If only you knew how silly that is, HermanYutic.

>>You’re confusing Islam with Muslims. Islam is a doctrine. Muslims are people.<<

Let's see how that works with the other lot.

"Christianity is a doctrine. Christians are people"

Doesn't really work, does it. Because Muslims are defined as people who embrace Islam, just as Christians are defined as people who embrace Christianity.

That leaves you open to the charge - which is the one you are trying to stick on Muslims - that everything done in the name of your religion, is a true manifestation of that religion.

Like the Crusades. Or Northern Ireland. Or the many other acts of violence, both global and domestic, perpetrated by people wearing a religion's label.

The corollary is so obvious it is almost embarrassing to have to point it out.

Not everyone who embraces Christianity follows Jim Jones. And you should (presumably?) not judge Christianity through the events at Jonestown.

>>Tarring all Islam with the brush of terrorism, yes.<<

Sorry. That's where your emotions take over, and logic disappears. Because this is what your own religion teaches you.

By attacking Islam in an incontinent, superficial and literalistic manner, you are in fact attacking Muslims.

But you are aware of this really, aren't you.

HermanYutic: "The vast majority of the brainwashed Muslim hordes practise Islam-lite."

Yet you characterise them as hordes? Whatever for - they are as you say a peaceful people.

Anyway, that is but a nit pick. I largely agree. I would make one refinement. You invented the word "Islam-lite". I have no problem with the concept - in fact I think it is a very good one that helps clarify the issue considerably. And I have no problem with attaching a name to it - after all it makes discussing the concept so much easier.

My one quibble is in the name itself. As you say, the vast majority of Muslim's practice Islam-lite. So if you put it to the vote, I'd imagine most of them would prefer you said they practice the true Islam, and would like to reserve the word Islam for themselves. The concept is not much different from the bulk of Christians deciding that Johnstown stuff wasn't really representative of true Christianity.

We still need a name for that other brand of Islam of course, so I humbly suggest "Islam-extremist". Now there are lots of Islamic sects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches so we have to define who belongs to our new one. I think that is fairly easy. The people involved in 9/11, the Bali bombings, and in general the nut cases that think killing and maiming others, including other Muslims is doing Mohamed's work.

So we now have Muslims who practice Islam, and shall we say Muslim-Extremists who practice Islam-extremist. Notice that there are the same categories you created - just with different names. Just a minor tweak to what was already a very good idea.

But with that tweak it becomes so much easier to understand what you are saying (assuming I understand it). You are saying these Muslim-Extremists, the ones who going around killing people, are really nasty unpleasant people. The planet would be better off without them. Who could disagree? In fact I think even Pericles would find himself agreeing!

You’re still in neutral Pericles.

Christianity, the doctrine, does n-o-t condone violence against unbelievers.
Islam, the doctrine, d-o-e-s condone violence against unbelievers.

Islam-lite is n-o-t the true Islam insofar as it ignores Koranic injunctions.
Islam full-strength i-s the true Islam.

Islamic doctrine, including the Koran, is replete with injunctions to kill the unbelievers.
These commands are eternal and perfect according to Islam.

You should stop playing with that gear-stick Pericles and put it into gear.

Well I blame the fake left. They sell out of liberal values by supporting Islamism and call anyone that disgarees with any dysfunction, crime or anti-social behaviour an Islamophobe. A bit like the muslim women who speak out against the treatment of women have to go into hiding as any criticism of Islam is reason for death.

Happened is Sydney. Bad, bad, bad stuff yet the fake left wanted a cover up, the government and the police did nothing from fear and abandoned all the liberal policies we were supposed to cherish. So a neighbourhood dispute grew into a wider issue because it had become politicised by those that had no concern for justice. Everyone feeling they had authored the satanic Verses. ssshhh, shhhh., quiet I am so ashmaed to be Australian and all that nonsense. This iditoic mindset went feral in Europe and you wonder why a very good nation, a tolerant nation makes this vote? perhaps because too many westerners despise the tolerant west in favour of the bigoted, racist, sexist elements of Islam. I get it, I saw it in Sydney with disbelief at the ranic hatred of westerners by westerners who were trying to deny justice. Supporters of rape!

Not all muslims, not even the ones that say they have two enemies. One being the fake left of the west trying to preserve a culture that is oppressive to women. Too many noisy haters of human rights who seem all too willign to trot out in favour of human rights only when it suits Islamism.

I am surprised you have not mentioned Craig Winns 'Prophet of doom'
Google it - go get the vids and watch. [ or have you mentioned it ? , didn't read most of this post so I might be jumping the gun here ]
I watched and it frightened the crap out of me.

Some of the intolerant, nasty and plain loopy attitudes towards other human beings that I read here frighten the crap out of me.

I'm so glad that we're very unlikely to have the travesty of CIR foisted on us in Australia in the name of 'democracy'. There's something to be said for Westminster-style democracy after all, IMHO.

Yabby, you're Swiss aren't you?