Dear Ben P

Yes, I do think there is a bit a paranoia about.
I don't really think this law restrains freedom of speech overmuch. While I am not entirely happy with it, since there is truth and error in religion and there must be freedom to discuss, debate anbd evangelise, I don't think the law is prescribing religious belief (although there were a couple of expressions in the judgement that looked that way), but requiring that there be fairness in representing the views of others. I do not think that evil is overcome by evil but by good, and I do not find that the Apostle Paul rubbished in outlandish ways the pagan religions in order to advance Christianity - eg Ephesus (did not blaspheme the goddess) and Athens (the very religious comment).

Regards,

Rowland Ward

PS Is everyone paranoid that they don't use there full name!!

Bouma's comment about Muhammad only going about spreading his faith in the nicest possible way is stupefying. How can an educated person say such a thing? Muhammad, the one who boasted that he had been 'victorious through terror', and this was his distinctive gift from Allah as a mark of his prophethood. Muhammad the one who, when attacking the peaceful Jews of Khaibar remarked that it was a grim day for those who have been warned. Muhammad who commanded his followers to invite people into Islam before attacking them. Muhammad who beheaded hundreds in retribution - except those who converted. How can Bouma's nonsense pass for information when the facts are so publicly available.

No Professor Bouma, part of the problem for the two pastors is that many of the things they said were true. The judge made this quite clear when he listed the offensive statements, a number of which taken from the Qur'an and Hadiths. The Act does NOT prohibit 'untrue' statements. It prohibits 'vilifying' statements, which can be true.

We live in an age where polite lies are legal, but offensive truths cannot freely be spoken.

eRR... ROLAND WARD ...

read this and u may see 'why' people are decidedly 'circumspect' about their identity

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38704.htm

Regards
BOAZ

GARY BOUMA .. 'ex' professor of sociology at Monash ? well if I have anything to do with it.. that WILL be the case.. I consider his remark about Mohammed in connection with mission, comparing him to Christ to be tantamount to a resignation letter for "lack of qualifications" he is clearly making 'scholarly' remarks in a serious forum which are baseless and unfounded ! Do we want our offspring and the future leaders of this state to be educated by such a shallow and incabable person ? He is either incapable OR.. deliberately biased and BOTH are outright dangerous if he is educationally producing clones of himself !

I'm writing to Monash now. and pointing his employer to this forum !!

Peace.. to the truthful :)
BOAZ

My dear Boaz-David,

I can think of few schemes with a lower likelihood of success, than yours of writing to Monash!

You've caught out Professor Bouma good and proper in a smarmy fib about Mohommed's tolerant approach to outreach. Kudos to you, but I don't see what good would come of writing to his employer about it.

warm regards,

Ben P

Rowland, I appreciated your reply.

When you write,

"I do not think that evil is overcome by evil but by good, and I do not find that the Apostle Paul rubbished in outlandish ways the pagan religions in order to advance Christianity - eg Ephesus (did not blaspheme the goddess) and Athens (the very religious comment)",

I agree with you. "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world" and all that.

I just can't come at the idea that the State is either capable of or legitimately resposible for regulating the Church's (or other religious bodies') speech. I'm pretty sure that our Presbyterian forebears (about whom you know a great deal more than me) would also have trouble with that notion! But I'm just repeating myself now...