. "All Muslims are, at worst, very nasty people; at best, they are simple-minded fools lacking minds of their own."

Gee ttbn, do you know ALL Muslims? How very amazing!
If not, how can you possibly make such an ignorant statement? That would be like me saying all Christians are very nasty people, or atheists, or OLO contributors.

Surely you can't imagine anyone here, other than Jay ofMelbourne, would take anything you say as credible? Talk about willful blindness...

//Two of the usual suspects,Tony Lavis and Cobber the Hound, blast off with their predictable empty denials of any criticism they rightly see as being levelled at their type of idiocy.//

I'm not an atheist, you clown. 'Not Christian' is not the same thing as 'atheist'. Unless you think Hindus are atheists?

Why don't you try reading what I actually wrote and responding to that, instead of attacking strawmen?

Although I don't know why you bother: Australians are an irreligious mob who are very fond of their secularism. Arguments trying to persuade them that Christian theocracy is preferable are going to fall on deaf ears. But you keep on flogging that dead horse there, buddy.

Everyone is entitled to free speech but you are not entitled to a response from what you say. You can decide not to engage with those who express religious views because you have made the decision that all religion has nothing to say of benefit to anybody at all.

Everything religious people have to say about social issues is predicated on the belief that there is a God. Why would you engage with the finer points of their theology when you have already decided that the basic building block of theology is irrelevant? If you decide that it is irrelevant one way or the other whether or not there is a God then anything that follows on from that is obviously irrelevant. The only logical response is to allow them opportunities to speak and then to ignore what they say.

The problem is that too often those who believe this do not act like they do. People engage with religious people and try to reason with them which is futile unless you agree with the principle that underlies their views. Not only do they argue with them but they attack them. Calling religious people homophobes or any other name is to engage with them. It is this hypocrisy which causes friction because they retaliate because name-calling is an act of aggression.

Attacking religious people shows a lack of security in one’s opinions. There is no necessity to do so. What they say is irrelevant but what they do is not always so. When they act is such ways as to cause harm then they should be dealt with by the full force of the law but their freedom of speech should never be compromised.

the hatred of Christ and principles that made the western world great is largely what is destroying the west. Secularism has very much in common with Islam hence the reluctance to criticise. Never before have we been so educated and yet dumbed down. Week after week we see the educated dumb downed Q&A getup crowd cheer what is repulsive and scoff at decency. Anyone been to one of the numerous zoos (sorry public schools) lately. Wow what an achievement!

Toni Lavis,

I did not say you are an atheist, you idiot. You are the one who doesn't read what's in front of him. I have nothing against atheists, but a lot against idiots like you. Even then, I accept your right to be an idiot. You can go on demonstrating your idiocy if you wish. I suppose I should pity your idiotic ignorance, but I don't care enough. And nobody listens to idiots like you, anyway. Your ranting must make you a very unhappy person.

Very well put, Phanto.
Let everyone speak their minds freely and honestly; only then will we be able to judge their values, rationality and beliefs, and react accordingly.