The Forum > Article Comments > More outrages, more revulsion, more enmity > Comments
More outrages, more revulsion, more enmity : Comments
By David Palmer, published 15/7/2005David Palmer argues Victoria's religious vilification legislation should be repealed or, at the least, amended.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- ...
- 23
- 24
- 25
-
- All
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 12:53:13 PM
| |
Reason 'Your version of evil is, like your religion, your version. Try not to impose it upon any one else....But you have the right to judge yourself, and you alone, by your actions. The only other thing you can do is lead by example, showing a ‘better’ way for those who are looking.'
Why are you trying to impose your morality on me? That sounds very hypocritical don't you think. Somehow you think that your idea of morality, that I don't have a right to judge anyone else should be enforced where as mine shouldn't. Perhaps when you stop using such confused reasoning, your name will actually apply. 'We can grow as a race and be better – it has nothing to do with the world-view each of us holds' Actually, your belief in such is due to your worldview and disagree's with many other worldviews. Once again you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole your own beliefs as somehow above other peoples beliefs. Enaj 'Child abuse increased because of the sexual revolution! Woah, please prove that one.' Child abuse increased with the advent of the sexual revolution in all western societies. This implies causation, or at the very least a strong correlation. As more support, the advent of the sexual revolution led the imposition of abortion on demand which treats unborn children as property (and was supposed to reduce child abuse) and a self-centered focus for raising children. Of course this approach is going to cause a decrease in the overall perceptions of value and dignity given to children. Perhaps you can also try to understand that simply showing that some other conditions lead to child abuse does not change the fact that the sexual revolution also did. Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 1:57:47 PM
| |
One more tidbit :)
If anyone wonders why I am adamant concerning the 'agenda drivers' in the Islamic community (which is surely not Ash or Irfan, they are nice) here is a link which actually tells it ALL. http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0404/26/a01-133933.htm -When I say "The Muslim community will introduce Sharia by stealth" am I wrong or right ? -Will they seek to impose, even as a minority, their Islamic culture and will on the surrounding non muslim community ? (Ham sandwiches, burial laws, Stamp duty laws so far that I'm aware of in Victoria) ? -Is this 'villification' or..... well documented fact :) ? Read this, and then ask "Would I be comfortable living in the vicinity of the place in question" ? Then, ask this "Why would a minority group IMPOSE its will on an outraged 'other' community, in a way where they can have NO ESCAPE from the outcome. This the most blatant outrageous disgusting example of 'unreasonable'ness and ill will, and to top it all off, the community in question (the Islamic) are hanging their head and saying "Why do they HATE us" simply because 'non' muslims do not wish to be subjected to a daily dose of blaring propoganda. What I find fascinating about this, is the muslim 'mindset' which sees nothing wrong with its actions, calling it 'religious freedom' totally forgetting the majority of the community who do not want the sound. In other words "You don't want it, well you gonna GET IT ANYWAY" is the attitude. This situation is an EXACT example of all that I've been driving at. We also want 'religous freedom'.... from legal attacks. Now.. if I'm reading this wrong, let me know :) Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:02:30 PM
| |
Hi BD,
I answered your postings on Shariaah and your offence re the Koran on Irfan's article...London muslims.. Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 3:55:25 PM
| |
Sorry Grey,still do not see the correlation between the sexual revolution and child abuse.
In fact, I can mount a bloody strong argument that safe access to abortion and contraception has probably reduced child abuse. Saddling people with kids they do not want and cannot or will not take care of properly is no recipe for loved and cared for kids. And if you think adoption is the answer, go talk to anyone who works in the field of adoption, it is a whole other can of worms. I suspect that the growth of stats on child abuse, yes even increasing by 80%, simply means that what was once hidden and lied about and, worse, therefore inescapable, is now out in the open. And thank God (and the sexual revolution) for that. Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 6:41:13 PM
| |
Don't go to church on Sunday
Don't get on my knees to pray Don't memorize the books of the Bible I got my own special way Bit I know Jesus loves me Maybe just a little bit more I fall on my knees every Sunday At Zerelda Lee's candy store Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus Make me feel good inside Got to be a chocolate Jesus Keep me satisfied Well I don't want no Anna Zabba Don't want no Almond Joy There ain't nothing better Suitable for this boy Well it's the only thing That can pick me up Better than a cup of gold See only a chocolate Jesus Can satisfy my soul (Solo) When the weather gets rough And it's whiskey in the shade It's best to wrap your savior Up in cellophane He flows like the big muddy But that's ok Pour him over ice cream For a nice parfait Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus Good enough for me Got to be a chocolate Jesus Good enough for me Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus Make me feel good inside Got to be a chocolate Jesus Keep me satisfied tom waits Posted by its not easy being, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 7:25:14 PM
|
Now all you have to do is come to grips with 2 things.
1/ The Bible does not condemn or villify one particular class of persons, in the sense of a particular RELIGIOUS faith (as the Quran does "Jews, and Christians")
2/ It was the ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF VICTORIA which used the LAW against Christians, not the other way around. Did they try to follow your advice and reason ? no, they sent 3 covert spies, to listen but not 'hear', then called the Lawyers.
In regard to your call for 'reasoning'. I could not agree more !
Sadly, the Muslims who reasoned with the pastor at the seminar by asking "How should Christians treat Muslims" received the reply "They should LOVE them" went away saying "They HATE us and are inciting hate". Dan, that is a 'no-win'. Have you noticed Irfan and Ash saying similar things ? I have.
So, Dan, what I'm saying is that such legislation as the RRT is rediculous, impotent, stupid, fails in its goals etc x 20. I would MUCH rather it not be there, and for Muslims or anyone to basically say what they like about us, and for we to be able to express our views as well unfettered.
One more thing you missed in my post, it was 'section 9'. "Motivation is not relevant".
As this legislation stands, it doesn't matter what your "intention" is, what matters is how it is perceived.
So, good for the chickens, good 4 the ducks, if Muslims are offended at being confronted with their own historical truth, Christians can also be offended at being condemned BY NAME in the Islamic scriptures. OR.... turf this rediculous law :