ALGOREisRICH;>> The commentary you read.. was written in our lifetime.
Was that apparent in your reading <<

Absolutely, I understand that deluded humans are espousing that these antiquated social caveats are relevant to their society now. That is not the issue to me, given that they are practiced in their countries of origin and not within a host cultures domain. Just a qualification, I am only refering to religious/cultural practices that contravine the law of the land.

You gave a NT example of a toning down of the female subjugation factor to the OT quote I offered. You are correct the NT is not fire and brimstone as was the OT. Time moved on and the message became softer.

ALGOREisRICH;>> Could you be more specific about what you referred to as 'social nuances'? <<

The social nuances I refer to are all the alien cultural practices that Islamic zealots bring to host countries. Childs rights, women’s rights, societal enclaving, Sharia law, Muslims have a differing value system to the west and they maintain it by adhering to these social nuances from 1500 years ago.

ALGOREisRICH;>>I draw your attention to a document from the UN from 1976 on private property.<<

Are you deliberately trying to make me ill?
It seems that 1976 was a crucial year in the U.N.'s planned downfall of western society. The Lima Agreement was implemented in 1976. That piece of parchment sent the first world from industrial giant to industrial dwarf in 25 short years. That bit of parchment is the reason the only cash cow we have is the mining industry.

I laughed out loud at the opening line of the plan”
"1. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals." We have managed to get by for 5000 years with a tenant or owner relationship to the land, now those communists in the U.N want to make us all tenants and themselves the land owners, and fools do not understand this is real and evolving.

CJ MORGAN

If you opposes Victoria's "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" then I withdraw my comment.

However I am interested in your choice of words:

"...I also think that the prosecution of the fundy Christian Islamophobes was a strategic blunder,..."

I would have thought the prosecution of Nalliah and Scott was a violation of their right to free expression. They have as much right to have their say as pond scum like Cat Stevens and slimeballs like Walid Aly.

What interests me about many of the posters here - this includes you Foxy - is that you have not defended Cat Stevens' right to free speech REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE MAY HAVE SAID IN THE PAST. Instead you try and pretend he didn't say it or if he did it was only a joke or it was 20 years ago or whoever brings up these inconvenient facts is a (shock, horror) "Islamophobe" or let's talk about Israel instead or whatever.

Get this CJ MORGAN, FOXY, EXAMINATOR, PERICLES

I defend Stevens' right to come to Australia even though I have no illusions about the nature of the man. Just as I would defend the rights of David Irving or Fredrick Toben and his "Adelaide Institute"

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/

I don't regard the prosecution of "fundy Christians" under the RRT as a "strategic error". I regard it as a human rights violation.

SONGOFGLOIN and STEVEN.. oh what a soothing balm your last posts were for me :) Soothing because without me actually 'stating' the issue directly.... (SOG here) you do manage to glean it out of the information..and.. AND come to the correct conclusion about the vileness level of that information.
*my work is almost done* :)

Now..if one person can... I wonder why 3 other individuals cannot?

They would be (The most notable)

CJ
FOXY
PERICLES

At least CJ supports my ubercall for the RRT to be dismantled.
When he gets up to speed on the Equal Opportunity Refrom Act passed just weeks ago....he will actually be on the same side as me.

That bill created a STAR CHAMBER of Soros "Open Society" functionaries and thought police in the form of the VHREOC commissars who can now INITIATE action against individuals or companies in the ABSENSE of a complaint.

StevenlMeyer.. this would be of interest to you mate..because we all know (specially Jews) what happens when such bodies are formed who are kind of 'outside' the main law of the land.

The characteristics of these STAR CHAMBERS of inquisition are.

-Hate speech laws
-Truth is not a defense.
-Selective application of such laws to the 'politically incorrect'.

OH.. on Cat Stevens ...he is having a concert (sold out) on the 16th of July here.. should be a GR8 opportunity to have a voice about certain subjects eh ?

Ok..here's the deal.

1/ Don't ban Stevens from coming here.
2/ Don't ban FREE SPEECH about his faith at his venues.
3/ Don't ban Walid Aly from the ABC.
4/ Don't ban public protest ABOUT his faith at the ABC.

Now... the 'inquisatioral commissars of the Human REICH commission would have us believe that only 1 and 3 are acceptable, but 2 and 4 are not.

SOG..this is specially for you.

Firstly THANK you for the info about the LIMA declaration.. I didn't know about it till your helpful post ! NOW I DO..and will use that also in my own work.

It simply re-inforces the basic premist "The UN is a cesspool of MARXISM"

//The Lima Declaration and Plan of Action calls for the redistribution of world industry so that developing countries would have 25% of it by the year 2000//

Just a final tie up thought about the commentator you examined on the Quran.

You said:

//That (antiquated social caveats )is not the issue to me, given that they are practiced in their countries of origin and not within a host cultures domain. Just a qualification, I am only refering to religious/cultural practices that contravine the law of the land.//

Hooray.. yes.. that's where I come from also...

[Parenthesis]
[[Just out of curiosity.. did you tweak to what Maududi was saying about "if the Quran teaches it..who are we to forbid it" In *13 ?
"Prepubescent marriage, consummation and divorce" ?]]

But my position is probably just a bit further "out there".

Given that
a)the bloke in the video (Dr Bilal Philips) was advocating unambiguously that a Muslim man in his 50s or 60s can marry a child of 8 or 9 is quite ok....
b)He was invited to lecture Melbourne mainstream Muslims at the Exhibition buildings.
c) Having personally spoken to a FEMALE Muslim at ISSNA in Coburg about the issue..and she adamant that such things are fine....
d) Keysar Trad trying to promote the 'debate on Polygamy' in 2008 (debate precedes attempts at changes to law usually)

I conclude that this sub section of our society would..if unchallenged, try to change the law in favour of their own values.

In the same way Bob Brown and company are trying to change the law about Gay Marriage.

So...you now have the background.

My method in the past was wrong... as I said..I started with 'headline conclusions' rather than cautious discussion :)
This method is proving much more effective.

STEVENLMEYER AND BOAZ -

WHY ARE YOU ISLAMOPHOBES ALWAYS SHOUTING?

CJ MORGAN

I can only speak for myself.

It's a habit from the days when I used to prepare notes for students. I found it helped to capitalise words and concepts I thought needed emphasis.

It nearly got me into trouble once when I was explaining a statistical technique called the JACKKNIFE. I wanted to emphasise its growing importance as a non-parametric method of data analysis. Unfortunately one of the secretaries thought I was threatening the students and reported me to the Dean. We had a good laugh about it.