who's the more inappropriate?

mood: happy.
state i'm in: pretty relaxed, albeit lonesome.
tune: bebel gilberto "so nice (summer samba)".


so who's the more inappropriate?


1. the man who has printed, on a leaflet appealing for support for a campaign for a senate seat:

"spot satan's strongholds in the areas you are living (brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples - freemasons, buddhist, hindu, etc., witchcraft. if you are ready to pray against it, do so. if not, bring it to your church, and ask your intercessors, through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down."

forgive me if i'm wrong, but we have freedom of speech in this country. we also have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech should not protect an individual that incites others to eliminate another faith purely due to theological differences.

this man is pastor danny nalliah, president of the catch a fire ministries.


2. the man who has published, on dvd:

"the peak, the pinnacle, the crest, highest point, the pivot, the summit of islam is jihad. today, many parents they prevent their children from attending lessons. why? they fear that they might create a place in their hearts, a love, just a bit of the love, of sacrificing their lives for allah. teach them this: that their is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a muhajid. put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad, and the love of martydom."

again, another attempt at the imposition of one's beliefs upon others, and an example of inciting others to eliminate another faith, again, based on theological differences.

this man is sheikh feiz mohhamad.


3. the man who sends a recorded greeting of support to the catch a fire ministries, for an australia day gathering, despite the organisation still standing against charges of religious vilification in the high court; and who, in this message, attributes the "shaping of the character of the nation" to people such as these. the same man refers to sheikh mohhamad's comments as "reprehensible and offensive". the man's deputy, one peter costello, managed to send a personal letter of support to pastor halliah in his campaign against the charges of religious vilification.

anyone for a little hypocrisy?

this man is prime minister john howard.


i am certainly not excusing the comments of sheikh mohhamad. to the contrary, i find them highly disturbing. i likewise find pastor nalliah's comments disturbing. but what is more disturbing is mr howard's comments. i find it deplorable that the leader of what he claims is a multicultural nation would essentially encourage comments that may amount to religious vilification, whilst condemning those along similar lines from a member of another faith based on what it seems is nothing but personal bias (or campaign funding, who knows).