kenny,

"B_D has used this thread to try and tell everybody his faith is true and everybody else is wrong"

That is so unlike B_D. LOL

Cheers
R0bert

Kenny,
So you are arguing for: "Many practitioners are so able to attend interfaith calibrations." We get the image here of a medical practitioner administering doses of their bacterial culture upon the unsuspecting. Dangerous stuff!!

I ask how many atheists (inter beliefs) also contribute to the richness of an interfaith celebration? To celebrate, all those present need to be applauding the same values, the same beliefs. One united group all enjoying the same freedom of expression. This is celebration, not a bunch of atheists endeavouring to shout slogans above the crowd to stop the celebrating of their faith in a God of hope and joy.

RObert,
I could not have guessed you were telling B_D that he is so wrong; you are the only one with the enlightened truth. We'd bow to your superior wisdom if only we could find it in your posts.

The claim that 'multiculturalism works' is a rhetorical nonsense coming from the naive or those with the most to lose.

I do not believe in a 'multi-cultural' Australia. I like a 'White' Australia with a fairly significant minority population of diverse culture, with the exclusion of Muslims culture. And I mean a total exclusion of Islamic culture... if possible.

And why do people compare fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians?

(This thread is more relevant to my other post. The problem with so many threads with similar topics.)

I reckon the "war on terrorism" would end much quicker if we sent John Stone to a deserted island where the only other inhabitants are monkeys and goats. Logic (his) suggests he'd eventually have to befriend one of these cohabitants to ensure the others are promptly deported. It would make wonderful reality TV. My bet is that he'd be naturally attracted to goats. Don't ask me why. Anyone else got any other [likely] social and cultural scenarios that would occur on Stone’s island?

Boaz, this simply won't do.

>>I don't see the need for the pedantry I think people got what I was meaning.<<

You call it pedantry, I call it clarity. There is actually a substantial difference between having the right to vote and the "right" to a society that is built to your order.

It is all of a piece with your backdown on the suppression of ideas. You stated, quite specifically:

"Hmm.. so we are weakened by 'supressing the idea of National Socialism' ? -it is surely 'repugnant"

Here you were incontrovertibly referring to the idea of National Socialism. You belatedly see the ridiculousness of this concept, and when challenged, change it to "advocating or writing in publications about mass murdering the remaining Jews etc based on Mein Kampf."

Do you not see a pattern here? You glibly defend yourself by asserting that we should all "get what you are meaning", but why on earth should we have to guess?

And as for "350 words me boy.... its not easy to expand to the desired level on each point one makes.. ", if you cannot make yourself clear in a single sentence, what hope do you have in a lengthy essay?

The biggest problem I have with your posts is not the candy-coated Christianity, or even the occasionally vicious swipes at religions you happen to disagree with, but the utter sloppiness of your thinking - every time you are challenged, you pretend you were talking about something else entirely.

John Stone generalizes about evil to the point of meaninglessness, and then pours it in a bucket called "multiculturalism". Which allows him to propose all kinds of general punishments for all kinds of innocent and law-abiding people.

It is a familiar pattern, isn't it? It isn't pedantry to point it out, either, it is searching for logic, clarity and meaning.