I didn't put that in inverted commas to state that it was nonsense, but....

What think ye, my fine  feathered fiends?

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/10/13/national-response-to-islamophobia/?fb...

"A National Response to Islamophobia: From Anti-Hate Strategy to Ideological Manifesto

In August 2024, the Australian Human Rights Commission released a 40-page document titled A National Response to Islamophobia. The report, which was supposed to be a guide to “social cohesion” and “inclusive democracy,” claimed to lay out a positive national plan for fighting anti-Muslim bias. Its goals seem good on the surface: no civilised society should allow hate, violence, or discrimination against any group. But behind its open language is a deeper and much more worrying plan.

The document is more than just a plan to protect Muslims from prejudice. In its substance and tone, it also functions as a broad policy statement, part advocacy agenda, part ideological framework, that seeks to redefine the boundaries of acceptable public discourse and embed a particular set of assumptions about religion, identity, and society into Australian institutions. It reflects a vision of social cohesion in which criticism of Islam, political Islamism, or Islamist movements is increasingly framed not as legitimate debate, but as harmful prejudice.

The central argument of this essay is straightforward: A National Response to Islamophobia goes beyond the vital task of addressing discrimination. It also attempts to shape the terms of public conversation, introducing a tendency to equate dissent with hostility. However well-intentioned, this risks narrowing democratic space and eroding some of the foundational principles, such as freedom of expression and open debate, on which Australian public life depends.

Islamophobia Redefined: From Prejudice to Ideological Shield

The report begins by noting that there is no single, universally accepted definition of Islamophobia. So it draws on widely used definitions, such as the United States’ description of it as “hatred, discrimination, or bias directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim.” From there, the text expands the concept well beyond individual prejudice, describing Islamophobia as encompassing a range of anti-Muslim behaviours, including negative perceptions of Islam based on religious and cultural signifiers, and the propagation of stereotypes that portray Muslims as a threat. It argues that these dynamics can be seen not only in personal attitudes but also in institutional contexts, media narratives, political discourse, and even foreign policy debates.

This definitional expansion is more than a matter of semantics. It carries significant implications for public discourse. By broadening the concept of Islamophobia to include criticism of ideas as well as hostility toward people, the report risks blurring an important distinction. If opposition to Islamist ideology, the application of Sharia in public law, or aspects of jihadist theology can all be labelled “Islamophobic,” then the space for open democratic debate may be unintentionally narrowed.

The report also suggests that certain foreign policy positions may contribute to prejudice. It warns against Islamophobic framings of global conflicts and warns that geopolitical discourse can reinforce bias, language that could be interpreted as encompassing criticism of Islamist groups or support for Israel. In such a framework, not only speech but even strongly held views risk being viewed as problematic.

When a term becomes too elastic, it risks losing its analytical clarity. Once “Islamophobia” is used to encompass virtually all criticism of Islam or related political ideologies, important and legitimate debates, including those about political movements, gender norms, or human rights, risk being dismissed too readily as prejudice. Such an approach may be effective in discouraging harmful rhetoric, but it can also make it harder to foster genuine understanding or robust democratic discussion."

(cont) ... .. not mothra or one of the others... - CONTINUED!....

A 14th century Byzantine emperor laid down a challenge:


"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".


The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents...

Islam lacks logos, it is even actively, violently hostile to it. No wonder, since Islam is the hallucination of an illiterate pryapic bloody warlord.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:


Being critical of an ideology or religion is not a mistreatment of its adherents, cockwomble.

Critical thought and freedom of expression are central to a free and open society. Islam deserves no special consideration just because it's adherents are more prepared to be violent in its defence, rather than use reason.

Brian is a Muslim apologist.   

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:



Is it true that their leader - Mohammad -
had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl,
and that he was responsible for the murder of 1000s of Jews?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2025 at 2:23pm:



Today?

Muslims follow every word in Mohammad's book.   

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:


                                        Is no Islamite ...... is no problem ....