Matt.. I'll tackle your 'aside' first.
When it comes to the treatment of people. "do for others as you would have them do to/for you" is a pretty good rule and would immediately prevent all of the 'bad' things people do to each other..right ?
So, I can in no way justify such treatment of people on Biblical grounds. Don't worry.. part of our belief is that God IS judge :)
What goes around comes around.
I'll look up your reference happily and try to comment meaningfully on it soon.

MATTBYRNE (this is off topic, but is a response to what you said )

Now for mr PAINE in the butt :)

1/ EXCEPTION rather than the RULE.
The first thing I note, is how many people of his day OPPOSED him and his ideas. If nothing else, this should tell you that he was the exception rather than the rule in terms of his approach to the organization of society.
2/ HIS IDEAS FROM WHERE ?
The second point is to ask 'from where' did his ideas about social justice etc come ? Is it not possible that he inherited them from an upbringing which included a reasonable degree of Christian ideas? I don't know, I'm guessing on this one.
3/ VALIDITY. Even if his ideas have a 'nice ring' about them, are u not able to see that they could only ever be implemented (and subsequently protected) by.. FORCE :)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see the situation of the day, he had opponents. Why are his views more valid than theirs ? To what authority does one look for this final validation ?

Around this time there were the 'chartists' who advocated for increased powers for the working class. Among them wre the 'moral force' chartists and then the 'physical force' chartists. Which was 'morally right' ? :)
Of note also is the considerable number of Christian churches involved in the Chartist movement.

Interestingly enuf, he even quotes from major philosophers of the day as follows:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now many people have argued, Karl Marx argued, Hegel argued, Nietzsche argued that the concept of right is a ridiculous one. It's invented out of whole cloth, it's sucked from the thumbs of a pathetic, grizzling humanity and humans who want to have special treatment or who have a solipsistic view of themselves. Well, that all might turn out to be true, as a matter of fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, against this, Paine asserts his own opinion, which was clearly not shared by all others, yet to the powerless it would sound most agreeable due to its beneficial overtones.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No, if there's to be right, it must be human and it must transcend property and, in a happy phrase, include the pursuit of happiness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I confess, I'm reminded of Jesus words

John 10:10 "....I came, that they might have LIFE, and have it abundantly" :)

John 8:31
“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

Its as though Paine just could not concieve of a world without the 'right' to persue happiness. But again, what is needed for this 'right' to be workable ? is it not violence ? is it not power ?
Who will defend the walls of Jerusalem while the Roman Battering Rams pound and snarl at the gates ? Thus it is with all our societies.

Oh.. I just found a possible source of Paines ideas :) "HE WAS A DEIST"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm sorry to say that I cannot claim Thomas Paine as a brother atheist, let alone as a brother anti-theist, which is what I am. Deism was as far as he could go"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had a look at the chiapas and Zappatista. Sounds a lot like most pre-revolutionary idealism. You can absolutely BET, that if they achieved their major goals, they would enforce them with the same brutality that Castro has done, and the early soviet union, and that given time, they would develop a ruling elite, which would feel quite comfortable with its newfound privilege and power, just like the Russians, and the Chinese who have now discovered the real benefits of 'one party rule' i.e. u convert the economy to a capitalistic one, except that only YOU (the ruling elite) benefit from it.

DEFEATIST ? ME ?
Ha! no way Matt.. I have no illusions about human movements, or human nature. I'm absolutely convinced of the idea of original sin.
I know that when people are set free by Christ, they have values which are enduring, and they dont depend on a human structure to be maintained, they depend on your own relationship with Christ on a daily basis. When Stephen was being stoned, he died with a smile on his face. "as an angel" goes the report, and 'they laid his garments as the feet of a young man named SAUL ==> who God took hold of, and turned him from persecuting the christians, renamed him PAUL===> Most of the New Testament. Have a read of how this impacted social life. Acts 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inkeemagee, good on you for raising the Cornelia Rau case in the context of the Habib case under discussion here. Many Australians will rightly deplore what happened to Cornelia, but unfortunately some of them will not make the connection with Habib. Two letters to the editor in the newspapers today are worth repetition because they draw attention to the abrogation of human rights made explicit in both cases:

"There was a time when, if you were found wandering in the remote bush, babbling and obviously mentally distressed, you were given appropriate medical treatment and mental assessment. Now they hand you over to contractors running refugee camps who keep you isolated for months. You start out treating refugees with contempt for their human dignity and after a while you treat your own citizens the same way." (Blair Hunt, Qld, published in The Australian.)

"How are we protected from arbitary detention? By the separation of powers between Parliament, the executive and the courts. Our laws and constitution give the courts control over imprisonment. When Parliament passed mandatory detention laws, it took away the power of the courts and gave the executive power to lock up non-citizens. This short-sighted policy to deter asylum seekers took away the checks and balances that are part of the foundation of our freedom in a democratic society. We acquiesced in this, thinking, "They're illegals, they deserve it", but we were not just consenting to inhumanity to outsiders, we were opening the isolation cell doorway through which Cornelia Rau was pushed." (Paul Bately, NSW, published in the SMH.)

Those who believe that "human rights" are somehow dispensible when inconvenient, or only available to those with the right colour skin or the right religion, or that we should meet the forces of oppression on our bended knees, have lost sight of the meaning of democracy, and betray our predecessors who fought so hard to win our freedoms.

Yes.. the Cornelia Rau case was a sad evidence of a system gone wrong.
It appears that people were trying to help her for months, and it all fell on arrogant deaf ears.

Mattbyrne uses the 'floored logic of the left'.
According to him it's a FACT that some Ho menstrated on Habib. It's a fact because the legal defence team of the TERRORIST said so...

For the dummies.....There is LESS evidence to support this then to substantiate the charges bought upon him in the 1st place.

Why is it fact when lying Terrorists state something, & Right Wing propaganda when it's refuted? Numbat is right, in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'..

I REPEAT:

in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'..


If only the Left weren't so stupid as to realise the errors of their ways, Geneva Convention, give me a break.
The Geneva has no clause for 'flying aircraft into buildings to kill thousands of innocent Westerners whilst participating in a military operation disguised as civilians'.
But then again maybe it does.....It would go along way to explain some of the opinions expressed here by the 'obsessed left'.

Keep up the good work Numbat.

sayeret "Why is it fact when lying Terrorists state something, & Right Wing propaganda when it's refuted? Numbat is right, in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'.." aren't you falling for the same thing you accuse me of lets see

Why is it fact when lying Right Wing media state something, & Terrorist propaganda when it's refuted? Good question.