I stoutly defend Margaret's right as an ex-tennis star to speak in tooongs http://youtu.be/Xf7OooaqSdA

"We should not expect our “conservative” politicians to stand up for our society’s traditionalists".

There wouldn't be 10% of Australian politicians who could be described as conservative these days - and our PM is certainly not in that 10%.

As for the "usual suspects" abusing Margaret Court for her views, they are so stupid that they thought what amounted to a mere opinion poll that changed the marriage laws would also change the opinions of people who don't believe in sexual perversion. It didn't; and the woke w..kers are enraged.

Can’t argue against any of that.

My ideas of dealing with the gay rights terrorists have proved to be unprintable, so will not comment further.

Dan

Well do I remember waking up in Albury to the photo of Margaret Smith on the front page of the daily newspaper with the Wimbledon trophy in her hands. The pride of it all ! And my older sister reminiscing over the years about "The day I played against Margaret Court!" A last minute replacement to play against her, my sister saw this skinny kid at the opposite end of the court and thought "she won'r be a problem."..until she found herself blasted off the court ! Many a laugh have we had since then..and much ribbing of my sister ! Imagine the pride when we got to say a few words to her in the crowd at Wimbledon in later years!

Contrast this with another local.. Daniel Andrews from Wangaratta.. whose arguments in favour of abortion, euthanasia, SSM, and against near mythical "conversion therapy" he has used to control the personal and private prayers of Christians, have so little merit he has to rely upon the media to perpetuate the myth that he is "a Catholic in good standing". As if this somehow justifies these positions? When we all know he is no more a Catholic than is my cat...he excommunicated himself years ago !

Yahwol Mien Herr! Ve should all have ze right to hold fast to any brainwashed from birth ve choze to belief! Ze homosexuals should be round up and gazed? instead of being allowed to marry? Ya?

After all, as you claim, anyone vith any (flat earther) opinion they truly belief in?

Has ze right to zat belief und publically express that view! Ya? Peer-reviewed medical scientific evidence to the contrary notvithstandink! Ya? Ze victim here are zoze she targets vith her misbegotten beliefs

Inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me!
Alan B.

Margaret claims that she is only obeying what it states in the bible.
While ignoring all the other references she herself commits.
If she ever played tennis on a Sunday. She should be stoned to death.
Did she ever wear a mixture of cloths? I do not remember the punishment for that.
What about eating seafood prawns lobsters. Another sin against scriptures.
These are ignored but she steadfastly condemns Gays only because she is a bigot.

Jawohl Alan B.

View Margie von Racket's congregation on a quiet day http://youtu.be/eoVZWgWjVRo

Just speaking Tongue in Cheek :)

What we are witnessing here in Paul's rambling, irrational and hypocritical rant is what one hopes to be the death throws of the christian church in the 2st century. Just as the church fought back against Martin Luther's exposure of the decidedly un-christian practice of selling indulgences to the highest bidder in the 14th century, we are now witnessing the fight back prompted by the exposure to the world of the christian religion's un-christian and ugly treatment of children, unmarried mothers and the vulnerable.

So now the great boogie man of the christian religion is the 'homosexual fascists'. So sad. Poor hypocritical Paul laments " ...Another Christian denied employment opportunities for simply being a believing Christian ... while quite happily denies others of employment opportunities. Breath taking in its denial of hypocrisy.

And finally "...The gays and progressives now control the Liberal and National Parties ..." I wish Paul. In what universe are you living? Oh, that's right, back in the '60's when Margaret was at her ball bashing height, Australia ruled the tennis court and the wrongdoings of the christian churches were unspeakable.

I think you are pushing the envelope a bit claiming that Margaret Courtts beliefs are "mainstream". Somewhat "evangelical", I would have placed them.
David

Dear VK3AUU,

Toxic fundamentalism I think might be the correct terminology were safe schools become "the work of the devil".

I won't argue with that, but there are others on this page who seem to think otherwise.
David

The Apostle Paul was a self-confessed homosexual, who was persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews. Little wonder that alleged unwitnessed, on the road to Damascus, epiphany directed him to the esoteric, non paganised Christians, the real ones and their legendary tolerance of homosexuality/difference.

We also know that Jesus, a gentle and kind man who worked in wood with his hands, preferred the almost exclusive company of men? Perhaps there was a "biological" reason for that preference?

As far as I am aware, the unrevised, unedited, teaching of the Foundational esoteric Christian diaspora, never included the persecution or judgement of difference!? Just acceptance!

Judge not and ye shall not be judged. Inasmuch as you do unto the least among you, you also do unto me!

Margaret should stick exclusively to serving tennis balls not her, I interpret and speak for God, control-freak, opinions! And that outcome assisted by opening her mind rather than her bigot's mouth!
Alan B.

Oh for the good-old-days when the stern faced religious "traditionalists ruled the roost!
Once upon a time and not so long ago one could be put in jail or even executed by the stern faced religious "traditionalists" for being a homosexual and the "crimes" of blasphemy, heresy and even apostasy. Social shunning and banishment were quite common.

Unmarried mothers were treated with unspeakable systematic cruelty and used as virtual slave labor in the christian institutions that "cared for" such "fallen" women and their babies/toddlers/children, who were also cruelly labelled as bastards.

Once upon a time systematic beating of babies/toddlers/children was the accepted norm. Beating the "devil" out of them was the justification and fathers had the "god"-given right to do so.

And of course it was considered impossible for a husband to rape his wife, because she had to submit to his "god"-given conjugal "rights".

Whether anybody's opinion, or point of view, or firm belief, is crack-pot or mainstream, they are entitled to it. Of course, other people don't have to agree with it - they're equally entitled to THEIR opinion, after all.

Of course, a reasoned opinion is probably better than a simple assertion, or an opinion knowingly built on bullsh!t, such as any sort of favourable opinion of Tr**pf, or of corruption, incompetence and evil in general. But it's still no more than an opinion.

Whether one can persuade others of an opinion's value, is up to the persuader. But neither a 'persuader' nor a doubter has the right to stand over anybody else and demand they change their opinion.

After all, isn't that the essence of On Line Opinion ?

Joe

No doubt about it:

The Right Reverend Margaret de Racket's religion is right rooted.

http://youtu.be/R7r-mdB2Ics

Off the Court I prefer FERGIE http://youtu.be/q0SyUgw98tE to Margie

If you're not a Christian, what the hell do you care what a Christian thinks or what Christianity thinks.

This is all about enforcing opinion and silencing opposition. If the woke and QWERTY crowd were confident in their views, they'd let this wash over them. But they are so fragile in their opinions and so incapable of mounting reasoned argument, that their solution is simply to shout and demoralise the opposition into silence. When one or two members of that opposition refuse to bend the knee, the woke become deranged - their sole means of winning an argument is demanding silence and after that they've got nothing.

So she thinks marriage is an institution between men and women. So what? Is she going to enforce that view? Is there a chance she'll convince a majority to reverse the homosexual marriage arrangements?

She's just voicing an opinion. Voice a different opinion if that's your want. But don't try to withhold her right to voice an opinion. That path leads to a much more dangerous place than any fundamentalist christian can lead you.

Coupla points on what's been written. Some Atheist shows s/he's a real atheist by failing to recognise that there a re two books in the bible. Sure the first says lot's of things that aren't accepted any longer. But that's because the second didn't confirm them. The second did confirm the view that homosexuality was an abomination before man.

It goes without saying that when Alan B makes a definitive statement of fact, its going to be factual wrong. Case in point: "The Apostle Paul was a self-confessed homosexual...". That's rubbish. No such confession was ever made.

Still its comforting that Alan B continues to make these fundamental errors. I think that if we ever see a post from him that doesn't contain a least a few outright porkies, it'll be the sign of the end-times.

Speaking of sporting legends, it seems another legend with a strong Christian background had another big win.

Tom Brady's Florida team won the Superbowl today. Brady famously supported Trump.

However some people are cautious about declaring the win on the basis that there's a chance that there could be an unexpected number of mail-in touchdowns delivered in the middle of the might.

" The second did confirm the view that homosexuality was an abomination before man."

How so?

David

What a storm in a teacup!

Who cares? One can marry a broom if they like, even three brooms, one male, one female and one well... just a broom. No laws and no referendums can change this simple fact.

Anyway, just to clarify a couple of biblical points:

1.
«If she ever played tennis on a Sunday. She should be stoned to death.
Did she ever wear a mixture of cloths? I do not remember the punishment for that.
What about eating seafood prawns lobsters. Another sin against scriptures.»

All the above obliges only Jews.
(and many of these commandments were actually designed for keeping the Jews separate from others)

2. The Bible instructs Jews to kill any two men caught in a homosexual act, but according to Jewish law, only if:

a) both were men.
b) they were not castrated, hermaphrodite or otherwise sexually impaired.
c) both aged over 13.
d) there was anal penetration.
e) the act was done willingly and knowingly.
f) each man knew that the other is a male.
g) the men knew that this is forbidden, implying that if they either did not read the Bible or did not believe it to be true, then they did not know it!
h) the act was witnessed by two (or more) reliable Jewish men.

How likely is that?

SR,

You are right Margaret Court and Israel Folau are being persecuted by toxic fundamentalists.

Contrary to the drivel spouted by such Fwits as Daniel Andrews the opinions of MC and IF have never hurt or lead to the deaths of anyone.

David/VK3AUU asks "How so?". ie how does the new confirm the old testament.

By saying it. eg Romans 1:26-27 (NLT)..."That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."

It says similar things in a few other passages as well.

Elsewhere in the NT, Jesus effectively says that only those OT laws that he reaffirms will apply to his followers.

"One can marry a broom if they like..."

Sorry but that'd be the last straw. :)

Dear mhaze,

I don't give a toss what she spouts on about. I would prefer it didn't happen on open social media but in the end have at it.

What I don't think is appropriate is some who is so openly anti gay, referring to safe schools as work of the devil, getting my country's highest civilian gong.

Dear shadowminister,

Once again being a little puerile aren't you.

Calling out toxic language is not being toxic at all.

When you prattle on that “the opinions of MC and IF have never hurt or lead to the deaths of anyone.” You simply don't know. The language of the type the two of them have deployed undoubtedly causes distress as it has repeatedly found to be a factor in those who are bullied and struggle to gain acceptance because of their sexuality.

SR,

"What I don't think is appropriate is some who is so openly anti gay, referring to safe schools as work of the devil, getting my country's highest civilian gong."

So only people who agree with your opinions should get gongs? Very open minded of you.

BTW, are you sure it was a gong from your country and not a British knock-off? I know you get confused about such things.

_________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile Chairman Dan has fired a new salvo in the left's war on Christianity. It seems its now going to be illegal to pray on behalf of someone who is or wants to be transgender. That is, praying to your deity for help to get someone with XY chromosomes in every one of their cells to recognise they are a bloke, will be criminalised.

Of course, in a hint at future battles, it'll be illegal for specialists like psychologists to try to get paedophiles to stop lusting after kids.

And Margaret Court (nee Smith) is the crazy one!!

Dear Mhaze,

Where did you get this information about Andrews?

To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal in Australia to even pray for someone to have an accident or cancer and die.

As far as I know, but please correct me if I am wrong, it is not illegal in Australia to even practice Voodoo against someone or to conduct cursing ceremonies with black candles against a hated one, though some may consider it an attempted murder.

SR,

You are being hugely juvenile. Most of the vitriol directed at IF and MC are exceedingly poisonous and far more toxic than posting a bible quote that contains one line that is anti-gay on a personal Twitter feed.

Secondly, the notion that a gay person trawling through a Christian's Twitter feed finds something mildly offence has a meltdown and tops himself is the drivel is simply too stupid for words.

Finally, the concept that left whingers are peddling that all non-heterosexual people are so fragile and delicate that they can't survive in the real world without being wrapped in cotton wool is demeaning condescending, and insulting beyond anything that Folau or Court espouse.

Not being a believer, I don't really give a toss if MC or IF express their opinions. They should be as free to do so as me or Paul or SR.

Joe

Yuyutsu,

See the "Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020"

http://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/591143bab1.pdf

In particular Section 5 clause 3b.

I'm not from the People's Republic of Victoria so I don't know how well the court stenographers (aka the media) have done in suppressing the story, but I have seen a few commentaries on it around.

If religion wins you a gong, then these people deserve an 'Academy Award'. I'm sure these 'Usual Suspects' post on OLO, take your pick, there's plenty of them. Seth Andrews calls them out over Trump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXeK7mz1yk&ab_channel=TheThinkingAtheist

Dear Mhaze,

I am shocked!

Not that I particularly care or side with any sexual/gender "identity": identifying oneself with a gender or a sexual orientation is idiotic because our true identity has nothing to do with our bodies and minds or their particular proclivities, yet I am very concerned about this precedence of legislation against religion and where it could take us next.

Such things happen in China - I didn't think this could ever happen in Australia. It is probably also unconstitutional.

That said, I don't believe that any Victorian could be convicted for praying - this is because even if the prayer is effective, the final say is still the deity's, which is supposed to be sovereign almighty, not the worshiper's robot. Well let the court try to charge and summon the deity...

Yuyutsu,

"That said, I don't believe that any Victorian could be convicted for praying "

Back in the early 2000's two Victorian pastors were accused and convicted of vilifying Mohomedians by reading selectively from the Quran. Religious discrimination legislation was used for the purpose. Even though they were speaking the truth (ie accurately quoting) it was determined that 'truth' wasn't a defence since they spoke with the aim of making fun of Islam - even though there were no mohomadians in the audience.
When the religious discrimination laws were passed it was said they would never be used to stop people making factual statements. But it was.

Recently a Catholic priest was convicted and gaoled for sex abuse based on the claims of one, and only one, anonymous claimant. It took a unanimous ruling from the High Court to right the wrongs perpetrated by the combined efforts of the Victorian Bar, the Victorian media and the Victorian police.

These laws don't get passed on a whim. If they didn't mean to criminalise this type of prayer they wouldn't have it in the legislation. Given the obvious anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic bent of the Victorian Police and government, the law will be used. Its only a matter of time.

First they came for the....

Dear Mhaze,

First they came for the...., indeed but is there anything we can do?

As it stands, it is quite legal in Victoria to pray for Andrews' painful death, but not for his coming straight.