Bigotry in Australia

July 7th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Peter Kurti at CIS writes:

Federal Labor MP Ed Husic is to be commended for his cool reaction to the swirl of anti-Islamic posts on Twitter and Facebook this week.

When he was sworn in on Monday as a Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Chifley became Australia’s first Muslim frontbencher.

Mr Husic, the son of Bosnian migrants, took the oath of office on a copy of the Qu’ran. ‘I couldn’t obviously take my oath on a bible,’ he said. ‘I am who I am.’

But that decision provoked unpleasant and anonymous attacks on social media which accused Mr Husic of treacherous and unconstitutional behaviour.

As well as being offensive, these rants were both absurd and inconsistent.

Far from being an unconstitutional act, Mr Husic’s decision to take the oath of office on the Qu’ran falls entirely within the provision of section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

Not only does the Constitution protect the free exercise of religion, section 116 prohibits religion being made a qualification for public office under the Commonwealth.

In other words, the Constitution protects the rights of Muslims to hold public office. When a Muslim is appointed to such an office, it is entirely appropriate that he or she take the oath on the Qu’ran if they wish to do so.

The Qu’ran has long been made available to Australian Muslims taking the oath in Australian courts of law.

A person taking an oath on a sacred book is not promising explicitly to uphold the contents of that book. The book simply serves as a symbol of invocation as the oath taker calls upon God to be the guarantor of his or her integrity.

NZ is rather more tolerant on these things. Ashraf Choudhary in 2002 was elected an MP and chose to swear his parliamentary path on the Qu’ran.  Off memory, there was no fuss or protest or backlash at all (except from Winston Peters, but he doesn’t count) – as there should be. We either allow no-one to swear an oath on a religious book, or we allow all religious books to be used. A country should not tell its citizens which religions are acceptable.

Tags: ,

142 Responses to “Bigotry in Australia”

  1. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    We either allow no-one to swear an oath on a religious book, or we allow all religious books to be used.

    People don’t need your permission in order to swear an oath. The privilege of making oath is central to the common law, and it is not a privilege that is bestowed by man. The common law is not limited to case law as the NZ state falsely claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    I know WInston “doesn’t count” – or at least he shouldn’t.

    But isn’t it actually an inditement on New Zealand that while Australia’s complaints came from anonymous social media accounts, ours came from an elected official (with therefore a certain amount of public support).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Chuck Bird (4,668 comments) says:

    NZ is rather more tolerant on these things. Ashraf Choudhary in 2002 was elected an MP and chose to swear his parliamentary path on the Qu’ran.

    And Choudhary thought it was okay to execute homosexuals for being homosexuals as long as it is not done in New Zealand. Where did he get that idea from?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    “A country should not tell its citizens which religions are acceptable.”

    A country should be able to express whatever political/ religious / social views it wants and whether you agree with it or not, there is a rational argument that when it comes to an uncohesive society or a cohesive society, the latter is the better option. People who argue for this view should not be lumped in with bigots.

    For example whether a person is a Muslim or a Christian or a Secularist, they have their own social and cultural territory. Its not unexpected that each or any of these groups would feel nervous about having some of their territory stolen by the others.

    The question a rational person might argue is does it benefit or damage a society by increasing the number of groups within it that might be so factionalised? Does friction help or does it impede?

    Bottom line is there are rational arguments against mass immigration, and calling for discussion is not bigotry. One of the major problems in this whole issue is that those who favour mass immigration do not want any discussion, and attempt to close it down by calling those who do want discussion bigots. This tends to make people feel disenfranchised, and this is often their real worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. adze (1,857 comments) says:

    For a Christian perspective it seems it shouldn’t be done at all :)

    Matthew 5:33-37 ESV

    “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,790 comments) says:

    Perhaps it simply shows NZ’s bigots are less media/computer literate than Australia’s bigots.

    In my experience, having lived for some decades in both countries, Australia is no more or less racist than NZ. The Ockers are just more honest and open about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ChardonnayGuy (1,131 comments) says:

    Faith/state seperation is the best guarantor of meaningful religious freedom. One need only look at the Shia/Sunni Islamist agonies of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the sectarianism and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Serbian irredentists in Bosnia, Croatia and elsewhere, cheered on by the Serbian Orthdox Church under Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies, or the role of fundamentalist Presbyterian Protestants in helping to ignite the Troubles in Northern Ireland, to see where this sort of sectarian idiocy leads.

    Once again, thank you John Howard and Redhaired Queensland Feesh and Cheep Shop Owner for helping to poison Australian society and politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Bigotry..why all the labeling of those with different views??..One might expect this from a labour party hack.
    Those who consider islam to be a religion are very easily fooled..It is not a religion. It is an ugly Arab male supremacist cult…
    No one is permitted to leave islam..Those who do risk their own lives to do so.
    Australians are much more aware of the danger the spread of islam is to their freedom and way of life. They are more patriotic and more determined to maintain their own traditions.
    NZers are happily sleep walking their way into oblivion.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Paulus (2,496 comments) says:

    Can anybody please tell me why the Koran is only printed and acceptable in Arabic, and can only be understood by Arabic speakers.
    So to read the Koran you have to learn Arabic first.
    Translations are not acceptable, therefore no non Arab speaker can understand even an ad hoc translation in reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,790 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy

    You trying to tell me Rev Ian Paisley is a Presbyterian?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    >We either allow no-one to swear an oath on a religious book, or we allow all religious books to be used.

    I’d prefer no-one. We’re talking about SWEARING AN OATH ON A RELIGIOUS BOOK for goodness sake. It assumes that people are more honest or more likely to do the right thing if they hold a book while making a promise. That’s just a bizarre medieval bit of nonsense. Sort of like dunking people in a river to ascertain guilt. Future people are going to laugh at us for our odd superstitions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Rev Ian Paisley

    now there’s a piece of shit

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gump (1,474 comments) says:

    I disagree with DPF. There are situations where a state should tell its citizens that certain religions are unacceptable.

    Cults that harm their members and/or society are a clear example.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MT_Tinman (2,985 comments) says:

    We either allow no-one to swear an oath on a religious book, or we allow all religious books to be used.

    I agree but are you correct?

    Does NZ allow all people to swear on the religious book of their choosing?

    Do witches get to swear on something from Cowley? Those who follow the Norse mythology and gods swear on some runic stone inscription, the sun worshippers swear by their god or is this rule limited to particular forms of middle-eastern mysticism?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (7,591 comments) says:

    The reaction of the so called bigots in Australia to a Muslim front bencher shows there is a deep un ease among Australians about Muslims in Australia……….I wonder why that would be?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Does NZ allow all people to swear on the religious book of their choosing?

    Who are they to allow anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    That’s just a bizarre medieval bit of nonsense.

    Atheists and socialists both a problem with the role of deity in the common law.

    lex terre
    The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    “A country should not tell its citizens which religions are acceptable.”

    LOL DPF -Please tell us why you take ‘Dianetics’ by L. Ron Hubbard seriously enough to have that sworn on in parliment! :cool:

    BTW – We’re talking about parliment David – please tell us the differances between the Koran and Mein Kampf – don’t bother – they’re much the same. And why can’t an elected racist -Hone for example- not swear on the Bible of the Nazis?

    “….The differences between these two faiths[Christianity and Islam] could not be greater. And how both faiths have impacted the world is also light years apart. As Gabriel rightly said: “The war today is between seventh-century Islamic culture and twenty-first-century modern culture. These cultures are incompatible. They cannot coexist because the values of one violate the values of the other.”….”

    Here’s why:

    -Muhammad was a prophet of war while Christ is the Prince of Peace.
    -Muhammad demeaned women and encouraged his followers to do the same while Jesus elevated the status of women and treated them as equals.
    -Muhammad and his disciples killed for the faith while Christ and his disciples were killed for their faith.
    -Muhammad preached “Death to the infidels!” while Christ prayed “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
    -Muhammad constrained people by conquest while Christ constrained people by love.
    -Muhammad never claimed to be sinless while Christ asked others to find any sin in his life.
    -Muhammad was just a messenger while Christ is the Son of God.
    -Muhammad is dead and buried while Christ is risen and alive.
    -Islam is a religion of slavish submission to a capricious, aloof and stern Allah, while Christianity is about a personal love relationship with the Father God through Jesus Christ.

    November 2006, Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota who was the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, declined to take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran instead.

    This too caused a major controversy. Jewish commentator Dennis Prager weighed in pretty heavily on this: “What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

    “Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

    “Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

    “Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

    “Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of ‘Dianetics’ by L. Ron Hubbard.”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    I believe that, yes, each person is entitled to practice their own religion but that when it comes to the country as a whole that there is a difference as to whether the Bible or the Koran is sworn on.

    New Zealand, like Australia, Britain, the United States and other countries has Judeo-Christian beliefs as part of our heritage. Our Western countries were formed around that heritage and of Christian beliefs. That is why we swear on the Christian Bible, because it is (or was) central to our beliefs. No one swears on something they do not believe in; they swear on something they believe in and respect and the value system that book represents. I do not think that many of the values put forward in the Koran are compatible with Western beliefs.

    Mr Husic is free to swear on whatever he likes, but then the question must be asked if he is the right person for the job. I think that the danger with swearing on the Koran is that the values it puts forward are in many ways antithetical to our Western belief system.

    I believe that if you are going to be a politician that you ought at least pretend to subscribe to Western values.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Oh and remember when Hone tried to swear on the Treaty of Waitangi? There was an uproar around it, and rightly so.
    I don’t see that as being very different to this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    I don’t see that as being very different to this case.

    The difference is that the treaty doesn’t symbolise any deity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    please tell us the differances between the Koran and Mein Kampf – don’t bother – they’re much the same.

    Only if your understanding of the two texts is limited to the idea of struggle (ie jihad, or kampf)
    Mein Kampf was written by a Catholic, but the Quran wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    What a load of bollocks! The only possible reason to make an oath on one particular collection of paper as opposed to another is how an individual’s culture has shaped the importance of that tome in his/her mind. To a Christian the Bible is all important….to a Muslim the Koran is sacrosanct. To a non believer a roll of Purex 2 ply would hold a similar intrinsic value to a religious book.

    It is what is going through the head of the person doing the swearing that is important. Since that is unknown the entire exercise is a lesson in irrelevance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    It is what is going through the head of the person doing the swearing that is important.

    Only if the person is an atheist (or agnostic).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    For a supposedly secular Parliament and the society its representing then NO religion or swearing upon its values is acceptable…..weed out that rot asap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    UT

    To a Christian the Koran is irrelevant as is the Bible to a Muslim. To an atheist or agnostic they are both a collection of horseshit.

    I can’t follow your reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    weed out that rot asap.

    A better alternative would be for theists to keep the common law (since it is inherently theistic), and leave parliament and it’s civil law to the atheists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Bottom line is there are rational arguments against mass immigration, and calling for discussion is not bigotry. One of the major problems in this whole issue is that those who favour mass immigration do not want any discussion, and attempt to close it down by calling those who do want discussion bigots. This tends to make people feel disenfranchised, and this is often their real worry.

    That is absolutely spot on.

    The true bigots among us are the lefty ideologues hell bent on fracturing our culture and implementing their own agenda by claiming to be the champions of minorities of their own making.

    What better way for a self loathing westerner to weaken their culture than to introduce strong rivalry and hostile ideology from another land.

    The bigotry people show to our common Christian heritage is disgusting.
    Regardless of the problems of organized religion, the gospel has served us well and we shouldn’t balk at acknowledging that fact.
    The real bigotry is present in those that view our religious history as wholly evil and corrupt, it never was, it is a lie propagated by cultural nihilists and extremist hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    “….To an atheist or agnostic they are both a collection of horseshit…..”

    What utter horseshit nasska!

    There is plenty of both that see some value in the Bible and what it affords those who follow it’s teachings. The Salvation Army and alcoholics are testament to that.

    They just don’t agree/believe with certain aspects of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,668 comments) says:

    “….To an atheist or agnostic they are both a collection of horseshit…..”

    Is that what you think of the National anthem as it mentions God.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    The bigotry people show to our common Christian heritage is disgusting.
    Regardless of the problems of organized religion, the gospel has served us well and we shouldn’t balk at acknowledging that fact.

    The problem is that the central tenet of Pauline Christianity doesn’t originate from the synoptic gospels. People talk about Judeo-Christianity as being a part of English heritage, but Judaism and Christianity are in conflict with each other because of that tenet. This all comes to a head in the context of making an oath because oaths are the connection between truth and deity in law. The common law, from which the custom of making oath originates, is based on reason and not on religious faith, and the common law as a legal code began with the ten comandments from Judaic law from the time of King Alfred the Great.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    ….”Is that what you think of the National anthem as it mentions God.”…..

    The patriotic feelings stirred by our anthem allow me to ignore the tripe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    The problem is that the central tenet of Pauline Christianity doesn’t originate from the synoptic gospels.

    That would be difficult for starters, because nearly all of Paul’s epistles were written before the synoptic gospels. But there is no such things as “Pauline Christianity” anyway. The Church is the Church because of Holy Tradition, not the specific epistles of Paul. Attempts to isolate Paul from the practices of the early Church, which did not finalise the Biblical canon until the 4th Century, are nonsensical, and confined to only the recent musings of academia.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rajiv (29 comments) says:

    Did Winston Peters object to Chaudhary’s taking on oath on Quran? And… Yes, true, he doesn’t count.

    But the thing is his hate mongering–ironically–keeps him in power. 8 MPs in the Parliament isn’t nothing. Although, most of them are bizarre characters. We already know about Richard Prosser and here is something on Asenati….

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/07/arsenasty-lole-taylor-loses-the-plot-ctd/

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/07/email-from-a-reader-on-nz-first-racism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    I think the idea of oaths was that you bound yourself to the wrath of a particular deity lest you break it. So one book is no more or less important in that regard. If you genuinely believe Cthulhu is going to destroy you if you break your oath (or at least torture you more, since he’s going to destroy everyone), you can swear on an HP Lovecraft novel for all I care.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    But there is no such things as “Pauline Christianity” anyway.

    Once again, the cultural liberal nihilists start creating division where none ever existed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    “The bigotry people show to our common Christian heritage is refreshing and well overdue.”

    There you go Shunda, I fixed it for you.

    Religion deserves every shred of bigotry that comes its way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The patriotic feelings stirred by our anthem allow me to ignore the tripe.

    What is wrong with asking even an imaginary deity to protect us from corruption, envy, and hate?

    Glad to hear you don’t have an issue with it, because only a bigot really would.

    Our national anthem represents a magnificent set of ideals to aspire to, it is the envy of many nations around the world.

    The only negative comments on our anthem on youtube are from f@ckwit Kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Religion deserves every shred of bigotry that comes its way.

    Well at least you’re honest about it.

    But you are holding a blinkered extremist position that is inconsistent with the reality of our nations history.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    nearly all of Paul’s epistles were written before the synoptic gospels

    The ages of the existant texts are not important. The point is that the synoptic gospels don’t support the Pauline interpretation. The story of the schism between Paul of Tarsus and James the Just is present in the standard texts, the west just ended up with the Roman side of the schism rather than the Muslim side as outlined in the gospel of Barnabus.

    The Church is the Church because of Holy Tradition, not the specific epistles of Paul.

    In the context of oaths it is truth that is relevant, not belief or tradition.

    Attempts to isolate Paul from the practices of the early Church … are nonsensical

    They make sense for Islam, which did exactly that. It also made sense for the people addressed by the book of Revelation, (the seven “churches” of Asia) who had rejected Paul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda

    The National Anthem was written a long time ago when it was difficult to locate a recipe for mutton broth that didn’t contain some reference to God.

    And I agree with you that it is a great anthem….it creates unity & pride in what is a great little country.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The ages of the existant texts are not important. The point is that the synoptic gospels don’t support the Pauline interpretation.

    Says who? because that is the key issue.

    The story of the schism between Paul of Tarsus and James the Just is present in the standard texts, the west just ended up with the Roman side of the schism rather than the Muslim side as outlined in the gospel of Barnabus.

    Well there’s some creative interpretation! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Says who? because that is the key issue.

    No, “says who?” is a lead up for an ad hominem. You don’t have to have a degree in theology to see the schism.

    Well there’s some creative interpretation!

    Nothing creative about it.

    Here’s James calling Paul a vain man (in response to Paul’s commentary on Genesis 15, Romans 4:2-5):

    But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
    James 2:20

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, am I alone in thinking it bizarre that grown men in 2013 are talking about the imaginary figures of ancient cults, as if they were real ? It is not as if those barbaric violent and ignorant cults could contribute anything worth while to modern life. Even the cults misguided followers wisely choose to ignore 99% of the laws and directions contained in the blood stained religious books. If they did not, we would have to lock them up. Imagine killing disobedient children and people who work on Sunday, in the age of anti-smacking laws ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. V (668 comments) says:

    Winston can talk, wasn’t he sworn in on the Turf Digest?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Kea

    There are (IMO) two reasons religion of any sort gets traction in the human mind. One is our inability to get our heads around the concepts of infinity & eternity. Religion provides the answer…..get on your knees & hand over the tithes to the priests & they’ll do the worrying for you.

    The second is the way in which religion is jackhammered into children by their feeble minded brainwashed parents. Once the concepts of Sky daddies & original sin get established they take a lot of de programming to get rid of.

    Generally I regard religion as a benign pastime similar to macramé or indoor bowls but when taken to extremes it is dangerous…..it is also incredibly boring to the non afflicted. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Yoza (1,526 comments) says:

    Paulus (1,791) Says:
    July 7th, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    “Can anybody please tell me why the Koran is only printed and acceptable in Arabic, and can only be understood by Arabic speakers.”

    Here you go Paulus, knock yourself out: http://ar.islamway.net/SF/quran/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Yoza (1,526 comments) says:

    “Generally I regard religion as a benign pastime similar to macramé or indoor bowls but when taken to extremes it is dangerous….”

    I would be very interested in being provided with an example of the horrors inflicted on society by macramé or indoor bowls being taken to an extreme.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Some Muslims are quite happy giving a religious oath on the bible. I have seen them do it first hand. I suspect Ed Husic is trying to make a statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    Once again, the cultural liberal nihilists start creating division where none ever existed.

    I’m sure my Priest would be amused to hear that we are cultural liberal nihilists. I’m sure that’s what they told John Chrysostem.

    The point is that the synoptic gospels don’t support the Pauline interpretation. The story of the schism between Paul of Tarsus and James the Just is present in the standard texts, the west just ended up with the Roman side of the schism rather than the Muslim side as outlined in the gospel of Barnabus.

    But there was no schism. You are talking about something that never existed. And I am not even sure what interpretation you are talking about. Quote some verses. Roman vs Muslim side?! That doesn’t even make any sense! Islam was hundreds of years away. There is no disharmony between the books of the New Testament – they were written by the Church and became part of the Holy Tradition of the Church because they declared the same gospel and the same faith. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be part of the canon.

    Why do you think Islam is based on Christianity? Islam is not a schismatic subset of Christianity. It is basic monotheism which borrows substantially from Christianity and Judaism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    nasska, am I alone in thinking it bizarre that grown men in 2013 are talking about the imaginary figures of ancient cults, as if they were real ?

    Am I alone in not giving a flying fuck what you think about religious faith? The grown men are trying to have a serious conversation here, and nobody cares what you think. If theology doesn’t interest you, you don’t have to comment. But if you do, try and contribute, rather than simply stating your own beliefs and sneering at someone else’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    please tell us the differances between the Koran and Mein Kampf

    Mein Kampf is much more tedious. You can’t read it and not come away with the impression that Hitler was the most boring person ever to walk the earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    …”the horrors inflicted on society by macramé or indoor bowls being taken to an extreme.”…

    There’s the rub Yoza…. at first glance it would appear that few attack other nations in the name of square knots or non standard Jacks. It would seem that having multiple whacko cults all yelling, “our God is better than your God”, is what drives the horror. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kowtow (7,591 comments) says:

    And what God was involved in the horrors of Marxism,Nazism and Japanese Imperialism?

    BlairM@529
    Good comment.They really are “sneerers”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    NZ should open its doors to enlightened followers of the religion of peace, admirers of the very pacifist paedophile prophet Muhammad, who preached tolerance and love (specially with girls age 7 and over).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. bagelmuncher (7 comments) says:

    Why is that commentators can remember to call the Christian bible “the New Testament”, the Muslim book of faith ” The Koran” but are too indoctrinated and intellectually lazy to give due respect to their mother faith Judaism by calling the Jewish bible “The Torah” – it has been called the Torah for almost five thousand years so use the correct terminology it is not the Old Testament so beloved of ignorant Christians and the like, so please use the correct term. Rant over/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    When I arrived in Australia four years ago, I was shocked by the anti Muslim feelings.

    They stem, of course, from the asylum seekers. By comparison with other parts of the world, the problem is a minor one, but Australians are obsessed with it.

    Both major parties use fear of Muslims in a race to the bottom of the sewer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I’m sure my Priest would be amused to hear that we are cultural liberal nihilists. I’m sure that’s what they told John Chrysostem.

    Read my post again with the thought that I am actually on your side! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    No, “says who?” is a lead up for an ad hominem. You don’t have to have a degree in theology to see the schism.

    You don’t even have to see the schism!! there isn’t one.

    Nothing creative about it.

    Here’s James calling Paul a vain man (in response to Paul’s commentary on Genesis 15, Romans 4:2-5):

    But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
    James 2:20

    Did Jesus anoint James as the one true representative of his views?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dexter (272 comments) says:

    NZ should open its doors to enlightened followers of the religion of peace, admirers of the very pacifist paedophile prophet Muhammad, who preached tolerance and love (specially with girls age 7 and over).

    “Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah–from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus heoverthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities–and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”

    “At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne,to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.”

    “Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: `Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died … And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Rev Ian Paisley

    now there’s a piece of shit

    Vote: 0 3

    evidently Paisley is a good bloke, a fine example of a christian, how wrong I’ve been, sorry.

    Na, he’s a hate filled tank of shit and typifies everything that is bad about religion. If you want to see real bigotry in action over decades look up this clowns rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Dexter, do you actually believe in the God of the bible?

    If you don’t, you do realize that everything you referenced didn’t actually happen?.

    Are you sure that mentioning acts of raining sulfur is really a good way to make a point regarding the horrors of Islam as compared to Christianity?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. infused (636 comments) says:

    Check out what’s happening now in Egypt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kowtow (7,591 comments) says:

    The Rev Ian Paisley was highly regarded as a very good constituency MP ,for all his constituents, regardless of faith.Fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    you do realize that everything you referenced didn’t actually happen?

    Finally, an admission.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Finally, an admission.

    More of an observation of the tortured logic of anti Christian bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    But there was no schism.

    The schism was primarily between the Christians and the Ebionites. The Ebionites rejected Paul and the Christians didn’t. It was basically about Judaism’s identity as the religion of a set-apart (qodesh, translated as “holy”) people. James the Just led followers who observed orthodox non-Pharasaic Judaism, while the Christians followed Pharisee Paul as the self appointed apostle to the Gentiles. An early aspect of the schism was James’ calling on Paul to perform the rite of the Nazarite, which resulted in a riot with Paul being rescued from the crowd by the Romans. Another example is James’ labelling of Paul as a “vain man” over the difference in doctrine of faith vs works. The final example of the schism was the rejection of Paul by the people of Asia (now Turkey), the same people who received the apocalyptic message described in the book of revelation.

    Islam was hundreds of years away.

    Quite. But the Christian prejudice was present even then, with the Pauline allegory of Sarah (later Judaism) and Hagar (later Islam) which described Sarah as representing freedom and Hagar representing bondage. There’s also the gospel of Barnabus, which gives an account of events which is much more agreeable with Islamic thought than the canonical gospels. The gospel of Barnabus was dismissed as a forgery, but an early copy was recovered about 12 years ago, with no significant differences to contemporary copies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kowtow

    The Rev Ian Paisley was highly regarded as a very good constituency MP ,for all his constituents, regardless of faith.Fact.

    In 1988, when Pope John Paul II delivered a speech to the European Parliament, Paisley shouted “I denounce you as the Antichrist!” and held up a red poster reading “Pope John Paul II ANTICHRIST” in black letters. John Paul continued with his address after Paisley was ejected from the hemicycle by fellow MEPs

    Oh, and he’s mad as well In 1964, his demand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary remove an Irish tricolour from Sinn Féin’s Belfast offices led to two days of rioting,

    Oh, and he started his own denomination as well ( sound familiar ?) because even the North Irish Protestants thought he was a fuckwit.

    But fair enough Kowtow he was highly regarded, so is Peter Dunne by his constituents, so is Hone Harawira, so is Russell by Green voters so your point is what exactly.? You seem happy to accept that he consistently established paramilitary groups, groups which did not exist to share scone recipes, very fucking christian of the arsehole.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    From the “Urban Dictionary”.

    ….”Bigot

    A hardly illusive, privative form of man who coexists, though not peacefully, in today’s modern world. These naive, highly religious, & often home-schooled creatures stop learning prior to the onset of puberty & cling ferociously to their teachings, so as to avoid having to learn anything new or challenging later in life. Bigots are quite like hornets & wild boars; easily frightened & responding in bursts of violence, swarming or poorly planned sabotage. The bigot is a territorial creature that acts negatively to different species of Bigots. They live unfulfilled lives, fruitlessly aiming for the goal of ridding the world of tolerance & free thought & making the world once again safe for slavery & capital punishment in a world where women never leave the house.”…..

    Seems a better description of you & your Godnutter mates sprouting your intolerant fundy/conservative shit Shunda. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Did Jesus anoint James as the one true representative of his views?

    Assuming that familial guardianship is equivalent to the relationship between a leader and his followers, then James, as half-brother, inherited the guardianship of the disciples according to Judaic law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    From the “Urban Dictionary”.

    A very reputable source! :) , did you just write it?

    ….”Bigot

    A hardly illusive, privative form of man who coexists, though not peacefully, in today’s modern world. These naive, highly religious, & often home-schooled creatures stop learning prior to the onset of puberty & cling ferociously to their teachings, so as to avoid having to learn anything new or challenging later in life. Bigots are quite like hornets & wild boars; easily frightened & responding in bursts of violence, swarming or poorly planned sabotage. The bigot is a territorial creature that acts negatively to different species of Bigots. They live unfulfilled lives, fruitlessly aiming for the goal of ridding the world of tolerance & free thought & making the world once again safe for slavery & capital punishment in a world where women never leave the house.”…..

    That isn’t even clever.

    Seems a better description of you & your Godnutter mates sprouting your intolerant fundy/conservative shit Shunda.

    Whoa
    Where did that come from?

    The Irony is, your statement above is the most bigoted on this thread so far, and by a good margin.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Then we can safely say that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The Irony is, your statement above is the most bigoted on this thread so far, and by a good margin

    I’d disagree Shunda that statement of nasska’s has been arrived at by careful and erudite consideration of a couple of thousand of your comments and nearly 5000 of Kowtows.

    An opinion drawn from careful examination of the evidence ( of which there is an abundance )can hardly be bigoted – its based in fact

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I’d disagree Shunda that statement of nasska’s has been arrived at by careful and erudite consideration of a couple of thousand of your comments and nearly 5000 of Kowtows.

    I see, so a person can sound like a bigot, but isn’t a bigot if the person they are talking to is a bigot.

    An opinion drawn from careful examination of the evidence ( of which there is an abundance )can hardly be bigoted – its based in fact

    Sort of like a ‘ends/means’ thing?…… riiiiiiiiight.

    Either that or you guys really are just intolerant of any perspective but your own, and are quite partial to a good ole dose of black and white thinking yourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Then we can safely say that bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.

    Well you certainly haven’t got a problem getting creative with definitions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I think Kowtow and Shunda barunda forget that Muslims believe much the same things as Christians, have the same god, and are not Atheists !!!. Basically they stick to the old testament version of Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    They’re just troll trash Shunda, not worth the effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    So because you’re a bigot you can call me a bigot even if I’m not.

    I’m glad I don’t have to sell that one to St Peter. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Dexter (272 comments) says:

    More of an observation of the tortured logic of anti Christian bigots

    Given what my post was in reply to, the irony of you branding anyone who offers any balance a ‘bigot’ is rather ironic.

    And it’s not a question of what I believe, it’s about what followers of each faith believe and the hypocrisy in either side calling the other unenlightened.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    They’re just troll trash Shunda

    Then the voice of tolerance , reason and informative posts rides in on his hoss.

    Thank fuck kick off is in a couple of minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Right on cue here is Red hurling abuse at those who dare not to believe in an ignorant violent Middle Eastern cult.

    Can you imagine a political party of Reds having power in NZ ! There is not much chance of that ever happening since they locked up their leader Graham Capil.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kea

    Thye could do a Paisley and just start up their own version

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Dexter

    ….”the hypocrisy in either side calling the other unenlightened.”….

    Most of the accusations of bigotry on this thread are directed at the atheists who not only sitting it out…..we’re not even in the same room. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I think Kowtow and Shunda barunda forget that Muslims believe much the same things as Christians, have the same god, and are not Atheists !!!. Basically they stick to the old testament version of Christianity.

    I guess I try to base my opinions on world history instead of simplistic prejudicial thinking.

    When you look properly you see that most of the worst forms of global conflict revolve around scapegoating, not religion specifically.

    Human beings don’t appear to need much of an excuse at all to manifest deep seated hatred toward each other.

    In this regard, even if Jesus was not the Son of God, he was an observational genius and his teachings have much to offer our world today.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Are you sure that mentioning acts of raining sulfur is really a good way to make a point regarding the horrors of Islam as compared to Christianity?

    Why do you think that that was the point that Dexter was trying to make? Nothing in his post was about Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    ….”since they locked up their leader Graham Capil.”….

    I think they all picked up their chequebooks & changed alliances to the CCCP Kea.

    Can’t get a peep out of the arseholes on the subject though. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    When you look properly you see that most of the worst forms of global conflict revolve around scapegoating, not religion specifically.

    1st World War, setup Israel.

    2nd World War, drove the Jews into Israel.

    3rd World War, between the Muslims and the Christians, is going to destroy Israel.

    No of course religion has nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay, I reckon Red would have been a huge supporter of Graham Capil. He must have been. He represented all the views Red holds and their is no way Red was not a big fan of Graham Capil.

    I did ask Red about it once, but he got uncharacteristically shy and did not feel like chatting anymore :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    “the atheists who not only sitting it out…..we’re not even in the same room.”

    Like Kea and your other prog mates, you pollute/ troll this blog every chance you get with your obsessive immature hillbilly god hating ignorance and bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Given what my post was in reply to, the irony of you branding anyone who offers any balance a ‘bigot’ is rather ironic.

    I guess that depends on your definition of “balance”.

    We have already established that the definition of bigotry is in a state of flux and ‘balance’ appears to be next .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    hillbilly

    FFS Red you’re embarrassing yourself worse than normal. Some of the staunchest adherents to fundie religions in the USA are “hillbilly’s” or as us polite people refer to them – residents of the Appalachians.

    They are Colin Craig’s constituency man, blind adherents – you should be proud to refer to yourself as a hillbilly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    3rd World War, between the Muslims and the Christians, is going to destroy Israel.

    It is more likely to be a proxy war fought on Israel’s behalf. The war on terror is really the war on people who do not like Israel. Most of the people Obama is attacking are not a serious threat to the US, and if they are, it is only because they prop up Israel.

    [Cue the usually "anti semite" nonsense to try and shame and bully the conversation to a close...]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Strangle enough they are commonly referred to as “rednecks” Paul. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    “hillbilly’s” or as us polite people refer to them – residents of the Appalachians.

    They are Colin Craig’s constituency man, blind adherents

    The Appalachians are in NZ now?? goodness, I’ve got yo update my atlas!.

    Do you have any commentary that is remotely relevant to NZ?, or are you just back to ‘cut n pasting’ out of the liberal progressives ‘internet playbook’ again? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    Nasska is just a small minded knuckle dragging sister loving clod hopping gorse farmer who has never progressed past his schoolboy misunderstandings of religion. He’s just a shallow narcissistic fool. Much like you actually Paula.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I guess I try to base my opinions on world history instead of simplistic prejudicial thinking.

    Shunda barunda, having said that you promptly change the subject.

    I base my opinions on the respective holly books, the “perfect world of god”. The Muslims simply follow the old testament. The differences between your cults are minor, in terms of the teachings.

    I think you are confused between what people are culturally and what their religion teaches in its holly books, as opposed to modern day reconstructions that attempt to skirt around gods clear words, as the Christians are so fond of doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Shunda

    I honestly thought more of you than this – liberal progressives ‘internet playbook’ seriously. You’ve become a blind adherent to the KB ‘s self proclaimed deity, say it ain’t so

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Can’t get a peep out of the arseholes on the subject though.

    nasska, yes the Christian Conservatives are very outspoken and militant, but go very very quiet when GRAHAM CAPIL is mentioned.

    We know dam well they were supporters of their fallen brother. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    ….”We know dam well they were supporters of their fallen brother”….

    “were” supporters Kea? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    What makes you obsessive god haters think people give a fuck what your views on religion might be? From the haste with which you attempt to turn every discussion into an expression of how much you hate God you apparently think we can’t wait to hear about it.

    If you were not such self obsessed losers you might understand that most people don’t really care whether you believe or not, but don’t enjoy hearing you express the same old bigotry, ignorance and hatred all day every day.

    You do it because you’re narcissistic ego driven one issue fruit cakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    it is not the Old Testament so beloved of ignorant Christians and the like, so please use the correct term.

    But then it wouldn’t be about death, which is essential for Pauline doctrine.

    For where a testament(diatheke) [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
    Hebrews 9:16

    But diatheke is also translated as covenant:

    For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant(diatheke) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
    Hebrews 8:8

    He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living
    Mark 12:27

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    From Red

    You do it because you’re narcissistic ego driven one issue fruit cakes

    That is untoppable, night all

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    I think it’s working Kea….both Reddy & UT have slipped their mooring in one night.

    Who’s next? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, having said that you promptly change the subject.

    How? I’m just trying to look at the whole picture here.

    I base my opinions on the respective holly books, the “perfect world of god”. The Muslims simply follow the old testament. The differences between your cults are minor, in terms of the teachings.

    I believe that to be a minority opinion, there are huge differences between these religions that even most secular scholars would point out.

    I think you are confused between what people are culturally and what their religion teaches in its holly books, as opposed to modern day reconstructions that attempt to skirt around gods clear words, as the Christians are so fond of doing.

    If you are talking about Christianity I just can’t see how that perspective holds up, the gospels are there for anyone to read and it’s impossible to justify the brutality you are referencing with what is actually written.
    If you are saying there are bad Christians that abuse these teachings, then I agree, but to suggest there is some inherent evil in the texts just seems silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. kowtow (7,591 comments) says:

    PEastbay spends a lot of time here slagging off the Papacy and Catholicism ,gives him something in common with Dr Paisley……..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    the gospels are there for anyone to read and it’s impossible to justify the brutality you are referencing with what is actually written.

    So stoning non virginal brides to death on their dads doorstep, killing your own kids for being naughty, hacking open pregnant women, dashing their living kids to death in front of their parents, genocide, infanticide, torture , rape, slavery, and to top it all off, eternal torture with no chance of escape… is not brutal in your warped god soaked mind ?

    This demonstrates just how dangerous ALL religious people are. I can not imagine the self deception you must live under Shunda barunda. It really is very cheeky to throw stones at the Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, you certainly have an interesting take on the Christian religion, but it is not an approach that has gained much support from any quarter.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    “Bigot” and “racist” are both just terms that progressives fall back on and use to smear Christians or Conservatives when they run out arguments. Like, anyone who opposes Obama is ‘racist’, when in reality, people don’t give a hoot about what color Obama is. it is his policies they hate. Or when the Left opposed voter ID cards it was ‘racist’, even though Obama is touting and funding the same in Africa.

    As the saying goes, ‘Ridicule is the last resort of desperate arguments’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    You god botherers are just pissed off because us atheists did not support Graham Capil the way you all did.

    The truth hurts and it hurts god botherers most of all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    If you are talking about Christianity I just can’t see how that perspective holds up,

    If I were you Shunda I wouldn’t bother with debating Christianity with Kea. He’s a fanatic on it, his view hateful and his understanding is superficial to the point of being child-like, making it an extraordinarily one-sided and boring conversation with no hope of redemption and no erudition whatsoever.

    But over to you, try it at your peril.

    Warning: he seems to think because he works with an ordained Minister, this gives him some kind of special insight into Christian thinking. Go figure. But this is what you’re dealing with, in Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Reid, stop telling lies you little maggot. I only once mentioned the fact I work with an ordained Minister, in the context that we agree on most social issues.

    Now beg my forgiveness you fucking worm :)

    How about you all call up your Christian Conservative mate Graham Capil? He is out now and is looking for work. Even a bit of child minding/baby sitting would help your christian brother out. He would probably do it for free, just for the experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    “The truth hurts and it hurts god botherers most of all.”

    It is your complete and shameless disregard for truth Kea that ensures you can never be trusted to be any kind of ally for any cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    So stoning non virginal brides to death on their dads doorstep, killing your own kids for being naughty, hacking open pregnant women, dashing their living kids to death in front of their parents, genocide, infanticide, torture , rape, slavery, and to top it all off, eternal torture with no chance of escape… is not brutal in your warped god soaked mind ?

    2 Questions for you.

    1. Where did Jesus endorse any of this?
    2. How frequently have these horrific brutal events occurred during the Christian era?

    Perhaps you have made a good argument against Judaism, but not Christianity.

    Our society would be no less violent now and is possibly a good deal worse without any instruction to kill.

    Is it possible that people are the problem? those that want to/will kill will find a way to do it regardless?

    This demonstrates just how dangerous ALL religious people are. I can not imagine the self deception you must live under Shunda barunda.

    I don’t participate in organized religion, I can see the problems that such organizational structures bring.

    But I also think that Jesus Christ was an observational genius when it comes to our species behavior, so much so that if there is a God, I find it entirely possible that he is his Son.

    There is nothing wrong with the Christian gospels.

    It really is very cheeky to throw stones at the Muslims.

    Would you prefer jetliners full of passengers and heavy laden with jet fuel instead?
    The Muslims have some especially urgent house work to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    1. Where did Jesus endorse any of this?

    2. How frequently have these horrific brutal events occurred during the Christian era?

    1. GOD endorsed and demanded all of it. Your mate jesus (may lice be upon him) made it crystal clear he was not there to replace the old law but to enforce it.

    2. Very frequently and continue on into the modern day.

    http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/bosnian-genocide-pictures-are-worth.html

    They did a survey in the US. A very Christian country, if not the most Christian. They found Atheists had greater bible knowledge than Theists. My experience on KB confirms that finding.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Graham Capill would make a great behind the scenes worker for a political party that he was compatible with Kea. Say one with a wholesome religious base that was very authoritative, well funded & knew how to keep secrets.

    Shame….I just can’t think of any party that fills the bill. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Shunda, re: Kea @ 9:11. I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, you seem to be avoiding my point. I am only referring to what is written.

    I accept that, at the moment, Christians are better behaved than Muslims. The problems start when people do actually behave in a way consistent with their chosen holly book. Christians ignore pretty much all of theirs, so are relatively mild. Most Muslim do too, but a large number follow the book.

    A lot of people are only, Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu, culturally and do not really take the religious teaching literally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, you certainly have an interesting take on the Christian religion, but it is not an approach that has gained much support from any quarter.

    Yes, there is always resistance to change. The question for the pragmatist is: would a more coherent reinterpretation of the role of religion as a social and political driver be a good thing for society or not?

    If it can be understood then we are better able to predict how it will affect the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Redbaiter (7,560 comments) says:

    Hey guys, you’re better than this. Surely you’ve got better things to do than deal with these cowardly cretinous trolls.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    You god botherers are just pissed off because us atheists did not support Graham Capil the way you all did.

    For the record, I never voted for Capil, there was something about him I didn’t like, now I know why.

    By the way, did anyone really support him on mass? or is this more ‘cut n paste’ religious right phobia from the liberal pwogwessives internet pway book? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska,Why would Red and his band of god nuts want a man of Graham Capils experience behind the scenes ?

    He is a real asset to Christian Conservatives and should be their front man. Many Christians appeal only to the older voter but not our Graham Capil, he reaches out and touches young and old. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I never voted for Capil, there was something about him I didn’t like

    Same here. But I get the feeling that if I were attacking Capil today, you would be jumping in to defend him because of your faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Red, how much did you donate to Capils party ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    Good question Kea. While Red may or may not have donated any money you can be sure that Red was a whole hearted supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Shunda

    Capill was the figurehead for the Christian Heritage Party in 2002. They received 1.35% of the total (or 27492 votes).

    I reckon that 27K+ people is getting pretty close to a “mass”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    Surely you’ve got better things to do than deal with these cowardly cretinous trolls.

    I dunno, “may lice be upon him” makes it pretty clear who is who.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    big bruv, yes of course Red was a supporter. He was even an ex cop. He represented everything Red loves. Red would have been as excited about Capil as Capil is about kids. GOD.

    Have you noticed that asking Red about his support for Graham Capil is the only way to shut him up ? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    ….” asking Red about his support for Graham Capil is the only way to shut him up “….

    I find it hard to share your faith Kea. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Scoreboard reads:

    Nutters……NIL

    Atheists…..NIL

    Never mind…it was fun.

    Night All. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, you should know I base my ideas on evidence, not faith. Maybe the remnants of Red’s conscience are playing up. He is awfully quiet. I did not add a smiley to some of my comments. That probably upset him too. He is very sensitive lately, what with the Singapore thing and the tick-trick, it has been a tough few weeks for our Red :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Ironic isn’t it the bigotry on display in a thread against bigotry.

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Same here. But I get the feeling that if I were attacking Capil today, you would be jumping in to defend him because of your faith.

    Your whole approach is a non starter, it isn’t logical to chide people on something they couldn’t possibly know.

    Statistically, there are probably still several sexual deviants present in NZ politics (not even including the Labour party ;) ) but that doesn’t make everyone that votes/supports a particular party an enabler of child abuse.

    What is more disturbing is the readiness that people will continue to support politicians and policy that is destroying our children’s future and the social sustainability of our entire nation, but don’t let that little fact bite you on the arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Capill was the figurehead for the Christian Heritage Party in 2002. They received 1.35% of the total (or 27492 votes).

    I reckon that 27K+ people is getting pretty close to a “mass”.

    Are you bloody joking?

    So it’s a complete non issue, a party that got less than Bill and Ben!!??

    Yeah, the religious right are so scary in this nation.

    You lot are paranoid, Christians appear to have about as much political clout as “aunt Mavis’s stitch and bitch crotchet club” and you’re all running around terrified.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. lilman (885 comments) says:

    That Paisley was such an asshole.
    I know for a fact that a directive went out from the IRA many years ago that under no circumstances was he to be touched.
    He was informed in writing by the IRA that they would never give him the satisfaction of becoming a martar.
    His fate was to stew in his own bile and hatred.
    In my opinion one of the best decisions the council made.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. big bruv (13,227 comments) says:

    lilman,

    That Paisley is/was an asshole is beyond doubt. However you seem to be suggesting that the murderous bastards of the IRA were benevolent types who let Paisley live so the IRA could highlight Paisley’s bigotry.

    Let’s be clear here, the catholic scum who made up the killing squads of the IRA are as bad (if not worse) than Paisley. It makes my blood boil to see that piece of shit McGuinness and the equally faecal Adams paraded as men of state. Both are mass murderers who should have had their necks stretched by a long piece of rope.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Changeiscoming (135 comments) says:

    I haven’t read all the comments above so apologies if this is repeated.

    The funny thing about all this is that the Bible actually says you shouldn’t swear on it. Jesus repeats this several times in the Bible. When I appeared in court as a witness I didn’t swear on the bible for this reason. Also if I was to hold office, like an MP I wouldn’t be swearing on the bible.

    So yeah Christians or anyone for that matter shouldn’t swear on oath on the Bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. ChardonnayGuy (1,131 comments) says:

    For the record, Ian Paisley Sr was minister of a benighted fundamentalist Presbyterian sect called the “Free Presbyterian Church,” which engaged in ludicrous and lurid fundamentalist Protestant conspiracy theories about the Papacy and Vatican which seem to have been imported holus bolus from anti-Catholic fundamentalist wingnut sects in the United States. Now, while I do believe that the Catholic church hierarchy should be held accountable and pay reparations for enabling, concealing and facilitating clergy pedophile child sexual abuse to its victims, I don’t believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, nor that it wants world domination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ChardonnayGuy (1,131 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, he’s still alive. Would that the good Lord would call Brother Ian home expeditiously… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Changeiscoming , to my mind, anyone willing to lie about the existence of imaginary beings is unlikely to be a reliable source of information.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. kowtow (7,591 comments) says:

    Good God, chardonayguy,another rabid anti Catholic comes to the forum to slag off Paisley for being anti Catholic.

    Strange bed fellows indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. UglyTruth (3,958 comments) says:

    the Bible actually says you shouldn’t swear on it. Jesus repeats this several times in the Bible.

    It’s not as simple as that. A rational interpretation of the verses in Matthew is that there is no point in swearing on something that does not represent eternal truth.

    Matthew 5:33-37 says not to swear an oath, either by heaven or earth or head.
    Matthew 23:16-22 suggests that swearing an oath on something implies swearing on the intangible or higher nature of that thing, but doesn’t prohibit the swearing of oaths in general.

    Interpreting the verses in Matthew as a general prohibition against swearing introduces an inconsistency with Judaic law and prophecy which implies that in some circumstances it is appropriate to swear an oath.

    And ye shall not swear by my name falsely
    Leviticus 19:12

    I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
    Isaiah 45:23

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    UglyTruth said “The schism was primarily between the Christians and the Ebionites. The Ebionites rejected Paul and the Christians didn’t. It was basically about Judaism’s identity as the religion of a set-apart (qodesh, translated as “holy”) people. James the Just led followers who observed orthodox non-Pharasaic Judaism, while the Christians followed Pharisee Paul as the self appointed apostle to the Gentiles. An early aspect of the schism was James’ calling on Paul to perform the rite of the Nazarite, which resulted in a riot with Paul being rescued from the crowd by the Romans. Another example is James’ labelling of Paul as a “vain man” over the difference in doctrine of faith vs works. The final example of the schism was the rejection of Paul by the people of Asia (now Turkey), the same people who received the apocalyptic message described in the book of revelation.”

    …all of which is complete bullshit. I don’t know where you get this crap from but it is nonsense. James the Just wrote and composed the original Christian church liturgy, which was the primary liturgy of the Church for over 300 years. Catholic Mass is still partially based on it, and it is still performed in Orthodox churches on certain occasions. Why would the Church use the liturgy of a “schismatic”? The answer is that there never was a schism. Nothing you have said is remotely true, either logically or historically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.