The outcry against the infallable (Catholic Doctrine) Pope continues to grow in the Islamic world.

What did he say ?

He quoted (in a lecture) a 14c Byzantine Emperorer who said:

'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'

The issue in dispute, is this "Connecting Islam with Violence"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060914/wl_afp/vaticanpopeislam_060914160443

For the Record, I have begun a debate with a Muslim Scholar (who is a Palestinian) on issues about this.

I referred him to the "Murder of Kaab Bin Ashraf" described (in those words) in the hadith of Muslim.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
Book 019, Number 4436: <= scroll to this number 4436.

I expected him to DENY that this was a genuine Hadith, but he does not. He just emphasizes the reasons.
-Kaap wrote poetry mocking Mohamed.
-His poetry had 'bite' and was considered ideologically 'dangerous'
-Left unchecked it could have caused people to fight against Muslims.
-He had to die.

His Website: http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_2.htm

Here is his emailed response:

Secondly, you asked me a yes/no question regarding Kab bin Ashraf and it seems like you want to brush away the reason behind it, which is very important. You want to brush away the fact that Kab bin Ashraf was the person responsible for raising and motivating armies for attacking Medina and trying to wipe out the Muslims. That the only way to stop this man was to kill him in order to protect the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands. you want to forget this important fact huh?

COMMENT
I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that criticizing Islam will lead to VIOLENCE. Because of the EXAMPLE of its founder.
This Muslim also supports Mohameds's mutilation of prisoners describing it as 'justice'.

CONTINUED.

The ironic thing here, is that the comment of the Pope simply 'quoting' a 14c Emporer, and his being criticized for linking "Islam with violence" is now DEMONSTRATING the very thing he is criticized for.

WHERE WILL THIS LEAD ?

Personally, I think this will make the Danish Cartoon affair look like small potatoes.

FRANCE... Catholic, but lots of Muslims. Recent riots... ?

This is the : "Infallible head of Christs Church in the World, the spritual successor of St Peter" in the view of all Catholics. (not my view, but it is theirs)

Given that the World Catholic population is MASSIVE, it remains to be seen just how this pans out.
Can they apologise for their pope ? Hardly.

Should they ? Not at all.
Should he ? Not in a million years.

Should Steve Bracks get on his case using the wet lettuce leaf RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 ?

IF Muslims in Melbourne begin burning Effigies of the Pope will THEY BE CHARGED under this act for 'INCITING HATE' ?

Ohhhhh yes Mr Bracks.... NOWWWW the chickens are coming home to roost on this STUPID law....

Will we see 'even handed' use of this law ? OR... will we see pathetic appeasement ? (which of course will result in community OUTRAGE and a growing hatred ANYway....)

Will we see street confrontations between Catholics and Muslims ?

“COMMENT
I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that criticizing Islam will lead to VIOLENCE. Because of the EXAMPLE of its founder.”

I agree totally, BD. Islam is a violent religion, but we should not avoid criticising it for fear there will be violence. Muslims need to realise that we can give it as well as take it. We have shown great tolerance for Islamic tantrums, and the Muslims are starting to think that they can do as they please. As my wife commented last night as we watched Islamic nutters burning an effigy of the Pope, each time they are accused of violence, intolerance and cruelty, they hit the streets – proving that the criticism of them is correct.

“
Will we see street confrontations between Catholics and Muslims ?”

Yes. We probably will. But not just between Catholics and Muslims. Between Muslims and everybody else. Islam has been loose in the West long enough now to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it simply cannot and will not fit in with the rest of the world. Islam is 1400 years behind, and we simply cannot wait for them to catch up.

I was really surprised that Pope Benedict made such forth right non PC statements.Be assured these would have been carefully thought out statements and not just off the cuff.The Muslim reaction was predictable with Catholic Churhes being bombed and Muslims baying for blood.

Just where the Pope wants to take the debate next is a puzzle to me.Many forces on this planet seem to be standing up to Muslim aggression and calling it as it is.Will our next war be fought over religion?

Sorry to disappoint but from what I have heard the Pope has already apologized.

Before the controversy I read that the Pope was simply giving a lecture at the University of Regegnsburg and quoted historical Emperor Manuel II Paleologus. This included the negative comments about Muslims but was used for its argument that violence is incompatible with the nature of God. I believe that the Emperor had formulated the argument citing Muslims as an example of a religion where they were getting it wrong. The Pope was not issuing a carefully prepared attack on Islam based on some infallible doctrine. He also quoted St Paul and Psalm 115. I'm sure he would have preferred if the media associated those quotes with him instead.

Due to the media reports which probably wanted to stir things up so that they could have more to report Muslims misunderstood that the Pope was quoting someone else in that part of the lecture and expressed themselves in their inimicable way. When the Pope became aware of the misunderstanding I believe that he did apologize.

Of course that is just what I have heard....

It's ridiculous that the Pope should apologise, and I'm not even Catholic! Does anyone in the west have any balls anymore?

As for some impending conflict between the west and Islam, I don't really see it. There will, of course, be some minor skirmishes. However, I think Islam is on its way out. Here's why:

Where it exists in the west, ultimately it will push its luck, and that will backfire on it. If it really gets remotely to the point where an Islamic minority wants to roll back a whole lot of the western liberal tradition, the majority of people out there will say, "enough is enough", even if the media, academia, etc. won't, and these radical ratbags will have to pull their heads in tout de suite, as some might say.

Where Islam exists on its own terms, it's never going to be a contender for the title because as Matt Damon's character says so brilliantly in Syriana, "after oil, your next major export is second hand goods, followed by dates", in other words, most of the Islamic world produces bugger all of any worth to anyone. It can hardly export its military or cultural power without economic power.

Secondly, and most importantly (indeed, what's driving this), the mindset of Islam is stuck somewhere in some so-called Golden Age in the Dark Ages. The west lives here, right now. So does China. So does India. The Caliphate becomes less and less relevant with each passing day.

I think Islam is like a dying sun going through its last brief flash before it collapses and disappears. Islam, as a whole, realises how at odds it is with the modern world and how it either has to adapt or die. We just have to ride that out, but I don't see it as anything more than nuisance value.

More valuable perspectives. Thanx.

I'll be most interested to see if Islam fades with the end of oil, but, I suppose its like the old J curve in economics. If demographics in Europe work faster to promote Islamic influence there, and Oil does not diminish fast enough to see them with 'bugga all' then it could get very ugly.

The responses to a misunderstanding of the Popes use of the quote are clearly a demonstration of the truth of him being reported at least to connect Islam with violence.

Just this morning I heard on the news that "Quran Classes" in the Uni environment for overseas students, are being used to promote less than healthy ideas about international relations to be circumspect.

The most worrying thing about Islam as a social/political/spiritual force, is the degree to which is is grounded in military concepts.

Mohameds first formal 'Islamic State' was in Medina (read up on the "Pact of Medina") and he established treaties with the tribes.
Kaab was assasinated due to his breach of this treaty, but the point remains. Political control is the key to Islamic power and success.

Ali Mohamed, terrorist arrested around WTC bombing time, disclosed much useful intelligence and said "Without Political power, Islam cannot survive"...

MJPB I totally agree that it would have been nicer if the Pope had been reported for the other Scriptures, but in this capitalistic and opportunistic world, we all know that 'controversy and sex' are what sell newspapers :)

That underlines though, just how Muslims view criticism, and how they respond.

Shorbe.. Balls.. yep.. we need more verbal warriors, but like me, they should use 'pen names' :) or risk their families exposed to danger. I'm going to do a web site in the future about these issues.

The best defense to such threats is a strong, robust,confident and well defined culture and society not plagued by self doubt and infighting or diverse conflicting interests. They are the major goals I use OLO to promote, apart from my (2 some)'Bible Bashing' rants :)

BOAZ_David: I don't think the J curve you mention will hurt the west. Sure, Islam is growing in the west and sure most people in the west are reproducing below replacement levels. However, oil will run out and be replaced anyway (due to it being too expensive) some time this century, most likely in the first half. As such, that doesn't give Islam anywhere near enough time to get a real foothold in the west, which is a whole different set of issues to Islam outside the west. They're related, but quite distinct I think.

Also, China will increasingly come to odds with Islam (whether through trying to gain influence in central Asia or in the Middle East proper, or as far afield as SE-Asia or parts of Africa). It might be in the short term interests of Islam (most notably through Iran), China, maybe even Russia, to form some unholy alliance to counter the U.S. and west in general, but ultimately it would fail. China is not compatible with, or open to, Islam (both ideologically and demographically). Islam would then realise that a much bigger, bolder threat had snuck in the back door. I think that China would deal with Islamic extremists far more ruthlessly. The west has to pussy foot around if only because of public opinion. China wouldn't hesitate to cause major destruction (possibly of the nuclear kind) though and there wouldn't be the internal division we would have here over such a response.

Incidentally, if you want someone to write a non-PC appraisal of Islam from a secular-humanist/liberal perspective, I'd write something for your website.

It is a wonderful day, the Pope is human and also fallable.
The previous Pope who was fighting with the Jews.
Our present Pope as a true German, fought most of his life against the Jews.
So to make recompense he has a serve on the Muslims.
Poor man he was only trying to "stir the possum."

David BOAZ , truth is stranger than fiction, its a pity you do not know what the truth is, as a Catholic I am not happy with what the Pope said, he should be sacked, because he is not following in the footsteps of Christ, some facts for you to add to your knowledge.
The Qur,an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force, this is what it says about religions:
[2:62] those who believe [ in the Qur,an] and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians, and the Sabians_ any who believe in God and the last day, and work in righteousness, shall have their reward with the Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. in fact ,the Qur,an also urges reasoned faith and also forbids coercian in religion, the only violence urged in the Qur,an is in self-defence of the Muslim community against the attempts of the Pagan Meccans to wipe it out,
Of course, Christianity itself has a long history of imposing coerced faith on people, including Pagans in the Roman Empire, who were forcibly converted, and then there were the episodes of the crusades, I challange David Boaz to give some thought to using the truth , your ficticious rantings , are not of this world, athair_siochain

The Popes comments---- I am afraid there is more to this event than a slip of the tongue on the part of the Pope or simple ignorance of Islam. It comes at a time of increasingly heated rhetoric against political Islam and Islamic resistance movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas ,as well as Iran, It has to be seen in the same context as Bush,s recent adoption of the "Islamic fascists" label to denigrate political Islam, Isreal and the neocons keep talking about and preparing for a "long war" or World War and the "clash of civilizations" against Islam, Bush compares this stuggle with the stuggle against the NAZIS,

These comments by the Pope have to be seen as the opening shot and a major auillary to shaping political/ military confrontation, if this is the case, then this is a significant escalation that is catapulting us indeed towards what might become an irreversible clash of civilizations and a new crusade, God help Us,

What can we do, I believe we have to call all religions together to pray for the Pope, ask God to forgive him, enough has been said , blaming Catholics for what the Pope said ,is the same as blaming Muslims for the actions of insane individuals, athair-siochain

The reaction to Pope's comments:

Iraqi jihadists issued a video showing a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.

The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to 'shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home.'

In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life."

Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 66, was shot four times as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu

Early in the day in Iran, powerful cleric Ahmad Khatami told theological students in the holy city of Qom that if there was no apology, 'Muslims' outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks.

'The Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam.'

In London demonstrators outside the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral carried placards saying 'May Allah Curse the Pope' and 'Trinity of Evil: Christian Crusade Against Islam'.

The demonstrators also carried signs that aimed at offending the religious sentiments of Christians by suggesting that 'Jesus will raise the sword of Islam' and 'Jesus is the slave of Allah'.

I love Islam. It is indeed a Religion of Peace

Boaz, you are a rabble-rouser.

As I have mentioned to you before, on my bookshelf I have Mosley's autobiography "My Life".

He was one of Europe's most charismatic folk heroes, leading the UK Fascist movement in the 1930s. People turned out in their tens of thousands, Boaz, to hear his message.

He - as you do - picked on any and every news item that supported his world view, and repackaged it for his speeches to the English working-class.

You repackage them for OLO with a similar agenda: to rouse your "fellow Australians" to rant and rave against Islam.

Mosley's target was Jews. Yours is Muslims.

I also have the DVD of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph des Willens" which she made as a "historical record" of the 1934 Nurnberg Rally. I play it to remind myself that propaganda is propaganda, no matter how beautifully it is presented.

It may well be that your headline is prophetic, and a world war is the outcome. If so, I hope you will stand up and be counted afterwards, and be prepared to stand trial for your part in its genesis, and not rush off to South America.

Until I joined this forum I was under the misapprehension that we as a civilization have made some forward progress since 1933, but it is becoming increasingly clear that I was labouring under massive self-delusion.

Why is it that we still feel the need to fire each other with hatred for our fellow human beings in order to gain some illusion of self-worth?

Have we not learned the basic lesson from the fear and loathing that grew to become the Nazi regime and the holocaust? That it is the responsibility of every individual to resist the temptation to sow hatred and suspicion, as opposed to nurture it as you, Boaz, are doing here?

I can refer you to a number of German citizens who were alive in the 1930s, and can explain to you first-hand how and why it is an immensely powerful, and dangerous, activity.

Hi Pericles,

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=18514

Read and enjoy

http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=40215

Read and enjoy

See, how the 'christians' react to these blasphemous acts.

Jesus Cartoons Everywhere and Christians Are Not Rioting .. Why?

I "Googled" and "Alta-Vista-ed" the phrase "Jesus Cartoon" this morning and found that there were quite a few to choose from. Most were from Christian sites, some from anti-Christian sites, some were whimsical, some were coarse and degrading, many were from European sites (mostly German with cartoon dialogues that defied translation by Babel Fish). There were even political cartoons from American newspapers.

When I was finished I checked for "Muhammed Cartoon" and found . . . nothing. Google and Alta Vista have apparently blocked access to the many Muhammed cartoon caricature that are everywhere on the internet these days. Even the newsworthy Danish cartoons that kicked off the current Islamist riots have been censored by these search engines.

I am sooooo glad that these internet gateways have no problems guiding me to all the pornography I (don't) want to find but are thoughtful enough (or scared of having their throats cut) to protect me from finding the images that have set off major international rioting.

A search for "Piss Christ", however, delivered over 45 "hits" (just of the image itself) on Google and 31 on Alta Vista. Go figure. Sure.

Apparently images of Jesus, no matter how demeaning or insulting, do not create a threat of rioting, burning down an embassy, boycotting a nation or beheading somebody. Clearly, the American news media are not afraid of Christians.

obozo, I'm not quite sure what your point is, but when I typed "Muhammed Cartoon" into Google, I got 4,040,000 hits, plus a polite question "Did you mean: Mohammed Cartoon" which I tried, and got another 2,230,000 hits.

Right at the top of both is the Wikipedia entry covering the Jyllands-Posten affair.

So your suggestion that search engines are somehow imposing anti-christian censorship is baseless.

As it happens, I believe that the Muslim reaction to the Pope's statement is over the top, and a deliberate escalation of the heat that - if he had only thought about it for a moment -) the comments were bound to create.

That does not make it any less irresponsible for every tom dick and harry to use the situation to push their own anti-Islam barrows.

Hi Pericles,

That was on the day after Cartoon-riots took place and hope you see my point.

If Mohammed is alive doing his nasty things today, I will not hesitate to call him a paedophile and a mass-murderer.

To those angry muslims: "Catch me if you can and do your jihad on me. "

Having lived 4 years in a Muslim dominated country I'm surprised that people haven't woken up to the inevitability of the world being divided into Muslim and non-Muslim warring camps. The baloney that most Muslims are 'moderate' is only allowing the muslims to get stronger, especially while the West keeps sending them huge amounts of oil money and attempting to appease them. We are in the early stages of an all-out global war and the West should defend itself without trying to be so 'nice'. Kick all the Muslims out of Europe, America and Australia and send them back to 'the Muslim world' so we can get on with it, seriously. I abhor violence but I also value freedom.

Again to all:

Dear Pericles, I have a link which I believe you would be MOST interested in. It's the writings of a man (Aussie) called 'Inky Stephenson' who was interned for 3 yrs during war2 for his 'suspected disloyalty'.... from what you tell me of Mosely, and what I've read of him, this man is either runner up or a clear first. (I'd_never_ heard_of_him_till_2_days_ago)

His writings are quite remarkable, on Australian Cultural foundations, and other touchy topics. Please have a read of
1/ "A Reasoned case against Semitism" http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/stephensen/prs3.html
That is pre ww2 by the way.
2/ Foundations of Australian Culture
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/stephensen/prs4.html

This is part of a collection found on the Australia First Party website, but don't let that deter you. I didn't know that until I read some of his stuff, and it doesn't matter to me as I'm not a particular fan of some of Australia First's goals. I'd value your comment as an English bloke.

My Target is in fact "Islam" as an ideological force. Targeting "Muslims" is futile and pointless and definitely unChristian. On a personal level, my closest acquaintance at gym is an Iranian Muslim.(He is nominal,not fundamentalist).

As an aside, their version of "Up Sh_t creek without a paddle" is having a "pregnant wife".. wierd huh... in their culture the poor bloke is totally sidelined and helpless, his wife is surrounded by all female visitors.

ATHAIR
your Quranic quote is correct. For balance there is another as follows: Surah 9.30
Due to their (Christians) belief that Christ is the Son of God they are:
1/ Cursed by Allah
2/ Allah fights against them
3/ May Allah destroy them

The Quran itself is not the sole source of Islamic law,and while it is silent on 'forceful conversion' the Hadith and Histories fill in the blanks. Read this link please:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm

then scroll to this paragraph "Ibn al Walid's Campaign against Dumah"
See how clearly Mohammed's offer to Christian Prince Ukaydir was 'Islam.....or death'(by Implication)
So...its not so much what the Quran 'says' but what Mohamed 'did'.

Athair,

If I may be at liberty to interject. I find your comments about the Pope, David, and Christians extremely offensive and you clearly have not taken the time to find out what was going on with the Pope incident (and possibly don't even know the basics of the Catholic religion).

As a Catholic the Pope is the closest to the head of the Church you have currently in the flesh on earth. The Catholic belief is that the Pope is the current successor of St Peter. Isn't it rather out of line for a Catholic to make (ill informed and) disrespectful comments like "he should be sacked"? All the Pope did was give a public lecture concluding that religious people should eschew violence. Jesus gave a lecture on the mount. Some of His comments could be taken to encourage non-violence. How is the Pope not following the footsteps of Jesus. Sheez he even apologized to those who got offended because of media reports that misrepresented his quotes from the Emperor. He also quoted scriptures but those quotes were not attributed to him personally. Is your image of Jesus a sword waving cross burning protestor keen on violence? That is clearly the opposite of the Pope's call for peace?

"your ficticious rantings , are not of this world"

Your comments are certainly of this world from a poorly informed person claiming to be Christian.

Islamic reactions to the Pope's comments on what someone said in the 14th century say it all. Can anyone really imagine adherents to religions other than Islam carrying on like lunatics everytime they are citicised? As George Pell said, the reactions of Muslims all over the world shows that the Pope's comments - second-hand though they were - are correct.

Islam has not changed since the 14th Century. If most Muslims were 'moderate' as is claimed, they would have adapted to the modern world by now.

It would seem the Pope has now raised the level of Bigotry on this site, what you bigots need to do, is find out what the Pope said later, about the Jewish involvement in the death of Christ, many Jewish people are now speaking out, they are upset,
the best way we can put this away, is to call for all people/ religions to pray to God to Forgive those who make statements that divide Gods children, by creating reigious hatred, many on this site have never had it so good, many religious bigots have now got the green light to crawl out of the sewers/woodwork, I have read the Popes speech in full, he did not need to mention Mohammed, that part of his speech seems out of place with what he was trying to say, he must have done something wrong because many newspapers in Europe are calling him Gods Rottweiler,

MJPB , Jesus would never carry a sword, the Pope is not carrying a sword, he is sharpening all the swords carried by religious bigots worldwide, if he was to truelly change his blooper he would say that the report by Professor Theodore Khoury was not true because historical facts prove this statement is incorrect, agreeing with what he said, is encouraging religious hatred, giving the green light, the question you bigots should answer. "Would Jesus make the same assumsions,?
If the Pope said he made a mistake, he would be seen as siding with the Muslims, many people are going to die because the fires of hatred are being stoked up, if the Pope is Killed Muslims will be Blamed, are we seeing another "twin towers" created? I say we need to pray for the Pope, he needs Gods help. maybe the Muslims should pray for him, instead of falling into the trap , violence will not bring peace, it only brings death, there has to be a better way, forgiving the Pope for his "whatever' will turn the tide of hate,

Athair,

"if he was to truelly change his blooper he would say that the report by Professor Theodore Khoury was not true because historical facts prove this statement is incorrect"

He prefaced it with: "It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian." Thus he carefully avoided any suggestion that it was a fair exchange of ideas. Why qualify the comments further?

He also said the point he wanted to distil was marginal to the report. The overall quote was thus not cited for the history or fairness/credibility of the comments. He just wanted to distil one point to develop an argument of non-violence. How would commenting on the veracity of the report further be relevant? He had already dismissed any notion that it was a balanced report of the debate and indicated that it was the view of a Greek Emperor when Constantinople was under seige. That is a strong clear message that the overall quote is rather biased and cannot be assumed accurate.

"agreeing with what he said, is encouraging religious hatred ... you bigots should answer. "Would Jesus make the same assumsions,?"

He didn't agree. He indicated it was an unbalanced commentary by an Emperor at war with Muslims. Re-read the speech then explain why Jesus would do otherwise.

"I say we need to pray for the Pope, he needs Gods help."

At the moment that probably wouldn't hurt. I have heard that they have had to up the security at the Vatican. ( ;

"MAYBE the Muslims should pray for him, instead of falling into the trap , violence will not bring peace, it only brings death..."

You would think that the literate ones would have read the Pope's speech by now, realized that any insult was media hype, and would be condemning the violence. It would be timely for non-violent Muslims to very publically apologize to the Pope lest bigots think that there are none.

It seems to me that the only people opposed to anti vilification laws are christians like BOAZ.
They seem to think they have a right to hate people based solely on a particular characteristic, albeit in the case of religion, a chosen one.
You (and in fact nobody) do not have any right to hatred of a group of people simply based your own assumptions or belief system.
If a religion or book pertaining to that religion teaches hatred, discrimination and bigotry, then we need to rip out the pages of the books which give the organisation justification and bring the organisation (church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc) and it's followers into line with the standards of a modern and just secular state.
More power to Steve Bracks, lets make these laws nationwide, nay lets make them international.
As for the pope or the muslim clerics, I really don't care what any man wearing a dress has to say, with the possible exception of Dame Edna Everidge.

ADJ,no belief system or religion should be beyond analysis or criticism.The anti-religious Vilfication Laws should be scraped because if we make an exception for religion,next we will have pollies and other minority groups asking for equal treatment.

The Pope in giving his example of religious violence should have also referred to Christian violence of the Crusades,Spanish invasion of South America and how King Constantine made the Christian Church the dominant religion of Rome in 300 AD.

He regretted and apologised for the violence that ensued,but he did not regret or recind his comments.

Leigh: Oddly, I find myself in complete agreement with you for once.

Arjay:
We can't possibly have "minority groups asking for equal treatment".
My goodness, PEOPLE wanting to be treated as human beings. PEOPLE wanting equality, respect and dignity. What a strange idea.
Why is it that some christians want the right to hate people (even incite violence and murder against them) based solely on one characteristic?
Religion is a choice, anyone can change their belief system on a daily (or more regular) basis.
They have the right to do so, or not do so, and to enjoy their chosen lifestyle free from threats or intimidation.
Of all of mankinds inventions, there are none more destructive and evil as religion or race.
For this reason alone, we need to moderate them.

ADJ,threats of violence and intimidation are covered by common law.Under this legislation[ie ARVL] you cannot publicly question the tenents or so called facts in the various religious texts without breaking the law if the proponents of that religion feel offended.This is amounts to censorship to stop a potentially violent group from being offended.This legislation is playing right into the hands of the totalitarian mentality,where absolutes and irrationality rules.This is not good for democracy.

Nearly everyone makes jokes about the Pope and nothing is said.The Catholic Church has been derided for decades and they just cop it sweet because they know negative reactions just make it worse.

Now many Muslims on the other hand like to be outraged,since they know from past experience Western sensibilities will cringe apologeticly in fear.This is a war of words and ideas.Rational thought is our only salvation.

There is a stark difference between questioning the tenents of a religion and vilifying people who practice it.
These laws are designed to protect the people who follow a certain religion, not the religion itself.
We have had anti-vilification laws in relation to race an sexuality in place for at least 10 years now, this is merely an extension of those laws.
There are exemptions from the act, humor is one of them.
My experience is that most muslims, like most christians, jews, buddhists etc and like most atheists can take a joke and will even make them at their own expense.
I am an atheist, I want the right to remain an atheist withour any religion telling me otherwise.
Nobody is trying to ban christianity (or any other religion) here. Simply brining it and some of its more overly zealous followers into line with the multicultural, multi denominational, secular society we choose to call Australia.
BTW: If you wanna see good religious jokes go to the humor page of the www.atheistfoundation.org.au
My personal favorite is the one of the nativity scene with Joseph exclaiming "It's a girl".

AJD
a point of order there mate.

My call for the abolition of the RRT2001 is not based on my desire to 'hate' it is based on the desire to have freedom to speak truth about historic Islam.

Let me ask...do you know of the background to this issue ?

Are you aware of the following:

1/ The particular case in point ...Catch the Fire Pastors, came about as a result of what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy between the Islamic Council of Victoria and the Equal Opportunity Commission.
2/ May Helou, a Muslim, was employed by BOTH organizations.
3/ She became aware of this seminar and arranged for 'spies' to goto monitor the proceedings
4/ One of those 'spies' asked one of the pastors "How should Christians treat Muslims" ? (without saying he was a Muslim) and the reply was "Christians should love Muslims" yet.. it was claimed that the Seminar was inciting hate !

The seminar was to inform people about the Islamic 'mindset' and events subsequent have proven this to be abundantly accurate.
At the time of the original complaint we had not had a single example of any Muslim arrested for 'terrorism', but we now have 13 in Melbourne and 9 in Sydney.

A claim made by the Seminar was that violent Jihad is a definite possibility. Now it has happened.

Christians don't want a licence to hate, we have the Scriptures which tell us 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'.

The Quran specifically.. repeat SPECIFICALLY "names" Christians and villifies us in terms which are ILLEGAL under the Act.

And this is our point. The Act is stupid because it also condemns the Quran making it an illegal publication. The only thing remaining is to test this in court, something I'm working on.

To claim 'Islam was spread by violence' is a statment of historic fact. It is ludicrous to say that making a true statement vilifies all Muslims. If truth hurts then so be it.
Please see my detailed documented posts on Waleed Aly's article.

David,

Were the Pastors who gave the speech about Islam converts from Islam or something? I have a vague recollection that I read that somewhere. Due to your keen interest you might know.

Thanks

Hi MJ

Pastor Danny Naliah is Sri Lankan with a Buddhist background.
Pastor Daniel Scott is Pakistani, I don't think he was Muslim, but when he attained higher education, he was called on to demonstrate his Islamic credentials, which he would not do as he was Christian.

NOTICE OF CONCERN.

I plan to make this issue most public in any way I can. Read on.

In ROME there is the largest MOSQUE in Europe, built with a 20,000,000 donation from SAUDI ARABIA.

How many Churches are in Saudi Arabia ? "zero"

How dare the Islamic world condemn the Pope for his quotation of an Emperor from the 14th century, when today in 2006 the 'evil and inhuman' attitude of the SAUDI government is DOUBLY evil.

1) Preventing any Church building
2) Paying for MOSQUES in Christian lands.

I urge every reader to write (email) and ring the Saudi government and protest this unfairness.

CANBERRA

(02) 6282 6999 you may have to press a few buttons to get to the Ambassadors office, I just rang and was able to leave a message.

email

saudi-mission@un.net (United Nations)
info@saudiembassy.net (Washington DC)

The more noise we make, perhaps things will improve.

Cheers all

David Boaz, I have been waiting for you to write about what the Pope did not say, we all know what he said about Muslins, he left out the Catholic Popes of that time, they were all involved in mass murder, they organized armies to invade Muslim Nations, they organized the execution of people who copied Prayer Letters and sold them, most of the churches were built with materials looted from the buildings in the countries they over ran, David you continue to blame Muslims for terrorism. maybe if you looked up the historical facts of the Popes of that time, you might learn more none Catholics were put to the sword than any time since the death of Christ. the Italian Government was at logger heads with the Popes, "find out why" then maybe you will see out of your other eye, athair_siochain.

If only we could array all of the christian, muslim and jewish wackos on a great big plain and let them kill each other in the names of their various perverse religous beliefs so all the rational post-religuos humans could get on with their lives. Unfortunately every day the god-war gets closer because most people are too nice to tell the idiots to wake up to themselves, and the various governments continue to promote respect for such dangerous lunacy. Is this the 21st century?? If only.

BOAZ:
I know of the case to which you refer, it was widely publicised.
I totally support the Victorian Government's stand against the narrow minded bigots who ran/run Catch the Fire.

May I suggest you learn to read or at least to comprehend.
Here is what I said AGAIN.
THIS FIRST PART IS MOST PERTINENT!
"If a religion or book pertaining to that religion teaches hatred, discrimination and bigotry, then we need to rip out the pages of the books which give the organisation justification and bring the organisation (church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc) and it's followers into line with the standards of a modern and just secular state."
ALSO
"Religion is a choice, anyone can change their belief system on a daily (or more regular) basis. They have the right to do so, or not do so, and to enjoy their chosen lifestyle free from threats or intimidation."
AND
"There is a stark difference between questioning the tenents of a religion and vilifying people who practice it.
These laws are designed to protect the people who follow a certain religion, not the religion itself.
We have had anti-vilification laws in relation to race an sexuality in place for at least 10 years now, this is merely an extension of those laws. There are exemptions from the act, humor is one of them."
MORE:
"Nobody is trying to ban christianity (or any other religion) here. Simply bringing it and some of its more overly zealous followers into line with the multicultural, multi denominational, secular society we choose to call Australia."

The new laws will protect good and evil,

Religion should be answerable to all the people, ultimately they pay the price, going back to the dark ages will suit your mates David

Citizen you are right on the ball, imagine what it would be like if we could not speak out against the bigots on this site,

Dear AJD

thank you for underlining the very point I'm trying to make.
We were described as 'whackos' :) and I totally defend your right to express ur views in that way. Even THOUGH it 'vilifies' me :)

The problem I have with the RRT2001 is not so much its intent, but its implementation. Did you notice my explanation of the dubious at best nature of the background to the complaint ? (the conspiratorial nature) ?

Then.. the absolute hum dinger is the quote from the ICV lawyers who claimed "Truth...is not a defense"... now.. can you explain to me how speaking 'truth' is vilification ? To incite hate on the basis of falsehood is truly criminal and bad. But to demonstrate the danger of a faith on the basis of TRUTH about its fundamental nature is surely social responsibility?

You cannot in anyway point to 'vilfication' of National Socialism when their basic doctrines are exposed and their history revealed can you ? Please answer this, because it is important.

In other words, we cannot seek protection from vilification when our actions and attitudes are 'vile'.

You said you are familiar with the case. Have you read the full judgement ? do you understand the Christian mentality/mindset which does not promote hate... rather it promotes compassion, but not for 'ideas' like National Socialism or others who would remove our freedom.

The RRT2001 does not allow 'motive' to be taken into consideration, which is preposterous. "Murder" and "Manslaughter" are differentiated by ONE thing "Motive". "Did he MEAN to kill that person"..or..was it an 'accident'... This is a legal principle which cannot be ignored.

For the ONE point in the judgement which had merit, being "They did not sufficiently distinguish between 'mainstream' Muslims and fundamentalists" it would need to be shown that if 'radicals' managed to stage a coup or takeover, that the 'moderates' are unlikely to support it. However, a reasonable person would consider this most unlikely. Therefore the judgement is in error I believe.

Dear Athair

not at all mate.....

The point is that we need to be robust enough in our faith to withstand accusations of "whackos" :)

Does the use of the term not 'Hold Christians up to public ridicule" ?

Does such a term not "hold Christians up to public contempt" ?

Of course they do :) I would not say they incite hate, but the act covers the issues of 'ridicule and contempt' also.

I want YOU and AJD and all to have the freedom to even say "Christians drink blood and eat babies" which was said about us during the Roman Persecutions.

I also want the freedom to say such things as the CTF pastors were saying about Islam.

Now.. I re-iterate the point, that since the CTF seminars claiming that 'Muslims were seeking to takeover' which of course is nothing more than saying "The Socialist Alliance is promoting REVOLUTION against capitalist borgoise in Australia" ... we have had a number of people now committed to trial for the very thing they claimed.

Their error was this, they failed to make the important distinction between the radicals (who are in fact the 'true' Muslims if you examine closely the Quran and Sunna) and the 'slack cultural' Muslims.

So, when subjected to accurate scrutiny, it is still quite true to say 'Muslims' are seeking to take over Australia. Given the meaning of 'Muslim' in terms of the Quran and Sunna.
It is not true to say "All people claiming to be Muslims" are seeking to take over. But this is pure semantics and does not change the fundamental truth of their claim.

Just to clarify my understanding of a few things so to try to ensure we are speaking the same language.

1. "difference between questioning the tenents of a religion and vilifying people who practice it.”
Example: going back to the dark ages will suit your mates David

2. “bigots”
Example: which one should I pick?

3. “vilification”
Example: “”all of the christian, muslim and jewish wackos” , “idiots”
Support (aiding and abetting): “Citizen you are right on the ball”

Athair,

"I have been waiting for you to write about what the Pope did not say, we all know what he said about Muslins."

Apparently not. He quoted an Emperor to explain an academic point. Your hatred of Catholics seems to have you clinging to the media rumour that the Pope bagged Muslims.

Just as he would have considered it inappropriate to bag Muslims I’m sure he would consider it inappropriate to bag Catholics. The Emperor he quoted did not make disparaging remarks about Catholics.

Further, “mass murder” is a term normally used to describe a psychopath going on a thrill kill of innocent people in peace time. Why did you fail to preface any such comment with a statement that you consider leaders engaging in warfare to be mass murders to ensure no misunderstanding?

You do realize that, apart from keeping most of Europe and stopping the rapid decline in its territory, Christendom didn't do well in the Crusades? The Middle East (the cradle of Christianity) may have bounced back and forth but it ended up mainly Muslim and Muslims ultimately maintained their conquests as far as Turkey. I believe that in the first Crusade Christians had great success in taking back territory but overall, apart from having their advance into Europe halted and failing to hang on to Spain, Muslims did quite well.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to call David one eyed? Contrast your side’s bigotted approach continually vilifying Christians with David politely arguing his case.

mjpb,

"Useing someone elses name/quote to put across your opinion"!

That is what I call hiding behind/pointing the finger away from oneself a clever act, that is used time and time again by political and religious leaders,

So you now believe I am one of "them" well thats what your mindset tells you, you dont know me, or anything about me, I speak out against anyone who stirs the pot of hatred, I do not belong to any side involved with hatred, but I do belong to the group of Christians who love their brothers some who are Muslims, facts speak for themselves, the Pope dug up a racist statement from the past to fit into his speech, and because he failed to speak about the blood thirsty Popes of that time is clear evidence that it was his intention to villify Muslims, even Pell approved , threw his hat into the ring,

"Christians had great success taking back Territory"!

That statement proves how un/Christian your thinking is, Christians involved in killing their brothers, anyone who kills is evil, and certainly not, carrying out Gods work, Maybe you can explain this to me why do you see stained glass windows in Christian churches that depict Saints looking towards heaven with a blooded sword in their hand, maybe the real reason is the God being worshipped is a antichrist desguised as the true God ,
Now if you read what you write you will see you always bash Muslims, your friend Benny Hinn disguised as a Christian has said many times on National TV that Muslims are evil, it is he who is evil because he spreads evil, he too uses God as a tool /shield to hide behind,

The Pope qualified his use of the quote to ensure that there was no misunderstanding and after BBC's mischief he revisited it clearly stated that it was not his own opinion. Certainly many leaders do use quotes in that way with great success but that plainly is not what happened.

All I know about you is what you type and I respond accordingly. If you keep pouring out hatred and insult I assume you hate the group you are insulting. If you don't like stirring the hatred pot then stay true to your beliefs and look at what you are doing and supporting. If you read the speech as you claim to have done it is surprising that you missed the fact that the Pope had a dig at Western society not Islam telling them that they need to tap into the heart of Christianity and that religion is incompatible with violence. BBC used the comments to create newsworthy conflict. You and others use the comments to denigrate Christians. Pell used the comments and events to support the view that Muslims are violent. The speech simply argued for nonviolence. You are all misusing and misrepresenting a speech to suit your own agenda. You say that you are a Christian. Are you an Anglican?

You are entitled to your opinion but in mine you seem to be deliberately obtuse to the point made and overly pedantic. I consider in unChristian thinking to devote oneself to scraping for examples to vilify Christians.

On that note I can't explain the Christian saint thing. I have never seen it. Is it definitely saints not Angels? I could imagine St Michael sword in hand doing battle with Satan.

I have been rather partial to people who are usually insulted in a similar breath to Mr Hinn but I have never warmed to him. This is due to the way he presents and his multimillion dollar mansion. I have never heard his views on Muslims but I'd suggest taking the same approach to Christians is worse.

David Boaz

Some answers to your claims,

The Pope Has Held Christians up for public ridicule.

Christians do not drink blood and eat babies, and neither do Muslims.

History tells us much. and we are said to learn from history, what can be learned from this Christian act of faith, being carried out by learned Christian leaders, the scene, a young four year girl burning at the stake, she had been accused of being a witch because she owned a cat. the so called good people were praying to God to forgive her for her sins, they sprinkled holy oils on the fire. to cleans her soul, " who is carrying out their act of faith today?"

Sprinkling holy oils on the fire of hatred, while praying to God to forgive those who you call evil doers, is a activity of these times, Christian leaders are stoking the fire of hatred, and the bigots on this site are enjoying every minute, they are no different than those christian leaders who prayed to God to forgive a four year old girl that burned to death,
God helps the victims of hate, so when you choose to hate Muslims , you choose to be on the side that is against Gods love of all human beings

It seems the only argument christians have these days is that somehow, when compared to islam, they consider themselves to be "the lesser or two evils".
I don't buy it for a minute.
I'd much rather go for the "BETTER OF TWO GOODS".... ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM.

Athair,

If I may be at liberty to interject in your dialogue with David...

”The Pope Has Held Christians up for public ridicule.”

Are you saying that preaching non-violence holds Christians up for public ridicule but calling them “whackos” or “idiots” or agreeing with those comments or referring to dark ages in your comments does not?

Ditto with ill informed allegations that the Pope/ Christians are stroking a fire of hatred and comparing them with rogue Christians who murdered a four year old (if that is a true story not just something made up to vilify Christians).

”History tells us much. and we are said to learn from history, what can be learned from this Christian act of faith, being carried out by learned Christian leaders…”

It teaches that people claiming to be Christian who prey on other Christians are often the most hateful and dangerous because they fail to abide by the nonviolent heart of most major religions.

History also teaches that when women (and men in 25% of cases) were burned as witches it rejected Christian tradition. As early as the 5th Century it was clearly held by a Christian Synod that anyone accusing a person of being a witch is rejected by the Church until they recant. Participating Christian countries thus acted contrary to the faith until the issue was raised at an Inquisition and the governing body considered it a hoax and ordered people not to discuss witches. Friedrich Spee von Langenfield, a Jesuit priest, who wrote that the accused confessed only because they were the victims of sadistic tortures was instrumental in ending a later resurgence due to a King refusing to abide by the Church’s ruling.

”… you choose to be on the side that is against Gods love of all human beings”

Don’t you reckon vilifying Christians and stirring up hatred with your four year old story would have this effect?

mj of course feel free to participate any time :)

Athair.. I must confess I'm a bit confused about your posts...

I have a feeling you might not have quite understood my points.

Do you think I view the pope as holding Christians up to ridicule ?
Not at all mate..

This morning I heard the (VERY SMART) Pope doing his 'reception and explanation' to Muslim envoys.. aaah.. it was beautiful :) he is much wiser and sharper than I had previously thought.

HIS WORDS.

"I hold in high respect and esteem Muslim believers"

Now... put our thinking caps on :) "Muslim Believers" is as far away from "The Islamic faith" as the east is from the west in this context.

He is not in any way altering or apoligizing for the idea that "The Islamic Faith is violent" a point proven in abundance from the Cartoon controversy and the reaction to his misconstrued discontexted quote of the 14c Emperorer.

He should have added for good effect, that statements in the Quran as follows are most regrettable and should be APOLOGIZED for by Muslim Leaders as they are intolerable and insulting in the extreme.

Sura 5:51 referring to Christians by name "Verily Allah does not guide a people unjust" (Yusuf Ali translation)

or..

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Notice that.. "ALLAH'S CURSE BE ON THEM".....

Yep..thats it.. CURSED are we Christians... CURSED !......
Not to mention 'deluded' and 'away from truth'.

I call that something insulting and worthy of apology :)

This verse forms the basis of a complaint I am in due course lodging with the Equal Opportunity Commission under the RRT2001. "RELIIGIOUS VILIFICATION"