Dear Examinator,

I don't have a problem with whatever the Parliamentarians
decide they want to do. Take an oath, have a moment's
silence, the National Anthem, or whatever.
They will decide what they want to do anyway.

My personal preference is for the National Anthem, which
as I said in an earlier post - represents all of us on
this continent.

However, I think it was Pelican who said that it probably
won't happen anytime soon. I tend to agree. Look how long
it's taking us to become a Republic.

Dear Fractelle,

As always, your words warm my heart.
Thank You.

I fully agree with you in that politicians who are our
representatives should choose something more
appropriate in this day and age to open parliament
with. Something that would represent ALL of the people,
and not just one section of the Community.

My preference is for the
National Anthem.

While Pericles and Poly are warming to their long-running dispute, I thought I could address Pericles’ bewilderment as to why Sura 9 has a special relevance (to Poly, if not to this discussion).

Rodwell’s English translation of the Qur’an counts 6,151 verses (ayat) in 114 chapters (sura).

The Qur’an is peppered with 783 threats of hellfire, wrath, eternal judgement and perdition.

1 threat of hell in every 7.9 verses (longer verses with two or three warnings each are counted once).

Seven different chapters recount a jumble of Jewish scripture and myth, describing satan’s expulsion from heaven due to failure to prostrate before Adam (a man).

Another Jewish fable, Abraham’s rebuke of his father Terah for worshipping idols, is placed on the same level as Scripture and appears in six chapters. One story, one narrator, told six times.

The retelling of aspects of Abraham’s story appears in 24 of the Qur’an’s first 87 chapters. 1 retelling in every 3.6 chapters.

Other favourites in the first 89 chapters, involve the retelling of Moses’ confrontation with the pharaoh (omitting the story of the Passover in all 27 tellings).

Recycling other apocalyptic stories, includes references to Noah in 28 of the first 71 chapters (once in every 2.5 chapters)

Lot comes up in 14 chapters.

Tales of legendary Arab cities and heroes Ad, Thamud, Shu’aib and Salih are also repeated 6 or so times each.

Pared back, the book is rendered unintelligible by the incessant repetition and mix of Jewish scripture/fable, but also due to basic lack of nouns. Who did what to whom?

Surah 9, is one of the few (very few) verses that gives us insight into Mohammed’s brand of “revelation”. No obfuscation.

(quick aside: I take it you don’t like baseball CJ? It took a few innings for me to get it too, that is, until I found the beer). I may well be morphing into a Poly apologist, however, I am a genuine fan of Pericles’ prose as well. Nauesous? Another side effect!).

(I’ve drawn heavily from Don Richardson’s “Secrets of the Koran’ in this post, quotation marks omitted).

Dear Katie... I appreciate your apologetic efforts there.. anything resembling symathy is always welcome :)

The primary reason I make a fuss about Surah 9, is the same reason Geert Wilders does and most thinking non Muslism who have an appreciation for 2 things.

1/ History
2/ Contemporary attitudes and practices in Islamic countries related to their own history and holy books.

Specifically, Surah 9, curses Christians and Jews, and includes a general (and currently applicable) call to arms against Dar Ul Harb.. the world of non Islam. (9:29 and 30)

What Pericles does not see, is how this mode of thinking has been applied throughout history where Islam holds sway, even to this day.
He only sees a safe secure and comfortable Western social invironment where it is inconceivable that such things might ultimately (no Pericles..not 'imminent invasion') mean problems for Christians.

I've mentioned the irony of being criticized for this king of thinking by the Kurdish girl who ridiculed the thought that "If we get power do you reallllly think we would harm Christians?".... to which I responded "Kurds in 1910 to 1915 spearheaded the massacre of 500,000 to 750,000 Assyrian Christians"

BUT back to the topic a-gain :)

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR of keeping the Lords prayer at opening.

1/ Has their been a time when it was NOT used in our parliament...ever?
2/ Is it not a fact that most Australians claim to be Christian? (68%)

3/ How can it be an 'imposition' when it has always been?

4/ Thus, removing it, (in the light of points 1 and 2 above) would be more of an 'imposition' by a minority on the majority?

Let me repeat though.. I find no Biblical requirement/argument for it to be used (apart from the obvious moral/ethical benefits).. I'm just arguing from tradition.

Polycarp

Have you ever made an argument on OLO that has not included quotes from the Bible or the Koran? You continue to do this despite an awareness of the inevitable responses - perhaps a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy at its most raw.

On a thread about religion of course it is entirely appropriate to quote the Bible, but sometimes we would like to hear from Polycarp the man not Polycarp on a religious mission.

On another thread (I think it was Sells' thread) you made a comment about the usual "religous villifiers" and on other threads you put on your "hard-done by" martyrs hat.

Your own views towards various other faiths (particularly Islam) are among the most villifying I have seen on OLO. It is difficult to take you seriously when there is such marked hypocrisy. Is religious villification okay when it is directed towards non-Christian faiths?

Perhaps what you perceive as the defence of Islamic faith on OLO is manifested only by your own extreme views against it. Australians by nature tend to come to the defence of the underdog.

Why not try sometimes to argue from the viewpoint of a human rather than as some self-imposed instrument of your God. If your intent is to brainwash us it does not seem to be working, perhaps this suggests another tack might be in order.

Poly

Basing your argument from the point of "tradition" is very weak.

Attitudes/traditions change, that's why we no longer have slavery.

I realise that you do not ever consider the feelings of others who do not share your dogma, therefore even attempting to discuss the anachronism of a contemporary parliament saying a Christian prayer, is completely wasted on you.

Foxy
I figured your views were that it is each to their own.
I simply meant to fill your brain with more information. OK much of it was guilding the orchid but when didn't I....I just love input me and 'Johnny Five' ('short circuit')
Just being friendly. :-)

Pelecan I never cease being impressed by your abillity of sucinctness.
Well put...I'm jealous :-o