Dear runner,

Re-read what Suze posted and then re-read what I posted.
Hopefully you'll get it in the end.

Dear Suze,

Keep on doing what you're doing.
You're getting it right.

I guess all we can do is continue to
express our opinions.
We can't be held responsible for how others are going to
interpret what we say.

Look Lexi:

...What hypocrisy it would be to brand Abbotts religious ideals as a miss-deed of ethics towards a secular society.

...Such idealism (along with the homosexual following in these posts) excludes religious ideals from any influence in a secular society, while posturing wholehearted import of irreligious and immoral social practices of homosexuality, protected now from criticism by a supposed need to separate church from state (under secular rule)?

...What bunkum and nonsense! Using this as a theory, we may now postulate the exclusion of all religious thinkers from society: And banish them to where I wonder; maybe Iran (as I have seen suggested recently)?

...So, should the real question be; "Would Abbott make a more successful Ayatollah than Prime Minister"? A stupid question, matched as near the "stupid" as the consequences of postulations herein of a secularism allowing uncontested immorality free-reign, totally unfettered from Christian morality in a Christian society branded secular for convenience!

Diver Dan <"Such idealism (along with the homosexual following in these posts) excludes religious ideals from any influence in a secular society, while posturing wholehearted import of irreligious and immoral social practices of homosexuality, protected now from criticism by a supposed need to separate church from state (under secular rule)?"

Gee Diver Dan, that's a bit rough isn't it?

I haven't noticed a 'homosexual following' on this site?
Many fair-minded posters are rightfully asking for equal rights for all people in society, including women and homosexuals.

Nothing wrong with that.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be 'imported' Diver Dan, as Gay people are born all over the world, including in Australia.

Just because some people's views are coloured by their Christian religious upbringing, that doesn't mean they are any more morally correct than the views or morals from non-religious people, or from people who worship other Gods.

Good law abiding, morally and ethically sound people can be found in all walks of life, and to think that because one is Christian they can assume a higher moral standing is offensive in the extreme.

...Well susieonline, you are homosexual and not Christian I conclude; whereas I am not homosexual and I am Christian therefore I unashamedly "spruik" in the halls of OLO on Christian social morality...Sounds simple enough to me!

suzonline,just a simple question which you have failed to answer.What proof do you have that paints Abbott as a mysogynist? If you cannot answer this,it makes your whole argument flawed.

Proof? No, no, no, no, no. What's needed is a properly framed debate. you know "Abbott bad, Gillard good - cos she's a woman and he's not, so there".

Personally, I don't think much of Abbott or the Libnats, but Humpty Dumpty would do a better job of running the Country than the ALP has managed or looks likely to be able to ever manage.

The worst thing that has happened to that once-fine party is that it has been taken over by women who think all men are bastards except the ones they own (and they can hardly be trusted without someone watching them). It used to be my party, now it belongs to Emily's List and the Fairies at the bottom of the garden. No worries, they can have it, but they won't get my vote. It looks increasingly likely that the only votes they'll get will be their own. Congratulations ladies.