OrangeDragon wrote:And reading P1 of this thread I see no calls for mass killings... and we've even tolerated blanket/academic anti-semitic views, as well as anti christian views of the same cut. The thing that got him banned was attacking individual posters for their views.

Post #6 from Taranis

"Its time for the new Crusade, and I am sure there will be more with us this time, Buddhist, Hindus, Atheists, Christians unite in the next Crusade. Lets push the Muslims from their lairs, lets push the Arabs back to Saudi Arabia from whence they came"

I agree that is a call to action statement. The question I have (on topic) is "is it a qualified one?" Meaning, does Islam (which i'm not closely familiar with) call/teach for the elimination of Christianity? And if so, then would not acting against it lead to such an eventuality?

That "seems" the be the argument he's making... that doing nothing will inevitably be standing by while they are doing something.

Though I do wonder why it has to be 2 choices, and not leave a 3rd "Secular nation, with multiple religions practiced freely by citizens" as an option.

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:And reading P1 of this thread I see no calls for mass killings... and we've even tolerated blanket/academic anti-semitic views, as well as anti christian views of the same cut. The thing that got him banned was attacking individual posters for their views.

Post #6 from Taranis

"Its time for the new Crusade, and I am sure there will be more with us this time, Buddhist, Hindus, Atheists, Christians unite in the next Crusade. Lets push the Muslims from their lairs, lets push the Arabs back to Saudi Arabia from whence they came"

Removed and also warned. Believe it or not we don't see every post, and when reading don't necessarily see each bit of it. I had actually skimmed past that post because it started off so mildly I would never have expected it to end with that. Thanks for pointing it out. The "Report" feature is the best way to approach posts like that, and when posts are reported we go read them and address the issues if there is in fact something out of line.

Don't always assume inaction is condoning something... sometimes we just haven't seen it.

OrangeDragon wrote:I agree that is a call to action statement. The question I have (on topic) is "is it a qualified one?" Meaning, does Islam (which i'm not closely familiar with) call/teach for the elimination of Christianity? And if so, then would not acting against it lead to such an eventuality?

That "seems" the be the argument he's making... that doing nothing will inevitably be standing by while they are doing something.

Though I do wonder why it has to be 2 choices, and not leave a 3rd "Secular nation, with multiple religions practiced freely by citizens" as an option.

Yes -- now we get to the heart of the matter. First of all despite all the hysteria about Islamic politics, there are only two countries in the Muslim world that are truly Islamic States---- Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even here many Muslim intellectuals say these are not pure Islamic as they are both the results of fundamentalist reactions to colonialism and thus represent literal interpretations of Islam and not the more holistic and balanced interpretations which characterized Islam in it's glory days. Saudi Arabia is literalist fundamentalist in the extreme (I cannot imagine anyone willingly relocating there <cough>)

The Iran regime was created as revolution against the corrupt and despotic Shah who was a UK puppet. It can sort of be viewed as what would have happened if were the Puritans rather than George Washington and Company who liberated the USA. The "new" Iran is only 40 to 50 years old (very young for a country) and will inevitably outgrow this literal movement.

The rest of the Muslim world is mostly secular although not as much as say the USA. Basically other religions are tolerated ---- but in some cases there are issues. Indonesia for example has laws that all citizens must declare a religion ("none" is not an option).

If you want the classical, literal interpretation from 1400+ years ago it is:

1) Christians and Jews Specifically protected as "People of the book" descendents of the Abrahamic Faith
2) Pagans and idolators do not fare so well
3) There is a lot of debate about other faiths with most being inclusive but some not (e.g., some interpretations say Hindus are Pagans because they worship multiple Gods)

There is certainly room for criticism and debate here, particularly if coming from secular societies. But if one wants to judge Islam based on 1400 year old interpretations then one should hold Christianity up to the same scrutiny.

As to what current Islamic rule might be like in today's world -- who knows? The Ottoman Caliphate has been dead or irrelevant for many centuries now. Nutters like OBL and Isis think they can create a new one through their militancy, but the vast majority of Muslims look at them like a normal Christian might look at Westboro Baptist Church. It is too bad they get all the headlines and fuel the fear and paranoia shown in Stroppy's first post.

The real issue here as per Stroppy's original article is xenophobia about immigration. What most "haters" choose to ignore is that most COME to secular countries because it is more desirable to them. Thus it is illogical to assume that they would want to transform them back into the states they are fleeing. They simple want the rights to follow their faith without harassment, keep their own identity, and some infrastructure to make it possible (Mosques, Family Courts etc.)

These issues are hardly unique to any immigration experience (particularly where religion is part of the identity) and should be managed as such. Hate, distortion and fear mongering only serve those with interests in dividing.

OrangeDragon wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:And reading P1 of this thread I see no calls for mass killings... and we've even tolerated blanket/academic anti-semitic views, as well as anti christian views of the same cut. The thing that got him banned was attacking individual posters for their views.

Post #6 from Taranis

"Its time for the new Crusade, and I am sure there will be more with us this time, Buddhist, Hindus, Atheists, Christians unite in the next Crusade. Lets push the Muslims from their lairs, lets push the Arabs back to Saudi Arabia from whence they came"

Removed and also warned. Believe it or not we don't see every post, and when reading don't necessarily see each bit of it. I had actually skimmed past that post because it started off so mildly I would never have expected it to end with that. Thanks for pointing it out. The "Report" feature is the best way to approach posts like that, and when posts are reported we go read them and address the issues if there is in fact something out of line.

Don't always assume inaction is condoning something... sometimes we just haven't seen it.

Fair enough. I never use the "Report" Function unless it is something horribly personal or puts the forum or another person at risk. It feels too much like snitching.

Personally I have no issues if you had let it stand. The best way to expose ignorance is to confront it. The standards are up to you to set, as a poster I only ask for consistency and avoiding double standards based on group targeted or poster.

how can you not be anti muslim? ALL are fucking insane unless you see them with your own eyes drink and go fuck a hooker. Otherwise you got rocks in your head. Secular fine np. My hindi friends explained to me about my muslim neighbor. They asks me basic questions...."does he dress in Muslim clothing when home and dress casual like you or me when he goes out"? I said yes. Their response...stay the fuck away from him.

And at times I have decided to let it stand... Generally with commentary that I'm doing so because I want everyone to see what a piece of shit bigot they are.

Rain Dog wrote:

StroppyChops wrote: Again, these are all your words. ..........
Sigh. It doesn't need to change. That's my point.

So set aside personal attacks and accusations thereof now.

How about you stop stamping your little foot there, tiger, and stop telling me what to do or not do. Hmmkay?

You posted a Muslim bashing forum debate with all the usual red herrings of creeping shariah and Islam teaches wife beating blah blah blah. Your thread title pits Christians against Muslims

Yeah, no. I posted a thread about anti-Christianism, and asking if this trend is making 'us' (western society) pro-Islam. It was a question of causality, and deliberately opened a discussion on differing views. YOU added the rest of the words.

Your follow up with comments but keep saying these are "my words" not yours when i cite you. So to be precise --- here is your exact quote:

"Choose today whether you want Australia to identify as being Christian or Muslim." You cannot do nothing, if you believe you're choosing the none-of-the-above option, you're choosing a Muslim nation."

Oh look, you CAN do it. Well done. Although you're cherry-picking to suit yourself.

To be precise --- HERE is my exact quote, in context:

StroppyChops wrote:This is of interest to me because when secular friends in Australia tell me that Australia doesn't need to be one religion or another, I'm usually more direct and forthright than they're used to me being. I tell them pretty straight, "Choose today whether you want Australia to identify as being Christian or Muslim." You cannot do nothing, if you believe you're choosing the none-of-the-above option, you're choosing a Muslim nation." Exactly as happened in KL a few years ago, which was previously an amicably three-religion state.

Rain Dog wrote:The latter part (emphasis mine) is a call to action --- to use your words, doing nothing means choosing a Muslim nation.

Indeed. It's my view that it does mean that. It's what I see happening in Australia, as happened (and I stated in my OP but you chose to ignore) in KL some years ago. KL had it quite nicely balanced - three major religions in near-harmony. That did not change in just two years by population drift.

So you are insisting on a "for us or against us" choice ---- I am curious as to what the specifics are as to the "choice" you want people to make if a "Christian Nation" is your desired outcome. What are the implications? Be specific. You want people to choose Christian Australia against the default option of the threat of Muslim Australia --- what exactly does this mean in practice? How should people indicate or express this conscious choice?

If you dropped the attitude and wiped the foam from your mouth, this would actually be the basis for a constructive, coherent discussion. I'll pretend it was a genuinely curious question rather than your latest iteration of right-fight, and answer as such.

Australians are currently debating religion in schools, the place of God in Australian culture, and whether to keep mentions of God in the articles of the nation. Politics are sensitive to a politician's professed religion or absence thereof. Parent groups are complaining (in my first-hand experience) that Christmas and Easter can no longer be mentioned in school, although Ramadan is widely taught to show that we're sensitive to 'new cultures' in Australia.

(White man's) Australia was founded as a Christian colony, and still calls itself a Christian nation in the Commonwealth. I'm a Christian, and I like Australia professing itself to be a Christian country - which does not make me either xenophobic or Islamophobic. I like that as a Christian nation any Australian is free to worship any or no diety as they see fit, including Allah, subject to that worship not imposing on the human rights of others. Possibly more than any other nation, Australians (including me) will fight for a fellow man's right to worship a different god or no god. I'm proud of that and I don't apologise for any of it - not to you, not to anybody.

So 'specifically' would does my 'call to arms' look like? Simply consider the question in the title. We (in my case Australians, but I imagine this might apply to a number of western nations) are so busy being proud of how anti-Christian we are. Great. That's an individual choice that becomes a collective one at the national level, and inevitably contributes to the shaping of the nation. Consider the question further. If we become anti-Christian, do we inevitably become pro-Islam, as this seems to be a trend in other countries.

Have I denegrated Islam or Muslims in this thread? No. Am I saying that an Islamic Australia would be a bad thing to be avoided? No - but I did intend that if Australians continue to actively pursue a negative stance towards it's current national formal religion, it's almost certain that the religion will change to Islam.

Bashing religions is as much a national past time in Australia as it is here, although I think expats have a broader and more understanding view of different religions than your average Aussie bogan does. Christianity is practiced separate to state in Australia. Islam is never practiced in isolation to nation, it cannot be by it's own definition. That's just a statement of fact, it's not a judgement on my part. I personally don't want Australia to be an Islamic state, and I'm prepared to say it. I like the status quo. If Aussies like the status quo, they need to consider their participation in the anti-Christianity campaigns that are currently rolling through Australia. I don't know where you're from, maybe it's the same. Maybe not.

OrangeDragon wrote:That "seems" the be the argument he's making... that doing nothing will inevitably be standing by while they are doing something.

Exactly this.

Though I do wonder why it has to be 2 choices, and not leave a 3rd "Secular nation, with multiple religions practiced freely by citizens" as an option.

This is the status quo - and the status quo seems to be changing. The intent of my question was 'is the rise of anti-Christianism upsetting that balance?'

Rain Dog wrote:The real issue here as per Stroppy's original article is xenophobia about immigration. What most "haters" choose to ignore is that ...
...Hate, distortion and fear mongering only serve those with interests in dividing.

Rain Dog posted some interesting comments about religious intolerance. What most "ignorant fools" choose to believe is that ...
... Stupidity, ignorance, and pure ugliness are traits that...

See what I did there? Because it's obvious, right? The inference is that I was calling you those names, but should you ever whine about it, I can plausibly deny it and claim you've chosen to take offence at unrelated comments. For the record, I don't think you're any of those things.

It's great that you have passion for what you believe, and that you're enthusiastic about correcting me. You might want to be a little more subtle in the ongoing personal attack. Up to you, of course.