Australian Muslims being "united" is a serious danger for Australia. At the moment they are not united, but if one they will be then it will be more dangerous than a normal bomb.
What do you think? What long term plan should the Australian government have for that?

What, like banning more than two muslims meeting, or pulling down mosques?, or making them convert to christianity?...

Depends, lets worry about that when the Catholics and Protestant churches unite shall we?

There is no monolithic entity known as Islam, just as there is no monolithic entity known as Christianity. Instead there are different takes on the religion.

A request. Could those who continue to slag off over a billion people based purely on their religion, please, please, please actually educate themselves on that religion and its many permutations?

If they are united it would be more dangerous than a bomb?

Do you expect them to collectively fart and blow a massive hole in the ozone layer?

I do see the problem...,

I think it entirely appropriate for a HOWARD Government to tattoo them on their wrists and...;hang on a minute..,that's already been done.

A patch to sew on their clothes?

I'VE GOT IT!! We make them wear a 20 metre rod running up one sleeve, across their backs and out of the other sleeve. That way they would never be able to get near us or each other. The species would just die out...

EUREKA!

No one should even try to convert them to Christianity.....but.. if they know what Christ can do for former child soldiers and sex slaves and aids orphans..

HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOthH4zg5ug&mode=related&search=

There is every chance they will come by themselves. The good thing about Australia, is that no one...NO one.. can enforce the punishment for apostasy on them.

The historical reason the Muslims/Arabs became involved in conflict WAS there new found unity under MOhammad.. nobody cares about squabbling tribes, but a large cohesive alliance of tribes is another story. Hence the increasing attention of the Byzantines and Persians toward the Arabian Peninsula after the unification.

ERRATA

that should have read 'No one should try to FORCEABLY convert them..."

Proclaiming and offering the opportunity to decide is quite ok.

Knowing how much you believe that YouTube is the font of all contemporary references, Boaz, have you seen this one?

You ought to take a look - after all, I religiously watch the ones you point out to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HIUQrdXL1Q&NR=1

I look forward to your comments, particularly on the similarity of the sentiment to that which we hear from militant Islam today.

Helps you understand where they got it from, doesn't it?

Pericles,
Reminds me of the Vietnam days - "I had to kill him Sarge, he woulda grown up to be a Commie".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I must have clicked on this thread a few times just to see what others thought.
Unite? the very many races involved make that hard and are we talking about the idiot murderers uniting with the majority peaceful ones?
I do not trust one section of this community do not want to live with them or even have them in my country.
That makes me a racist.
But i speak of less than 10% of the Muslim community.
No uniting will ever harm us the educated to hate few will.

PART_1
Hi Pericles,
thanx for that.. yep, I'm quite familiar with those verses, and have given a considerable amount of study to them for reasons that they are used as arguments against Christians and the Church in general.

There are a number of things such use seldom recognizes.

1/ God DID declare that the Canaanites were to be 'utterly destroyed'.
I make no apology for the Almighty on that score.
2/ This specific place and time related command has NOTHING to do with use today or even the people of Israel AFTER that time.
3/ If God DID command it, you can be sure there were valid reasons, and.. consider this:
a) The children of Israel were delivered from Egypt in a miraculous way.
b) They KNEW it was indeed the Almighty who was dealing with them.
c) There was ample evidence of this fact in many things which occurred in their brief history.
d) If I was told to march around a walled city, on the grounds that doing so will result in the divine levelling of those walls, and it DID.... I would not be arguing with God about whether his other command (destroy them utterly) was 'fair and reasonable, or compassionate or tolerant' I'd be in there doing what had to be done, but it would not lessen the irksomeness of the task.

The incident about 'keep the little girls for yourselves' was subject to the Mosaic law on 'treatment of slaves' which included NOT using them for sex, but DID include allowing marriage, which also had the condition that if they marraige was rotten, the girl was FREE. (Which leads me to believe that a master would not marry a girl he felt he could not make it work with due to him losing her if it didn't.)

If you wonder why 'all' of the Canaanites were to be destroyed, you only need to read Esther 3:1 and following to see just how ONE descendant of a Canaanite king NOT slain acted.

PART_2

HAMAN the AGAGITE Attempted genocide of all Jews.. AGAG, Agagite (1 Sam 15) Jews to this day have a remembrance day for what he attempted nearly 2500 yrs ago.

Just in case you haven't caught a wiff of the 'atmosphere' of a tribal, 'survive or die' environment, please (you may already have) examine this, and contemplate the 'different' situation of those days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmSWXk1nFRc
Look at the related vids also if you have time.

MORE DANGEROUS THAN MUSLIM UNITY......

Our greatest foe, is not united Muslims, it is our DISunited selves.
Spiritual and moral bankruptcy, social decay, in dissarray, going in all directions, weak, selfish, greedy, immoral, full of lust and acceptance of the vilest practices and precepts... THAT is far more dangerous than any bomb or group of Muslims.

We are probably as bad if not worse than Wales prior to the revival of 1904 or the evangelical awakenings of the 18thC

It has been said that in the early 1700s the life of England was ‘foul with
moral corruption and crippled by moral decay’. Most Englishmen of the day
considered that a life of unrestrained licentiousness could be indulged in with
impunity, and with this frame of mind much of the nation threw off restraint and
plunged itself headlong into godless living.
Bishop Ryle says: ‘...suffice to say that duelling, adultery, fornication,
gambling, swearing, Sabbath-breaking and drunkenness were hardly regarded as
vices at all. They were the fashionable practices of people in the highest ranks of
society, and no one was thought the worse for indulging in them’.

This described the CLERGY as much as anyone.

http://www.newcreation.org.au/books/pdf/072_GreatAwakening.pdf

The Mussies are coming! The Mussies are coming! The end of the world as we know it is nigh!

Get real, Islamophobes. There's only 300,000 Muslims in Australia, including children. The poor bastards are the most surveilled demographic group in Australia, next to Aboriginal people.

I'm more concerned about the potential effects on our society if the Christians all get together and promote sanctimonious claptrap such as Boazy alludes to above. Last week's pandering by the PM and wannabe PM to the loopy Australian Christian Lobby is a case in point. Muslims have no such direct access to heads of government in this country, or anything like it.

Ginx's comment is the most incisive (and hilarious) so far in this thread.

And Boazy - are you suggesting that the Welsh pose a moral threat to our culture? If so, I'm delighted that my name's Morgan :)

Boazy: "God DID declare that the Canaanites were to be 'utterly destroyed'.
I make no apology for the Almighty on that score.
2/ This specific place and time related command has NOTHING to do with use today or even the people of Israel AFTER that time."

Fascinating. As I understand Boazy's chief beef with Islam, it's because somewhere in the Q'uran Mohammed - claiming to be the prophet of God - ordered some enemies killed and their women enslaved. However, he's apparently fine about genocide when it's ordered by his own God... except the Old Testament God's the same god as the Q'uranic God isn't he?

Boazy claims that Christians are somehow more benign because Jesus was never recorded as advocating quite as extreme violence in Boazy's Holy Book. But hang on, isn't part of the Christian faith the belief that Jesus actually *is* God? If so, how is he let off the hook for his Old Testament atrocities?

Or is he a different God? Like one of Boazy's other heroes said, please explain?

I think Pericles is on the mark here, as usual. To those of us who aren't intellectually disabled by blind faith, that Old Testament crap is every bit as appalling as those verses from the Q'uran that Boazy loves to quote.

Boaz_David,

What are your views on a nation that drops one tonne bombs on heavily populated apartment building, imprisons and kills without trial, and committs international crimes?

Could you answer as a decent human being and not a dogmatic religous groupie?

CJ Morgan, good luck in your attempt to get Boazy to understand that Jesus supposedly being one with the god of the old testament means that he was supposedly a part of those attrocities. I've spent more posts than I care to remember on that and the ducks feathers are still dry.

As for the original topic - I'm much more concerned about the current power exercised by fundy christains than the unlikely possibility that Australia's muslim population will unite under a common extremist banner.

If they were to unite in some manner it would most likely be the result of continued attacks by outside extremists and being forced to feel apart but what Australian would be party to creating that situation? (I didn't mention any names)

R0bert

Not content with mere character assassinations of fellow posters, the oh-so-tolerant CJ Morgan is now vilifying Christians in general. A remarkably intolerant outburst from somebody who sanctimoniously preaches 'tolerance'. Or is that simply tolerance of all things non-Western and non-Christian?

CJ Morgan and his ilk are a confused bunch. Such secular 'progressives' proclaim their adherence to the idea that all cultures, values and faiths are equal, but yet don't want to live in anything but an advanced, Christian-based Western society. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

"Most Englishmen of the day
considered that a life of unrestrained licentiousness could be indulged in with
impunity, and with this frame of mind much of the nation threw off restraint and
plunged itself headlong into godless living."

Ah, and then came the Victorian era! Where women were told
to chew an apple, or lie back and think of England.
Where sex was seen as evil and dirty etc. Where people were
filled with weird hangups, all due to religious fanatics.

Get used to it kids, sex is normal and natural. From birds
and bees, to bonobos to people.

If you try to distort that with weird religious stuff, you
will fail. No wonder Islam is growing faster then Christianity.
As the Catholic Church has found out, if you try to interfere with
peoples sex lives as they have, they will simply leave your
church and go elsewhere.

The poor devils have enough to contend with now. If they attempt to change their faith or mock Allah they can be killed.

Character assassination and vilification of Christians in general, Dresdener? And you claim my post was an "outburst".

I haven't "assassinated" anybody's character. Rather, on another thread I've demonstrated, with evidence, how one particular fundamentalist Christian encouraged vigilantism including the bearing of arms at the time of the Cronulla riots. My comment about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd was an expression of my concern at their attempts to meddle in politics, rather than "vilification".

If you want examples of vilification and character assassination, this forum is replete with them in other threads. They are usually posted by Islamophobic, often Christian, correspondents about Muslims.

CJ Morgan said: "My comment about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd was an expression of my concern at their attempts to meddle in politics, rather than "vilification"."

The notion that people with religious views should not be involved in politics is discriminatory and anti-democratic. If certain Christian groups wish to 'meddle' in politics, that is their democratic right. Secularism means the separation of political and religious institutions, not a blanket ban on Christian participation in Australian democracy.

Attempting to legislate morality is foolhardy, but excluding certain groups and individuals from engaging in debate over the most important issues shaping our society is even more perilous.

Dresdener: "The notion that people with religious views should not be involved in politics is discriminatory and anti-democratic."

To return to the thread topic, no - it's when they unite together as a political bloc to try and impose their religious values that they become a problem.

From Dresdener's comment, I expect that s/he will defend the right of Muslims to form political "lobby" groups whose purpose is to impose Islamic values on the rest of us - because to do otherwise would be "discriminatory and anti-democratic".

Which is why I'm more worried about the Christian political activists than Muslims - they have the influence, the money and the numbers to be a political threat to non-Christians. Muslims don't - plain and simple.

"Which is why I'm more worried about the Christian political activists than Muslims - they have the influence, the money and the numbers to be a political threat to non-Christians. Muslims don't - plain and simple."

Good point! The question then arises, if tyranny by a religious
majority, should be acceptable. IMHO democracy is about freedom
of religion, but also freedom from religion. In other words,
Dresdener et al are free to live by their religious beliefs, but
have no right to impose them on me, or others who think its a heap
of gobbldygook. They clearly have no substantiated evidence to
support their claims, that would stand up in any court of law,
based on reason and evidence.

This is the point. Religion is and should be no more then a
lifestyle choice, voluntarily followed by those who believe.
Leave the rest of us out of it. Manipulation of the political
system to enforce religious tyranny, is simply not acceptable,
even though they keep trying.

Muslims gathering in a mosque listening to hate speech from a cleric is a recipe for violence and the root cause of many of the Islamic (Muslim) terrorism all over the world.

The opposite of Muslims is not Christians but non-Muslims. Thirty years ago, we seldom hear of Muslim terrorists, but today with oil money and encouragement from many Arab countries, Islam is showing its true colours as a religious-political system intolerant of any religion or system of governments not based on the Koran. Muslims are now fighting and killing Buddhists, Catholics, Christians, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Bah’ais, etc. in different parts of the world.

A few days ago, 100,000 Muslims gathered in Jakarta calling for Indonesia to be turned into an Islamic state and a revival of a world-wide caliphate. There were invited speakers from England and Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6942688.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6938513.stm

Abu Bakar Ba'asyir the spiritual master mind of the Bali bombing (killing 200 over people) was scheduled to attend the rally.

There are many Muslim sympathisers who are themselves Muslims or have Muslims spouse who would lull non-Muslims into a sense of stupor. This is what happened to Malaysia. When it gained independence from Britain, the coalition of political parties declared the country to be a secular state. But when the Muslim population grew and grew they now declare Malaysia to be an Islamic state.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C26%5Cstory_26-7-2007_pg4_13

This is similar to putting a frog into a pan of room temperature water and gradually heating the water. If done slowly, the frog will remain in the pan, eventually succumbing to the heat. The frog will die because it never senses the danger and remains “comfortable” while it is slowly boiled to death.

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my concern is first of all what is constitutionally applicable.
.
Howard, rudd and other politicians are on the Christian bandwagon when it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia but are the right?
.
.
Consider this;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.

Well well... CJ on the back foot...getting 'stick' from other posters besides me :) *my work is done* :)

Ok...SUNISLE you question deserves a serious answer.

You raised a specific incident, which is very difficult to argue 'for', but easy to argue 'against'. So, in one sense we are on the same page. I tend to feel the Yanks are far to quick to use massively destructive means to clean out a ratsnest of terrorists than say an incisive raid by Delta Force. Black Hawk down in Somalia might be quite instructive as to 'why' they take the 'mass destruction' approach.

From Somalia and the mouths of the Somalia Militia lackeys of Mohaammad Aideed, we learn that 'EVERYONE.. women and children all took up their weapons and shot at the Americans"

I can only say that left to ourselves, mankind is universally brutal, and without much in the way of redeeming qualities....this applies to all sides. How many times have you seen me write "All...have sinned"
"All" includes Americans, Iraqis, Somalis, and Australians etc.

We should be asking about the solution to human conflict, rather than 'how do you feel about this incident' and the solution is as I outlined above
1/ Love God
2/ Love your neighbour.

The true, Biblical Christian approach to the first "Love God" is to proclaim Gods love, and call all mankind to repentance and faith.
As Jesus said to his disciples-his very last words prior to ascending to the Father:

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

The approach adopted by other founders of religions is not the same.
When it comes to Islam, Surah 9:29 is most instructive. It is further backgrounded in hadith, where clearly (and as has been admitted to me in youtube correspondence by a number of Muslims) offensive war is supported, allowed and done in order to establish the 'religious framework' of Islam, though not specifically to force conversions directly.

Boazy: "*my work is done* :)"

If only it were true.

"Could you answer as a decent human being and not a dogmatic religous groupie?
Posted by sunisle, Monday, 13 August 2007 12:04:01 PM"

Try asking for something a little less taxing.............; like walking on water....

Ginx..... please refer to my response to you on another thread.

Notice how I approached that question of Sunisle......

1/ Admitted the problem, not taking any side.
2/ Evaluated the difficulty of assessing such things.
3/ Suggested that the source is... 'us'.

Now.. there are only a limited number of ways to discuss an issue like that.

1/ It's right and Justified. (give reasons)
2/ Its wrong and not justified. (give reasons)
3/ It's complex.. (partially right, partially wrong, reasons)
4/ After looking at all the usual solutions/reasons.. this is 'my' proposal.(give proposal)
5/ Looking at the presuppositions behind both 'its right' and 'its wrong'
6/ Scrutinizing those presuppositions for validity. (in the light of yet other presuppositions)

I just went straight to the core of the issue. "We" are the problem.

We could waste a heck of a lot of time finding 'Mr good guy' and 'Mr Bad guy' only to find that our 'good guy' today was yesterday or tomorrows 'bad' guy, which leads to my offering of "We" are at fault.

You would be quite wrong if you think I just 'trot out' religious slogans as a cop out for serious analysis.

If you have something to say, say it for crying out loud.. "I believe such and such is the answer" then we have something to debate.

Possibly it's about time we elected some Muslim Federal PMs ... oops ... I mean MPs.

This Christian fundamentalism is getting a bit ...well... hateful.

Liz,

I have an even better idea, lets lock the fundamentalists of all flavours (muslim, christian, athiest, hindu and any other religion/belief system) in a room and let them sort it out. The rest of us who are interested in working together can then move on with our lives.

I disagree, the Americans dropped the biggest bombs ever during the second world war, and they have been killing people with shock and awe bombs since.
United christians and united muslims have not seen eye to eye for centuries.
Racist attitudes will never bring people together, the Bush named christian crusade, creating the war of terror against muslims is a repeated historical event, the difference is that America has superior weapons, to effect larger numbers of people being killed, from cowardly use of air power.
Bush has not completed his stint in power, he may even use nuclear weapons, which he threatened to use years ago. He is a sociopath, which makes him a danger to the world as we know it.
The author of this post is an ignorant rabble rouser, shown by his poor use of the english language, used in his heading for this post.
There used to be "the ugly American", we now have "the ugly Australian /American.

Australian Muslims being united is worse than a bomb.?

Umm Well I dont know about the rest of you but if I were Muslim I would be objecting to this heading.

bit insulting.



I dont think Muslim people have a patton on not being united and please remember many of these people come from all over the world so they are bound to have different back grounds and cultures which might be a tad hard to put everybody under the same roof.

Ladies and Gentleman of Australia place your anger where it belongs.

Put it at the feet of the Governments who allow Australia to be pushed back by Extreme Islamic Laws driven [ not from here] but overseas.
In case you didnt know the
Howard Government are considering make it a law that Ritual Slaughter be allowed HERE! in Australia!
For Kosha and Halal Slaughter. in fact its been happening here already and the government according to RSPCA lied to them.
What we all need to understand is there are NO Australian Muslims.
There are only Islamic Muslims and there is NO QUESTION of them ever! going against their rulers- ISLAM.
Now do we blame Muslims living in Australia for not standing up to these barbaric ritual slaughters demanded by Allah.
No We Blame the Australian Government for NOT giving good leadership and NOT giving enough support to Muslim Australian leaders so they might re consider and enable Australian muslims to be true leaders of humanity- If they they had the back bone and wanted to?

So whats wrong with people living in their own countries under their own laws and stop changing ours?
Ask your Government
I hear Halal ritual slaughter is five billion dollars and growing.

By the way before you all passjudgement on Muslims KOSHA slaughter is by far ! more cruel
So Why do we except these peoples practises in Australia.
I OFTEN mis spell words in my rush.
I think your awfully rude to speak to that other writer like that.
Mr Rudd any comments on ritual Slaughter in Australia?
I cant hear you!

James (Purser)

a gentle word to the wise :) NEVER say things which can turn up in the most unwanted or unexpected places, when you aspire to political office.

Todays herald front page.

"I WILL DESTROY HIM"... from an off the record comment by Peter Costello to 2 journalists in 2005....what year is this ?

Locking 'fundamentalists' in a room would not make good copy mate.

But to LIZ who seems to think the comments are getting 'hateful'.. err.. by whom, about whom ?

I presume you are meaning the meeting of 100,000 muslim fundamentalists in Jakarta who all would want you to live in a tent, and deprive you of your freedom to dress as you please ? and who would suggest your 9 yr old daughter can be married off to a 50+ man, and for him to have sex with her ? Yes, you are right, there is a lot of hate out there.. hate for western freedom and values.

I've had a lot of hate emails, telling me that heaven is full of virgins who will be re-cycled as virgins each time I'm done with them, and who wont inconvenience me with the need to goto the toilet, nope..they just keep on coming back as 'virgins' for me to use as playthings. I must admit.. I don't have a lot of compassion for that view of paradise, not for those who not only vigourously justify a man as a 'model' who had the 9 yr old mentioned above,but promote him as 'the best of all mankind'.

I guess you are free to 'not hate' or to approve of such things, but I assure you, that places you and everyone who thinks along those lines on the other side of the moral fence from me.

Make of those things what you will, I know where I stand, and if the price of that stand is 'you are hateful' then I'll happily wear that badge. Unfortunately, it means the badge 'you' would need to wear is "I support Child molestation".... u'd like that?

"If you have something to say, say it for crying out loud.. "I believe such and such is the answer" then we have something to debate.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 8:41:39 PM"

I have been old boy; I have been. But you do not 'listen'. You are too busy going into minute detail on the shortcomings of others; more often than not, using Biblical references to support your rants.

Your last post here is a case in point; no biblical quotes (well done; it IS possible), but a dressing down, ending with the statement that someone who does not agree with you on YOUR views would surely wear a badge saying "I Support Child Molestation".

TACKY. NASTY. And that statement is from someone who purports to follow a doctrine that promotes itself as being all that is good, tolerant etc.,

Well? BOAZ...; do I now cop yet another ramble about the correctness of your opinion, and how wrong I am to see things that way?? Em?

So Boazy's back on his "all Muslims support child molestation" fantasy again. This is on top of yesterday's vilification by him of homosexuals by equating them with paedophiles and those who engage in bestiality, and of a proposed Muslim school by linking it with Hizb Ut Tahrir with absolutely no supporting evidence.

According to him, Boazy's god ordered the genocide of an entire society - which he supports. If I was as hateful and ignorant as him, I could suggest that all Christians support genocide.

But I'm not, so I won't. However, I remain more concerned about 'Christians' organising to achieve political ends than anything that Muslims do in this country. Particularly if they include 'Christians' as hateful as our Boazy.

BOAZ,

Why would I be concerned about my comments about fundamentalists appearing in the media? I will not resile from my intense dislike of fundamentalism in all its forms.

To be honest I could do with the publicity.

JAMES..not a bad call mate.. they say 'any' publicity is 'good' publicity in the long run.. "welcome to my world" :) and for your confirmation of my own reasons for using 'volatile' slogans which CJ prefers to desribe as 'Nazi-like'.....(When they are not)

But the point I'm making there is that such words as supposedly were uttered by Peter Costello, 2 yrs ago, off the record, are now being dragged up onto the front page of the Herald.

I as going to do a new thread titled "'God' has decided Howard must go".. and of course when you see what 'God' has said "I'm going to destroy him" aah..but 'who' is 'god' in this case ? Well clearly it is Rupert Murdoch who owns the Herald.. The 'creator and destroyer' of men and careers :) Otherwise, how could 2 yr old innuendo suddenly become front page news ?

CJ.. if you wish to say "Christians support the judgement of God on the Cannanites" I'll be the first to put my name on the list of those who agree. But if you say "Christians support the general idea of genocide today" sorry.. no luck there.

*passes CJ a piece of rough sawn 2x4 for the next BOAZ-bash*

CJ.. Statement "Muslims support child molestation"
-If true, how is it true ?
-If untrue, then why is their evidence to the contrary.

Facts:
-Mohammad, at 53, married a 9 yr old girl.
-Mohammad is held up as the 'best of all mankind' and an example to follow.
-Many if not most Muslims will NOT condemn the above, but support it for today in Muslim countries.
-Under Australian Law, sexual activity with a child under 16 is 'child abuse'

CONCLUSION (we are using the inductive method here)
"On the basis of Australian law, most Muslims support child abuse" is a true statement.
Also true, is that they may not support the breaking of Australian law, but this will not alter the inner acceptance.

GINXy... "yes" :) ok..serious now, It is not 'my' opinion, it the legal situation, based on Australian law.

JAMES..back 2 you for a moment

Your opinion about 'fundamentalists' needs some work.

Can you clarify that ? Don't you mean 'bigoted extremists'? Like perhaps (on the 'Christian' side)

-Pastor Fred Phelps (rejoicing at the death of gays bashed)
-Pat Robertson "we should assassinate Chavez"
-Televangelists who seek money for healing or miracles.

Do you consider people who simple believe their own scriptures as 'fundamentalists' ? and if so, is it not just that they hold to different values than you which causes you such angst ? If that is the case, then you have to be willing to accept the 'intolerance' award for today. "Different" beliefs are not neccessarily 'Evil' beliefs, and holding to firm principles is surely a good thing ?

By all means disagree with the principles, but you can only do so on the basis of OTHER beliefs and principles, which, are just as open to the same condemnation you seek to dish out to others.

On the one hand you have this "Hmmm..what will I decide is 'right' for today hmmm..ok..I've got it.. its right for old men to have sex with young boys" (NAMBLA) now.. who is to criticize you and on what basis ? see the problem ? We HAVE to be 'fundamenatlist' in some way or we would end up being chunks of social thermo-plastic which can be shaped into any mould whatsoever. "MIUAUG".

There are only really 2 'fundamentals' of Christianity "Love God" and "Love your neighbour" This is also the gist of the whole old Testament.

Unfortunately, in the absence of specific behavioural guidelines, we get the likes of Nambla or marraige to 9 yr old girls.

Lets take a different example. How could we determine if the 'Children of God' cult of the 60s was 'right' or 'wrong' in their practices of free sex between adults and children ? Simple.. we compare their behaviour with whats in the Scriptures.. "fail"

My definition of a fundamentalist is one who believes that only what he/she believes is right, and that every other system of beliefs is wrong and should be done away with. You'll note that I included atheist fundamentalists (who want to do away with religion all together) in my comments.

My view is that everyone is entitled to their views and beliefs so long as they do not try and force that belief system on me or others who do not wish to follow it.

The Americans dropped the biggest bombs ever during the second world war, but they did that long after they and other countries were attacked. In fact they have often been criticised for entering the war rather late. But it seems that according to the superficial left that the USA are wrong whatever they do.

Have a look at what the Nazis and the Japanese were doing to others before the big bombs were dropped. But why let facts stand in the way of a good prejudice?

James
your definition of 'fundamentalist' is one I can actually agree with, albeit only in part.

"We have the truth" is something I would subscribe to, but who is 'we' ? I would define that as the believers in the Gospel of Christ, and the word of Salvation in Him. That 'we' can manifest itself in many different historic traditions, (denominations) which may have slightly different emphases, yet a basic unity on the essential truths.

Now to the part I cannot agree with. "That all other belief systems should be done away with". This does not apply to Biblical Christianity, except in the sense of a 'moral' victory, where people choose to follow Christ, then, by default or automatically, their previous belief system is left behind. No one is taxed, or punished for not believing. Bear in mind, that under Islam, if you choose not to embrace it, you will be taxed separately for that decision. (Jizya)
There is no such concept in the Bible.

So, I don't know where that leaves me, but in terms of 'your' definition I cannot say I'm a fundamentalist, yet I certainly do believe in the fundamentals of the faith,.... they just don't happen to include part B of your definition.
Beware though, of those fundamentalists where part B IS a part of theirs.

No 'forcing' ? who can disagree with that? Forcing is where you tell someone "Unless you believe this, you will be killed, hurt, taxed, punished, exiled, forfeiture of property etc...in this life"

Proclaiming the Gospel, in public is not 'forcing' people. They can walk away, turn off, switch chanels, shut the door, or move to another school...etc etc...But 'forcing' people to 'not' proclaim their beliefs is as bad as forcing them on people.

My previously stated concern about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd is quite succinctly expressed by today's Ditchburn cartoon on OLO:

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2007/2007-505-stations-of-the-cross-today.jpg

Scary huh? How can you be too worried about a few Muslims when Howard and Rudd are falling over each other to pander to the Christian lobby?

Anybody who's read the twaddle that the most prolific Christians post here would have to be concerned about their issues being taken seriously by government, let alone actively courted. Fortunately, the rabid tripe posted here by some fundies bears scant resemblance to the daily conversations I have with my good Christian neighbours and customers - who include priests, nuns and AOG pastor-types.

CJ Morgan said: "From Dresdener's comment, I expect that s/he will defend the right of Muslims to form political "lobby" groups whose purpose is to impose Islamic values on the rest of us - because to do otherwise would be "discriminatory and anti-democratic"."

Muslims have every right to form political lobby groups if they so wish. Although considering the small size of Australia's Muslim community, I suspect they'd have immense trouble attracting any sizeable support. Give it a few generations maybe.

Oh sorry, was this the part where you were meant to point out my alleged hypocrisy? Did I spoil your 'gotcha' moment?

Morgan said.
How can you be too worried about a few Muslims when Howard and Rudd are falling over each other to pander to the Christian lobby?
Taryn Says.
What if the Russains were to invent a religion and told to pray towards Moscow five times a day? Or the Japanese were to pray towards Tokyo?
My point is it wouldnt matter because its not here.
I read these posts a lot but only pst myself if I see something that is being ignored.
Boaz and philo you two need to get yur bible out from your bums and start showing the rest of us as an example the mercury of your God.
You have both totally ignored the fact that Muslim Leaders from their countries are demanding our Australian Animals are slaughtered by Cruel Religious Slaughters dedicated to Allah.
Not only do you have no concern for these Animals but your both too stupid to see that would be a very real begining to turning Australia int an Islamic country.
Morgan Says the Australan Muslims are few. What Morgan does not know or understand is there is no such thing as an Australian Muslim.
If you are a Muslim you are under the same rules, law God as any other Muslim.
You cant make changes. You dont have a choice. You must follow Islam and Allah.
Mr Morgans is not worried about Muslims taking over Australia.
Well good for you. Go back to sleep because I have news for you Mr Morgan.
They have already said they want control of AQIS to our Government.
Thats is a Government department - pretty cheeky!
Six years ago they asked the Australian Government to turn us into a Allah Riutal Slaughter country. The Government rightly said "No".
Now just before an election it seemds they are to get their way.

Not taking over Australia Mr Morgan?
Think again.

OK, I'll bite.

>>Mr Morgans is not worried about Muslims taking over Australia. Well good for you. Go back to sleep because I have news for you Mr Morgan. They have already said they want control of AQIS to our Government. Thats is a Government department - pretty cheeky!<<

Could you please elaborate on this TarynW, as it is the only piece of evidence you put forward that they are "taking over Australia".

Such a big claim needs to be supported. Otherwise it just goes into the basket alongside all the other Chicken Littles.

Dresdener: "Muslims have every right to form political lobby groups if they so wish. Although considering the small size of Australia's Muslim community, I suspect they'd have immense trouble attracting any sizeable support. Give it a few generations maybe."

Glad to see you agree with me. So what's the problem? After a few generations I predict Australian Muslims will be as well integrated into our society as every other ethnic or cultural group that has migrated here in significant numbers. Of course, our culture will continue to change, to the extent that those aspects of Islam that seem so exotic and threatening to the xenophobes will be relatively mundane and commonplace. I also predict that subsequent generations of Australians whose parents and grandparents were Muslim immigrants will become increasingly secular.

TarynW: "Not taking over Australia Mr Morgan?
Think again."

Like Pericles, I'd like to see some actual evidence of this. Mind you, I don't accept that the reported conflict between some Muslims and AQIS or whoever over the fine details of ritual killing of food animals can be generalised to your claim that Muslims are "taking over Australia". That seems to me to be a hysterical, Islamophobic over-reaction to an issue that doesn't really matter all that much to ordinary Australians who don't share your obsessions.

CJ MORGAN
Perhaps I can help you both with that question in a bit more detail than Taryn.

http://www.qmt.org.au/news+article.storyid+214.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=abc+halal+ritual+slaughter+rspca+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

Most people do have concern for unnessary cruelty to our farm animals so Taryns certainly not extreme.

Now if you would like to know about the meeting with Federal Government it might surprise you to also know it was myself who suggested we met in a "united form' with the Government to discuss accreditations and other issues we have worked on with Muslim Leaders for the past five years.

You can see us all together here.-
http://www.halakindmeats.com/

I would also stress its not just Halal we are talking about but KOSHA.

Morgan Common sense must tell you Rodger Fletcher managers very well to run a good business with overseas purchasers of Halal meat and always pre stunns his animals.

It is our Government that cause this trouble by giving mixed messages. You CAN come to sensible agreements with many of the overseas Muslims if you simply state your case. If not we dont need their money so badly we have to lower Australias Animal Welfare standards.

It is not always possible for Muslim leaders to do this because of the conflict of interest when you consider all muslims are supposed to put Allah before everything.

However it is possible as Rodger Fletcher has demostrated. We are dissapointed the Government do not care enough to try.

We have withdrawn our MOU because to cut an animals throat and let it slowly gasp and bleed to death is unexceptable not only to us but most decent Australians.

As for what was put to AQIS you might be surprised!
You may have to wait until we are ready to disclose more which will happen within a few weeks.
Nobody can stand back and see Australia turned into a third world country performing cruel ritual slaughters without any pre stunning.
Nobody with the slighest amount of common deceny that is.

PALEIF, while I agree that it's unfortunate that some Muslims have apparently reneged on the deal you thought you had with them over pre-stunning animals to be ritually slaughtered, there is a huge difference between that and "Muslims taking over the country".

That kind of hysterical dummy-spit does your cause no favours, and in fact aligns your organisation with the more extreme Islamophobia expressed by some idiots. It also negates any further influence you might have had over the process of halal slaughtering of food animals in Australia.

Morgan
It was not myself personally who had a DEAL going with Muslim Leaders to pre stun.

"It a is LAW in this country."

Neither is it the Muslim leaders from AFIC who broke this law and it was not my intention to make such alligations.

What we dont appreciate are meetings regarding Animal Welfare standards being held with the benefit of our support! and not being included in those meetings.- Espeically when HKM suggested we hold those meetings!

It was our organisation who had given then unprecedented support and they had the benefit of appearing to the public and the Government of having our support!

To say the least it was mis leading. Its also a clear bridge of the MOU.


I dont expect anybody to break a MOU without so much as a word regardless! or not if they are Muslims or Christians.

Now after saying that if you read my posts properly you will see it is NOT the Muslims we are taking a pop shot at Mr Morgan
"Its the Australian Government." and Rudd!

These Cruel Ritual Slaughters are in FACT Illegal.

RSPCA have made a statement that they were lied to by the Government.
"Regardless of "whom" it is we except people to follow the laws of this country."

RSPCAs position is they our outraged because its so cruel.

Thats pretty much most peoples position.

We are privy to some information regarding the fact that they want to make Malyasia the hub of Halal because I encouraged it and held meeting with Maylasian delegates.

We still support it but only working within the law- which is pre stunning.

Australia will be a big part in that and it WILL take over Australias meat works as we know it.

Halal is a five billion dollar industry.

So my claims of Australia being turned into a Halal Riutal Slaughter country "are not incorrect at all".

BTW. That has zilch to do with our Australian Muslim Leaders.

Thats Government to Government AQIS TO JAKIM etc so lets put the blame where it belongs.

PALEIF - it was your own TarynW who wrote "Not taking over Australia Mr Morgan? Think again." How else would one interpret that rhetorical question other than to infer that she meant Muslims are "taking over Australia"?

Perhaps the PALEIF crew should have a little chat amongst yourselves about what it is that you're trying to say when you repetitively hijack threads on this forum, in order to achieve some consistency and perhaps even make some collective sense.

Morgan
Taryn is free to post her thoughts as much as you are. At no time did she say she was speaking for pale- Did She?

You can argue it out with me if you like but its clear already you have no idea about Australian Muslims or the Islamic culture because if you did you would know Halal Slaughter and Halal products is certainly NOT off post.

It is their live and their law and is at the very root of the problems between Islamic leaders including Australia.

Now as to your claims the subject of Halal is high jacking this thread you are simply displaying you absolute ignorance regarding muslims being united which is what this thread is about.


Halal controls everything you do buy use cook eat if you are a Muslim.
The thread is about - Australian Mulims being united.

Fyi Australian Muslims have thirty two Islamic councils and around thirteen Halal accreditation authoritys.

World wide of course there are hundreds of Halal accreditaion Authorities and they are run normally by their Government such as Jakim but there are many others.

They do not see or have a difference between laws of their countries and religion. In fact there isnt any. There cant be because Allah rules.
There is huge compertition to gain the accreditation status. Even in Australia I have seen them argue from Mosque to Mosque what Halal accreditation requirements are.

As every single thing all Muslims buy eat and do is set by the Halal accreditations it is very much on subject Mr Morgan.

All attempts to sign off on a national Accreditation for Halal have so far failed.

This ought to give you some idea regarding Australian Muslims being united.
It is in fact the very reason for so much disunity amoung Muslim Australians.

' After having said that of course the authoritys are paid to carry out their Halal accreditations so its very much a struggle for the all mighty money but they would deny that I am sure.

The evil of greed knows no boundries or languages.

Angela84, an ex-Muslim proposed a few ways of stopping the progress of Islam. It is from an article taken from a web-site set up by ex-Muslims.

1. Ban the publication, distribution and sale of all pro-Islam media, books, literature and published materials

2. Outlaw pro-Islamic organizations and organized activities of religious, social and political nature and deport the Islamic "religious leaders," "clerics" and other charlatans. Outlaw Islamic practices such as the burkha and the religious cap and other medieval nonsense.

3. Shut down all madrassahs and Muslim-majority schools and integrate them within mainstream public schools, diverse student and faculty bodies and modern, scientific curriculum.

4. Shut down all mosques and convert the buildings into hospitals or schools - something good.

5. Encourage (not penalize) the criticism of Islam across all media and strata of society. Encourage public debates and encourage society to take this issue head-on.

6. Severely restrict immigration of Muslims - subject applicants to rigorous citizenship tests, socio-cultural integration and an official renunciation of Islam. Deport those who remain loyal to this hate-mongering cult.

7. Encourage government agencies, NGOs, police and human rights groups to scour the length and depth of Muslim society to uncover and remedy the countless incidences of abuses against women, arranged marriages, secretive polygamy and practice of Sharia principles.

8. Last but not least, strip Islam from legal recognition, from government surveys, official sources of information and census. Cease to identify a "Muslim" demographic; factor them out on ethnic and national origin. "Non-religious" or "Agnostic" is certainly better to being identified as a Muslim.

9. Encourage, provide opportunities for former Muslims to progress, obtain more education, become a normal part of a healthy society.

10. Point out the obvious - the evil suras of the Qur'an calling for hate and violence, the backward, senseless and abusive laws of the Shariat, the bloody history of Islam (continuing today). Case closed.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Swadhin/Abolishing-Islam.htm

The following is an article from the Daily Mail that shows what the Muslims are doing to Britain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475875&in_page_id=1770

Angela84
The answer to the last part of your question is NONE.
The Government are far too busy dealing with the overseas Governments not for our good but to make an awful lot of money from Animal cruelty.
For those of you who think its not connected then think again.
First they start by making Ritual Slaughters Legal in Australia because they got caught out lying to the RSPCA.

Ok What next? Will they make these equally barbaric operations on young Muslims girls legal next?

From there will we go to allowing some to stone women to death?

I am not suggesting it will happen over night but it will happen if we dont stand up now.
As Phillip has pointed out there are some people prepaired to speak out.
Mind you I dont feel we need go that far to have a good Muslim population In Australia.
Just last night I was speaking to another organistation who said they also were not happy with the leadership in Australia.

They want far more inta action between everyday Aussies and themselves.

They do not approve of Ritual Slaughters either.

If we have countries approach us to perform Ritual Slaughters or operations on young girls etc We and the Government ought to be saying
See you later Alagator.

Ok So we have a problem in Australia

1. We can see we do not have the right Muslim reps.[ I thought we did but its clear we dont.]
2 We know the Government do not give a dam about Animal Welfare and will jump to the attention of extreme countries for a few bob.
So the answer is we work together with the good Muslims to fix things. If anybody would like to meet with some main stream Muslims to discuss sensible ways to stop the wrong Muslim messages being handed out they have issued an invitation to you all.

easy.
Thank You for you post Phillip

Philip Tang,

And this is what the "civilised and peace-loving" West is doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon through the indiscriminate use of Depleted Uranium weapons - going back to the first gulf war.

http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm

Heaps of moral superiority on display here - enough to last for generations to come.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming

How did you move from stopping live exports and intensive farming, to stoning to death? Are you writing on behalf of your organisation?

And you oppose Halil and Kosher killing. Are you aware that some veterinary studies have shown that this form of killing is less cruel than stunning. That the animal dies immediately after the appropriate vein is cut? Have you had a pet dog put down by injection? The body continues to move after the heart has stopped. Are you sure that you have properly and professionally studied all of the evidence?

My father during his medical studies visited an abattoir and witnessed both stunning and kosher killing. His professional opinion was that the kosher killing was less distressing to the animal.

Refer http://www.shechitauk.org/downloads/A_Guide_to%20Shechita_July_2004.pdf

I have viewed your website and I concur with what I see on it, but are you not moving away from your area?

Logic

Thank You for your post and questions.

I will if you do not mind respond to this on friday. I think you deserve a detailed reply and I an up at 4am to travel to courts.