136GreenRoad

Here's a message St Howard can pass on to the Liberals when he preaches to them in a couple of weeks.

On the other hand we don't have the right to ban dress just because it's not part of our tradition. I live in a very ethnic area and on a summer day I see the gamut of girls with their tits practically falling out of their halters, elderly Italian ladies head-to-foot in black, Hasidic Jews, Sikhs with turbans and many women wearing hijabs. None of it seems out of place.

That's why it doesn't have to be an an all-or-nothing approach. Let them by all means wear a burqa walking down the street but when it comes to going into a business establishment perhaps other rules need to apply.

That's what I was doing. I was pointing out that although abortion and homosexuality are abhorrent to some Christians violent reaction has been minimal and condemned by Christian churches. Even though homosexuality is part of the cultural mainstream in the west gays are still persecuted in non-Christan communities. But in a country like this one I still don't know how many Muslims actually support the teachings of the extremist Islamic groups.

Since homosexuality and SSM are both legal gays clearly have a right to take work and live where they want. If you choose to move because you find out you have an SSM couple next door you can hardly blame them.

Post #26 had already addressed that. From Post #26 All good questions. But what about other religious persons who put their faith above their commitment to their citizenship - how would they react if they were forced to choose? We have seen abortion clinics bombed, albeit by a few and, of course, this has been condemned by mainline religionists. There have been instances of homophobia with gays being assaulted but again I would regard this as isolated. It will be interesting to see what happens in RSA after legalizing what is referred to as "gay marriage" but which in effect is a registered partnership a la the UK. Feelings against homosexuals run a lot higher there than here. Will be see an outbreak of attacks on gays?

Curious. An other member leewgrant identifies himself with exactly the same location. As soon as I get the "Warwick Green" tag reactivated, "136GreenRoad" is toast.

Have you tried offering sexual favours? Maybe if the name of the administrator was Georgina.

The relevance is that their belief goes against the western way of life. For those others (Jews, Christians etc) who put their religion ahead of their citizenship should we be also accusing them of going "against the western way of life"? Why, do they believe and shout, "death to all infidels"? Do all the 80% of Muslims who put their religion ahead of citizenship go around shouting, "death to all infidels"?

I agree. I was appalled at Madonna using a cross as part of her act.

The relevance is that their belief goes against the western way of life. For those others (Jews, Christians etc) who put their religion ahead of their citizenship should we be also accusing them of going "against the western way of life"?

What was the figure for other groups - Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans? All well represented in the UK.Actually, I would expect any sane person to put religion ahead of citizenship. Not to exclude the irreligious from sanity, I say that (given nobody has control over who their parents are or their country of birth) it would make even more sense for a sane person to treat every person of the world with equal rights and respect. In other words, citizenship and religion would be bottom priorities. The question then is, what relevance is the 80% figure for Muslims?

I have been posting with the username "warwick green". A few days ago I tried to change my e-mail address but for some reason the new address refused to accept the verification e-mail so I cannot verify it. As a result the "warwick green" ID is now non-operative. I am now using a new one "136greenroad" which I created. I have sent several e-mails to Greg asking him to reinstate my old address so I can once again use the "warwick green" handle. But he has not replied. Anybody have any suggestions? Thanks.

What I'm calling nonsensical is attributing the passage of the bill to that. To what then do you attribute passage of the Bill? It was so-called "hate literature" that Robinson was attempting to ban and he distributed copies of what he considered as such.

What was the figure for other groups - Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans? All well represented in the UK.