I read today on the Religion News Blog that Australia is dealing with the problem of religion and "hate" speech.  There is a new law there against critical speech toward races and religions.  People are now becoming aware that mixing race and religion in the law is a very bad idea, and that critical debate in religion is entirely appropriate.  However, a certain Christian group seems to have gone too far in vilifying Islam.

Another thought:  If Rawat were a politician, he would be a dictator who forbids freedom of the press.  Why do premies put up with this, just because it is in the realm of religion?  I don't think any ex is suggesting that we deny premies their human rights.  Nor even just "spoil their fun."  But there are certain premies who have lied and cheated for Rawat, and they deserve an opposing voice, especially in the public arena, such as the Keys program. 

There are other premies who are honest and not involved in any overt deception, other than what I would consider self-deception.  I have been accused of trying to spoil their fun.  From my perspective, truth is more fun than deception; but from their perspective they already have the truth.   So it is a debate.  The most revealing thing about this debate is that exes are SO much more willing to really talk about it, while the premies freeze up/shut down pretty quickly.