So much fuss about religion! What ever happened to ‘turning the other cheek’? We already had ample legislation to handle actual physical violence, and a thick skin and strong conviction should be enough to handle so-called vilification.

It’s amazing that such nonsense (religion) still survives in the 21st century.

When fundamentalist Christians declare their hatred of Islam, telling us Islam = terrorism, they go a long way to incite hatred in the western community against Muslims. How is this any different from Islamic extremists attempting to incite hatred against the west?
Apparently we now want Islamic extremists out of the country for their attitudes, but right-wing commentators and columnists are saying things like ‘Islam is the problem, not extremism’ on a daily basis and not being punished. Can’t have it both ways.

Leigh: something tells me religion (in general) only has maybe a couple of hundred years left in it, so not to worry. Three cheers for science!

Marvellous Eh! We worry about upsetting moslems but try just carrying a Bible in islamic countries. Not to mention holding a Christian service or Bible study.Why don't "our" moslems petition islamic nations for the same rights for other faiths as moslems receive in australia? Yes it is a silly idea I suppose.
To the two previous posts, Christianity will be here when you are long gone, unless you join us. numbat

Of course I was having a bit of a laugh with my last couple of phrases there, no offense intended. The point was to highlight the silliness of the idea that religion could ever really define 'goodness' or 'badness' in anyone. Islamic extremist or fundamentalist Christian - both insane as far as I can see. Of course, reasonable and moderate religious folk are A-Ok!

But science still kicks.

Oh Mark- 'an active campaign of misinformation'?! They seem to be your favourite words...

Did you or did you not authorise the release of a Justice and International Mission document entitled “Same form of Hatred, Different Time, and Different Target- Anti-Muslim Hatred and the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act” April 2005 which deliberately twisted the words of Daniel Scot to enhance your own case?

Here is an example:
Daniel Scot: "So Allah is saying that Muslim people they have to fight <bit more> Muslim people they have to fight unless {until} everybody becomes Muslim, unless {until} they accept true religion. So we read further, this is not isolated case. There are many, many verses in Qur’an where Allah has commanded to do so. So we read in chapter 61 verse 9 it says there that Allah has sent the true religion, that is the Islamic religion, to conquer all the other religion, not one religion, not two religion, but all the other religion. Similar thing we read in chapter 48 verse 28 that Muslim have to conquer, Islam has to conquer <excuse me> all the other religions."

Uniting Church Version:
“Muslim people they have to fight unless everybody becomes Muslim, unless they accept true religion. Islam has to conquer all the other religions.”

Why did you alter the entire meaning of his quote, and thereby obscure his direct reference to source? Who is 'misinformed'?

Spendocrat

A highly educated professor is about to take you to task...he is going to show how your belief that "Religion" (in the sense of 'revealed truth' .. at least. believed to be that) is the ONLY means of establishing 'good' or 'bad' in anyone.

This professor is very influential and contributed to the post modernity of today.

Here is what he says about 'religion'

“If God Exists,man cannot be free, but man is free, therefore God cannot exist,Since God does not exist, all things are morally permissable”.
Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialist philosoper.

So,clearly, without God, religion, there is no possible way of determining 'right or wrong' in an absolute sense, apart from a diverse array of personal opinion.

The idea that the community is made more safe by the RRT 2001 and that this contributes to social harmony is as brilliant as seeing what a man intent on murder will do, when you give him a gun. In other words, while differing religious communities have opposing opinions about the others faith, without the legal 'weapons' to actually attack them, they have to remain just 'differing opinions'.

Since the act was legislated, we have had the ICV attacking (in a conspiratorial and collusive way with 'Adolph' Bracks' UNequeal Opportunity Commission) the Catch the Fire ministry. Then we have 'our turn' with Christians going to mosques etc.. monitoring what is said.. freshly read up on the RRT themselves...

This is harmony ? This is protection ? it's absurd,illconceived and plain stupid, bordering on irresponsible.

I will almost guarantee that not only the Act will be heavily modified or thrown out next election, but probably also the government which allowed the debacle. I know I'll be working toward that end. Thank God for democracy.... and that I live in a marginal seat