I am taking the rare chance to get in early on a thread before the inevitable and consistent war begins. I found this article so very disturbing that I actually began to weep for the loss of an entire ethos and culture that once was typified as Australian.

When my parents first emigrated to Australia I was six years old. Although British, their cosmopolitan life-experiences did not fit them for life in an England which they felt, back then, embodied narrow and judgemental attitudes. They became committed and enthusiastic Australians, loving the tolerance, egalitarianism, and laissez-faire attitudes of their Australia.

Although our travelling days were not over I was sent back to Australia to boarding schools where my somewhat precocious and definitely unconventional spirit - first all but crushed by one terrible experience - ultimately was nurtured, encouraged, and fondly tolerated by the Sisters at Stuartholme in Brisbane.

Wherever my parents or I landed up after that we took the Aussie spirit with us and in the darkest years of my life the only thing that kept me sane was the burning determination to escape and get back "home" again, where my own children could grow in freedom and tolerance.

But in this land where shrill and vehement intolerance shockingly misuses the mantle of Freedom of Expression, where fear and loathing divide our people, where neighbours are more likely to chuck rocks than chat over the back fence and where the kinds of thought crimes which typified pre-world war 2 Germany have begun to reign, it seems that Australia, our beloved sunburnt land, is lost. The heavy miasma of mistrust, antipathy, blame, doubt and hate, hang like a dark miasma over the land.

I hope all the sero immigration supporters read this article and begin thinking again about the inevitably anti-human consequences of their position. Immigration brings energy, initiative, fresh ideas and new perspectives to a society. The contribution of migrant groups to the prosperity and cohesiveness of Australia since the 1850s has been and continues to be enormously positive.

Always be wary of simple solutions to complex problems.

"The Reverend Fred Nile, **leader of the Christian Democratic Party**,(CDP) wants to redefine Muslim religion as a “religious-political ideology”"

Am I the only one to spot the irony?

I agree, though, that it is better for groups like this to be brought out into the open, instead of letting them fester on, unseen. Banning them or their leaders only generates undeserved sympathy.

Clownfish,

you're not,all religions are ideologies of one sort or another, except mine of course which, is true.

No problem. Let him come, we advocate freedom of speech in this country don't we. If we don't like what he says we can ignore it. I don't like what the climate deniers keep spewing out but but I tolerate their right to spew. (Although there should perhaps be a law against lying.)

Matheson asks: "where do they confront and challenge the distrust and hatred of the Australian Islamic community by the political and religious right."

Perhaps it would be better if Matheson asked the worldwide Muslim community about their hatred and violence against nonMuslims...

But no, he does not and will not. People like this man have double standards. The evil that Islam does means nothing. However, if anybody dare say anything against his pet groups, they are evil incarnate. Remember, Matheson is a member of the World Council of Churches, a group that has taken a position against condeming persecution of Christians in Islamic societies because they feel it is "counterproductive".

When accusing rightwingers that define Islam as a “religious-political ideology”, Matheson ignores that this same ideal is found on thousands of Muslim websites, which state that "Islam is a complete way of life," encompassing religion, culture and government.

Mr. Matheson, if you really want to end this problem, why don't you ask Muslims to stop the hate and violence? Ask them to repeal the apostasy laws. Ask them about the way they treat nonmuslims. Ask them to be honest about the hate in the Quran and violence their dear prophet did (if you dare read Islams own traditions). What, you wont do this? Oh, its all our fault? Only the "religious and political right" needs scrutiny, right?

Muslims and bigots like Matheson want you to believe Muslims are the new jews and any word against Islam is the new racism. In fact, Muslims are the new Nazis. They follow a man that attacked, murdered, plundered, tortured, lied, enslaved and yes, Matheson, he did beat his own wife -- at least that is what Islams own traditions say.

So, once again, here we have a man that asks nothing of Muslims. It is always you, your family and friends that are wrong. If you object to Islamic ideology and practices, you are evil. They are wonderful. If they murder and oppress, that is fine with Matheson. If you speak out against those things, you are vile.

Kactuz

Amazing how a church of Christ Minister (or should I say ex) can so deliberately mis represent the truth. What rot this man would of preached from the pulpit is anyone's guess. Thank God he is not in the ministry.

He obviously has little to do with his time. In the number of years that I have received the Australian Christian Lobby's newsletter their has never been a hint of racism. Mr Matheson can ridicule them for their anti abortion stand but his demonization is nothing short of dishonest. The head Pastor of Catch the Fire Ministries is coloured *and not white). He comes from an Islamic background so is far more qualified than most to speak on Islam. Their are plenty of non Christians that don't want any further Islamic immigration. Any fool could see it has been a failure in England, France and anywhere else they settle (never integrate ).

Mr Matheson seems to be a self appointed watchdog who deliberately speaks half truths in slandering some very decent people.

It is so much a shame that even the above threads who appear trying to postulate the so-called Aussie give it a go theme, appear to have no time for Islam.

However, with what the US professor Andrew Bracevitch recently stated in our WA West', that the US Age of Triumphalism is now over, we might have to be more honestly shameful and come out with a few admittances about white Western colonialism et al, et al.

To be sure we must admit, that while we may easily forget about the terrors caused by us in occupied lands in our colonial past, maybe we should take a lesson from the Sermon on Mount, where Love Your Enemy simply means to put ourselves mentally in the minds of the countless enemies us Conquistadors have made in the last three hundred years.

So once again from us Bleeding Hearts comes the suggestion for us to get together with even the Moslems, not so much with the unlovely Libertinian theme of the Western Way - mostly American - but to be historically truthfully honest in an effort to causally share the blame even with the worst of the terrorists

Bushbred -- and where have you been the last 20 years? There has been no shortage of admittances about "white Western colonialism" and violence. It happened. We recognize it.

Now, please tell me where I can find Muslims that will condemn Islamic hate and violence. Show me Muslim websites that discuss and condemn 1300+ years of jihad against non-Muslims. Tell me where I can find serious Muslim discussions of the Quranic texts that mandate violence against infidels. Please give me some links to Muslim discussions of all those special privileges that Mohammad gave to himself in the Quran.

Yes, honesty is the only way, but it has been a very one-sided conversation. I look at Islam and I see no self-criticism, I see no remorse for evil, I see no honesty.

I have quite a bit of experience with Muslims and the news is not good. They are not honest about their religion, about the situation of Islamic societies and, of course, the words and deeds of their dear prophet.

Understand that the West is confronted by a nihilism and deceitfulness so total that it is beyond comprehension and unredeemable. Muslims lie about their religion and its writings without shame. They lie about what the Quran says. They lie about their attitudes. At best, they are in denial - at worst they are dishonest. In any case they cannot be trusted with your life and freedoms and those of your family.

Bushbred, you and Matheson, by your denial, contribute to the pain, suffering and death this vile ideology brings to society.

I see no point in further debate at this time, so I will end this with a simple question for you, Mr Bushbred: Do you see any reason to believe or respect people that say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a person that did this
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348
or this
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.4345
or this
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html

A simple "yes" or "No" will suffice.

Kactuz

It seems, Kaktuz, that you do not understand what the old historical term Sharing the Blame actually means.

Cetainly you will find the answer in any university library, and more easiy, might be b a good idea to try Google.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

bushbred, i admire your gentle manner in response to these idiots. (i admire it but i can't replicate it).

" ... worldwide Muslim community about their hatred and violence against nonMuslims".

There's only one sort of irrational generalised bigotry and hatred I can see on display and it's in statements like that.

It's the same sort of thinking that demands "final solutions" because there can be no alternative. New Nazis indeed.

What then must we think of the world-wide Christian, Buddhist or Jewish communities?

Are they all, without exception - Sweetness and Light or should we label each group on the basis of those extremist elements that exist in each?

Bushbred, Bushbasher & Wobbles

Kactuz asked:
Now, please tell me where I can find Muslims that will condemn Islamic hate and violence. Show me Muslim websites that discuss and condemn 1300+ years of jihad against non-Muslims. Tell me where I can find serious Muslim discussions of the Quranic texts that mandate violence against infidels. Please give me some links to Muslim discussions of all those special privileges that Mohammad gave to himself in the Quran.

It sounds like a fair challenge to me!

Instead of hiding behind personal insults:
“i admire your gentle manner in response to these idiots”

Or taking a holier-than-thou stand:
“It seems, Kaktuz, that you do not understand…”
“There's only one sort of irrational generalised bigotry and hatred I can see on display…”

WHY NOT ANSWER THE CHALLENGE – PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN!

People also unite in adversity lets just hope the union is one of peace and goodwill and not driven to seeking human scapegoats.

If the only victim is the end of the excesses of Capitalism then that will be all for the better.

"Play the Ball and not the Man"

As an old sportsman, from me -

Good on you, Horus.

Further, also as one going on 88, reckon I've learnt a thing or two, the most interesting of course, has while still interested in our farming business, have gained Honours over in Sri-Lanka, in Third World Problems, as well as becoming a qualifed historian in general historical knowledge right back to Aristotle et al.

Also an American tutor has told me that my bush background has given me special insight that city people find hard to gather.

Finally, it is well to remember that the terrorism accompanying the colonialism that us whites have inflicted on non-white peoples, maybe could have us even taking the blame in certain situations better than sharing the blame.

Bushbred,

Re: “ it is well to remember that the terrorism accompanying the colonialism that us whites have inflicted on non-white peoples”

It is also worth remembering that colonialism and imperialism didn’t start and end with “us whites”

There are other sources of imperialism and colonialism equal to, or worse, than anything the West ever imposed.

" ... The Satanic verses DO indeed show him to be fallible... a normal human..and this has been my contention from day one. ... "

So *bOAZy* now that we have considered this in light of Islam, what about JC then?

Is it not written:
"I and my Father are 1."

And yet, when hanging wounded and bleeding on a cross,
"GoddO, why have u forsaken me?"

Clearly, if this is true, then as one person said to me:
"But I didn't know, .. I didn't know."

Does this not also point to a lack of omniscience? Mighty prophets indeed, but mortal men nonetheless I wld suggest.
..
And what do the Jews say about pregnancy out of wedlock back then?
Was it considered a heinous crime as it still is in some communities today, befitting in the view of some for stoning, banishment or something even more draconian?

What if like the Pagan mythologies and El GoddO took on an Avatar and got it on wih *Mary?* Unlikely she'd be interested in Joseph later on don't u think?

Mayhaps more ala Hindu and naughty *Joseph* & *Mary* became one in the Spirit of Love for one another, went Cosmic Orgasm (Kundalini) and that bi release of energy somehow gave a tweak at conception leading to a most excellent genetic combo. And mayhaps J & M as truly devoted and Loving parents gave yng JC the right environment for his genetic potential to be fully realised.

hi guys, what comes with religion is a belief in the soul.
I have some wonderful truths of this at my website please visit it !
Photographs tell us the real truth of ourselves, when I have taken photos at a wedding or a christening the real human spirit is expressed in its true form. visit www.actionmasterphoto.com.au to see some of these. My contemporay art also shows much of this as well.

All the best from Pete photographer manly Sydney Australia

horus, kactuz's challenge is fair but absurdly trivial. if you and kactuz cannot find muslims who condemn violence performed in the name of islam then it is because you choose to not see.

Over the last fifteen years, I have worked with several Muslims, a few Hindus, a Sihk and a number of Jews.

All of these people are only interested in getting on with their lives and providing a better life for themselves and their families and being productive members of the community.

Without exception - none are even remotely interested in this sort of debate. It had been totally irrelevant to them in the past except that the suspicion of some sort of deep-seated religious hatred conspiracy is being more and more frequently raised around them.

It is not they who are obsessed with this stuff.

Unlike some of the posters to this sort of site, they don't waste their time peering into obscure religious (and quasi-religious) tracts looking for reasons to justify themselves. The Muslims in particular also don't feel obliged to personally condemn every single action taken by others around the world as if they were done all on their behalf because -

1. It's not true and
2. Once started, it would never end.

The only thing they feel is growing resentment with the way they are becoming typecast as supporters of some kind of international evil because there is absolutely nothing they can do to overcome it.

Some have wives who have suffered public abuse (and violence) simply because they choose to wear a headscarf. Others have school children who are punished because of their name or their heritage.

I can't speak for "every Muslim in the world" but can only go by the experience of those people I know personally.

I think that evidence of worldwide adherence of all these sinister plots needs to be provided first - otherwise it's also fair to suggest that since the Bible advocates such matters as slavery and oppression, the KKK is typical of "the worldwide Christian community".

Bush, to me "shared" means mutual self-criticism (Islam and West) and mutual change. In case you didn't notice, the point was that Muslims never consider their own actions and so never change. I asked you to provide websites in which they discuss difficult issues.

Yes, Wobbles, Muslims worldwide hate the West (yes, there's hyperbole there!). In case you don't know, the Quran says non-believers are lower than animals in sight of allah and they are to fight us until we submit. Do you think that nonMuslims have equal rights in Islamic societies? Don't blame discrimination in Islamic societies on "a few extremists" because there is a broad consensus supporting it. Why do you consider it "bigotry" to speak out against hate, violence and discrimination? Have you actually read Quran and hadith?

As Horus pointed out, I ask important questions about life, liberty and violence but Bush and Wobbles want us to hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Some people dont just dig a hole and stick their head in it, they bury their whole body and morals also.

Patience and peace are virtues, but apathy in the face of evil is not.

Bush, I didnt ask you to "find muslims who condemn violence in the name of islam". I asked you to show me Muslims that condemn the hate and violence in the Quran and the life of Mohammad.

I asked a question about if a people that loved and respected a man that approved of a pregnant woman being split open and killed for criticizing him could be trusted. It was not a difficult question but I got no answer. That tells one a lot about the morals of Muslums and those who defend them.

There will be reactions to Islamic extremism and those groups will gain credibilty because "liberals" like Matheson are dishonest. By doing this they make the extreme right appear to be the only honest people willing to speak out against evils of Islam. Because they will not challenge Islam these people contribute to the violence that is to come. The future will not be nice.

Kactuz

NO CHEAP DIRTY PROPAGANDA!

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Pope, Muslim Leaders Condemn Religious Violence
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=692-jqcjZ-o&feature=channel

The hindu- Muslim leaders condemn violence
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/03/01/stories/2002030103211300.htm

Church Times Christians and Muslims condemn violence
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=64935

Muslim clerics to hold anti-terror rally in Delhi
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/may/21rajblast1.htm

A sampling of fatwas and other statements by Muslim
individuals and groups condemning terrorist attacks:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm

Do Muslims Ever Condemn Terrorist Attacks? Condemnation of Terrorism in the name of Islam
http://baheyeldin.com/terrorism/do-muslims-ever-condemn-terrorist-attacks.html

The leaders, representing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim traditions condemn faith-based violent acts
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/Jul/07/religious-leaders-condemn-faith-based-violent/

Islam is Not the Source of Terrorism, But its Solution
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html

Islam Online French Fatwa Prohibits Rioting, Urges Calm
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-11/07/article01.shtml

MPAC Supports Fatwa Against Terrorism
http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=70

Fatwa Issued Against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida
http://makkah.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/reminder-fatwa-issued-against-osama-bin-laden/

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

kactuz, bushbasher here. i doubt that bushbred is willing to enter your filthy pigsty.

1) what you wrote was "Now, please tell me where I can find Muslims that will condemn Islamic hate and violence".

2) i responded (to horus) that it is ridiculously easy to find "muslims who condemn violence performed in the name of islam".

3) you then wrote "I didnt ask you to find muslims who condemn violence in the name of islam".

the only difference between what you asked and how i responded was my conscious change of "islamic" to "in the name of islam". does the distinction matter? yes, i think it does, but not for the request you made. the fact is, you did ask for muslims who condemn this violence, and it was a stupidly trivial request.

as for islamic text and history as a guide to current islamic beliefs and attitudes and behaviour? it makes as much sense as using christian text and history as a guide to current christian beliefs and attitudes. don't believe me? just ask your slave. or maybe ask that witch you just dunked in the pond. or, you could ask them knights once they return from their latest crusade.

finally, i'll point out that your expression "muslims worldwide hate the west" is meaningless. your condemnation of millions of muslims as a homogeneous group is fictitious, hateful nonsense.

"I have worked with Muslims, a few Hindus, a Sihk and a number of Jews"

Ok, Wobbles, stop it right there. Obviously you dont work in Islamic society. FYI, Hindus, Sihks and Jews are not exactly welcome in Muslim countries. You generalize your experience in a Western Society; Islamic societies are not exactly the place to find other religions living side-by-side gracefully. If you lived in an islamic society, your friends would act like other Muslims (ie, aagainst freedom and equality as we know it).

You say Muslims arent obsessed with "this stuff," which indicates that they don't care what their religion teaches and does or what other Muslims do. I am not obcessed either, but I take a few hours each week to speak up for those who have no voice. No, you don't abuse women, even if that is nothing compared to what your dear muslim friends do in the name of their religion and prophet:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111201216476354.html
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/10/31-5

or maybe this had nothing to do with Islam. What to you think?

Continuing... I wouldnt say the Quran and hadith are "obscure religious (quasi-religious) tracts". Instead, Muslims consider them the perfect words of their god. Because of the content of those, the little girl died a terrible death. Muslims don't care, and obviously you don't either.

I never ask Muslims to just condemn the actions of other Muslims. That is unjust, stupid, nonproductive. A person is not responsible for other peoples actions. What I do ask them is to condemn the hate and violence their religions teaches, -- or at least question it. That, I believe, is fair. That, they refuse to do.

It also must be said that if Muslims and our leaders would debate these important issues, I wouldn't feel the need to to be a pain in the rear to certain people here at OLO and other places. Maybe they, like you, don't think these questions are relevant. Maybe discrimination, suffering and death are trivial things. Maybe the brutal murder of a little girl in the name of a religion is OK with some people.

Kactuz

Yes, Horus, that is why America is called the New Rome, as even as Tacitus worriedly implied, a case of Rome bringing freedom to the cruel barbarians over the Alps.

As even as the more scientific Greeks talked about before the Romans.

And much late as the father of Laizess-faire, Adam Smith warned -

Always remember that with progress goes greed, thus it is more sensible and kinder to separate the Greed from the Need.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

“Book burnings and banning extremist groups and individuals rarely solves the problems of racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia.”


Indeed. We should follow the example set by the church. Burn the extremists and ban the books.

Whilst I do not concur with yr conclusions, at least u r aware that there r terrible things that r still happening in the wrld *KactuZ*

..

(Pls note in adv that I am out of my field here with the TXT's and have but a passing familiarity with them, however, neither am I entirely clueless)

The Cow/Al Baqarah: [2.136]
" ... Say: We believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to us, and in that which was revealed to Ibrahim(Father Abraham) and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and in that which was given to Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jeshua/Yesus/Jesus), and in that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. ... "

[2.253]
" ... We have made some of these apostles to excel the others among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by many degrees of rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa son of Marium, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them, but they disagreed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah brings about what He intends. ... "

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 12: 1-17 & Deuteronomy 5: 6-21)
Thou shall not kill

Quran (5:32)
If anyone has killed one person it is as if he had killed the whole of Humankind.

JC:
" ... A new commandment, I give unto U(all), that U Luv one another, as I do Luv U ... "

ArchAngel Gabrielle -> Muhammad (May peace be his portion)
" ... and Isa (Jeshua/Yesus/Jesus), and in that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. ... "

The Talmud says, among other things, that Gentiles are lesser people than Jews and that it's OK to cheat them and not a mortal sin to kill them. You may go to jail (if you are caught) but you won't have to go to Hell. The only people equivalent to Jews are other Jews.

Should all non-Jews feel outraged or threatened by this provocative holy text and automatically label all Jews as potential extremists too, or is that something reserved only for Muslims?

Christianity has a long history of violent oppression of other religious groups too, particularly as a result of Papal decree.

The body count over the last couple of millennia has been astronomical and shows no sign of stopping.

Extremism is more a factor of historical context than religious determination and is common to all religious teachings.

ASymeonakis,

I have not gone through the whole of your list but this one caught my eye:

Pope, Muslim Leaders Condemn Religious Violence
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=692-jqcjZ-o&feature=channel

On the surface it appears to “condemn religious violence” but research a little deeper and we find this from the same gathering:

“’Speaking for the Muslim delegation, Seyyed Hossein Nasr of Iran, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University in Washington, said earlier that both Christians and Muslims "believe in religious freedom."
HOWEVER , he said: "We Muslims do not allow an aggressive proselytising in our midst that would destroy our faith in the name of freedom, any more than would Christians if they were in our situation.’"
http://news.theage.com.au/world/pope-stresses-religious-freedom-at-forum-20081106-5jfl.html

Not all is what it seems from first glance. It’s less a new dawn than business as usual for Bahia’s, Zorastrians & Christians and any apostates who wish to join them!

ASym, Can't people read and understand simple words? I said, again, that I want to see Muslim condemning the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith. Yes, Muslims condemn terror, and it doesnt stop and Muslims cant figure out why.

Maybe terror is the symptom, not the disease. Take that idea and run with it. Maybe it is kind of pointless to condemn Islamic terror when Mohammad said "I am made victorious with terror". Maybe Muslims are not sincere about condemning terror (wink) because they believe some terror (by Mohammad) good terror.

I see your “Condemn Terror” list includes websites linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you know who the ihkwan were and what they did in 1802 in Karbala and 1924 at Taef? Do you understand the relationship of the brotherhood to the Wahhabi and the Ikhwan? Why should I believe any “condemnation” from groups dedicated to murder and conquest in the name of Islam? Words are cheap.

Hey Bushbasher, Again I repeat that a simple condemnation is pointless unless one looks at the source of the problem. (Example: Condemn smoking is pointless without stopping smoking -Stupid but true analogy).

You are saying that Islamic texts and history should not be taken "as a guide to current islamic beliefs." Do you know how silly that sounds? I bet I’ve seen the words "You must then follow my Sunnah and that of the RightlyGuided Caliphs" a thousand times on Muslim websites. Are you going to be the one to tell them it is all BS?
Once again, while Muslims aren't homogeneous group, they do share fundamental beliefs and these teach hate and violence and require a PBUH after the name ofa man that did vile deeds.

Dreamon, so what you are saying (2.253) is that Allah says the fighting and disunity proves Christans/Jews wrong. Hahaha. Muslims never fight each other, do they? Welcome to our world.

Also, when you quote 5:32 please quote whole verse. Is the verse about Muslims? For Muslims? What about the exception clause? Remember I know the Quran. This is distorted, dishonest use.

Kactuz

kactuz, are you really asking such questions in good faith? is anything i write going to make one iota of difference to your paranoid hatred? not a chance. which makes replying to you an exercise in futility. but it's a slow news day, so what the hell ...

yes, i am saying that religious texts and religious history are a very poor guide to current religious practice. and yes, many followers of said religions will likely disagree with me. that doesn't change the truth of what i am saying.

the christian texts have been substantially the same for 2000 years, the old testament much longer. but christian history has hardly been a constant.

it was once perfectly possible to be a good christian and to own slaves. or to drown and burn people suspected of witchcraft. or to march off to the middle east to slaughter muslims. these were all fine christian acts, sanctioned my the highest, most authoritative members of the christian churches.

how was such barbarism sanctioned? by reference to the same holy texts which have been used for thousands of years, and are used now.

the christian texts have remained the same. christian history has been anything but constant. how can you possibly maintain that either the texts or the history is a reliable guide to current christian practice?

and why do you think your cartoon condemnation of islam has any more validity? why do you think cherry-picking the worst of the koran and islamic history gives you license to ignore the current existence of millions of loving, peaceful muslims.

yes, there are awful things in the koran, and some msulims may struggle to admit that as much as some christians struggle with biblical barbarism. but i don't care how they struggle with the contradictions in their texts. i care what they do.

kactuz, the danger isn't islam, the danger is fundamentalism. and the danger is tribalism, as exemplified by your ridiculous and rabid denunciation of muslims everywhere.

Bushbasher weites
'actuz, the danger isn't islam, the danger is fundamentalism.'

Too right. Ask the 80000 unborn babies that are murdered each year and if they could you would hear that fundamentalist secularism is the most dangerous of the lot.

KactuZ: " ... so what you are saying (2.253) is that Allah says the fighting and disunity proves Christans/Jews wrong. Hahaha. Muslims never fight each other, do they? Welcome to our world. ... "

No, that is not what "I" am saying. Muhammad allegedly spoke it (remembering that he was illiterate) and it was remembered by oral tradition and scratched into bones and later parchment etc etc At a glance, I wld interpret that 2.253 that Muslims 1, are also into JC and 2 the Islamic texts also acknowledge the God given grant of "Free Will," "Freedom of Thought" and "Freedom of Expression."

I also note and again I am no expert, but the monotheistic God concept of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all dates back historically to the same "character." It may even go back as far as *Akhenaton" the Egyptian Phaeroh with titties ;-) and mayhaps in the yet to be discovered archaeological record even earlier still.

It is a question of interpretation of course, assuming we even still have any reliable copies after the millenia of political perversion and re-writes.

" ... Also, when you quote 5:32 please quote whole verse. Is the verse about Muslims? For Muslims? What about the exception clause? Remember I know the Quran. This is distorted, dishonest use. ... "

That's all there is in my copy. Perhaps we have different versions, which of course is part of the problem is it not? And of course, U seem to see not that which refutes the foundation of yr argument. In pure Islam, there is not distinguishment between Prophets or peoples.

The inconsistencies that u point to and blame on "Islam" are very likely the bastardisations. I wld refer yr attention to the *Satanic Verses* Even if the core originally was inspired by *Heaven,* after the people made a goldern calf out of the Prophet, he probably talked a lot of sh!t too. And do pls remember, early Muslims were also persecuted.

and this *KactuZ*

[2.87]
And most certainly We gave Moses the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Jeshua, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the *Holy Spirit*
What?! whenever then an aopstle came to you with that which your Souls did not desire, you were insolent, so you called some liars and some you slew.

Of course, "they" all accuse one another of bastardising the TXTs.

I am not an expert, but speaking more than one language, I note that the cohesion in the following is not the same as the "cool" earlier bits I have quoted. I submit this for the scrutiny of our peers and colleagues here present.

[4.171]
O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, *Jeshua* son of *Marium* is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which he communicated to Marium and a Spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and his apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be it from his glory that he should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is his, and Allah is sufficient for a protector.

In the Christian tradition that I learnt but a little of, the Trinity was never meant to mean 3 Gods but rather:

1. The Son - The Divine made manifest in the individual.
[Yes that means all of us]

2. The Father - the whole of everything, corporeal and non-corporeal and then some - "The sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

3. The Holy Spirit - that which binds us all together, 1 to another.

This is not a religious conflict in origin but rather 2 opposing camps squabbling over depleted resource who at times use bastardised religious clap trap to inflame the superstitious and ignorant for self serving political ends.

...Adam...

Regarding an article on BBC: Muslims' free speech threatened

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7718715.stm

Quote: Murray... said Muslims found it increasingly difficult to criticise elements of their faith or culture without fear of reprisal. In a free society, no belief or set of values should remain beyond open criticism. Unless Muslims are allowed to discuss their religion without fear of attack there can be no chance of reform or genuine freedom of conscience within Islam.

So who is attacking Muslims? Muslims! That is the problem. One cannot criticize Islam because either Muslims or people like Matheson and even here at OLO judge it immoral. By doing this they/you contribute your fair share to the hate, intimidation and violence and manifest support for Islamic intolerance.

I am not going to be nice about this. Some people here have not answered a simple question I asked. You have made excuses for a brutal ideology that has brought sorrow to millions and continues to seek world domination and the end of our freedoms. You have dismissed any criticism of the ideology with one-sided arguements and petty excuses. You ignore Islams history and misquote its scriptures. You, by your words and deeds, are little different from the men in that stadium in Somalia watching a little girl get stoned.
Worst of all, you are proud of yourselves because you are "tolerant" and "respectful of different cultures."

Yes, I ask these questions in good faith. I do this because Muslims and their friends need someone to ask them, for their own good. I think our freedoms are worth standing up for and equal rights should apply to all.

BushB and Bbred, Dreamon and others. I am not mad at you, just sad. I think the future will not be nice because we appease evil and ignore issues in the name of political correctness. I could be wrong. I hope I am. But what if... Anyway, somebody has say things that need saying.

Well, thats it... (my 350 words are gone). I'll see if I can do one last post later. You guys take care.

Old man kactuz

The source of all these problems is not the actual religions themselves because they are all capable of inspiring misery and violence.

The universal social problem is Religious Intolerance - both within and outside of each religion and the universal personal failing is hypocrisy.

How about us white Westerners getting truthful for a change and finally admitting to the Moslems, that right back to the Romans and even the Greeks, that we haven't been very kind people at all, even among ourselves.

Please to remember that Hitler's Nazis were of the same complexion and nature pretty well as most of us, so surely it's about time we offered to meet say the Iranians on an even keel, even apologising for having thoughts like the Nazis had with the Jews, doing away with the whole bunch of them -

Certainly one wonders whether the Israelies would be much kinder towards a beaten Iran than the Nazis were to them?

Runner Writes:
"Bushbasher weites
'actuz, the danger isn't islam, the danger is fundamentalism.'

Too right. Ask the 80000 unborn babies that are murdered each year and if they could you would hear that fundamentalist secularism is the most dangerous of the lot."
I wonder if we could ask the more than 300,000 unborn babies that abort spontaneously every year, would we hear that God can be a right bastard?
As much as I believe in tolerance, I must admit I find Islam just as primitive a superstition as Christianity.
I am particularly provoked by those good Christians who firmly believe all they are obliged to do is "accept Jesus as their Saviour".
No need for any of the other stuff, like "love thy enemy", or "Judge not lest ye yourself be judged", or "do unto Others..." or "before you attempt to remove the splinter from your brother's eye, first remove the plank from your own"...
If (some) Muslims are not entirely truthful about their religion, they aren't Robinson Crusoe, are they?

Grim, the Sermon on the Mount, of which you obviously give praise to, appears to have become by many modern Christians as containing too much Bleeding Heart rubbish.

Yet it is so interesting that many philosophers praise it because it apparently was intended to make persons analyse, the - Blessed Are - obviously more thought-provoking than a Thou Shalt, which can bring fearful respect to one's mind rather than loving consideration.

Or in other words, Reason, which incidently was only first brought into Christianity by St Thomas Aquinas after an audience with Muslim scholars.

It was also such an audience which gave Aquinas the unusual title for the time - of Christian Philosopher - the title also helping him form the beginning of our modern universities, which however, had problems for quite a time with Scholasticism, meaning that only students who knew Latin were allowed to participate.

It has also been said by philosophers, that the story of the young Jesus before the so-called Crucifixion, really does not need Christianity to still make it possibly the most wonderful story ever told, and the possibility that the boy Jesus learnt much from Hellenistic philosophers of the Great Library of Alexandria while in Egypt with his mother.

Regards, BB, WA.

Grim writes

'If (some) Muslims are not entirely truthful about their religion, they aren't Robinson Crusoe, are they?'

Yea sort of like the abortionist who argued with bleeding hearts that the issue was about the mothers health or the one in a thousand unwanted pregnancies caused by rape. Once they fooled everyone into this lie they changed their agenda to a woman's right to choose. Totally deceitful but really does show how easily people deceive themselves and others.

Australian Constitution:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Is treatment by the ATO (or any organ of government or the bureaucracy) of one religion more or LESS generously than another therefore an offence?