I have nothing but respect for my Friend Lexi.
And too for many who cringe at my comments about Some Muslims.
It is well past time however to not ignore the very real hate and danger that lives within that religion.
And indeed every one of them.
For saying what I am about to I could die.
But with certainty I think there is no God.
That ANY God would not let so very many other Gods rule us.
That we, yes me once, are blind enough to judge our God the only one, and all other false.
In our desperate need to be nice, to be fair, to not discriminate, we do discriminate.
This threads author is not new to us, or a great number of such forums, the evidence showing his/her nature is there to be seen.
I am so often judged racist or xenophobic on my concerns, why do we not judge this poster on those words.
The west,just judge on the past 100 years,is moving away from religion.
One day, it is there if you look,one religion,alone, will be world wide.
Are we to over compensate for those like me, to want to avoid being discriminatory, at the expense of one simple fact.
With no religion,none, this world can find peace and unity.
Muslims,not us,should take to this divisive poster.
I will not blindly bend to ANY God then be insulted knowing evolution not fairy story's made us.
for those springing to a GODS defense,tell me why he/she deceived more than half those who ever lived into following the wrong ones.

Dear SPQR,

May I suggest that you re-read my earlier posts perhaps you'll get a better grasp of what I was trying to say. It's one thing to think that you're on the right path, but it's quite another to think that it's the only path. As I've written in the past - any criticism born of ignorance, mistrust or hatred is not only ineffectual and a complete waste of time, it is harmful and elicits equally pointless and damaging responses. None of us can be responsible for the behaviour of other people - but we can control our own behaviour. As someone once said, "Don't talk about being a good person - be one!"

Peter Hume
> You are becoming quite obsessive …

Personal argument, ho hum.

> …you were intentionally misconstruing my words…

Mind-reading, ho hum.

> and avoiding discussing your double standards as regards punishment for men and women.

I don’t favour one sex being punished when the other isn’t, and I said so repeatedly. Therefore I don’t have double standards.

Misrepresentation, ho hum.

> What are you talking about?

I’m talking about you advocating the use of violence and threats of violence to force people to obey your sexual and moral opinions.

> I have never said I am in favour of physically abusing people.

Isn’t it true that you’re in favour of policy, among other things, to enforce child support and to stop polygamy?

And isn’t it true that to enforce these policies the police will use an escalating range of violence, including, if he doesn’t submit and obey, physically seizing, tazering, handcuffing, and shooting?

And if the subject does submit and obey, they will lock him in a cage?

And you are in favour of all this?

If not, where do you draw the line and disclaim the use of violence, as I asked and you didn’t answer at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4438&page=0#113771
?

> If you don't understand my meaning I am either expressing myself badly or you are choosing to pick an argument.

I think you’re expressing yourself fine, it’s just that you obviously haven’t understood that by advocating policy for this or that, you advocate aggressive violence or threats of aggressive violence.

> Imprisonment is sometimes necessary in any society.

Yes. It’s necessary because some people think it’s okay to use aggressive violence to get what they want.

> Do you advocate murderers and child molesters be kept out in the community and on the loose to commit further crimes on people.

No; because they are cases where people are violating the rights of others, aren’t they? But you advocate it even when people aren’t harming or threatening anyone, merely to force them to obey your opinions for example, on polygamy and state schooling, don’t you?

I find the need to ask a question and make some remarks after reading Lexi,s post.
The right to practice and follow a religion is unquestioned.
We have fought and died for such.
Do I then, a nonbeliever have the right to say I resent ANY religion getting ANY involvement in how ANY government rules?
And will trying to be nice, not seeing those who have no intention of doing the same, stop the next mass murder.
Will it stop Australian passport holders training to murder in Yemen murdering.
Is free speech only free if we agree with it.
Have many of us looked at our threads authors post history here and read those threads?
The quotes attributed to both him and his holly book are real, and ownership of both is proved.
Every religion, is outstanding evidence of the goodness of mankind.
Men and women wrote those books, some to gain power but also to give rules of life, ones to live by.
May I say we again and again talk of Catholic crimes against children.
Yet it remains the biggest Christian faith.
And I can not remember any one being branded for haveing great concerns about members of that faith.
History supports my view war is inevitable, driven more by religion than any thing.
With out religion, tell me one reason, just one why we would even dislike another race.

Peter Hume
That's a bit rich accusing me of getting personal. Are you so blind you cannot see your own behaviour with a clear eye?

You are way off topic in regard to Muslim schooling.

I have never advocated imprisonment or violence other than imprisonment for criminals as prevention of harm.

You are speaking in riddles.

"I’m talking about you advocating the use of violence and threats of violence to force people to obey your sexual and moral opinions."

How so? You are making generalised motherhood-style statements and claims but I have no idea what to what you are referring. In one post you mentioned something about my belief in tasers when I have never said anything of the sort.

You just make this stuff up in some warped attempt to give credence to your own views which suggests perhaps if these tactics are necessary maybe you need to rethink your double standard approaches as far as women and men in the criminal system go.

Wow I must be evil. Fancy opposing polygamy which has historically meant huge disadvantages for women (usually involving abuse) and in those cultures where it is only men who take on more wives.

I must also be evil for arguing that people take responsibility for their actions and help support the raising of their own children rather than let the taxpayer pick up the entire bill. Why should taxpayers have to bear the burden of another's failure to live up to their responsibilities? Are you a socialist or something?

For the record I have already said for myself I would never insist on child support if I found myself in that position. I would rather go it alone hopefully with extended family support, than have a deadbeat dad around that does not care about the welfare of his children.

This coming from a person who believes in free markets which do more to exploit labour than any other system. Why do you believe in a system that fosters exploitation and violence? Why do you place a higher value on property than a fair value on someone's labour (also their 'property')?

So violence and oppression is alright as long as you agree with it and it suits your sense of morality?