Hi Runner,

In a democracy, everyone should be able to criticise Christianity in all its aspects. And they should also be able to criticise any religion in all its aspects. In fact, everybody should be able to criticise atheism in all its aspects. I don't have any problem with any of that.

And, of course, they should have the right to criticise any political ideology, or in fact any controversial idea, in all its aspects.

Come to think of it, that's what OLO is all about :)

Cheers,

Joe

' In a democracy, everyone should be able to criticise Christianity in all its aspects '

and they have certainly done so for decades Loudmouth. The god denying crowd have mocked Christ, His Word and everything decent now for a long time. I to believe that God has given them the freedom to do so. He is certainly able to defend Himself. Intereting though the gutless cowards are often silent when it comes to Islam. There are a few exceptions but you won't find them on the abc.

I wonder it is that what opponents to 18C desperately want to say but claim they can't?

Runner, it's time all religions gave up on their eternal persecution and martyrdom complex - especially Christians.

You can almost set your watch by the time that the standard "they're trying to ban Christmas" and "they're trying to ban Easter" stories come out every single year.

Is it somehow wrong or unfair to criticise them for their history of abusing children all over the world or dumping hundreds of dead kids into septic tanks in Ireland or members of clergy actively participating in the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda?

' Is it somehow wrong or unfair to criticise them for their history of abusing children all over the world or dumping hundreds of dead kids into septic tanks in Ireland or members of clergy actively participating in the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda?'

Oh you have found a moral conscience have you Rache. How long has this evolutionary process taken? Well as long as you are consistent and show the same compassion for millions of butchered unborn babies and those killed by Stalin and other god deniers.

Hi Runner,

Yes, I agree that many half-witted lip-flappers find it easy to slag Christianity (especially that of many centuries or millennia ago) as a way of diverting attention from atrocities of other religious adherents today, here and now.

For example: slavery in the Old Testament, i.e. from three and four thousand years ago, is condemned (quite rightly: we must wholeheartedly condemn human rights abuses of thousands of years ago, it's not hard to do) but Islam's current practice of it (e.g. in Mauretania and perhaps elsewhere) is passed over.

I suppose A. J. Phillips would call it a "tu quoque pro tempore" fallacy - what one would witness in school play-grounds as the "Well, you did too !" defence - usually rebutted conclusively by "Well, my daddy's a policeman and he can put you in jail."

So the issue is whether or not Christian or - let's face it - Islamic practice has enough latitude to allow, or even encourage, a broadening of human rights, or not. As they say, Christianity is a very broad church, in which a very wide range of opinions are permitted. Now. Today. Can the same be said for other religious institutions ? And if not, where is Gramscian 'Leftism' when it is needed ?

Cheers,

Joe

Everyone has the right to feel 'offended', but they cannot expect anyone else to care. There should certainly be no law that dictates what is offensive and what is not. If 18c wasn't so dangerous, it would be childishly laughable.

People these days do not have the faith or inner strength to deal with unpleasantness on their own; they think Big Brother should protect their feelings. The use of 18c amounts to nothing more than revenge. It is empty. It does nothing to change people's minds - you cannot legislate away what people think. The heavy-handed HRC and Section 18c have caused divisions where there were none initially.