On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:21:52 GMT, David Moss
 wrote:

>tvaerskaegg@aol.com wrote in

>> It's pretty clear what David Moss is doing.
 
>> For him anyone who is critical of Islam must have ulterior motives and
>> he does his best to cast aspersions on them with snide remarks and
>> innuendo. He compliments this with fawning rationalisations about the
>> inhuman and barbaric aspects of Islam.

>> He comes over strongly as a man with an agenda, and that agenda is
>> clearly pro-Islam, whatever violations of common sense and common
>> decency this may involve.

>Actually my agenda is pro-liberal. My defence of minority religions is 
>only a manifestation of my overall belief system.

Your eagerness to defend Islam and smear its critics extends to being
an apologist for the barbaric Muslim doctrine of wife beating. Hardly
a liberal stance.

>What I object to iss people who selectively post material about Muslims 
>behaving badly in an attempt to foment hatred against the minority.

Yep, lies, smears and innuendo is David Moss's modus operandi. 

I have challenged you many times to produce evidence of your
accusations that I 'cut and paste hate speech on a daily basis' and
each time you have either ignored this or tried to deflect attention
with smears and innuendo. 

>I like to highlight the commonality of the target minority with majority 
>groups within the population. This tends to infuriate the people trying 
>to foment hatred for some reason.

It would be very difficult to highlight a commonality between the
Islamic doctrine of wife beating and Christian condemnation of it, but
you are a slimy character and you keep on trying to do it.

It doesn't quite work for you, though.

Svenne

Svenne  wrote in 
news:nb4bf4pr8nutbc9r4pbg5aik1hj5tnslpl@4ax.com:

> It would be very difficult to highlight a commonality between the
> Islamic doctrine of wife beating and Christian condemnation of it, but
> you are a slimy character and you keep on trying to do it.

Its actually impossible because canonical Christian text is silent on the 
topic of what a man may do to his wife, although it does say men are 
superior to women and that a wife must be subservient to her husband in all 
circumstances.

Canonical Islamic text does place limitations on what a man may do to his 
wife, however it was written 1500 years ago and doesn't really meet the 
needs of modern western society.

The only commonality is that all the Abrahamic faiths believe that man is 
superior to woman and than wives must be subservient to their husbands. The 
difference is that one of them places restrictions on how the subservience 
may be enforced and the rest leave it to the husband's discretion.

You seem to be having difficulty coming to terms with this truth Svenne. 
Suspicious people might wonder why.

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com