From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians

I guess it weighs on there minds that someone like madonna can mock jesus christs in her concert and have the sense to know that the worst response she would get is offended christians complaining about it while if you question or criticise the mohammend or any aspect of Islam itself, you will most likely incur a fatwa or some kind of jihad against you, where they would threaten death at you,

Quite frankly I can believe that there is a level of contradiction and cowardice from many lefties who seemed to be comfortable with it as well, who sucumb to this madness of not calling a spade a spade

the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world with most fighting for some kind of state that will enact sharia law


    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9i7fRy26V4



I think bill maher is the only leftie who has some real balls and is on the same page with me about islam.

MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THE OTHER C WORD

CRAP WITH A CAPITAL C

The Political left and Islam

Lines up with the political right and stupidity.

the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world

The IRA Islamic fundamentalists ???

the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world

The IRA Islamic fundamentalists ??? ======= NO

The IRA global terrorists ??? ======== No

Dnarever wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 4:14pm:

the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world The IRA Islamic fundamentalists ???

Have the iRA moved into global?

Bugger!!

Stryder, ill tell you something about media services and governments in Australia. The real deceit is not their agenda. The real deceit is that they claim to be about democracy, freedom and Australian values while working to divide this country. Thats why to even question multicuralism and the truth about islam makes you a racist. Even worse are the brainwashed lefties that fight their causes for them.

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9i7fRy26V4 I think bill maher is the only leftie who has some real balls and is on the same page with me about islam.

Probably because Bill Maher is a ignorant retarded pseudo-leftie.



http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/bill-maher-a-loon-among-liberals/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nX-fTH8cpk/S-2ez076bVI/AAAAAAAAB34/cJ2t410d05U/s1600/billmaher.jpg


Facts are not really important for fascists like Maher. He constantly lies and exaggerates.


http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/its-official-bill-maher-is-a-racist/


http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/05/5-things-bill-maher-got-wrong-in-latest-islam-rant/

Dnarever wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 4:13pm:

The Political left and Islam Lines up with the political right and stupidity.

Stupidity seems to thrive alot on the left, you should know that DNA,  :D :D :D

Quote:

The Political left and Islam

http://pdology.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hermann-goering.jpg

True Colours wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:53pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9i7fRy26V4 I think bill maher is the only leftie who has some real balls and is on the same page with me about islam. Probably because Bill Maher is a ignorant retarded pseudo-leftie. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/bill-maher-a-loon-among-liberals/ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3nX-fTH8cpk/S-2ez076bVI/AAAAAAAAB34/cJ2t410d05U/s1600/billmaher.jpg Facts are not really important for fascists like Maher. He constantly lies and exaggerates. http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/its-official-bill-maher-is-a-racist/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/05/5-things-bill-maher-got-wrong-in-latest-islam-rant/

But true colours the left have really shown there true colours that they are absolute cowards and so contradictive on it, that you see the scum and stupidty of the left so bright

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians I guess it weighs on there minds that someone like madonna can mock jesus christs in her concert and have the sense to know that the worst response she would get is offended christians complaining about it while if you question or criticise the mohammend or any aspect of Islam itself, you will most likely incur a fatwa or some kind of jihad against you, where they would threaten death at you, Quite frankly I can believe that there is a level of contradiction and cowardice from many lefties who seemed to be comfortable with it as well, who sucumb to this madness of not calling a spade a spade the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world with most fighting for some kind of state that will enact sharia law

Well said and not only that it would be the lefties who ironically would be among the first ones strung up in the public town square.

The thing that lefties dont understand. Every race and culture hates traitors.

Mattywisk wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 8:06pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians I guess it weighs on there minds that someone like madonna can mock jesus christs in her concert and have the sense to know that the worst response she would get is offended christians complaining about it while if you question or criticise the mohammend or any aspect of Islam itself, you will most likely incur a fatwa or some kind of jihad against you, where they would threaten death at you, Quite frankly I can believe that there is a level of contradiction and cowardice from many lefties who seemed to be comfortable with it as well, who sucumb to this madness of not calling a spade a spade the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world with most fighting for some kind of state that will enact sharia law      Well said and not only that it would be the lefties who ironically would be among the first ones strung up in the public town square.

If that was the case i wouldnt dare interfere or even encourage a rescue, i say let them be strung, damn those lefties.  ;D ;D ;D

Well that is the case. The only problem is backing out sharia law before we all get strung up for not following a pedo.

I say we act quick and stop messing about. Let’s string them ALL up like the Christmas turkeys they are. Muslims, lefties, every last one.

Unless you blokes are poofters or something?

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians

What a load of crap.

Frances wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap.

Actually his post seemed pretty spot on to what actually happens.

Isnt it funny how muslims get sniffy when people dont tiptoe around their medieval religion as the socialist criminals have been conditioned to do. At least its better than terrorism.

Frances wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap.

For a small subset this is true. Brian Ross springs to mind. He would whine constantly about anti Muslim bigotry, then try to change every subject about Islam by blaming Christians for the inquisition.

Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism. In this case it is more lack of familiarity with the issues. Our society is familiar with Christianity and it's issues. I think Karnal once tried to justify himself by saying he was familiar with Christianity but not Islam, therefor could not form an opinion.

Frances wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap.

How so ??,  there is enough evidence to suggest that it is sooo, i mean lefties have so much courage attacking a religion that doesnt fight back, but with Islam what a deafening silence except that american comedian bill maher the only leftie i know who sticks to principles that lefties very often fail to do


Bill maher attacks christianity alot, but a least he also attacks and gives Islam a good serve as well fearlessly, which why i respect him at of all the lefties at least he tries not to be contradictive and a hypocrite like the rest of you lefties are with islam

True Colours wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

Quote: The Political left and Islam http://pdology.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hermann-goering.jpg

Oh if that is the case true colors that its wrong and not the pacifist way to confront Islam then explain to me the logic why lefties confront and bash christians and christianity anyway the way they do, not very pacifist at all isnt it true colours, this just exposed the lefts hypocrisy once again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA64SX_52m8

Check out this, bill maher and richard dawkins two lefties themselves explaining why the left wont confront Islam.

Some of these lefties have deep seeded resentment of australians because they always got picked last for the football team and they don't understand why their political science degree hasn't made them attractive to the opposite sex.

hazy123 wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Stryder, ill tell you something about media services and governments in Australia. The real deceit is not their agenda. The real deceit is that they claim to be about democracy, freedom and Australian values while working to divide this country. Thats why to even question multicuralism and the truth about islam makes you a racist.

No it doesn't.

I am no racist.

People who call me [and people like me] 'racist' - ARE THEMSELVES BIGOTS.

Bigots are people who want to have control over the [local] political agenda/discourse, exclusively.

They want to control all public debate - to the extent that such people [the intellectual fascists] will denigrate others - whenever others verbalise [make known] an opinion [i.e. a political opinion] that does not align with their own opinion(s).




Bigots are bullies, and they are people who - demonstrably - have no viable counter-argument(s) that they can present.

So because their counter-argument(s)/position is so, so weak, their only viable option is to seek to gag the views of those who present views which do not align with their own views.

Bigots are intellectual fascists, who seek to crush the expression of any views which they do not agree with.








Quote:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SELF REGULATING Open societies do not fear the opinions of fools. ....they rather, EXPOSE and laugh at folly! In any free and open society, where debate is free and open, if a 'position' is absurd, if an 'argument' is absurd, ...then the debater is [often] condemned to all, WITH HIS OWN WORDS. And that result [i.e. the exposure of folly] is THE VERY FUNCTION, of free and open debate. Free and open debate is meant to be A CONTEST OF IDEAS! ....where every folly is revealed. And open debate is healthy, to all general freedoms in a society. Whereas, lies are easily concealed in closed societies, ....*because* these closed societies are places where lies, and falsehood, ....ARE NEVER EXPOSED TO SCRUTINY, OR SPOKEN TRUTH.

Karnal wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

I say we act quick and stop messing about. Let’s string them ALL up like the Christmas turkeys they are. Muslims, lefties, every last one.

He's not joking - ASIO.

Honest!


:)

Frances wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap.

Read it again, Frances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rP2QjtUpzA

Yadda wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

Frances wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 11:26pm: stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap. Read it again, Frances.

I did, and I still think it's crap.


stryder wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 10:19am:

lefties confront and bash christians and christianity

I'm afraid I can't see where members of the political left as a whole do this sort of thing.  I would suggest that the few that do it (other than that vile thing, Bill Maher, who does it for money) do it from the standpoint of Atheism rather than as a result of their political views.

Yadda wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Karnal wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 11:08pm: I say we act quick and stop messing about. Let’s string them ALL up like the Christmas turkeys they are. Muslims, lefties, every last one. He's not joking - ASIO. Honest! :)

I can neither confirm nor deny, Y, but suffice to say I don’t have to queue at Customs, I don’t get arrested overseas, and my enemies don’t die of old age.

Say no more.

Frances wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 10:56pm:

Yadda wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 2:38pm: Frances wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 11:26pm: stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians What a load of crap. Read it again, Frances. I did, and I still think it's crap. stryder wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 10:19am: lefties confront and bash christians and christianity I'm afraid I can't see where members of the political left as a whole do this sort of thing.  I would suggest that the few that do it (other than that vile thing, Bill Maher, who does it for money) do it from the standpoint of Atheism rather than as a result of their political views.

Then you are as blind as bat, or you simply choose to be blind, most of the political left like to criticise christianity, whether it is from a atheist standpoint, historical or secular reasons it has been going for a long while.

stryder wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

Then you are as blind as bat, or you simply choose to be blind, most of the political left like to criticise christianity, whether it is from a atheist standpoint, historical or secular reasons it has been going for a long while.

While that may be true of a few members of the left on this forum, I don't see it as being something that is reflected in the real world.

Do you ever get out and look at what's happening in the real world, or do you spend all day attached to electronic devices?

Frances wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 10:56pm:

I'm afraid I can't see where members of the political left as a whole do this sort of thing.  I would suggest that the few that do it (other than that vile thing, Bill Maher, who does it for money) do it from the standpoint of Atheism rather than as a result of their political views.

But their brave transgressive, liberating instinct stops when it comes to Islam - they are afraid, like everyone else, of having their heads kicked in or worse by the excitable and unaccomodating Muslims.

For the Left, the Muslims are the new proletariat, the oppressed anti-capitalist masses. That most of them are tinted is a bonus: more opportunities to preen on the moral high ground the better and never mind that come the caliphate, freedoms of every kind will go the way of the Qurayza Jews. The Lefties are not particularly hot for freedom themselves so they don't mind. Islam is the new Soviet for the left, the totalitariansim that has replaced Communism. That it has a race element makes it 'Islamophobic' to argue against. The civil rights movement's sentiments and slogans are coopted into shutting down the discussion on Islam in the West. In the third world they will chop off your head, in the west, they will sue you for their hurt feelings. And nothing is more easily bruised than a Muslim's feelings.

That's why the lefty atheists carry on about Christianity (safe to do) but are silent on Islam (dangerous to do).

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 7:56am:

Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism.

Muslim communities in western populations are a minority, and are overwhelmingly from different ethnicities to the mainstream. Acts of physical attack and intimidation on muslims in western countries are almost always along racial grounds.

Attacks on muslims in the west is a minority and racism issue.

Looks like you concur with the old boy, G.

The left like Muslims because they’re tinted.

It is a jolly world, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 8:16am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 7:56am: Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism. Muslim communities in western populations are a minority, and are overwhelmingly from different ethnicities to the mainstream. Acts of physical attack and intimidation on muslims in western countries are almost always along racial grounds. Attacks on muslims in the west is a minority and racism issue.

And in Western secular societies the Philippino and African and South American nuns and priests are not attacked and intimidated, racial minorities though they are.  Safron-robed Buddhists (all of them Asians) are not attacked and intimidated. They are a racial and religious minorities in secular societies - but there is no 'racism' issue with them.

The Mebbe Islam does have to do with things, after all, no? Who can tell your race under a burqa, anyway?

Soren if you seriously believe that only one type of tinted peoples in Australia are singled out for physical attacks and racist intimidation then you really should get out more.

For the violent racists, the hijab is just another racial marker - not a religious one.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 8:16am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 7:56am: Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism. Muslim communities in western populations are a minority, and are overwhelmingly from different ethnicities to the mainstream. Acts of physical attack and intimidation on muslims in western countries are almost always along racial grounds. Attacks on muslims in the west is a minority and racism issue.

ANd attack on Muslims in Muslim countries is a .... er..... Islamic issue?

Or is that again a case of Islam has nuffin' to do wiv Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 8:16am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 7:56am: Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism. Muslim communities in western populations are a minority, and are overwhelmingly from different ethnicities to the mainstream. Acts of physical attack and intimidation on muslims in western countries are almost always along racial grounds. Attacks on muslims in the west is a minority and racism issue.

ANd attack on Muslims in Muslim countries is a .... er..... Islamic issue?

Or is that again a case of Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 11:41am:

Soren if you seriously believe that only one type of tinted peoples in Australia are singled out for physical attacks and racist intimidation then you really should get out more. For the violent racists, the hijab is just another racial marker - not a religious one.

Are you saying that white hijabis are embraced and smiled upon and only the tinted hijabis cop the flak?

Or is he saying the curries are loved, admired and left unbashed to save our strength for the Muselman?

What say you, Moslem?

There are several things here I find quite amusing.

1) Why do so many people believe all "lefties" think the same? They don't.

2) Why do some people think all lefties won't confront Islam? Many do.

For bad or worse I have no doubt there were "lefties" in the US Army that invaded Iran and Afghanistan. Were they confronting Islam?

As with most religions the followers of Islam are either peaceful or warlike. The warlike Muslims are terrorists.

The warlike Christians do things like chanting outside the funerals of dead servicemen, opposing abortion and homosexuality.

Which is worse?

Of course it's terrorism, no contest.

I love the sanctimonious moral standards of the US and their recent Taliban kidnap demand/ransom swap. They've kept Afghani prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for the last 13 years - kept off US soil to avoid the US Constitution, and classed as "enemy combatants", a retrospective law designed to kidnap anyone they want on or off a US battlefield.

A US soldier is captured and held by the Taliban and it's an outrage. Fox News must be having a field day in all their Saving Private Ryan glory.

Of course it's all the fault of Islam. The US should be free to capture anyone they choose. How despicable these Muselmen are for daring to say boo.

The price of an Amerikan soldier? Five Taliban soldiers - sorry "enemy combatants".

Islam - ain'tcha sick of it?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2014 at 12:16am:

Are you saying that white hijabis are embraced and smiled upon and only the tinted hijabis cop the flak?

I'm saying white hijabis are virtually non-existent.

When bigots see a hijab they see a tinted person - and thats because they almost always are.

I'd doubt white hijabis would be smiled upon - but only because they are perceived as "with them" and race traitors.

Like I said, hijabs are just another racial marker for these people.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 12:08pm:

There are several things here I find quite amusing. 1) Why do so many people believe all "lefties" think the same? They don't. 2) Why do some people think all lefties won't confront Islam? Many do. For bad or worse I have no doubt there were "lefties" in the US Army that invaded Iran and Afghanistan. Were they confronting Islam? As with most religions the followers of Islam are either peaceful or warlike. The warlike Muslims are terrorists. The warlike Christians do things like chanting outside the funerals of dead servicemen, opposing abortion and homosexuality. Which is worse? Of course it's terrorism, no contest.

The warlike christians are not following Jesus example.
the warlike muslims ARE following mohs example.

And yes, protesting is not as bad as terrorism.

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

[size=12]From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians

Well, let's clear that up right now.

Islam and Christianity are both ridiculous religions.

Christians and Muslims alike are bat poo crazy.

I hope that was clear enough (coming from this "lefty").

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2014 at 12:16am: Are you saying that white hijabis are embraced and smiled upon and only the tinted hijabis cop the flak? I'm saying white hijabis are virtually non-existent. When bigots see a hijab they see a tinted person - and thats because they almost always are. I'd doubt white hijabis would be smiled upon - but only because they are perceived as "with them" and race traitors. Like I said, hijabs are just another racial marker for these people.

Nah.

When bigots 'Yaddas' see a hijab they see a moslem - no matter the 'tint' of the skin.

And so [or, in any case], 'moslem' is not a race.




But coming back to the wearing of hijab.....

The hijab does, designate a person as a moslem.

And being a 'moslem' designates a person as a follower of ISLAM.

And being a follower of ISLAM does designate a person as a supporter of religious terrorism, religious bigotry, and religious fascism, and religiously justified murder.

Not so ?

Because....... "Hey!!!! I'm a moslem, but i have absolutely no idea what the laws and tenets of my faith declare, and what those laws and tenets require of me - being a moslem!    HONEST!!"



A moslem is a person who declares;

"I am a moslem. Allah is my God, and Mohammed is his prophet."


Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.






e.g.

WHAT IS TERRORISM ?

Dictionary;
terrorist = = a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Mohammed is a terrorist, as defined by the Haddith....

Allah's Apostle said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062





WHO IS A MOSLEM ?

ALL MOSLEMS CAN BE CHARACTER-ISED AS 'WANNA BE' MURDERERS [of those persons who resist their will Allah's will] - because ALL moslems do endorse the laws and tenets of ISLAM, which do call for and 'sanctify' such murders.

And for a moslem to condemn or to criticise a fellow moslem for wrongdoing [e.g. LAWLESSNESS, by a 'Western' standard of law], is just not 'Kosher'!!!!

And that is why moslems in the West will do absolutely not one practical thing against an organisation like BOKO HARAM.


YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4





IN A MOSQUE, IN THE UK, a moslem cleric [i.e. a moslem community leader in the UK] declares that whenever a moslem kills a non-moslem, Allah will be happy,

"What makes Allah happy?
Allah is happy, when kafir get killed."

Please watch this YT...
Muslims being deceptive Islam EX-Muslims         goto 4m 30s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx8cNSC9O0







I could also quote some Koran verses, but you have all seen them before.
[whoops!!!]



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29



Sorry, i couldn't resist posting them.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 4:02pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: [size=12]From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians Well, let's clear that up right now. Islam and Christianity are both ridiculous religions. Christians and Muslims alike are bat poo crazy. I hope that was clear enough (coming from this "lefty").

Now now, we don’t want to offend Lutherans.

No one has the right to not be offended, you know.

You'd think gay lefties would protest against Islam considering it's a death sentence in most parts of the Muslim world.

Sparky wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2014 at 11:30am:

You'd think gay lefties would protest against Islam considering it's a death sentence in most parts of the Muslim world.

Sparky,

There is nothing more superficial [i.e. 'can't see the wood for the trees'] or more 'short term', than a 'gay lefty', imo.      ;)


e.g.
Take Karnal......

....then again, i'd advise you against that!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 4:02pm:

stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: [size=12]From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians Well, let's clear that up right now. Islam and Christianity are both ridiculous religions. Christians and Muslims alike are bat poo crazy. I hope that was clear enough (coming from this "lefty").

The reflex ambivalence of the Left in all its hideous, studied idiocy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2014 at 12:16am: Are you saying that white hijabis are embraced and smiled upon and only the tinted hijabis cop the flak? I'm saying white hijabis are virtually non-existent.

Ah... so no great rate of whitey conversion to Islam, then?  That's not the line I have been hearing from the Muslim agit-prop bureau for years.
Has the latest truth changed to suit the dissimulation (what's the Arabic word for that again?) required by the particular evasion and distortion now?

Sparky wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2014 at 11:30am:

You'd think gay lefties would protest against Islam considering it's a death sentence in most parts of the Muslim world.

It is indeed baffling that the sandalistas will happily defend a religion and cultures that prove daily they are inimical to those things the luvvies hold dear, gay and female rights to equality.

I put it down to the reflex hatred of the west.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 8:16am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2014 at 7:56am: Then there are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism. Muslim communities in western populations are a minority, and are overwhelmingly from different ethnicities to the mainstream. Acts of physical attack and intimidation on muslims in western countries are almost always along racial grounds. Attacks on muslims in the west is a minority and racism issue.

And muslims are happy to help them equate the two.

what two? And what muslims?

Soren wrote on Jun 4^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 2nd, 2014 at 4:02pm: stryder wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: [size=12]From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians Well, let's clear that up right now. Islam and Christianity are both ridiculous religions. Christians and Muslims alike are bat poo crazy. I hope that was clear enough (coming from this "lefty"). The reflex ambivalence of the Left in all its hideous, studied idiocy.

Put the bottle down, Soren.

Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west?

Datalife wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 12:39pm:

Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west?

No.

Would you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west? No. Would you?

I would.  I choose Islam as being antithetical to liberal secular values

Sparky wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2014 at 11:30am:

You'd think gay lefties would protest against Islam considering it's a death sentence in most parts of the Muslim world.

Most parts of the Muslim world, eh?

Would you care to explain which parts?

Datalife wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:11pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west? No. Would you? I would.  I choose Islam as being antithetical to liberal secular values

And what do you choose Christianity as?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:11pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west? No. Would you? I would.  I choose Islam as being antithetical to liberal secular values And what do you choose Christianity as?

Not as big a threat. 

Datalife wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:11pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west? No. Would you? I would.  I choose Islam as being antithetical to liberal secular values And what do you choose Christianity as? Not as big a threat.

The 'secural' is a Christian idea. There is no 'secular' in Islam.

The liberal secular west arose out of Christian society. Any genuine threat posed by Christian ideology to liberty, democracy etc was overcome centuries ago.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

what two? And what muslims?

There are a lot of people who reflexively associate any criticism of Islam with minority issues or racism.

Its reflexive in the west because its true.

Muslims in Australia overwhelmingly belong to 2 or 3 non-white racial groups and are identified in these racial terms - not in terms of their beliefs. And at under 3% of the population they are a minority.

So criticising someone's religious and political beliefs is genuinely racist if the belief is held by a racial minority?

This is what I mean by Muslims being so keen to help them equate the two.

Datalife wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 2:57pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 1:11pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Despite them both being bat poo crazy would you nominate one over the other as the greater threat to a liberal secular west? No. Would you? I would.  I choose Islam as being antithetical to liberal secular values And what do you choose Christianity as? Not as big a threat.

Do you feel threatened?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

Its reflexive in the west because its true. Muslims in Australia overwhelmingly belong to 2 or 3 non-white racial groups and are identified in these racial terms - not in terms of their beliefs. And at under 3% of the population they are a minority.

Therefore criticising any nefarious [by Australian law] activity/behaviour that is participated in by members of a [minority] racial group, equates with a 'racial attack' upon that [minority] racial group.


gandalf,

That is what you are proposing.

The moslem community is effectively proposing that the behaviour of members of [minority] racial groups within Australia, MUST NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY CRITICISM OR CENSURE, by the wider Australian community!

Because such criticism or censure, would be and would constitute a vile act of 'racism' - by the members of the broader [majority] Australian community.



Dictionary;
nefarious = = wicked or criminal.








I have my own proposition;



'Multiculturalism' according to ISLAM;

"When you non-moslems visit a moslem majority country - you non-moslems must respect our ISLAMIC laws and customs!"


"When we moslems come to live in a [Western hemisphere] non-moslem majority country - you 'RACIST' non-moslems must respect and be tolerant of our ISLAMIC laws and customs!"


'Multiculturalism' according to ISLAM = =
....A ONE WAY STREET.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

The liberal secular west arose out of Christian society.

Actually, the Enlightenment arose as a critique of Christian beliefs. It has extended throughout the entire world, including Muslim countries.

And liberal secular values have had a great deal of opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters. Opposition to secular values is hardly secular.

Better tell Y about the secular West though. He thinks Israel belongs to his very own version of Gud - a god that is only accessible if you follow Y's specific directions.

Spooky, no?

Quote:

And liberal secular values have had a great deal of opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters.

Would you say that the separation of church and state had equal opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters?

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

Quote: And liberal secular values have had a great deal of opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters. Would you say that the separation of church and state had equal opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters?

The only majority Hindu and Muslim nation states arose in the 20th century, long after the Enlightenment and its subsequent European revolutions in the mid 19th century.

In Latin Europe, the church got its payback in Spain and Italy under Franco and Mussolini. The protestant countries were different. There, the state (or crown) leads the church. In England, the Queen is the official head of the Church of England. Some Western European states have similar deals with their Lutheran equivalents.

India and the majority Muslim states were established by the European powers using their own constitutional models. With the exception of the Arab monarchies (granted their own tribal political models by Mother to keep them in the fold) and post-Revolution Iran, these countries follow the British or French parliamentary and legal systems.

All states have religious parties - India has been ruled in recent years by the BJP, a Hindu-renaissance party. Religion is a big political magnet in post-colonial societies. However, most countries have kept their secular political models intact. Leaders, whether they're generals or career politicians, must pay constant homage to religious groups to stay in power.

People I've talked to in India understand this process. They simply call it "politics" - the standard response to most religious conflict in India. There is, of course, no organised movement to end secular government in India, as there is in Pakistan - unless you include Maoist rebels.

Does this help to answer your question?

Quote:

All states have religious parties - India has been ruled in recent years by the BJP, a Hindu-renaissance party. Religion is a big political magnet in post-colonial societies. However, most countries have kept their secular political models intact. Leaders, whether they're generals or career politicians, must pay constant homage to religious groups to stay in power.

This does not necessarily mean the separation of church and state has been broken. The point is that you don't have institutionalised sharing of power between the church and state. It doesn't mean that Barak Obama is not allowed to talk about his spiritual beliefs.


Quote:

Does this help to answer your question?

I found it very evasive. Let's try again. Would you say that the separation of church and state had equal opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters?

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

I found it very evasive. Let's try again. Would you say that the separation of church and state had equal opposition from Christian, Hindu and Muslim quarters?

I'm confused, FD - is there an answer you'd like me to say? You tell me what you want to read and I'll cut and paste it.

I think that Christianity is inherently more open to the separation of church and state than Islam, due to ideological differences. Most Muslims are quite open about Islam's rejection of the separation of church and state.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

I think that Christianity is inherently more open to the separation of church and state than Islam, due to ideological differences. Most Muslims are quite open about Islam's rejection of the separation of church and state.

No worries.

I think that Christianity is inherently more open to the separation of church and state than Islam, due to ideological differences.

It looks a bit light though. Don't you think we should add anything?

Separation from church and state yadda yadda and where exactly does the bible say that little chestnut, its been a non christian rant for years by the babblers.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Separation from church and state yadda yadda and where exactly does the bible say that little chestnut, its been a non christian rant for years by the babblers.

Luke 20:25

That Jesus!

He was yet another sneeky Zionist!!

:)            8-)

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 12:14pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:41pm: Separation from church and state yadda yadda and where exactly does the bible say that little chestnut, its been a non christian rant for years by the babblers. Luke 20:25

REALLY ? Lets take alook shall we.

New International Version
He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

New Living Translation
"Well then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."

English Standard Version
He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

King James Bible
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"Well then," He told them, "give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

International Standard Version
So he told them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

NET Bible
So he said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
He said to them, "Well, then give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God."

Jubilee Bible 2000
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's.

King James 2000 Bible
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's.

American King James Version
And he said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and to God the things which be God's.

American Standard Version
And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's.

Darby Bible Translation
And he said to them, Pay therefore what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God.

English Revised Version
And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Webster's Bible Translation
And he said to them, Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's.

Weymouth New Testament
"Pay therefore," He replied, "what is Caesar's to Caesar--and what is God's to God."

World English Bible
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Young's Literal Translation
and he said to them, 'Give back, therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;'


--------------------------------------

Every verse says give back the things that are Gods to God and the things that are Caesars to Caesar.

Not one thing there remotely instructing a separation of Church and State.

Do enlighten me please, and not just a non Christian or Atheistic rant because that is where this little chestnut originated.

I put this in the bleeding obvious category. Muhammed established a religious state and fused all aspects of law and religion. Jesus didn't. The verse about Caesar is just another way of saying this. Not sure how you could interpret it any other way. When it came time to end "the divine right of kings" in Europe the church could hardly mount a strong opposition because it was crap to begin with. On the other hand Muslims have been trying to re-establish a caliphate ever since the old one was dismantled. This is not some kind of aberration. They are directly following Muhammed's example.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

I put this in the bleeding obvious category. Muhammed established a religious state and fused all aspects of law and religion. Jesus didn't. The verse about Caesar is just another way of saying this. Not sure how you could interpret it any other way. When it came time to end "the divine right of kings" in Europe the church could hardly mount a strong opposition because it was crap to begin with. On the other hand Muslims have been trying to re-establish a caliphate ever since the old one was dismantled. This is not some kind of aberration. They are directly following Muhammed's example.

Oh I agree, there is no mandate in Christianity to take total control and rule the earth as you stated there is in islam. The very fact islam is written like that just reeks of it being made up by a man not a god. Where I was coming from with regards to Christianity is that verse was referring to the paying of taxes. When Jesus was asked if they should, he simply looked at the coins and said hey dudes give Caesar what is his and God what is his, as it was just man made metal. They thought he was gonna say no. As His concern and his kingdom are not of this world there is no concern in Christianity to take it over. There is also no mandate not to get involved in government affairs at all either.

Islam is a regime based on one mans ambition to dominate the earth. He even tested out his story about going to the mountain before he came out and said he was visited by an angel. Even the rewards in heaven are something a man would think up not a God. 72 Virgins yeah right. He even copied all the pagan practices at the time because he couldn't invent his own. You would have to be thick to follow it and that's exactly what we have, a lot of thick people hundreds of years later easily influenced and that is a big problem. Just look at their facec in any protest. Incapable of self control.

Once key positions are held in government that will be the end of Australia. There is already one in there with his Quaran.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

I put this in the bleeding obvious category. Muhammed established a religious state and fused all aspects of law and religion. Jesus didn't. The verse about Caesar is just another way of saying this. Not sure how you could interpret it any other way. When it came time to end "the divine right of kings" in Europe the church could hardly mount a strong opposition because it was crap to begin with. On the other hand Muslims have been trying to re-establish a caliphate ever since the old one was dismantled. This is not some kind of aberration. They are directly following Muhammed's example.

Nice idea, FD, but Jesus was a Jew. He didn’t establish a religion or a legal entity because he already lived in one: Judaism.

The laws, religious decrees and political system are all laid out in the Torah, right down to the sex slaves you can own and the war booty you can take.

The separation of church and state is a purely protestant notion. This idea took hold over 1400 years after Jesus allegedly taught his disciples to become "fishers of men". The separation between church and state was conceived by Henry VIII, who succeeded his kingdom from Rome so he could get a divorce.

ALL religions are legal/political systems. The modern state arose to replace religion as the legal/ethical system of former empires.

The only exception I can think of is China, which based its social-political model on Confuscianism, which is hardly a religion.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 3:25pm: I put this in the bleeding obvious category. Muhammed established a religious state and fused all aspects of law and religion. Jesus didn't. The verse about Caesar is just another way of saying this. Not sure how you could interpret it any other way. When it came time to end "the divine right of kings" in Europe the church could hardly mount a strong opposition because it was crap to begin with. On the other hand Muslims have been trying to re-establish a caliphate ever since the old one was dismantled. This is not some kind of aberration. They are directly following Muhammed's example. Oh I agree, there is no mandate in Christianity to take total control and rule the earth as you stated there is in islam. The very fact islam is written like that just reeks of it being made up by a man not a god. Where I was coming from with regards to Christianity is that verse was referring to the paying of taxes. When Jesus was asked if they should, he simply looked at the coins and said hey dudes give Caesar what is his and God what is his, as it was just man made metal. They thought he was gonna say no. As His concern and his kingdom are not of this world there is no concern in Christianity to take it over. There is also no mandate not to get involved in government affairs at all either. Islam is a regime based on one mans ambition to dominate the earth. He even tested out his story about going to the mountain before he came out and said he was visited by an angel. Even the rewards in heaven are something a man would think up not a God. 72 Virgins yeah right. He even copied all the pagan practices at the time because he couldn't invent his own. You would have to be thick to follow it and that's exactly what we have, a lot of thick people hundreds of years later easily influenced and that is a big problem. Just look at their facec in any protest. Incapable of self control. Once key positions are held in government that will be the end of Australia. There is already one in there with his Quaran.

OF COURSE Islam is a man-made project. Any Muslim will tell you this.

What religion isn’t?

Quote:

He didn’t establish a religion

Every now and then you trot out something about all religions being the same. Then you drop it.


Quote:

The separation of church and state is a purely protestant notion.

Catholic countries seem to have adopted it without too much of a problem. They put the pope in his place a long time ago.


Quote:

The separation between church and state was conceived by Henry VIII

They were separated for most of Christianity's early history. Crucially, Jesus himself saw them as separate.


Quote:

ALL religions are legal/political systems.

Some are more equal than others.

Jesus was a mystic living under Roman occupation. Of course he didn’t see his teachings as establishing a state.

This, of course, is the very argument put by Jews to dismiss Jesus’ messiah status. The Jews see the messiah as a political ruler who will come to unite the 12 tribes.

That’s right - just like Muhammed.

And yes, politics and the Christian church were originally separated until Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and spread from there. During the dark ages, it was illegal NOT to be Christian. In most parts of Christendom, heathens were put to death and buried in unconsecrated ground. Christians actively went on raiding parties to rape and kill heathens. When they weren’t fighting among themselves, these parties became armies, and the armies became a series of crusades to liberate the Holy Lands from the despicable Muselman.

800 Jews, you say?

I blame Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEIqdcHbc8I#t=419

RR was a great orator.

Karnal wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:

And yes, politics and the Christian church were originally separated until Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and spread from there. During the dark ages, it was illegal NOT to be Christian. In most parts of Christendom, heathens were put to death and buried in unconsecrated ground. Christians actively went on raiding parties to rape and kill heathens. When they weren’t fighting among themselves, these parties became armies, and the armies became a series of crusades to liberate the Holy Lands from the despicable Muselman

Any chance of a few links that persuaded you to form this opinion, or is it just that.

Who invaded WHO again?

Why did the mozzies have to invade all those lands if islam is the true word of god?

Why did muslims kill 80 million Hindus if they are so tolerant?

Why is it that today muslim lands persecute all other religions?

Do you wear thongs (flip flops) sandals?

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 12:14pm: Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:41pm: Separation from church and state yadda yadda and where exactly does the bible say that little chestnut, its been a non christian rant for years by the babblers. Luke 20:25 REALLY ? Lets take alook shall we. New International Version He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." New Living Translation "Well then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." English Standard Version He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” New American Standard Bible And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." King James Bible And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. Holman Christian Standard Bible "Well then," He told them, "give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." International Standard Version So he told them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." NET Bible So he said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Aramaic Bible in Plain English Yeshua said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.” GOD'S WORD® Translation He said to them, "Well, then give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God." Jubilee Bible 2000 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's. King James 2000 Bible And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. American King James Version And he said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and to God the things which be God's. American Standard Version And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Douay-Rheims Bible And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's. Darby Bible Translation And he said to them, Pay therefore what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God. English Revised Version And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Webster's Bible Translation And he said to them, Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's. Weymouth New Testament "Pay therefore," He replied, "what is Caesar's to Caesar--and what is God's to God." World English Bible He said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Young's Literal Translation and he said to them, 'Give back, therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;' -------------------------------------- Every verse says give back the things that are Gods to God and the things that are Caesars to Caesar. Not one thing there remotely instructing a separation of Church and State. Do enlighten me please, and not just a non Christian or Atheistic rant because that is where this little chestnut originated.

caesar is the state
Jesus is stating the state and God are different.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 8:59pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 3:19pm: Soren wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 12:14pm: Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:41pm: Separation from church and state yadda yadda and where exactly does the bible say that little chestnut, its been a non christian rant for years by the babblers. Luke 20:25 REALLY ? Lets take alook shall we. New International Version He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." New Living Translation "Well then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." English Standard Version He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” New American Standard Bible And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." King James Bible And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. Holman Christian Standard Bible "Well then," He told them, "give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." International Standard Version So he told them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." NET Bible So he said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Aramaic Bible in Plain English Yeshua said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.” GOD'S WORD® Translation He said to them, "Well, then give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God." Jubilee Bible 2000 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's. King James 2000 Bible And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. American King James Version And he said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and to God the things which be God's. American Standard Version And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Douay-Rheims Bible And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's. Darby Bible Translation And he said to them, Pay therefore what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God. English Revised Version And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Webster's Bible Translation And he said to them, Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's. Weymouth New Testament "Pay therefore," He replied, "what is Caesar's to Caesar--and what is God's to God." World English Bible He said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Young's Literal Translation and he said to them, 'Give back, therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;' -------------------------------------- Every verse says give back the things that are Gods to God and the things that are Caesars to Caesar. Not one thing there remotely instructing a separation of Church and State. Do enlighten me please, and not just a non Christian or Atheistic rant because that is where this little chestnut originated. caesar is the state Jesus is stating the state and God are different.

State tax yes.

He never said keep them separate. In fact by rendering what is the states to the state and God what is Gods doesn't mean don't partake in both. In fact he was telling them to do exactly that. Partake in the state partake in God.

There is no commandment to separate church  from state at all. All he did was highlight the difference and if you partake in one them be prepared to render unto them what is theirs. IE come under that law. The law of the land.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make matty.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Every verse says give back the things that are Gods to God and the things that are Caesars to Caesar. Not one thing there remotely instructing a separation of Church and State.

WHat do you think the divide between god and caesar means? What do you think (if that's the word I want) he is trying to convey if not the separation and separateness of the profane and the profound, the worldly (mundane) and the exalted (divine)?

You’re addressing a wisk, dear.

Carry on.

Karnal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 1:49am:

You’re addressing a wisk, dear.

A what? As in, the cooking implement that you scramble eggs with?

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 9:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 1:49am: You’re addressing a wisk, dear. A what? As in, the cooking implement that you scramble eggs with?

You seem awfully interested in Matty’s impliment, Freddie.

You’re a bit late though. Matty has left us.

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians I guess it weighs on there minds that someone like madonna can mock jesus christs in her concert and have the sense to know that the worst response she would get is offended christians complaining about it while if you question or criticise the mohammend or any aspect of Islam itself, you will most likely incur a fatwa or some kind of jihad against you, where they would threaten death at you, Quite frankly I can believe that there is a level of contradiction and cowardice from many lefties who seemed to be comfortable with it as well, who sucumb to this madness of not calling a spade a spade the last 30 years over 90% of global terrorist activity has been committed by many, many Islamic based groups around the world with most fighting for some kind of state that will enact sharia law

This is always topical.




Iran: the cradle of Islamo-leftism
The anti-Western fervour that fuelled the Iranian Revolution continues to seduce today’s ‘progressives’.

What we’ve seen over the past week, as zealous ‘progressives’ happily take the side of one of the most repressive, anti-Semitic states on Earth, is hardly a surprise. It is the culmination of the Western left’s dark, cultural turn. Of the degeneration of its anti-imperialism into an all-encompassing anti-Westernism.

Writing in Le Nouvel Observateur in 1978, an Iranian feminist took issue with the Western left’s embrace of the Islamo-leftism then insurgent in Iran. She wrote that while Islam may appear as desirable to someone like Foucault, ‘many Iranians are like me, distressed and desperate about the thought of an “Islamic” government. We know what it is. Everywhere outside Iran, Islam serves as a cover for a feudal or pseudo-revolutionary oppression…’. She concluded that, ‘the left should not let itself be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease’.

Too few Western leftists heeded her warning then. That they continue to be seduced by the ‘cure’ to Western-sickness, despite the reality of the Islamic Republic, is a sign of the left’s intellectual and moral collapse. Its descent into a form of radical reaction that the Ayatollah Khomeini himself would be proud of.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/21/iran-the-cradle-of-islamo-leftism/

Good find Frank 8-)

You have just been awarded a Ban Immunity Free Card.

.

That Islamists, who are responsible for 86 per cent of terrorism-related deaths in the West since 2000, glorify violence is no revelation. Nor is it news that the far left has long shared that appetite for destruction. From the Russian Zemlya i Volya (“Land and Liberty”) of the 1870s, which exalted “the dagger, the revolver, and dynamite” as “the revolutionist’s most effective means of persuasion”, to today’s Antifa mobs, the lineage is unbroken. Now, as Islamists and the far left converge, their methods are spilling ever more brazenly into Australian streets.

That contagion of rage reflects a deeper transformation. The far left has ceased to be a movement with an encompassing social project; it has become a loose federation of incompatible identity factions, united only by shared hatreds. Having no overarching vision of a better future, its members find common purpose in fury – using vitriol and protest as both the glue that holds their movement together and the fuel that drives its radicalisation, each confrontation testing how far the boundaries can be pushed.

...


Like their Islamist allies, the radicals who dehumanise opponents shun dialogue because it drains the hatred that sustains their politics – and, echoing Lenin’s contempt for “reactionaries”, they believe that “There is only one answer to reaction: smash its face in!”.

The question is why we let them get away with it. There is, they contend, an inalienable “right to protest”. But no such right exists. What the law protects is the right of peaceful assembly – a right that, since its initial development in the 19th century, has always been subject to stringent limits designed to prevent disorder and safeguard the public.

So when the Free Palestine Coalition claims that “police denied thousands the right to protest”, what it is really seeking is the right to deny the rights of others, suppressing their freedoms of peaceful assembly, association and expression. Since October 7, that has been the method of Islamists and their leftist fellow travellers: threats, intimidation and disruption deployed not to defend liberty but to extinguish it.

Yet a free society is under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant, still less to bow to their ultimatums.

Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas - an unreliable, partial witness who told lies to a board of inquiry on  what Justice Alan Goldberg et al of the Australian Competition Tribunal said about him in 2004. Let’s go to the transcript and particularly par 222.


Quote:

…we note that on many occasions in the present proceeding two experts in particular, being Mr Ergas, called on behalf of the applicants, and Professor Timothy Hazledine, a Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, called on behalf of the Gullivers Group, appeared reluctant to respond to questions whose answers might have been adverse to the case put by the party calling them. Instead, they provided non-responsive answers and deviated to discussions of other issues which supported the case of the applicants and the Gullivers Group respectively. On some occasions, the presiding member asked the experts whether they could answer the question put to them and asked them not to give a long explanation, but to no avail. Such an attitude and conduct of an expert witness leads to a conclusion of partiality and an inability to express an objective expert opinion upon which reliance can be placed.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:40pm:

Henry Ergas - an unreliable, partial witness who told lies to a board of inquiry on  what Justice Alan Goldberg et al of the Australian Competition Tribunal said about him in 2004. Let’s go to the transcript and particularly par 222. Quote: …we note that on many occasions in the present proceeding two experts in particular, being Mr Ergas, called on behalf of the applicants, and Professor Timothy Hazledine, a Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, called on behalf of the Gullivers Group, appeared reluctant to respond to questions whose answers might have been adverse to the case put by the party calling them. Instead, they provided non-responsive answers and deviated to discussions of other issues which supported the case of the applicants and the Gullivers Group respectively. On some occasions, the presiding member asked the experts whether they could answer the question put to them and asked them not to give a long explanation, but to no avail. Such an attitude and conduct of an expert witness leads to a conclusion of partiality and an inability to express an objective expert opinion upon which reliance can be placed. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1702644867


Quote:

Banned from EE Board Reply #6 - Apr 23rd, 2024 at 5:33pm Brian Ross is hereby Banned indefinitely from Extremism Exposed Board. Any breach of this Ban will result in a Forum-wide ban by the Gmods.

Will Brian get banned?
Tune in for the next exciting episode.
JaSin will probably forgive him.    :-/

stryder wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

From what I observe and read is that leftists or lefties always seem to not want to criticize Islam to the same extent as they do Christianity and christians

Well, the Bible (which is OUR book) - especially the Jewish OT -  does contain a lot of obsolete bronze-age crap - as opposed to Jesus' wonderful proposition in the NT: 'love God and love one-another' 

The Koran is THEIR book, they have to deal with it.

Meanwhiule the progressive Left in the Western democracies is outraged by the continuing  oppression of Palestinians, through the failure of the UN to implement - in its entirety - its own resolution #181.

The failure to do so is THE cause of the extremist Muslim reaction aka HAMAS. 

Hence your observation above. 

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:40pm:

Henry Ergas - an unreliable, partial witness who told lies to a board of inquiry on  what Justice Alan Goldberg et al of the Australian Competition Tribunal said about him in 2004. Let’s go to the transcript and particularly par 222. Quote: …we note that on many occasions in the present proceeding two experts in particular, being Mr Ergas, called on behalf of the applicants, and Professor Timothy Hazledine, a Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, called on behalf of the Gullivers Group, appeared reluctant to respond to questions whose answers might have been adverse to the case put by the party calling them. Instead, they provided non-responsive answers and deviated to discussions of other issues which supported the case of the applicants and the Gullivers Group respectively. On some occasions, the presiding member asked the experts whether they could answer the question put to them and asked them not to give a long explanation, but to no avail. Such an attitude and conduct of an expert witness leads to a conclusion of partiality and an inability to express an objective expert opinion upon which reliance can be placed. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

He told no lies, liar.




A SCATHING review of Labor's troubled National Broadband Network rollout has found that the project would take three years longer to complete than promised while costing $29 billion more.

Cultural problems within NBN Co have also been identified, with unhappy staff, blame-shifting, soft hiring processes and mistrust in leadership hindering the rollout.







Why are you posting on MRBs where you are banned?


Do you have ANYTHING relevant to say on the topic of this discussion?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G4MqfREW4AAKfLb?.jpg

Black working class guy confronts Islam. Modelling the correct response for spineless whiteys  to respond to Islam.

https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1982708553136693642

https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/75/26/e2/7526e2dee30c7458f7ebe6b9a3b120d4.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 27th, 2025 at 1:40pm: Henry Ergas - an unreliable, partial witness who told lies to a board of inquiry on  what Justice Alan Goldberg et al of the Australian Competition Tribunal said about him in 2004. Let’s go to the transcript and particularly par 222. Quote: …we note that on many occasions in the present proceeding two experts in particular, being Mr Ergas, called on behalf of the applicants, and Professor Timothy Hazledine, a Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, called on behalf of the Gullivers Group, appeared reluctant to respond to questions whose answers might have been adverse to the case put by the party calling them. Instead, they provided non-responsive answers and deviated to discussions of other issues which supported the case of the applicants and the Gullivers Group respectively. On some occasions, the presiding member asked the experts whether they could answer the question put to them and asked them not to give a long explanation, but to no avail. Such an attitude and conduct of an expert witness leads to a conclusion of partiality and an inability to express an objective expert opinion upon which reliance can be placed. Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1702644867 [quote]Banned from EE Board Reply #6 - Apr 23rd, 2024 at 5:33pm Brian Ross is hereby Banned indefinitely from Extremism Exposed Board. Any breach of this Ban will result in a Forum-wide ban by the Gmods.

Will Brian get banned?
Tune in for the next exciting episode.
JaSin will probably forgive him.    :-/[/quote]

Brian should be banned for violating forum rules.

Jasin shouldn't forgive him!  ;)

A Jew hunt at City University, London

https://www.spiked-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/iof-960x540.jpg

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/22/a-jew-hunt-at-city-university/



Pro-Palestine protester ‘threatened to behead’ Israeli lecturer
Prof Michael Ben-Gad says he will not be cowed by the activists, whom he compares to Hitler’s Brownshirts

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/23/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-behead-israeli-lecturer/

Very apt comparison.

Islam is the driver of antisemitism in the West.


Islam, not 'islamism'. There is no difference between Islam and islamism just as there is no difference between nazi and nazism. The ideology is the problem.

https://youtu.be/9T3vyvs2rXA?si=mzF_JOZQOum7Ms5i

Note that I am on the side of a heavily tinted immigrant woman. Am I still wacist and sexist?

In the city of Al-Fashir, Sudan, innocent civilians have been killed in such numbers that blood is visible in satellite images.

A video comes from a hospital: dozens upon dozens of civilian corpses, inside and out, and the few survivors who are gasping and have now been executed.

Entire neighborhoods leveled, villages erased, and tens of thousands of people dead-by bullets or by hunger in the desert. The Islamist militias have turned civil war into a theater of extermination.


In Al-Fashir, Christians have been “hunted down and executed,” explains the NGO International Christian Concern.

“They came into our village shouting against Christians, calling us ‘infidels.’ They set fire to the church, and the flames spread, devouring everything they touched. They dragged the men out of their homes, massacring and beheading them. I could hear their screams, but there was no time to think. We had to flee. We left everything behind,” said a survivor.

Yet the moral noise of the West has fallen strangely silent.

No humanitarian corridor. No leaflet warning innocents to flee. No delivery of aid. No Greta. No flotilla. No special rapporteur. No vigils.

Videos show massacres with shouts of “Allahu Akbar.” But no one broadcasts them.

We have reached the point where a fake genocide has smothered our sympathy for a real one.

No major demonstration in New York, no banner from city halls, no “anti-colonialist” scholars from Bologna, no cry from peace activists marching in Assisi-not even the hollow echo of digital hashtags.

Silence of governments. Silence of NGOs. No one wants to march for Khartoum or wear a shirt saying “I am Darfur.”

No one shows the living mass graves. This is not a movie; it’s real.

Surely part of this has to do with the fact that dictatorships are now capable of manipulating Western consciousness.

Just read the new report on how French institutions, media, left-wing parties, top universities, intellectuals, and student bodies have all become targets of Iranian interference.

“Iranian infiltration has acted like a poison, slowly seeping into society, drop by drop; now it spreads, exerts influence, and corrodes,” it reads.

But there is more.

Where are the calls to dismantle “Arab colonialism”?  Sudan’s agony does not fit the woke worldview.  There is no “white oppressor”. No “Jewish settlers”. The perpetrators are all Islamists, black and Arab, ideologically positioned to be the victims of the West.

As Sébastien Boussois writes in Le Journal du Dimanche, our “variable moral geometry” collapses, and progressivism retreats into silence.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/417630

Spineless, morally deformed lefties, you can shove Islam and all your moral posturing up your colldctive Khybers. All you have is preening and bluster but zero credibility.