I've met Muslims who are very kind people. I've also met Muslims who defend the Taliban.

How then do we get to the truth?

Find out what the Quran says about Jews and Christians.

If your not a Muslim, Jew or Christian according to the Quran you are a pagan.

So then, find out what the Quran says about Pagans and what should be done to them.

This is not an attack, if the Quran says nice things about Pagans Trinity and Xena and others will feel wonderful when they read those verses.

I did a search on an Islamic website for the word pagan, Sura 5:82 was very interesting.
http://www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?UserString=pagan&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dquran%2B%26as_q%3Dsearch%2Bengine&ShowTranslation=on&ShowTransliteration=on&ShowArabic=on

But isn't it odd that I search for pagan on the Muslim Students Association website only found pagan mentioned in 3 verses but the site above I found three pages of verses about the pagans. Perhaps the Muslim Students Association don't want people to know just how much love the Quran is spreading.

I'm concerned about what is happening in the world. Is Islam really peace loving? What should be done to the enemies of Allah according to the Quran?

I wont say because that might be offensive to someone.

But if you want to find out how kindly Muslims are to treat their enemies read Sura 5:33 which the Muslim Students Association has been kind enough to put on-line so that they can spread the message of love toward those who refuse to become Muslims. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

Isn't all so happy and joyful!

Alchemist, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that there have been people in this country who are not christian, whose primary language is not english and whose ancestors have been here for a long time.

Not just the indiginous people either. Afgan Camel drivers are a significant part of our history, the Chinese have played a key role at times and probably others who do not come to mind at the moment.

We pale coloured english speakers might form the majority of the population (BOAZ_David has provided stats on that elsewhere) but we are not the only ones with a legitimate interest in this country or the direction it goes in.

I'll accept that the newly arrived have the freedom to go elsewhere if they don't like the rest of us. In fact I would prefer they exercised that right if their idea of a good country is one where I have to follow their religion (or the behavioural codes which go with it). That is a different concept from saying those who are not pale skinned christians have no say in the manner the country grows.

R0bert

BBBrad

On 28th I wrote "To the conservative christian contingent - it is very upsetting to have your religion criticised isn't it? Makes you sad, angry and defensive. You feel that you have to fight back don't you - after all its your belief system that is at stake here. How dare others insult your religion! So you churn out the hyperlinks, the arguments as to why your religion is better than anybody else's. No one understands how you feel.

Well, maybe someone does understand. A lot of Muslims must be feeling sad, angry and defensive right now. Perhaps it is time to stop with the criticism and start with the co-operation and respect for one another."

Now BBBrad, unless I'm missing something here your post does not in anyway provide a response to the above. If I am wrong then please elucidate.

So you continue with yet more hyperlinks which yet again shows some of the worst of the Quran. Give it a rest. I know there is very bad stuff in the Quran - there's good stuff too - just like in the bible.

I get it why can't you?

How are your posts helping? As Rainier and Trinity said all you are doing is providing very good reasons to have vilification laws. If you want I'll post some negative stuff about Judaism for a change - does that help?

You really don't do much self reflection - do you read through your posts before up loading them?

Words fail me.

This is one massive fruit cake and I think I swallowed one too many nuts.

Overview of the Decision:
1. The Act
Justice Morris spends most of the first four pages out of eight page discussion on the actual Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and how it should be interpreted...
a) Free speech
He notes that there has been "community concern that Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 impairs legitimate free speech about racial and religious matters." He says this is not the case. (Paragraph 1)
Justice Morris says "The Act is reserved for extreme circumstances: such as where a person engages in conduct that inflames others to hate a person or persons because they adhere to an idea or practice or are of a particular race." He says this claim by Fletcher is "preposterous".

b) Intention of Parliament
Justice Morris notes the intention of parliament as set out in the preamble: "The Parliament recognises that freedom of expression is an essential component of a democratic society and that this freedom should be limited only to the extent that can be justified by an open and democratic society."

b) Incites
Justice Morris refers to Section 8 of the R&RTA and says "The key word is "incites". In its context, this does not mean "causes". Rather it carries the connotation of "inflame" or "set alight". The section is not concerned with conduct that provokes thought; it is directed at conduct that is likely to generate strong and negative passions in the ordinary person. An example of such passions would be where persons are so moved that violence might result." (Paragraph 5)

cont:

c) Religion vs the 'person'
Justice Morris clarifies that statements about a religion are not covered by the law.
He says "The Act is not concerned with the vilification of a religious belief or activity as such. Rather it is concerned with the vilification of a person, or a class of persons, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of the person or class.... The law does not stop a person from engaging in conduct that involves contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a religious belief or activity, provided this does not incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or a class of persons on the ground of such belief or activity. The law recognises that you can hate the idea without hating the person." (Paragraph 7)

d) Religious Tolerance
Justice Morris said "But, just as religious tolerance is a human right, so too is free speech." (Paragraph 8)

e) Genuine religious purpose
Justice Morris concludes "... Hence, in my opinion, a genuine religious purpose may include the purpose of asserting that a particular religion (or, indeed, no religion) is the true way; and that any way, but the true way, is false." (Paragraph 9)

The full decision is attached and is on the VCAT website at
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256DBB0022825D/page/Listing-Home+Page+News-Anti-Discrimination+List+Decision?OpenDocument&1=Home~&2=~&3=~&REFUNID=~

Holding a difference of opinion is not hate or the incitment of vilification. Freedom of speech is just that the right to express a contrary view.

'Teacher: Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second... Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What's the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?

Teacher: No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?

Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather I think it's dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone's opinion.

Teacher: This should prove to be an interesting semester.

Another Student: (blurts out) Ain't that the truth. (the students laugh)'

From Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl's book "Relativism"