Silly girl.
Not your fault I suppose you havent been here long but a bit of research into history would not go astray.
Look up the official government policy called "assimilation" that was practiced in this country not that long ago.
Note the ongoing damage and pain it caused and realise what you are advocating in your article is exactly the same.
What did you think Kevin Rudd said Sorry for?

Cobber,

The object of your scorn is not a post, it is an article, an essay, a contribution - one of those things that is the lifeblood of OLO.

Your "such a person" swipe at runner reflects poorly on your intelligence. I'm sure his beliefs - things you are totally ignorant of - help him to "function in the modern world better than you seemingly do. He is correct in his connection of Christian ethics in the settling of Australia. And your secularism doesn't discourage or discount religion; it merely separates Church from State. But, if you think that Christianity is not the base for democracy, you are seriously deluded.

The thing I most enjoyed in your post was your assertion that the author didn'speak for all Indians. Apart from the fact that she didn't claim to be doing so. She was speaking about a whole society, which she has to know more about than you do. The really funny thing though was that you, an obvious collectivist, was suddenly concerned about individualism! Next time we see Pearson or, now Senator, Dodson claiming to speak for Australians with indigenous heritage, as they regularly do, I will be expecting you to say that they do not speak for all people such people. Somehow, I don't think I should hold my breath.

runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2016 4:18:08 PM. A world made in England

Greetings runner. You write: "Many secular mums would of had you slaughtered in the womb."

Many mums? How many mums runner? Are you so drenched in Christian misogyny that you can purport that somewhere between 0% and 50% of women are selfish willful baby murderers, that not a significant number agonised over the course of action they were forced by circumstance to take?

Women were blessed, or cursed, with the bearing and nurturing of the young. Nature is not "fair". It has burdened the female with that responsibility, at least among the mammalia it has. Much fairer would have been 50% females and 50% males sharing the burden. But you, you grovelling sycophant, are only too happy to take advantage of nature's apparent unfairness. It's a heaven-sent opportunity [in more ways than one] for you to vent your spleen, mask your misogyny and know that a lot of your decrepit ilk agree with you.

Females bear the burden but it's males that make the laws thus unconscionably depriving females of sovereignty over their own body! Thus are women doubly encumbered with a responsibility by nature but are deprived by men of all authority to deal with that responsibility. Whether you be man or woman you should be ashamed to take advantage of such circumstances.

To a lesser degree, your knowledge of English grammar grates and offends. OF in your sentence quoted above should be HAVE. Learn about auxiliary verbs and note how ignorant you appear. Cont.....

Cont.
runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2016 4:18:08 PM. A world made in England

You write further: the simple fact that the laws of physics require a Lawmaker, the laws of chemistry require a law Maker.

I was genuinely surprised at your promulgation of such a stupid notion as the discredited LAWMAKER argument. Have you no respect for yourself and the way people see you on this forum?


From: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/what-are-laws-of-physics/

The Oxford Dictionary tells us: Law: (3) a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

And Laurence Kraus, perhaps the most eminent of all physicists advises: You can no more have laws of physics existing independently of matter than you can have a description of X independently of X. Thus if matter exists then you can have a description of it (= laws). But if there were no matter there could not be a description (and thus one could not have pre-existing laws).

There you have it runner. Your Lawmaker is a fiction created to enable dead-end intellects like yours to maintain a white-knuckle grip on superstitious nonsense.

And further: I know that secularism specialises in pseudo science and moral relativity. That allows you to paint a dishonest picture of history but who cares eh.

Secularism/pseudo-science and moral relativity? I genuinely regret runner that you will go to your grave believing the rubbish you do. Intellectual self-deception is, IMHO, a learned outlook. As such, it should be subject to un-learning but so refined has the process of inculcation become that the only cure in most cases is death. You'll have no opportunity to regret the life you wasted. You'll have learned nothing of value. Cont.

Cont.....runner, Tuesday, 4 October 2016 4:18:08 PM. A world made in England

You write: The secularist have convinced themselves their is no absolute right or wrong. Easy to tell a young boy with a penis he is really a she if he/she feels like it.
Just as a guy can boast of having a penis a bit larger than normal you boast of a certainty of some arcane dark truth mandating homosexuality as a choice. It is no more due to choice than having a big dick is a choice! Your obsession with absolutes is itself a choice strictly speaking as it has nought to do with genetics. How much freedom came with that opportunity for choice no one will ever know except perhaps you.

Are you seeking to legitimise your hatred of humans who are different from you? Are you convinced that any rational thinker will believe your deceit? Unless there are Outsiders you can hate your religion is not of much use to you is it? This is where I find your ilk to be really shameful for you are an insult to all that is good in humankind. You represent that group of stunted intellects who must at all cost be prevented from spreading your intellectual palsy beyond this planet.

Ask yourself runner: What have I done or what can I do to promote brotherly love, fellowship and compassion among those most in need of it?

Your capacity for hate, bigotry and intolerance is evidenced widely in this group. You have been chastised and even excoriated for it. How can you be absolutely certain that the cynosure of your allegiance and unquestioning faith is pleased with your attitude?

Does the obsession with absolutes provide you with the kind of martyrdom that satisfies your craving?

Pogi,

"Christian misogyny"? Is that different from other misogyny? Can you refer me to an explanation of this special kind of woman hating that is peculiar to Christianity? Why do you think that a man who is opposed to abortion has to be a woman hater?