david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

Exactly.

Before WWII, Christians where quite happy to look down upon Jews as “Christ killers”, then - when footage of the holocaust showed the world just how ugly anti-Semitism can be - Christianity did an about-face turn and suddenly Zionism was all the rage with a shift of focus on setting-up a Jewish state in preparation for the “end times”.

It took technology a few years to do what Christianity couldn’t do over hundreds of years - despite anti-Semitism apparently being so unchristian.

Go figure.

Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 26 April 2012 5:00:02 AM

" ... As long as we, or any nation, can maintain security and sovereignty we may remain free to entertain or embrace a wide range of 'spiritual' purpose in life, in values and virtuous practice, in religious and cultural diversity - and diversity may be the safest path to follow. ... "

" ... Tolerance should not however extend to subversive elements ... "

I believe that this is an over simplification and in some ways not true.

Case in point is that of the "Original Australians." Now, the *Eddie Koikee Mabo* case achieved a number of things. One of which was the recognition that this country was indeed populated by people at the time of armed invasion.

The legal reality of course is that the *Original Australian's* were considered to be sub-human, and indeed ended up being classified as part of the "Flora and Fauna Acts" of the time.

One legal argument that I support is that at the time of recognition that they were indeed people, that the default position was to refer to the law of that time, which was either to make a declaration of war against them or alternatively to make a treaty.

Some of course would have us believe that to advocate for a reinstatement of the sovereignty of the *Original Australian's* is subversive. I personally do not agree and believe that there is nothing to be feared by this.

t.b.c.

Thus, point being, what is considered by one to be subversive, is quite another thing to others.

As another example, the crowns behavior in the post WWII period included the ongoing refusal to include the *Original Australian's* in the national census and their ongoing theft of children and the destruction of families, amongst their other nefarious deeds, is such, to me at least, to be a compelling argument for the prosecution of those responsible, including the head of state by whose hand did much repugnant law come into being, and also a powerful and compelling argument to evolve our democratic system by say for example, becoming a republic.

Whilst this generation may not be directly responsible, by refusing to seeing to it that justice is done, they do in my view perpetuate the crimes of the past.

Again, some would consider this treasonous and subversive, but my interpretation of the relevant law is(which has extra territorial effect incidentally) it is not legally considered to be so if it is accepted that I say these things with a view to improving the overall condition AND that my calls (and that of others) is not accompanied by a demand to effect change by violence.

Of course, in matters of interpretation there are often considerably varying and divergent views, which is of course why how matters are to be interpreted legally have very strict rules, regulations and guidelines.

'david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

Exactly. '

AJ writing in his usual Christophobic and dishonest view of the world. You really should take off your blindfold. You know that Hitler was acting in accordance to his social Darwinism dogmas which inevitable leads to death. His view of his race fit perfectly with the darwinian dogma.

Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:29:16 PM

" ... You know that Hitler was acting in accordance to his social Darwinism dogmas which inevitable leads to death. His view of his race fit perfectly with the darwinian dogma. ... "

*Runner* it appears again that your lack of ability to discern in combination with your fundamentalist beliefs lead you to mixing 2 seperate things together.

The Darwinian theory of biological evolution is one thing, but the use of so called race science as championed by the eugenicists to justify the mistreatment of others and establish so called servile races, and or to support the view that some are simply insufficiently worthy to live, leading to those with tatooed skin being turned into jackets and lamp shades amongst other things is another matter entirely.

Yeah, runner. Whatever.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and actually goes against some of the basic principles of it. What you really have a problem with is selective breeding. So if you want to be consistent, then start attacking animal breeders and denounce their dangerous “dogma”.

You won’t, of course, because the ideas behind their specific practices don’t hurt your dearly held religious beliefs - demonstrating that this is all your vitriol is really about. It has nothing to do with reality; nothing you’ve ever said has.

But I’m not going waste any more time telling you what you’ve already been told many times over - only for you to come back the very next day as if no-one had said anything.