Replies

My point, my dear, is that most religions don't present a aggressive threat to me; I acknowledge the elements of truth and value in them, although I do not agree with their total view. The Apostle Paul expressed a certain appreciation for the religious sentiments of the pagan Athenians at their Areopagus (Mars Hill) shrine, and even quoted one of their poets with approval (Acts 17:22-24.)

However, if anyone, secularist, atheist, Islamist or whatever, wishes to threaten my liberty and my nation, I will certainly oppose them, forcefully if necessary.

"I don't quite understand the logic that religion X should be given no space because its morally or spiritually incapable of resisting religion Y."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Amongst those who are non-aggressors, all "opposition" or "resisrance" is a far friendlier thing, and takes the form of dialog, banter, love, blessing, humor, example, and reason. Against this form of "opposition" --- which is actually friendly persuasion, or even rivalry in doing good --- there can be, I think, no objection.

"Against this form of "opposition" --- which is actually friendly persuasion, or even rivalry in doing good --- there can be, I think, no objection."

Hmmmm I could you some "friendly persuasion" against Christian proselytization in my own country. I don't think you would object :)

BTW this is from the article:

"Last year, Peppa's group, Ellinais, succeeded in gaining legal recognition as a cultural association in a country where all non-Christian religions, bar Islam and Judaism, are prohibited. "

What the above article means is that only Hinduism is banned there. It is the case in many places in Europe.

Christians themselves need to get certain things corrected before they can lecture others on morality and freedom. For a lot of us the Church little more than a symbol of hypocrisy and religious intolerance.