Dear David F.,

What a wonderful theory. If only it could indeed
happen in this troubled world of ours. If only people
would not take their world for granted, but instead
understood the social authorship of their lives and
futures they could become an irresistible force in
history. Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation
or save it is a collective decision and it is one that
may well be made within our lifetimes. If more and
more nuclear weapons are built, and more sophisticated
means of delivering them are devised, and if more and
more nations get control of these vile devices
then surely we risk our own destruction. If ways are
found to reverse that process, then we can direct
unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems
that face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation,
injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our
natural environment. Sooner or later we will have to
realise that our ultimate choice must be to enhance the
life on the lovely planet on which we live. Our survival
depends on it.

I see no reason to believe that moslem populations in Australia will
behave any different to their behaviour in Europe.
It is pointless talking about "moderate" moslems.
It can be argued that the terrorists were either moderates or the
children of moderates.
Paul 1405 looks on the sunny side of moderates but the terrorists
have all been moderates. To try to differentiate is pointless.

The Party of Freedom in Holland has proposed applying the law regarding
hate publications to the Koran and it would be banned under existing law.
Their intention is to close mosques and deport as many Moroccans as possible.
There is no gentle way to handle this problem.

Foxy the link you gave promoted the establishment of a dictatorship.
Do you really think that you and I would be exempt from the rule
of the Caliph ?
If you think that is not the aim of moslems then your reading is rather abbreviated.

It is true that there is a movement to reform Islam but they are
considered blasphemers and subject to the death penalty.
That is not an idle threat. So called moderate moslems when quizzed
admit if push came to shove they would side with the immans and
support the establishment of Sharia law and the closing of parliament.
In the UK there have been a number of polls along these lines.
The basis of the problem is that Islam is not just a religious movement
but rather a Theological Dictatorship that does not allow any activity
not permitted by Sharia law. eg Iran and Saudi Arabia.
There is no place for laws decided by the people unless approved by
the Caliph.

To advocate and to try and implement sharia law I believe is sedition
and is punishable by a long term of imprisonment.

These are the problems that Europe is facing. Do we need it here ?

Just after I put that last post on here, I watched the midday ABC News.
They had a discussion on citizen tests for immigrants.
The whole discussion missed the major problem.
They were centred around "good character" which is pointless.
Any immigrant will say anything they know the interviewer needs.
They would present as a family which would tick all the boxes.
Then a year later pay their son's airfare to the middle east to join ISIS.

There no way that we can sort them out at the border.
Do we have to wait until the expected civil war in France begins ?

Dear Bazz,

Do you really believe that people practice their
religions in exactly the same way? Surely you
must realise that Muslims are not all the same,
same as neither are Jews, Christians, et cetera.
Muslims come from various parts of the world, with
various cultures, languages, and so on. You can't
put them all in the one basket. That's not logical.
Of course our immigration laws need to be tightened.
For everybody. And of course we have to make it
quite clear that we ask people in this country to
subscribe to a legal framework that can protect the
rights and liberties of all. That these are not
optional.

Anyway, I can understand your fears. You're not
alone in that. Here's a link that tells it from
the other side of the coin that's worth a read:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslims-on-what-its-like-to-live-in-australia-20160429-g0i953.html

cont'd ...

I'm having computer problems.

I'll try once more:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslims-on-what-its-like-to-live-in-australia-20160429-goi953.html

Dear David,

If your analysis of Greek/Roman paganism is correct, then theirs was not a religion, but a scientific attempt, then they simply considered themselves to be practical. The test is simple: if one is shown that their god(s) do not exist and/or is/are ineffective, then a scientist would forsake those god(s) whereas a religious person is unaffected.

Monotheism should be considered in the same light - the intent of the worshippers. Are they just trying to improve their mundane life? Are they after wealth, health, power, land, progeny, long-life and similar forms of success? It is only rational for those who believe the God-of-Abraham to be stronger than the others to worship Him. In fact, the early Jews believed that other gods also exist and neither Moses nor the prophets told them otherwise (that they do not), but rather commanded [despite that]: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

All that changed was that the new-god-in-town was jealous, but otherwise, for the masses at least, both were merely scientific attempts.

Scientists can go wrong. The mechanics of Newton was replaced by Einstein's relativity and technology was adjusted to accommodate this. Those ancients who looked upon worship as mere technology would have no problem to modify it, which they did when they embraced Christianity.

I know little about the Romans, but assuming that your account is correct, it seems that the philosophers were the true religious leaders of the time, that they were the ones who instructed people on how to live correctly and improve their character (which would ultimately lead them to God, rather than to material gains).

Material results can be planned and verified objectively, thus no place for diversity, while spiritual results cannot.

As far as material success is concerned, modern science has already replaced both monotheism and polytheism: in that sense, one could say that the god of science is stronger and more jealous, so any attempt to restore polytheism as a means to material success is doomed to fail.

(continued...)