I think David and Allan need to read Gary Excellent article.
Islam has not been given special treatment in this ruling it’s followers have been grated the same rights that the authors of this article possess. Do the authors believe that I should be am to say anything I wish anywhere. As a atheist many aspects of religion trouble me, not least of which is the general hatefulness and intolerance of many of it’s practitioners

WELL THEY (CTF MINISTIES) GOT OF EASY DIDNT THEY ,
AN ENTIRE FAMILY WAS MURDERED HERE IN THE USA
FOR DOING THE SAMETHING IN THE INTERNET

Am I committing an offence in Victorian Law by writing the following? Or am I exercising the right to free speech and to be controversial? Or am I just exceeding the limits of polite discourse?

Religion and religious thinking, in the age of science and technology, is an example of atavistic modes of thought. The persistence in the modern collective human psyche of superstitious claptrap that would be appropriate for Stone Age man.
or
As for the so-called sacred texts, (the bible, the Koran or the Vedic writings of the ancient Hindus), these are the disjointed rants of long forgotten spin-doctors.
or
Only the most credulous can believe that there is an old man in the sky or equivalent direct the traffic on earth

Well done David, of course this is an attack on both religious freedom and free speech.

Religions are a competition of world views and now include by their own claim the humanist world views. As such they are in the market place of ideas, but in addition will always by their very nature, aim to prosletise, to get others to come to their world view, their way of thinking.

In the process many aberant notions will be peddled from time to time which must be subject to critical debate, but this law and this case, will only serve to silence that debate. The Law must be repealed or substatially amended.

Two Bob

Kenny,
I assume by your comment that you would believe everyone has a right to his view point?

Two Bob

I suppose one of the joys of life is annoying other people and the more thin skinned a person---the more fun it is to annoy them. At the moment many Muslims are particuarly thin skinned. I suppose that this is the consequence of twenty odd years of Multi-Culturalism. Many Christians have learnt to be thick skinned; they have learnt to live with such things as Piss Christ and are probably the better for it, I cannot help thinking that many Muslims would benefit from learning to live with a Piss Muhammed, but at this stage perhaps not. This law stops Muslims from developing the thick skins necessary to survive in a modern western state--a pity because without growing a thick skin one is certainly going to be disadvantaged in politics, the media and probably even sport--the best defence against sledging is a thick skin as in sport so in life.

We humans assume too much.2%DNA difference between us and the Chimps?
There may or may not be a"Supreme Consciousness" however it is the height arrogance to assume we have a special relationship that gives us eternal life.I think is is about time all religions grew with the discoveries of science and yes be willing to admit that the Bible or Koran are not factually correct.There may be more universes than ever we could to begin to contemplate.We are minnows in a sea of ignorance.

Seems to me that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act could well be religious persecution. Premier Bracks would repeal this law if it covered political tolerance as well. Considering the vilification, deceitful 'spin' and ridicule politicians dish out to opponents I'm sure he would realise the hypocricy of the politicians who supported this Act.

And doesn't the Islamic Council of Victoria look like weak muslims. If their belief in Islam is so weak that they can't handle criticism in what used to be a free speech state then I'm sure their Allah would be very dissappointed in them

I am going to have to agree with the authors of this article.

With the greatest of respect to the Judge, courts and the legal system in general, I must ask how qualified a judge is to preside over issues of religious interpretation? Should he or she be extensively schooled in the interpretation of the Koran and of its law's and other writings, or should they be a graduate of seminary?

Similarly should this precept of legal involvement and cries of vilification extend to every time an educator in our universities or school's decrees (From their atheistic or otherwise outlook) that all theists are crazy and a burden on society? Should we charge every lecturer who declares their hate for Christianity and Islam and who attacks them with little or no basis? (Having been in our universities this is a surprisingly regular occurrence)

I for one, say that we shouldn't. Whilst vilification laws are clearly required in our nation to prevent harm from coming to people, I would have to commend the foresight and wisdom of the West Australian model for this, which allows for the freedom of debate of matters of religion and philosophy, whilst still enforcing racial and gender equality.

We should not have in our nation the sort of legalities that we see in countries like Sweden, where pastors can be tried and convicted by a secular court on their choice of sermons. There we see a Pastor; having presented the biblical view on homosexuality with 65 references to scripture, having his preaching called 'hate speech'. Should our courts act as 'Sermon Review Boards' for all religious activities? I would contend that if the secular is arguing for a separation of church and state, then clearly not.

I think your all missing the point. The judge didn't make any judgment about religious interpretation, he made a judgment on the law. Unless you are a member of a minority then you'll find it hard to understand. You say that Christian have leant to be thick skinned(I'd say they haven't),Well that is the whole point of the law. People should not have to be thick skinned.

Yes Two Bob I do think everyone is able to form their on viewpoint but I don't believe they have a automatic right to tell everyone else what it is.

This whole idea that a irrational religious fanatic can dump on a another brand of irrational religion in a impartial manner as well irrational.

Some good good comments here especially from Two Bob and Anti-green.

Were the Muslims in attendence really so offended as to take legal action against this church, or was it a political statement. I believe the latter. I believe it is an effort to shut down the free speech we have enjoyed in our country for many years. I can't believe this is happening in Australia in 2005. Our rights are being taken from the very Courts that are meant to protect them.

Christians cop abuse regularly (as an example, see comments on Christians in "The religious Right cannot hijack values" in this forum) without taking the matter to the Courts. It is called free speech and sometimes it is unpleasant. I don't believe the Pastors was plotting suicide attacks on innocent people. I don't believe the Pastors were plotting to cut off people's heads. I don't think they were hunting people of other religions such as Jews to kill them. These are the attrocities going on that I find offensive. Let's keep these things in perspective. There are some big issues out there, and Pastors critical of Muslims is NOT one of them.

Mike I think you have been watching to much US telly. We have never had freedom of speech in Australia. Show me the law in any time in the history of Australia that gave Australians the right to free speech. Christian groups regularly go to the courts for things they don't like. They also use pressure groups to try to influence polly's and the uninformed (you) using misinformation. Are any of these atrocities you speak of happening here in Australia?

Is this religious persecution? Hell no!

Quote:
Justice Higgins declared, "Pastor Scot (the seminar leader), throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct. It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general religious beliefs and practices."

It's persecution of hate speech. Hate speech has only one purpose, to attack the freedom of others. If you doubt this you are bloody mad and irresponsible. Two words: Adolf Hitler.

If Pastor Scot were defaming Judaism and Jews, none of you bigots would be complaining about imaginary religious persecution in his decision.

You bigots can all get stuffed as far as I'm concerned. I'll defend the right of Jews, Muslims, Christians and others not be vilified, vilification which leads to attacks on their freedom, for as long as I shall live.

Kenny,
Given you're one of the guilty party in showing disrect for religious views, you should be the last to give lessons in tolerance. Let me quote you from the "The religious Right cannot hijack values" forum - "Lastly Mikey if you’re a Christian have a read of your bible, That Jesus fellow you guys are always on about lived in a commune when he was young he turned out all right didn't he."

Kenny, in the words of Justice Higgins, your comment "was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Christian people, their God, and in general religious beliefs and practices."

You lefties and Paulx82 are the biggest bigots around. It's just that you guys are so quick to see it in others, you fail to see the hatred for other views you carry in yourselves.

What makes you think I’m a lefty?
What I said was not derogatory it was factual, If I had of said all Christians are communist because Jesus lived in one as a boy. As for your last line I think your confused we are not the ones who want the right to abuse people.

Goodness - how long have we humans been on this earth? And nothing has changed. This debate seems to be typical for many people debating on the net with strongly held views, often religious ..... read into the article whatever fits into your belief system and world view, pick over the bones of everyone else's post, quote isolated sections of religious texts to 'prove one's point' and comment on subjects, be they religions or judicial rulings, where there is lack of full knowledge and understanding, (e.g. how many of you have read the full text of the ruling?). Tbe word 'soapbox' springs to mind but that's far too benign an expression. Attitudes like many expressed here, whipped up by people with hidden, or even overt, agendas are what leads to persecution and war. Debate is fine but I would like to see everyone who gets involved in discussions like these to at least attempt an understanding of the 'others' point of view, and state it in their post. I would be a lot more optimistic about the state/future of mankind if they did!

Regards

Jo

JoJo, are you sure you don't have any 'hidden, or even overt, agenda's' in your response? These types of debates are normal for humanity, even outside the net. Political leaders, the media, many muslims and the pastors at Catch the Fire Ministries all debate in a similar manner. That's free speech.

Brack's, and the politicians who passed this legislation only look like hypocritical idiots in restricting it only to religious groups. Politicians are amongst the worst at vilifying and misrepresenting opponents. Bracks and his mates couldn't abide by this anti-vilification Act if it applied to politics so why does he target religions? Seems like religious persecution to me.

Congratulations Kenny, finally getting the point of the argument.

Is there a difference between derogatory and factuality? - As you I agree that there is.

Pastor Scott’s actions have been deemed derogatory - and his actions were? He quoted the Koran, statics of population growth and spoke frankly about terrorism within Islam.

Are these not facts?

Also Kenny, though perhaps beside the point, are you saying that all ancient Jews were communist?
Someone should tell the Chinese, poor Marx I bet he thought he was original!

Hazza, Mr Brack's is not above the law and he has to follow these laws like everyone else. It is true that polly's have parliamentary privilege but it only extends to what is said in the house. As I said before we have never had the right to free speech in this country.

Taylor I’ve got the point from the beginning if the Pastor had said that one of Mohammed’s wives was 9 when they married then that is factual. But if they said it to indicate that the Muslim faith promotes pedophile, then that is derogatory. Of my two statements in my last post one was factual and one was derogatory, which is which do you think?

As for Communism not all Jews where living in communes at the time but many were . If you bothered to actually read Marx’s little book you would see that Marx didn’t believe he had invented communism just a method he believe would work for a large population.
The Moa learnt about communism in the French quarter of Shanghi

Hello Kenny, interesting to read your comments.

Wouldn't you say that, in effect, we do have, and have had, free speech in this country? By and large you can say or publish what you like without being locked up, for instance if the government doesn't like what you say, or publish. Today we don't have many, if any laws (apart from the one under discussion) that prohibit the saying of certain things (unlike some European countries, and plenty of other more and less advanced ones). Of course we do have laws of libel which mean that we can be subject to prosecution for saying certain things about people, but that doesn't mean that we have no free speech whatsoever. And even admitting that our fairly free speech society has some limitations, this does not mean that any law that further restricts our freedom of speech must be good.

Paul - how do you think we've managed for all these years without laws against "Hate Speech", and other "Hate Crimes"? These notions have been cooked up by a cozy cabal of legal and social-science academics, the sinecured sentimentalists who staff the multicultural and anti-discrimination industries, and the duffers we have installed in Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne. I am yet to be convinced that they are any improvement on the old, and much-breached, ideal of "good manners" (contravention of which did not put you in danger of prison). I prefer laws enacted by goverments to be wise and limited regulations responding to genuine social reality.

"Hate Speech" laws are an infamous deployment of State Power by one side in the Culture Wars, which are being fought between factions of the limited section of the population which has ideological commitments, or at least some interest in ideas. (This is why the debate has not really caught on in the mainstream media, but is raging on the internet.) "Hate Speech" laws will never be used evenhandedly, but always in the interest of one side and their fellow-travellers against the other. The attempt to prove that religious "vilification" has really occured will always be a subjective shambles - one that we should spare our hard-working judges.

Because of my opposition to the law, if I was religiously (or even racially) vilified, I would not seek satisfaction under it - and I very much hope that other Christians won't either, as it would weaken our position against it.

There is perhaps the appearance of a paradox here, as Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly told Christians to expect persecution (e.g. Matthew 5:10-12,& 1 Peter 4:12-16). So why are we complaining? I'd argue that we still have the right as citizens to ask our Government to refrain from unnecessarily turning us into criminals, and additionally to encourage them to do their best to make good and wise laws within their legitimate sphere of responsibility.

Oh, and happy Australia Day, fellow citizens!

J walking is unlawful not to many people get fined for that. To say we managed all these years without hate speech laws is like saying we managed all these years without racial or equal op laws.

Ah, but Kenny, there you go. You are missing a vital ingredient. Race is a given. I can't help it if I'm a black men surrounded by whites who despise me, but religion at least for Christians and presumably Muslims is a matter of choice, certainly is in 2005.
Bravo Ben, well said.

I agree with Ben regarding religious vilification. The Victorian case and the inevitable guilty verdict was completely politically motivated. Justice Higgins, a Labour government stooge, was swapped in 2 days before the trial, and decided that vilification occurred because the audience laughed at the notion that Islam teaches that it is in an infidel's (that's you and me) best interests to be killed. Vilification also occurred because Pastor Scott read some of the not very pleasant sayings in the Koran. The judge also made things up in his published judgment (ie. he lied) in regard to what the defendants actually said (easily verifiable by checking the court transcript and tapes of the seminar), and therefore should be sacked and criminally prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice. But the great thing about this law is that it is administered by VCAT which means that - unlike REAL courts - a person cannot appeal on the basis of fact, only on the basis of law. But the main problem here - setting aside the corrupt Judge - is the law itself! It is just plain ridiculous, and should be repealed immediately. There is no justice in this decision. BTW, have these 2 pastors or anyone who attended their seminars gone out and started bashing, assaulting or threatening Muslims? If not, then how is it that these 2 pastors were found guilty?

Andrew K

The apple never falls far from the tree. So you base your wish to be able to abuse people on the fact that they can choose to hold those views or not?

Oh dear me Kenny. I wonder how long I will think it is profitable to interact with you, if you make a habit of attributing foul intentions to innocent bystanders as you just have with David - telling him "you base your wish to be able to abuse people...". Do you find that religious people and arguments tend to bring out the worst in you? Perhaps you should avoid the arguments, or learn to show good manners to the people.

Regarding the issue I tried to engage you on, apparently you don't recognise that, thanks to both the Rule of Law (which prevents Governments arbitrarily jailing their enemies), and the fact that most of those laws are pretty sensible, we enjoy a pretty wide-ranging right to free speech in Australia. That's a shame.

My comments that "we have managed very well" without "hate speech" legistlation was not a spectacularly brilliant one, I must admit, but was aimed at disparaging unnecessary and trumped-up innovations in the law.

Yes the judge was working for the great world Muslim police. You guys are starting to sound mad now. Ben P good manners really that’s the whole point the Pastor was not behaving very well, he holds the Muslim faith in contempt and was trying to undermine it and it’s followers. Yes this type of conversation can be hard as religion us fanatics yourselves are irrational people.

It is the nature of religious belief but you guys can’t admit it.

Would the Pastor in question hold a meeting about the evils of other Christian sects or the evils of Jewish faith and not expect those people to be upset. As to your comments about race or gender laws are you saying that we let women vote simple because they cann’t help being women, or we shouldn’t be able to call some one a nigger because they can’t stop being a nigger.

You only see the bad bit’s in the Quran and are blind to the same stuff in your own book. If it was the other way round you would be cheering, I don't think it would have even come up as a issue on this . You are not fighting for free speech your fighting for Christianity.

I’ll say it again we have never had the right to free speech we generally enjoy free speech but we have never had a right to it. Same as freedom of association.

It is a pity that Kenny is so ideologically driven, that he can't observe the facts in the case. This seminar was not aimed at the "evils "of Islam. It was to explain the concept of Jihad in Islam, something everyone had a right to know so soon after 9/11. It was next to compare the Koran and Bible as holy books, something of interest to Christians, and thirdly to show Christians how to reach out in love to Muslims - something the judge failed to acknowledge in his finding.

It is not the fault of the lecturers if the Koran and the concept of Jihad contain some pretty confronting material, and it is certainly not healty that exposure of that material be denied by law in a democratic country.

Two Bob

Kenny, politicians parliamentary privilege excuses the normal outbursts etc that happens in debate. We all know that politicians hardly restrain themselves outside of parliament either. But those pastors were found guilty by a politically correct judge for much less than what the pollies do.

It's true what Ben P wrote, 'the attempt to prove religious vilification really occurred will always be a subjective shambles'.

David Palmer and Allan Harman quote Justice Higgins as saying, "Pastor Scot (the seminar leader), throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim's religious beliefs and conduct. It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslim's religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, Allah, and the prophet Mohammed and in general religious beliefs and practices."

So let's have a serious discussion about religious beliefs then, with the following passage from Ruth Hurmence Green's "The Born-Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible", (published by the Freedom from Religion Foundation 1999, page 304-306).

"Those who claim that the Judeo-Christian diety put his stamp of approval on the family should be required to prove that he did....There is no other book in which human life, all life in fact, is so cheap. The fiendish Lord of the Old Testament orders the Jews to kill, rape and torture without pity entire nations, "infant and suckling, young man and virgin, and the man of gray hairs." (1 Sam. 15:3 and Deut. 32:25) If they do not obey, they feel the wrath of the Lord's vengence themselves. His favorites dutifully massacre thousands, rip up pregnant women, and dash little ones against stones, putting heads in baskets and mutilating their victims. This criminal of all time drowns the entire population of the world except for the family of one drunkard. He hardens Pharoah's heart to make it possible to put all the firstborn of Egypt to the sword. He comes to earth incarnate in such a manner that all male children under two in a vast area must be killed, again with the edge of the sword...

"Children are not a blessing in the Bible. They are a curse. Eve's punishment was borne by every woman who would follow her on earth: "I shall greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." (Genesis 3:16) The Bible portrays the sexual act as dirty, even sinful. David, the great patriarchal ancestor of Jesus, sings: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalms 51:5) Even Mary had to be purified after the birth of Jesus. (Luke 2:22)

"The New Testament yields little support for the family, as even a Christian priority. Jesus not only shows his contempt for his own family, even refusing to speak to them on occasion (Matthew 12:46-49), but demands that his followers abandon theirs, specifying that those who wish to be his disciples must "forsake all that he hath." (Luke 14:33) He makes it clear that all who have forsaken their families and houses shall "receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life." (Matthew 19:29) He says there will be no condemnation for eunuchs who have made themselves such "for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Matthew 19:12) He says eunuchs will have a reward "better than of son's and daughters." (Isiah 56:4,5) Because of these Bible promises, many chose to become celibate. Not very conducive to the preservation of the family, is it?

"Jesus warned women not to become pregnant. He says "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days." (Luke 21:23) Those days are the ones at the time of his second coming, which many Christians now feel is imminent, and this warning by Jesus would seem to justify birth control and abortion. He also says the days are coming when women would wish they had never given birth. (Luke 23:29) Insensitive to woman's role in the Palestine of his day, he tells a parable about ten virgins who await one bridegroom and the five who are rejected. Does this sound like support for women as wives and mothers and for the family?

"Paul furthers the idea that sex is to be avoided. While he grudgingly permits marriage as a last resort for those who "burn", he says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman...Now, concerning virgins, it is good for a man so to be. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife." (1 Corinthians 7). He reiterates God's curse upon women that their husbands should rule over them, and he says that a woman has "not power over her own body, but the husband." He orders young women to shut themselves up at home, not even visiting their neighbours for fear they might gossip, and women are not permitted to speak in church or to teach in any fashion. Should they marry, they are to learn everything from their husbands. Widows are to house strangers and wash the saints' feet. Women who want to go back to the Bible had better read it. They should familiarize themselves with the Mosaic Law, which Jesus said he came to uphold by "every jot and tittle." (Matthew 5:18) Besides the Tem Commandments...they will find orders for women to be stoned and burnt to death, enslaved, and "thrust through" with the sword. The ten commandments are part of the Mosaic Law. Can we ignore the rest of it?

"Throughout the Bible, men who stay away from women are considered holy. God orders Hebrew men to "come not at your wives" when they are preparing to meet with him. (Ex 19:15) The book of Revelation says that the ones closest to the Lamb in the New Jerusalem will be the 144,000 male virgins, "they which were not defiled with women." (Revelation 14:4)

"Ethics put into the mouths of fictional gods by ancient tribesmen are not applicable to our society. Prayer to such gods will avail nothing. We must consider our problems and achieve rational solutions, unfettered by outdated behaviour rules, which the gods refuse to alter. A nation on its knees is on its last legs, and that has been proved throughout history. The Bible has been used for centuries to persecute millions of human beings, and Christianity has decimated families as Jesus promised it would: "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a mans' foes shall be those of his own household. (Matthew 10:35-36) On Judgement Day families will be torn apart. Does anyone still presume to picture the Bible as pro-family and pro-life?"

SPECIALLY FOR GRACE PETTIGREW:
Grace, I dont know where to start... but perhaps with paragraph 3 would be sufficient to show the INCREDIBLE shallowness and intellectual bias of the author you quote. I think that will be enough to show that all which follows is of dubious credibility and therefore a waste of your time in using it as an attack dog towards the rest of us who dont fit your mould.

"The fiendish Lord of the Old Testament orders the Jews to kill, rape and torture without pity entire nations."
Kill, YES, Rape..NO, Torture NO, without pity .. YES.

They were instructed to 'obliterate' them. It was a judicial act, of specific judgement, aimed at eliminating a people who would 'as one man' be of a similar mindset to Islamic Jihad today. It is most convenient for authors like the one you quote to sit in their sidewalk cafes and make sweeping pronouncements about times where there was only ONE main rule. "Rule, or be ruled" and if u happen to be the ruled, it would often mean outragous treatment of the most horrible kind.

I have not the slightest thought of "defending" that act.. it needs no defending, it needs UNDERSTANDING. Your self righteous attacks on the 'God of Israel' is but a thin cloak for your own desire of self justification. "We love to point out faults in others, because it makes us feel better about ourselves".. but we MOST love to point out perceived faults in GOD.. for reasons known only to ourselves.

Grace, u seem to have the quaint idea that we can make 'rational solutions' to problems we face.. but I say ON WHAT GROUNDS !!! ? Why is not 'my' idea (for example) to enslave the human race under my own tyranny and use them as my playthings, any worse than your idea to 'rationally work out' solutions ? You probably revert to some sentimental idea of 'universal human values' or some similarly obscure and baseless idea.

Now, ur welcome to come back to me on this, but lets take it a step at a time, and have your response to my initial point that "rape" was NOT allowed or instructed in the incident referred to by your rabid author. ( 1 samuel 15.3)

As for Deuteronomy 32.. the passage cited was and the end of what is a Treaty FORM, (Suzereign/Vassal)which always included at the end a list of Curses/punishments and Blessings. The 'curses' are in the form of anthropomorphic language, describing the judgement of God in human battle terms. The central point of that document was the covenant relationship between God and Israel.

So, your author has done what a lot of 'hyper dispensationalists' have done, just grabbing verses from here and there which suited her purpose, irrespective of historical,cultural and theological context.

AZLAN.....

Quote:
The Victorian case and the inevitable guilty verdict was completely politically motivated. Justice Higgins, a Labour government stooge, was swapped in 2 days before the trial, and decided that vilification occurred because the audience laughed at the notion that Islam teaches that it is in an infidel's (that's you and me) best interests to be killed:

You hit the nail on the head :) and I think u also identified reasons for appeal. I hope this case goes 'HUGE'. I read one thing in the transcript which made me wonder VERY much about the accuracy of the transcription... it alleges the Pastors said "Muslims are DEMONS".. which seems totally OUT of character for even the most rabid pentecostal preacher to say.. not out of character for Fred Phelps mind you (do a search).. but definitely not the kind of thing Pente's would say. The closest I'd expect would be 'under the power of Satan' which is quite different, and even biblical.

I have 2 complaints with the EOC at present, both have been declined. One is not so much of a worry, it was agreeably flimsy. But the 2nd was in my humble opinion VERY much along the lines of this Judges decision. There is a book by Sasher Cohen (ALI G) called "Da gospel according to Ali G." in which the Old and New testaments are described as the 'Old and New Testicles" which are good to 'play with'.

The 10 commandments are all reversed and in his first 'reversal' he describes God as 'da biggest pimp in da world at dat time'. So, to me this is beyond outragous, and I made a comlaint. It was rejected on the basis of OLD judgements about a comedian in the NT who paradied an Aboriginal. Strange how they AVOIDED referring to Judge Higgins decision which was the MOST recent and MOST relevant.

Anyway..I've written very strongly that they should refer this to VCAT where I will in no uncertain terms make mention of their discriminatory act in rejecting my complaint.

I think some of what u pasted was borderline 'contempt of court' :))) not that I disgree with you. By the way, there is a hearing in the County court this FRIDAY.. (28th) under Judge Higgins to determine when the sentencing will occur. ALL WELCOME. I'll be there. Ring county court .. civil listings to get the time if anyone wants to come. Ph 8636-6542

The pastors did go a tad too far on a couple of technical points. They claimed Mohammed was a 'pedophile', and of course that was stated within the framework of AUSTRALIAN law. To be a pedophile involved pre-pubescant children, but it in Mohammed's case this is not quite accurate.(Aysha was 9 when he consummated the marraige) Under our Crimes Act 1958 Section 47 he would be a 'Child molestor' and jailed for sexually penetrating a girl under the age of 13 and would be jailed for 25 yrs.

A reading of the hadith, reveals that Mohammed, in regard to some thieves of another tribe who killed his shepherds and stole his camels, "chopped off their feet and hands, gouged out their eyes and left them to slowly die in the desert heat" Now.. if that is not torture, I dont know what is. (I'll happily supply a reference for this if anyone wants to write and verify it => jdrmot@bigpond.net.au

Now, for those chafing at the bit about 'hate' speech. umm sorry, this is a discussion of factual events, not suggesting we have any particular emotion towards those who 'revere' this man as their 'beloved prophet' whos example is in all manner to be emulated.
Everyone has a brain, .. why not use it.

Calm down BOAZ_David. It is not me saying these things that upset you so much. They are the words of Ruth Hurmence Green, who wrote her book more than twenty years ago, when it was first published in the USA by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which I assume is an anti-religious organisation). From the picture in the front of the book, she looks like a very nice old lady, who has probably never been near a side-walk cafe.

No doubt about persecution and loss of freedom of speech!

And some comments for Kenny and arjay later.

I attended most of the case and think that the judgement was over-the-top Politically Correct vilification of the two pastors - it was more like a footy fan accusing an opposing team of unfair play, than an objective judgement based on truth and fact.

The judge claimed that the two Pastors were "essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of Muslim people ... "; and not acting "reasonably and in good faith"; having the "intention to mislead"; etc. I sat through most of the case and, as I see it, the evidence does NOT support that very biased conclusion.

It's all a matter of opinion - and that's the whole point! The so-called "Tolerance' Act puts feelings and opinions before facts. This censors criticism whenever people can claim that a criticism offends their religion. Even fair and reasonable comment can be deemed vilifying since 'truth is NOT a defence' - as was SUCCESSFULLY and explicitly argued by the Muslim's lawyers in the case.

The result is 'guilty until proven innocent' - and guilt need only reside in the minds of the accuser and judge. If the judgment or the law is not reversed, religious freedom and freedom of speech in Australia will die.

Two Anomalies, which show that the judgement was over the top:
* The Judge commented during the case that the defendants urged Christians to love Muslims: yet found them guilty of inciting hatred towards Muslims - get real, it can't be both!
* Two 'Expert' religious witnesses, one Anglican one Catholic, who supported the Muslim case were accepted as experts despite both admitting under cross-examination that they were unable to quote from the Bible or Qur'an and had not read the Qur'an from cover to cover. Yet the defendants and their witnesses frequently quoted the Bible and Qur'an from memory - while the Muslim counsel frequently objected that just quoting the Qur'an was offensive. I was there!

Kenny and arjay, not sure who it was. Are we 2% different from chimps? Apart from that being an extremely hairy figure vilifying to humans, did you know that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas - so did we descend from bananas? E.g. Lawnmowers and cars are made from steel aluminium and plastic etc - so did the car descend from a lawnmower -or did people design both?

One of you got one point right. Nature always screws it up and the mistakes drive evolution, Yeah! But the blind illogical faith of atheists (oops I'm vilifying atheists) to interpret this evidence to mean that evolution is where we come from is mind-blowing. It takes illogical anti-science faith to believe that!

To explain (if you are into facts, evidence and logic) explain this: Not a single mutation known produces NEW information or improves existing genes (if you don't believe me ask the atheist high priest of evolution, Prof Richard Dawkins). I'll spell it out: - EVERY single "beneficial" mutation know LOSES genetic information, resulting in a LOSS of function. Hello! Evolution is going the WRONG way! So, yes, mother-goddess nature always stuffs up.

Natural selection slows the downward slide down by eliminating the worst genetic mistakes. But the whole of palaeontology shows that more and more species are becoming extinct. A few new species are appearing but EVERY new documented has LESS genetic potential than its parent/ancestor populations. That's going the WRONG WAY!!! So evolution has no credible mechanism that would add the genetic information to go from kludge to Kenny via a kaleidoscope of creatures. All the alleged mechanisms (mutation and natural selection) go THE WRONG WAY. It takes more blind faith to believe that than to believe in a god!

And just to hammer it home. How much faith do you need to believe that dead stuff became alive all by itself when experiment shows that life has only ever been observed to come from pre-existing life. Do atheists believe in Pasteurisation?

Summing up, how much blind illogical faith do you need to believe that noting turned into everything for no reason (the big bang) and then dead stuff collected the information to make a living cell and became alive all by itself and then by a series of neutral or degrading mutations (the only sort known) grew from goo to you via the zoo. Get real! It takes less faith and pays more respect to the known laws of experimental science (not to mention being far more rational) to have faith that there is a reason and intelligence behind the cosmos and life and so maybe there is a god independent of the cosmos.

I think I have a more rational faith - faith in God!

Hello All

To Kenny:
How amusing that someone who supports anti-religious vilification laws routinely vilifies Christians in many of his posts e.g. “this type of conversation can be hard as religion us fanatics yourselves are irrational people.”. I am afraid it is plainly obvious you are an anti-Christian bigot as many of the atheistic faith are, and you could possibly be charged under Victoria’s laws. A recent High Court decision found that Internet content is considered to be published in the place it is downloaded to, so all it would take would be for a Christian activist in Victoria to download some of your more intemperate comments and lodge a complaint. Would you be happy about that? Since you don’t believe in free speech and are in favour of these laws, would you cheerfully accept any judgement and punishment?

Or do you secretly believe these laws should only be used against Christians. Please let us know Kenny, many readers would be intrigued by your answer.

Cheers
Geoffrey

KENNY....
I'll try to limit this so we can actually move ahead to some kind of light at the end.....
You say 'Mohammed married a 9 yr old" is fact.. yes indeed it is.
Then u say
But if they said it to indicate that the Muslim faith promotes pedophile, then that is derogatory.

Actually Kenny,.. UR RIGHT :) what they SHOULD have said..was==> The Islamic faith does not recognize Sexual Molestation of 9 yr old girls as outlined in Australian law. (Pedophilia relates to habitual molestation of pre-pubescant children, Molestation/Abuse applies from puberty onwards.) see Crimes Act 1958 section 47 read it all :)

What I think u might have missed also in the Pastors submissions, is the 'HIGH REGARD' by way of EXAMPLE Mohammed is held in Islam. Here is a list of points I found after a couple of searches on how he is regarded.

http://www.iqra.net/Quran/verses2.html
1. Most examplary character (33:21) (68:4)
2. Sadiq (Truthful) (33:22)
3. Final judge and arbiter (4:65) (24:51)
4. Honoured, noble (69: 40)
5. Forgiving (7:199)
6. He is Burhan (Clear Proof) (4:175)
7. Brave: Commands Muslims in battle (3:121)

Now, Kenny.. don't u think its reasonable to deduce that Islam looks favorably on ALL that the Prophet did ? and therefore regards him as an example to be vigorously emulated ? Do you think that in Saudi Arabia or Iran, they stop to ask about Australian Law in regard to child marraige ? is it not reasonable to assume that Muslims in Australia will always regard "ALLAH'S LAW" and "ALLAH'S PROPHET" as preferable to Australian INFIDEL law ?

Lets get an actual answer to that one before going any further ok :)
Regards
BOAZ

Well said Percy. The judgement against the two Pastors was a disgraceful miscarriage of Justice. How can "truth not be a defence?" If the Pastors quoted the Qu'ran truthfully and their comments were fair and logical, they can and did get clobbered! I attended a case before VCAT some years ago, and found it was so biased that it was a farce even then. The whole thing is un-Australian, from the Muslims spying on the Pastors at the seminar, to the Judge's decision. It should be appealed, and every Christian organisation should support the appeal.

anti-green posted on Jan. 22 that the sacred books of Christians, Muslims and Hindus are "the disjointed rants of spin doctors". I wonder what Judge Higgins would make of that.

No religion should be protected from criticism. They should be able to defend their beliefs in the public arena. If they lack the confidence to stand up in the public area, they should take a good look at themselves. This is religious freedom of discussion which has been traditional for generations. This is yet another Tradition under attack, as is the traditional celebration of Christmas.

We must defend our Traditions, especially our Freedom of Speech which has been seriously undermined by this draconion and unfair law. I note that South Australia and Western Australia have backed away from proposed laws on "Religious Vilification". Maybe they saw the dangerous situation created by Victorian law.

Maybe as Labor Party people, they remember the phrase by Voltaire which they have often quoted in the past: " I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it".

Dear GRACE
if u looked closely at my opening you would have found this >>>..." the author you quote".
Yes Grace.. I actually did notice that it was not 'you' saying those things, hence my passion in response was to what SHE said :)
But u have given me some very good ammo to take back to the EOC and give them another opportunity to decline a complaint :) when I raise that book with them if I can find it is sold in any Victorian book shops.
If i can gather enough declines I might have enough clout to get RID of the 'irresponsible and discrimantory' people who currently hold sway at that "independant body".. *cough*
BOAZ

BOAZ-David. I think you will find that internet publication of the Ruth Hurmence Green extract quoted by me, will give you enough to base your complaint on, because you are reading it in the State of Victoria. Of course, in addition to naming the author in your suit, you will have to name the publishers of this OLO website. But you had better check through the Freedom From Religion organisation in the USA whether old Ruthy is still alive, otherwise your web-hosts might have to take on the defense on their own. Wonder what they would think of that.

Thanx Grace
I would only persue it if there was a physical book avail in victorian bookstores. Otherwise it would be pure futility.
Thanx.
BOAZ

KAOSKTRL

mind telling us if you think the Catch the Fire pastors are deserving of the rebuke they got from the court ?
How is it that the Family in the USA was able to be identified from their on line chats ? I suspect someone who knew them personally and knew of their web activities may have been involved. It is worth noting that a woman who insults the Prophet can be condemned to death in Islam.
Care to respond ?

BOAZ

BIG AL 30..... who the heck is "percy" *confused look*

BOAZ_David See Percy's post Jan 26 7.31pm. You are doing a wonderul job BOAZ. There's an old Irish saying : "More power to your hand" I wish it for you and your typing finger!

I will post a reply to all your post tonight.

Dear Al :) thanx.. I have my moments of inspiration.. but also of a more carnal attitude :) if ur a prayin bloke, pray that I will always be a chanel of Christs love, even in the most passionate things I say :)

Jesus did not hold back when addressing the "Pharisees" he gave em what for :) its in that mode I guess when I'm most vitriolic. I see a lot of stuff trotted out by the left as social insanity or.. social AGENDA.. or perhaps a mixture of both. They have yet to address the most fundamental issue of their doctrines.. "where does this ultimately lead.. when taken to its logical and reasonable conclusion"

If u point them to Neitzche.. they will scurry away to whine about 'humanistic values' but u put 3 humanists in a room and u have 3 sets of values :) who's is right ? They claim 'minumize harm' is a good universal value.. SAYS WHO ?????.. beside them... It only takes one Sadaam to rise up while they are enjoying their latte's and suddenly they will discover 'oops... I got it wrong.. this guy does not share our wonderful ideas.. tsk tsk'. What makes it more preposterous, is that given that such people as Sadaam and Stalin (they even look alike) attempt to run the show, the ONLY way u can prevent it is by FORCE.. guns..bullets.. bombs.. etc.. but where are these lefties ?? they are out there at the head of the PEACE marches. If they were not so dangerous they would just be a joke.. but the likes of Gary Bouma, Grace Pettigrew..Anita Lukin .. skillful with words but short on common sense.

Look closely at EVERYTHING that Ozaware says.. he is a man after my own heart..but with more 'restraint' :))... a very perceptive guy with excellent arguments.

I thought about what I should write in my reply to your posts so I thought about the audience. Religious people today can fit into four groups the agnostic, stupid, ignorant, and the zealot.
Agnostic:
The vast majority of people have a general belief in a higher power(s) which has been instilled in them as a product of their culture and don’t give it any real thought.
Stupid:
Human intelligence levels follow a classic bell curve of distribution and the fact is the more you move to the upper end the less religious people get.

Ignorant:
This group is much larger then it should be and for that I blame the education system.
This group is also a bit of a spill way for the stupid group. This group is made up of people who have never read a science book in their life and switch channel when a science doco comes on the telly. Often this lack of interest in science is due to low levels of intelligence. More often it is simply because the ideas being talked about don’t agree with the persons world view so they switch off. Take for instance Percy’s comments about evolution demonstrates a compete lack of knowledge about the subject. He said

“Kenny and arjay, not sure who it was. Are we 2% different from chimps? Apart from that being an extremely hairy figure vilifying to humans, did you know that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas - so did we descend from bananas? E.g. Lawnmowers and cars are made from steel aluminium and plastic etc - so did the car descend from a lawnmower -or did people design both?”

Percy with his additional comments takes a line favoured by many in the creationist movement and he probably belongs in the last group. Now I’m not Prof Dawkins but let me address some of the issue here.

We share a common ancestor with Chimps and bananas as we do with all known life on earth. I’ve never see a Lawnmower reproduce so it is a stupid example. Percy probably subscribes to creation magazine which I also read ever now and again for a luagh it is almost as funny as new dawn. There is a reason why evolution is taught in every modern school in the world why our knowledge of it’s process's has increased over the last few hundred years it’s because it is reality. There is no anti-religious under current to it in fact most of it’s early pioneers were very religious people. It is a matter of looking at the evidence and comming to point, rather then starting with point and trying to find evidence. As for putting words in Prof Dawkins mouth I think you need to go back to the source. For those of you don’t know much about the current state of evolution and are interested to find out there are many web sites and other sources of information about.

Zealot:
These persons are basically in need of a padded cell nothing can be shown to them to make them change their minds about anything they believe. Anything that contradicts their world view is either wrong or the work of the devil. I feel great pity for these people I wonder what has gone so wrong in their world that they have ended up like this. They twist words to suit themselves and will not listen to reason. It has been demonstrated on this tread quite a bit. Christian zealots believe the world is only six thousand years old for that to be true much of our knowledge about chemistry, biology and physics would have to be wrong. Many of you believe we have the right to free speech in Australia show me the law or legislation that shows that and I’ll be proven wrong if you can’t then admit you are wrong it ‘s that easy.

When you get to the end of this reply, think about this what evidence would you need to make you stop believing in a god(s). Then you’ll get a idea which group you are in. Many people find it hard to deal with the uncertainty of life and find the rigid dogma of religion comforting. They find the idea of changing your mind when new evidence arises as aberrant they require absolute wrongs and rights.

Dear Kenny :) there were about as many 'myths' and fallacies in what you said.. not to mention stereotypes etc.. as you ascribe to the 'laughable creationsists'.. and about intelligence :) well that statement clearly shows that the one who is not up to speed on just 'who' is and is not a creationist, is you.
Regarding the debate about "evolution and creation" Most of what you said showed also that you were just 'pidgeonholing' your opponents in a comfy little box for ur own peace of mind. Most of us are aware of the RNAworld model and also its weaknesses. If I'm not mistaken, that is about where the discussion is currently at concerning origins of life, quite apart from origins of the Earth.
The Creationism/Evolution debate is NOT one where 'nothing of evolution is admitted by creationists' There ARE factual and demonstrable aspects to the wider theory.
Have a peek at Genesis 1.1 and then look at Gen 1.3 do u see it ???
Gen 1.1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

Gen 1.2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Up to this point, it could have been ANY number of millions of years. AFTER which.. GOD separated the light from the dark.. and it was evening......'the first day'

Regards
BOAZ

all together now, sing...

"When you’re alone and life is making you lonely
You can always go -

OFF TOPIC!"

Shall I mark you down for Zealot then David?

Kenny... if u did, it would be without very much careful research :)
Regards
BOAZ

Yes Ben.. brotherly rebuke noted :) "Stir one another up to good works"...
BOAZ

Kenny, are you for real? This is a forum about pastors being found guilty of offending Muslims. You are defending this Judge's tyrannical decision. Yet you go beyond what the pastors did in your criticisms and mocking of Christians. I can't get over the irony and your hypocrisy. Do you realise what a weasel you look like in wanting to remove the very rights you are using in this forum.

Mike... :) I'm learning there is an agricultural theme running in the background of this forum. Grace Pettigrew contributed 'rodent' in relation to John Howard, and now we have a 'weasel' lurking under our keyboards.. but u have a good point about Kenny's approach..bless him.
BOAZ

The fact that truth is not considered a defence is an important factor in this case and the whole Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. Having monitored this case from the beginning, having been at the hearing on many days AND having attended the original seminar given by Pastor Scot in March 2002, it is obvious to me that many people aren't aware of all the facts. Pastor Scot repeatedly told the audience that he was speaking about what the Qur'an said and that many Muslims did not follow those teachings. But this does not feature in the 'decision'.
If you want to read the transcript of what Pastor Scot said - rather than what Judge Higgins said he said, it is on the web at http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/interausae.pdf
The three Muslim converts who attended were organised to do so by the Islamic Council and May Helou (who as well as being on the ICV executive worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission at the time).
The quote from Judge Higgins' decision about Pastor Scot 'ridiculing' Muslims focused on what the ICV barristers presented as 'ridicule'. The barristers isolated instances where laughter was heard on the tape of the seminar (see transcript) and questioned Scot about those. For instance, Pastor Scot was asked about an incident during the seminar where he was describing Jesus as the Son of God, and used an Arabic name which means 'the father of cats' to illustrate. He told the audience he was relating a conversation he had with a group of university students in Alexandria. When he told the seminar that he didn't mean the man was the father of cats, some people laughed. But during cross-examination Pastor Scot said that when he had actually told this to the group of students in Alexandria, no-one had laughed.
Re the "Muslims are demons" quoted from the decision in BOAZ_David and Azlan's posts.
Pastor Scot did not say that. He said that the Qur'an says that jinn (demons) came to Mohammed and became Muslims. (Qur'an Sura 72, P 13 of the transcript)It was not the transcription that was wrong!!!
During the hearing, when Pastor Scot was asked about the treatment of women in Islam and he started quoting verses from the Qur'an, he was told to stop because he was continuing to vilify Islam!
The real question that needs to be answered is 'What is vilification?' - otherwise everyone could be at risk for criticising the beliefs of others.

JENNY.... THANX !!!!!
At last we are getting closer to the truth :)
I thank God for this issue and event... it has been a wonderful blessing for Christians.
in Him
BOAZ