"Increasingly however vilification laws are being passed which include sexual orientation. This is a very bad application of what may have been a good starting principle: that of preventing discrimination and hatred based on genuine unalterable characteristics." (Bill Meuhlenberg)

Though it may be possible to hide ones sexuality it can cause severe problems and real hardship for those who attempt to do so.

There is not a shred of reliable evidence to show that it is possible to change ones sexuality either at will or under duress, despite the confused claims of anti-gay fundamentalist Christian groups.

Unlike most of us Bill, I presume it would be nothing for you to wake up tomorrow and decide you'll be gay for a while then revert back when you fancy being straight again, but then that would make you a promiscuous bisexual and there is no reason to assume that bisexuals are any more promiscuous than any other persons.

I think your information and the conclusion you have reach on this particular point is plain wrong.

A couple of small problems Bill. You assert that people of the Jewish faith can be described as both a race and religion but that people of an Islamic persuasion cannot but you fail to offer any argument for this assertion. Not including your evidence rather undermines your credibility.

Secondly you refer to the judicial system requiring the “wisdom of Solomon”. This is just facile as it is plainly obvious in our system of laws that judges do require a great deal of wisdom, they are the final arbiter in disputes and although bound by precedent and statute if none is available they must call on their own powers of reason and experience to decide what can be very difficult matters. You do yourself a disservice with this contemptuous statement.

RANIER

Your intent is clearly noble. But to be honest, you jussssst don't understand the Christian mindset mate.. The 2 pastors who did a seminiar on 'The Muslim mindset' tackled that subject so Christians can understand what they are dealing with in evangelism and personal contact.

We are not not not on about using such events, talks to stir up violent hatred against anyone. You are using a 'human' understanding of a spiritual issue. Paul says "The 'weapons' of our warfare are NOT carnal" (i.e. of this world)

You could not read the New Testament (on which our faith rests) and come way with the idea that you can stirr up hate and arrange attacks on other people. You CAN gain the view that we speak about CHRIST...crucified and resurrected, and that this can be offensive, but for goodness sake, "Christ in us" is going to have the opposite effect from the one you are suggesting we are guilty of.

When we goto fellowship/worship on a Sunday or bible study on another day, we are always concious of our need of Grace and there is nothing 'self righteous' about it. I fail to see how a born again person can come away from an experience of 'koinonia' (true fellowship) with hateful attitudes.

We have our share of wierdo's, bad apples, social parasites, and even geeeeks....but that's the nature of an open door policy. We don't give the 'thought police' routine to all and sundry who walk through our doors. But we also have some very saintly people who would (and do) give you the shirt off their back to help you in your hour of need.

You need to move more in Christian circles (the good the bad and the ugly) and compare to the New Testament.

* P.S. I was with a group of Christians at the El Alemain fountain in the Cross one night, sharing about Jesus, a guy walked up to one of our group and just king hit him. Its not just you who gets attacked.

Fellow human, “The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else”. David Palmer, Christians (and I would suspect Muslims as well in their own way, though I can’t speak for them) do believe in absolute truth”.

So the religious agree that absolute truth is paramount to understanding.

Absolute truth, historical and present fact. Destructive illusional fallacy, religion

Science is both evolutionary and creative. By something evolving, it creates, that leads to further evolution and creation. God, an illusionary concept, has no basis in fact, can't be seen, understood, nor does it live up to the image the religious (blanks) give it. Just the opposite. Note the self righteous venom that emanates when they spew forth their meaningless scripture in an attempt to establish meaning.

Those that live within this singular illusionary concept (god), must be frustrated in being unable to answer anything, other than with repetitive programming, ((blank) scripture). Science as a limited concept, can't explain our existence. But science does use creative theories, which allows it to evolve. Religion uses repetitive illusion, which can't create, only rotate.

David Palmer, you may have trouble understanding this, but there are many people on this planet that don't adhere to those two concepts that you determine as being the major ones. Some believe that our universe consists of many livable dimensions that are within and outside our own. Our universe is determined by, evolving creative, chaos. You can see this as nature does her best to rid itself of the disease that is killing it, (religious humanity). Its defence is to cause chaos, which will create stability so that the earth may continue to evolve.

Sadly you can't evolve an illusion, (religion), time has already shown us where religion is at and continues to do so with ever increasing fervor
When the religious (blanks) can provide evidence of the positive gains the world and its inhabitants have attained through religion, they may have a relevant debate. I wouldn't hold my breath though, blue is the facial colour used by the religious when confronted by absolute truth

The Alchemist asserts, “God, an illusionary concept, has no basis in fact, can't be seen, understood, nor does it live up to the image the religious (blanks) give it”, and again, “Our universe is determined by, evolving creative, chaos”. – so you too, Alchemist have your own version of absolute truth which you are aggressively trying to thrust down our throats. Well, you can keep it!

Contrary The Alchemist’s assertion, I don’t have a problem with science – why would I when it simply traces out the contours of God’s beautiful handiwork?

However I do have a problem when people load their anti God presuppositions into their science for ideological, non scientific reasons and that applies whether you are The Alchemist or dare I say it, Richard Dawkins.

Alchemist, why should I have a problem acknowledging persons might adhere to something other than Judeo Christianity or Islam? The last 100 years have been dominated by the anti God demigods, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the cultural anarchists of the mid 20th century and a fine mess they made of it.

Alchemist, do you really have to be so angry and ungracious? You give a whole new twist to the word, “bigot”. I’m happy to debate, but let’s forget the vitriol. Surely you can do better than that!

Rainier " Col Rouge, Yes it was a physical and unprovoked violent attack. "

Then it had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" and is, thus, completely and utterly irrelevent to this debate.