This column in the Guardian – hardly a "Mozzie bashing" rage – sets the situation in context.

RESPECT FOR RELIGION NOW MAKES CENSORSHIP THE NORM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/pressandpublishing.religion

Quote:

"Respect for religion has now become acceptable grounds for censorship; even the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has declared that free speech should respect religious sensibilities, while the UN human rights council passed a resolution earlier this year condemning defamation of religion and calling for governments to prohibit it. As the writer Kenan Malik has so astutely pointed out, "In the post-Rushdie world, speech has come to be seen not intrinsically as a good but inherently as a problem because it can offend as well as harm ..." Censorship, and self-censorship, Malik observes, have become the norm. What we have seen, over the past two decades, is an insidious new argument for curbing free speech become increasingly acceptable."

We fought a long bitter battle to roll back BLASPHEMY laws so that we could discuss the reality of religion without fear or hindrance.

Now we are to be subject to a new form of blasphemy laws under the banner of "respect.".

And so-called "liberals" are leading the way.

For shame CJ MORGAN. For shame.

Bugsy Re
“Get off the grass Steven…

Here's a little exercise for you:
-go to Amazon.com
-type in "islam" in the search box
-have a peruse of the number of titles that can be perceived as critical of Islam”

That’s only half the view.Assuming there was such a site, go to Amazon Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Iran and do a similar search, then tell us what you find

Now Pericles... this is a bit rich even for you..(though I do notice an identifiable pattern emerging similar to this)

"Instead, you insist that these verses guide the actions and intentions of every Muslim, and by extension, you regard them as objects of hatred and fear."

Now..the key word in that little outburst is 'every'. Then, following along from this error of fact, you extend it to projecting your own pet version of my position with:

"by extension, you regard them as objects of hate etc"

This completely ignores a number of factors.

1/ I have not claimed that the 'detestable' verses in the Quran guide EVERY Muslim. I have claimed that "Islam teaches" thus and so. I've specifically said on numerous occasions that most Muslims are nominal and that it's the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir and various aggressive elements withIN the Muslim community which are dangerous.

But that danger would not be so without the ideological/doctrinal foundation. (which is the exact reason I highlight it)

2/ I have not expressed or encouraged hatred of all Muslims, this is a figment of your fertile imagination. Your thinking goes:
a)Polycarp points out dangerous verses in the Quran
b)He hates all Muslims.

3/ You also ignore the reality of the mindset of the Christian in relation to unbelievers. Which is.. "For God so loved the world" (even Pericles)

Your confusion results most likely from the fact that I attack bad/evil ideas publically here.. and you translate this into personal hatred for people.. That dear Pericles is your on-going and repeated mistake. (or...perhaps a confession of yours?) This foggy thinking of yours results in an insulting attitude towards other non Muslims here, who you feel will suddenly be reaching for their torches as they rally the villagers for the next Mozzi Lynching.

On a personal level things are different. Your failure to detect this is a black mark on your otherwise reasonable credibility.

StevenLMeyer=BD in a Yamulka :)?

Aaaahhh dear Sancho :)

-Any nuanced investigation
-strung-out cells of militant Islam
-pose no appreciable threat.

Let's subject this to some facts.

"Nuanced"? err persumably here you mean looking in more detail than manking huge blanket statements. Ok.. let's do that.

I hereby focus on the 'Nuance' of the 'strung out cell' in Melbourne who have now been convicted of a plot to do more damage than all Australia has ever seen from any seditious group in it's whole history.
Even considering the armed revolt of Eureka...13 killed in the battle.
A large bomb at the MCG during a grandfinal would have been devastating.

Do we really need to mention 'no appreciable threat' ? err I rather appreciate that the outcome could have been disastrous.

Another trial of a 'strung out, non threatening cell' continues in Sydney.

Does it make a scrap of difference in the end, whether such a thing as Al Qaeda the brand, or strung out cells to the bombing? The issue is not the branding but the ideas which are there all the time waiting for someone to pick them up and run with them, and to drag in young dissillusioned vulnerable males by using a few video's of Muslim body parts and crying women and children in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A few strung out cells with a Quran and idealism under their belt can do a heck of a lot of intimidation of publishing houses.
Once these core ideas are identified, they can be combatted more effectively.

I suggest the remedy is in your hands, Boaz.

>>I have not claimed that the 'detestable' verses in the Quran guide EVERY Muslim. I have claimed that "Islam teaches" thus and so. I've specifically said on numerous occasions that most Muslims are nominal and that it's the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir and various aggressive elements withIN the Muslim community which are dangerous.<<

It is true that occasionally, when hard-pressed, you tend to, at least nominally, back off your hardline position, and admit that hey, maybe not all of them are after the blood of non-believers, every waking hour.

But left to your own devices, it is not very long before you lapse into your standard mantra, which is along the lines:

"Islam teaches violence. Muslims must follow the teachings of Islam without question. Draw your own conclusions from those two facts."

Ocasionally, you and others will lecture Muslims along these lines:

"If it is only extremists who do this, why don't you condemn the Qur'an for leading them astray?"

Which is of course akin to telling Christians that they should renounce the Bible, because it contains all sorts of nasty stuff along with the friendly bits.

As it is, I sit on the sidelines, and point out to you where you cross what I believe is the line between justifying your own version of religion to yourself and others, and stirring your fellow-citizens into aggressive confrontation - as you did, for example, immediately after the Cronulla skirmishes.

If I am successful, after a while you will realize that this boundary is actually quite important. That words, when used carelessly, can give the impression that you are once again on a mozzie-bashing, fear-and-loathing, rabble-rousing crusade.

At that point - if you care at all, which is still not entirely clear - we might be able to settle into a more sober and productive assessment of how we can get along without forever wanting to wipe each other out.

Pericles,

I said >> “The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organizations”

I would say that doubling the TOTAL casualties of terrorist acts is direct evidence of a massive impetus to Islamo_Facist organizations. In fact, when you note that the non Islamist terror statistics have stayed pretty much stable, you can see that Islamist groups have increased their murder rate by more than 400% by 2004.

I recognize that this is older data, but it bears out what I was suggesting.

I accept that things have calmed down since 2004, as your reference suggest. The setbacks to their cause since then has taken some of the momentum out of the movement. This does not negate in the least the point I was making.

As the article suggests, Muslim populations in general have tired of the tactics of these groups, however the victories of the coalition in Iraq and the combined efforts of most responsible countries has played a full part in that. By making military and gov’t targets harder to hit, the Islamist groups have reverted to attacking innocents.

You say >> “No-one, including myself, would deny that 9/11 created a few more fanatics who believe they can settle their scores with the infidel. What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement.”

I never suggested that this was a massive movement. In fact I pointed out that these groups believe they can achieve their goals WITHOUT mass support. However, if you have a look at the countries in which attacks are taking place, it is clear this is a global movement with global reach. The 9/11 attacks weren’t carried out by “perol-bombing idiots”

You say “This thread's particular band seem to be more the norm than the marauding packs of scimitar-wielding fanatics that you envisage.”

Here you go again, I don’t envision scimitar wielding fanatics. Why do you insist on manufacturing straw men?