Religion IS crazy!

[Calliope]

You are trying to give Christianity a higher position than it deserves and I am just pointing out that it is no better.

Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.

Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice. Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.

Obviously you think that children would be no worse off in a Muslim society that here in Australia, because our ethics are no better. You're dreaming.

The main topic of your post was to point out that Christianity had been a force for good

That's not true. You inferred that. The topic of my post was the treatment of Islamic women and girls.

and that it deserved respect because it wasn't as bad as islam.

You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.

..

 

[sydboy007]

Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.

Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice. Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.

Obviously you think that children would be no worse off in a Muslim society that here in Australia, because our ethics are no better. You're dreaming.



That's not true. You inferred that. The topic of my post was the treatment of Islamic women and girls.



You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.

..

By your logic the fact that paedophiles were protected for the last 50+ years within the catholic church that the majority seem to accept it.

Can you please refer me to information on centrelink that would show a married man is able to receive welfare payments for a defacto wife.

I'm with VC on this. All religions are pretty much as bad as each other. Do a bit of reading of what the religious right in the USA go on about and they don't sound any less extreme than what the ranting muslims sound like.

The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.

 

[Julia]

You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.
..

Oh, the irony.

 

[Value Collector]

Some say only a tiny minority of Muslim support terroism. Yet the majority seem to accept it.
..

Really, where are you getting that information from.

Only a tiny minority of our society are paedofiles. The vast majority of the Christian faith reviles this disgusting practice.

Well I would hope so, However this in no way means that the institutional cover ups that have happened are any less criminal.

Although polygamy is banned in Australia I suppose that you are aware that any influential Muslem here, who is already married, can take a young girl into his house as a defacto bride and our welfare system wiill recognise this as the same as a wife.

Ok, But the Bible allows polygamy also, and there are Christian faiths that practice polygamy. So why single out Muslims.

to be honest, as long as it is consensual, I have no problem with polygamy.

Obviously you think that children would be no worse off in a Muslim society that here in Australia, because our ethics are no better. You're dreaming.

I don't think our ethics are because of the Christian faith, There are all sorts of things that we consider unthinkable and terrible that are perfectly fine under Biblical law eg. slavery,

I don't get my morals from the Bible and I am glad that most Australians don't either.

You have a bad habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths, for dubious reasons.

Lol, this coming from the guy who keeps inferring I am a Muslim, and sees a picture of Disneyland and thinks its a mosque.

 

[Wysiwyg]

'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas[

Yeah just read that story. Australians abhor those ideologies. In Australia we identify people that talk in favour of those ideologies as prawn heads. That is because a prawn's body is edible and the head is full of ****.

 

[Julia]

The "Honour Killings" address has been cancelled, such was the outcry over such a topic being permitted to be part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

Perhaps raises the question of free speech?
Is it similar to the way Geert Wilders, the Dutchman who is so opposed to the spread of Islam, has not been allowed to speak in many places?

 

[SirRumpole]

The "Honour Killings" address has been cancelled, such was the outcry over such a topic being permitted to be part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

Perhaps raises the question of free speech?
Is it similar to the way Geert Wilders, the Dutchman who is so opposed to the spread of Islam, has not been allowed to speak in many places?

If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.

Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.

 

[Calliope]

By your logic the fact that paedophiles were protected for the last 50+ years within the catholic church that the majority seem to accept it[

No that is your inferred logic, not mine.

Can you please refer me to information on centrelink that would show a married man is able to receive welfare payments for a defacto wife.

Certainly,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...097889992?nk=b1e2951b83d4f2a6ccee5bad82682b8a

I'm with VC on this. All religions are pretty much as bad as each other. Do a bit of reading of what the religious right in the USA go on about and they don't sound any less extreme than what the ranting muslims sound like

.

Yes fundamentalist Christians are a nasty bunch, but I think they are more stupid tha evil. They are not into suicide bombing yet and their terrorist activities have mainly been the work of individuals

The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.

On this we can agree.

 

[Value Collector]

In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.

Speak to any really religious person and they will tell you that anything god does or commands is moral and the correct thing to do, god is perfect and infallible, and if god commands or does something that seems immoral to us, then it is us that is wrong, because god is always right.

This sort of warped thinking may seem harmless, until you hear them start saying things like god tells them to do things or the holy spirit guides their choices, If these people actually believe god is regularly talking to them, and they start taking the crazy parts of the bible seriously, then this generally sane and moral person can end up doing some very immoral things simply because they think god is commanding them.

 

[McLovin]

If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.

Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.

The blurb about what that guy was going to talk about was actually more about moral relativism in the West; ie the belief that it is OK to go off and start wars in countries (I assume he meant Islamic countries) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians while at the same time decrying the barbarism of people who practise honour killings. It was the organisers who gave the speech that provocative title, not the speaker. I don't think (from what I've read) the speech was ever going to condone honour killings.

It's a slippery slope once you start telling people they can't voice their opinion because it might incite violence. I'd rather those opinions were aired in public so they can be shot down, rather than forced into some back room in Western Sydney for like minded individuals. Speech as expression should be free, speech as conduct shouldn't be. It's a fine line between the two though.

 

[Value Collector]

The sad fact is that the "good" religious people generally go about their lives generally having a positive effect on scoiety, while the extreme minorities seem to have too big a negative impact.

This sentence would be equally true if you left out the word religious.

You don't need a religion to be good or to have a positive impact.

this quote comes to mind.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.

 

[bunyip]

Next time someone suggests to you that Islam poses no threat because the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just direct them to this link.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ceful_majority_irrelevant/#.U6UXA6GQa30.email

 

[bellenuit]

Next time someone suggests to you that Islam poses no threat because the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just direct them to this link.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ceful_majority_irrelevant/#.U6UXA6GQa30.email

From the end of the linked speech.....

It is time we took political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.


+100 to that.

 

[Calliope]

From the end of the linked speech.....

It is time we took political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.


+100 to that.

Yes,excellent; this should be required watching for the politically correct Islami apologists. The peaceful majority of Muslims is irrevelant and we are living in a fool's world if we think that this majority would ever stand up to the jihadists, or even co-operate wth law enforcement to expose their illegal activities.

 

[Julia]

If such appearances could be likely to lead to public unrest and maybe violence, perhaps it's better that some talks do not proceed.

Some dangerous ideas may be too dangerous. In any case, can any right thinking person agree with the idea that murder of innocents is justifiable in any way ? The idea is so preposterous it's not worth hearing or debating.

Have you actually investigated the nature of the content of what he was intending to say? Or just assumed he was going to condone honour killings?

The blurb about what that guy was going to talk about was actually more about moral relativism in the West; ie the belief that it is OK to go off and start wars in countries (I assume he meant Islamic countries) kill hundreds of thousands of civilians while at the same time decrying the barbarism of people who practise honour killings. It was the organisers who gave the speech that provocative title, not the speaker. I don't think (from what I've read) the speech was ever going to condone honour killings.

It's a slippery slope once you start telling people they can't voice their opinion because it might incite violence. I'd rather those opinions were aired in public so they can be shot down, rather than forced into some back room in Western Sydney for like minded individuals. Speech as expression should be free, speech as conduct shouldn't be. It's a fine line between the two though.

Thank goodness someone has picked up on what I was concerned about. If you are going to stop this person (whom I've never heard of before) putting his thoughts up in a public arena, then what else are you going to stop?
That's why I raised Geert Wilders who has been banned in some countries because he is concerned about the spread of fundamentalist Islam.

Rumpole, it sounds as though you support the suppression of this comment on Honour Killings. Obviously a lot of people agree with you, if that's the case. Perhaps there is a line somewhere which is a step too far in the pursuit of free speech.

But who is going to determine that line? Whose moral compass will decide?

That's the question about which I was (perhaps naively and hopelessly) hoping to provoke some serious comment.

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...097889992?nk=b1e2951b83d4f2a6ccee5bad82682b8a

I asked for a link to centrelink or some Govt agency that shows me how a married man can claim welfare benefits for a defacto wife. That was your claim.

 

[Calliope]

I asked for a link to centrelink or some Govt agency that shows me how a married man can claim welfare benefits for a defacto wife. That was your claim.

No you didn't. Your words were " Can you please refer me to information on centrelink".

I an not your flunkey. Do your own research if you wish to disprove what I said.

 

[Wysiwyg]

But who is going to determine that line? Whose moral compass will decide?

Action :- Good and evil someone mentioned. Does one know the difference? Common law is the law in Australia and the law all its citizens abide by.

Speech :- If my mates talk trash there is some tolerance and understanding of their (hopefully) temporary
insanity but if they continue they get derided and become Neville-no-friends.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.

We are moving away from religious indoctrination and the ancient text that perpetuates it.


P.S. please don't ask me to provide examples of trash talk on a public forum.

 

[Value Collector]

No you didn't. Your words were " Can you please refer me to information on centrelink".

I an not your flunkey. Do your own research if you wish to disprove what I said.

You did infer that centre link allowed married men to also claim benefits for defectors partners, and the way i read Sydboy's comment was that he was asking you to provide information on centre links terms and conditions that allow this.

I am not debating that it happens, but just as there are people working full time while claiming unemployment benefits doesn't mean its official policy to pay the dole to employed people, i dont think its policy to support polygamy.

But even if centreline did support it, who cares about the polygamy aspect, dole bludgers are dole bludgers regardless of how many wives they have.

And as i said earlier, polygamy is not just a Muslim thing, its biblical, and Christian faiths practice it too.

And as i also said, i dont think polygamy is immoral, as long as all parties are consenting and happy, who cares.

 

[SirRumpole]

Rumpole, it sounds as though you support the suppression of this comment on Honour Killings. Obviously a lot of people agree with you, if that's the case. Perhaps there is a line somewhere which is a step too far in the pursuit of free speech.

As others have said, it's a fine line.

Without referring specifically to the cancelled speech, would you consider it acceptable to allow people to openly seek to recruit potential terrorists on the basis of supposed unfair treatment of certain sects in certain cultures ? Of course they wouldn't blatantly say "sign up inside the building after the speech", but like Hitler did they would generate a frenzy of vengeful feelings and then let events take their course. This sort of thing most probably goes on behind closed doors now with the result that people from this country have left to fight for terrorists overseas. Would we want this sort of thing to go public ?

But you are correct in saying that someone has to decide where to draw the line, and there is an argument for saying that if you let people present that sort of case in public then we will find out who they are and then could do something about it, but once having identified those people do you let them continue ? Some people could assume , listening to the 'recruiters' that they should attack "the enemy" wherever they can. Refer to the attempted attack on Holsworthy Army barracks. The people initiating these sort of vengeance reprisals could then become a national security threat, even though according to them they are just exercising their rights of free speech.

Of course "incitement to violence" is an offence, but again it seems to be a matter of opinion where exactly the line is crossed between simply publicising alleged atrocities against alleged persecuted minorities and encouraging people to try and avenge those perceived assaults.

Your solution ?

As to the question of "honour killings", these could also be interpreted by some as revenge attacks on agents of the West that have allegedly invaded Muslim lands, and not just killings within families. Those agents could be widely interpreted as our troops, our politicians, our assets or infrastructure, or just us, the community as we have seen in Britain and elsewhere. Words, unfortunately, can be bombs.

Again, where should the line be drawn ?