Is contemporary Islam a threat? It is only the fundamentalists that pose a threat. Lets deal with real threats not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Steven, an older family member married an Austrian Jew and was forced to flee Europe when the writing was on the wall and Hitler started what was to be a very tragic anti-semite campaign. This was despite the fact that she was raised a Catholic and at that point had not converted. Anyone who helped or associated with Jews were equally persecuted. My relative did later convert in the US.

Is it not possible that this anti-Islam fervour is the same?

I agree we should do all we can to avert the course of fundamental Islam and totalitarianism, and to preserve the separation of Church and State. We should also be careful that we don't become what we want to avoid.

Foxy..I see you have retreated into your foxhole.

I gave you a cordial invitation to discuss an issue of factual accuracy..but you have elected to ignore it. (*Foxy* "that's not my game" no?)

Proxy. the main value of your posts is their contrast to the drivel of CJ Morgan. I know of no one else who can express so eloquently the *brilliance* he comes out with .. for example... he seems to know in detail

a) The methodology of StevenLMeyer's research techniques.
b) He knows also how Steven's bias has influenced the result.

all without a shred of information in front of him other than Steven's conclusion.

I think the psych's call this 'projection'.

Steven.. you are doing a great job (as is Proxy) in keeping us informed of things going on.

CJ..back to you :)

Your reasoning.

-A Jew interviewing a Muslim cannot have an objective conclusion.(becuse his findings don't concur with your views)
-It follows then that ever Jewish judge on the federal court cannot make objective or unbiased conclusions. (except when their finding do not concur with your prejudices)

It seems pretty clear to me, Steven does not come across as the type of bloke who would deliberately misinform us of such things, nor that he would not have the wherewithall to conduct interviews which are accurately recorded.

Pelican,
Your analogy between objections to Islam and Hitler's pogrom against the Jews is the ultimate inversion of the truth.
Islam has been waging a 1400 year pogrom on Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims.
<<Is contemporary Islam a threat?>> Yes
<<It is only the fundamentalists that pose a threat.>> Where are the moderates?
Try informing yourself, by reading what Muslim experts have to say about the contemporary existence of a moderate Islam:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Pelican,
"Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today"
Walid Shoebat, former PLO Terrorist.

Dear Steven,

You stated that:

"Stalinism did not die with Stalin.
Gorbachev inherited a Stalinist
system and did his best to perpetuate it."

That's wrong!

Stalin ruled by a reign of terror during a
24 year reign. He died in March 1953.
Things began to change under Khrushchev.
In Feb 1956 - Khrushchev began a
programme to dishonour
Stalin called "destalinization." The government
destroyed statues and pictures of Stalin
and renamed many places that had been named after
him. Khrushchev did not rule by terror as Stalin
had done, and Khrushchev reduced the power of the
country's dreaded secret police.

The older generation of Soviet leaders, who had been
trained under Stalin, had nearly died out by the
mid-1980s.

When Mikhail Gorbachev became head
of the Communist Party at the age of 54, he was
the first member of a new generation of
Soviet leaders to head the country.

Under Gorbachev, the Soviet Union changed even
more rapidly.
He did not perpetuate a Stalinist system as you claim.
On the contrary. In March 1989, the Soviet Union
held its first contested elections in history.
These elections, to the newly created Congress of
People's Deputies, resulted in the defeat of many
top Communist Party officials and several top generals.
The Communist Party's role was further reduced in
March 1990, when the Soviet government voted to permit
non-Communist political parties in the Soviet Union.

It was Gorbachev who promoted a reduction in the role
of the Soviet Communist Party. It was Gorbachev who
created the new policy of openess called "glasnost."
This policy made it possible to discuss political
and social issues critically and with more freedom
than ever before in the Soviet Union. It was under
Gorbachev that a new freedom of expression in literature
and the arts occurred and books by opponents of
Communism were available in shops.

You may sweep all this aside as irrelevant.
But it certainly wasn't irrelevant to the people
living in those countries at that time. And as
I stated previously - once the ball began rolling -
there was no stopping it.

Pelican

As I have said on other threads, I do NOT regard Islam as a significant threat. Perhaps I should have explained again but I've said it so many times before that it gets tiresome.

To repeat:

ISLAM IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT THREAT

The threat emanates from the attempt to APPEASE THE UNAPPEASABLE. You cannot appease a totalitarian ideology. If you attempt to do that you will be forced down a rat hole from which there is no escape. The true believers will ALWAYS demand more.

What does the word Islamophobe actually mean?

Whatever the formal definition it has come to mean someone who expresses negative views about a particular belief system with the implication that such a person is inherently bad, "prejudiced", a "bigot" a "racist" and someone who "incites hatred". That is certainly the sense in which CJ Morgan and Pericles use the word.

Look at how twisted it's become. Cat Stevens expressed a desire to see an author burned for a book he wrote. The facts are actually NOT in dispute. The expression of such sentiments should put someone beyond the pale. Yet well meaning people try and find excuses for this pond scum or to deny, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that he said it. Or if he said it he didn't really mean it.

--When since the blasphemy laws fell into desuetude has the right to subject a belief system to critique, analysis, satire and scorn been controversial?

--Why is attacking Islam any more "evil" than attacking the policy of the Liberal party.

--Why are the feelings and sensibilities of Muslims more deserving of consideration than those of Christians, Zionists or astrologers?

The correct response to all this is a robust defence of free speech including the right to draw cartoons of some dead "prophet" who probably never existed in the first place.

I don’t anticipate Rudd ever being that courageous.

BTW I am NOT in favour of barring Stevens. Even pond scum has a right to express an opinion loathsome as it may be