Jennifer, let me be clear. I think MTR is open to criticism on a large number of matters, some of which I have aired with her supporters, and I think she's a coward for dodging questions, but she is right to point out that people do not evaluate her opinions on their merit when they put it in a context of her Christian faith. What she believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the merit of her arguments (or lack thereof).

My analogy is not false. Morality is about right and wrong. Crime is about legality and illegality. Murder is wrong even when it's legal. That is a matter of morality. I don't care how many Hitlers make it legal to kill Jews; it is wrong. If the state makes it legal for 12 year old girls to be married according to their parents' wishes and not their own, I will say it is wrong (and I hope you will agree with me). That is a matter of morality, and the fact that Christian beliefs support such morals even when it means being transported to concentration camps should give you pause for thought.

I thoroughly disagree with the way MTR portrays women, but I don't see how her beliefs have anything to do with it. And if she says her beliefs are not relevant, then you should respect that. I think you'd have very good grounds for asking her to state her exact position on abortion and related legislation - I'd like to know what it is too - and you should ask her why she believes whatever she does on this and other topics, but the very fact that you wrote an article about it and that we're talking about it now proves that discussion of her religious faith does indeed "distract" from her work.

McReal:

...So onwards Mc Real, you wish to control when your daughter will marry, whom your daughter will marry and when your daughter will birth her children. That represents control McReal. I would suggest your intentions are honest, but misguided.

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the very personal nature of the attacks on MTR. I think its getting out of line. MTR's views should be discussed and debated on their own merits. The intellectual and spiritual journey that formed MTR's views is her own business. I disagree with a lot of what she says, but she hasn't given up her basic privacy rights by making public statements on matters of public interest. And using her Christianity to discredit her views is just a cheap way of avoiding dealing with the merits of what she is saying.

For my mind, there is a critical intersection that is reached once a private individual seeks to influence public policy or perceptions.

Does anybody here believe that Senator Harradine wasn't obliged to reveal his religious motivations as he sought to affect public policy? Or that the onus isn't on Tankard Reist, who worked for him as his bioethics adviser at the time and who continues to lobby public and private perception, not to reveal the same.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/tankard-reist-explain-yourrself-21120123-1qdst.html

nice of you to portray the exact opposite meaning of my post, diver dan.

I don't care what my daughter does marriage-wise, or when, as long as she is "Not manipulated into marrying young; Not manipulated into marrying a faith; nor, manipulated into being a breeding vessel" as I stated.

Mishka, I and many others have asked Reist to answer the questions that interest you, to absolutely no avail. She does not engage with such questions or with any dissent.

Are seriously suggesting that an individual's religious and ideological beliefs have no effect whatsoever on their decisions about what they consider right and wrong?

Have you noticed what is currently underway in the US? Compulsory vaginal ultrasounds for women who seek an abortion are necessary because? There is a reason other than the religious for making this a law in Virginia? There is a reason other than the religious for attempting to deny women fundamental reproductive rights? The people advocating these tyrannies are doing so in no context whatsoever,you'd argue, they just don't think abortion and contraception are right, because they just don't?

Why and how does putting moral beliefs in the context of Christian faith detract from those beliefs? Are you saying there is something wrong with the Christian faith that it will inevitably taint moral beliefs and make their evaluation somehow suspect? Because if that is so, surely that is a problem for the believer and the faith, not for someone who is asking questions about it.

No, I don't have to "respect" a refusal to discuss. I can question a refusal to discuss. I can point out a refusal to discuss. I don't have to respect anything other than what seems to me to be worthy of respect. Playing games about one's faith and morality does not inspire respect in me.