Sigh. Polycarp, I'd hoped that by the time I came back to OLO, you might have learned some humility and respectfulness, but alas it would appear not.

Polycarp, again you're not being direct with people. Please understand that when you come at a topic with a clear agenda but use an oblique beginning, it becomes clear that you're actually not interested in anything anyone else has to say, because you're just reintroducing the same lines in a new form.

Have you ever had someone from your 'bank' call you, but instead of discussing your accounts, actually try to flog you insurance? It's kind of like that, only more repetitive.

To get to the thread: Apparently, your issue is not the presence of religious buildings. You condone chapels. Your argument then becomes about exclusivity.
Your objection is that any religion can come and use the chapel, but not any religion can come and use the mosque.

Firstly, this is false. I also have accepted invitations to visit mosques and prayer rooms. I honestly could provide examples of people I know showing the open side of Islam, but frankly, I don't wish to discuss anyone I've met with you because you only see things how you wish to and damned if I'd ever mention anyone I know in reference to Islam anywhere here, because you're incapable of honest evaluation and you'd just find it and react by reducing it to part of your grand plan to advance Christianity over what you see as the muslim menace.

Cont'd.

They are not the fanged beings you describe.
Please listen to this, because it goes to the heart of what is so objectionable about your commentary.

Your first argument falls flat. Unless you're lobbying for the removal of such rights for chapels, your focus should be on opening the existing muslim rooms.

I'd also make the point the only people interested in visiting these 'open' chapels are other christians. Generally, only other muslims would visit prayer rooms. You're getting indignant because of what exactly? Situations that wouldn't occur?

The cherry on your illogical cake is that prayer rooms tend to be open, though I've no doubt you can find some obscure controversies to support your prejudice.

I'm betting that in order to sustain said prejudice, you then either resort to theological quackery about the nature of Islam, theological quackery about the good of Christianity, or use an exaggerated example with dubious context.

It's tiring. I do honestly wish you'd 'see the light' and grow up one of these days.

It's not 'everybody else', polycarp. There's a far simpler explanation, but I know you're just going to start another thread on the same topics with an oblique introduction so you can discard what you don't want to hear.

Good_morning_all... hope ur all well.

Quite a bit to respond to here.

Fraccy first.

Let you be the judge Frac...

1/ Core value of Christianity: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life"

2/ Core Islamic value: 9.29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day ..... until they are subjected."

If you doubt that this is in fact a core Islamic value, please refer to exactly how this verse is referred to in the following traditions.(Words of Mohamamd himself)

Hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 30, 31, 32, 33 "I have been commanded to FIGHT.. etc"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0030

Then please examine how that verse was used in the context of an invasion of the Persians.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya. (This sentence is about half way thru the hadith)

COMMENT:
Now..in this, we have a direct connection between the invasion of Persia and a verse in the Quran being quoted to justify it. The quote is entirely legitimate as Omar was a personal campanion of Mohammad.

Applied? or.. Miss-applied.

"Application" must be preceeded by 'Principle' "We 'apply' the laws/principles of physics".. see?

On the reading you've done. (glad to see someone is) 14 yrs of something which is suddenly illegal due to new laws means nothing:)

FOXY.. not sure what you are driving at there, aside from noting certain historical events. Says nothing about Islam itself as a faith.

TRTL I never said I condone chapels.. in fact I specifically made the point that NO religion should have 'them-specific' facilities at a public educational institution.
TRTL.. If you have a chance, visit RMIT and see the Multi faith centre.
Let me ask you.. do YOU have any objection to a non discriminatory, multi faith centre available to ALL? I surely hope not because that would put you on the wrong side of our Equal Opportunity Act.

Dear TRTL

you said:

"Your first argument falls flat. Unless you're lobbying for the removal of such rights for chapels, your focus should be on opening the existing muslim rooms."

My argument does not fall flat. If the issue at RMIT was simply having 'space' for the performance of religious rituals there would be NO ISSUE.
As has been clearly and repeatedly stated.. but let me state it again:

THE MULTI FAITH CENTRE IS AVAILABLE TO MUSLIMS TO BOOK.

So...if you have a shred of honesty in you.. ask this- WHY IS THERE A PROBLEM AND A PROTEST?

If access is there.. why is there a protest? The Building is the same size.. the same position.. able to be booked for specific times.. so..WHY is there a protest? what is the protest ABOUT?

Are you seeing it yet?

The PROTEST is..about.. EXCLUSIVITY, DISCRIMINATION and lack of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. (to which one might cynically add "The Islamicifaction of part of Australian Educational infrastructure")

Now..if you don't support such noble values as equal opportunity at PUBLIC places.. please tell us up front.

Don't whine about me not being direct, I am on about PRINCIPLE..and it is only those sniping at me who have narrowed the focus onto the Muslims.

1/ NO RELIGION of any description should have facilities at public educational instutions. I have no argument with this....none whatsoever. I don't even care if they are exclusive or open.

2/ IF..any religious facilites are to be at a PUBLIC educational insitution they must be EQUAL ACCESS to all faiths.

3/ IF any faith requires odd ball, or discriminatory or un-equal or costly apparatus to exist then it would be much better for them to have their OWN educational institutions, as long as they do NOT celebrate values which are seditious, aggressive,warlike or cruel.

ANY faith which declares non them must be subjected to their rule by military force is an abomination to God.. to goodness and all sense of Justice and as such should not have the slightest bit of opportunity to advance such values in a civilized society.

That settles it then - Porkycrap's right and everybody else is wrong. Reason, tolerance and rationality are futile in the face of Porky's intellect and peculiar morality.

Have a nice week.

Polycarp wrote: ANY faith which declares non them must be subjected to their rule by military force is an abomination to God.. to goodness and all sense of Justice and as such should not have the slightest bit of opportunity to advance such values in a civilized society.

Dear Polycarp,

I must disagree. After the fall of the Roman Empire Christianity spread through Europe mainly by the use of military force. Not only were there crusades against Islam, but there were also Crusades against Lithuania and the Albigenses in Europe. The Spanish conquistadors spread Christianity by violence in the Americas. The English, French, Dutch and other European powers spread Christianity by violence sending in gunboats and missionaries throughout the Pacific. The Christian tradition of hatred and persecution made the Nazi Holocaust acceptable.

Christianity differs from Islam, Buddhism and Judaism in an important respect. Mohammed, Buddha and Abraham founded new faiths. Christianity which centres around Jesus denies his religion since he was not a Christian but a Jew.

Although Christianity can be termed an abomination to God because of its subjugation of large parts of the world by violence it has given comfort to many people. The music of Bach, the soaring magnificence of its cathedrals and other fruits of Christianity gives us reason to see good in it in spite of its abominable record of hate and violence and its betrayal of Jesus’ religion.

Even though its record of violence and hatred is worse than that of Islam I think we must tolerate Christianity and Christians. Remember Christians are humans and entitled to the respect we should show all humans.

We must even tolerate those like Polycarp who promote hatred for those who subscribe to a different brand of nonsense.