Dear Critic,

I have no issue with your points #1, #2 and #4.

«3. People who have a belief that their religion nullifies Australia laws.»

Human birth is rare.

God cannot be attained neither in heaven nor in hell, nor in myriad other worlds between, nor in the animal kingdom - only human life contains the narrow gate which leads back to God.

Having waited who knows how many trillions of years to obtain such a birth, you suggest that one should now give up this opportunity for the sake of observing your social laws? You must be kidding!

Society exists to sustain the human body. The human body exists to sustain the human mind. The human mind is the tool which, if properly directed by our intellect, can take us towards God.

Making and observing laws that go counter to religion, is not even like sawing off the branch you're sitting on: it's like sawing off the stem and roots as well.

---

Dear Tony,

I like your idea: «Maybe we can deport Mike Baird instead?»

All those who admire their ancestors who fought for freedoms and liberties, surely they would now continue in this tradition rather than rest on their laurels. Those who object to women being told what to wear, surely they will also object and resist those who order us what to wear if we want to ride a bicycle!

---

Dear Foxy,

«In this country we have laws that we are all expected to abide by...»

I am sorry to hear about your fall. I wish you well and a speedy recovery and am looking forward to reading your original thoughts once your wrist recovers sufficiently to express them.

Toni,

Many years ago I first started to study Islam, at Sydney Uni, and it was apparent to us then that Islam was/is a political system that has a religious overlay.
This overlay was designed by one Muhammad, a rather smart trader, to further his interests and the interests of his tribe; religion, as ever, was the control mechanism and claims that God had handed down the message only made it more potent.

The Oxford, probably for PC reasons doesn't want to say that Islam is, first and foremost, a political system whose aim, was and is, conquest; by whatever means.

Is Mise, that story sounds similar to the story of the Catholics and Protestants.
Think of all the countries who changed their main religion over the years, depending on who conquered who in the last war.
Personally, I think all religions are the same...

Here's some interesting statistics on Muslim support for suicide bombings.
In France 42% support in the 18-29 age group.
Sorry I couldn't find a better link for these stats.

http://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/753732777506471936

Suseonline Quote "that story sounds similar to the story of the Catholics and Protestants."

Big difference is other religions are not stuck in the stone age, they adapt with the passage of time.

"Big difference is other religions are not stuck in the stone age, they adapt with the passage of time."

And yet they'll still try and tell you that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and that his "father" wasn't human - and that he is both human and God...and that somehow he came back to life after he was crucified.

Do you consider that "adapting" to the passage of time?