Geoffrey, you can't be serious. You really believe it is okay for people publish advice on how to prey on children?

Hello Dmac

"Geoffrey, you can't be serious. You really believe it is okay for people publish advice on how to prey on children?"

As a legal right, yes. However, we should all exercise our moral judgements when dealing with such a person. I as a webmaster or any kind of publisher would refuse to publish any such filth, and would denounce anyone who tried to do so. I am sure severe social pressure and ostracism would strongly discourage such activities, in decades gone by this was the main method of controlling unacceptable deviant behaviour.

It is easy to find something that almost everyone finds objectionable and claim it shouldn't be allowed to be published. This then is used as a precedent to ban something slightly less objectionable , and so on, and freedom of speech is whittled away to nothing. Freedom of speech encompasses the lofty and the depraved, the banal and the enlightened, and such material being published is the price of the rest of us being able to enjoy free speech.

Freedom demands personal responsibility, accepting your own actions and judging others, it can be hard. Unfortunately today too many people want to outsource making moral judgements to the government, the problem with this is: whose morality do we use? Making moral judgements belongs with individuals, not governments.

There's free speech and then there's free speech. You could argue that a persons right to free speech could include arguing for the legalization of sex with children. But surely you couldn't extend that to publishing child porn or detailing how to go about "grooming" children for sex. The two are very different.

The whole concept of free speech cannot possibly be absolute. Common sense should dictate that a line must be drawn somewhere.

Whose morality do we use? Thats easy the ones that most of us agree on. Havn't we made moral judgments about murder, rape and such with our laws. Some groups moral codes don't have problem with killing people as punishment for crimes. Yet we as a nation have made laws against capital punishment. Geoffrey you seem to think that words cannot hurt or drive people to do things they might not orther wise do. The reality does not bare this out there are cults of personality throught out our history. The old sticks and stones line doesn't work for everybody.

The fact is that "villification", and rational and objective debate are unrelated. Words are powerful and it is well established that they DO influence people in the way they are said and used and in the tones. Orwell postulated "Newspeak" as a way of controlling and influencing opinions. I do not like political correctness where some issues are OFF THE AGENDA, but on the other hand I recognise the manipulative power related to the use of words in the wrong hands. Is it the Middle Eastern God, or the twists people have placed on the Word Of God, that have driven people to murder, torture, war? The bible recognises the power of words "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word WAS God!" What more powerful statement than this exists about the power of "word". Any Christian will reconise this as indicating that Word and language is a powerful tool and weapon. There is no restrictions on Christians using words to brainwash their children, although if non christians did the same thing it is termed abuse. All a matter of perspective really. Fact is, the wounds from sticks and stones will heal, the wounds from words and psych trauma may never heal. The pen IS mightier than the sword, particularly when USED as a sword. Never forget that! The anti villification laws do not restrict debate they restrict villification - NOT the same thing!

Special for DMAC.....
Ok... lets get some TRUTH into the field here.

1/ You convenienlty chose to IGNORE the reported 'COLLUSION' between the Islamic council of Vic and the Equal Opportunity, to send SPIES..(they were invited by May Helou, womens information officer of the Islamic council at the time) NOT by the Pastors. Apart from anythng else, it was 'entrapment'
2/ The pastors in my opinion went just a little further than appropriate, if correctly reported by saying "Muslims are Demons" I find it very hard to accept that they actually said this, because it would be more likely for them to say 'Muslims are demon possessed' which is still a bit further than I would go. I'd be prepared to say "there is a strong demonic influence on some Muslims" as would apply to people in any non Christian religion, but not all.
3/ Jehovahs witnesses will allow a baby or small child to die before they will give a blood transfusion (if there is no alternative treatment available which would work). That is a fact. Now.. I believe that a regular Christian, should be able to speak PASSIONATELY about this, and show by virtue of the fact that Jews, who's culture and religion the verses which JW's use to 'prove' that this is Gods will, DON'T believe this is what God was saying. So.. it would be quite in order for a Christian pastor to condemn such acts as 'child abuse', "child neglect" 'the moral equivalent of murder' in THEIR OWN CHURCHES. At the same time, they would NOT be urging 'hate' toward Jehovahs witnesses, they would be urging Christians to reach out to them JUST as the 2 Catch the Fire Pastors were doing ! I think DMAC..on the subject of 'Do Muslims have a plan to take over Australia' you should see the witness statement of Mark Durie, and READ the results of his research easily VERIFIED by a quick trip to the ICV bookshop and a check of the CURRICULUM texts used for Islamic education in Victoria !!!! You will readily see, that the only 'imbelishment' added by the pastors, was 'by violence and terror' which again, is a bit over the top. But in principle, 'take over' by 'stealth' or 'take over' by 'violence'..the end result is the SAME.

Now.. lets take the subject of 'CHILD MOLESTATION' and RELIGIOUS ROLE MODELS. It is a simple fact, that Australian Law, describes sexual activity with pubescant girls under 16 as 'statutory rape or child abuse/molesation' I don't need to tell you WHO married and became sexually involved with a 9 yrs old girl..do I ????????? U can give this any name u like, but a man who is not 18...not 25...not even 35..but 50+ !!!! taking a girl of this age.. is extremely repulsive and disgusting to the Western World, (oops..forgot..the DECADENT Western world) Now, either we have 'got it wrong' and should adjust our morality to suit '6th century Arabia' or.. maybe the whole idea of such acts should be questioned. I have found that children as young as 10 were being married in Arabia up to the 12th Century. So, this adds support to the view that marrying children so young was NOT somthing which 'faded out, was phased out by Islam' etc.

When considering issues of 'vilification' we should not be asking 'were they offended' by this or that remark..but 'IS IT TRUE'!!! The Judge declared that the Pastors failed to differentiate between 'Mainstream Islam', and 'a small group of States in the Gulf', but what he FAILED to see, was that a) Saudi Arabia has never been colonized by a western power, and Wahabism was very much like our Reformation, a 'return' to fundamentals. i.e. 'mainstream' Islam should be judged by the level to which states adhere to the fundamentals. Hence, the gulf states are a GOOD example of 'mainstream' Islam (in a majority status) The other point he neglected is that "Islam in a minority status" will generally be much more benign and tame than Islam in a MAJORITY status. This is well supported by the nations where Islam is a majority.

So, in Summary:

a) The pastors DID speak mainly 'truth'
b) They did add a bit more colorful language than 'robust debate and serious discussion' require, but keep in mind it is an audience forum, intended for Christians.
c) Such langauge is not uncommon in Mosques in regard to Christians
What is it the Quran says about 'those who claim God has associates'??? u know the answer.
d) Its more preferable that (apart from direct incitement to violence and actual hatred)both faiths have the freedom to describe the other as they feel.
e) Is it appropriate to hold up as a 'role model' one who under Australian law, would be Jailed as a Child molestor ???