From past experience, I don't expect a coherent response to any of this, so don't bother.

No its horrible Pericles when facts destroy your hopelessly flawed narrative.

well reasoned posts Constance

Of course you are, Constance.

>>Tell me if I’m wrong, you are inferring that it is only the Catholic Church who are the paedophiles<<

Because I am not.

>>Muslims do have a stronghold on terrorism and the poor treatment of women, so your argument is wanting<<

Are you suggesting that outside Islam, there is no terrorism, no poor treatment of women? If you are, then this is can be rephrased as "you are inferring that it is only the Muslims who are terrorists and who treat women badly."

Which is an attitude with which you, quite rightly, have some issues.

>>You overreact to the sheer mention of Crusades when the point was about progressives and history.<<

Leaving aside the faintly ridiculous lumping-together of all who disagree with you as "progressives", let's concentrate on the history.

Do you believe that religious wars are justified? It appears that you do not.

But I entered this thread not to dispute Rotherham with you - you make some very pertinent points about the failings of the authorities, and the results of their misplaced political correctness. My concern is with those who actually do believe that outright religious war is a neat thing for Australia to be involved in. And the lack of logic in their approach to creating one.

>>But pointing the finger at "multiculturalism" is to miss the point. No race or religion has a monopoly on sin, and to blame the religion itself for systematic sexual exploitation of children is simplistic, and wrong. Those who advocate "sending them back" or "not letting them in" should ask themselves why they do not knee-jerk demand the same treatment for all Roman Catholics. Not just the priests involved, but every Catholic in the land. Because a case can easily be made for moral parallels.<<

You objected to the "moral parallels" part, and proceeded from there. I still maintain that this is not "relativism", nor is it an attack on the Catholic Church, but a simple illustration of the double standards at play in the arguments put forward by the whack-a-mozzie brigade.

I really think that some posters should study a bit of history, there has been mention here and there of events in Ireland, someone mentioned that Protestants had been kneecapped, the inference being that they were kneecapped because of their faith.
No Protestants in the occupied part of Ireland was ever kneecapped because of their religion.

The fighting in Ireland is stated to be between two religions, Catholic and Protestant, nothing could be further from the truth.
The fight has been between Republican democracy and British tyranny, the fact that most of the defenders of democracy have been Catholic merely reflects that the majority of Irish people are Catholic.

Many of the founding heroes of Irish Republicanism were Protestants, the first elected President of modern Ireland was a Protestant and elected by Catholics, a great Irish patriot and Parliamentarian, the late Dan Breen, was an atheist, and elected by Catholics.

<Author Yasmin Alibhai-Brown speaks out
The nation is angry. As an Asian, Muslim and mother, I am appalled too and also ashamed.

As we now know, hundreds of Rotherham children were abused by men of Pakistani origin. Let me say this loud and clear: the sex fiends are a small minority.

Most Asian or Muslim men are not hunting and hurting young white girls. Abusers come from all classes and backgrounds. Jimmy Savile was not a Pakistani.

That said, we Asians must recognise there is something rotten in our cultures. Too many of our men have a problem with females. And sex. We don’t talk about such things. Our languages don’t even have words for sexual parts or acts. I want to break this awful conspiracy of silence.

The sex gang victims were seen as “prostitutes” because they were out, probably mouthy and not covered up.

The men who destroyed their lives were sadists but their crimes came from a set of attitudes towards white society shared by parents, priests, elders and religious teachers.

What we need is Asian women in Rotherham, and Rochdale, Oxford and Luton, to march with white mums and shout: “These are our daughters.” Human rights are for all, black, brown and white.>

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-sex-scandal-resulted-4137542

Ever been to Ireland, Is Mise?

>>No Protestants in the occupied part of Ireland was ever kneecapped because of their religion.<<

Thought not.

Here's someone with a somewhat more relevant set of observations.

"Once the Troubles got going, Northern Ireland saw the biggest population movement in Europe since the Second World War as the two communities separated. It became evident that working class Protestants and Catholics simply could not co-exist as previously mixed areas became exclusively one or the other.In many of these communities, law and order ceased to exist. The police were largely distrusted. Justice, such as it was, was dished out by the paramilitaries. This vigilantism was often extremely brutal, with victims being kneecapped (shot in the knees), beaten or tarred and feathered."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_everyday_life

And this:

"The RUC didn't keep kneecapping statistics for the first four years of the troubles, but between 1973 and 1979, the police say there were 756 kneecappings, 531 of them Catholic, 225 of them Protestant."

http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/kneecapping

>>The fight has been between Republican democracy and British tyranny<<

That is certainly one aspect of it. But there is absolutely no doubt that the root cause (of the most recent Troubles) was economic oppression by Protestants over Catholics, within Northern Ireland itself.

The difficulty with the concept of "British tyrrany" is that Northern Ireland has consistently voted to be governed from Westminster.

Democracy in action, you might say.

"Ever been to Ireland, Is Mise?....Thought not."

Think again, Pericles, I have lived in Ireland, owned a house, was consequently a rate payer and hold Irish citizenship.

Can you give me one reference to where a Protestant was kneecapped simply because he was Protestant?

>>The fight has been between Republican democracy and British tyranny<<

That is certainly one aspect of it. But there is absolutely no doubt that the root cause (of the most recent Troubles) was economic oppression by Protestants over Catholics, within Northern Ireland itself."

I'd agree with that but let us add the right to vote and the fact that some Orangemen (let us not sully Protestantism by referring to the sect in Ireland as normal Protestants), had multiple votes was hardly democratic.
Britain condoned the undemocratic processes in Occupied Ireland and did nothing about them.

"The difficulty with the concept of "British tyrrany" is that Northern Ireland has consistently voted to be governed from Westminster."

On face value that's true, but firstly the people of Ireland voted for Home Rule, the Ulstermen, traitors to both Ireland and Britain threatened rebellion unless Ulster (note, not Northern Ireland) was excluded from Home Rule.

The British Government capitulated and decided that Ulster would become a separate State.

Then reality reared its ugly head and it was realized that Ulster had a majority of Republicans, so six of the nine counties of Ulster were cut off to form Northern Ireland where the Orange Order would hold a majority.

The war cry of the so called Loyalists had been "Ulster Will Fight, and Ulster Will Be Right" but it was soon changed to an acceptance of 2/3rds of Ulster; and the rest is undemocratic history.

The British army was called out in the 1920s to protect people going to vote from Catholic areas, why?, because the polling places for those constituents had been placed in Orange controlled areas and voters heading for those polling places were being shot at.

"Democracy in action, you might say."

You might say, Pericles, but not many others would.