Don't display your ignorance quite so blatantly, Boaz.

Remember Barking?

>>Firstly they BOMBED their way into parliament<<

It didn't suddenly happen, you know. Sinn Féin has been active in UK politics since before WW1. I would have thought that you would at least have done some cursory research on them before putting such a ridiculous notion into print.

>>the IRA was not founded on religious ideology but historical brutality carried out by Pericles ancestors and company as they defiled and raped the countryside for every bit of wealth they could scrounge from it.<<

Oh. So it was purely incidental that the violence was between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants?

Where do you get this stuff from?

Try the reality of being a Catholic in Shankill Road, or a Protestant in Falls Road. That would open your eyes to the "religious ideology", quick smart.

And your attempts to divert the discussion to fit your own whack-a-mozzie agenda won't wash either.

>>the blatant (not even veiled) bigotry of Pericles especially who "would not dream" of actually discussing 'comparative religion' (which, it just so happens, is the core point of this thread) makes that bigotry and prejudice even more visible.<<

This thread is not about "comparative religion", Boaz. Much as you would prefer it to be. It is instead a discussion on whether to allow into this country a peaceful, if somewhat superannuated, singer.

There would be no fuss allowing Martin McGuinness into the country, despite his openly murderous history, would there.

>>the 'GANGofFOUR' seem not to value 'discussion' as much as simply harassing people personally.. making groundless ad hominems.<<

"Groundless ad hominems", Boaz?

Hardly.

Valid commentary, I'd say, based entirely upon your contributions here.

And this is really funny.

>>I can only conclude they are closed minded and prejudiced to the degree of "lost cause"<<

For the master of single-track thinking to consider me closed-minded, can only be viewed as a compliment to my arguments. If you agreed with me, then I would start to worry.

No chance of that in this lifetime, though.

Or quite possibly the next three or four.

Dear Pericles yes...I remember Barking..and I remember that I invited you to discuss the UK fiscal situation.. which you appear to have run from.

As to your appalling description of Yusuf/Stevens as

//a peaceful, if somewhat superannuated, singer.//

I call you on that and raise you a "why" we might bar him.
The answer of course is found in the nature of his beliefs today, and an examination of whether his former murderous inclinations are likely to be valid on the basis of those beliefs now.

You, in your prize PC manner chose language which was intended to portray him as a 'harmless kindly old soul' which was to assert your view entirely in the absense of evidence. It is based only on your 'impression' which in turn is colored by your neo Marxist PC leanings.

You indulged in unceasing adhominems to try to deflect us from the fact that you are clearly exposed as a bigot... sad but true. A bigot is one who will not even consider facts....and that is how you have postured yourself.

In regard to why a person should be barred.. whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu.. their 'beliefs' form an essential part of any serious assesment.(ask ASIO)

PELICAN... you ask (to Proxy)

//Would you like us to draw a contrast between Christianity and pedophilia//...

I would LOVE you to do that. Because it would expose the core issue which is...."what does a religion teach"
Why not indulge me just for once and check out the link and steps in a previous post...and see what you find?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3683&page=0#89182
Do you observe anything which might be a cause for concern?

More priceless waffle, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles yes...I remember Barking..and I remember that I invited you to discuss the UK fiscal situation.. which you appear to have run from.<<

The point about Barking was... well, actually, there are two points.

The first is that in typical Boaz fashion, you pretended to open a discussion on "British politics", when your true purpose was to laud and hail the British National Party, and its policies.

The second is that you chose an angle that you thought you could sustain, so long as no-one actually had a clue where Barking was, and what it is like to live there. I called you on that point, and your fantasy disintegrated.

If you would like to discuss "the UK fiscal situation" - which I take leave to doubt - then open a thread in an honest and open manner, preferably with some semblance of relevance to life here in Australia so that it may be widely discussed.

As for your attempt to categorize Yusuf Islam as a clear and present danger...

>>The answer of course is found in the nature of his beliefs today, and an examination of whether his former murderous inclinations are likely to be valid on the basis of those beliefs now.<<

That is a desperate, but futile, attempt to insinuate that because he is Muslim ("his beliefs today"), he must by definition have murderous intent.

As I said, it is highly unlikely that you would object to Martin McGuinness, despite the fact that he remains to this day a member of Sinn Féin.

And you never fail to produce a chuckle, Boaz.

Thanks for this.

>> It is based only on your 'impression' which in turn is colored by your neo Marxist PC leanings.<<

Neo Marxist? Gotta love that one. I had to look it up though - which clearly, you didn't bother to do.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-neoMarxism.html

http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/neo-marxism.php

Do you do *any* research? Ever?

But it does beg the question: what colours your "impression" of Yusuf Islam?

Pelican,
<<Would you like us to draw a contrast between Christianity and pedophilia just because a continuing bevy of priests continue to molest children?>>
There is a minor problem with your analogy which has apparently escaped you.
Islam specifically calls for the death of blasphemers, not to mention all infidels,
whereas Christianity does not call for priests to molest children.
The "killing (of) apostates is a fundamental part of the Hadith of prophet Mohammed."
Tawfik Hamid,
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Please try to assimilate the above.

<<Criticising the actions of the man (if accusations are found to be true) should not immediately transfer to a whole religion.>>
Why do you insist on reversing cause and effect?
The dictates of the religion have transferred to the man.
Yusuf Islam’s call for Rushdie’s death is 100% consistent with Islamic doctrine.

<<What is progressive or new about inclusion and love? Christ was the first to practice it.>>
Whether he did or not, Mohammed certainly didn’t…

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

…and Yusuf Islam is merely following Mohammed’s exhortations.

Proxy
You are right in saying the Bible does not teach child molestation, but nevertheless throughout history religious teachers and minders in various children's homes, Churches etal have continued to molest children.

I don't pretend to know why this happens, it might have something to do with the Church attracting those predisposed to this behaviour (as well as sincere folk) where there is authority and access to children.

The point is despite the teachings the Churches have, until lately, done nothing to stem the tide. It is not only the book that identifies a Church but the standards of behaviour upheld by the highest authorities within those organisations.

I did read most of your link to Surah 65, and as an Atheist I won't be converting to Islam anytime soon. There are parts of the Koran that are concerning if read literally, but the difference is I don't judge all Muslims by a book written centuries ago. Perhaps, like the Bible, the Koran needs a re-write to fit into the modern world. As an Atheist I don't pretend to understand the primary differences between the New and Old Testament but have been told that the Bible is a progressive revelation. Most Muslims I have met have been peace loving with families looking for the best life for their children. If Muslims were really looking for ways to kill infidels I would naturally be fearful, but they appear not to have done so despite many 1000s living in Australia since the 80s and 90s.

There are some religious lunatics out there, US is pretty scary in those Bible belts and some of the cultural restricitions in Muslim countries are reminiscent of medieval times. But to paint that as the norm is misleading.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." --George Bernard Shaw

Pelican,

I did not link to Surah 65.
That was ALGOREisRICH.

I linked to Muslim experts discussing the possibility of
<<the Koran (getting) a re-write to fit into the modern world.>>

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Their prognoses are not particularly comforting:

"The majority of the ulemaa (scholars) of the “House of Islam” are controlled by Islamists who use an authoritative shar’iah which is incompatible with the ideas of liberty and the separation of mosque and state."
Jasser

"My main point is that, what people generally mean as Islam (Tafseer, Hadith, Sira, Jurisprudence, Sharia) is certainly not peaceful. However, peaceful understanding of the religion is possible. Moderate Muslims such as Jasser and others do exist because they do not practice the traditional dominant theology and alternatively they have developed their own personal interpretations for the religion. Until these personal interpretations become the mainstream type of teaching within Islam, I have to agree with Robert Spencer that moderate Islam does not exist."
Hamid

"The obstacles to the predominance of modern Islam over political Islam are many– frequent death threats, blind corruptive tribalism, societal and financial power of Islamists, and Muslim illiteracy. This is not to mention the facilitation by western media and government of Islamists due to political correctness."
Jasser

"If we defined Islam in terms of what is being taught and promoted in mainstream Islamic books such the Tafseers and Fiqh, then Robert Spencer is absolutely correct is saying that moderate Islam does not exist. The problem is that this form of Islamic teaching is not counterbalanced by a theologically based peaceful interpretation of the religion. Until today, all main schools of jurisprudence in Islam accept violence in some way or another."
Hamid