"Gay couple filmed beaten and insulted after neighbours report them having sex to police."
"Footage has emerged of the moment a group of men, described as “vigilantes”, raid a boarding house in Indonesia who laugh as they assault the two men and called them “dogs”.
The couple, aged 21 and 23, were filmed on March 28 in the province of Banda Aceh as the men detained the pair for breaching the country’s strict religious laws. They were reported to police the next day.

The footage, circulated online, shows the gang raid the house and find the couple in bed.
The gang who raided the home were neighbours of the couple who had become suspicious, a spokesman for Aceh’s sharia police Marzuki Ali told the ABC.
“The case has been sent to the sharia court of Aceh... It involves sodomy which can be punished by 100 lashes,” he told Reuters.
According to the Bangkok Post, the neighbours had spotted them being intimate with each other regularly and had “set out to catch them” having sex"

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/gay-couple-filmed-beaten-and-insulted-after-neighbours-report-them-having-sex-to-police/news-story/46dc0b5a1faba86a850ed0a7b32faa36

Dear Is Mise,

And your point is?

Dear Is Mise,

And your point is?

Not everyone in this world is as enlightened as You, Foxy and Myself.

Hi Foxy & Paul,

Perhaps what Is Mise was getting at is that, if Shari'a is ever introduced into Australia [Christ, what am I saying ? It's already here in property law and family law] - of course, at first only for consenting Muslims - is that homosexual Australians, who happen to be Muslim, would be in line for either copping a hundred lashes or being thrown off the top of buildings, depending on your brand of Islamism. Along with all the rest of Shari'a law.

Extending Shari'a to all Muslims would follow quickly - extending it to all Australians can come later.

While we're on the subject, is all meat marketed in Australia subjected to halal processes, that all animals must be turned towards Mecca and have their throats slit slowly, so that they can be mindful of the mercy and compassion of Allah ? Are people employed at all meat-works, chicken factories, etc., to ensure halal, and are we all paying for it ? Or do all meat-works etc. pay shake-down money to some Muslim organisation ?

Just asking.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

What makes you or Is Mise think that Australians will
be affected by what's happening in Indonesia?
Indonesia is predominantly a Muslim country, (over 155
million) compared to Australia's population of less than
2 per cent being Muslim, which is negligible.

It would help if in discussions people would at least stick
to the facts and debate accurate information.

Australians in this country are free to follow
whatever religion they wish so long as its practices do not
break any Australian law. And those laws are ones enacted
by Parliament.

Religious laws have no legal status in this
country therefore Australians have nothing to fear from
what Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any one else may privately
practice. They don't have to follow suit.

We're not obliged to eat Kosher food, or follow any other
religious laws. As a matter of fact we don't have to follow
any religion at all. So as I asked earlier - what's the
point that Is Mise is trying to make? That less than 2 per cent
of our population who happen to follow a certain religion will
influence the rest of the country to back their beliefs?
Do you really believe that?

My point is to start a new discussion; see the panel that states "New discussion".

Another point is to bring to your notice what the 'religion of peace and female equality' gets up to, while you're not watching.

Indonesia is a Muslim country that far outnumbers us in population, how long before Sharia law extends to the rest of that country?
Then we South Irianese will have a bit of trouble on our hands.

"That less than 2 per cent of our population.."

If this career politician believes as he does, that it is the end that justifies the means, which involves promising ethnic groups whatever they want to win marginal seats and become PM, then yes, that 2% can swing practically anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

Next question..

Dearest Foxy,

Of course, the great majority of Muslims in Australia probably just go about their lives as Australians, abiding by Australian law, and not giving much thought to it all. Only a small minority, people like Keysar Trad and Anne Aly, would be pushing for the recognition of Shari'a law - at first, of course, only voluntarily for Muslims, then for all Muslims, but later - who knows ?

I hope that it will always be the case, that

"..... Australians in this country are free to follow
whatever religion they wish so long as its practices do not
break any Australian law. And those laws are ones enacted
by Parliament.

"Religious laws have no legal status in this
country ..... "

I hope that Shari'a law will never be applied 'even' to 'willing' Muslims. But I suspect that many faux-'Left' will see nothing wrong with it, as long as it applies only to Muslims, on the grounds that 'after all, it's their religion and their laws. Each to their own "culture", after all.' Dumb-dumb.

No, Australian law applies to ALL Australians, and that's how it should stay.

But my question still hangs there in the air: is all meat marketed in Australia required to meet halal standards, and are we all paying for it ? If so, then we are all being subjected to Shari'a law. If not, goodo. Just curious :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Why don't you
Google the information for yourself?

IS MISE...

With respect I think this sort of Topic has been 'done to death' to be honest with you. However, much of what you say could happen here one day, not because of the dog cunning activities of Islamic tacticians, rather because ALL of our elected politicians are utterly paralysed when it comes to making any hard decisions.

o sung wu,

The day that we shut up about it, is the day that we lose!

So far no one has commented on the denial of human rights and the torture, or isn't flogging considered torture?

Dearesat Foxy,

Good idea.

I found this:

www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=932e98df-0bb3-4d41-8db4...subId...

On Page 1:

" ...... almost all of the beef, lamb, chicken sold in Coles, Woolworths and IGA supermarkets is halal slaughtered, although not sold as such and halal certification of most essential groceries on our supermarket shelves.

"There is a higher cost associated with a halal certified slaughter house and meat works due to certification of the premises, employment of Sharia compliant Muslim slaughtermen and meat workers, time off for 5 times a day prayers etc. "

So you and I pay for Shari'a practices ? Good to know :)

I can't tell what body the Submission is from but they add this tid-bit:

" Islamic councils in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia and now Australia have .... deemed all food haram [forbidden], unless it is halal certified. This now requires the food producer to obtain a halal certificate from an Islamic halal certification company.

There are approximately 33 halal certification companies in Australia, most of which are authorities for the issuing of halal certification of food for export to Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Malaysia."

All food ?! I wonder whether this is actually true or 'fake news' ?

Thanks, Foxy, for putting me wise. How much is now flowing to Muslim organisations annually ?

Love,

Joe

As long as their are weak politicians like like Turnbull and Shorten around, sharia law is just around the corner. Remember, it has always been the local elites who have enabled Islam - selling their own people down the drain. Not much has changed in 1400 years. The only politicians cable of saving Australia are Cory Bernadi and Pauline Hanson.

For those interested, there is an online petition today on the Pickering Post which will be presented to parliament requesting that Islam be discredited as a religion. Islam is a political organisation with SOME religious aspects. The petition is organised by Harry Richardson, author of 'The Life of Muhammad'.

Dear Joe,

We buy our meat not from supermarkets but from our
butcher. You also have that same choice if you
object to what's available at the supermarkets - be
it Kosher or Halal. Years ago sour cream was looked
upon as "yuck" as was yogurt, dill pickles,
bratwurst, and anything else that was considered as
"foreign." Today, tastes have become more diverse
as people travelled overseas and acquired a different
taste for various products. Where there is a demand
for things, someone will find a way to cater for
the demand for those products. It's the way the market
works in a democracy.

cont'd ...

As for how much is flowing to Muslim organisations?

Again - your interest in the subject, not mine,
so do your own research.

The millions of Dollars flowing from Halel certification is funding Muslim Schools and Cultural centres.

I agree Islam should be registered as a Political Party and not a religion as it is receiving funding from food Companies certification.

IS MISE...

Of course you're perfectly correct, Sharia Law condones all of that type of barbaric and humiliating behaviour, especially towards women, perhaps even more we don't even know about? The problem is much of Islam is 'stuck fast' in the middle ages, when human life and dignity weren't even considered as being meritorious.

One thing is for sure, we're confronting very tumultuous times, with Syria, Putin's Russia, and now that utter ratbag the arrantly insane, Kim Dong ? (sic) the leader of North Korea, threatening to plunge the western world into a Nuclear War - bloody hell!

Dearest sweet Foxy,

I'm not suggesting that halal meat would taste any different from haram meat. Good try :) Actually, I like black pudding, my grandfather seemed to live on it. And my other grandfather, my Hungarian Jewish one (a step-grandfather really), introduced me to all sorts of wonderful foods: halva I especially liked. Back in the early 1950s, it was hard to find.

My point was simply that: do we, or don't we, pay extra in the supermarkets, for halal meat ? As well as other foods, Cadbury's chocolate for example ? And where do those fees go ? Do you really think I would find it on Google ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/a-four-corners-investigation-looks-into-halal-certification-and-its-impact-on-australian-consumers/news-story/2771fd1adea197a56aef05793a379c81

Does the claim that abattoirs must employ Muslims to kill cattle in the approved manner (if true) mean that the common old job of slaughterman can depend on one's religion?

If so, is this not discrimination?

Hi Is Mise,

I worked in a meat-works 45 =odd years ago, in the fellmongery, but I went up to see the lambs being killed a couple of times: it was very quick, with a razor-sharp knife which took nearly the whole head off, the sheep wouldn't have know what wad happening and - gone ! The idea that one should do it slowly was abhorrent, just appalling. I remember one poor lamb which escaped with just a nick and ran and slipped through the blood until someone caught it and it was killed 'properly'. Poor little bugger.

Many 'cultures' have appallingly cruel practices, and comparatively primitive and barbaric notion of nature, as man's enemy, that animals are to be killed (before they bit you or sting you or eat you, etc.) and trees are somehow threatening, they could fall on you (deliberately) so they should be cut down. Either way, nature is a threat and a danger, so it has to be fought and tamed.

Maybe that explains the slow cruelty of halal killing, that animals deserve it ?

Joe

As I said earlier JOE, Islam is still intractable 'stuck fast' back in the Middle Ages, hence their thoughtless, barbaric practices toward, man and animal alike.

Religion has no place in an enlightened society, not only is Islam guilty of suppression, barbarism, intolerance, hate, etc, Christianity also has an abysmal track record as well, something that should not be forgotten. Fortunately like the majority of Christians, the majority of Muslims are benign when it comes to the despicable teachings of their faith.
If the 'Boys Scouts' guide book carried the hate messages that both the Bible and the Koran contain, and the organisation was as guilty as these religions are of crimes against humanity, like the Nazi's were, they would be out of business long ago. Sadly many people have not reached a stage of enlightenment where the superstitions of religion can be jettisoned and forgotten, there are the ignorant who need the comfort of religion to give their lives some sort of meaning and order. That is all religion does, any perceived good stemming from it would still exist in the absence of religion, because the majority of people are basically good.

Only 2% of Australians are Aboriginal, but according to Wiki: "the Australian Law Reform Commission (1986) and the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2005) have written extensive reports investigating the desirability of recognising the role of customary law in legal situations involving Aboriginal Australians. In the Northern Territory, some statutes and courts make explicit reference to customary law where such is useful in identifying relationships or social expectations".

So why wouldn't these law reform commissions promote the same for Muslims and their "customary" laws?

The vigilante event may have happened in a Muslim-predominant country, but it shows that individual liberties for gays are incompatible with Islam.
Yet the PC crowd routinely flaunt their adoration for both groups, ignoring the contradiction and incompatibility.
You cannot have a gay wedding cake and make it halal too.

We do have religious freedom in Australia, and for some time now, sexual freedom, but these people are not Australians. Their culture and religion are imported and alien.

The more of them there are, the greater the threat to *Australians* (not just Muslims) who violate their alien laws.
There will be vigilante Muslim gangs here too one day, threatening the liberty of non-Muslims.

Hi Shockaholic,

The push to recognise Indigenous customary law died some time ago (I fervently hope) after that 54-yr-old bloke captured that young girl, tied her up for weeks and rooted her every which way to his heart's content, on the grounds that she was promised to him, and was given a three-month sentence. Recently, a bloke was given the court's permission to get speared in the leg, etc. etc., if he wished, AS WELL AS cop the standard sentence for (?) manslaughter. AS WELL AS: sounds fair enough, if you loved your culture.

So, no, the vast majority of Indigenous people would, I assert without much evidence, prefer to live with the standard legal system, and put 'customary law' in the archives where it belongs.

Everybody in Australia has, and should have, the freedom to believe what they like, BUT not to apply any backward practices that conflict with the general rights of all Australians (including those believers), simply because those practices are condoned by their texts. Australian law and systems of rights prevail over religious practice. Believers in backward practices are not permitted to practise them in Australia, regardless of what it demands in their books. Fair enough.

Cheers,

Joe

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the
freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its
adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not
in this country a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian
law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is
the democratically elected legislature. There is one law we
are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

It is interesting to see the most evangelistic atheist here purporting to know what religion is about. That it has no place in an enlightened society. He seems to approve of the "Boys Scouts" began by a Christian religion, he forgot. The Arts, medicine and welfare all originated in religion.

The society where religion is totally banned is North Korea, his perfect example of an enlightened society. NOT!

Foxy,

"We buy our meat not from supermarkets but from our
butcher"

Does your butcher kill and butcher his own meat, or does he buy carcases from the local Halal certified abattoir?

Josephus, if you want to hop backwards, holding onto your left leg while reciting some incantation, or burn some fowl smelling incense all in the name of religion, I don't have a problem, feel free. But if you want to chop my head off, or burn me at the stake, all in the name of religion then I do have a problem.
Look at history my friend, then make judgement as to the worthiness of religions Islam and Christianity both included.

Dear Is Mise,

I've never thought to ask.

It's beautiful quality though and absolutely
delicious - It may even be Kosher.

Paul,
Obviously you have no clue about what true religion is about. It defines human society and our individual responsibilities to that society. If you think true Christianity is about incense then you are ignorant, and should remain silent about making judgments of its worth.

As regards the slaughtermen, well their union complained quite a long
while back about their members being sacked because they were not moslem.
They got nowhere as far as I remember and all slaughterman were sacked.

As regards the 2%, well if that makes you happy live with it.
Just remember that in Europe it was 2% at one time.
Now they are losing control of their own cities.
Police there advise women not to go out alone especially at night and
if they are blonde to dye their hair black as moslem men have a thing about blondes.

Frankly, I suspect some on here do not realise the extent of crimes
of assault, rape, gang assault, police & ambos assault that is rife
in European cities. Why do you think tourism is falling in Paris ?
Imagine, ambos in Sweden have demanded combat gear, helmets body armour etc etc.
How long before they demand guns and combat training.

The whole idea of Islamification is to make Europe like the Middle East.

While we're on the subject of Shari'a by stealth, is it true that a man can have his four marriages sanctioned by a mosque/imam, even though in Australian law, he is married to only one of them, and just the boyfriend of the three others down the road ? And each of those wives/'girlfriends' may have all of their children paid for by the Australian welfare system ? Sweet.

Just a few years ago, any bloke whose girlfriend had a child had to pay for its maintenance. At most places I worked in, there was at least one bloke whose pay was being 'garnisheed', i.e. deductions taken out and sent on to the Dept of Social Security, to compensate for payments to single mothers who had claimed that he was the father of her child (and presumably if he admitted his starring role). In other words, fathers paid for their children.

When I worked in Indigenous student support, one good-looking young bloke knocked up at least three fellow-students within a year: one later wrote to me and asked for his address, since she could not get any benefit without naming him and getting him to admit to the paternity of her child. I don't know how she went.

Is this still the law ? I'm so out of touch with the modern world.

Joe

Josephus,

Lets have a look at just one of the enlightened teachings of Christianity. Black people are the decedents of Ham, who sined against Noah. it was a common held belief by European Christians that Africans and their descendants were destined to be servants, and should accept their status as slaves which only fulfills the biblical prophecy.

According to The American Bible Society; (not an atheistic org at all)

Genesis 9:18–29 has been popularly understood to mean that Ham was cursed, and this understanding has often been used to justify oppression of African people, the descendants of Ham. In this view Ham offended his father, Noah, and because of this his descendants are also cursed, and Ham is presented as the father of African people.

A very simple question; Is the Bible wrong on this?

Genesis 9:18–29, was used by both European Christian slave owners and later White American slavers to justify their barbaric practices against Negros, even to the point that they believed they had the authority of God to exercise life and death decisions over slaves, including Muslim and other slaves they captured. This was the accepted belief by such notable people as slave owning Popes,
The long history of slavery and Christianity makes for very interesting reading. Josephus you should acquaint yourself with some of the home truths about Christianity, instead of making silly claims about its nonexistent virtues.

Its all still in your book.

I posted this on another thread however it is just as relevant here, addressing such issues as the failure of Western liberals to support Muslims who want to reform Islam,

Richard Dawkins 2017 -, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris & Ayaan Hirsi Ali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-tU4mHq_Y

Paul,

How long do you think it will take your to finish the Old Testament and start on the New Testament? I've known some slow readers in my time, but you take the cake.

Joe,
Why don't you ask Kirralie Smith, she would most likely know where the money goes from halal certification.

In relation to abattoirs, because most of the smaller ones have closed down, I would expect most today are halal certified as lots of meat products are sold to muslim dominant countries. Bet Butch has some contacts that would know the killing procedures and so on. I may be wrong but to my knowledge, a muslim rep simply says a prayer over each pen that is about to be slaughtered. Bearing in mind that some places kill thousands each day. If I was looking to find cruelty in slaughter, I would look at the private slaughtering that goes on after Ramadam each year.

ttbn, could you please send me a copy of your sanitized version of the Bible, all three pages of it. "Modern" Christians like to lock their churches history in a cupboard so it never sees the light of day.
Father Joe, tried to suggest I did not know what I was talking about when it came to Christianity "Obviously you (Paul1405) have no clue about what true religion is about. It defines human society and our individual responsibilities to that society". By chapter and verse I gave him the facts on some of that Christian responsibilities a it pertains to black people. If god has redefined that responsibility recently I am not aware of it.

I have read the Bible, all of it, not just the la-di-da feel good bits that "modern" Christians would like the world to believe they accept. I am a tolerant person, despite the overwhelming evidence about the wrongs of religion, I accept the rights of adherents to freely worship, God, Allah, Porky Pig whoever they like.

I'm thinking of joining the 'National Socialists' myself, swell bunch of guys, did you know they use to run soup kitchens for the poor in Germany.

//While we're on the subject, is all meat marketed in Australia subjected to halal processes//

Seriously?

No, Joe, it isn't. For example, some of it is subjected to kosher practices instead. I have a packet of roo mince currently thawing in my fridge to make bolognaise sauce with (because it's Good Friday, and spaghetti bolognaise is we how show our respect for the Flying Spaghetti Monster): it's not halal certified. I think that would be the case for all game meat. If I could be bothered I could go to a supermarket tomorrow and do further research for you, but why on Earth would I? You're a big boy now and you can do your own research.

But there's something more obvious than that which really should have occurred to smart bloke like you: there is no such thing as halal pig meat. None. Doesn't exist. So for all of those people so worried about halal meat, there's a simple and affordable solution: switch to a pork diet. Yes, I know eating pig all the time will get a bit samey and boring - but at least you'll be actually doing something about your predicament, rather than whining on like some lefty vegan type and expecting somebody else to sort it out for you. What would you have somebody else do? Consumers already have the power to decide whether or not to buy halal meat - what more do you want?

I doubt you will though - I suspect that most people who carry on about halal all the time enjoy whining more than they enjoy a nice bacon sandwich, which I find a bit queer.

Hi Paul,

Yes, practices of four or five thousand years ago, even mythical ones, should be criticised and many of them condemned. If they ever find where an actual Noah is buried, maybe we could dig up his bones and kick them around the cemetery. Jeez, that would make us feel good.

Move on. Everybody else has.

Hi Toni,

Thanks for that. So no pig meat then ? No game meat, since roos are not herded and penned and led up a ramp to be halal slaughtered. Well, I'm thankful for that: a bullet is nice and quick in comparison with slow bleeding, facing Mecca.

Okay, I'll take your advice and stick to pig meat: pork, bacon, ham, a wide range of sausage. And kangaroo mince as well. Yum !

And no dodgy extra charges ! Win-win !

Joe

Paul,

I agree with Father Joe, whoever he is, and his comments on your lack of knowledge of Christianity. A the very least, you could provide chapter and verse to support your comments about God and black people. We don't all live in the dark past and dwell on outmoded ideas.

Joe,

The cost of Halal certification is more than negated by the additional sales. For this reason, as far as I know, no company factors the Halal certification into their pricing.

If you’re worried about paying additional costs for certifications, then I hope you’re also avoiding all organic, non-GMO, and gluten free foods. I do, but as a means of protest against food quackery (although I do acknowledge that about 1% of the population genuinely require gluten free options).

--

ttbn,

The Bible may not mention black people specifically, but its endorsement of slavery is extremely racist. And, yes, even your beloved New Testament endorses slavery. (1 Peter 2:18, Matthew 5:17).

For such a big fan of the Bible, you certainly don’t seem to know much about it.

Hi Joe, slavery was practiced in America until 1865, that is not 4 or 5,000 years ago, there are still those in the US who will profess to be Christian, but take the bigoted racists view that African Americans are inferior.

On the point of the life time of Noah, you are way out on that time line. According to the wise ones of Christianity, the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago, that's straight from the Bible. Starting with Adam, and that no good wife of his Eve, and a few begettings after them. Noah was 950 years old at the time of the flood, and lived for a long time after. By any reasonable calculation Noah could not have passed away before, say last Tuesday, so its all current, I hope Father Joe is along shortly to back up these facts.

I assume you and others rightly bang on about the shocking teachings contained in the Koran (unlike the Bible I have never read it), I make a point about what is contained in the Bible, and you tell me to move on. I don't justify the shocking teachings of Islam by pointing to equally shocking Biblical rubbish, I just say they both are a danger, and society should be careful about all religion. When did you come to the conclusion that Christianity is now a benign feel good religion and not what it has demonstrated to be in the past.

A J Philips, what makes you think all slaves were black.
Many Europeans were forced into slavery. You have forgotten about
the Barbary Coast and the moslem pirates that used to capture ships in
the Mediterranean and sell the crews in Nth African slave markets.
There were also European slaves from moslem invasions of Europe.
In BC times slavery was common after wars defeated armies.

Bazz,

I didn't mean to imply that all slaves were black. But the Bible's instructions on who to enslave usually refers to other groups.

Interpret that how you like, but that was good enough to justify the slave trade for 245 years in a country that was supposed to be founded on freedom.

Dear Paul,

According to the bible [Genesis, 6:11], Noah was 600 (or perhaps 599) years old at the time of the flood, then altogether lived for 950 years.

Also, if you read the bible carefully, you would arrive at the conclusion that the world was created around 1-3 million years ago, not 6000. This is because Adam and Eve were created in Genesis 2, separate from the rest of humankind that was created in Genesis 1.
(otherwise, how would Cain have a wife?)

Slavery was the norm since the beginning of agrarian culture. The bible attempts to somewhat restrict whom, when and for how long can people be made slaves, that's relative to the lack on any such restrictions at that period. Slavery is still the norm today in many countries as even I was personally taken as a slave when I turned 18 to serve in the army against my will. Even in Australia, prisoners are kind of slaves and to some extent also insolvent people.

As far as I can tell, there haven't been slaves in the US for 150 years. There are still many slaves in Muslim north Africa and perhaps elsewhere. The Buzu slaves in Mauretania are fortunate now, because they have now gained the right to vote.

The slave markets in Moorish [i.e. Maurish/Berber] Spain were amongst the most architecturally beautiful in the world. The slaves brought there, from the Baltic, from Ireland, from south-east Europe, from Africa, from Persia, were amongst the most cosmopolitan, and cultured, of any slaves in Europe at the time. Some became teachers and intellectuals and courtiers, some even converted and could then become slave traders.

AJ, 245 years ? Given that the Muslim slave trade continues, when did it commence ? From stories in the Koran, perhaps around 628 AD ? i.e. for nearly 1400 years now ?

Paul, I was referring to the mythical 'Flood' which had to 'happen' some time around 2400 BC. But isn't it clever to do the calculations and find inconsistencies - better still, impossibilities ! - in old stories ? Amazingly clever !

Of course, even the Hebrews after Noah and Abraham knew that Egyptians were Hamites, and yet ruled a huge empire. So, wishful thinking on their part: the high will be made low, etc. ? Paul, they're all stories: not necessarily true. Stories. Move on.

What's the gist, the core values, of any cultural and/or religious body of yarns, in this case of Judaism and Christianity, not just the pissy fripperies about burning bushes and blokes being fed in the desert by crows - all pre-scientific oral cultures have such fantastic stories. We don't (or shouldn't) mock Aboriginal stories for their impossibilities, we just assume they serve a moral purpose regarding proper behaviour, etc. What are the 'lessons' underlying stories ? Move on from getting your kicks from juvenile attacks of obvious concoctions. Leave that to school-kids.

Joe

Yuyutsu,

Wow, and here I thought I’d heard all the apologia for slavery in the Bible.

<<Slavery was the norm since the beginning of agrarian culture. The bible attempts to somewhat restrict whom, when and for how long can people be made slaves, that's relative to the lack on any such restrictions at that period.>>

Not really.

The extent to which the Bible restricts slavery is negated in Exodus 21:4, where a loophole is created that describes how slaveholders can trick their slaves into staying with them for the rest of their lives.

But even if you were right, so what?

We’re talking about a god who would have known just how archaic its only communication with the world was going to become, and yet, in all those pages, sill couldn’t find the space to say, “Slavery is wrong”. It would have taken a page at the most to explain just why slavery is wrong, and yet the Abrahamic god couldn’t even manage that.

What kind of warped priorities does this god have when it can find enough space in its book to condemn eating pork (Leviticus 11:7), eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12), homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22), wearing clothes of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), and shaving (Leviticus 19:27), yet it couldn’t bring itself to explicitly condemn slavery?

Your defence of slavery in the Bible is immoral.

--

Joe,

Yes, 245 years! And in a country that was founded on freedom, too, unlike the countries from which your comparative figures are derived.

Look, I’m not trying to claim that the Bible is just as bad as the Qur’an (it is slightly better), nor do I want to downplay the extent of the problems in Islam. But the extent to which the Qur’an is attacked (and justifiably attacked) on OLO is, compared to the Bible, disproportionate. The Bible is not the Guide to Better Living and Civilisation-Building that it is made out to be around here.

I think some of us here need to look a bit beyond what we were all taught in Sunday School.

Hi AJ,

Coming from a communist household, I've been a happy atheist for nearly seventy years now. But I used to like some of the hymns that we sang at ISCF camps. God does have some terrific tunes.

I'm not suggesting that our moral principles come directly from the bible or any other text, but that, often more in resistance to any reactionary church teachings, the values that we are forever (and will be forever) improving have some of their roots in versions of Christian and Jewish morality.

They're not the only sources of our contemporary values - the Magna Carta and its pre-existing tribal roots in that combination of Roman, Briton and Germanic legal procedure, as well as the bitter opposition to Catholic orthodoxy of the various Protestant sects, kicked things along too. They certainly threw up and influenced the long centuries of the development of the Enlightenment, with all its twists, turns and back-tracks.

Simply give credit where it's due: our notions of morality haven't sprung up spontaneously merely out of our personal brilliance, although of course, you may be an exception.

Cheers,

Joe

//Okay, I'll take your advice and stick to pig meat: pork, bacon, ham, a wide range of sausage. And kangaroo mince as well. Yum !//

Firstly, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI

If you're going to go boycotting certain foods because disagreeable people eat them, you might want to bear in mind that the Nazis ate a lot of pork. And sauerkraut. Are you ready to give up sauerkraut?

It's your body and your choice what you feed it, but I think that boycotting certain foods to make a political statement is pretty darn silly.

I forgot to point out before that all vegetables are halal. Every last one of them. So any rigorously anti-halal diet will lead to malnutrition and eventual death. I can't wait to see the look on your doctor's face when you show up with the first actual case of actual scurvy he's ever seen - inflicted upon yourself because you don't want to eat fruit if those bloody towelhead tossers do.

To me, that sounds like a cross betwixt deliberate masochism and an eating disorder. There's no need to martyr yourself on the altar of nutrition, Joe: nobody cares.

Me? I just eat it if it tastes good (nutrition and cost also factor in my food purchasing choices. Politics doesn't). I'm not going to give up kebabs because they're halal any more than I'd give up pies because there's a good chance Jack the Ripper once ate a pie. Everybody eats, or they die, including the arseholes. A diet which eschews all food eaten by arseholes is starvation.

God I hate fussy eaters.

JUST EAT IT!

Hi Toni,

I've never tried sauerkraut, I don't think, and I don't intend to. Hitler probably farted, but should I give that up too ? You first :)

So what's the point of your rant about fruit and vegetables ? I certainly don't mind fruit and vegetables, provided I don't have to pay some secret commission, or stand-over money, through the sellers, to any religious organisation. But I wouldn't be surprised if some gutless chain-store was paying such bribes even on its fruit and vegetables, to get it 'Halal Certified' and then be allowed to sell it.

And let's not mention fish, if we want to avoid another rant. Although some Catholic mob probably claims a monopoly of that.

No, I'm not giving up any kind of food, just to pay off some shonk religious bodies. I'm an omnivore :)

Any chance of getting back on-topic ? The persecution of homosexuals in Muslim countries, I believe ? For the record, I think that's a vile intrusion on people's private lives: let people do whatever they like, as consenting adults.

Joe

Joe,

Certain passages in the Bible (that had to be very carefully cherry-picked, mind you) were certainly used to affirm and justify certain moral values, but to claim that they have their roots in Judaism and Christianity is inaccurate.

Judaism and Christianity got their morals (the good ones, at least) from people exercising the same faculties and moral standards that we now use to know what parts of the Bible not to follow. Heck, our primate cousins display some “Judeo-Christian” values, that’s how universal they are. “Judeo-Christian” values not only pre-date religion, they pre-date humans.

Joe, it is true that the vast majority of Christians have moved on from the archaic teachings found in the Bible, and are not out to enslave black people etc. Could it not also be possible that the vast majority of Muslims have also moved on from the barbarism taught in the Koran and are not going to kill the infidels, that's you and I. Or are you simply biased against the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and favor the 2.2 billion Christians?

Your continued petty demand, wanting to know if you are paying for halal meat is juvenile, you only have to make a choice buy it, or eat pork I'm sure its not halal, koshered or blessed by the Pope, so no extra coat imposed on you. Do you want to know how much extra tax you pay so Churches can pay none. No you don't. otherwise you would ask.

The immutable facts are that Christians often don't follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims often follow the teachings of Muhammad, and therein lies the problem.

Dear Is Mise,

There are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith
and that all others are misguided, superstitious, even
wicked. Therein lies the problem.

Paul,
You fail to recognise current facts, true followers of Christ take no slaves in war. For Christians all men are equal. I suggest you read the NT. Slavery was a payment system in the OT for debt owed. Slavery is rampant in Australia, as atheists stock their brothels with young imported women; and import young men for underpaid employment.

If you want to talk about slavery 4,000 years ago it is not relevant in todays world. Start attacking atheist brothel owners in todays society. Atheists have no moral conscience about using purchased slaves. They do not need a Koran or a Bible to justify their action. It is however true Islam still believes in taking slaves, as it has done in Africa and ISIS in Syria.

Foxy,

"There are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith
and that all others are misguided, superstitious, even
wicked. Therein lies the problem"

What has that got to do with that which I said?

If all Christians followed Christ then there would be no problem and if all Moslems followed Muhammad the there would be an even greater problem.

Hi Paul,

Well, I DID write on Wednesday, 2.09 pm, that "Of course, the great majority of Muslims in Australia probably just go about their lives as Australians, abiding by Australian law, and not giving much thought to it all. Only a small minority, people like Keysar Trad and Anne Aly, would be pushing for the recognition of Shari'a law - at first, of course, only voluntarily for Muslims, then for all Muslims, but later - who knows ? "

I'll try to use little words about halal: what I wanted to know was: is all meat killed in Australian abattoirs (that's where they kill animals, Paul) (except pork, roo and fish) certified (that means approved, Paul; approved means it's okay to eat) and that the certifying had to be paid for by abattoirs to Muslim certification bodies (sorry, Paul, someone else might have to explain that to you), and the cost is passed on to customers: us.

So: are we paying for halal meat when we buy it in supermarkets or aren't we ? And for many other products ? Do stand-over tactics work in Australia ? Does 'culture' and religion intrude into Australian law ?

I suppose, if it worked for Tony Soprano, it could work for other bunches of crooks. I wonder why Catholic and other shonky Christian 'certification bodies' haven't tried this con-job in the past. Maybe they did: i.e. maybe we all have been paying for some bullsh!t Christian ceremony to be said over slowly-dying animals.

Are we all mugs, or what ?

Joe

Dear Is Mise,

You ask, "what has that got to do with what I
just said?"

Go back and read what you just said, and then
take an intelligent guess.

Is Mise,

While Jesus was an immense improvement over Mohammed, I’d stop short of saying that there’d be no problems if everyone followed him.

Yes, loving one’s neighbour as oneself, the golden rule, turning the other cheek, and smashing up the business setups of those who exchange currency in temples are all good and well (okay, maybe not that last one). But if we were to all follow the divisiveness in Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 10:35-38, John 14:6), and his apparent endorsement of the problematic and immoral notion of vicarious redemption, then we could be in a lot of trouble.

Indeed, these have caused immense problems over the ages.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“You fail to recognise current facts, true followers of Christ take no slaves in war.”

Oh please.

One of the most famous Christian hymns is Amazing Grace. Beautiful song about salvation through revelation. The only problem is the author John Newton kept captaining slave ships for another 3 years after that. Why? Because so called salvation was for him and not the other human beings he inflicted so much misery in. He was part of a Christian trade supplying the Church of England slave plantations in the West Indies where they were branded C of E on their chests.

Let's not forget the priest in the Christian Southern US churches who used NT passages to claim legitimacy for their slavery practices.

There is a very good case to be made that the Christian US prison system is just slavery in another guise with prisoners responsible for billions of dollars in economic product.
http://returntonow.net/2016/06/13/prison-labor-is-the-new-american-slavery/

Hi AJ,

Reductio ad absurdum ?

You seem keen to catch me out on a fallacy there, Joe.

Good luck with that. I take great care to avoid fallacious reasoning, and so far, that's served me well.

As for the reductio ad absurdum? No, I didn’t commit it because I didn’t draw any absurd conclusions, let alone based on false assumptions. The logical form of the reductio ad absurdum is as follows:

Assume P is true.
From this assumption, deduce that Q is true.
Also deduce that Q is false.
Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).
Therefore, P itself must be false.
(http://goo.gl/7Otr3S)

An example of this is a creationist trying to disprove evolution by claiming that if evolution were true, then we’d see monkeys giving birth to humans.

What I did do, however, was trace and attribute the origins of our values back to more ultimate causes that don't suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemmas that proximal causes suffer from.

You think so ?

" ...... the Christian US prison system is just slavery in another guise ...... "

The US prison system is a Christian prison system ? How ? And even if it somehow was, so what ? [Straw man] What has that to do with all the spin-offs from the interaction and development Hellenic, Judaic and Christian ideas over a few thousand years, that included the Enlightenment ? [Teleology] Are you suggesting that the Enlightenment is responsible for the US Christian prison system, or is that my own reductio ad absurdum ?

Hmmm. Now I’m not sure who you are (or have been) talking to, Joe.

Anyway, I’m encouraged by your attempts to identify logical fallacies. More people should do it. The discussions around this place would be far more intelligent and productive if we were all aware of the common fallacies and took care to avoid them. Just try not to get too zealous with it all and start seeing fallacies where they don’t exist. People like that are really irritating:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0#151714

(Funny spoiler: He commits the Courtier’s Reply fallacy two posts later.)

On another note, I had to chuckle at one of the examples of the Reductio ad absurdum that the page I linked to provided:

Example #2:
If everyone lived his or her life exactly like Jesus lived his life, the world would be a beautiful place!

yeah the usual deceitful mob tying to appease their own seared consciences by standing in judgement of God. I must say they are nothing short of pathetic attempts by self righteous god deniers who are totally oblivious to the corruption in their own hearts. The human secularist are only matched in barbaric acts by Islam. No wonder they are in bed with each other. They are totally ignorant of their own corruption and spurn the only One who can save them from their filth.

"If everyone lived his or her life exactly like Jesus lived his life, the world would be a beautiful place!"

Of course, it'd be a beautiful place, there'd be no humans!!

//is all meat killed in Australian abattoirs (that's where they kill animals, Paul) (except pork, roo and fish) certified//

I don't know, but it's not hard to find out: just read the bloody packet. It will have a scaled-down version of this symbol on it:

http://www.spruson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/halal.jpg

No symbol, no certification. It's not really string theory, Joe.

//and the cost is passed on to customers: us.//

If you buy halal certified food. Which nobody is forcing you to do. But it seems you want the stuff banned outright so that you can save yourself the trouble of just reading the bloody packet. I think we should ban the sale of cakes to fat people, and the sale of all food to people so uninterested in their own diet that they can't be bothered to just read the bloody packet. As the philosopher Jagger once said: you can't always get what you want.

//So: are we paying for halal meat when we buy it in supermarkets or aren't we ? And for many other products ?//

As an educated guess, Joe, I would say we pay as much for halal certification as we do for kosher certification. And yes, the Jews do charge for kosher certification. Of course they do: they're Jews. I daresay they charge a lot more than the Muslims, because they're Jews. If you buy food which has a stamp of approval from the Muslims, the Jews, the Heart Foundation, whoever, you might pay an extra half a cent or so for your $30 cut of meat. Greedy little Christ-killers.

If you're really that worried, do something about it. If you're not, don't. But the more you bitch and moan about it, the more you sound like a vegan. And that's not something to aspire to.

//"If everyone lived his or her life exactly like Jesus lived his life, the world would be a beautiful place!"

Of course, it'd be a beautiful place, there'd be no humans!//

Heresy. The Nicene creed is quite emphatic about Jesus being made incarnate as man.

"The immutable facts are that Christians often don't follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims often follow the teachings of Muhammad"
Issy please provide evidence for that statement. The 100 million Christians in the Philippines seem to be a rather devote mob, even taken to nailing each other to crosses on Good Friday. and I haven't even mentioned the 200 million in Brazil. maybe you are only refering to the piddling few Christians, and even piddling fewer Muslims in Australia.

"atheist brothel owners" Josephus name one, and while you are at it provide evidence of their atheism.

What we do know is pedophilia is rampant among Christian clergy world wide, evidence is available. Even the minimalist mob in the Catholic Church admit that 7% of priests and brothers in Australia were/are pedophiles. Given the great number involved, 60 times the national average, can we assume that these men believed that their actions of buggering children were somehow justified by Church and Biblical teachings and therefore sanctioned by god!

Catholic clergy are still allowed to trawl through school playgrounds and classrooms in this country. in the name of "pastoral care". No police checks are made of all priests and brothers as to their suitability to be in the confines of children.

Joe, please don't be so condescending, I am just as intelligent as you are. What you say may well be true, certainly plausible, one thing all religions have in common is the love of money. If I had a magic wand it would disappear, halal and all. We in Australia have a number of quasi Christian religious holidays, if you had yesterday off you had one of them. Should the atheist business owner be jumping up and down about having to pay for this bunk. To compound the ripoff, the poor atheists business owner not only has to pay for the Christians to have the day off he has to pay for the atheists and other non believers to have it off as well, now that is a ripoff. Think I'll have Monday off and celebrate.

the topic is 'Sharia Law is coming' which for some reason sets off all the Christophobes. Amazing!

btw a very high percentage of those paedophile priest like boys showing themselves homosexuals. Which came first? Priesthood or homosexuality in their lives. I suspect strongly that rates of abuse are far higher among the muslim community however you god deniers would not even have Islam investigated. It just would not suite your narrative. The humanist have certainly their far of kiddie fiddlers who they shielded for decades but again does not fit your filthy little narrative.

SteeleRedux,
John Newton was not a follower of Christ when he took up the Slave Trade. If you note carefully the development of his thinking and behaviour you will notice he grows closer to a Christian view of treating others as equals. It was his Christian convictions that caused him to give up Slave Trading. A true Christian is one who serves others; not one who is waited upon by others. One who gives his / her life for the improvement of the weak, vulnerable, and oppressed, not as a martyr but one who believes in equality and opportunity. Have a look where Christian Mission is involved today.

Toni,

But Christ didn't have any children, in the biological sense, so if all had followed His example then humanity would have died out long ago.

runner like a good Christian you would much prefer to have those inconvenient truths about the practices of perverted Christians locked away and never discussed or see the light of day. The Church hierarchy to the present time, have done their up most to protect, conceal, blame victims and hinder investigation into the perverted clergy.
If we take the 7% figure admitted by the Catholic Church as being the number of pedophiles within the ordained, then it could be reasonable to assume of the 115 cardinals that elected Pope Francis 8 were pedophiles.

As usual the misguided Christian will try and protect by throwing in that old red herring, relating pedophiles to homosexuals. My gay friends are as outraged by the actions of pedophiles as the general community is, a pity the Church hierarchy was not as outraged, maybe it would not have gone on or have been so widespread as it is.

Dodgy Josephus, when are you going to produce the evidence to backup your claim about "atheist brothel owners". A good Christian never ducks the question.

Hi Toni,

So, if I looked at everything I buy in a supermarket, if it has the 'halal' symbol on it, I'll be paying more for that product ? What a mug I am :( Thanks for that: to be honest I'd forgotten about that symbol which we see on so many products: silly me, I didn't connect it to halal certification payments.

My limited understanding is that kosher butchers usually kill their own meat, and sell it as kosher only in their own shops: I didn't know that there were kosher butchers in every abattoirs alongside the halal ones, each charging the ultimate customers for performing an outdated and barbaric religious ritual. As a left-winger of the old school, I was a bit put out by that. Thanks for putting me wise: in the interests of cultural and freligious diversity, it's probably best for all of us to set side funds in this way.

You suggest that " ...... the Jews do charge for kosher certification. Of course they do: they're Jews. I daresay they charge a lot more than the Muslims, because they're Jews."

With respect, I beg to ask if you have any evidence that they charge any more than Muslims, or "a lot more than Muslims". Your assertion that they do so, "because they're Jews", may need some clarification also.

Joe

Paul 1405,

Unable to answer, I see.

ttbn the answer is in my posts. I can't be held responsible if you can't find it. Do you have difficulty with reading and/or comprehension? If you require the answer in another language I will try and accommodate. Try the following, it may help.

'ko mutu ahau ki te pukapuka'

Paul,
You might start here;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-02/sex-slavery-charges-after-sydney-brothel-raids/3807298
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/asian-slaves-to-the-australian-sex-industry/news-story/bd1297d872957c1f7e758116af7d76ea

Josephus,

I saw nothing in those articles you linked to about the perpetrators being atheists. How do you know they were atheists? They might have been Christians?

Or Scotsmen, if you know what I mean?

Even if they WERE atheists, so what? The moral standards of no religious belief are no more arbitrary than the moral standards of theistic religions, as the Euthyphro Dilemma demonstrates.

And I can’t believe I missed this:

<<Slavery was a payment system in the OT for debt owed.>>

No, it wasn’t. This is the ‘indentured servitude’ apologetic. Slavery in the Bible wasn’t indentured servitude, it was slavery. Read Exodus 21.

Your god is immoral.

Josephus, I am familiar with similar articles to the one you have linked. Indeed it is shocking that people would traffic, enslave and exploit other in that way. As an atheists, and I am sure you as a Christian as well, have no tolerance for such people and would want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
However, shocking as it is, I could find no reference in the link to any of those involved being atheists as you claim. In fact the article did not give any religious references at all. Possibly you linked the wrong article if it was your intention that it would prove your claim about "atheist brothel owners". Over to you!

the hilarous part about this conversation is that the current regressives really think they are morally superior to the slave traders. Now that is such a joke.

Paul,

You really get stupid when when you are put on the spot, don't you

Slavery was carried on by Muslims long before white Christians tried it for a very short time in the scheme of things. It was Britain that stopped the slave trade in the West. Muslims are still involved in slavery to this very day.

Runner notes that “current regressives really think they are morally superior to the slave traders”. He is far too kind. The people who he is referring to are totally without morals of any kind. The believe in nothing, and stand for nothing except their own pathetic egos. They don't even match up to Muslims, who have beliefs and stand for something, even if that something is wrong.

It was Christian morals that saw slavery abolished not atheistic 'humanism', which just sits back, sneering at anyone who has everything they lack. They are empty vessels, not worthy of any attention whatsoever.

Hi Ttbn,

Any day now, I expect a group of Buzu slaves from Mauretania being interviewed on TV and explaining to ignorant people like me and you that Islam is the most freedom-loving religion in the world. When one is a slave, after all, your master ensures your well-being, health and general happiness. Slavery offers security in a very insecure world. Slave children are often allowed to go to school, in preparation for the life ahead when they take their parents' place. Slave-owners regularly check their slaves for disease and malnutrition, and go to great lengths to ensure that slaves stay alive, something rare in the heartless world of Western 'morals', capitalism and colonialism.

Perhaps there should be a regular weekly TV show: slaves this week, 14-yr-old girls just married, next week, women about to be stoned for their evil transgressions like getting raped or being accused of looking at a bloke, the week after, and how they can fully understand that Islam is the most merciful religion in the world; and then a double-length program about how homosexuals are 'cautioned' about their behaviour, being repeatedly but lovingly dropped from a height of fifty centimetres or less, on to a feather bed.

Perhaps the ABC or SBS could run regular weekly question-and-answer-type programs, copying Islam-On-Line: can women become martyrs; should women be accompanied by a male when they are out the back hanging out the clothes; can a teenage boy 'chastise' his mother with a feather or piece of tissue paper; why women can't drive; why Allah (-*-*) would be disgusted to touch a woman; are there any women in Paradise besides each man's 72 virgins; how women are unfit for advanced education, how Islam is the most congenial religion for women, and so on. It would be gripping TV !

Joe

ttbn,

They may have been morals that Christians had, but that were not Christian morals exclusively.

<<It was Christian morals that saw slavery abolished not atheistic 'humanism', which just sits back, sneering at anyone who has everything they lack.>>

Which kind of knocks the wind right out of your argument.

Since when had you found God, anyway? Congratulations, by the way. Where was he hiding?

Incidentally, if you remove the bad bits of Christianity, and the god-claim, you’re left with Humanism. So, please, tell us all what’s so bad about humanism.

You can’t, can you?

Having just returned from the Easter Vigil at my local Christian church and having listened to some very uplifting words, I am convinced, more than ever, that those of us who believe in life after death will never be disappointed.

Sorry Is Mise,

I wish I had that consolation, but sadly no: what you get is all there is, you play with the cards that you're dealt. So many years, and that's it. I dream of making some deal with a god to let my dear wife come back, say once a year, for a day, or an hour, or even just a minute, but it isn't going to happen, I know that. As well as her, I've known some wonderful people, who I would love to be with forever, but no.

There is so much beauty in the world, and so much pain. You do what you can to admire and rejoice in the one, and to minimise the other. So much beautiful literature and music, so many brilliant and hard-fought ideas, so much human ingenuity and sacrifice and courage, and you know its creators are only on this earth for a short time, fifty, sixty, eighty years, they make their contribution and then they're gone, never to be forgotten, I hope. Unsung heroes and heroines, like my wonderful mother-in-law and her dad, a veteran of the Western Front. Battlers who never complained, at least not enough. Yes, there is an enormous amount of evil in the world, but so much goodness in so many people.

And I know their time comes to an end, just as mine will. That's life, comparatively short and definitely finite. You do what you can, then you exit, left or right.

Best wishes,

Joe

Blessing, Is Mise and Joe,

You are both correct.

As Is Mise said, those of us who believe in life after death and conduct themselves well as a result, with love and charity, will never be disappointed.

And those things which Joe mentioned will indeed all come to an end, then, as Joe said, you exit.

Yet you, the one who has exited is liable to re-enter. You did it once, then why not again?

However, life after death is not a picnic. Rather than wishing for it, one should better strive to end their attachment to life so we do not have to come back again and again and then suffer and lose our dear ones again and again.

Sorry, Is Mise, but uplifting words are not evidence of anything.

The only time to believe something is when there is evidence for it. The certainty you felt after the church service is well known to the neurosciences and psychologists:

http://bigthink.com/videos/the-neuroscience-of-religious-experiences-andrew-newberg-live-on-big-think-2

<<I am convinced, more than ever, that those of us who believe in life after death will never be disappointed.>>

Yes, because you'll all be dead.

But what about the rest of us? Why are we to be punished for an eternity for exercising a healthy scepticism? That’s immoral. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral.

Would you torture your child forever because they didn’t love you? No.

You are more moral than your god.

'But what about the rest of us? Why are we to be punished for an eternity for exercising a healthy scepticism?'

no good playing the poor me card AJ. You know more than most that the evidence for Christ and His claims are overwhelming. You just happen to claim you are rational while ignoring the obvious and embracing wild fairytales like the big bang. The Scriptures clearly define your embracing of deceit. Hopefully you will wake up to yourself and repent before its to late.

Hi Joe,

I know you will be right onto this one for me. coming home late last night, after midnight, was out watching an island band, nothing to do with Easter. roads blocked, coppers everywhere, cars and people all over the place, detours down the back streets! What's going on? Greek Easter at the big Greek Chucks that's what's going on! I ask you are we the atheists taxpayers footing some extravagant bill for copper o/t etc for all the mumbo jumbo.

Anther abomination which like halal meat, but only ten times worse, is breaking down the moral fiber of our Christian society. What is this wombat talking about you ask? Easter eggs no less, the most sacred and traditional part of Easter, like Santa at Christmas! I have discovered, and I know you will back me up on this. much to my angst that the chocolate companies are using inferior chocolate in our much loved, but over priced eggs. The practice has become so rampant, so entrenched, so wide spread, that not only do our eggs contain inferior chocolate, but our Easter bunnies as well! Unbelievable you say, but true.
It is a fervent belief of mine, and I know you will back me up on this. That there must be some kind of papal conspiracy, and dare say underhanded payments as well to the Vatican, to feed us inferior, but exorbitantly expensive, chocolate at Easter! Is there some dodgy certification fee applied by the Christian Churches to our much loved, and necessary, Easter eggs. I have already fired off a letter of protest to the Pope, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (who I met once, nice bloke) and Kim Jong-un in North Korea (who I have never met, but I don't think is a nice bloke).
Can you help me on this?

Hi Paul,

Happy Passach! I suppose one of the costs of freedom of religion is that it does, as you suggest, impact on the public purse indirectly. But on the other hand, where would we be without all that beautiful music ? I've just been listening to Russian choral music and last night they played Rachmaninoff's 'Vespers' right through: just superb. Although I suspect that the Orthodox Churches are a lot more politically conservative than Western Churches, I'll forgive them for their music alone.

Actually most chocolate-producing companies, Cadbury's at least, pay for all heir products to be halal certification. Well, I suppose, if bullying works with Coopers' beer, why not with confectionery companies ? So, are you suggesting that, in addition to paying off halal certification companies, we pay off Christian front companies (including Sicily-based 'Catholic' front companies) as well for our favourite products ? Why are atheists always on the back foot > Where's their business acumen ?

I love chocolate but I'm avoiding it at the moment (diet), but I eat a lot of meat of all sorts, more than I should. So I sympathise with you, especially this weekend, about your bunnies and bilbies and wombats. Just be thankful, Paul, that they don't make chocolate hippos: imagine how much you would have to fork out to the various religious front companies and their minders.

Hey, wouldn't those front companies be onto something if they could somehow force payments on any products using palm oil ? Some bullsh!t 'cleansing' ceremony might do it. 10 % extra for your Mars bars ! 5 % to the Islamists, 5 % to Opus Dei !

Cheers,

Joe

Paul has finally flipped his lid, thanks to a lifetime of garbage. He knows the Pope, and the North Korean lunatic is a good bloke? The white coats are coming for you, Paul.

AJ,

There is nothing wrong with what I posted and rereading it I am still convinced that it is perfectly logical.

runner,

I know what you think is evidence, but I disagree that it’s evidence.

It’s not possible for one to feel sorry for oneself with regards to a punishment or reward they don’t believe exists either, by the way.

Your god knows what it would take to convince me of its existence, and yet it refuses to show me. Furthermore, it’s not our job to go looking for any evidence. We dodn’t choose to come into this world, and it is your god that supposedly wants a relationship with its creations and has an important message for them.

The ball is in your god’s court.

--

Is Mise,

Feel free to explain how uplifting words constitute, or negate the need for, evidence. But until you can, I think my point stands.

<<... I am still convinced that [what I said] is perfectly logical.>>

Of course you are. Religions wouldn't exist if we weren't capable of convincing ourselves of such things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

AJ,

For convenience, I post again

"Having just returned from the Easter Vigil at my local Christian church and having listened to some very uplifting words, I am convinced, more than ever, that those of us who believe in life after death will never be disappointed."

That statement is not only true but absolutely logical, you, having an analytical mind, should see that.

*Sigh*

I’ve done it again, haven’t I Is Mise? I’ve missed your quirky sense of humour, and even agreed with it when I said, “Yes, because you'll all be dead.”

I thought that comment was a little out of character for you.

Carry on.

AJ Philips,

I am not a practising member of any organised religion. I am happy for all to have their own thinking and more importantly deeper bodily sensing that brings some life meaning to the individual. As long as no-one is being hurt or harm being done. For me, harm is caused for instance where my liberty and freedom of speech are impacted negatively. Suffering caused to another, for example, by Islam's treatment of girls and women also affects me personally. We are all in the one small life capsule.

No belief system can proof against the angst and suffering from what life bowls up for everyone and often when you least expect it and reckon you have life under control (no chance of that).

I also know you to have rejected Catholicism and you have your reasons for that. Fair enough.

What is most often lost in the easy, ritualist, mud-slinging against 'theists' and 'religion' is that everyone believes. That is reality. Everyone has a unique life experience, world view and a belief system, a theory, to explain and attempt to cope with (always unsuccessful, that is life) the mystery of existence and when fate smacks us down.

The difference where runner and others are concerned is that their understanding and the way they seek personal transcendence are 'billboarded', made largely obvious by their declared preference for a set of beliefs. Their critics usually do not volunteer their own, but even where they don't, or perhaps would hotly (and irrationally) dispute that they too have their own beliefs and theory, those and their world view are nonetheless regularly on show, or may be guessed at.

contd.

Sharia Law can be easily dismissed as any practical life and culture enriching experience and option for Australia. It is oil and vinegar. As well, many have fled here to escape its, or similar, totalitarianism, lack of humanity and brutality.

What is a better issue for criticism and argument is the cynical, short-sighted, self-serving (there are marginal seats to be won!) politics being played by the major political parties that always stops short of stating and affirming as immutable, those important values, traditions and institutions that make Australia what it is, and for that matter, such a highly desirable destination for people running away from tyrants and from Third World socio-political systems and economies.

AJ,

Congratulations!!

I am too, leoj.

<<I am happy for all to have their own thinking ... As long as no-one is being hurt or harm being done.>>

The problem is that there is always harm being done to some extent. It’s not just Jihadists, Islamists, or the ACL. Even the most casual Church-goer lends their passive support to the above.

I could list a lot of damaging effects that religion has in Australia, but we wouldn’t even be able to agree that much of it was damaging to begin with, so there’s little point in going there unless we both feel like being locked into a lengthy debate that would never end. And besides, I’ve had that debate ad nauseam.

Yes, yes, the charity organisations. I know. I’ve been there many times, too. I will say, though, that the banner which religion provides charitable people to organise under is a bonus aspect of it. But it’s arguably a small bonus, given the lost revenue in tax and the social harm that religions cause.

<<I also know you to have rejected Catholicism and you have your reasons for that. Fair enough.>>

It was actually a Protestant denomination: Lutheran. I don’t think there’s any such thing as a former-Catholic that doesn’t still consider themselves to be a Catholic. But, anyway…

<<What is most often lost in the easy, ritualist, mud-slinging against 'theists' and 'religion' is that everyone believes.>>

I don’t think anyone denies that we all ‘believe’. Not all beliefs are equal, however.

<<The difference where runner and others are concerned is that their understanding and the way they seek personal transcendence are 'billboarded', made largely obvious by their declared preference for a set of beliefs.>>

Yes (although I don’t know what YOU mean by “personal transcendence”), but you’re glossing over the fact that some belief systems and worldviews are more rational and justifiable than others. They’re not all equal. Some clearly align with reality better than others, and some approach reality in a more rational way than others.

I, personally, have always advocated for a scientific-sceptic approach to everything.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism#Scientific_and_methodological_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_skepticism

Leoj,

Full marks. Personal faith and belief can - and perhaps should, these days - be separated form the organised 'Church'. The church hierarchy is infested with amateur politicians, jockeying for relevance - hence the Islamic-like interference in politics and mouthing off about every subject there is.

The fall- off of attendances at churches does not mean people have lost their faith, beliefs and values; it means that people have had enough of ministers, priests chuntering away about sectarian issues from the pulpit, instead of attending to the spiritual needs of their flocks.

Protestant preachers, mainly, have become almost like the imams in mosques, yabbering away about things that they know nothing about, and stirring up Left wing lunatics.

I wouldn't say "full marks", ttbn. leoj failed to acknowledge that not all beliefs are equal.

Or perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why that's not relevant or important?

No?

Didn't think so.

Hi Joe,
I was given an Easter egg this morning, 'Red Tulip', was a good brand of chocolates once, the thing tasted a bit salty to me, not made from A grade chocolate, paying for the nice wrapping, and the Halal certification, does helal involve the addition of too much salt to the mix? Seem like it.

ttbn, I never said I knew the Pope, he probably knows me from reading my posts on the forum. I said I once met the Patriarch of Jerusalem, I did say he was a nice bloke, and that was only based on the fact he didn't hit me over the head with his staff at the time, although he probably wished he did. As for Kim Jong-un of North Korea I said; I don't think he is a nice bloke, and I think even less of him, since he wrote back and said "Who is this crazy wombat!"

Leoj, then are you a non practicing member of a disorganized religion? Hansonism could be described as a disorganized religion.

AJ, thank god for that. When I was in the third grade at Catholic school, good Sister Mary, an old Irish nun, every bit her years of 85, a sister of the order of mercy, not that she showed much mercy, particularly to petulant 9 year old boys named Paul. Sister Mary told us, on more than one occasion "The only thing worse than atheists and pagans, are Protestants!" She was particularly down on those Irish Protestants, seems they were an extra bad bunch who were beyond salvation. Sister was always having us pray for the souls of the atheists, pagans and the Holy Father in Rome, she never did say ehat his problem was, but not for the followers of Martin Luther, particularly the Irish ones. It all seemed right and proper to me at the time.

Hi Paul,

Interesting way to think: "Leoj, then are you a non practicing member of a disorganized religion? Hansonism could be described as a disorganized religion."

Just to get in front of your logic: I drive a four-wheeled vehicle. A Rolls-Royce is a four-wheeled vehicle. Would you accuse me of betraying my class roots and driving a Rolls-Royce ? Actually my old Calais VN is indeed a four-wheeled vehicle. But a Rolls-Royce, it's not.

And many people would suggest that, since everybody has some version of religious belief, even if they don't think so, and to have unarticulated thoughts means you're a bit disorganised, therefore many of us inadvertently adhere to a 'disorganised religion'. But not all of us are Hansonites :)

Just nit-picking :)

Joe

A fascinating insight into Catholic thought there, Paul1405.

I had never really had anything much at all to do with Catholicism. All I knew is that they were worshipping God the wrong way. Their salvation-through-deeds (as opposed to the Protestant salvation-through-gullibility) was particularly heretical to me. And I was quick to blame their incorrect way of believing in God on the child sex abuse when it really started to come to light in the mid-90s. Even to this day, the fact that they refer to a service as “mass” irritates me.

It’s not physics, damn it!

Did you ever identify as a Catholic? The reason I ask is because, while the theological differences between the two factions of Christianity no longer interests me, to this day I am still fascinated by the insistence of former Catholics to retain the ‘Catholic’ label. Mafia bosses will happily order concrete boots for a former employee of theirs before breakfast and be in mass by 9:00. Heck, I know a guy who is gay and a staunch atheist, but he’ll be Catholic to the day he dies, dagnabbit!

It's bizarre!

HI AJ,

Coming from an atheist and communist family, I never learnt much about Catholicism, but one thing I was told was that many Christians, and I assumed Catholics especially for some reason, were taught that salvation-through-faith was the way to go, and that salvation-through-deeds was vastly inferior, probably a Protestant perversion of god's divine existence and the servile self-abnegation of genuine believers, in their craving for eternal life. It made me feel much more partial towards Protestants.

Reading up on some of the journals of early missionaries here, I was very impressed with their empathy and humanity, even the Catholic ones, like in the Kimberley. Were they bible-bashers ? Of course, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered: bible-bashing sort of goes with the territory. And I do believe that they made huge and positive differences: at the Mission where my wife was born, the original missionary worked himself to death at 47, and without him, much of the culture and language would have disappeared, like it did in other groups who never had any missionaries or missions. Give credit where credit is due :)

Actually, I've never met a missionary who I didn't admire, even love, for their innate goodness and THEIR genuine love of Aboriginal people. And I'm still, and always will be, an atheist.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi AJ,

I went through the Catholic education system in the 50's-60's. A system that relied on unquestioning conformity from both students and
teachers. There was no room for individuality, or freedom of expression. Harsh discipline in the form of corporal punishment was the norm, not only to obtain highly prized academic results, but also to maintain the regimented order of the institution. Most children simply accepted the situation as it existed, and progressed through the system relatively unscathed and without any major problems. I was not such a student, academically well placed, but somewhat rebellious,

//So, if I looked at everything I buy in a supermarket, if it has the 'halal' symbol on it, I'll be paying more for that product ?//

Buggered if I know, Joe. Write to each individual company and ask them direct, or just avoid certified products.

//I didn't know that there were kosher butchers in every abattoirs alongside the halal ones//

I don't think there are halal butchers in every abattoir, Joe. I've met a few abattoir workers - one might politely describe them as 'real salt of the earth characters'. Frankly, I think a Muslim working alongside the sort of abattoir workers I've met would want to go in with bodyguards. Not a safe working environment for Muslims at all.

I'd like some evidence of this claim that there are halal butchers in every abattoir in Australia, because claims require proof and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And this claim sounds like the sort of claim that the likes of Jacqui Lambie or our Pauline would pull out of their arse - and you've just decided to click the 'I believe' button because it sounded good.

//With respect, I beg to ask if you have any evidence that they charge any more than Muslims, or "a lot more than Muslims". Your assertion that they do so, "because they're Jews", may need some clarification also.//

Well, we're all entitled to our own little nasty, possibly false views about folk wot ain't like us. I haven't got any hard evidence that Jews are greedy, money-grubbing little bastards. But when did evidence matter, when we're talking beliefs*? I'm entitled to believe that Jews are tighter than Scotsmen because South Park told me it's true and Matt & Trey would never lie to me; you're entitled to believe that there is actually an imam in every abattoir in Oz because some bogan told you it's true and they would never lie to you. It's the post-truth era, Joe: we no longer need facts to support intolerant views. But then, I suppose we never did...

Maths is great because it's harder to lie with numbers than it is with words. Can you show me figures on how much companies pay for certification, and how much we end up paying as a result? Have you even seen these figures yourself, or did you just take somebody's word for it that a) they exist, b) they're astronomical and c) they're nearly universal?

* Which may or may not be sincerely held.

'There was no room for individuality, or freedom of expression' went through the same system Paul. Only today matched by secular uni's who are totally intolerant of diverse views that don't fit their often failed narratives.

Hi runner,
To give you an example of the regimental conformity demanded in Catholic schools at that time. In my 2nd year of High School I refused to "volunteer" for the School Cadet Unit, one of only two boys to do so. Well that had dire consequences. A day or two later I was in a corridor when the Cadet Nazi Brother, a rather big man, was coming the other way, he shoved me up against the wall with his forearm to my throat demanding to know if I was a "fancy boy", that's a poofter in his view, my reply was "what if am!" he snarled and walked off. I'm not gay, but I would not give him the satisfaction of knowing if I was or not. The bloke who also doubled as the schools 'Master of Discipline' tried with some success to make my life hell for the next few years. The irony was the same grub was exposed later as a pedophile, just one of a number who operated with impunity. They never got hold of this little black duck, because they tented to prey upon the meek who were the more vulnerable.

Joe,

I’m happy to give credit where credit’s due, but you won’t see me do it around here as often as I’d like for the same reason you won’t seem me criticise Islam as often as I’d like: people go over the top with their praise/condemnation, so I feel the need to bring some perspective to the fore. Or perhaps not “over the top”, but it’s very one-sided.

There are a few points I could make that put Christian charity into perspective (e.g. studies indicate that non-believers are actually more charitable, however, no one organises under the banner of non-belief, so...). As I said earlier, it’s a discussion I’ve had many times before.

That’s OLO, though. On some of the Facebook groups I follow, I sometimes find myself defending Christians, and even Christianity, from over-zealous atheists who caricature them. Their misdirected mockery is counter-productive.

Yes, credit where credit’s due. Shall we now discuss the works of Islamic charity organisations? Or the fact that charity (almsgiving) is one of the five pillars of Islam? How about we discuss Quilliam: the Muslim-founded and -operated organisation doing a lot of work to de-radicalise (and often successfully) Islamists and Jihadists in Western countries?

Fat chance of that.

--

Paul1405,

Thanks for the further insights. Perhaps it’s a lack of individuality allowed within Catholicism, or Catholic schools? I went to a Lutheran high school and it was nothing like you describe.

Paul

I have no reason to defend the Catholic church as I believe many of their teachings to total heresy. I will say however as a kid growing up in the Catholic system I never experienced or even saw what you described. I did however find out later in life that some kids were abused by priests in the school I attended. In my opinion the Catholic church has many good genuine people (including priests) but the system stinks. I am the black sheep of my family deserting what a consider was considered the ' true faith'. I find what happened to you abhorrent and to this day find any sort of bullying by authorities as abhorrent especially against children. The Catholic system seemed to employ a lot of weird people. Maybe they thought it was the ' Christian' thing to take on many that others would not. Though I know you disagree a higher percentage than normal seems to be shown of the homosexual persuasion. The homosexual lobby today ios full of bullies.

runner,

You keep trying to blame priest sexual abuse on homosexuality, however, there is absolutely no evidence linking child sex abuse to homosexuality.

Assuming there IS a disproportionate amount of gay people in the priesthood, did it ever occur to you that the Church’s stance on homosexuality pushes gay people into a job where they have to stay celibate anyway (only to find that they can’t)?

Now, what was that I was saying earlier about the damaging effects of Christianity on societies?

AJ
'Now, what was that I was saying earlier about the damaging effects of Christianity on societies?'

AJ since your description of Christianity is either based out of ignorance or deceit so I doubt whether you conclusions are very accurate.

Hi Toni,

Well, that's why I keep asking, because I don't know for sure, and I don't want to fall for any 'fake news'. So I keep asking 'real' questions :)

From the bits and pieces around, it seems that, yes, all major meat producers (except for pork, roo, koala and fish) kill all their animals in the halal style, slowly and facing Mecca. In fact, most food producers, food of any sort, pay for halal certification, and as far as I can tell (no company denies it) passes on the cost to the consumer, even if they are not Muslim. I'm glad that's settled.

Do you know any primary school kids ? Ask them to explain to you that South Park is a satirical program: not all Scotsmen are ginger or like that janitor, although admittedly most are just as unintelligible; not all Jews wear kippot all the time, not all Indians run service stores. But you do seem to have taken some of it literally, although perhaps as a literary or comedic device.

Anyhow: back to topic - it asked, tacitly: is there anybody on the 'Left' who dares to criticise Islamists for attacking homosexuals; are there any homosexuals who would dare to criticise either Islamists for persecuting them, or the 'Left' for not coming to their aid ? You'd need a double-king-size bed to accommodate all those friends. I wonder who sleeps in the middle ? Of course (what am I thinking?), the 'Left': they'd take it from both sides.

And alongside, in a single bed, are a couple of Greens and Islamists, bonding over halal procedures. As long as you're both facing Mecca, I suppose ......

Joe

Just a small point, it is Catholicism that says that Faith should be backed up with Good Works and it is a Protestant idea that Faith alone is sufficient for salvation.
That is why some sects of Presbyterianism (and others, particularly in the USA) insist that they alone are of the Elect and shall go to heaven, this belief is prominent among the Presbyterians in Northern Ireland.

To quote the Rev. Ian Paisley, "I have many Catholic friends, but they're damned, they're all damned!"

Hi Is Mise,

Thanks for that correction. Yes, I should have known - Mother Teresa was a wonderful example (even to the genuine Left, if there is one) in her actual work, not just her prayers, for the most disadvantaged in Calcutta. It's possible that she had lost much of her faith even as early as the fifties, but still kept going with her deeds. Into her late eighties.

I wonder if there are any 'Left' projects, anywhere in the world, with that sort of dedication to the most oppressed and downtrodden. I wonder if any 'Left' person has actually ever done anything for anybody else like that.

I'm racking my brains: no, I don't think so.

Nope, still can't think of any. Any ideas, Paul, Steele ?

Joe

“Deceit”, runner?

<<... since your description of Christianity is either based out of ignorance or deceit ...>>

I’m not the one trying to link homosexuality to child sex abuse in the total absence of any evidence for a causal link.

I haven’t described Christianity, either, and for the simple fact that, with all the scriptural contradictions (http://bibviz.com), doing so is difficult and certainly not possible in 350 words. The over 30,000 denominations are a testament to that.

The Bible is one big Choose-your-own-adventure.

<<... so I doubt whether you conclusions are very accurate.>>

Shall we test that then? No, I didn’t think so.

' I’m not the one trying to link homosexuality to child sex abuse in the total absence of any evidence for a causal link.'

no you are in denial that many if not most of the paedophile done by priests were homosexual acts.

You say that the Bible is one big choose. And yet the big bang and evolution fantasy is not one big choose. Give us a break AJ. You know that the gospel message is very plain and simple. Your issue is found in John 3:17-18 not in an intellectual barrier. That excuse is deceit.

'Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. '

if a man (priest, minister, any male) has sexual relations with an underage male then he is a homosexual by definition.

"homosexual

adjective
1.
sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

noun
1.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
synonyms: gay, lesbian, gay person, lesbigay...."

Well, I don't have the statistics, runner, but I'm happy to grant that you're right, because correlation doesn't imply causation.

<<... you are in denial that many if not most of the paedophile done by priests were homosexual acts.>>

I have given you a credible reason for what's going on in the priesthood. Unsurprisingly, you have not addressed it.

<<You say that the Bible is one big choose. And yet the big bang and evolution fantasy is not one big choose.>>

What's a “choose”, and what is your evidence for evolution and the big bang being one? Always so light on the evidence.

<<You know that the gospel message is very plain and simple.>>

Yes, so simple that Christianity split off into over 30,000 denominations. Your god's not a very good communicator, is he?

<<Your issue is found in John 3:17-18 not in an intellectual barrier.>>

What issue?

<<That excuse is deceit.>>

What excuse for what? And how is it “deceit”?

--

Is Mise,

I think runner's clear on that much.

Hi AJ,

Sorry for butting in, but your observation that "..... Christianity split off into over 30,000 denominations..... " is so true, and that explains how all manner of semi-religious and non-religious and even anti-religious ideas might have also 'split off' from the orthodoxy, to provide a vast and fractious forest of ideas that eventually, after many burnings at the stake, provoked various strands of the Enlightenment, in all its imperfections, up and down, forward movements (says who, forward?) and back-slides.

So, indirectly, and most certainly not intentionally, one of the eventual outcomes of all the wars within Western Christianity after, say, 1520, an incredibly mis-shapen chid, was the Enlightenment, in all its Frankensteinian forms, which continue today.

In that sense, Christianity was most certainly one of the unintentional parents of the Enlightenment: tiny buds of ideas in the Renaissance, resurrected from Greek and Roman and even early Christian ideas, most of them stomped on by the church authorities, with some flowering, coupled with the new technologies of knowledge, such as telescopes, which allowed/forced new discoveries and pushed other ideas along willy-nilly.

Even Marx, if he had been completely honest, would admit that some of his principles derived, one way or another, from Judaic and Christian, and certainly from other Enlightenment, foundations. We stand on the shoulders of giants, to coin a phrase, and - even from this atheist's point of view - some of the lofty principles we espouse, usually from a safe distance, spring way back from those sources.

What do you think of all that rambling ?

Joe

One thing I have found interesting is the interpretation Christians have made of God's personality over time. Certainly until relatively recent times the Christian interpretation was that of a vengeful, angry being, hell bent on punishment, "the wrath of God" was the accepted norm, and it was very much part of ordinary peoples daily existence as decreed by the religious. There was scant reference to the love of God, it was more the fear of God that was important. Much of the Bible describes God in those negative terms. Then at some point in time God's personality changed, no longer was he interpreted as an angry vengeful being, but become a loving, merciful, compassionate being, an entirely different personality. This change in God's personalty very much reflects the different thinking of man over time. The question being is man the creation of God, or is God the creation of man? The other explanation could be there is more than one god.

Joe,

I generally agree with everything you’ve said there. I particularly appreciate the way you framed it. I think you’ve managed to describe Christianity’s influence in the West in a neutral and less emotionally-charged way.

However, the mentioning Judaism and Christianity together still makes me twitch. For starters, Jewish people don’t like it because Christianity is heresy to them.

The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ has a funny history. It started out as a descriptor for a Jewish person who had converted to Christianity, then it became a means of showing solidarity, and smoothing things over, with the Jewish people after the holocaust. Now, in a post-9/11 world, it’s had a bit of a revival and has become a way of separating us from ‘evil Islam’ in the same knee-jerk way that Americans unconstitutionally plastered ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘… one nation under God’ over everything in the US as a means of separating themselves from those godless communists.

But even removing the reference to Judaism, the referring to our Western culture and values as specifically “Christian” is a remnant of the ‘50s red scare. I see no reason why referring to them as simply “Western” shouldn’t be sufficiently descriptive.

I particularly liked your pointing about ideas “spinning-off” Christianity, though. It accurately portrayed the extent, in my opinion, to which Christianity influenced Western thought and values; in contrast to these likely-exaggerated claims of an “orderly creator” being a necessary ingredient for the birth of modern science, without it ever being explained why order for order’s sake could never have been enough to inspire curiosity.

In fact, given how satisfying “It was God wot dun it” is to so many people, I would have thought the “Creator” bit was more likely to have sapped motivation to investigate further, if anything.

--

Paul1405,

It’s interesting, isn’t it? This god that is credited for providing us with all our morals actually gets its morals from us.

//From the bits and pieces around//

From the bits and pieces around? Seriously, Joe?

From the bits and pieces around, it seems that, yes, there really was a stolen generation.

Evidence or it never happened.

Hearsay, conjecture, speculation and anecdote remain as unpersuasive when the subject is food processing as they do when the subject is history.

//is there anybody on the 'Left' who dares to criticise Islamists for attacking homosexuals//

I might be that way inclined if they weren't so shy; they seem to be like platypuses, these Islamists. If we did have some dick coming on here arguing that gays are wicked because the Koran says so, I'd take him to task over it. But as far as I know, it's never happened. Every time a homophobic comment is logged around here it comes from the very same posters who are most opposed to Muslims. Please alert me if the situation changes.

It's hard to argue with somebody who isn't there. When Muslim runner shows up and starts making a nuisance of himself, I'll be happy to argue with him - but when he's not here there's nobody to argue with, and one looks a bit mental arguing with people who aren't there.

I know they throw them off buildings on the other side of the world, which is appalling. But in Australia - or at least on OLO - they're remarkably quiet and polite. I guess that means they're just up to something, eh Joe? Devious Calormene bastards.

Dear Paul,

«The question being is man the creation of God, or is God the creation of man?»

The human mind has always attempted to explain the unexplainable and describe the indescribable.

God is not a creation of man, but concepts of God are.

If God had any attributes, including for example "creator", then that would have been a limitation of His, thus He would not be worthy of the name 'God'. However, the human mind is finite and cannot grasp unlimitedness, so it keeps imagining God with human-like attributes.

The human mind (and nervous system) cannot stand the ecstatic raw awe at the reality of the presence of God, so it keeps inventing gods with attributes to shield itself and remain within its comfort-zone - and those attributes vary from culture to culture, from time to time and at times even from person to person. While worshipping such imaginary representations of God is inferior to relating with God directly, people are normally not ready to give up their minds, so that's the best they can do for now, which is better than nothing.

Hi Toni,

Sorry, I meant " ..... from the bits and pieces" of information that are available, about halal certification: it does seem as if the only food products that we buy in supermarkets which are NOT halal-certified, for which we pay, would be pork, roo and fish. Glad that's settled.

Nice segue: to the 'stolen generation'. Do you mean Aboriginal kids taken into care for reasons which satisfied a magistrate ? Or do you mean the men in white coats prowling the country in trucks, ready to grab any Black kid they could find, for no particular reason ?

As you request, quite rightly, asserters need to provide "Evidence or it never happened."

Cheers,

Joe

Yuyutsu, I take your explanation and it is a good one. Then I must ask the question What is the purpose of God in the equation? If the attributes of God are simply the figments of the limited mind of man and you imply by your explanation God is beyond the reasoning capability of man, then what is the purpose of God in relation to man. You said "While worshipping such imaginary representations of God is inferior to relating with God directly," I agree worshiping the imaginary is what the vast majority are doing, Christians, Muslims etc without anyone actually admitting it. The more difficult relating with God directly is abstract in that the worshiper may be doing the aforementioned. believing they are truly relating with God. Going to church on Sunday and taking part in the rituals would give one the belief and satisfaction that they are relating with God. Why does God allow all this falsehood to exist in his name?

Dear Paul,

The need for a purpose is another indicator for the frailty of the human mind. People are supposed to never act without a purpose, always busy trying to get from point A to point B, but surely such a limitation does not apply to God, who lacks nothing.

Those who go to church on Sunday and take part in the rituals, are in fact relating to God, only they do so indirectly, through an imaginary image which they created. Why do so? because if done properly, it opens one's heart and helps to improve one's character in preparation for the real thing.

It is possible to relate directly with God, but not as long as one tries to use their limited minds for it, and one cannot avoid using their minds (except perhaps for a graceful split-second here and there) so long as they have an ego, that is so long as they identify themselves with a limited body/mind.

Improving one's character is essential because good habits help us eradicate this notion of being a limited body/mind, while bad/egoistic habits reinforce that notion, thus stand in the way of being able to relate with God directly.

How do you know whether you relate to God directly?
So long as you have any doubt, so long as you have any fear, any discomfort, any worry, so long as your experience is anything less than ecstatic and permanent bliss, you are not yet there.

'When Muslim runner shows up and starts making a nuisance of himself, I'll be happy to argue with him - but when he's not here there's nobody to argue with, and one looks a bit mental arguing with people who aren't there.'

no Toni they don't need to. Enough usefull or useless idiots/apologist on the abc and left doing the job for them.

Hi Paul & Yuyutsu,

It's so much easier with a 'perfect' religion, one with all the answers: you will never have to think or reflect or analyse ever again (and you will never be allowed to). Because that book is the literal word of a god, never to be changed or modified. Except for later hadiths which abrogate what came before. And later hadiths abrogating earlier ones too. And so on.

It's easier still if almost no-one reads that book, which would be harder to do if it's placed in the highest part of the house, and written in an archaic language which few understand. If I were an absolute dictator, that religion would be ideal.

But in the modern, blooming-buzzing, world, 1400 years away from desert tribal life ....... ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

A perfect religion would still expect you to reflect and analyse your own attitudes and actions, then one could use books as checklists.

Imperfect claims for being a religion abound. It's best not to waste our time on them and continue to inspect ourselves and our own faults rather than the faults of their authors.

// from the bits and pieces" of information that are available, about halal certification: it does seem as if the only food products that we buy in supermarkets which are NOT halal-certified, for which we pay, would be pork, roo and fish...

...As you request, quite rightly, asserters need to provide "Evidence or it never happened."//

Well, go on then. Present this evidence you have that everything in supermarkets except the pig, roo and fish is halal-certified. Why would you hold out on us? What do you hope to achieve by hoarding your evidence? Hard proof that there are Muslim organisations charging crop farmers for certification when all vegetables are automatically regarded as halal would be pretty damming, right Joe? So let's see some documents, some information from first sources to support this highly dubious claim.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Foxy, Wednesday, 12 April 2017 1:21:35 PM

Planning papers such as the one given below have been provided as sources on OLO many times before,

'Indonesia in Australian Defence Planning"
http://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/vol3no4DibbandBrabinSmith.pdf

Hi Toni,

I'm not asserting anything, I've simply been persuaded by posters here that the halal symbol on products that one buys in supermarkets means that it has been halal-certified, which means - since I don't suppose that it's done for free - that companies have paid the shake-down money to one or more of those 33 halal certification bodies so that they can get their products on shelves, make sales and stay in business.

You can always check, Toni, for products which have not been halal-certified. As for companies passing on the cots, I'm presuming that production companies pass on the cost of halal-certification to retailers, who pass on the cost to us. Maybe I'm wrong ? It doesn't happen like that ?

Joe

I suspect, Joe, that squeezing any evidence out of you on this subject will be like trying to get blood out of a stone. So to satisfy my own curiosity, I had a quick survey of my pantry. It's really only certain varieties of meat (because the method of slaughter determines whether it is haram or halal) and processed foods (because they might contain haram ingredients) that require certification. I've got no meat in the original packaging today, but there are plenty of dry goods in the pantry. The results are as follows:

Arnott's Original Tim-Tams: not halal certified.
Doritos Corn Chips: not halal certified.
Old El Paso Taco Kit: not halal certified.
Campbells Condensed Soup, various flavours: not halal certified.
Holbrook's Worcestershire Sauce: not halal certified, but apparently it does come in BPA free packaging, so that's nice to know.
Tandaco Dry Yeast Sachets: not halal certified. I don't know if yeast is something that really needs certification.
Masterfoods Condiments, various flavours: not halal certified.
Helga's Bread, various flavours: not halal certified.

At this point I gave up. I'd rather been hoping to find an exception to prove the rule, but none seemed forthcoming. Maybe you'll have more luck. Tomorrow I might go and peruse the meat aisle at Coles or Woolies to gather more evidence. A bit of first hand research sure beats relying on the credibility of bogans.

//shake-down money to one or more of those 33 halal certification bodies//

I don't know where you get this idea that halal certification bodies are some sort of criminal racket demanding shake-down money, Joe. Commerce is not really my cup of tea, but I'm under the vague impression that it's actually some sort of legal requirement for public companies to attempt to maximise profits. Even if that's a false belief, it's generally in the best interests of companies to maximise their profits. If the profit gained from expanding their market to Muslim consumers exceeds the costs of obtaining halal certification, why wouldn't they do it? Maybe I just don't understand capitalism properly.

I see halal certification as being a marketing cost. Companies pay a truck-load for advertising to increase their market share, just like they pay for halal certification to increase their market share. Are advertisers and PR companies racketeers demanding shake-down money, or just Muslims?

//As for companies passing on the cots, I'm presuming that production companies pass on the cost of halal-certification to retailers, who pass on the cost to us. Maybe I'm wrong ? It doesn't happen like that ?//

Maybe you are, but I doubt it. Of course they pass the costs on to us. But not all of them pay those costs in the first place.

Ton

Whatev

What else will you expect from them?Indonesia is a Muslim country and sharia law already in the country .

Hi Yuyutsu
You said;
"Improving one's character is essential because good habits help us eradicate this notion of being a limited body/mind, while bad/egoistic habits reinforce that notion, thus stand in the way of being able to relate with God directly."

Is this not a human concept, goodness/badness, even the religious devotees interpret the concept differently. Those in the world today waging a religious war in the name of their god would believe they are doing good in his eyes. Others equally religious would say no, their acts are inherently bad and not what god requires.
The existence of god seems to be irrelevant, all that is required is a belief in ones own goodness, which very much depends on the mindset of the individual as to what is good or bad. I would agree a belief in the existence of a god allows the believer to establish meaning in their life, as they strive to please god, and at same time obtaining a degree of self satisfaction through religious effort. People do receive spiritual comfort through religion, all forms of religion, I cannot deny that.
I believe what we are trying to do as human beings is give meaning to life, and a belief in god does help in that regard. If you believe in a god, it is essential you believe in an eternal afterlife, otherwise it would all be for naught.

I checked my pantry, and the only Halal certified product there is vegemite. Kraft sells 22 million jars of vegemite per year, so at $1,500, I just contributed a whopping 0.0068 cents to Islam.

Fair enough, but then I saw that it was Kosher...

I prefer Non Allah Achbar meat.
Why do I, the consumer want to pay the costs of a certification I'd rather not have in the first place?
Why must I eat meat that has been blessed on behalf of a religion whose beliefs and practices I do not agree with?
Does the practice not cause more suffering to the animal and if so why would I WANT to support something like that?

Talk about 'having something rammed down your throat'...
You can keep your Islam, I don't want it.
Don't I get a right to choose?

"Excuse me, Can you direct me to the Non Allah Achbar meat section please?"

Don't worry, AC,

The Greens, with their love and concern for nature, and the protection of animals, will be out in the streets in their hundreds when they hear about the slow and cruel death of sheep and cattle that halal requires. They might even boycott halal butcher shops. Or maybe not.

Of course, as some bright spark might suggest in apology for Islamic practices, you don't have to eat meat. But like you, I suspect, I love meat, I'm just about to have turkey mince on toast for breakfast: mmmmmm ! I wonder if turkey processing factories kill the birds in an approved halal way. And there they were, thinking it was still Christmas Eve.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

I suspect the reason we’re not hearing from the Greens on the Halal slaughter process is because the stock are stunned for the process:

http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-halal-slaughter-in-australia_116.html

The Kosher slaughter process appears identical:

http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-kosher-slaughter-in-australia_117.html

Looks like vegemite isn’t the only Kosher product I’ll be boycotting.

Thanks AJ,

As the brochure says:

"A small number of abattoirs in Australia have been granted permission from the relevant State or Territory food authority to conduct religious slaughter without prior stunning – for either Halal or Kosher (Jewish slaughter) purposes. These ‘approvals’ are effectively exemptions to standard Australian slaughter practice and only apply to cattle and sheep. (All Halal slaughter of chickens in Australia includes prior stunning.)

"Our understanding (as of 2017) is that there are 8 abattoirs in Australia with approval to conduct slaughter without prior stunning in three different States:

New South Wales – 2 abattoirs
South Australia – 3 abattoirs
Victoria – 3 abattoirs."

And goes on:

"The RSPCA is concerned there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. Slaughtering an animal while fully conscious requires additional handling and restraint and means that the animal will experience pain associated with the throat cut and subsequent bleeding out. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal."

My limited understanding of halal slaughtering is that the animal has to be fully conscious, in order to understand its duty etc. to Allah.

As for kosher requirements, which Muslims have obviously adopted:

"For meat to be Kosher ....... [t]he animal must be killed so it feels little pain. A very sharp knife is used to cut the oesophagus, the trachea, carotid arteries and jugular veins in one smooth action. There must be no pause during the action nor excessive pressure on the blade. Failure to meet these specific requirements renders the animal unkosher.

"The national standard for meat production in Australia is that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. Kosher slaughter does not comply with this standard."

I'll stick with the RSPCA rather than such barbaric cultural or religious practices.

Cheers,

Joe

only 3 murdered in America today by Mohammed follower. Must be Trumps fault.

man hated whites. no whitelives matter movement? thought not.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/18/fresno-shooting-rampage-3-people-killed-suspect-yelled-allahu-akbar-made-posts-against-white-people.html

Yes, Joe, it appears a compromise has been reached in which the stunning process occurs immediately after the throat is slit - which is still not good.

Also in the press today: a bloke has got off on a charge of 'marrying' a 14-year-old, with her father's and an imam's permission. He was charged with multiple counts of penetration, yet that didn't seem to count as rape of a minor, or false imprisonment. Neither the father nor the imam were found guilty of any offence, either.

Current number of cases of under-age 'marriage' successfully prosecuted: 0

See ? No cases. Ever. It doesn't happen, it's all Islamophobic propaganda.

Joe

Hi AJ,

I think the stunning is supposed to take place before the throat-slitting, not after, when it would be a bit late, even during the slow bleeding required by halal, to keep animals mindful of their love of Allah as long as possible.

Joe

Ritual Slaughter - call a shovel a shovel.

The Australian federal government legislated for humane slaughter and the regulations were in place.

The regulations are still in place, but exemptions allow for ritual slaughter for two religions. Both religions mandate that the animal be at the point of consciousness (the best that government has been able to achieve from the two bullying religions) when the luckless animal's throat is slit.

The allowance is for the animal to be 'partially' stunned, but it must be reversible and NOT to the point of death, irreversible, as required by the humane standard of the federal slaughtering regulations.

It should be noted that these medieval religions do not take account of humane slaughter at all and they do not consider for instance that over the years better breeding and management has dramatically increased the size of food animals. That has connotations for the animal handling. Also the neck area is far thicker and the blood vessels deeper.

Outside of the major works there are smaller ones and boutique, where there is NO prior stunning at all. Individual butchers and individuals themselves may purchase animals for stock sales and handle, transport and slaughter them as they wish in accord with their religions. It is not usually of any interest to the feds how other animals, examples being fish and crustaceans are handled, by restaurants for instance. The feds, all political parties, look the other way, lest they create ethnic angst and lose votes in marginal seats.

Over the decades the treatment of immigration as a sacred cow and the multiculturalism that sprang from that, has ensured that editors are reluctant to print any ethnic 'criticism'.

AJ,

"Looks like vegemite isn’t the only Kosher product I’ll be boycotting"

NO!! Don't do it.
Vegemite is still Vegemite no matter what the certification.

I'll never give up my Vegemite.

Dear Paul,

Concepts of goodness/badness are human, but so is the concept of 'tree'. One could think of a culture that does not have a concept of 'tree': perhaps they just overlook it all as "forest" or "nature" without paying attention to that detail, but the not-being-called-tree is still there!

Similarly, there are traits of character which tend to promote one's ability to relate directly with God and there are other traits of character which tend to hinder it. Not all cultures have a concept for these traits and even those who do, occasionally err in their classification. The human concepts of "good" and "bad" largely overlap those traits, but in some cultures less than in others.

Just like any other attribution, to attribute God with existence would have placed a limitation on Him. Nevertheless, the feeble human mind is so besotted with the concept of existence, that the belief that "God exists" can inspire many people to try doing good, avoiding evil and improving their character in preparation to "meet Him".

When you finally do meet God, all you discover is yourself, your true self, there is no one else, never been another. However, the same is also true for others, so if you go against the "Golden-Rule" and treat others in ways that you would hate being treated like yourself, then you would find it very hard and resist discovering that you and them are in fact all one in God, which would imply that when you believed that you were hurting them, you were actually hurting yourself.

Finding a meaning in life, including in afterlife, is one booby-prize of religion. In fact it can become an obstacle that brings one to rest on their laurels rather than continue to strive till the goal is reached. Once discovering God directly, which is your own true self, in that ecstatic bliss all concepts fail, then any "meaning" and similar mind-games pale into insignificance.

//I checked my pantry, and the only Halal certified product there is vegemite. Kraft sells 22 million jars of vegemite per year, so at $1,500, I just contributed a whopping 0.0068 cents to Islam.

Fair enough, but then I saw that it was Kosher...//

No animals have died to produce your Vegemite. Some quick googling reveals that even vegans agree it's vegan, and they're a fussy bunch. It's made of yeast extract, vegetables and salt.

It needs halal certification because of the yeast component; the halal certification body needs to be satisfied that the yeast extract has been processed to get rid of any alcohol. Apparently they are.

Kosher is a lot more complicated and restrictive.

http://www.kosher.org.au/section/Consumers/What%20is%20Kosher%3F

I as far as I can work out, the Kosher certification relates to whether the processing equipment is used for non-Kosher foods as well as Vegemite - if it is, that makes the vegemite non-Kosher. Unless you clean it under the supervision of a Rabbi.

Of course, even without animals being ritually slaughtered... Vegemite is made by Kraft and Kraft are owned by Phillip Morris. So if you eat Vegemite, you're supporting Big Tobacco.

Still not giving it up.

Presumably, halal and kosher foods need to be certified to be free of any pork or alcohol products, such as lard or pork fat.

To get back to the actual topic: are Australians generally concerned enough that no religious laws or legal systems be applied anywhere in Australia ? Not for any Australians ?

I'm half-expecting some on the juvenile 'Left' to say, well, gosh, Muslim law (i.e. Shari'a) is okay for Muslims, nobody else has to abide by it. Well, no, I would suggest, Australia has a national legal system and it's broad enough for everybody to work within. As well, we have a hard-fought tradition of the separation of church and state. It looks like we might have to struggle to maintain those hard-fought traditions.

So no under-age marriages, no honor killings, no genital mutilation, no inequality for women no matter how disguised. Observance of one set of laws, freedoms and obligations, for all Australians.

Isn't that what this topic is about ?

Joe

//are Australians generally concerned enough that no religious laws or legal systems be applied anywhere in Australia ? Not for any Australians ?//

Clearly not. They only seem to be concerned that no religious laws or legal systems be applied for Allah-worshipping Australians.

//As well, we have a hard-fought tradition of the separation of church and state. It looks like we might have to struggle to maintain those hard-fought traditions.//

Nah, the horse has already bolted on that one. Ever heard of the Exclusive Brethren? They're all exempt from voting, even though the AEC website says in their answer to FAQ 'Is voting compulsory?' 'Yes, under federal electoral law, it is compulsory for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.' Note that it does not say 'unless you believe God's law to be higher than man's, in which case you can seek and be granted an exemption on religious grounds.'

I know voting exemptions and tax loopholes and the use of religious courts for non-binding arbitration aren't as exciting and dramatic as honour killings and ritual violence. But aren't they just straw men anyway? Even if some lunatic did suggest that Muslims be given legal exemption to commit murder, he'd get shouted down immediately and put some sort of watch list. Does anybody seriously entertain the notion that Australia will wind the clock back to the 12th century at the behest of some nutter? Really?

It's all the boring, administrative and civic where religions seek - and often obtain - flexibility in the separation of church and state. And it only gets bent - Australians won't stand see it broken. The problem lies more to the extent in which they exploit that bending. Scientologists are probably the best at it at, but everybody does it, Muslim, Catholic and cult leader alike.

Those are the sort of things we have to keep our eye on, because they can so easily fly under the radar. Especially when we're distracted by the prospect of 'orrible murders and other gruesome tabloid staples.

//Presumably, halal and kosher foods need to be certified to be free of any pork or alcohol products//

No, kosher doesn't necessarily have to be alcohol free. A lot of Christian sects and Islam forbid alcohol, but interestingly Judaism - of which they are both offshoots - does not completely forbid it.

The kosher rules are complicated. But Jews are definitely allowed to drink wine. It has to be made by a Jew, be free of non-kosher ingredients, and before you open a bottle you have hop around it three times in anti-clockwise circle waving a peacock feather. Just kidding about that last bit, but yeah, kosher is really complicated. Not sure where they come down on beer or spirits. Presumably brandy would be okay, if a Jew distils it from kosher wine. Or maybe distilling is inherently non-kosher? I dunno. They're a weird mob, these Jews.

Toni,

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not illegal NOT to enrol, but if you do, you have to vote.

Charities, such as church organisations and mosque community organisations, are exempt from tax payable on income. Those charities don't pay tax, because they are charities. Not because they are religious organisations. And are you suggesting that Christian charities don't have to pay tax, but Muslim charities do ?

Under-age 'marriage', honor killings, genital mutilation and the general oppression of women under Islam (where are you, sisters ?) are more likely to be the issues.

As Australians, Muslim women under the threat of those barbarities are entitled to the protection of Australian law. Islamic law shouldn't get a look-in. Muslim Australian women are entitled to all the benefits and opportunities available to other Australians, including women. No Muslim law should interfere with that.

I'm confident that you would agree ?

Joe

Dear Tony,

Regarding alcohol and Judaism, the idea is to avoid drinking wine that was used in Christian communion or consecrated by a Christian priest for that purpose. For everyday use, a Jew may drink alcohol that was produced by non-Jews, provided there is no reasonable suspicion that it was consecrated by another religion. For use in Jewish sacraments, the standard is higher and requires Jewish supervision, lest by drinking the wine one could be worshipping some other god. The problem is with the blessing over the grapes that is required before drinking, so non-alcoholic grape juice is in the same category. Pure beer, which is not derived from grapes, is fine but cannot be used in Jewish sacraments.

(disclaimer: I don't drink alcohol myself, but I do enjoy grape-juice and I don't check whether some priest entered the supermarket at night and maliciously consecrated the bottles)

Regarding your previous post: there is a huge principle difference between behaviour that hurts non-consenting others (such as murder) and behaviour that doesn't (such as not voting). In the former case, the offended (or potentially-offended) side is entitled to act in self-defence. I have not previously heard of the Exclusive Brethren, but I'm glad that the AEC has some good sense to quietly exempt them. Nobody should be forced to vote anyway.

God's law is indeed higher than man's, but it never sanctions violence and murder. If you see such claims then the laws in question are fake and man-made.

It’s interesting that some Christian denominations are against alcohol, given that the alleged Jesus drank wine and turned water into wine. It’s usually the happy-clappy churches that preach abstinence from alcohol. Our resident unhappy-happy-clappy, runner, can attest to that.

I once asked a happy-clappy how they justify a total ban on alcohol (even though many happy-clappies still drink) and their reasoning was that, when they said “wine” in those days, they actually meant “grape juice”.

They didn’t.

--

Is Mise,

Don’t worry, I won’t be giving up vegemite any time soon - even if it means that terrorists and money-grubbin’ penny-pinchers get their filthy claws on a fraction of a cent from each jar I purchase. I was more just trying to get myself accused of being an anti-Semite so that I could make a point. I must say, it’s surprisingly hard to do, given how much of a hard-on the Right has for all things Jewish. Post-WWII, at least.

But that’s enough baiting from me. I’d like to discuss our Judeo-Islamo-Christian heritage and values a little more…

//Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not illegal NOT to enrol//

Not according to the AEC website:

"Enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral roll has been compulsory since 1912.... Anyone who fails to enrol may be punished on conviction by a fine of up to 1 penalty unit (section 101(6))."

However;

"the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for the failure of the elector to vote."

//Islamic law shouldn't get a look-in.//

It doesn't.

//No Muslim law should interfere with that.//

They don't. The police and the courts enforce Australian law. Murder etc. are illegal.

Can you really imagine the Turnbull Government introducing a bill to legalise murder in certain circumstances? Aside from the fact that it would be certain political suicide, who do you imagine would support it? Let me guess - Sam Dastyari & Ed Husic, because they're Muslims, and they're all vicious killers at heart. So that's one Labor politician in each house siding with the Government's bill, and the entire Government crossing the floor to vote with the opposition... sorry, does any of this sound completely mental to you? Because it certainly does to me.

I fail to perceive this huge swell of grass-roots support for legalised murder that you seem to perceive in the community, be it the Muslim community or the broader Australian community. From what I can see, any support that might potentially exist is only going to come from a tiny, insignificant minority of crazies that are an embarrassment to the rest of the Muslim community. I can't see them having the numbers to register a political party with a pro-murder platform. I really can't see them getting any votes. And I really, really can't see them forming a majority in the Parliament. But I guess it could happen... in the sense that it doesn't disobey any laws of physics.

It might even make an interesting plot for a work of speculative fiction.

//I'm confident that you would agree ?//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqSgWUfFZrw

Hi Tone,

Maybe I'm being picky but you have to register to enrol: I didn't until I was in my thirties, and then only to vote for Whitlam against Fraser.

And of course, we're not talking about murder, but about under-age child rape and 'marriage', genital mutilation, honor killings (okay, yes, that's murder), limits on the rights of women, etc. i.e. the insertion of some Shari'a law - just for Muslims, mind - into the Australian legal system. But, of course, you know that, you're just toying with us.

But 'support for murder' IS a terrific straw-man :)

Joe

I've looked up on the web the link that explains what
Sharia law is. I'll give it at the end of this post.

We're told that Sharia is the moral, legal and religious
code followed by Muslims, but made notorious by extremist
groups like Islamic State wanting to implement hardline
aspects of Islamic law.

What might surprise most Australians is that most Muslims
live according to Sharia everyday of their lives. They live
harmoniously. They're not living in defiance of the
Australian law. They're not seeking to set up a parallel
legal system.

Of course, it's what people see on television, what they hear
in the news, what they read in the papers that has a major
impact on some. If your main source of information about Islam
or Islamic legal principles is from the media then of course
you're not going to know how it really operates.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/23/explainer-what-sharia-law

It has just occurred to me that while we're discussing
Sharia Law, nobody has bothered to bring up the horrific
child-abuse and neglect statistics in this country.
That is something - a serious problem that is not about to
go away. I know from experience. I worked as a consultant
in Community Services Victoria a few years back, and I saw
the horrors that the under-staffed staff had to put up with
in the Child Protection Unit.

Instead of worrying about religious laws how about facing
the real problems concerning children and their abuse in
this country - or does no one care?

http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics

Dearest Foxy,

How about walking and chewing at the same time ? i.e. both ? Most certainly, we should be more concerned about child abuse and domestic violence. But surely our legal system should be vigilant also about child 'marriages' and rape, honor killings, and FGM, when and wherever they occur ?

And, of course, we should be vigilant about cases of malaria, the importation of illegal drugs, the invasion of alien plant species, air pollution, deforestation, high school drop-out rates, and rabies.

Prosecutions for child rape and 'marriage': 0.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

How about you doing a bit of lateral thinking for a change.
I know it's a big ask but do give it a go.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog.richard-cooke/2016/23/2016/1479858182/letting-catholic-priests-australia-was-mistake

Dearest Foxy,

Yes,we could all do with a bit of that :)

Love,

Joe

//Maybe I'm being picky but you have to register to enrol//

Nope, not any more. The AEC can register and enrol you, and there is sod all you can do about it. God I love the future: people not being able to avoid their civic duties since 2013.

//honor killings (okay, yes, that's murder)//

Yeah, that's why I put murder first: because it's the worst. Also, me and all my Klingon friends kindly ask that you cease and desist from misusing the term 'honour', unless you're willing to use it properly. Starting with the correct spelling - there is a 'u' in honour. At least, there is the way Klingons spell honour. We will only ask nicely once - after that we will employ disruptors.

Hi Tone,

'Employ disruptors' ? What, more than you do already ?

'Honor' is an older English - and newer, more American - version of 'honour'. I know this is a huge deal to you, getting the spelling right, almost as important as honor killings themselves. I respectfully beg to differ.

But is that all you've got ? Nothing substantial ? Nothing to say about the bit-by-bit intrusion of Shari'a law into the Australian legal system ?

It may not worry kind-hearted people like Foxy - gosh, why not let people have their own laws ? - but I have this niggling notion that Australian Muslim women are Australian, and entitled to the protection of Australian law, even if their menfolk and imams browbeat them into making absurd videos and giving away their rights as women.

Keep disrupting, if it's all you've got [and get stuck into me for the misuse of 'got', I can take it].

Joe

//but I have this niggling notion that Australian Muslim women are Australian, and entitled to the protection of Australian law//

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/185/455/2535998337_21f4edd555.jpg

Hi Tone,

So you're totally opposed to the introduction of any element of Shari'a law into Australia ? No 'different' rights for Australian women who happen to be Muslim ?

In fact, no 'different' rights for Australian women who happen to be afflicted by any other 'culture' or religion ? Indigenous women, for instance, no under-age marriage to 'promised' old men ?

Good on you.

Joe

However the self-styled 'do gooders', the virtue-signalling leftists - those for example that the public-funded ABC has so frequently and for so long given a podium to - have a long record of self-loathing and a palpable hatred of the UK traditions, law and democratic (leftists are totalitarian) institutions that were introduced by the settlers.

That loathing and hatred is in the leftists' blood and motivates the 'endless diversity' and extreme multiculturalism in action, that has embedded a very nasty, anti-freedom of speech, political correctness that younger generations grew up with and probably recognise as 'normal.

It is remarkable when one realises that so many leftists are 'Chardonnay Marxists': white, educated, middle class bureaucrats and professionals who are well skilled and proficient at living very comfortably off the taxpayer. And so often in sinecures with a golden handshake on retirement (again courtesy of the taxpayer). They win personally from fostering the 'ism' wedge politics (an example being 'racism') that has served their incomes and careers so well.

Is Sharia Law the overarching aim of Muslims who settle in other countries?
According to the evidence it is. What about the 'nation within a nation' in France and the UK? What about the evidence gathered from Muslims themselves, for example byTrevor Phillips, Britain's former chief of the Equality and Human Rights Commission says that a chasm has opened up between Muslims and non-Muslims? Why is it too, that second and successive generations are becoming more fundamentalist?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3533041/Warning-UK-Muslim-ghettoes-Nation-nation-developing-says-former-equalities-watchdog.html

Unreformed Islam is a problem and it can only be sorted from the inside, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other positive and constructive reformists argue,

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446863/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-treatment-women-predicting-evolution

tbc

contd..

The virtue-signalling leftists, the self-styled 'do gooders' are in fact doing fundamentalist Islamists' work for them by advocating silence, turning a blind eye and by turning the blame on host countries such as Australia, the UK.

Of course the 'virtuous do-gooders' are actively excavating the sand from under the feet of Aayaan Hirsi Ali's “modifying Muslims” (Muslim reformers), who generally favour equality between men and women and promote the separation of religion from politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446863/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-treatment-women-predicting-evolution

Hi Leoj,

As an ex-Marxist, I can't escape the temptation to try to analyse the class nature of the virtue-signallers: as you point out, they are comfortable, well-educated in a way but with little direct power, with plenty of time on their hands, and secure lives.

Of course, Marx and Lenin and Mao and so many other 'revolutionaries' came from this class and had a similar sense of grievance against those in power. But these days, the virtue-signallers don't have the illusion that there is a huge class of dumb workers and/or peasants who will do all the heavy lifting for them to help them into power, in the name (yuk! yuk!) of the same workers and peasants. The regressives have only themselves, and back-up from a bunch of sooky juveniles at university. Not really a large base from which to make a grab for power.

So of course, they have to latch onto any potentially disaffected group that they can find. And lo and behold, fellow-totalitarians, Islamists, might even fit the bill. Between the Islamists, the adolescents at uni, the faux-feminists and the homosexual and trans-sexual and gender-fluid movements and themselves, including the faux-environmentalists, they may be able to bring down the temple of Western society, and, like all Utopian fascist movements before them, use these motley groups to attempt to rebuild from scratch.

Cheers,

Joe

If you keep on preaching hatred and venom then you are indeed
doing exactly what ISIL wants. Muslims have nowhere else to
turn but to ISIL, especially the young.

Most people who have studied and worked their way through high school, university, TAFE, or whatever course of their choice did it
through hard sweat and sacrifice. What they have they've earned.
And our society is all the better for it as the following link
fully illustrates:

http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-astonishing-journay-of-surgeon-munjed-al-muderis-20140918-10iqce

preaching to the choir, sister .....

//So you're totally opposed to the introduction of any element of Shari'a law into Australia ?//

Well, no. They can keep doing Ramadan if they want - that's mandated by Sharia. I don't think it's very fair that the Catholics get to fast during Lent and on other occasions, but the Muslims can't have their fast (if they want, although why you'd want to perplexes me).

And they can keep washing themselves ritually before prayer - that's mandated by Sharia. It doesn't seem very harmful, and no weirder than some Catholic rituals (I use Catholics as my basis of comparison because I know them better than other denominations).

The requirement to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? That's fine.

Saying "Bismillah" (translation: in the name of God) before eating and drinking? That's definitely OK, but only as long as they sing it like Freddy Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody.

Things that are not alright include polygamy, slavery, corporal and capital punishment, the prohibition on Muslims converting, the prohibition against unconvential interpretations of the Koran, inequitable treatment of women, prohibition of homosexuality, paedophilia, and of course murder.

Neither of these lists is exhaustive. Please feel free to bicker about the contents of either.

Hi Tone,

So in what way do these practices impinge on, or alter, any aspect of the Australian legal system ?

And of course, you know very well that the issues are vastly more serious than those: child rape and 'marriage', honor/honour/hounour killing/kiling/kiiling, genital mutilation, restrictions on movements and life-opportunities, etc. Any chance that you will ever focus on those real here-and-now issues?

No, I thought not. It's easier to be a complete tosser. No offence/offense.

Joe

//So in what way do these practices impinge on, or alter, any aspect of the Australian legal system ?//

Well they don't of course. But then, neither does murder (and, no I'm not going to call it by your preferred name because I fail to perceive any honour in it). It's illegal for everybody, regardless of their faith, and 'my client is a Muslim' is not a defence. You seem to believe it would somehow constitute a valid legal defence for a range of crimes: it isn't the case and it never has been. Christ, it makes the 'Chewbacca defence' look watertight. I think that if a lawyer tried it his client wouldn't even be found guilty - it would be declared a mistrial, since the defendant obviously has an incompetent lawyer and won't receive a fair trial.

In order for it to become a defence, there would have to be significant changes to Australian law. Changes which would have to happen through the democratically elected parliament, which would therefore require the support of a sizeable chunk of the Australian public.

Do you think there is widespread support for murder amongst the voting public? It seems to be something you're genuinely concerned about... but I reckon there's probably a lot fewer psychopaths than you seem to imagine.

//It's easier to be a complete tosser.//

Oh good, personal attacks :)

Well I can see why you're getting a bit stroppy. Must be annoying when somebody keeps agreeing with you that murder is wrong but stops short of agreeing that Muslims getting a free pass to commit murder is currently a problem in Australia.

Because it's not.

Joe (Loudmouth),

You stated "Preaching to the choir sister?"

No. Just stating the obvious that any intelligent
person can see.

Tomato, tomato.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Actually, it's more like -

tomato, tomahto .

Big difference.

You like this and the other
While I go for this and that.

Dearest Foxy,

To labour the point, yes most of us agree that for most people, what they have they've earned. Equality of opportunity is available to most people, even if some have to work at it a bit harder. And that goes for Muslim youth too - if that wonderful doctor can do it, so can most of them. Same with Indigenous youth. None of it is out of reach with enough effort, and a bit of encouragement and support.

On the other hand: I was involved in running a series of career workshops for Aboriginal kids in primary and secondary schools in 1993-1994, and at one school, Broken Hill Secondary College I think, one lovely girl was passionate about becoming a Rainforest Manager; another was fascinated by Marine Biology. Another girl down in Ivanhoe, in the very centre of NSW, wanted to be a lawyer. You can guess what their schools' counsellors might have said to them. That's one major obstacle that many kids are up against. I hope those girls made it.

Love,

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

I think there's been a misunderstanding here.

In my earlier post I was responding to leoj
including his reference to "chardonnay Marxists"
educated professionals et cetera. Hence my
reply about the fact of how qualifications are
earned through hard work and not just given
away. What you achieve comes from your own
determination to succeed and to persevere no
matter what the obstacles thrown at you.

I hope that the girls you mentioned do succeed.
Hopefully they will continue to persevere until
they do.