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