Hear hear John J, and wtf are you saying runner?

It seems there is no middle way with you. One's either a religious nutter or a murderous one.

It's a pity god only tells people to kill other people instead of telling them to go jump off a cliff.

Hi Runner,

I had a dream last night in which you visited Osama Bin Laden. The conversation went something like this:

Osama: Hi, Runner. What can I do for you?

Runner: Well, Osama, we have a lot in common. We both believe that the only true morality lies in following the dictates of God.

Osama: Absolutely right, Runner. Couldn't agree with you more.

Runner: Well, God has told me to come here and ask you to stop killing people.

Osama: That's weird, because God has told me to go on killing as many people as I can in the most bloodthirsty possible way. Could one of us have the wrong God?

Runner: Maybe. How can we decide?

Osama: Well, one good way to make a decision is to rely on evidence. Do you have any objective evidence for the existence of your God?

Runner: Er...nope. Do you?

Osama: No, I've got nothing.

[Long pause]

Runner: OK, thanks, Osama. Sorry to have bothered you.

Osama: No prob, dude - drop in any time.

---

The point again, in case you missed it: ANYONE who deliberately embraces an irrational belief has absolutely no moral grounds on which to criticise any other irrational belief. You believe in following God's commands and so does Osama. Explain to me why you are right and he is wrong -- if you can.

John J

Incredibly you ask 'Explain to me why you are right and he is wrong -- if you can.'
You explain to me where your totally irrational base for morality comes from?

Where on earth does your morality for supporting the murder of the unborn come from. And don't hide behind some pseudo science crap.

I have no problem declaring that my value base comes from the Scriptures . We see nations that have adopted this biblical morality base have prospered and been freer than any other nations. Nations that have adopted communism and atheism have been among the most brutal in history. The more secular Australia has become the more violent the streets are.

I speak here as an agnostic.

I am talking mainly about "Islamists" i.e. the political/social/religious movement which has Islam in its "pure "form at its core.

This is also known as "Wahabbism", although Islamists can go under a myriad of other names, as an example "Hizb-ut-Tahrir".

British Muslims seem to be more anti-western than Muslims in other parts of Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432075&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/30/immigrationpolicy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

The problem from the newspaper articles is "How does one identify who are the Islamists and who are the moderates"?

With an increasing number of Muslims in Australia, this is the type of thing we have to look forward to.

This is why I say that we in the West must be very careful about allowing large numbers of Muslims to settle here. We must also take account of the fact that generally they out-breed us.

In Germany, prior to the Second World War, there were many Germans who opposed Nazism. Many others were equivocal: while they didn’t support Hitler, they quite liked the fact that Germany was regaining its pride in itself after the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore they did not sufficiently oppose Hitler.

The German resistance was undermined by Britain’s policy of appeasement.

By failing to draw a clear line in the sand, Britain simply encouraged Hitler in the belief that he could get away with whatever he wanted.

I believe a very similar situation exists today with militant Islam, even to the fact that we are appeasing Islam rather than clearly defining what is acceptable and what is not. We must resist this evil cancer before it becomes too strong for us.

Otherwise, we are simply leaving a great and growing problem to be dealt with by our descendants.

Thanks to bigmal on another thread who posted the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/enough_of_radical_islam.html

I read the post of cuphandle, and I see someone who reduces this to "a matter of opinion".
This is utter rubbish.

This, cuphandle, is a matter of fact, and those that because of moral cowardice or misguided "open-ness", try to present it as "a matter of opinion", are nothing more or less than traitors to the western democratic freedoms that we ALL benefit from -yes even the Muslims.

What you are saying, cuphandle, is "Let's not talk about it and it will go away". Sorry mate, unpalatable as it may seem, it won't work!

The only chance we have got is to stick together to uphold the values of the West, which have resulted in the greatest good to the most people of any time in history.

We need to be staunch and strong, for we face an implacable and evil enemy in Islam.

At the same time, we would also be protecting a large number of moderate Muslims, whose fate will be less than enviable when it comes to the crunch.

Froggie....those links were quite scarey.....

The survey results also indicated areas for great concern.

For me the key in categorizing all this is for a better understanding of 'what' fundamental Islam is.

All of those links, and the Muslim attitudes exposed in them, can only be understood by knowing the true nature of Islam.

For example.. the survey (Guardian) which showed

"88% want to see schools and workplaces in Britain accommodating Muslim prayer times as part of their normal working day."

NO ...accomodation at ALL must be granted to Islam/Muslims/Jews/Christians by a secular government. The only requirement of a secular government which religions can rightly gripe about is when they are ordered by law to deny their faith.

UNNNNNfortunately... for those who's faith involves the idea of a STATE... ANYthing which contravenes their 'strict religious practice' will be seen as the government trying to make them deny their faith.

From this... the 'victimhood' syndrome develops...and if the religions also contains commands to fight those who don't share it's views..then we have embryonic sedition.

A Christian does not 'HAVE' to pray any times during a day... there is no ritual associated with prayer.
We don't HAVE to avoid hanlding alchohol, or touching dogs, or any other 'ritual' religious observance. So..Christians can accomodate secular law very easily.

There are numerous examples (google the issue) where Muslim shop assistants are refusing to:-

-Handle/sell Bibles
-Handle/sell Alchohol
-Accomodate guide dogs

etc....

The idiotic pc crowd who employ them are usually accomodating this.
In one case the "refusal to handle" was complained over..and the store responded "It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of religion" GOOOOOD GRIEF.. The Muslim IS discriminating.. and the store seems to think that to enforce fairness is in fact discrimination based on religion? ...

The only reason the store would say that is LACK OF UNDERSTANDING about the law, Islam and our own societal responsibilities