So CJ...,

If in a context that most people were statistically football players and I was to say:

"In the extremely unlikely event of skateboarders becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their pathetic sport. That's called democracy.

However, I'm more concerned about what happens now, where we have numerous football players attempting to change our laws so that they are in accord with their pathetic sport. That's called subverting democracy."

Would you consider me bigotted?

Johnny Rotten,

I'm surprised that you criticise runner for being sloppy in the way he expressed himself blowing it out of all proportion then in your enthusiasm you claim that the lot of the people on your list are self righteous Christians. I'm guessing that would make things easy for Runner in response. Is that like some kind of Freudian slip of the keyboard due your guilt for slipping in gay bashers there?

I'm also curious about which of Runners brethren you want him to bring into line. Is it the Witch Burners or another from that list or some others? Can you please clarify. And do you mean Runner or Christians generally?

Well mjbp,

In a population of football players, where only 20% of players bother to play, (ie go to a football match or turn up to training), could you even say that football players were statistically in a majority? And if these 20% of football players that regularly played wanted to change the laws to suit their style of play, could we be labeled bigoted in trying to prevent that?

dnicholson/wizofaus - I hope you misunderstand me.

I said "...in the extremely unlikely event of Muslims becoming a majority in Australia (or any other Western country), then they would be quite entitled to seek to change the law to conform to their mediaeval religion".

Unfortunately, you and I may regard "free speech" as a fundamental tenet of a working democracy, but if (heaven forfend!) a majority of the electorate decided otherwise and voted in a government that wanted to legislate elements of Sharia law, then I'm afraid we'd have to put up with it or move somewhere else. Indeed, we don't actually have free speech in our current system - what we can say or publish publicly is constrained legally in various ways already, under e.g. vilification, anti-terrorism and defamation laws.

Of course, as I implied, there is virtually nil probability that fundamentalist Muslims will ever achieve a majority in the Australian electorate, so we can rest easily on that score, despite the purported designs of Steven's supposed Imams. I suppose if I said I'd "interviewed" many fundamentalist Christian preachers in my travels and asked them if abortion, adultery, homosexual acts between adults, teaching of evolution in schools etc should be made illegal, then they would also answer in the affirmative.

But it wouldn't mean anything, because I'd be telling porkies, like Steven does when he goes into Islamophobic dog-whistling mode. Yes, fundamentalist Islam is an even more odious belief system than fundamentalist Christianity is, but it surprises me how readily otherwise sensible people appear to respond to the kinds of unsubstantiated dog-whistling exercises that we are exposed to here.

Let's get real - there are a couple of hundred thousand Muslims in Australia, in a population of something like 22 million. The radicals among them are not going to dominate the Australian polity any time soon.

mjbp

No I criticised Runner for being a hypocrit in claiming that christians would never get pleasure out of harming people - nothing sloppy about that.

For your edification (as you apparently live in a bubble) please read the following very factual articles about very nasty christians. As I said most christians are fine decent people, it is the fundmental selfrighteous crowd who are to be feared as much as any other selfrighteous religious group. Why you would want to defend the likes of these people is quite beyond my understanding. PLease, read the following and explain why moderate people everywhere should not be afraid...

Pell backs discrimination against gays…..
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/30/2074861.htm?section=australia

The time line: the Dark Ages to now….
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

Christianity, Apartheid and Racialism…
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16633.htm

If there was any silver lining to the Oklahoma City bombing, it was the opportunity the incident afforded for public education and dialogue about the growth of right-wing organizations….
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/ZMag/articles/july95diamond.htm

The Violent Anti-Abortionist's Handbook…
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,482865,00.html

"And if these 20% of football players that regularly played wanted to change the laws to suit their style of play, could we be labeled bigoted in trying to prevent that?"

Primarily I would think that that would depend on you attitude toward skateboard players. If their were arbitrary conditions imposed on them also then no. Would it help if the football players rejected included those regularly playing and those with beer guts? I would hope that nitpicking about the hands on aspect and the obvious corollary being the attitudes of people not identifying as sportspeople wouldn't be necessary. Do you think that is an essential consideration or just rhetoric to disguise a minority in numbers?

If you'll excuse the 'change of topic' do you think that a politician would have difficulty complying with the commandment not to lie?