Peppy... (read the book of Ruth for 'Boaz')

Theory? yes, but theory in the sense of "Australia is based on a Constitution"

Are you suggesting that because criminals disregard our law that we cannot use our law to deal with them or determine the true nature of their behaviour ?

SLAVERY? One thing is for sure, the NT 'diffused' slavery by making it nothing more than a relationship of dependance and obligation, without the slightest hint of 'sexual use' of slaves and that he is not 'blamable' as is enshrined in the Quran for all time. Surah 23:5-6 clearly states that a man can have sex with his slave girls and I've seen Sharia 'fiqh' and opinion that this is based on the idea that they are a legal "possession", rather than a person, . Such is not the case in the New Testament, where it clearly states

"28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Jesus also said in John 13:34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

While I would prefer the NT to have condemned Slavery outright, I assure you it was evangelical Christians who were at the forefront of the abolition movement.

By claiming that 'extremists' will do what they like, does not alter our legitimate right to evaluate them in terms of what they claim is their own foundation.

Zarkawi had a spiritual advisor, and when he was carving off heads, l shoulting 'Allahu Akbar' ..is their a Quranic basis for this?

Quran 8:12
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

I think there is. Was the author of the Quran (Mohammad) wrong, or Zarkawi wrong? because it was done, just as written by both.

I will add to the debate later after I check my Koran i.e., the Anglicized (note American "z" from Middle English instead of Aussie "s") form of Qur'an, meaning book, from qura'a, meaning to read, just as Bible means book, from Greek byblos. The Qur'an has also been known as Alkoran or Alcoran. Likewise, with Muslim. In the 1830s/40s in America they were called Musselman. Moslem has also been an accepted English language name for followers of Islam.

Shari‘a (sharia, also shari‘ah, from Arabic šari‘a, divinely ordained law, from šara‘a, to prescribe or ordain [of God] i.e., the code of Islamic law supposedly based solely on the Koran,is also based on the Law of Moses from The Pentateuch of The Old Testament (or Torah from yarah meaning to show or instruct, for Jews).

Part of the problem of interpreting the Koran for non-Arabic speakers/readers, particularly those who use English, is that English is a polyglot, and therefore can have twenty synonyms for one word. A psychologist in the USA published an "April Fool's" paper showing that happiness is so rare it must be a mental disorder. Using synomyns and their etymology, I was able to prove that happiness is indeed, a mental disorder.

I have read four English language versions of the Koran and none of them totally agree with each other. One actually had a sura that encouraged jihad against Christians and Jews on the basis that as "the people of the Book" they had apostasised from the truth. Then in a later sura in the same translation Muslims are encouraged to have compassion on Christians and Jews and encourage them to repent and return to the teachings of "the Book" i.e. The Holy Bible. Then again, there are at least 15 versions of The Holy Bible, and not all of them agree with each other either.

hi all,

the laws in australia on

abuse
emotional abuse
murder

are for everyone, including politicians,

lets face it, most of us come from a combination of religions in our families,

religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW here in australia

this is what our freedom is all about

and I would comment that this is good ....

a syrian muslim young teenager actually said to me once
....if we had your political system I would go home fast

he was homesick for his landscape but not the politics

my answer was, well dont worry you can go back and visit
once you have a job and an australian visa

they also commented one time that having an australian visa
gave them far more freedom in their own country/countries

JHH

David Boaz,

You’re an intellectual coward and I’m not playing your silly game. If you really believed this great God of yours exists you wouldn’t be afraid to have an honest debate.

If you want to have an honest discussion on politics or religion or whatever I’m in, but you’re completely dishonest in the way you bend the rules to suit you. The New Testament according to you is perfect and therefore may be used as an authoritative source but anything that contradicts it must be wrong and therefore should be ignored. What a load of crap.

So why don’t you and all your other hate filled religious friends do something your perfect New Testament tells you to do. How about you track down all the women who go to church without a veil and shave off all their hair just like your New Testament says you should in 1 Cor 11:6 “ If the woman does not cover her head she might as well cut off her hair. “

And here’s a tip David. Islam has been around for a long time and will be here long after we’re both dead and buried. Your great powerful God doesn’t seem to be able to do much to change that. Gee, your All Powerful God is doing a really great job of bringing us glorious victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t he? You’ll never put an end to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. So you can stick your Holier than Thou superiority complex.

David, run off and bother someone else. I’ve got better things to do with my time than listen to a self deluded Bible Basher like you.

P.S.
(Matthew 10:35 Jesus said: "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

Opps. You man Jesus said he did NOT come to make peace but to divide and tear apart. How did that slip into the New Testament? Better make sure we ignore that biblical scripture as well as all the other embarrassing ones.

Peppy -;
I understand and agree with what you were saying in your post, that at this point in time the West has managed to stay secular and that is the best form of government to have. I didnt mean to disagree with you so much as to take it further and point out that it worries me that we allow people of strong religious faith to actively stand for government like the family first party when we are supposed to keep church and state separate.

What if support for religious laws could gain the support of parliament if there ever was a majority of religious fundamentalists elected, even by a majority of just one, maybe they could then pass some law to get around the high court somehow although as long as we are allowed freedom of the press this would be immediately conveyed to the people. However what if a large majority of the people are also supporters of this fundamentalist religion and see nothing wrong in the passing of these laws.

That's why I think strongly religious parties or people should be banned from standing NOW, to ensure that the secular government that you so rightly espouse is never threatened. To not do so is to allow a dangerous chink in the system.

Sharkfin,

I understand your point, but I just don't know how you could ban people because of their beliefs and still remain a democracy. It's probably just one of the risks we take in a democracy.