to Islam.

Christianity isn’t an indivisible “one” it’s fair to say that the term describes a mass of semi warring factions. They range from the sublime to the positively bizarre and a small number of zealots of whom we should be fearful of. (By that I mean governmental monitoring of these extremes, within the law). Islam is the same.
Having studied both the Bible and the Koran in depth (along with other religions’ texts) at a university level I can tell you that both contain passages that are, well violent, anti social and down right primitive by modern standards.
Like all literature they reflect the knowledge and attitudes at their time of authorship.
Both books today are generally treated by their devotees with varing degrees of interpretation. That means that both groups have schisms because of those interpretations. Again these interpretations range for the sublime to the “you have to be kidding”. Some believe that the Bible/Koran is literal and even at that level their followers beliefs are merely a little excessively simplistic but pose little real physical threat.
Some Christian fundamentalist groups say the Seventh Day Adventists actually do a lot of good. They deny evolution, the world is 6000 years old etc. coz the bible tells them so so. The Catholics too at the other end of the spectrum have some “oddly reasoned(?)” dogma. Are our lives threatened by them?
It is fact to say some of the biggest monsters in history were Christian and no doubt Islam has had its share. History proves that the common factors of both good and evil logically boil down to individuals.
Think of it this way if you were on a desert island with only either the Koran or Bible would you be any safer one than the other? Would either book (or belief in it) save or threaten you? Regardless of your religion have more mundane problems for survival. Yes Muslims have different views but as people they are the same. It’s all a matter of perspective and reason.

Christianity is one. There is but one true Church which is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.
All of the denominations were not founded by Christ. This is an historical fact. The Catholic Church has apostolic lineage and all its priests and bishops were ordained from bishops who were themselves ordained by a previous generation all the way back to the tweleve Apostles. So it isn't "fair to say" what you just said Examinator.
Further the truth is not found in priovately interpreting the various Scriptures of the different religions. It is the authority behind those Scriptures( or lack thereof) which is what it is really all about. The Bible is a book of the Catholic Church with each book that makes it up being ratified by various Church Councils. Books were included whilst others were excluded based upon whther they were true or not as based upon the living memory of the Catholic congregations from the earliest times.
Islam isn't the same. It has no 'church', it has no 'apostolic lineage'. It bases everythign upon both the Koran and mostly highly dodgy 'hadiths'. In any case, its religion is derived from a mishmash of Jewish, Catholic, gnostic and pagna bits and pieces.

It is all a matter of authority and the Apostles had theirs from Jesus who is God whereas other religions have truth and error mixed.

Yes of course, racism and bigotry is the catchcall when a Council does what it is supposed to do, make decisions based upon the wishes of the majority within a community.

That is the democratic process, the Councillor's are and were elected to give effect to the will of the people who elected them, who self-evidently do not want a vocal minority in their area, who are unwilling to compromise on the advisability of allowing socially divisive development and who care about the development that is allowed in their community.

Of course, small, vocal minorities are not happy - perhaps if they wish to modify the position of the Council they could stack the local council wards in a similar manner to that in which they have succesfully stacked the State Government electorates.

It is amusing, General Monash, that paragon of Australian Military Virtue and Isaac Isaac's, the ex-Governor General and ex-High Court Judge, were not entitled to membership of the Carlton Club by virtue of their race. Wonder how our current vocal minorities, which have accomplished NOTHING in comparison, would have responded?

Perhaps if such minorities wish to avoid the impending backlash against them they might perhaps take a step back and show some respect for the culture of 'Real' Australians (ie. those outside the Cities). If not, they may be in for a big shock as to the depth of feeling they will encounter, not everybody is exactly thrilled at the situation in Sydney now. I hope they do, I for one have no wish to see Pogroms start in this Country.

I am continually fascinated by the mental gymnastics that different kinds of Christian employ to justify their particular stance. Webby,I have just added yours to my extensive collection.

>>There is but one true Church which is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God... [it] has apostolic lineage and all its priests and bishops were ordained from bishops who were themselves ordained by a previous generation all the way back to the tweleve Apostles.<<

Oddly,I haven't heard this one before.I have heard plenty that start "There is but one true Church which is the xyz Church", followed by some form of verbal sophistry, but this is one of the best so far.

So, with your help, Webby,I'd like to explore it further.

Do you consider the Popes who carried this responsibility to be fully representative of the message they were entrusted with? Or would not there be a few who may be considered to have breached that "apostolic lineage" through their earthly activities?

I would particularly like to hear your observations on Pope Stephen IV, who in 769 came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. He then gave orders for this unhappy chap to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. He then sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death, by having pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died.

Given that Steve-baby wasn't exactly Robinson Crusoe in his interpretation of the need to represent the "one true church" by exercising a somewhat less spiritual approach to the task, where does this leave your unbroken apostolic lineage?

Just interested.

Examinator, it's a pity that your years of indepth study of religious texts didn't allow you to see the vast differences between Islam and Christianity. The former is a "complete system" and so, is political as well as religious. Islamic "teachings" form the basis of Islamic law (sharia) while the sira and hadith tell one everything from how to wash "correctly" for prayer to when not to fart.

There is no equivalent amongst Christians, however weird their teachings. I'm no Christian, but even I can see that Christians follow the Golden Rule (Muslims do not) nor do they have a concept of "he who casts the first stone" etc. Frankly statements along the lines of "Islam and Christianity are just soooo similar" are becoming tiresome.

Yes Viking...I'm a bit concerned about Examinators "In depth" study, which has not bought him/her to the conclusions which one would expect such study to do.

Examinator, could you please have a look at the following:

Surah 9

-Historical background and context
-Chronological position (when 'revealed') relative to the other surahs
-Focus on verses 29 and 30 and indicate by what criteria you would not consider

"fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day" (V29)
and "May Allah destroy/curse them(Christians and Jews)" (because they believe in a Son of God)

.. to be extremely dangerous for non Muslims today?

May I suggest that you also do the following:

1/ Find a serious Muslim or a few even, don't say anything about your own position or beliefs, then ask them "does the Quran apply to today"? If the answer is 'yes' (as it was for me speaking to a Saudi, Omanite and Afghan a week back and a Libyan Student last friday)

2/ You might then ask if V29 and 30 are included in that "applicable for today"

3/ You could ask also "Have these veses been abrogated by any other?"

Then, you might like to try to find any 'command' even remotely resembling those sentiments in the words of Christ, Paul Peter or any other new Testament writer.

When you say:

"both contain passages that are, well violent, anti social and down right primitive by modern standards." aah.. perhaps, but you are not picking up on the utterly important differences.

COMMANDS/STATEMENTS/PERMISSIONS.

Quran 9:29 is a command.
Quran 9:30 is a 'desire/hope/wish/goal'
Quran 19:88 is an explosive statement, abusive and is utterly vilifying hate speech towards Christians.

Please show me anything remotely resembling those in the New Testament?

9:29 is a 'great commission to violent Jihad till the end of the age'
Jesus 'Great Commission' was simply "Go into all the world,(preaching) making disciples".

How was this practiced by the apostles and early church? Simple.. they proclaimed the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness.

There is no need to be fascinated or to add this teaching about the one true Church to your collection. This teaching is knowable and public knowledge got all loyal Catholics. You can find this teaching on many a Catholic website. Surely, an educated man like you Pericles has come across this publicly known teaching of the Catholic Church before?
You are the one who fascinates me. You said that "oddly" you haven't come across this teaching before !! Wow!! You really do need to read what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you play the alleged impartial expert mate.
Yes all those recognsied as Popes by the Catholic Church were Popes. You do need to check the Vatican website and see for yourself in order to answer your question. It is there.
Abuse doesn't invalidate what authority Chrsit gave int he first palce. Popes and dustmen alike all have to answer to God at the judgment if they die in unrepented serious sin. That is also Catholic teaching.
By you naming those who have sinned doesn't in any way exempt you from adhering to the Gospel as shown you by the Church.

For anyone here,the proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Why go anywhere else for religion? Now the Christian religion is that religion which—
(a) Was founded by Christ personally;
(b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
(c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to all the world and teach all nations;
(d) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine;
(e) Exercises divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim—
(a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches disappear as you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome.
(b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
(c) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines.
(d) To be Catholic or universal.
(e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.

Back to the topic, this is not a religious or ethnic matter but rather a social harmony topic.

I don't think Muslims or any other minority in Australia are victims because there are enforcable anti discrimination laws. The issue of prejudice and fearing the 'other' will always be there and seriously its a shared responsibility between 2 groups:

a) Community leaders to promote harmony and dialogue.
b) minoities leaders to activey praticipate in the development of the community.

But then there is always the Boaz model: "My God is better than yours".

Peace,

The following is the text of an email I sent Camden Town Council.

Dear Sir,

You should take note of the following article about CAMDEN that was posted on the "Online Opinion" website:

'SWEET JESUS, NOT ANOTHER 'RAGGER'

See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7522

Perhaps you should request the opportunity to reply.

Yours sincerely

viking13 asks me what race Islam is. You only have to read this thread to know many oppose a school in Camden because it will be have people who are "different". Exactly how is never explained but I'll hazard a guess. They aren't white. That's racism, viking13.

As to "unAustralian" I have more in common with a Muslim worker than I do with an "Australian" boss.

A study of One Nation showed its supporters came from the middle class (much as Hitler's did initially) and sections of the working class (the less well educated, the non-unionised, and those in regional areas,) again much as Hitler's did initially.

Seneca says: "A person wearing a headscarf is sending a signal indicating their difference and superiority to those not so attired."

My mother was a non-catholic and she was forced to wear a scarf to turn up at church with me. Practising Catholic women wore it as a sign (mistakenly in my view) of reverence. Surely we could say the same about Muslim women? We are never going to address women's oppression by forcing them to stop wearing what they want.

I was taught by nuns who wore outfits that looked like burkhas and were probably driven by the same incorrect rationalisations.

Hagana Bet says: "Yes of course, racism and bigotry is the catchcall when a Council does what it is supposed to do, make decisions based upon the wishes of the majority within a community."

Actually part of the democratic process is or should to exercise the so-called will of the majority (is opposing the school in Camden what they got elected on by the way?) in a way that respects the minority and operates within the law and accepts the minority too has the right to organise and become the majority.

But why do you call those who want to set up a school as a vocal minority? Why do you see it it in us and them (ie racist) terms?

Also Hagana Bet, Hitler was constitutionally elected. Does that make his policies appropriate? Of course not

Passy, sure I dislike Hitler's policies viewing them with extreme disfavour and horror, but I suggest that unlike yourself I have put a little more thought into whence they came.

Here we have a minority which appears to care little for it's public image and which seems to delight in aggravating the majority of people in a community.

This is not a particularly clever ploy as history shows, particularly where history shows what has happened in the not too distant past to minorities which have been utilised by democratically elected governments as scapegoats so as to deflect the consequences of public disquiet and disfavour away from themselves.

Anti-semetism does not relate solely to those of Jewish descent, but to all semetic peoples, as I believe will the consequences of anti-semetism if it is awakened in this Country (and it DOES exist, just look about this forum). The Jews in Poland, never ever set out to cause the amount of furor or political disquiet as this mob are setting out to generate at the present time, yet they paid dearly for the mere fact that they were disliked for being different (because they refused to assimilate for the most part). I'd personally like to believe that human nature has changed dramatically in the last 400 years, but I have a little voice inside me that doubts that it has changed THAT much.

That said, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, just leave us out of it... There is a truly disturbing undercurrent to the current polarization of opinion by this group, one that they have little experience of dealing with or even identifying, I sincerely hope that they see what they are awakening before they do so.

I must have had a sheltered upbringing, Webby (and your friend-in-Jesus, Joanne)...

>>Surely, an educated man like you Pericles has come across this publicly known teaching of the Catholic Church before?<<

...because it is a fact that I had never before heard that the Catholic church claims to be uniquely connected with Jesus, to the apparent exclusion of every other professed Christian cult.

Seems just a little extreme to me, given how many there are. Does it not upset them that you make this claim?

But I must decline your suggestion...

>>You really do need to read what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you play the alleged impartial expert mate.<<

The fact is, I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, and I suspect that I never shall. To me, the shades of difference between you all fade into insignificance compared to the major question - whether the whole lot of you are chasing rainbows.

Surely - and of course I stand to be corrected on this, as with any other religious matter - the most important aspect of being religious is that you believe in a God?

It is definitely the most easily observed difference between you and me. It doesn't make a milligram of difference whether you are Calvinist, Methodist or happy-clappy Evangelist, the principle differentiator is that you are a deist, I'm not.

But more to the point, Webby, why exactly does it matter?

And while we are about it - and you can take it as a given that I'm not going to interrogate the Vatican's web site on this, since I suspect they might give me only one side of the story - what is the story about that fun guy, Stephen IV? Was he a pope, or not? If not, who was the real Pope who kept alive the continuous link with Jesus?

Given your reluctance to answer my last question on the topic, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Perhaps Joanne can help. And maybe add an observation or two on all those other churches founded by apostles.

Umm, Joanne first...
The Catholic Church was NOT the first Christian church. The first and oldest is that of the Assyrians. They are the oldest and arguably MOST catholic(in it's proper sense)religion. The patriarch, Mar Dinkha, has even given guidance to the previous pontiff regarding the manner in which Mary is regarded. Google away...
To those who sniff and tut tut and otherwise condemn people for racist attitudes, it's not the colour of skin or race that is the cause of discomfit. It's more the habits of the people.
Much the same way as you would distance yourself from someone with chronic constant flatulence or a rampant nose-picking habit, most westerners find muslim behaviour, particularly that relating to the treatment of women, contrary to the implicit prevalent "norm" guided by our adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's a measure of a majority disapproval(and in a Democracy, majority rules, don't forget) against those contrary beliefs being further instilled AT PUBLIC EXPENSE that has caused this ruckus in Camden. I'm sure those that live voluntarily in Camden would not want their semi-rural lifestyle disturbed by the mullahs calling to prayer.
If the muslim community is that keen to build a mosque, then they can stump up themselves and have consideration for the views and opinions of the majority. In other words, build it with community sourced funds and hide it somewhere.

Pericles, I'm not sure where you've been, but the claim by the Catholic Church to being the "one true church" is a long-standing one, although I haven't seen anyone vent it as comprehensively as Joanne since the 60s.

Reminds me of the old joke about St Peter showing some new "saints" around heaven. Over here we have the Baptists, and these are the Anglicans. The people with the beards over there are the Orthodox and there are some Copts. That group also with beards, are the Jews. etc.

Peter is then asked, "But who is behind that wall?" To which he answers, "Shhhh. They're the Catholics. They think they're the only ones here." More people used to laugh in the sectarian past. Now you know why!

Pericles there have been thirty anti-Popes which means false claimants who have taken power in opposition to validly ( canonically elected popes. Such pretenders have attempted to exercise papal functions in defiance of the true popes.
Now Pope Stephen IV was correctly elected and is a true pope. He was elected canonically. Stephen IV is also known as Stephen III because Stephen II who was elected in 752 died before being conscerated in the ceremony which takes place. These Stephens by the way were both legitimate.
Constantine II by the way was an anti-Pope in 767, a false claimant.
In any case, the apostolic lineage continues on because bishops do the electing of one of their brother bishops to decide on who will be the 'Peter' in their midst. All bishops are part of the apostolic lineage from which all popes are chosen.
Apostolic lineage continues on through the bishops of the world who are Catholic and united. So when a pope dies that is a normal interruption but lineage continues as a new pope is always elected and then consecrated.

Any bishops who break with their fellow bishops who in turn are united with the reigning Pope in any generation do not have authority to set up their own 'popes' as that is automatically a schismatic act.

See how much more interesting is Catholic history under discussion than the boring and even insulting statements of our Afghan friend Irfan ?

Both Irfan and I aren’t arguing one religion V another but are concerned about human rights.
Yet most ‘contributors’ to this topic make much of racial/religious “differences” as grounds to justify denying others a fair go (human rights) by barring them from certain areas on the grounds of social harmony.
Religion is a matter of PERSONAL subjective choice. To focus on religious differences between the groups are at best subjective (unscientific, lacking logic and /or consistency) at worse emotive opinion. Practically speaking, focusing on perceived differences here are counter productive in both the short and long term. I pointed to the inevitable consequences of such prejudices would be like ‘eating a hamburger in a hungry tiger’s cage while poking it with a stick’ in essence time delayed societal harakiri.
Focusing on semantic/interpretive arguments of the respective religious texts is irrelevant to the issues at hand. i.e. how to resolve the conflict to facilitate a harmonious and just community
(In the interests of not ducking an issue raised I would point out again that both texts are treated in varying degrees INTERPRETATION therefore a battle of verses IS misleading and unproductive in this context).
Ultimately any legislative separation of religions as implied/suggested would more accurately be described as Aussie APARTHEID and unconstitutional (Australia is constitutionally secular).
By all mean hold what opinions you like but sites like this can only remain relevant if comments are designed to add to the debate rather than negatively polarize it and stick to the issue at hand. (Not issues like prayer rooms at RMIT)
This means a focused, logical, rational and balanced approach to the issue

examinator

You are kidding yourself if you think any debate does not have a religous philosophy behind it. Some think that they are more intellectual than others because they think their opinions are secular based backed by science. This is of course nonsense as science neither proves or disproves God or religion.

It interesting that even many heathen (with no time for any religion and a hate for god botherers like me) can plainly see that Islam is not good for any country. In every secular or Christian country where Islam has a foothold there is strife (mainly between the secularist and Islam). Islam tolerates nothing but its own dogmas in countries ruled by Sharia law but wants to impose these values in other countries.

The failed socialist are to gutless to do anything about their failed 'multi culturalism', They want the Australian population to say 'sorry' to our first people but would not consider saying 'sorry' to the Australian population for their 'head in the sand' policies in regards to immigration. People who share a love for freedom should be welcome here with open arms to help build this nation. People who want to impose Sharia law should be told to buzz off. They have soiled their own countries where no one wants to live or visit and want to do the same here. They need to change their views not those living here.

Passy: "That's racism, viking13."

No it's not. Racism is the assertion that your race is superior to theirs and acting accordingly. I oppose the madrassa in Camden on religious and cultural grounds, and am married to a fantastic Asian woman. Am I therefor racist? It's worth noting the superiority complex that many Muslims hold (their religion, Arab culture etc superior to all others. Does that make THEM racist?)
As to "unAustralian" I have more in common with a Muslim worker than I do with an "Australian" boss."

Bully for you. I'd hate to be a boss whose Muslim workers insisted on a prayer room and wandered off to pray at odd (and changing according to the moon) times during the day.

"Practising Catholic women wore it as a sign (mistakenly in my view) of reverence."

They did? Everywhere, or just in church on Sundays?

"Surely we could say the same about Muslim women?"

No. They wear hijab everywhere either because forced to, or to allow themselves to feel superior to the non-Muslims. A "badge of difference" if you like.

"I was taught by nuns..."

If the nuns left the order they could cast off those outfits. They are allowed to go out in mufti, too. I've met a few nuns who didn't dress like that, also. Nuns' outfits frankly don't worry me because the Catholic church isn't connnected with terrorist bombings nor is it claiming it will "take over the world".

If I lived in Camden and Hindus wanted to start a large school, I'd be concerned about them too, not that I hate or fear Hindus, but Camden has a character which would be changed forever by an influx of any non-mainstream ethnic or religious group.

The danger of course with Webby and Joannes comments are that they represent a real world religio/political position which has found expression in some pretty dark periods of history.

I hope that these expressions of 'our way or the highway' are not lost on Pericles... who should by this time realize that when I express the exclusive truth of Christianity, it can encompass believing Catholics and any or pretty much every major protestant denomination.

FH.. "my God is better than yours"? nope.. it's about truth and falsehood.. plain and simple. If Jesus is "the Way" then there is no 'other' way..its not a matter of degree.

You should know by now that Islam views the Lord as a prophet though in reality He is Son of God.

"Son of God"
or
"merely a prophet"

Those 2 ideas a absolutely not compatable. To we disciples of Christ, reducing the Lord of Glory to a mere man, is utter blasphemy and is on the same level as 'shirk'... and 'shirk' is considered the 'ultimate crime' because it claims that calling the Lord the Son of God is "ascribing partners with Allah"

There is no escaping this great gulf and divide. Your 'purity' is to us blasphemy and our purity is to you blasphemy/shirk.

To me, the credentials are on the side of He who calmed storms, raised the dead, walked on water, and forgave sin by his own authority.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/radical.html

If Catholic schools are teaching that there is only one true Church, and that it is 'them' and that all outside it are heretics etc.. then one might also wonder what would eventually happen if Catholics did control our government.
The similarities between Islam and Catholicism are scary.

-Huge beaurocratic structures.
-Caliph=Pope
-Religious purity demanded.
-Political clout enforces rules.

"if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed" John 8:36

"The Son"...."The Father" The Spirit. One.. yet 3.

viking13, the problem I have with your analysis is that Hitler took much the same approach to Jewish people - ie he distinguished them in part because of their supposed religious and cultural differences.

In fact with many of the discusssionss on this site you need only change muslim to jew and you've got Hitler's arguments to a tee. I'd go so far as to say that they are proto fascist arguments.

We're not racist but ... we just don't like people who are not Christian, don't assimilate (supposedly), have a different religion, have different customs and so on. Looks like racism to me, but maybe my defintion of racism is different to others and their approach to muslims is not racist but some other form of pathetic discrimination.

I remain unconvinced.

Runner,
All I can say is that it's a pity that your understanding and life is so blighted by stereotypes, Threats,ill informed lables (I'm not a socialist if anything I'm a secular humanist of sorts...Look it up), religious dogma, and blinded by fear. I might suggest that throwing insults hardly equates with debate and assertions with reasoning.
Amen

Examiner

You write:
'All I can say is that it's a pity that your understanding and life is so blighted by stereotypes,'

I say its a pity that you do not address the issues that are raised. You ramble on about your fear of population growth and global warming ignoring the threats of Islam and the establishment of Islamic schools in Australia. May I suggest your stereotyping is as good as anyones. The fact that I commented on socialism and you took it personally exposes how sensitive you are. No threats were made to you or anyone else despite your accusation.

Passy: "viking13, the problem I have with your analysis is that Hitler took much the same approach to Jewish people - ie he distinguished them in part because of their supposed religious and cultural differences.

In fact with many of the discusssionss on this site you need only change muslim to jew and you've got Hitler's arguments to a tee. I'd go so far as to say that they are proto fascist arguments."

Rubbish. Utter tripe. The position of the Jews in Nazi Germany pre-WWII and the position of Muslims in modern society are completely different. Jews were in fact quite well integrated into Germany (in fact their common language was a German dialect!). The Jews elucidated no program to "rule Germany" or any other European nation for that matter, and were of course present in too few numbers to have been able to do so. Contrast with Islamic teachings which are spread wide and far, and by far greater numbers, in modern societies. The Jews were also well-educated and found in many professions like medicine.

Hindus are present in Australian society in considerable numbers, yet do we hear anything from them? No. Do we hear anything from Taoists, Buddhists or Sikhs? No. Jews did nothing to deserve what happened to them- and what "happened" to Muslims id nothing whatsoever like what happened to Jews. In fact, the "leading lights" in anti-Jewish feeling are, guess who? Muslims! Who are the Fascists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries? The Muslims.

You'll have to come up with something better, Passy.

One sure way to build mistrust and to encourage prejudice is to have segregated schools. In Northern Ireland, during the "troubles", only 1% of the pupils went to mixed schools, open to catholics and to protestant pupils.

Dear Passy

you presented a very stereotypical and incorrect view of Christians.

<We're not racist but ... we just don't like people who are not Christian>

If people are Christian, they should reflect Christ, who said:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?
Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
And if you greet only your brothers,
what are you doing more than others?
Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore,
as your heavenly Father is perfect.

DISAGEEMENT MEANS HATE?

Disagreement does not.. repeat not signify 'hate' or dislike of people.
The assertion of set of values and the criticism of others, again, does not mean you hate or dislike those people who hold those values.
IF....they hold them in sincere uneducated ignorance.

JESUS REBUKED?

Nevertheless, Jesus rebuked and criticized and
reprimanded certain groups of people.
The main classes of people he did condemn were:

1/ Those who were educated about the scriptures (Pharisees and Scribes) but who rejected his credentials
which were unambiguously before their eyes (miracles, signs)

2/ Those who, while not educated still rejected God and He himself, and the Gospel in the face of unquestionable evidence of the miraculous which should have drawn them to faith.

REALITY

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!
For if the miracles that were performed
in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon,
they would have repented long ago,
sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon
at the judgment than for you.
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
No, you will go down to the depths.

What would Jesus say of you..... ?

viking13

You say in response to my comment that much of the criticism of Muslims echoes Hitler's crticism of Jews that:

"Rubbish. Utter tripe. The position of the Jews in Nazi Germany pre-WWII and the position of Muslims in modern society are completely different. Jews were in fact quite well integrated into Germany (in fact their common language was a German dialect!). The Jews elucidated no program to "rule Germany" or any other European nation for that matter, and were of course present in too few numbers to have been able to do so. Contrast with Islamic teachings which are spread wide and far, and by far greater numbers, in modern societies. The Jews were also well-educated and found in many professions like medicine."

I was arguing that the lies Hitler used about jews are similar to those being spread about Mulsims (including world domination.) I am not saying Hitler's lies were correct, just that they appear to be the same arguments used today by some to oppose Muslims in Australian society.

In fact you appear to be saying Hitler's lies were incorrect in relation to jews but that the arguments (non-assimilation, different culture, different religion, world domination) are valid if applied to Muslims. Can't you see the problem with this?

The stereotype of Muslims you present follows (inadvertently) the same pattern as the extreme right and jews.

Can't you see the similarity? Hitler lied through his teeeth about jews (different culture, language, history, religion, role in society, world domination etc) to create a sense of fear, to unify "Germans" against a supposed common enemy (and use this unifier initially as a smokescreen for smashing unions and left parties and driving wages down to restore German profit rates.)

It appears to me it is Hitler's lies that are now being repeated by some in the Camden and other debates. The target this time is not jews but Muslims.

The lies remain eeerily similar across the ages.

Passy,
Quote. "The lies remain eerily similar across the ages"

Do you mean by that the muslims do not deserve their bad reputation and all the things said about their bad conduct are lies. Forget the rest of the world, I am refering to Australia only. Other places open up a whole worse situation.

Over the years there have been thousands of media reports of bad conduct (by our standards) by Muslims and most have been repeated on OLO from time to time, as well as personal experiences. Are they all lies?

If so for what purpose?

In the UK, with the intention of not offending any religious beleif, all beleif systems are generally avoided during assemblies in state schools. Alternatively, pupils can opt out of attending assemblies (or classes)in case there may be a religious element introduced. The overall result is that "the baby is thrown out with the bath water". Generally, in many state schools, especially in some inner-city schools, there is a lamentable lack of discipline.

The best schools encourage and extol the virtues of self-discipline (not just discipline), where pupils of mixed background attend.

The worst schools are those where - either by circumstances or by design - pupils are drawn exclusively, or predominantly, from one community, or from one religious beleif.

Hope that the Australians are not going down the path that leads to awful schools.

Following on from Istvan's post, may I say that historically Catholic schools in Australia since WWI have provided three generations of Australians with a strong Catholic Faith life and a social consciousness to join trade unions and be involved in politics for the betterment of Australia and Australians. Since secularisation since the time of Lionel Murphy's Family Law Act of 1974 and since the deregulation and privatisation of government assets since the mid 1980s things have changed for the worse. Many Catholics have actually surrendered to the secularists, many of whom are here as contributors to these forums ! And in fact many Catholics( nominal ones) have actually sided with hostile secularists and anti-Catholics publicly on many issues, thus all becoming THE PROBLEM and yet blaming the old traditional and good Catholic families and traditional Catholic clergy and religious for problems ! Curious but true.
Strong traditional Catholic schools of severl generations ago , and the few good ones left this generation are producing the future good citizens and also saints for Heaven.

Irfan what about,

But you're still angry. You scream out blasphemously: "Moh&^%$# the pig
f^&$#r"

All,

From the Catholic Encylopaedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

The Bible as an infallible source would seem problematic given historians can usually take it apart e.g., Herod was dead when Jesus or the Bible's time is wrong and Jesus was born 7 BCE. The Holy Catholic Church did not really start with Peter. There were 10-15 Jewish bisops, beforehand.

It was really until the time Hadrian that the Romans came to centre stage. Moreover, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople legitimised and institutionalised Catholic fist dogma.

Jesus was more likely trying to establish an extended Jewish House of David, via a ministry to the Gentiles.

The Herodians, appointed by Julius Caesar, were Arabs and were out of favour from the time of Augustus and c.30 CE would have been good to have a run for power. The Annas actually won, but soon after we have the Jewish-Roman wars of the 60s & 130s.

In the Fourth Century, Constantinian Rome assimilated Jewish-Christianity, probably the very opposite to Jesus' plan, but to a similar end.

Regards.

Oliver & all our viewers

Oliver what you ahve jsut asserted is NOT found in the encylopedia you've alleged to have summarised.
I think you are engaged in myddying the waters Oliver.

Peter the Apostle IS Jewish and he along with the other 11 Apostles were Jewish and were all the original bishops.
The Bible as infallible source is only known to be so because it has an infallible interpreter, the Church. It was the Catholic Church that decided which of the various books were to be included in the canon ( which means list) of the New Testament. The Catholic Church decided on 27 such books for the NT. It also decided on the number found in the OT as well.

The dating of Jesus doesn;t go to crediblility but merely shows that calendars and how a year is calculated changed several times based upon science and the interpretation of authorities at the time.

The Church did in fact begin with Peter.

Nicea and Constantinople and also Ephesus before Constantinople, along with all Catholic Church Councils including the most recent Vatican II from 1962 to 1965 decide on all dogmatic issues.
Dogmas defined at any Council merely define in human lagnauge the existing truths that wre already believed by Catholics prior to the definitions. Nothing new in that.

Constantine merely allowed the Church legal status which is a terrific thing. Before the Edict of Milan in 313AD human rights were beign denied to the early Christians and the Church ( all Catholics).
Not a few modern day pagans, and not a few 'evangelicals'( a misnomer) would love to return to pre Cosntantine times as persecutor of the true Christians and the true Chruch whcih are Catholic.

The danger with Mr Boaz's views is that they are not based on fact but upon anti-Catholic prejudice. No light emanated from an alleged 'dark' Catholic past. In fact, Protestantism that came about in the UK to satisfy King Henry VIII's carnal and wordly demands for a male heir( he didn't actually believe in the frogpop, oops I mean the Lutheranism extant from the Continent Mr Boaz)and also the European Continent brought about the loss of rights for ordianry people with the worship of work brought about by the Dutch East Indies traders and the like.

Today we have an 'open all hours' mentality in which even Protestants are aghast at how their own work worship was taken up by their Protestant Anglo--American economics which is based on anti biblical neo liberal economics. Anathema sit !

Jesus is indeed the Way and He himself gave His authority for His message to be transmitted by His Apsotles within His Church. That is the way. To be aligned with Jesus's will, is to OBEY His will when He actually, in real time, did not hand out non existent New testaments but ORALLY passed on His Gospel to men ( the Apostles) and the Church established with them.

The early Christian worship is found in the Book of Revelations and in some of St Paul's letters. The liturgy of the East and West in the trditional Mass forms is described in the Book of Revelations.
The prejudiced Protestant mind, ignorant of real time history has extrapolated silly conspiracies about pagan Romea and whores as being the Church instead. Talk about madness !
"caliph = Pope" you say. You need to read real histories and not Protestant comic books. Professor Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian Professor ( leading Professor of biblical studies in the USA) became a Catholic. He lectures now at the Fransican University of Steubenville in the USA. Do a google search on him.

Retired Keith and Friends,

The citation of the Catholic Encyclaedia was limited to Protestantism. At OLO, I saw some conflicting commens, on what that Church thought, so went to the source.

The other comments are outside the above.

My cites are many historical; Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, Quigley & Mc Neill, whom studied civilizations.

The bit about Herod is well documented. Thiering and others having reason to place Jesus' birth earlier is, not only because
historical events around the Jesus', but because a date of 7 BCE fits politically and with scientifically verifiable astronomic events.

The earlier date also fits in with Jewish continuous calandar, which would have Eschation in the Jewish Year 4,000 (60 CE), according to some Jewish millennial sects.

I aware of their being Councils earlier than Nicaea. Here was a half-Council in 190 CE. Also, latter, Constantinople & Kent.

Hadrian exciled the Jews from the Holy Lands and the group from Pella; these guys needed a Gentile bishop to return and worship(Mack).

Regarding religionists, I would posit the Catholics would have the greater claim on apostolic progression, with priviso, it is necessary to recognize the transmutation away from the Jewish Faith generations after Jesus, towards the Hellenised Christian religion.

Jesus fomred a Jewish religion that was intended to be open the Gentiles. The vechicle would have been the House of David. Instead, Rome assumed the Faith.

Busy. Will check back Tuesday.

Cheers.

As Irfan notes in his article "Australia is full of strange people".

If "Australians", or should I say non-Islamic Australians, really want to keep an Islamic faith school out of their backyards then they should look to the Islamic world itself for inspiration as to what to do about communities that don't share your faith.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported on June 28th that three people have died and nearly 300 people have been injured in the Muslim-majority Indian state of Kashmir in unrest that began on Monday, June 23rd to oppose the transfer of 40 hectares of forest land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. The board organizes the pilgrimage to Amarnath cave, considered one of the holiest shrines in the Hindu faith.

According to DPA, several areas in Srinagar - the Kashmiri capital - witnessed pitched battles between the police and stone-pelting groups. Police said they had to baton-charge and fire tear-gas shells to disperse the mobs and an estimated 20 people were injured in these protests. The NDTV network reported that four demonstrators sustained gun-shot wounds after mobs attacked police stations in the city forcing police to open fire.

Protests also intensified in areas in the Budgam, Pulwama, Anantnag, Baramulla and Bandipore districts against the state government's controversial move. Muslim activists who were involved in the protests were reported to be shouting slogans like "Stop the sale of Kashmir" and the green Islamic flag was hoisted atop a clock-tower in the heart of Srinagar.

Meanwhile in other news from the Islamic world it has been reported that three Protestant home churches in West Java have been torn down by Indonesian authorities in mid-June. See http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12622&size

Crikey, on this basis I am not sure why Irfan isn't complaining about the "wussiness" of the people who opposed the Islamic school at Camden. Two pigs' heads on a property just doesn't match outright demolition of buldings or storming police stations does it?

Crikey, here's some "positive" news from Indonesia!! NOT ...

The Indonesian government has halted all religious activities of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, handing a victory to Islamic extremists and tarnishing Indonesia's reputation as a moderate, pluralistic Muslim nation.

The decree, approved June 10 by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, falls short of an outright ban on Ahmadis, but orders them to stop practicing their faith and "return to mainstream Islam." Ahmadis now face arrest for practicing their beliefs. About 5,000 members of the hard-line group United for Islam demonstrated outside the presidential palace the day the ban was signed.

On June 1, extremists attacked an interfaith rally supporting Ahmadiyya, injuring dozens of people. Extremists have been demonstrating by the thousands in Jakarta over the last few months, and on April 28 some torched an Ahmadiyya mosque in Sukabumi, Western Java.

Since the influential and state-supported Council of the Indonesian Ulama issued a 2005 fatwa that banned the Ahmadiyya, violence, threats and vandalism against the group's estimated 200,000 followers in the country have increased. The Ahmadiyya endure official and societal discrimination simply for believing that leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who founded the movement in 1889, was a prophet.

President Yudhoyono has been caught between moderates and extremists in this battle for Indonesia's democratic character. By caving in to extremists, he has abdicated the state's responsibility to respect its citizens' freedom of conscience, while effectively condoning religious violence. Other religious minorities, including Christians and Hindus, are now at greater risk for discrimination and persecution.

CONTINUED BELOW

On June 14 the Indonesian government disregarded a formal agreement with Protestant leaders by demolishing three churches. The agreement called for the churches to suspend their Sunday religious functions in exchange for not being torn down.

Minority religious communities are finding it more and more difficult to exercise their rights. On something as simple as church construction and repair, changes in 2006 to a ministerial decree of 1969 regulating the building of places of worship has not improved conditions: it is still very difficult to get a permit to build churches, so much so that many religious groups have had to practice their faith illegally. This in turn has provided Islamic extremists with excuses to carry out violent attacks against home churches.

SOURCE - The Cutting Edge News
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=605

Dear Retired Keith,

[1] "They [The Jews] were forbidden even to set foot in Aelia Capitolina, except on one fixed day in each year. 'They might look on the city but with their eyes afar off,' writes Tertullian exultingly. This ban was not extended to the Palestinian Christians, and the Church at Jerusalem, now composed of the new Gentile settlers, presently received her first "Gentile" Bishop in the person of one Marcus. The very land changed its name. "Syria Palaestina" was now placed under the government of a consular legate, and garrisoned by two legions.

Cite: Adv. Jud.13. Eusebius, H.E. IV, 6, 3, on this quotes the Christian, Ariston of Pella. & Eutropius VII, 13, 5 in Bernard W. Henderson; Methuen, 1923.

[2] "In order to prevent the recurrence of insurrections by the Jews, who in their religious schools were cherishing hopes of reviving a Jewish kingdom under the Messias, the emperor ordered the Roman troops in Jerusalem to raze the ruins left standing in that ancient city and to set up a military colony, Ælia Capitolina. It was his wish to eradicate Judaism as such. The Jews revolted in 132 under Simon, whom they called Bar-Cocheba. (Son of the Stars)."

Cite: Bib. Publius Ælius Hadrian in Catholic Enclopaedia

The serious omission in [2], the Bibliography is that Macus was the first Gentile bishop.

Infallibility is problematic, when the Church conflicts with history. Herein, if even the Theist should see the need of a make-over and update.

Regards.

Retired Keith,

With a little more searching actually did find some tilt towards history:

"The line of bishops of Jerusalem was then continued as follows:

Judas (Justus), 107-113;
Zachaeus or Zacharias;
Tobias;
Benjamin;
John;
Matthias (d. 120);
Philip (died c. 124);
Seneca;
Justus;
Levi;
Ephraim;
Joseph;
Judas Quiriacus (d. between 134-148).

"All these were Jews (Eus., "Hist., Eccl.", IV, v). It was during the episcopate of Judas Quiriacus that the second great calamity, the revolt of Bar-Kochba and final destruction of the city, took place. Goaded by the tyranny of the Romans, by the re-erection of Jerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, the Jews broke out into a hopeless rebellion under the famous false Messias Bar-Kochba about the year 132. During his rebellion he persecuted the Jewish Christians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eus., "Chron.", for the seventeenth year of Hadrian). The Emperor Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year, in 135. As a result of this last war the whole neighbourhood of the city became a desert. On the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city was built, called Ælia Capitolina (Ælia was Hadrian's family nomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount Moria. No Jew (therefore no Jewish Christian) was allowed under pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete change in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem. The old Jewish Christian community came to an end. In its place a Church of Gentile Christians, with Gentile bishops, was formed..."

The above goes way beyond Jesus and the Apostles being [Christian] Jews.

Cite: Jerusalem in the Catholic Encylopaedia.

Dear Oliver,
You need to do more searching. Infallibility relates not to impecability of historical records nor even of the personal failures of even Popes and their bishops. Last time I checked all human beings have weaknesses and sins during a lifetime. Come to think of it Jesus came to save all human beings from their sins.

There may have been very good reasons to prevent Jews from setting foot in Aelia Capitolina. Remember that int he first couple fo centrues after the Resurrection of Chris, Christians were persecuted and even killed by the Jews. The at Saint Stephen the first Christiand martyr who was stoned to death by Jews and of Saul( later St paul's) role in all of this before he converted.

In the first few centuries AD the Jews who refused o become Christians used to vilify Catholics and the Church. Talmudic commentaries from that time attest to this fact.
And what ommission in (2)?
Infallibility is not problematic as with some basic research Oliver you will find that it has only been invoked on a few occasions. It wasn't even officially promulgated until 1870 at Vatican Council One!