I've argued before about the need to look at all the smaller arguments that hold merit in order to find all the faults and flaws as a process that you must do in order to write good policy.

- Basically you can't write a good policy without foolproofing it -

If I stood back for just a minute and looked at the bigger picture on this whole 'religious discrimination bill' I have to draw the conclusion that were approaching the whole issue all wrong.

- All we've done is open a can of worms;
- And we don't have an adequate system or process in place to deal with all these bloody worms we've now set free.
- The worms are on the loose, they're taking over dammit!!

The elephant in the room is that we have to actually have a look at the religions themselves.
We can't assume they're all equal.
We have to first wise up to the pro's and con's of each religion.

We have a right to freedom of religion;
We also have this inferred right where one cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion;
But already right, there's exceptions to that second rule.
There's a narrative that it's perfectly legitimate to attack religions in some circumstances.
It's fine for gays to attack religions as an example if gays feel discriminated against by the religions.

(What principle applies here btw?
J.S Mills Harm Principle - Everyone has a right to live however they choose so long as it does not have a negative or detrimental effect on others.

I.E. The religious have a right to their religion so long as it doesn't have a negative or detrimental effect on others)

So ultimately, in my mind the only real way forward, is if we start making a proper piecemeal out of these religions and look at ALL the parts which conflict;
ALL the parts of ALL the religions which stand to have a negative and detrimental effect on others.

If we do that, then we avoid all this 'anti-semitic' bullcrap in the first place ttbn.

Given the threads sire direction as we enter 2020 some things are true for some of us
Pedophilia is ok, the record of the Catholic Church, worldwide is ok.
Hitler was nothing to be concerned about.
Churches not paying tax, like the super-rich internationals avoiding it completely, is ok
Just maybe we could let reality shine, some things are not ok just because of free speech
It is fine to both be a dedicated total Christian but hate every much as bad as SATAN [Runner thinks so]

[Cont.]
Does it not stand to reason that if we actually look at the religions themselves,

If we look at ALL the parts which conflict;
If we look at ALL the parts of ALL the religions which stand to have a negative and detrimental effect on others;

Then, my so-called 'anti-semitic' related questions / concerns / comments become JUST AS LEGITIMATE
- As gays saying they are discriminated by religions.

- No More, No Less -

You know when I say that we're going about this process all wrong, it occurs to me the sad truth is that as humans beings we've actually become a whole lot dumber in the last 2500 years.

- It's True -

If I try to figure out when and where it was that human beings actually developed an ability to argue things based on merit, I end up somewhere back here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

"Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: dialektike; related to dialogue), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments."

- So, I end up back at a place BEFORE any of these Abrahamic religions existed; or in the case of Judaism, BEFORE what it is now.

We've actually become dumber;

- We were smarter then, than now -

Hey Belly,

"Just maybe we could let reality shine, some things are not ok just because of free speech"

I had to eat my words the other day when I said I supported 'freedom of criticism'.
Just after I posted that comment I found this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7769233/Australian-farmers-receive-sick-letters-telling-use-bullet-themselves.html

Well, I don't think I can support a 'right' to criticise farmers in that way over ones personal beliefs.
- Though I most certainly do support my right to criticse them after the fact, that's for sure.

Armchair Critic,
Those notes would have been composed by Lefties who are totally dependent on Taxpayers' handouts to mill around Art Schools etc.

The most important aspect of conversations is respect and care for the listener; the respect that they are listening, and care that they understand your message. The listener might be an avowed enemy of your message, but if you speak with respect it might get through especially when they realise you are not the enemy. Debate the ideas not demean the person. we should be able to criticise the ideas or behaviours, providing it is done with respect and good intent. The same way as we correct and direct our children to be honourable citizens.