AJ,

PS: In case you are confused by the last sentence, I mean you are a useful idiot for the enemies of the West, but useless to us. On second thoughts, harmful and treacherous is more accurate.

Of course I’ve heard of the KISS rule, ttbn. But there’s a difference between keeping it simple by choice and having little to contribute through lack of insightfulness.

<<I said what I wanted to say - that you have identified yourself as a 'useful idiot'.>>

Yes, keep it so simple that you fail to support your claims with any reasoning or evidence. Convenient that.

<<As for your being personally attacked, I can only say that a public forum is not for you…>>

So you’re saying that it’s alright to launch personal attacks if the forum is not just for the one individual? That’s some pretty stupid reasoning there.

The point I’ve been making with regards to your ad hominems (as if you didn’t already know), is that you use them in lieu of any sound reasoning or factual basis for the rubbish opinions that you express.

<<…particularly if you make stupid comments, especially yours, which your regard as unassailably correct because you say so.>>

No, I justify my claims precisely because what I say is not “unassailably correct because [I] say so”. Note the lack of red herrings and ad hominems coming from this direction.

<<Your constant bagging of your own culture every time the evils of Islam are discussed is disgraceful, and doesn't excuse Islam at all.>>

I’m proud of the culture I live in. But that doesn’t mean I stick my head in the sand with regards to the harm caused by the predominant religion in it, or exaggerate its contribution to it.

<<Your rubbish claims refer to weirdo sects and perhaps 'happy clappers'.>>

Somewhat, yes. One of the most popular and fastest growing category of Christian churches too, I’ll note.

<<Your first 2 lies do not pertain to mainstream Christianity.>>

So *mainstream* Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy) never teach their children to reject evolution, never refuse life-saving treatment in favour of faith healing (http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death), and JWs never refuse blood transfusions?

Pull the other one.

<<Homosexuals are not 'vilified'>>

Yes, they are. They’re told that something they have no control over is a sin and an abomination. That's vilification.

Continued…

…Continued

<<No4 must be about the freaks.>>

It happens all the time in the US.

<<Number 5 is pathetically naïve.>>

How?

<<Number 6 is absurd>>

How?

Female priests in no way contradict the fact that anti-abortionists would not grant women full autonomy over their own bodies, nor does the fact that Christian women do not have their genitals mutilated. I guess they should just shut up and be grateful that they don’t, eh?

<<Number 7: I and many other Christians support euthanasia.>>

But many still don’t, and that’s harmful.

<<No 8 - I've never heard of such rubbish.>>

Do you walk around with your eyes closed or something?

"Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time ... They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed — even hastened — as a sign of the coming Apocalypse." (http://grist.org/article/scherer-christian)

"Pastor Mark Driscoll: Christians Don’t Need to Care About the Environment because Jesus is Coming Back for Us" (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/04/pastor-mark-driscoll-christians-dont-need-to-care-about-the-environment-because-jesus-is-coming-back-for-us)

We have one of these Christians in this very discussion, and here you are foolishly suggesting that they don’t exist.

<<No 9 is also absurd and naïve.>>

The harm created by the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is immense in Africa. What I said has nothing to do with the Middle Ages.

<<10: you seem to have confused God with Father Christmas.>>

Santa doesn’t threaten children with Hell. Many Christians do.

Sorry, but my points still stand.

All you have done is demonstrated a grandiose level of hypocrisy when you call me ignorant and naïve. You have a very narrow understanding of Christianity and apparently a very limited sample of Christians by which to base your understanding of this very diverse group of people.

Either that or you’re just dishonest. I mean, who out there doesn’t know about creationism or the link between AGW denial and religiosity?

//But no matter what their faith or lack of, criminals should be condemned for their offences.//

Obviously.

I'm pretty sure that we can all get round together around a nice campfire and sing 'Kumbayah' when it comes to condemning criminals for their offences. Especially if that offence is rape.

Where some of us - not necessarily yourself, Joe - part ways is when it comes to condemning peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in Australia for crimes committed by Muslim criminals in other countries. I don't see the logic in that.

AJ wrote

"Just because one major religion is more of an immediate threat than the others, that doesn’t make the others harmless."

You just stereotyped and prejudged all religions as "immediate threats".

AJ wrote

"The only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like you."

You just stereotyped and prejudged those people who oppose homosexual equality as "vile people."