"In Victoria it is illegal to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, a person or class of persons on religious grounds..."

Therefore it is illegal (and no valid excuse) for anyone to claim that their religion and its tenets mandate their hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of other persons or class of persons?

This bears repeating--and remembering:

<<In response to questions, Burnside supported penalising those who insulted God and his prophets>>

It is hard to believe that in 2013 we still have people who believe in a variety of Gods and have Laws which punish people who use their names without due respect.

Evolution is being held up by those who cling to silly superstitions. Such people deny reality and can't accept the evidence that there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God or Gods let alone life after death.

The fact proves to me that, in the main, we are still primitive, irrational, barbaric creatures although war also demonstrates that this is so.

When are humans going to grow up? If clerics have their way, NEVER!

This is a good article and the debate is astounding because it shows once again that Islam and Muslims are not prevaricating about their intentions. Badar is at least honest.

The other Muslim in the debate, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, demonstrated the velvet glove over the iron fist of Islam with her meaningless distinction between insult and incitement to hatred. As has been argued before this semblance of 'moderation' within Islam has no force or meaning.

Everyone has a right to a religious belief; that is a basic right because we are all mortal; but the substance of that belief should be open to all the ridicule possible.

We are just seeing the evil done by Catholicism. The evil done in Islam's name is MUCH worse and as Badar clearly shows his intention is to replace Western values with Sharia.

Burnside is at best a fool at worst a quisling. His position is contemptible and an insult to all those who suffer at the hands of Islam.

Religions should have no rights per se other than a right to be accepted by people disposed to them. All acts of coercion, oppression, declared intent to oppose the democratic structure by a religion or its representatives should be subject to criminal penalty

Burnside unmasked!

There may be laws against blasphemy still extant in states and territories, but no one takes them seriously any more than the local and still legal law in York (Britain) which makes it mandatory for public officials to put to immediate death any Scotsman found within the city limits carrying a sword.

It is hardly surprising that it is the Muslims who want to turn back the clock. That people like Burnside and Keneally could actually agree with the Muslims on this topic shows just how out of touch with reality these people are. It seems that Keneally and Burnside think just like the Arnold Schwartzeneger robot in the movie Terminator.

1. Minorities are always right.
2. White civilisation is always wrong.
3. White civilisations are always wrong, especially if they are Americans.

Could somebody please remind Keneally, Burnside and former Attorney General Nicola Roxon that freedom of speech in western countries is supposed to be a done deal? The very idea that offending somebodies God should be an actionable criminal offence is right out of Monty Python. One could imagine the Mutawah Thought Police going around every DVD outltet in Australia confiscating every copy of The Life of Brian.

The most alarming thing about this whole blasphemy BS is that somebody is even taking it seriously. The audience at this debate should have laughed the supporters of political censorship right off the stage. The whole reason why the western world rocketed away from every other culture is because we stopped believing in divine intervention, started thinking straight, and began the process of scientific analysis and free discussion of ideas.

Dear David,

Evidence is only... evidence.
It can tell you what is and isn't there, answer factual questions such as "where", "when" and "how".

But if cannot answer the most important question of all: "Why".

Evidence has no say about what's good and what's bad, what's right and what's wrong, what should be valued and what devalued.

While evidence continues to discover the elementary particles and their relationships, the latest being the Higgs particle, no 'value' particle was ever discovered, no particle of 'importance', no particle of 'significance', no particle of 'worthiness".

That you choose to base your life on evidence is thus a delusion, because evidence tells you nothing about how you should live.

What most atheists who claim to be rational do, is to subconsciously sanctify their instinctual urges, then use logic and evidence to work out how those urges can best be fulfilled.

However, their choice to assign importance, significance or value to their instinctual urges is as irrational and arbitrary as any other assignment of importance.

In the long run, the sanctification of instinctual urges only results in disappointment and pain, because the instinctual urges can only be satisfied partially and temporarily, and even when satisfied, the anxiety about the possibility of failing to fulfil them always lingers in the background.

Humans are still primitive, irrational, barbaric creatures - and the wars they fight in the service of their instincts only demonstrates that point, regardless what other 'holy' excuses they make to cover those instincts.

Fortunately, WE are not humans. Fortunately, with the power of discrimination we are able to work that out and endeavour to gradually shake off that identification with the human body, its instincts and its mind which developed around those instincts.

Belief in the existence of God is one among many valuable practices that helps us do that - to de-identify ourselves from our body and its instincts.
If you are an atheist, then you are missing on that particularly useful tool, but the least you should do if you are a decent person, is to avoid spoiling the same for others.

"Belief in the existence of God is one among many valuable practices that helps us do that - to de-identify ourselves from our body and its instincts."

I disagree. There is strong evidence that the religious impulse and belief in God is an adaptive mechanism which has up to now enabled humans as self-aware, conscious entities to survive. Google the "God-Spot".

Religion as its base, and is there any other kind, is an uber form of tribalism where membership is through the initiation of belief and acceptance of the high authority of God as interpreted by self-appointed priests.

The religious impulse is biological and fundamentally anti-intellectual; it reduces individuality to the prescribed doctrinal place. It is the antithesis of individual rights based societies; it is also a manifestation of the hold nature still has on humanity.

When something like Islam comes along which is also in perpetual inner conflict with itself we have a form of human society which is the mirror image of natural selection; that is kill or be killed.

In a way Islam is the last gasp of nature attempting to reclaim mankind; to invest it with the usual mystic clap-trap of religion as something above nature is a particularly pungent form of self-delusion.

Dear Cohenite,

I suspect that nothing can stop the hold of nature over humanity, but what we can achieve instead, with God's grace, is to stop our identification as humans. So long as we share this common goal, then it is worthwhile to study which techniques and teachings help us towards it and which do not.

So the interesting question at hand is, whether or not the technique of believing in God's existence is helpful in the pursuit of de-identification with one's body/mind (which in turn brings us closer to God). Another way to state this question, is whether or not believing in God's existence is indeed religious.

You and I have seemingly, for better or worse, ventured too far beyond the point where this particular religious technique of believing in God's existence can be of help, thus we need other and more-advanced techniques.

I agree that this technique can easily be abused by corrupt leaders, themselves non-believers, who may use it over the masses for irreligious purposes. I also agree that wherever that is the case, people are better off without this belief.

Yet, I think that in most cases, believing in God's existence (however self-contradictory), when untempered by corruption and fear-mongering, does help the young, the simpleton and the morally-weak. It is especially valuable in countering the arrogant belief that "we have created ourselves".

That this technique may also happen to increase survival rates (thus is genetically-supported to one extent or another) and in some cases benefit society, is incidental.

The Islam to which you refer is not a religion, but tribalism. However, most practices of Islam, such as the fast of Ramadhan, abstaining from alcohol and sexual-misconduct, giving charity, prayer, dedicating the time to go on pilgrimage, etc. are religiously beneficial. Some people are unable to practice these without the support of believing that God exists, hence for them I think, this is a valuable incentive.

strangely enough the left wing god deniers habitually blaspheme the name of Jesus. I am sure it must be part of the ABC/SBS charter. Never once heard Mohammed name used in vain. It seems that any vilification laws only ever apply to faiths outside of the Christian one. Maybe the blashemers are just showing how gutless they are.

Yuyutsu,
The happiest, safest, most socially considerate populations in the world are found in Northern Europe. On 28 November the new York Times published a chart showing the results of a German study of the 31 OECD countries. The first six places were Iceland, the Scandinavian Countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and The Netherlands. Finland was disadvantaged by the scoring system because children are allowed to play until aged seven but they then get the best education results in the world. Not one of those countries is religious and are not interested in your why question. They are too busy making the best of the one life they have.

When religions held power we atheists could be murdered for not believing. Now religious people whinge when a person laughs about the gullibility of their followers. In the past we had to risk our lives to think, the religious now have to absorb some ridicule because you don't or can't think. The NY Times article is at;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

On a Q & A Gerrard Henderson told catherine Devaney that although she could criticise Tony Abbots catholisim she had better not try that on islam. That was never to be repeated by the craven and islam preferring ABC.
Burnside is power mad. Bad enough his brothers in law steal and molest children without Julian concerning himself. Still he has to try and oppress us.
Religeonists can believe all the rubbish they want but afford me the same right Burnside! I would have liked to finish with a profanity here.

Dear Foyle,

You are bursting into an open door:

<<When religions held power we atheists could be murdered for not believing.>>

Religion never held power, so it's a moot point.
Yes, at times some guys who falsely claimed to be 'religious' held power in Europe, but that has nothing to do with religion and besides, murder goes against the very foundation of religion.

Have a nice day and enjoy your God-given freedom!

Of course blasphemy should not be illegal. Certainly if that blasphemy incites violence against followers of a religion, that should be illegal - but because of the incitement to violence, not because of the blasphemy.

I say this as a practising Catholic (which, given some of the earlier comments here, might see me dismissed as an unintelligent and under-evolved anachronism in our society). I mention that to give some context, not because I pretend to speak for all Catholics.

I find it bothersome that religious people continue to call upon our secular legal system to impose religious restrictions on society. We see it with same-sex marriage, and we see it here with laws about blasphemy. My understanding of my religion (and most others) asserts that we will be judged by a higher power once we fall off the perch anyway. Let God judge us if we commit acts of blasphemy. Let man judge us if we commit acts that actually disrupt our society or cause harm to others. If blasphemy is decriminalised (and, to be honest, I had no idea that it was a crime), that doesn't mean we have to do it - just as we don't have to divorce others, use contraception or have sex outside of wedlock (all wrong in the eyes of my Church but perfectly legal and socially acceptable in our society). We still have the right to behave in a way that we see to be good and proper. I will exercise my right not to blaspheme, as will many others.

Perhaps we simply need to thicken our hides and accept that others in the world see things differently. If those people seek to harm us, then we have the right to call on our society to protect us. While I have the right to request that others tone down their rhetoric if I find it offensive, I don't see it as the place of a legal system that does not pretend to represent God to step in and do it for me.

Perfect, Otokonoko, I couldn't agree more and I couldn't say it any better.

This is an excellent article. In this debate we need to emphasize the distinction between beliefs and actions based on beliefs. Theists and atheists all possess their sets of beliefs. With theists, their beliefs are based on their holy books and preachers, while atheists prefer to use reason, science and rational thinking. However, we all have to live together on the same planet. Beliefs are one thing, activities, particularly those inciting hatred, violence and murder are altogether different, and should not be tolerated. We should all have the right to freedom of speech, as well as the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Blasphemy ultimately gets you nowhere. It invariably reflects anger and inability to understand where others are coming from. But intelligent and clever use of satire are useful in making people think critically about the issues in question. Blasphemy laws are ridiculous in a secular society.

Dear Phenologist,

<<while atheists prefer to use reason, science and rational thinking.>>

Both people use reason, science and rational thinking - the only difference are the underlying goals and values.

Most atheists use their reason, science and rational thinking in the service of satisfying their instincts, while religious people use the same for removing the obstacles on their path to God, including the identification with those instincts.

I am not a legal expert but have been led to understand that the common-law prohibition of blasphemy only relates to insults to the doctrine of the Church of England.

Very informative article.

It's alarming that, in a liberal democracy, in the 21st century this question still is a subject of debate, blasphemy laws are are violation of free speech and inimical to liberty.
As usual a problem is the 'useful idiots' like Burnside and Keneally who are deluded into thinking that in supporting the Moslem theocratic agenda they are protecting their own pet ideologies, the reality is that the Islamic crocodile will just eat them last.

I really envy the Americans with their constitutional protection for free speech.

Quote:
Yassmin Abdel-Magied pointed out that freedom of speech is established
by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though when an insult
was aimed to incite hatred, it moved out of the realm of free speech.

Everyone seems to have missed that the Islamic countries rejected the
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.
They cooked up their own version known as the Cairo Declaration of
Human Rights.

Basically it is anti democratic and imposes sharia law instead.

When it comes to blasphemy, I think God is quite capable of looking after him/her/itself.
If the laws are to be brought back then perhaps the tradition of stoning should also be re-introduced as a fitting punishment.

The term is really about how it offends the personal beliefs of others and is entirely in the "eye of the beholder".

What is seen as mere criticism by some becomes a horrendous crime by others but without a first-hand complainant, it's an example of a victimless crime.

Yuyutsu,

Most atheists use their reason, science and rational thinking in the service of explaining the universe, while religious people use the same for justifying their beliefs and prejudices.
Another difference is that arguments and evidence that don't support such beliefs are conveniently ignored or deliberately distorted to fit.

Dear Wobbles,

Woe unto those who require evidence to support their belief.

Why would anyone want to explain the universe unless they assigned importance to it? Religion tells us to set aside the illusory universe and its temptations. If belief in God's existence helps one to resist the world - well and good; but when that same belief causes one to look for God inside the world, then they are fools whose belief in God's existence lead them away from God.

As for ignoring inconvenient evidence, that is the norm in every university.