Robert you are very balanced and just in your above post.

I do not know how Fractelle arrives at the view that Boaz has demonstrated "women as secondary to men". Boaz constantly quotes the Quor'an on the place of women in Islam as that of half that of a man. He is upholding the Biblical and Christian position that in the eyes of God there is no gender preference between male or female all are equal.

Robert,

“Fractelle, I think that you are being rather unfair to the christain church holding up Jerry Falwell like that. Far to many do support preachers like him but many also reject the shysters. There have been some great contributions to ethics and morality by christains but those don't tend to have their own TV shows or get the public attention that others do.

Many of those involved in the anti-slavery movent in the USA were devout christains."

Whilst I have a lot of grievances with the christain church ... Jerry Falwell and his ilk are a low point for the church not their best.”

Thank you Robert. If Fractelle's claims about Boazy are correct then she should appreciate you proving that atheists can have integrity. You aren’t exactly a cheer leader for the Christian religion and to date only Christians have patted you on the back for that post. Hopefully some atheists out there will do the same.

I note though that on occasion good Christians do attract public attention. A recent example would be mother Theresa.

Fractelle,

If that is correct about Boazy are you saying two wrongs make a right or is that some pedantic attempt to claim hypocrisy because he didn't say something to Boazy in the same comment? Robert never hesitates to make comments such as this to Boazy:"Put your own house in order before you try and deal with the neighbours. The extremism and power of the christian penticostal movement is a far greater threat to my freedoms than anything muslims have a chance of achieving ..."
You can't take the comment in isolation and make such claims when Robert normally targets the other side.

In every other post I have seen for years Robert argues with and is critical of Christians. To call him a hypocrite for making a reasonable comment in that post is totally unfair. You know he is right. Even Christians who you despise are human and have good and bad. Is it a dogmatic requirement of your position to pretend otherwise? Why then the sanction?

I see your point Fractelle, about how boaz only highlights the negativity in the movements to which he is opposed.

But I see R0bert's point too.

Whilst I'm unlikely to be considered a supporter of Christianity, I do acknowledge that the likes of Hinn and Falwell represent the worst, rather than the best.

And yes - it is reasonable to highlight these unpleasant aspects of the Christian faith, when others attempt to claim moral superiority.

But I don't think we can categorise these people as representative of the whole religion - then we'd be guilty of the same tactics as boaz.

Thank you TRTL for supporting Robert. It does you credit. I didn't want to say it before as I didn't want to lure anyone but if Boazy really does claim no atheists have any morals then if Robert was the only one to prove otherwise he could be dismissed as the exception that proves the rule. Another atheist with obviously no strong affection for Christianity stepping up and being heard shows that ain't the case.

I'm not going to push this barrow but I have to note that reasonableness on both sides could make these discussions more productive and some people obviously could participate in that type of approach.

Thanks mjpb, though technically I'm an agnostic - I tend to think both the atheists and christians are wrong to think there can be any certainty on matters as vast and unproveable as god and creation.

What bothers me is when anyone can claim their belief set is the 'right' one and try to claim a moral high ground.

Boaz has been known to, but then again, so has West, a devout 'anti-theist' as he describes it.

All movements have their heroes and villains, and I'd categorise Falwell and Hinn as the bottom of the Christian barrel - that isn't to say I don't admire some, such as Mother Teresa, who'd rather walk the walk instead of spending so much time talking the talk.

The same goes for posters here - Foxy's a self described Christian who shows admirable restraint. Were I to categorise the Christian faith as 'evil' as boaz does for Islam, I'd be casting quite an aspersion on Foxy and I don't think that's justified.

Boaz has done just that for the Islamic community. He says that muslims can be decent people, but when he says Islam is evil, I wonder how he can justify that, given that one of the posters here, fellow_human, has shown admirable restraint in comments.

A stark contrast to the many, many anti-Islamic expressions on these boards, many of which are as violent as the admittedly vitriolic Imams they castigate.

So whilst boaz can draw this line between the faiths and people, I don't think that's reasonable, and it's clearly a by-product of his own religiosity.

I know he regards morality only from the perspective of what his god has said is acceptable.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1598#30678

Though he doesn't mean it to be an insult, that's precisely what it is. I don't care where he gets his morality from if he does me the same courtesy.

I think we can only judge the people on who they are, not what they are, because there's so much ugliness in the past, and people draw both inspiration and hatred from whatever belief system they adopt.

This is not a thread about moderate religion, it is about the limitations of religious dogma.

Boaz exemplifies just what adhering to a literal and inflexible interpretation of the Christian faith can do to a person’s ability to reason and think rationally.

He is rude, intolerant and insulting. When he behaves in this manner, I am well within my rights to point out examples of poor Christian behaviour such as Benny Hinn or Jerry Falwell or any other who uses their religion for their personal gain and power over others. Simply in order to show how wrong Boaz is when he claims that non-religious people are immoral.

I am stunned that my freedom to express my POV on dogma is being curtailed by the likes of R0bert and now TRTL – this is still a democracy, this is why we post at OLO.

This is why I started a thread about comparing our little planet to the wider universe. My intention is not to insult the likes of Foxy who does her religion proud, but to draw out the extremists like Boaz.

And I have.

And it appears, I have drawn out people who claim to be in favour of free speech but who would presume to dictate which examples of ‘bad christians’ I use.

Science never needed religion or any ideological system for its support or advancement. But it does need freedom to move, just as we need freedom to speak out.