Big problem!

[Kendall K. Down]

"Big problem for Aussie travellers headed to Bali as Indonesia passes
controversial law making sex outside marriage punishable by jail -
including TOURISTS. The new law also applies to foreign residents and
tourists, including thousands of Australians who visit the island hotspot."

As I have remarked before on this august forum - and said frequently in
sermons and Bible studies - foreign countries can be as rigorous as they
like with their laws, they won't worry me because I keep a higher law.

In other words, going to Bali would not be a "big problem" for me, as I
have no intention of committing adultery! The dismay of the adulterous
does make me chuckle, though.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[John]

You're actually showing approval of a predominantly Muslim country? I
am shocked!

As you say though, their country, their rules. Fair play to them.

[Timreason]

I'm wondering how they expect to enforce such a law. Maybe they'll need
to set up some kind of 'Morality Police'?

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/12/2022 12:03, John wrote:

> You're actually showing approval of a predominantly Muslim country?  I
> am shocked!

So long as they stay over there ...

Actually, I didn't say anything about approving of them. I merely
commented that *I* would have not difficulty adhering to this new law,
seeing that as a Christian, I don't commit adultery.

> As you say though, their country, their rules.  Fair play to them.

Indeed. Mind you, does the same apply here in Britain? Are we allowed to
prosecute them if they turn up with four wives?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/12/2022 12:46, Timreason wrote:

> I'm wondering how they expect to enforce such a law. Maybe they'll need
> to set up some kind of 'Morality Police'?

According to the radio, action will only be taken if there is a
complaint, either by the parents of one of those involved or by the
husband/wife of one of those involved.

Seems reasonable to me.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/12/2022 12:03, John wrote:
>
>> You're actually showing approval of a predominantly Muslim country?  I
>> am shocked!
>
> So long as they stay over there.

> Actually, I didn't say anything about approving of them. I merely
> commented that *I* would have not difficulty adhering to this new law,
> seeing that as a Christian, I don't commit adultery.
>
>> As you say though, their country, their rules.  Fair play to them.
>
> Indeed. Mind you, does the same apply here in Britain? Are we allowed to
> prosecute them if they turn up with four wives?

Hardly enforceable if they arrive with 4 women in tow. Muslims adopt a
strict interpretation of OT law, I thought you would approve, given
polygamy was allowed back then.

But Muslims can't marry 4 wives in this country, so if they did, they
could be prosecuted yes.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/12/2022 23:09, John wrote:

>> Indeed. Mind you, does the same apply here in Britain? Are we allowed
>> to prosecute them if they turn up with four wives?

> Hardly enforceable if they arrive with 4 women in tow. Muslims adopt a
> strict interpretation of OT law, I thought you would approve, given
> polygamy was allowed back then.

Old Testament law has nothing to do with the fact that polygamy is
banned under British law. If Muslim countries are approved for
prosecuting visitors if they break the local laws, we should be approved
for prosecuting visitors if they break our local laws.

> But Muslims can't marry 4 wives in this country, so if they did, they
> could be prosecuted yes.

But Indonesia's new law applies to tourists and visitors, not just to
residents. Any more apples and lemons you wish to compare?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/12/2022 08:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In other words, going to Bali would not be a "big problem" for me, as I
> have no intention of committing adultery! The dismay of the adulterous
> does make me chuckle, though.

Further details of the changed laws have emerged. Curiously, although
adulterous sex is banned, homosexual sex is not, even though both are
condemned by Islam.

More worrying for Christians is this:

"The new code also expands an existing blasphemy law and keeps a
five-year prison term for deviations from the central tenets of
Indonesia's six recognized religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism,
Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism."

Who, I wonder, defines these central tenets and whether they have been
deviated from? Would the Toronto Blessing count as a deviation? What
about Unitarianism or JWs? Does blasphemy apply to all six religions or
only to Islam? After all, every time a Muslim recites "la illahu allah
illa" he is committing blasphemy from the Christian point of view!

[Mike Davis]

On 07/12/2022 07:47, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> Further details of the changed laws have emerged. Curiously, although
> adulterous sex is banned, homosexual sex is not, even though both are
> condemned by Islam.
>
> More worrying for Christians is this:
>
> "The new code also expands an existing blasphemy law and keeps a
> five-year prison term for deviations from the central tenets of
> Indonesia's six recognized religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism,
> Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism."
>
> Who, I wonder, defines these central tenets and whether they have been
> deviated from? Would the Toronto Blessing count as a deviation? What
> about Unitarianism or JWs? Does blasphemy apply to all six religions or
> only to Islam? After all, every time a Muslim recites "la illahu allah
> illa" he is committing blasphemy from the Christian point of view!

I've yet to hear all of it, but Rowan Williams 2nd Reith Lecture on
'Freedom of Worship" bears on this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fw1l

Recommended so far (15mins!)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/12/2022 12:05, Mike Davis wrote:

> I've yet to hear all of it, but Rowan Williams 2nd Reith Lecture on
> 'Freedom of Worship" bears on this.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fw1l

Thanks.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/12/2022 23:09, John wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. Mind you, does the same apply here in Britain? Are we allowed
>>> to prosecute them if they turn up with four wives?
>
>> Hardly enforceable if they arrive with 4 women in tow. Muslims adopt a
>> strict interpretation of OT law, I thought you would approve, given
>> polygamy was allowed back then.
>
> Old Testament law has nothing to do with the fact that polygamy is
> banned under British law. If Muslim countries are approved for
> prosecuting visitors if they break the local laws, we should be approved
> for prosecuting visitors if they break our local laws.

But they wouldn't be breaking any UK laws would be. They marry in a
Muslim country but the marriages aren't recognised here, so treated as
living together, which isn't a crime in this country.

>> But Muslims can't marry 4 wives in this country, so if they did, they
>> could be prosecuted yes.
>
> But Indonesia's new law applies to tourists and visitors, not just to
> residents. Any more apples and lemons you wish to compare?

Seems straightforward enough to me. Indonesia creates a law saying
no-one visiting the country can have sex if they're not married.
Doesn't affect you as you don't agree with sex outside marriage.

Muslim man has 4 wives which is legal where he comes from but he's
breaking no laws if he comes over here.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/12/2022 23:16, John wrote:

> But they wouldn't be breaking any UK laws would be.  They marry in a
> Muslim country but the marriages aren't recognised here, so treated as
> living together, which isn't a crime in this country.

They would be breaking laws if they claim spousal rights or benefits for
all four wives.

> Muslim man has 4 wives which is legal where he comes from but he's
> breaking no laws if he comes over here.

Not if he comes for an in-and-out visit, but an extended stay ... and,
of course, the age of those "wives" might be a problem.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 23:16, John wrote:
>
>> But they wouldn't be breaking any UK laws would be.  They marry in a
>> Muslim country but the marriages aren't recognised here, so treated as
>> living together, which isn't a crime in this country.
>
> They would be breaking laws if they claim spousal rights or benefits for
> all four wives.

They wouldn't be able to. The other 3 wives would have to claim
independently.

>> Muslim man has 4 wives which is legal where he comes from but he's
>> breaking no laws if he comes over here.
>
> Not if he comes for an in-and-out visit, but an extended stay ... and,
> of course, the age of those "wives" might be a problem.

Why would it?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/12/2022 23:15, John wrote:

>> They would be breaking laws if they claim spousal rights or benefits
>> for all four wives.

> They wouldn't be able to. The other 3 wives would have to claim
> independently.

Even if they claimed independently, they could not claim as *wives*.

>> Not if he comes for an in-and-out visit, but an extended stay ... and,
>> of course, the age of those "wives" might be a problem.

> Why would it?

I didn't say it *would*, I said it *might*. Is English your second
language or are you deliberately trying to twist what I say?

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 23:15, John wrote:
>
>>> They would be breaking laws if they claim spousal rights or benefits
>>> for all four wives.
>
>> They wouldn't be able to. The other 3 wives would have to claim
>> independently.
>
> Even if they claimed independently, they could not claim as *wives*.

Did I say they could claim as *wives*? The fact they would have to
claim as independent adults would have told you they can't. But legally,
under [insert home country] laws they are still his wives, just not
recognised as such in the UK.

>
>>> Not if he comes for an in-and-out visit, but an extended stay ...
>>> and, of course, the age of those "wives" might be a problem.
>
>> Why would it?
>
> I didn't say it *would*, I said it *might*. Is English your second
> language or are you deliberately trying to twist what I say?

Ooooh, Ken's debating skills triumph again, see how well you can put
down the other debater. Not pleasant to see in a fellow human, certainly
ugly to see in someone who claims to be a Christian.

To answer your question, no I wasn't trying to twist what you said, and
I should have said might, so I'll try again, why might it be a problem,
and what percentage of Muslim immigrants in this country would it affect?

[Timreason]

On 12/12/2022 11:09, John wrote:

> Ooooh, Ken's debating skills triumph again, see how well you can put
> down the other debater. Not pleasant to see in a fellow human, certainly
> ugly to see in someone who claims to be a Christian.
>

Precisely. Worse still, he claims to be a minister!

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/12/2022 11:09, John wrote:

> To answer your question, no I wasn't trying to twist what you said, and
> I should have said might, so I'll try again,

Good. Accuracy is always to be desired.

> why might it be a problem,
> and what percentage of Muslim immigrants in this country would it affect?

Because many countries - and especially Third World countries - indulge
in child marriages. In India, where I grew up, children as young as 2 or
3 could be married, though there was no question of consummating the
marriage until the children were much older.

My Muslim sister (adopted) was married at 12 to an old man.

Many Muslims do indeed marry young girls and engage in sexual
intercourse with them. You may remember some years ago an English woman
was foolish enough to marry a Muslim from the Yemen. When - inevitably -
the marriage broke up, he kidnapped his daughters and fled to the Yemen
where they were married off at 8 and 10. I believe he got a good price
for them because they were extra fair, being half English.

A newspaper tracked them down and interviewed the husbands, who admitted
that the girls were probably too young for sexual intercourse, and said
that they would use the girls "like boys" until they were old enough for
proper sex - presumably at puberty.

And there have been a few cases reported in the press where Muslim men
have entered Britain with wives who were very much below the age of
consent. Naturally, when the authorities began to take an interest, the
men fled the country, taking their child-brides with them.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/12/2022 15:28, Timreason wrote:

> Precisely.  Worse still, he claims to be a minister!

You are a supporter of sloppiness and inaccuracy, then?

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 11:09, John wrote:
>
>> To answer your question, no I wasn't trying to twist what you said,
>> and I should have said might, so I'll try again,
>
> Good. Accuracy is always to be desired.
>
>> why might it be a problem, and what percentage of Muslim immigrants in
>> this country would it affect?
>
> Because many countries - and especially Third World countries - indulge
> in child marriages. In India, where I grew up, children as young as 2 or
> 3 could be married, though there was no question of consummating the
> marriage until the children were much older.
>
> My Muslim sister (adopted) was married at 12 to an old man.

Permissible under local muslim law at the time, although the legal age
was 14 for Indians (it is now 18 for women with proposals to raise it to 21)

> Many Muslims do indeed marry young girls and engage in sexual
> intercourse with them.

Many? Most Muslim countries have a legal age for marriage at 16/18. I
may be wrong but I understand that only Iran has a lower legal age (9)
for girls, and that only 20% of Iranian marriages are child brides,
which drops to 7% for those 14 and under.

> You may remember some years ago an English woman
> was foolish enough to marry a Muslim from the Yemen. When - inevitably -
> the marriage broke up, he kidnapped his daughters and fled to the Yemen
> where they were married off at 8 and 10. I believe he got a good price
> for them because they were extra fair, being half English.

The two girls were from Birmingham and were 14 and 15, this was in
1980. In 1991 Yemen passed a law which increased the minimum age for
marriage to 18.

> A newspaper tracked them down and interviewed the husbands, who admitted
> that the girls were probably too young for sexual intercourse, and said
> that they would use the girls "like boys" until they were old enough for
> proper sex - presumably at puberty.

that's not in any of the reports I've read.

>
> And there have been a few cases reported in the press where Muslim men
> have entered Britain with wives who were very much below the age of
> consent. Naturally, when the authorities began to take an interest, the
> men fled the country, taking their child-brides with them.

Unless they were Iranian, it is doubtful the marriage(s) were legal.

So many muslims is in fact false, isn't it Ken?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/12/2022 23:17, John wrote:

> Permissible under local muslim law at the time, although the legal age
> was 14 for Indians (it is now 18 for women with proposals to raise it to
> 21)

So if you knew what local muslim law allows, why were you so puzzled
when I said that the age of wives might be a problem? Don't you think
there is a problem when wokeness conflicts with honesty?

> Many? Most Muslim countries have a legal age for marriage at 16/18. I
> may be wrong but I understand that only Iran has a lower legal age (9)
> for girls, and that only 20% of Iranian marriages are child brides,
> which drops to 7% for those 14 and under.

Even 7% of Iranians adds up to "many".

> The two girls were from Birmingham and were 14 and 15, this was in
> 1980.  In 1991 Yemen passed a law which increased the minimum age for
> marriage to 18.

Thannks for the correction. Unfortunately a) such laws, passed under
Western influence, are widely ignored; b) Yemen is hardly in a position
to enforce any laws at the moment.

> that's not in any of the reports I've read.

That's not my fault.

> Unless they were Iranian, it is doubtful the marriage(s) were legal.

Legal under what system? Many Muslims insist on sharia law, in defiance
of whatever other laws there may be.

> So many muslims is in fact false, isn't it Ken?

See my comment above.

[Timreason]

All I know is that ALL you EVER want to do is put the other person down.
Any way you can. There's hardly enough room in God's universe for your ego.

Tim.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 23:17, John wrote:
>
>> Permissible under local muslim law at the time, although the legal age
>> was 14 for Indians (it is now 18 for women with proposals to raise it
>> to 21)
>
> So if you knew what local muslim law allows, why were you so puzzled
> when I said that the age of wives might be a problem? Don't you think
> there is a problem when wokeness conflicts with honesty?

At the time we were talking about Indonesians. Indonesians can't have
child brides so your premise was false. Oh, and change your allows to
allowed, it was ruled out in India in 2005 ish.

Incidentally, and something I meant to ask on the other post, why was
your adopted sister allowed to marry an old man at the age of 12? For a
muslim man to take a child bride (where its allowed) they have to have
the permission of the father. Did your father grant such permission?

> Many? Most Muslim countries have a legal age for marriage at 16/18. I
>> may be wrong but I understand that only Iran has a lower legal age (9)
>> for girls, and that only 20% of Iranian marriages are child brides,
>> which drops to 7% for those 14 and under.
>
> Even 7% of Iranians adds up to "many".

So I take it 93% is few then? And 7% of Iranians equates to less than
1% of muslims, maybe that's many as well.

>> The two girls were from Birmingham and were 14 and 15, this was in
>> 1980.  In 1991 Yemen passed a law which increased the minimum age for
>> marriage to 18.
>
> Thannks for the correction. Unfortunately a) such laws, passed under
> Western influence, are widely ignored; b) Yemen is hardly in a position
> to enforce any laws at the moment.

Do you know this for certain. Islamic countries are far more strict on
law breaking than the western world, and I very much doubt a muslim
would take a child ride if the marriage wasn't legal (which is Sharia law)

>> that's not in any of the reports I've read.
>
> That's not my fault.

It is if you were making it up. Seeing as they were 14 and 15 there
would be no need to use them as boys.

>> Unless they were Iranian, it is doubtful the marriage(s) were legal.
>
> Legal under what system? Many Muslims insist on sharia law, in defiance
> of whatever other laws there may be.

So Sharia law advocates sex with children does it, as opposed to the
social norms in the country where it has taken place? (India a classic
example) like I said, pretty much all muslim countries have a legal age
of at least 16, with only Iran (as far as I know) has a lowe age.

And yes, I agree that sex with children was more rife 50-100 years ago,
and that muslim countries have taken longer to catch up with western
trends, but lets not forget that until 1929 the legal age for a girl to
marry was 12.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/12/2022 08:21, Timreason wrote:

> All I know is that ALL you EVER want to do is put the other person down.
> Any way you can. There's hardly enough room in God's universe for your ego.

Certainly. If other people try to move the goal posts by changing what I
wrote into something that has a different meaning.

Words, as I think I have reminded you before, have meanings. One cannot
just insert random words into sentences because they look or sound nice
or match the colour of the wallpaper.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/12/2022 21:47, John wrote:

> At the time we were talking about Indonesians.  Indonesians can't have
> child brides so your premise was false.  Oh, and change your allows to
> allowed, it was ruled out in India in 2005 ish.

Sharia law was changed in 2005? You do surprise me.

> Incidentally, and something I meant to ask on the other post, why was
> your adopted sister allowed to marry an old man at the age of 12?  For a
> muslim man to take a child bride (where its allowed) they have to have
> the permission of the father.  Did your father grant such permission?

She was not my adopted sister then.

Long story: we moved to a new town and my mother asked a local
acquaintance for help in finding a servant. To our astonishment a couple
of days later this girl (memory says she was 10) turned up with a "chit"
to say that she would make a good servant.

Which was an ethical problem. Naturally my parents would not employ
child labour. On the other hand, if she needed the work, she would go
elsewhere where she would be paid a pittance and expected to work all
the hours God sends. Their solution was to hire her but send her to
school in the morning. She only worked in the afternoon when a) all us
children had chores to perform, and b) she was only given light tasks
suitable to her age.

Two years later she suddenly failed to appear and we had just about
given her up when she returned, wearing a burkha. Enquiries revealed
that she was now a married woman and her husband was an old man. As this
was against the law, my father went to her home with steam coming out of
his ears.

It turned out that her father was a bhishti (water carrier) and lugging
a goat skin of water around in the winter for many years had given him
TB. He was dying and marrying off his daughter was the only way he could
think of to ensure her future.

My father then offered to adopt the girl and her father agreed. It cost
us to buy her out of the marriage, pay for the lawyers and so on, but
she became my sister, of whom I am very proud.

> Do you know this for certain. Islamic countries are far more strict on
> law breaking than the western world, and I very much doubt a muslim
> would take a child ride if the marriage wasn't legal (which is Sharia law)

Are you aware of the political situation in the Yemen at the moment?

> So Sharia law advocates sex with children does it, as opposed to the
> social norms in the country where it has taken place?

Allows, not advocates. After all, even Muhammad married a girl of 8 (a
fact which has only been disputed since Muslims became aware of Western
sensibilities on the subject).

> And yes, I agree that sex with children was more rife 50-100 years ago,
> and that muslim countries have taken longer to catch up with western
> trends, but lets not forget that until 1929 the legal age for a girl to
> marry was 12.

And later in other countries - isn't it Holland that has only recently
raised the age for marriage? Nevertheless, the discussion was on whether
Muslims entering Britain *now* would be expected to conform to British
laws *now*, in the same way as tourists visiting Indonesia *now* are
expected to conform to this new law.

Incidentally, I was amused to notice that Bali has made haste to assure
tourists that they will not be prosecuted for sleeping around. I presume
the Balinese authorities have in mind "sleeping around amongst
themselves". It would probably still be risky to get frisky with local
women whose husbands or other relatives might complain. The report also
stated that the new law "has caused consternation around the world".

Hee hee.

[Timreason]

On 14/12/2022 05:28, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 08:21, Timreason wrote:
>
>> All I know is that ALL you EVER want to do is put the other person
>> down. Any way you can. There's hardly enough room in God's universe
>> for your ego.
>
> Certainly. If other people try to move the goal posts by changing what I
> wrote into something that has a different meaning.
>

You do it all the time, as many former posters could testify. Maybe in a
different way, but you're absolutely an expert at misrepresenting people
and twisting what they say.

So if it happens to you sometimes, then it's just a case of 'The biter bit'.

Tim.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 21:47, John wrote:
>
>> At the time we were talking about Indonesians.  Indonesians can't have
>> child brides so your premise was false.  Oh, and change your allows to
>> allowed, it was ruled out in India in 2005 ish.
>
> Sharia law was changed in 2005? You do surprise me.

We were talking about local muslim law in India, not sharia law. And yet
you accuse me of twisting things.

>
>> Incidentally, and something I meant to ask on the other post, why was
>> your adopted sister allowed to marry an old man at the age of 12?  For
>> a muslim man to take a child bride (where its allowed) they have to
>> have the permission of the father.  Did your father grant such
>> permission?
>
> She was not my adopted sister then.

Thanks for the explanation.

>> So Sharia law advocates sex with children does it, as opposed to the
>> social norms in the country where it has taken place?
>
> Allows, not advocates. After all, even Muhammad married a girl of 8 (a
> fact which has only been disputed since Muslims became aware of Western
> sensibilities on the subject).

No one knows how old she was, and suggestions have ranged from 9 to 19.
But if she was as young as you state, it is doubtful he would have had
sex with her before she reached puberty, as that was the norm

Of course dropping the hint that Mohammad was a paedophile, as well as
other muslims per your *might* comment upthread, better suits your
narrative, doesn't it?

>
>> And yes, I agree that sex with children was more rife 50-100 years
>> ago, and that muslim countries have taken longer to catch up with
>> western trends, but lets not forget that until 1929 the legal age for
>> a girl to marry was 12.
>
> And later in other countries - isn't it Holland that has only recently
> raised the age for marriage? Nevertheless, the discussion was on whether
> Muslims entering Britain *now* would be expected to conform to British
> laws *now*, in the same way as tourists visiting Indonesia *now* are
> expected to conform to this new law.

Please don't tell lies Ken, there's a good chap. The law is a proposed
one and isn't expected to become law for 3 years at least

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 08:21, Timreason wrote:
>
>> All I know is that ALL you EVER want to do is put the other person
>> down. Any way you can. There's hardly enough room in God's universe
>> for your ego.
>
> Certainly. If other people try to move the goal posts by changing what I
> wrote into something that has a different meaning.

I thought we had dealt with that? It wasn't deliberate that I
misconstrued the word but if I have upset you in any way then of course
I apologise.

But tell me, why didn't you just correct me instead of the childish
retort of "is English your second language?" That's what Tim means when
he says you put other people down.

By all means debate, I enjoy it, but if you have to retort with childish
comments, it puts you in a bad light.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/12/2022 17:56, John wrote:

> We were talking about local muslim law in India, not sharia law. And yet
> you accuse me of twisting things.

I am not aware of any such thing as "local muslim law". There is Indian
civil law, which applies to all citizens, there is sharia law. I do not
believe that sharia law has changed and Indian civil law banned child
marriages long ago.

> No one knows how old she was, and suggestions have ranged from 9 to 19.
> But if she was as young as you state, it is doubtful he would have had
> sex with her before she reached puberty, as that was the norm

I am not aware of any dispute about her age until recently. Yes, it is
possible that he did not have sex with her until she as older. Please
note also that I am not accusing Muhammad of being a paedophile. There
is no evidence that he preferred young girls. He merely married
according the established custom of his time and culture.

> Please don't tell lies Ken, there's a good chap.  The law is a proposed
> one and isn't expected to become law for 3 years at least

My understanding is that the law has been passed by the Indonesian
parliament, but does not become effective until it is signed by the
president. I believe the three year moratorium refers to its application
to foreigners.

[John]

No, it applies to all. The law was approved on 6th December but doesn't
become statute for 3 years. My understanding is that the law is only
adhered to if a relative complains.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/12/2022 20:46, John wrote:

> I thought we had dealt with that?

I was replying to Tim.

> It wasn't deliberate that I
> misconstrued the word but if I have upset you in any way then of course
> I apologise.

By changing the word you put me in a worse light - but that is what you
seem to have tried to do all along, throwing words like "racist" around.
I'll accept your assurance that it wasn't deliberate - but it seemed to
chime with previous exchanges.

> But tell me, why didn't you just correct me instead of the childish
> retort of "is English your second language?"

If English is your first language - and assuming a moderate degree of
education - you cannot have been unaware of the implications of changing
the word. Or else you are extremely careless and cavalier when quoting.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/12/2022 14:17, John wrote:

> No, it applies to all.  The law was approved on 6th December but doesn't
> become statute for 3 years.  My understanding is that the law is only
> adhered to if a relative complains.

Your understanding is correct, which is why Bali feels able to assure
"appalled" foreigners that the law will not affect them. Assuming, of
course, that they restrict their immoral behaviour to fellow tourists.
Getting involved with locals will probably not be a good idea.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 20:46, John wrote:
>
>> I thought we had dealt with that?
>
> I was replying to Tim.
>
>> It wasn't deliberate that I misconstrued the word but if I have upset
>> you in any way then of course I apologise.
>
> By changing the word you put me in a worse light - but that is what you
> seem to have tried to do all along, throwing words like "racist" around.
> I'll accept your assurance that it wasn't deliberate - but it seemed to
> chime with previous exchanges

I'm sorry but it wasn't me who said someone couldn't be English because
they were black. But seeing as how you are so sensitive when someone
"attacks" you, just remember how others must feel when you do it to them.

>> But tell me, why didn't you just correct me instead of the childish
>> retort of "is English your second language?"
>
> If English is your first language - and assuming a moderate degree of
> education - you cannot have been unaware of the implications of changing
> the word. Or else you are extremely careless and cavalier when quoting.

I didn't look properly at the word you used when responding, and I
didn't place as much emphasis on the word would that you have.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/12/2022 23:43, John wrote:

> I'm sorry but it wasn't me who said someone couldn't be English because
> they were black. But seeing as how you are so sensitive when someone
> "attacks" you, just remember how others must feel when you do it to them.

It is not the attack I mind - you and others have been pretty robust in
some of your replies and it doesn't upset me at all. But when there is
apparent dishonesty - that's a different matter.

> I didn't look properly at the word you used when responding, and I
> didn't place as much emphasis on the word would that you have.

Which justifies my question as to whether English is your first
language! Words, as I have before remarked, have meanings. I have been
picked up recently because I was careless in my choice of words, but
usually I try to say exactly what I mean.

[Adam Funk]

Any idea why it's 71 minutes in English but 28 minutes in Welsh?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b00729d9>


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Mike Davis]

On 09/01/2023 14:26, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-12-07, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2022 07:47, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>>
>>> Further details of the changed laws have emerged. Curiously, although
>>> adulterous sex is banned, homosexual sex is not, even though both are
>>> condemned by Islam.
>>>
>>> More worrying for Christians is this:
>>>
>>> "The new code also expands an existing blasphemy law and keeps a
>>> five-year prison term for deviations from the central tenets of
>>> Indonesia's six recognized religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism,
>>> Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism."
>>>
>>> Who, I wonder, defines these central tenets and whether they have been
>>> deviated from? Would the Toronto Blessing count as a deviation? What
>>> about Unitarianism or JWs? Does blasphemy apply to all six religions or
>>> only to Islam? After all, every time a Muslim recites "la illahu allah
>>> illa" he is committing blasphemy from the Christian point of view!
>>
>> I've yet to hear all of it, but Rowan Williams 2nd Reith Lecture on
>> 'Freedom of Worship" bears on this.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fw1l
>>
>> Recommended so far (15mins!)
>
>
> Any idea why it's 71 minutes in English but 28 minutes in Welsh?
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b00729d9>

Probably because the Welsh don't have time for a fascinating Q&A session
after the main talk!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Adam Funk]

I think so. I asked the question after looking at the web page that
showed the discrepancy but before listening to the podcast.


--
'...and Tom [Snyder] turns to him and says, "so Alice [Cooper], is it
true you kill chickens on stage?" That was the opening question, and
Alice looks at him real serious and goes, "Oh no, no no. That's
Colonel Sanders. Colonel Sanders kills chickens."'