Fellow_Human,
I must clarify I am an orthodox monotheist Christian, and do not follow the Roman construct of believing in a human god who is born in the flesh and can die as a human. The Trinity was a 3rd century Roman spatial construct to place the humanity of Jesus within divinity. Hence the very importance to them of the immaculate conception, god being born as man. The threefold name given in Matthew 28: 19 they believe to represent three persons, but their concept of the name misrepresents the singular grammer of the name as in Isaiah 9: 6 refers to the only child born. The fact is Jesus revealed the thoughts, acts, and character of God to man as the spirit of God was in him reconciling men to God. Jesus was not about reconciling men to himself - but to God.

Jesus is praised because of his actions, sacrifice, and teaching; but importantly because the very Spiritual nature of God was revealed to man through Him. Christians address God as Father even as Jesus because we believe man was created to reflect the very nature and character of God Genesis 1: 26 - 27; This we believe Jesus did.

Jesus demonstrated the overthrowing of polytheistic beliefs among Greco-Roman pagan influenced Jews that demons (jinn) controlled human behaviour. No such beings exist; they are merely conjured in the human imagination. Orthodox Monotheists do not believe that the spirits of the deceased can contact or influence the living, i.e. prayers to the dead. Such a belief is Zoroastrian syncretistic theology adopted by Romanism.

Quote Fellow_Human, "Muslims and Christians, share monotheism, commandments, belief in Jesus his virgin birth (and him being the messiah). The fence between a Muslims believer and a Christian believer is the Trinity: this is where my journey end and Christians continue."

Ah, it's not easy being, thanks so much for a touch of the Tom Waits mambo. Do you think the forces of godliness could get into a theological discussion of whether a chocolate jesus is milk, dark or white? I shall take my bad liver and broken heart away while I ponder this question.

No BD.
You missed the point. The Bible has some quite unkind things to say regarding non-believers. I simply implied (and you missed) that if the Bible can, so can the Qu’ran. And yet all it should do is promote discussion.

So, split hairs if you will:
“1/ The Bible does not condemn or villify one particular class of persons, in the sense of a particular RELIGIOUS faith (as the Quran does "Jews, and Christians"):

No, what it does is condemns or vilifies anyone who doesn’t believe that particular brand of religion. The difference being? Try not to confuse the issue here.

As to the meeting, yes, ambush is wrong and I’m sure a better way could have been found. Further, I think the law is wrong and misused. But when people like yourself continually promote you version of faith, I’m not surprised people are threatened. If a Muslim does it, it’s called terrorism, if a Christian does it? Well, now it’s called vilification. So everyone gets called names. Just shows how intolerant both faiths are.

As to Ash and Ifran, no, I have found them to be much more moderate and open-minded than yourself.

And I did not miss the s.9 Motive issue. It was simply irrelevant to the topic. You call it their historical truth – as you see it. Repeatedly I say it’s your subjective, biased opinion and you seem to miss the words. You cannot be objective, so what’s the point in discussing religion with you.

Feel free to complain if you are vilified by a Muslim. I certainly would – whether by a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any individual who belittled me because of my faith.

Ifran, Ash
Can you live knowing that a large part of your current community will always be non-Islamic? Does this bother you? Can you live with laws that do not necessarily reflect every aspect of your religion but try to find a balance to accommodate all beliefs? What is your personal stance? And what is the long term goals of your faith in this country?

Reason

Very succinct post. I think you have made your point very successfully on this vexing issue.

Pertinent questions you raised for Irfan and Ash. I am optimistic enough to believe that you will receive reasonable responses from them both.

I have difficulties with this particular thread. I believe in freedom of speech. Yet I question the motives behind David Palmer's argument.

We certainly can't tolerate, in this era fraught with reactionary sensitivities; outright vilification of any group.

We can’t become a controlled state either (eg ID card).

We currently have a federal government gathering more power to itself from state governments. This is dangerous. It is not extreme to posit the spectre of a dictatorship in this wide brown land of ours. Something I would not have believed possible before.

“One ring to rule them all, One ring to bind them”. Oops just slipped out – apologies to Garra.

We need freedom of expression plus constant vigilance.

I think the recent cooperation between victorian jewish and muslim peak bodies in response to the hate-books sold in salafist bookshops is an example of how such legislation could prove useful. These bookshops were threatened with legal action under religious vilification laws.

David, I am at liberty to discuss the wider policy issues involved in the debate. If my comments are potentially in contempt of court, so is your entire article. We can discuss the policy issues but not the contentious matters on the appeal. And there are other things we also cannot discuss. However, I won't bore you with free legal advice. I am sure you can get your own advice on whether your article might represent some kind of 'sub judice' comment.

Hey Reason, thanx for your thoughts. (this is for Ash also)

At the outset, let me clarify.

1/ The Quran absolutely by the plain meaning of language 'does' villify Christians and Jews in many places,(if for no other reason than I 'feel' it -if for example that were the case)
I've listed the ways 'Christians' are described, and you have seen it, I don't need to repeat.

2/ I don't worry in the slightest about such references, I understand fully that they are a statement of Islamic perspective, offensive and villifying as they technically are. I don't 'feel' vilified by them because I reject any notion of divine authority behind them. There is nothing to worry about. I don't even get offended when the general populace use 'Jesus F-*-G Christ' in order to convey their lack of vocabulary to others. (though the 'cringe' factor is pretty high)
They speak from ignorance.
If they embrace Him as Savior, such things are as if they never were.

3/ The reason I'm making such a fuss about the Quran , is that I don't want the silly legislation in place in the first place, further, I don't like being 'oppressed' to the point of not being able to use the Quran in explaining my understanding of the Muslim mindset to anyone I choose, publically or otherwise. Remember the Lawyers statement for the ICV ? => "Your Honor, ban the defense from reading the Quran because this is further villifying my client"

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If the Quran can say I'm 'wicked' etc simply because I'm Christian, without question this is inciting hate. It is ESPECIALLY SO, in the light of the Judges comment about the 'reasonable person' criteria. Which boils down to "If you claim so and so is 'wicked' then a 'typical' hearer will be incited to hate them"

Consistency demands we are free to use Islamic material in explaining their mindset. (whether they like the method or not)