Like i said once before, i have an almost visceral reaction to folks quoting the Vatican and its functionaries like Wojtyla. And like i reminded you before, if one quotes the likes of hitler in defence of one's arguments, one should not then act all surprised when the reader (including a jew) finds anti-semitism in that.
Apparently quoting Henry Ford on the issue of mass production will lead one to be accused of anti-semitism. What nonsense!
Sorry, but your tactic of restraining the hindu with both his hands tied behind his back and his mouth gagged while advocating the right of the EJ to spill his bile and hatred unfettered in India is, my guess at least on this forum, finding no takers.
Again, you misrepresent my position. As I have said numerous times, a person should be able to say whatever they want without threatening the life, liberty or property of another. If this person happens to be a Hindu, so be it, and if he happens to be a Christian evangelist, so be it. You are the one that sees bigotry in it. Quite frankly, that is probably a reflection of you more than of anyone else.
Allow free rein to the hindu to hit back in equal measure
As long as this "equal measure" does not involve violence, threat of violence or other similar tools of the trade, this should be acceptable.
Do you wish to see the destruction of your 5,000-yr old civilization?
Quite frankly, this is a non sequitur to me.
what is so "right" about "all men are born equal"? ... if I had a faith based system, I could easily trash that concept as something that my god/faith poo-poo'ed on ...
I agree. The entire framework is based on the axiom that all human beings believe that every other human being has a right to sustain his own life, mainly because they believe that they have that right themselves.
what will your defence be, if not something based on logic?
I believe my defense is based on logic, the logic deriving from the single axiom stated above.
as a corollary, I claim that all your beliefs are a subset of logic ... hence, why not simply embrace logic and give up faith? ... else you can give up your stance of defending "rights" ... what say you?
I don't disagree. However, if you notice, most of my commentary pertains to the public realm, where men come into contact with other men.
It is my contention that whatever a man conjures up in his head, by way of faith, delusion, or fantasy is beyond the capability of human beings to "limit". Religion and other faith based initiatives may have a role here depending on the individual. To that extent, I don't think there is any locus standi in demanding that a person should give up faith.
Anti-semitism began as hate-speech. And yet, when the time came to defend the lives and property of jews, the apparent much vaunted "law-and-order" types keep peddling the same old $hit of effective policing et al.
You are conflating "effective policing" with "protecting minority rights." These are not the same. Hitler had a very effective police force, as did Stalin and Saddam Hussein. However, none of them protected "minority rights." Therefore, if we were to conduct a thought experiment, imagine what would have happened if there were an effective judicial system to overturn whatever orders were given to take away the life and property of the minority (jews). That, is the scenario that I wish to paint, a government where the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority, because the constitution protects the rights of the minority.
(I guess I am now a Baathist, Communist, anti-Semite by Sadler's definition!)