Pericles,
Nowhere do I mention Muslims in my post.
I refer only to the ideology of Islam.
I genuinely feel for those 1.2+ billion souls who have been brainwashed, threatened and otherwise coerced into adhering to such a pathologically dangerous “religion”.
I would never refer to Muslims as mozzies and discourage you from doing so.
As for “inciting fear and loathing of Islam”, while the OIC is constantly putting pressure on the UNHRC to make this an international crime, the notion of inciting fear and loathing of Scientology, or that of inciting fear and loathing of Creationism, for example, illustrate the absurdity of your statement.
Perhaps the crime of inciting fear and loathing of Fascism would be a closer analogy.
I nowhere propose banning Islam as you imply but rather that its dangerous folly be exposed with the light of reasoned debate. The trouble is such discussion could easily get you beheaded or stoned to death or otherwise killed in Dar al-Islam (or Amsterdam in Theo van Gogh's case). Or possibly charged under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act that you allude to.
Nevertheless, perhaps we could start with the criminal antics of the mediaeval genius who instigated the whole thing.
His propensity to behead captured Jews and rape their wives, sisters and daughters “make(s) for an interesting juxtaposition” with the Koran which says "We have indeed, in the Messenger of Allah, a good example (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. [Holy Qur'an 33: ayat 21] "
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/muhammad/perfect_man.html
But then again he did write the book, or do you believe it comes from Allah?
I feel for Muslims as I feel for the victims of other demagogues, such as the victims of the Jonestown massacre.
Mohammed is Jim Jones writ large.
The sooner the entire world realises this, the sooner the bloodshed will end.

The bloodshed won't end until Islam itself sorts it out, that's a historical fact. All religions are a reflection of the people running them, think about it, it works.
Islam has no titular head, and a few sects or branches to boot, but the spread of Fundamentalist Islam is funded from Saudi Arabia, and they control the Holy Sites as well. Change will have to come from the billions who aren't terrorists, working it's way through, and that will take time. Or the oil running out, the Wahabis get a huge slice of that cash, and won't stop promoting Fundamentalism while they have money and a power-base. Any revolution or "people-power" movement in SA will be met with a Jihad, and inevitably fail I think.

I'll just note that we haven't heard from TRUTHNOW78 since the original dog-whistle post.

Quite a successful troll though.

Oh, for heaven's sake, KMB.

>>Nowhere do I mention Muslims in my post. I refer only to the ideology of Islam.<<

Please enlighten me. How do you "refer" to Islam while excluding Muslims from the reference? Maybe you imagine that the two are somehow separate; on the one hand you have Islam, and - somewhere away in the distance - Muslims.

Mere weasel words, I'm afraid.

But you really need to pay closer attention.

>>I nowhere propose banning Islam as you imply<<

And nowhere did I imply that you do.

>>Or possibly charged under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act that you allude to.<<

That didn't even cross my mind, so I certainly didn't "allude" to it.

>>But then again he did write the book, or do you believe it comes from Allah?<<

I have no religious inclinations whatsoever. It follows that I have no view on who wrote what, or why. It is a symptom of your own confusion that you even ask the question.

I am not in any way taking a position that defends Islam itself, KMB. That would require that I take an interest in comparative religion. I am simply objecting to the manner in which you attempt to incite fear and loathing against ordinary people on the grounds that they follow a religion that you disagree with.

>>Perhaps the crime of inciting fear and loathing of Fascism would be a closer analogy.<<

So, on the one hand you protest that you are merely applying "the light of reasoned debate", while on the other state that Islam is closely analogous to Fascism.

You are, I would suggest, one very confused bunny.

The problem with constantly carrying fear around with you is that it warps your judgment on the simplest of issues. The term "whack-a-mozzie" is merely my shorthand for the constant bashing that people like you dish out to Islam and its adherents.

If you can think of more appropriate terminology, I'd love to hear it.

Pericles,
An idiology or belief system is based in tenets or principles of faith or practise that are identified by the person proposing the system. People can change their idiology or belief systems. Marx and Ingils proposed an idiology but not all those that accepted it believed it unreservedly all their existence.

Many people call themselves Christian but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Basically they are not Christian in practise or living in the principles proposed by Christ.

There is a difference between Islam which refers to the doctrine of submission to Allah: and a Muslim which refers to the people who are controlled by Islamic State laws. People can change their minds. The proposed ideology suposedly of absolutes has an unchangable factor; otherwise it is not the doctrine proposed if it is changed.

I'm not sure I catch your drift, Philo.

>>An idiology or belief system is based in tenets or principles of faith or practise that are identified by the person proposing the system.<<

Are you suggesting that Christianity should really be called Paulism? Or perhaps Constantinism?

I offer this on the basis that I don't recall Jesus "proposing a system", while the other two were all about systems and conformity.

>>People can change their idiology or belief systems<<

Well, of course they can Philo.

>>Marx and Ingils proposed an idiology but not all those that accepted it believed it unreservedly all their existence.<<

If there's a point here, I'm missing it. While Marxism certainly had its adherents, I wouldn't put that particular worldview into the same ideological bucket as Christianity. Are you suggesting that it should be?

>>Many people call themselves Christian but do not follow the teachings of Christ. Basically they are not Christian in practise or living in the principles proposed by Christ.<<

That earns a solid "well, derrr"

>>There is a difference between Islam which refers to the doctrine of submission to Allah: and a Muslim which refers to the people who are controlled by Islamic State laws<<

No. The difference is that one is the name of a religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam) and the other is the name we apply to followers of that religion (e.g. Christian, Muslim).

Under your definition, there are no Muslims in Australia. In which case there are a whole load of people making a whole load of fuss about nothing.

>>People can change their minds. The proposed ideology suposedly of absolutes has an unchangable factor; otherwise it is not the doctrine proposed if it is changed.<<

You might like to elaborate on this a little. I read this as saying "ideologies do not change, but if they do, they must change their name to something else."

Which, while true, hardly casts any light on the discussion.