🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick Canion <pspat@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in article <5jlarr$go0$1@opera.iinet.net.au>...
> Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

> >Patrick, I have no particular antipathy for your religion, but I don't
> >see why you expect me to accept its precepts without believing in it,

> Maybe this is where we have our wires crossed

Its certainly where you 'christians' have YOUR wires crossed. 

> I *don't* expect you to accept its precepts without faith in it.  

Sure, you just welcome legislation that rams those views down our throats
on the matter of getting assistance to end our lives when we want to Pat. 

> I have simply been responding to an invitation 
> to expand on my reasons for opposing euthanasia!

You've done rather more than that, you in fact praised that unspeakable 
legislation that rams the views of 'christians' down the throats of VASTLY
greater numbers of people who think that it makes a lot of sense to allow
people to get assistance to end their lives if they decide they want to do that. 

> >You've actively promoted laws prohibiting me from following my beliefs.

Thats about the most succinct summary of the problem. 

> >If that's not intolerance, I wonder what you think intolerance is - 

And this is too. 

> >must the jackboots be at the door before you'll feel a twinge of guilt?

> No, I actively participated in the democratic process 
> whilst a legislative response was being decided.

Come one Pat, it AINT a 'democratic process' if the law gets done the way the 
vast bulk of the voters think it should NOT be done. It is in fact an absolutely classic 
example of 'christian' intolerance enshrined in legislation. And that STINKS. 

And its precisely this complete FLOUTING of the wishes of the vast bulk of the
voters that will eventually see stuff like citizen initiated referenda. Coz its about 
the only way you rabid ideologues and fundys can be controlled when you attempt to 
hijack the political agenda and ram your ideology down others throats by legislation.