The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The standard you walk past > Comments

The standard you walk past : Comments

By Vic Alhadeff, published 8/9/2015

Ismail al-Wahwah, spiritual leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, accused Jews of corrupting the world, describing them as 'the most evil creature of Allah'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The comments cited were scurrilous, bigoted and hateful. Nevertheless, in a free society speech cannot be limited due to the scurrilous, bigoted and hateful nature of that speech. Speech can be limited only if it presents a clear and present danger such as inciting a lynch mob or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre where there is no fire.

If Ismail al-Wahwah committed any act which harmed anybody or directed someone else to commit such an act he would be guilty of an offense. However, there is no indication that he has done that.

We cannot have a society which values free speech and also make it an offense to make scurrilous, bigoted and hateful statements. There is a danger that someone may be inspired by those statements to commit an offense. However, we have to live with that danger.

We have the right to point out that Ismail al-Wahwah has made scurrilous, bigoted and hateful statements. We have neither the right to shut him up nor to prosecute him for making those statements.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:38:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bolt questions how so many white people on the Government sucker train can claim to be aboriginal and then get taken to court and charged. This fellow along with others can talk about white girls being meat and spread their hatred to the Jews and the regressives yawn. Sums it up pretty well.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:56:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the creature in question had been a Jew or any other non-Muslim saying the same things about Muslims and Islam, the wacko Left, including the HRC, Left-Labor, the Greens and sundry "progressives" would be up in arms demanding prosecution; possibly citing Section 18C, which cowardly Abbott wiimped out on repealing as promised. Why isn't he now using it against this extremist animal if it is still important to retain.

Remember what a Christian pastor in Victoria was put through for merely quoting what is actually in the Koran? It is so easy to be contemptuous of Australia's awful and gutless politicians, its judiciary and its unwillingness to protect our values and culture.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:10:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are all aware that words can, and do, result in death and not just death by suicide of our youth when they are bullied on line or socially.
Within the last 24 hours Sydney's controversial and brilliant brain surgeon has spoken out about the treatment of Dr Emery who was driven out of this country by his 'colleagues' constant use of words, complaints and audits.
He also spoke of his personal experience with a friend who choose death by suicide after years of hate speech.
Words are sound objects make no mistake about it - they penetrate as effectually as bullets - they can destroy reputations, lives and sanity.
This law must be changed and quickly.
Posted by shades of blue, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 1:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are all aware that words can, and do, result in death and not just death by suicide of our youth - when they are bullied on line or socially.
Recently Sydney's controversial and brilliant brain surgeon has spoken out about the treatment of Dr Emery who was driven out of this country by his 'colleagues' constant use of words/hate speech.
He also spoke of his personal experience with a friend who choose death by suicide after years of hate speech words.
Words are sound objects make no mistake - they penetrate as effectually as bullets - they can and do destroy reputations, lives and sanity.
This law must be changed and quickly.
Posted by shades of blue, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 1:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And another thing!
What example do we set for our youth when we allow any group to incite- (using hate speech) - for the death of another? Young people are punished for such hate speech, parliamentarians sent to the naughty corner and sports people sent off the field .
It is my belief that we Australians, our politicians and our police fear upsetting the Muslim far right because we know we may be targeted as a consequence . Free speech does not mean free for all Ausie style or does it?
What steps to we need to take to change this law? The Martin Place slaughter of two innocent people can't be dismissed because the perpetrator of the incident had a mental illness....all fundamentalist's have a mental illness - our jails are full of people with a mental illness because that being so, does not mean you get to do what ever you want!
Posted by shades of blue, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 2:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hizb ut-Tahrir sounds like a vile piece of work whose views should be condemned. But not silenced.

If anything, this article illustrates the futility of trying to use the law to police racist speech. It is very difficult to make such laws work in practice. Inconsistent or arbitrary outcomes will give rise to suspicion that the laws themselves are not neutral between ethnic groups, or not applied impartially.

We should not “walk past” this kind of bile, but nor should we try to silence it. Better to call it for what it is, and argue back.

Shades of blue

I agree that words have consequences, the question is how we deal with that. There are laws against harassment, threats and workplace bullying. Where words have real consequences, there are ways of dealing with them.

We seem to be losing the distinction between what is morally and socially unacceptable, and what should be legally prohibited. We can’t legislate to make people nice.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 3:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, Silenced is not the issue - life and death, sanity vs paranoia are the issue...hate speech/words in this case is calling for murder of the Jewish people simply because they are Jews!
Look at our history I implore you even if you only go back 70 years!
'Very difficult' is no reason NOT to change a draconian law.
Yes its correct to name it but don't dilute it by suggesting we should play nicely with those who call for our BLOOD - such people have lost all humanity don't you get that yet?
This law must be changed ASAP and please don't patronise me by suggesting that I want every one to play nicely together.....I would be bored to tears.
The police say it would be impossible to prevent a random attack in a crowded city. This moron will influence the vulnerable those with precarious mental health issues into believing that it really is the Jews who are the problem. Not to mention the traumatised population who nothing to loose and notoriety to gain.
Posted by shades of blue, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 5:55:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shades of blue

I am sorry if you read my post to downplay or belittle the appalling history of anti-Semitism and its consequences. That was not my intention.

I agree that incitement to violence should be outlawed. But I don’t think that outlawing racist speech more broadly will change the sentiments behind such speech. Such sentiment might go underground, or rephrase itself in dog-whistle ambiguity, or thrive on becoming a “victim” of oppression and the suppression of free speech.

Even more problematic is the assumption that Government and the authorities will exercise control over speech impartially and fairly. But even this article hints at the opposite – no anti-discrimination cases referred by the ADB have been pursued.

When it comes to constraining its citizens' freedoms, what a government purports to do and what it actually does can turn out to be very different.

Barak Obama summed up the problem well in a 2012 speech to the UN. He said the USA’s support for free speech is not “because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practise their own faith may be threatened”, and “efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3597890.htm
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 7:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The standard you walk past is the standard you
accept. Wise words that can apply to us all -
especially those in leadership positions dealing
with community relations.

The solidarity of any community is enhanced if it
perceives a common outside threat.

Ismail al Wahwah, is the spiritual leader of a fringe
political group who called for jihad against Jews
to a large gathering in Lakemba after a public
rally in Sydney against Israel's bombing of the
Gaza strip. The words used by this leader
were hateful and disturbing. And the Jewish community
reacted. As did the author of this article Mr Vic Alhadeff,
Chief Executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.

See the following website:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/community-relations-commission-chairman-vic-alhadeff-resigns-after-gaza-furore-20140727-zxd9l.html

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others. All societies,
including democratic ones, put various limitations on
what people may say. They prohibit certain types of
speech that they believe might harm the government or the
people.

We have laws covering libel and slander, public decency,
urging violence, and speech that endangers life, property,
or national security.

But drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech
can be extremely difficult.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian:

"Inconsistent or arbitrary outcomes will give rise to suspicion that the laws themselves are not neutral between ethnic groups, or not applied impartially"

But we are already doing exactly that. Islamic extremists such as al-Wahwah are free to say what they wish, but any criticism against them is treated harshly and silenced promptly.
Do you honestly believe that any non-Muslim Australian will be able to say the same things about Moslems as what al-Wahwah said about the Jews, and get away with it?

I agree that it is difficult to draw the line between incitement and free speech, but without doubt al-Wahwah crossed that line and left it miles behind.
Posted by Avw, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

The words used by Ismail al Wahwah are hateful
and disturbing but so is the ongoing treatment of
the Palestinians in the territories occupied by
Israel. This problem will continue to exist and
escalate until Israel recognises Palestine as an
independent state which to date Israel refuses to do.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:18:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

You wrote: “The words used by Ismail al Wahwah are hateful and disturbing but so is the ongoing treatment of the Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel. This problem will continue to exist and escalate until Israel recognises Palestine as an independent state which to date Israel refuses to do.”

“The article contains: Ismail al-Wahwah, spiritual leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, accused Jews of corrupting the world, describing them as "the most evil creature of Allah" and threatening "the ember of jihad against the Jews will continue to burn … an eye for an eye, blood for blood, destruction for destruction. Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews," he fulminated. "There is only one solution for this cancerous tumour: it must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from."

Wahwah insists he was referring only to Israel; his words and numerous references to "Jews" unmask this claim.”

If the article is accurate Ismail al-Wahwah was not attacking Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, he was attacking all Jews. That is a very different matter.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

There is no doubt that the words of Ismail al Wahwah
are hateful and venomous - spoken by
an extremist spiritual leader of a fringe
political group - who blames all Jews
for the actions of Israel. He spoke to a large
gathering in Lakemba after a public rally in Sydney
against Israel's bombing of the Gaza Strip.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

David F.,

Antony Loewenstein tells us in his book, "My
Israel Question,"

"The Kadima vision is of a concrete wall, with Jews on
one side and as many Arabs as possible on the other.
Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians will have to meet
face-to-face, listen to each other's grievances and
negotiate with honesty. Only then - and on the condition that
both Israel and the Palestinian state achieve safety and
security - will this conflict be resolved. Neither side has a
monopoly on suffering, but only one party has the power to
end the occupation and to recognise that Israel and
Palestine are historically destined to share the same homeland."

Unfortunately, until that happens - there will continue to
be fanatics who will preach hatred on both sides -
who will only see their own side of things and
blame each other.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Ethnic and religious nationalism is toxic. There should be no Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist states. All citizens everywhere should be given equal treatment under law regardless of religion or ethnicity. There should be separation of religion and state. Government should not use religion to advance its agenda and vice versa. Unfortunately most nations don't operate that way.

Australia sends beasts of pray called chaplains into the public schools. They are not supposed to proselytize. As Ron Williams said, "That is like sending in the clowns and asking them not to be funny.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//That is like sending in the clowns and asking them not to be funny.//

You don't have to ask clowns not to be funny. They have a natural talent in that area.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 9 September 2015 6:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

My apologies for not responding to you any earlier.
I had to wait because I had used up my posting limits.

Regarding religion? Secularised organised religions have
become in many cases, as calcified as other institutions
that form the structure of our modern world. However as
Rabbi Williamson points out - true religion is internal,
not external. The spirit within us cannot be blamed
for the blasphemies carried out in its name. What some have
done in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses,
even perpetrating evil on the world, does not make religion
as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

As far as Ismail al Wahwah is concerned - I see him as a
fanatic, an extremist - who I suspect blames all Jews for
the policies of the Israeli government. Not all Jews in the
West and also many in Israel support the Israeli government's
policies. It is obvious that this individual does not have
a grasp of the facts and therefore he blames all Jews as being
evil.

A rational person would not blame people of any country for
the actions and policies of their governments. One cannot
blame the Russian people for the heinous crimes of the
Soviet regime or all Muslims for what ISIS is doing, and so on.

Unfortunately, extremists do not see things that way.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 10 September 2015 10:45:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Religionists may use the phrase, true religion, to refer to the particular version they favour. They may describe those who have different versions from theirs as blasphemers. I don't know what true religion is and think blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 10 September 2015 11:52:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

Some form of religion has existed in every society that
we know of. Religious beliefs and practices are so
ancient that they can be traced into prehistory.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it
seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that
lay beyond everyday reality. Among the fossilized remains
of these cave dwellers, anthropologists have found evidence
of funeral ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts
that were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany them
on the journey to an afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes
a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors,
or totems, they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied
rituals, or solemn prayer.

Religion can be defined as a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred,
supernatural real.

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel -
"Tom Jones," declares, "When I mention religion, I mean
the Christian religion, and not only the Christian religion, but
the Protestant religion, and not only the Protestant religion, but
the Church of England." Most people are like Mr Thwackum, when
they mention religion, they have their own in mind.

And of course there are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and that
all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked.

I personally, am not concerned with the truth or falsity of
any religion. I have no wish to play umpire between competing
faiths. My husband was brought up by the Christian Brothers.
They turned him off religion for life.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 10 September 2015 12:25:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Avw

You may be right that non-Muslim Australians would not get away with saying the same things about Moslems as al-Wahwah said about the Jews. One of the problems with curtailing free speech is that, unless the same consideration is given to every group that feels aggrieved, the effect is discriminatory.

That seems to be the case with the apparent hierarchy of groups who can and can’t be offended. Jews are sometimes treated as legitimate targets by those who disapprove of Israel - anti-Semitism masquerades as anti-Zionism. Christians seem to be fair game; Muslims are not. But in France, for example, Muslims can rightly ask why holocaust denial is a crime, but it’s ok to publish pornographic and insulting cartoons of Mohammed.

In the USA, there is a debate over whether Mark Twain’s works should be edited to remove the “n” word, even though Twain’s views were extraordinarily tolerant and unprejudiced for his time.

Australian Feminists wan “Zoo” magazine off the supermarket shelves.

In the USA and Northern Ireland, bakeries have been sued for refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

Militant atheists want to ban public expressions of Christianity such as Christmas decorations on streets and prayers in schools.

In the UK, an activist who helps rape victims was hounded for writing that a transsexual who had recently become a woman should not counsel women who have been raped.

We can accommodate all of these claims, some, or none. But if it’s only some, then there will always be legitimate claims of discrimination. And if we accept all of the limitations that aggrieved parties want to impose on us, we will lose important freedoms.

Nick Cohen puts it very well: “people oppose censorship not because they respect the words of the speaker but because they fear the power of the censor”

The full article is worth reading:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5981/full
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 10 September 2015 1:23:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can we return to the point please....sorry I got locked out. Perhaps we who share this small space can define 'free speech'? the alternative is to just keep raving on about out favourite issue.
It did not take long to get to pro - Palestine which can be code for anti Israel then off we go with out various issues.
The question is.....how come its ok for a mad Muslim to demand the death of Jews? Apparently the law says its ok because we are a democratic society . The DPP say well folks we are on thin ice here because prima facie we could proceed to court.
If Mannis had not been freed on bail with something like 40 charges then 2 innocent and yes..Australian citizens would be alive right now.
Can we please define for the purpose of this discussion - free speech?
Posted by shades of blue, Thursday, 10 September 2015 5:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shades of Blue,

Freedom of speech is the right to speak out publicly
or privately. The term covers all forms of expression,
including books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television,
films, and so on. Many scholars consider freedom of
speech a natural right.

However, people who enjoy the rights of free speech have
a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others -
for example the right to maintain their good reputation,
and their right to privacy. All societies including
democratic ones put various limitations on what people
may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they
believe might harm the government or the people.

However, drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech
can be extremely difficult. There are usually several major
restrictions on free expression. Laws covering libel and
slander prohibits speech or publication that harms a person's
reputation. Some laws forbid speech that offends public
decency by using obscenities or by encouraging people to
commit acts considered immoral. Laws against spying, treason,
and urging violence prohibit speech that endangers life,
property, or national security. Other laws forbid speech that
invades the right of people not to listen to it, for
example, a local bylaw might limit the times when people
may use loudspeakers to make announcements in the streets.
And so it goes.

However drawing the line between dangerous and harmless
speech can be extremely difficult, as stated earlier.
In the case of the extremist spiritual leader who spoke out
after the rally in Sydney and blamed all Jews for the
bombing of the Gaza strip by Israel. That I would consider
vile - because it incites hatred.
Just as I agree with Thomas Friedman who wrote -

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is
vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and
international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party
in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is
dishonest."
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 September 2015 1:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK I'm impressed.....any one want to add or detract from the stated definition? If we have a consensus we may make progress because I for one want to know why someone who wants to kill me just because I am a Jew and IN TIMES SUCH AS THESE it is not accountable legally! - clearly after they kill me/us they will have broken the law but is this what it is going to take?
I take the point that freedom of speech is a vital aspect of a democratic society AND we are not dealing with people who know the meaning of the word!
Posted by shades of blue, Friday, 11 September 2015 2:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi shades of blue

I think Foxy’s summary is pretty good, as if David f’s.

What Ismail al-Wahwah said was vile; but preventing him from saying it is not going the change what he thinks, nor those who think like him. If he acts on his evil ideology, or incites others to do so, he will break the law
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 11 September 2015 2:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So once again Jews must die before action is taken and Wahwah enjoys the comfort of all that Sydney Australia has to offer. Does this cover - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"? How utterly incongruous!
I take my leave now as I can only repeat what I believe to be true. "words are objects - sound objects" and they penetrate as effectively as bullets.
Thank you each one for your contribution and teaching.
Shana tova.
Posted by shades of blue, Friday, 11 September 2015 4:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shades of Blue,

Thank you for honouring us with your wishes of
Shanah Tovah. May all of us be worthy of abundant years.

Of course words matter and as I stated earlier -
the right to the freedom of using words is trumped by the
right of people not be harmed by those words.
Same as the right to own a gun is trumped by the right
not to be shot by one.

Freedom of speech therefore does have certain limitations.
People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. And this should be made
quite clear to fanatics - who want to take advantage of
this freedom.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 September 2015 6:23:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Something familiar in the tone of your sarcasm FOXY...Shabbat shalom and farewell.
Posted by shades of blue, Friday, 11 September 2015 9:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear shades of blue,

I have stated simple facts with no hidden meanings
yet you accuse me of sarcasm.

I'm sorry to say that I cannot help you with whatever your
problem may be.
Shavua Tov.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 September 2015 10:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Replace Democracy with religious dictatorship' has to be one of the most ludicrous, backward, idiotic comments to ever be uttered in a civilized country. This extremist leader and his extremist cult style 'religion', have no place in a civilized society and should be banned from any non-Muslim country. The hypocrisy is so typical of an extremist splinter group bringing the Trojan horse to life. They are not Australians and will tell you so, therefore the Government must act in our own best interest and send them back to their beloved homeland and take with them their 'eye for eye, blood for blood, destruction for destruction'.
Posted by jodelie, Saturday, 12 September 2015 10:21:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jodelie,

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are
saying is that only Christians should be
acceptable in this country. Is that right?
And not only Christians - but can we assume
your preference is for - white - Anglo-Saxons only?

Because in contrast to Christianity, the other
monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, believe in
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.?

What do you suggest we do with the many non-violent
Jews and Muslims who are committed to peace?

Any thoughts?
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 12 September 2015 10:47:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy