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