"Hunter" <hunter01 at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:Coqdna9hvuzgfULXnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d at (no spam) westnet.com.au...
No it's not, any more than it is in yours.

Christianity has the Lamb. Islam has the pedophile war monger
preaching world conquest and domination.

The Christian Church is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.

Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults have
lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.

Islamic Kuwait received diddly squat support from non Christian countries
compared to Christian Countries.

How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't vote
yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be unfair on
all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all the good
Muslims out there.

Christianity is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.

As the Church has weakened we have seen a collapse in morality.
Wirthout Christianity, `morality` has no `reference` pointgand ceases
to hold anything other than a nominal value open to invariable
interpretation

i.e. without Christianity, nothing is sinfull (from a Christian perspective)

In such a society for example, this society _you_ wish upon us, it could be
argued
that if a child suffered no actully harm from being sexually interferred
with, the act
could not be deemed a transgression.

Murder would again become an act where compensation payments to allow the
wealthy a 007 style license to kill (as long as they pick up the tab).

You see, you need a God to make Murder a sin..
You may be hoping the Islamic God would make murder a sin, but
theirs is the old angry God of violence, rertribution and compensation
murder may still be a sin but there is less authority for the plebs to do
much about it.

Easy way to fix this which I'd be extremely in favour of is a 5 year
"review period" on immigrants after tentative approval for permanent
residency or citizenship. It'd cost money but I think it'd be well worth
it for Australia. Set up a body that after 5 years goes over their lives
for the past 5 years with a fine-tooth comb, if they are not found to have
joined society as a whole, and adopted the Australian ethos (something
you've never done) of accepting everyone and getting along with everyone,
if they've decided to hide in little enclaves and shun Australians, then
send them home. And that should apply to all immigrants regardless of
race/religion.

let them stay here for 5 years, they have kids who have only known
life in Australia, speak English, Australian schools, education
egalitarianism,
so on and so forth .. the end result is people not suited anymore to going
back
and dealing with their pig ignorant neighbours full of suspician about them
because of thei westernised outlook and craving for hot baths, foxtel and
toilet paper.

They should go back pretty much as they left to reduce the inevitable
cultural shock.
Your method would ensure the greatest cultural shocks.

but besides that, we have a Christian obligation to help these people in
distress
in times of trouble but there is no obligation to make themAustralian
residents.

If there is a car accident out the front of my house I will help as possible
but the obligation is on them to help themselves as well and this does not
infer any `right`
of helping themselves to my or our limitted resources ...it means not being
an unecessary
burden i.e. going back to their homes (nations) when the crisis has passed

why you should think `bad luck` entitles them to a share of your national
wealth is beyond me.

Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he hit
one of your raw nerves square on the head.

It isn't a raw nerve but a tired response to a tiresome claim. He may as
well say
"abra cadabra" and think he has trounced me. It's a mantra it's supposed to
to ward
off different perspectives that are not comfortable to consider. i.e.
personal cowardice..

When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?

you tell me.

if you accept `no man is without sin` then it really isn't surprising to see
Christian ministers
commiting sin.

In Islam they don't consider selling an underage girl into a sexual
relationship as sin
or rape within marriage, rape.

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting" country,
I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train stations
after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests, all
healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.


In that case you'll agree BJF's claim that such vilification and suspion
stems
from fear and feeling of inadequacy is -

nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.

Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?

I have watched people go through the experience of death..
When faced with nothing the hope/realisation that there is something can be
very comforting

regn.pickford wrote:
"Hunter" <hunter01 at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:Coqdna9hvuzgfULXnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d at (no spam) westnet.com.au...
No it's not, any more than it is in yours.

Christianity has the Lamb. Islam has the pedophile war monger
preaching world conquest and domination.


Noted that you totally evaded your incorrect statement that I corrected.
Christianity has the evil child that murders people , a god that preaches
betrayal of the family unit and murder/death/destruction, and pedophiles
that run the clergy in this country as seen hundreds of times in recent
years in the courts if you want to look at things in the way that you're
doing.

Too much has been snipped for me to know what you're crowing about.

The Christian Church is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.


And pedophilia it seems from the number of Christian clergy (hundreds)
ending up in the courts for molesting children.

Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults
have lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.

Islamic Kuwait received diddly squat support from non Christian countries
compared to Christian Countries.


And again, duly noted your complete evasion over the fact that the
particular relgion has no bearing over whether or not a religious leader
has immense sway over the sheeple that follow that religion, it's common
to all religions. Instead you seem to be jumping around like a yoyo.

And even when you evade your inaccuracy, you just replace it with more
dishonesty. The second highest contributor of the 34 nations that joined
the coalition was Saudi Arabia, and of the top 10 contributors (which did
not include Australia) 7 were Islamic nations. Care to try something a tad
more honest next time?

If you recall, Saudi Arabia was next nation in Hinsanes field of fire.

How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't
vote yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be
unfair on all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all
the good Muslims out there.

Christianity is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.


It also seems fundamental and nearly exclusive when it comes to religious
leaders molesting children.

As the Church has weakened we have seen a collapse in morality.
Wirthout Christianity, `morality` has no `reference` pointgand ceases
to hold anything other than a nominal value open to invariable
interpretation

i.e. without Christianity, nothing is sinfull (from a Christian
perspective)

In such a society for example, this society _you_ wish upon us, it could
be argued
that if a child suffered no actully harm from being sexually interferred
with, the act
could not be deemed a transgression.


Firstly it is the leaders of the Christian church itself that seem to be
more prolific than any other "trade" when it comes to molesting children,
so it would be entirely erroneous and dishonest for anyone to claim the
proliferation of Christianity prevents children from being sexually
interfered with, actually the facts seem to say the absolute opposite.

It is a sin, they acknowledge it is sinfull. Unlike Islam which approves

Murder would again become an act where compensation payments to allow the
wealthy a 007 style license to kill (as long as they pick up the tab).

You see, you need a God to make Murder a sin..
You may be hoping the Islamic God would make murder a sin, but
theirs is the old angry God of violence, rertribution and compensation
murder may still be a sin but there is less authority for the plebs to do
much about it.


The reality of the situation is that religion (regardless of religion, any
religion including Christianity) seems to go hand in hand with greater
levels of immorality. In first world wealthy countries, the less
"religious" a country is in most cases, the less this stuff happens.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Here you will find all sorts of interesting information such as "In
general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with
higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD
infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous
democracies (Figures 1-9)."

It seems that in societies where we are truly free to believe or
dis-believe as we see fit (such as Australia) the rate of belief is slowly
dropping, and it appears from the study linked above the more these
beliefs are dropped the happier and healthier a society becomes.

To compare two edges of the spectrum to each other lets look at Japan and
the US. The US is ridden with crime, poverty and hatred. It is one of the
most religious of those countries where people are allowed to choose their
beliefs. Japan on the other hand is one of the least religious of these
countries and has the least of these problems.

Easy way to fix this which I'd be extremely in favour of is a 5 year
"review period" on immigrants after tentative approval for permanent
residency or citizenship. It'd cost money but I think it'd be well worth
it for Australia. Set up a body that after 5 years goes over their lives
for the past 5 years with a fine-tooth comb, if they are not found to
have joined society as a whole, and adopted the Australian ethos
(something you've never done) of accepting everyone and getting along
with everyone, if they've decided to hide in little enclaves and shun
Australians, then send them home. And that should apply to all
immigrants regardless of race/religion.

let them stay here for 5 years, they have kids who have only known
life in Australia, speak English, Australian schools, education
egalitarianism,
so on and so forth .. the end result is people not suited anymore to
going back
and dealing with their pig ignorant neighbours full of suspician about
them
because of thei westernised outlook and craving for hot baths, foxtel and
toilet paper.

They should go back pretty much as they left to reduce the inevitable
cultural shock.
Your method would ensure the greatest cultural shocks.


No, my method would only see those that refused to become part of
Australia sent back, and those are the types who've never adopted our
culture in the first place so are very unlikely to face any culture shock
if sent home, more like an economic shock, and bad luck.

Your approach is an ideal and has merit. But to stop this refugee invasion

but besides that, we have a Christian obligation to help these people in
distress
in times of trouble but there is no obligation to make themAustralian
residents.


I agree completely, they should not be allowed to stay here forever
because of refugee status, they should have to apply like anyone else from
any other country or be sent home when the problems are over.

If there is a car accident out the front of my house I will help as
possible
but the obligation is on them to help themselves as well and this does
not infer any `right`
of helping themselves to my or our limitted resources ...it means not
being an unecessary
burden i.e. going back to their homes (nations) when the crisis has
passed

why you should think `bad luck` entitles them to a share of your
national
wealth is beyond me.


I don't, as I've said to you many times, they should have to apply like
anyone else. But since that is never likely to happen in this politically
correct society full of sheeple with the wool pulled over their eyes we
should at the very least be performing reviews to ensure these people are
at least making an attempt to fit into Australia and if not send them
home. Personally I don't think they should be allowed to stay purely due
to refugee status at all, it should always be considered temporary, unless
they apply to get in in the meantime under the same rules and guidelines
as any other immigrant has to deal with.

Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he
hit one of your raw nerves square on the head.

It isn't a raw nerve but a tired response to a tiresome claim. He may as
well say
"abra cadabra" and think he has trounced me. It's a mantra it's supposed
to to ward
off different perspectives that are not comfortable to consider. i.e.
personal cowardice..


No different than the irrational claims you were making, which could
equally be applied to all Christians based on the actions of the loons
like the Brethren if we were to do things your way.

When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?

you tell me.

if you accept `no man is without sin` then it really isn't surprising to
see Christian ministers
commiting sin.


Yes, but you wouldn't expect to see a massive over-representation as we do
seem to see unless something was very wrong.

In Islam they don't consider selling an underage girl into a sexual
relationship as sin
or rape within marriage, rape.


Actually they do, in fact many Islamic countries have a much higher age of
consent and much more severe penalties for breaking those laws than most
"Western" countries do. Whilst pockets of culture still allow this crap to
happen it is being wiped out, just as it is with some Aboriginals right
here in Australia who still seem to consider it to be perfectly ok
culturally despite 200 years of Christian indoctrination (or perhaps not
despite at all), and there are even pockets of Christians in the same
regions of the Middle East and elsewhere that also still think it is ok
culturally. It ain't a religion thing, it's a regional culture thing, and
slowly but surely it's being eliminated, the wealthier and more educated a
country, or region within a country, becomes.

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting"
country, I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train
stations after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests,
all healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.


In that case you'll agree BJF's claim that such vilification and suspion
stems
from fear and feeling of inadequacy is -

nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.


I don't vilify anyone based on race/religion/anything else, but I will be
more likely to be wary based on those and a number of other factors, which
is perfectly rational when faced with very obvious statistical chances
every day. Same as I'd be more wary of a Christian priest looking after
children than I would be with most anyone else looking after them. Also I
have no problems with airports or immigration being more wary of people
coming from the Middle East or other places involved with terrorism, it
doesn't mean we tar and brush everyone from that area though any more than
we'd tar and brush all Christians.

vilifiction is a word like torture which is IMO misused a lot

Some things are just more likely to happen with certain groupings in
certain areas, and it has nothing at all to do with that group as a whole,
it is to do with sub-cultures or pockets of sub-cultures in a localised
environment.

But to answer your question I don't agree with what he said in general,
but I also do not agree with what you said to prompt that response in the
first place. Rash and inaccurate generalisations generally lead to
generalised responses, and in some cases with some people his response
would probably have been accurate, but can't be used as an overall blanket
definition for all who don't seem to get it, as many don't get it for a
lot of different reasons.

Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?

I have watched people go through the experience of death..
When faced with nothing the hope/realisation that there is something can
be
very comforting


Agreed, nice little safety blanket for some. And that is one of the good
things about religion (any religion).