Maybe you do not know that parts of the ten commandments as they are usually quoted today, are not complete, but hide some unwanted sentences.

May I quote German philosopher and speaker/director of the Giordano Bruno-foundation Michael Schmidt-Salomon, my own translation form the German:

The former German minister for social affairs and family, Ursula von der Leyen, announced in 2006 in front of running cameras, that "the first 19 articles of the German Basic Law (=German constitution) summarize the principles of the ten commandments." Who would have imagined that? It seems the minister has a very strange edition of the German constitution text. Because since when does the Basic Law legitimize religious compulsion and kin liability, slavery and the subordination of women under men - all that being content of the ten commandments? Or the other way around: since when do the ten commandments include "inviolable and inalienable human rights" (article 1), "the right to free development of his personality" (article 2), the equality of males and females before the law (article 3), " Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed" (article 4), or the guaranteeing of free right for opinion, speech, media, arts and science (article 5) ? These rights are not only not included in the canon of the ten commandments, but they are even in direct and infusable opposition to the total general orientation of the Bible!

Some more on the variuous sets (!) of the ten commandments.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

A commandment against coveting another mans wife is subordinating woman according to the wonderful world of religion hating Skybird. :roll:

No, but a commandment listing women in one row with things and animals.

You also again practice flawed logic in your eagerness to go after me, because from a rule saying that a male should not commit adultry (at least the commandment did not list lesbians) you cannot conclude that this automatically means or equals a status of equality for women with regards to males. A male can perfectly commit adultry with a female slave. ;) It is in fact practiced in many parts of the world until today.

And just for the record, since this forum has made me allergic now to being misquoted: instead of "according to Skybird" you should have correctly written "according to Schmidt-Salomon". The book I took the quote from has the nice title "Keine Macht den Doofen". But I can also find a link to a pdf scripture of a speech he gave in 2008 where he is about this - and other stories - as well.

I care not for an obscure foreign propaganda piece written by some clown with an axe to grind. This is what, like the 1000th religion hating thread you've started over the years? You hate religion, we get the point.

And no, the 10th commandment isn't about sexual equality but neither does it mandate sexual INequality. That is your reaching interpretation. Ask any priest (assuming you wouldn't just burst into flame in their presence) and they will tell you that the 10th commandment applies to females coveting a neighbors husband as much as males coveting a neighbors wife.

I suppose the nationality was again a strictly necessary factor in this?

Are you surprised? :hmmm:

Wowh. You should consider a career as campaign manager. They need guys yelling like this.

Parrots sounding like parrots - what a surprise.

And about me hating religion, as you put it. Well, not sure I agree with that formulation, I am more alarmed about it like I am alarmed about a lack of oxygen to breathe or like I am alarmed about a lack of water and food when being hungry and thirsty.

What really brings me into arms is when I am confronted by blatant stupidity. And maybe then I indeed start to "hate". For example when meeting braindead but still underhanded and malicious retards who write stuff like this:

http://www.tencommandments.org/

So much for some commandments. This thread was about law evasion by the church and protecting pedophile rapists in the church.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/630...olfsschafp.jpg

You would have thought a topic about nonces would be simple enough for all people to agree on.
Child abuse... bad
Covering up for child abuse... bad
Facilitating childabusers... bad

But that would be too agreeable wouldn't it.

There was no sexual equality in the OT, women were property of the father or husband. A male could have as many wives, concubines and slave women as he wanted and have sex with them all. Women suffered numeroius laws to keep them inferior and in place.

Haters spreading hate - what a surprise.


In other words...
[/QUOTE]

Let him "hate" all he wants. (to use your interpretation of "being alarmed" about something)
many of his points he is not alone on, this side of the ocean.
i mean.... do you have anything to say other than kick the man in the nuts?

... or attempt to.

That's ridiculous. Am I somehow preventing him from spreading his hate?

Good News!
 

On a note that we can all agree on, a Royal Commission, looking into child abuse, is beginning in Australia. And from the sounds of things, if the Church suddenly objects, the investigators will just carry on.

then tell me your point is...? he hates religion and should shut up about it?
is he and or the subject getting on your nerves?
he has a beef with the institution that has put itself between the religious ide and the human "average Joe" masses.

Pointing out manipulation, abuse, evil and so forth coming from the Church (not religion itself as such)
why shall he not open his eyes and share his thoughs on that matter?

very good.
the Church should be downgraded to the level of amateur socker or cricket or baseball or basketball teams when it comes to privileges and extra rights.

Anyone objecting investigations shall be treated as a potential suspect and abuser.

now that would be fun to watch...:haha::har:
Squeal, pope, squeal!