Can we assume “The alchemist” is including herself in the statement, "It is absolutely clear that religion, all religion is at the root of the evil in the world. If you removed religion from the world, there would be little left to fight about".

Does she imagine she has no worldview to introduce to the whole of society? A religion is a worldview or philosophy about how society should function. By confronting people of faith with an atheistic world view has done as much damage to the world as any other religion in the last 100 years. To hold no view of where we came from why we are here or where are we going leaves us a lawless zombies. Even atheists have such a worldview they are passionate about; note the vilification they post when the subject of Creation is introduced - witness their antagonistic passion aroused.

To secularise a society does not mean to remove religion, it does mean to hold all men equal before the Law and Government. Thank to BBBrad the sites he suggested give real hope of changes to be made within Islamic society. http://secularislam.org/ .

Westminster Christianity secularised the Governments and Courts several centuries ago, and removed the courts from ruling upon matters of doctrine and conscience. The Bracks Government has endeavoured to reintroduce the State secular Courts to make rulings upon matters of theological opinion and what someone might consider blasphemy. Christians have most to loose under this system because they are taught not to take matters of offence to Courts but rather to endure. However Christians have always been outspoken about persecution and have lobbied Governments to intervene. The sanctioned persecution against religion in the USSR and China is a prime example. When Governments wish to violate personal conscience and deny personal belief with sanctioned violence against individuals is the problem. The problem is a matter of power in the hands of Government to rule over people with a particular idiology rather than to humbly serve the people. Democracy is rule by the people, not dictatorship by administrators of a single idiology.

It is easy to lose sight of the real issues where religion is involved. Alex Milner tried to bring this thread back to reality with an excellent summary of why this legislation was not needed, and how it can, and will, be misused. Unfortunately, once there is a whiff of "my religion beats yours" in the air (thank you Boaz, yet again) common sense takes a back seat.

I lived for a while in London at the height of the IRA bombings, back in the seventies. While it would have been easy to use these attacks as justification for vilifying Catholics, in whose name these acts were apparently carried out, the vast majority of folk - even those mangled or bereaved by the atrocities - saw terrorism, rather than religious hate.

Over the years, those who blindly supported the IRA with arms and finance - notably "liberal" Americans - came to realise that no cause, ever, justifies terrorist acts. The contributions dried up, and there is now at least a glimmer of hope that the individuals who still hold a lethal grudge against their fellow man will come to their senses. All this was achieved without the introduction of laws that restricted free speech.

The mistake that was made, and will take decades to unmake, was when the US embarked upon its "war on terror". It was this initiative that guided the entire enterprise into a fundamentalist Christian vs fundamentalist Muslim exercise, ignoring totally the very extremist nature of terrorism iteslf.

As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window. Which is why, amongst all the puffing and blowing, only a tiny minority of posts has actually addressed the issue of the legislation itself.

We have to stop tip toeing around the reality here.We are dealing with a substancial number of Muslim fanatics who want to impose their version of Islam on the rest of the world.

Too many moderate Muslims are in denial.Many are already trying to cast doubt,alluding to CIA plots etc.

The object of these Muslim fanatics is to make us attack the moderates as well as the fanatics so they will radicalise the moderates.They also want to subjudate the moderates and stop them from destroying the power base of the fanatics.

What we must do ,is not respond with violence.To violate Mosques is playing right into their hands.

We must however insist that the moderates take a stronger stand in stamping out this vile poison.Our community will give you all the support you need, but Muslims need to be more pro-active in in silencing the fanatics.

This will take years to change.Has the Australian Govt and the Muslim community worked out long term plans to counter the fanatics.

Being alert and not alarmed is not enough.We need all Australians to understand the problems warts and all and act on the solutions since if it is left to fester under clouds of political correctness and bureaucratic fear of being called racist or religionist,we will all suffer horrible consequences.

On George Bush Jnr and Osama Bin Laden:

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler
whom they consider to be God-fearing and pious."
-- Aristotle, 343 B.C.

On the ultimate terrorist:

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

On religion in general:

"Man is the only animal that has the true religion--several of them."

Mark Twain

Pericles,
I am assuming that you want us all to bow to your personal religious understanding of the world by your statement; "As with this thread, so it is with the world. Introduce religion, and common sense whistles out of the window". By this statement you have denied yourself any right to hold a worldview. Religion is another word for worldview. It is just that some worldviews have a consciousness of the divine presence. Atheism has been equally as irrational in human relationships in society. Evaluate China's human rights record, no god influences their laws or behaviour. Are you saying countries like China is a prime example of social administration without God?

In Britain as in Aussieland;

“New effort to ban religious hate

Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal have been unveiled by the government.
The new offence gives equal protection to all faiths. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by race hate laws.
Critics say the reintroduced plans - which cover words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm

The problem is that many people are (unsurprisingly) offended at seeing their beliefs ripped to shreds, and perhaps this law will give such people the impression that the government will support them.
If it really is just a case of "protecting the believer, not the belief" it is all rather pointless. Inciting hatred for any reason is covered by existing laws - why make religion a special case?