Boaz, as a reminder, I asked you:

"...what is the moral difference that you see between beating a wife and beating a daughter?"

This not, unfortunately, an answer:

>>An adult woman has matured and has a good sense of danger. A child.. does not.<<

While this is literally true, it does not establish any moral standing for your action. It is pure evasion.

Your moral pitch is still missing, I'm afraid. Because right now your argument stands as follows:

"I have the moral right to beat my daughter because she is immature, and has no sense of danger."

You contrast this with:

"I don't have the moral right to beat my wife, because she is mature and has a sense of danger"

This is, I'm afraid, missing the point entirely.

Don't forget, we are talking about violence here. So it is in fact more rational to put this forward as a reason to beat an adult woman, as opposed to a child.

A child does not have the physical ability to defend herself, and being immature, nor would she have the strength of will to do so against an authority figure.

Your wife, on the other hand - being, as you say, a mature adult - can make up her own mind whether to accept your beating, or to tell you where you can stick it.

Tell me, if you had one, would you also beat your dog?

David has also completely failed to address the question of churches pressuring people engaged in legal activities other than divorcees remarrying.

The most obvious is homosexual activity. The basis for his original post included the comment "QUESTIONS/ISSUES. Should the law.. Australian law, make it unlawful for a religious group (this would apply to Christians equally) to use ..." (I've ommitted the specific example because it really is irrelevant to the general principle).

Clearly a homosexual christian cannot easily swap churches to find one within their overall faith tradition but which is tollerant of homosexuality. They may be able to swap denominations but evne then the options are very limited. If their family are part of an intollerant denomination they are likely to face the very same pressure that David criticises muslims and jews for.

Todays article on the local catholic parish facing pressure over expressions of tollerance is at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24247528-3102,00.html

"In addition to concerns over unorthodox masses and baptisms, one parish priest, who did not wish to be named, yesterday said he was aware that some divorced Catholics had been allowed to remarry at St Mary's without having their first marriage annulled.

Yesterday, Archbishop Bathersby confirmed there had been rumours that the church had adjusted the sacrament of marriage.

In a letter to the church last Friday, Archbishop Bathersby said marriage ceremonies at St Mary's sometimes completely overlooked the Church's normal requirement for validity and took place without "the slightest respect for Canon Law"."

R0bert

Pericles: << Tell me, if you had one, would you also beat your dog? >>

Didn't you know that the Bible says that "Smite is Right" pretty well consistently? Indeed, it's only a few years ago that women were removed from the category of those whom a good God-fearing Christian man might righteously smite!

R0bert's post reminds me that Boazy sidestepped my earlier comment about abuse by the Exclusive Brethren of those who, for example, divorce their spouse and/or renounce their faith, by claiming that he's not a member of the "Exclusive" Brethren (which I should apparently have known despite the fact that he's posting under another name now, apparently).

However, I notice that he's made a couple of posts about the Exclusive Brethren today, so I presume that it's reasonable to ask him this:

Boazy, would you suppport government prohibition of the Exclusive Brethren practice of formal ostracism of former members, particularly of the kind which prevents contact between parents and their children?

Just a renminder for David that there are unanswered questions quite relevant to the topic?

Once again from me.

David is it appropriate for christains to apply pressure to homosexual christains not to engage in what is a legal activity in this country?

Just in case you have trouble dealing with the content of two different posts at once I'll cut an past CJ's question here as well.

"Would you suppport government prohibition of the Exclusive Brethren practice of formal ostracism of former members, particularly of the kind which prevents contact between parents and their children?"

R0bert

I hope you're not holding your breath, R0bert.

Boazy's obviously done his familiar disappearing act on this one ;)

CJ, I'm well used to the disappearing act and have ensured that breathing continues. Still it's worth putting up a reminder occasionally.

R0bert