My replies are pompous and arrogant? I couldn’t have been more accurate and concise in my replies.

My definition of democracy is distorted and wrong? I didn’t define democracy. I only mentioned some of the basics. To fully define democracy would require much more than a few short sentences.

I also love your logic, zz. If you have to explain, you say, that means I am too full of myself to fit in any sense and logic (whatever that means). It would appear that actually, the opposite would be the case. But go ahead, keep on dreaming.

Your replies are pompous and arrogant and your definition of democracy is distorted and wrong. And if I have to explain why then you are too full of yourself to fit in any sense and logic.

Daphne, the current situation is pretty much the same. I left secondary school five years ago and we were still being taught about the Great Siege in an Us vs Them approach.

I’ll reply to each of your questions, zz.

And what qualifies one to chastise others?

Birth.

Also what qualifies what is outrageous?

Each person decides for himself.

Who are we, non Muslims, to chastise him for his interpretation of his faith?

We are free persons with a mind of our own and the freedom to express our opinions.

These are the basics of democracy, and yet, they still have to be explained. I give up.

[Daphne – There is no such thing as the Maltese Church. Malta doesn’t have its own religion.]

”Records only kept for injuries on AFM members, but not on migrants at detention centres”

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-01-13/local-news/Records-only-kept-for-injuries-on-AFM-members-but-not-on-migrants-at-detention-centres-6736128673

There is one arguing why women should not drive, or when it is acceptable for a man to beat a woman. You can find it on Youtube. And guess what? It’s how the law and customs are in Saudia.

As for that Gozitan priest, I still have to witness something similar.

And what qualifies one to chastise others? High opinion of themselves?

Also what qualifies what is outrageous? Outrageousness is relative and cannot describe anything on its own.

The cleric is commenting on an Islamic notion and not on what Obama can do in his backyard at the white house. The cleric’s comment are in context of the religion he lives, studies and preaches. Who are we, non Muslims, to chastise him for his interpretation of his faith?

Free speech includes the right to chastise (verbally, of course) people for their outrageous opinions. Do these things even have to be explained?