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

Maybe Socrates was right when he said out with the Gods and in with the Good. The Good apparently meant the sort of spiritual God Plato thought up after being taught by Socrates. While Socrates Good or God could be found within us after possibly deep meditation, Plato was one who thought up a God somewhat like the Jewish Jehovah and possibly did connect the two. Plato also imagined a heaven containing pre-images of all the elements of earth, including the pre-fashioning of all the thoughts and actions of future humans Plato's pupil in turn, Aristotle, was more scientific believing not so much in a human-like God, but more like a huge computerised being with a title such as the Great Architect or the Grand Geometrician.

But Aristotle was not simply a believer in mechanisms for he also coined a phrase such as Moderation in all Things. It was also the teachings of Aristotle that saved Christianity from the Dark Ages around 1000 AD when Islamic scholars passed on the Light of Reason or the Search for Enquiry to the dashing young French Christian monk Peter Abelard, enabling the barbarian West to get rid of much of the Christian faith that was misguided.

Indeed, it is believed that much of both Christian and Islamic faiths have become misguided today, changing certain passages of the Bible and Koran into Gospel truth when much could be only symbolic.

Yes, there is an old saying that we can learn much from the Ancient Greeks, and maybe the world would be a better place if we gave it a try - Christians, Jews, and Moslems all, especially that important one - Moderation in all Things!

How is this legislation working when the Sheik Omran's & the Abu-Bakr's, who spew their sick racist chants out, claiming terrorism is a Muslim's duty, yet not be charged?

What about also, with regard to the Catch The Fire Ministries case, how when Pastor Scot wanted to read a passage from the Koran to the court, the lawyers for the ICV (Islamic Council Of Victoria) asked the judge to stop him as it would vilify Muslims! How on earth could this happen! It is bizzare...

Until Muslims get rid of the disgusting things in their Quran & hadiths, and denounce Sharia Law as barbaric, then we will get nowhere. I really don't see the head of the body set up to deal with these crimes phoning up Christians to go to the local mosque do you? If anyone doesn't know, this is what happened... the head of the body set up to deal with complaints phoned up Muslims to specifically go to this sermon, because apparently there weren't enough complaints the previous year.

Again though, if this act is enacted properly, then wouldn't ALL Muslim preachers end up in trouble? Homosexuals must be stoned to death, western women are sluts, and so forth?

I would like to compliment Mark on a generally factual and concise summary of the situation with the Victorian Racial and Religious vilification legislation. Perhaps I also should add a partisan contribution since Mark supported the legislation from its inception and provided every support to the Islamic Council of Victoria in its action against Catch the Fire Ministries and the 2 Pastors.

He speaks of an “active campaign of misinformation” against the legislation but in fact himself is the one guilty of misinformation in not acknowledging that there is a broadly based opposition to the legislation across the full range of denominations including heads of churches, not to mention much similar opposition from both other religious and non religious sources.

This opposition is based on both the Act and the subsequent judgment of Judge Higgins in the Catch the Fire case. Mark’s argument is undermined by his studied forgetfulness regarding this case and the Judge’s much faulted decision, not even deigning to mention this case which has caused so much outrage amongst Christians in particular.

Furthermore Mark speaks of a “small minority of people seeking to promote religious/racial hatred in the community” without identifying who he has in mind. This will not do, especially when we understand it is the two Pastors are in his sights. Nor is he right to link by implication hateful actions against Muslims and others to sections of the Christian community. This is an outrageous thing to do. I know Pastor Nalliah personally and there is no way that he can be accused of hatred toward Muslims. Again such an inference is outrageous.

Good on ya Benjamin,
This law is so ill conceived and its interpretations are so inconsistent; no two Judges will agree on how it is enacted. How it is enforced will depend on the religious sentiments of the Judge preciding on the case.

It is the first step in enforcing Blasphemy law under Islam. When a non-believer ridicules a statement made in the Quran or Hadiths they are guilty of blasphemy. Christians are fimiliar with ridicule it keeps them focused on a relationship and not dependent upon a point of doctrine. Matthew 5:11, "Blessed are you, when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."

Under Islam there is no concept of tolerance and turning the other cheek, it is blasphemy to speak ill of Allah or his prophet. The penalty is death as was applied by fatwa by all Muslims upon Salmon Rushdie. It is better to have unrestriced speech on any subject than to threaten persons you might dissagree with, which was the case of ICV with CTF. Islam and those who want totalitarian control have no concept of Christian tolerance, that is the reason they prefer to litigate. Intolerant persons will use litigation to silence their opponents. If they cannot silence by law they will use violence in the name of the justice of Allah. It is wise to note who has used this legistation to silence their opposition, note it was so called moderate Muslims and not extremists. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim if they are offended by free speech. They hate it when their God or his prophet is being brought into question or ridicule. The Middle Eastern way is might is right, and not truth is right. The Middle Eastern religions in the OT are based upon the idea that holding National dominance is the will of their god.

Mark Zirnsak does not understand the freedoms of expression inherent within Western Democracy.

Part 2

Mark is wide of the mark when he says we who oppose the legislation have been dealt a severe blow by Justice Morris in the Alpha case. This is nonsense, it is certainly not the way we read Justice Morris’ decision and for (at least) two reasons:

1. we welcome Justice Morris’ decision in that he seems to have taken a very different tack to that of Judge Higgins in the Catch the Fire case and indeed seems to have undermined that Judge’s decision. No doubt we will hear more about this in due (legal) time as an appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court on the constitionality of the Victorian Act and Judge Higgins decision itself has been agreed to by the Court of Appeal.

2. and, secondly, we are delighted and relieved that the complaint against Alpha was dismissed.

Mark has presented a stirring and no doubt heartfelt defence of the Victorian legislation. Maybe he should explain why, if the legislation is so good, the NSW, SA and WA Governments have shied away from such legislation citing the Victorian legislation and its operation in part for their repective decisions. Victoria is not the fount of all wisdom, certainly not on this issue.

Why is religion so special?If anyone writes something that is stupid illogical,hateful, intolerant or against our rule of our democracy,no matter whose book it appears in ,I and others have the right to reveal to the world the reality of it's stupidity.

To have a law that contravenes my right to express my views ,makes me and others subjugated to the nonsense in those books.We will then have rule of ignorance for fear of offending a potentially violent belief system.If a book speaks truth,it will withstand cold hard analysis of facts and logic as do books of science and maths.

These laws are victory for ignorance and power hungry clergy, because a few bureaucrats don't have the courage to face the failure of their social engineering.

On the surface at least, this law doesn't seem to be too bad. It allows you to be critical of a religion, and it allows you to express your own. I don't really understand why so many people hate this law. Won't this law stop people from preaching terrorism? Under this law, supporting or condoning acts which are contrary to Australian law will become illegal, as it should.
I mean, under this law, we can be critical of everyone, and I think that's a good thing, and a mark of democracy.

Unconquered_Sun,
This law is espoused by those who wish to control people and thought. Thought will only surface out in the open when opponents hear or read what others are thinking that offend them and they take them before the tribunal. Real hate and terrorist planning is done in secret and behind closed doors. Why? - because of their fear of being caught planning before they can enact their evil plot. We have ASIO to rout out such. It is better to allow shallow emotive expression as it allows vent of feelings.

This law shuts these people down who express themselves with disgruntled emotion and it does not deal with people with real violent intent. This then drives the disgruntled underground to seethe until they will ignore the law and act with violence against one who offends their sensibility.

I believe in the absolute right of people to express an opinion no matter how misguided and untruthful. We already have defamation laws to deal with individual cases of deliberate misrepresentation. I want Ajay, The Alchemist, and Xena to have the absolute right to their convictions and the right to express them publicly. I have nothing to fear from their misrepresentations of what I know, practise and believe. They must have the absolute right to their conscience and convictions and their right to express vilification of a belief system. They stand or fall on their credibility, the same with myself. Discovery and productivity flourishes in an absolutely free mind: restriction of thought stifles ideas and breeds hate underground.

I say outlaw the CONTROL FREAKS!

“So whether the selective use of the “truth” is a defense against a complaint will depend on the context in which the selective use of the “truth” occurs and if it was done reasonably and in good faith. However, complaints can only be made about activities that are open to the public and only a person or body that was the target of the incitement is able to make a complaint.” Well that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

This is not about hate speech or even about what is being said. This is about who is saying what and about whom. When an advocate starts saying that an issue depends on “context” and “selective use of truth” done according to some undefined concept of “reason” by a specific set of people under vague circumstances, then it is time to prepare for a storm. Be sure that it will only be used against those groups not considered “Politically Correct.” It would be better to rename the act, calling it the “Protect Islam from criticism law” making it illegal to saying anything negative, however factual, about the so-called the “Religion of Peace”.

Experience indicates that what this type of legislation does is confer a special status on a particular ideology that is both religious and political (by its own dogma). You will notice that these “anti-vilification” laws are always promoted hand in hand together with the parallel concept of “Community Laws” wherein certain groups seek to establish special justice systems (ie, Islamic sharia law) for themselves. Thus the laws of the nation in practice (if not in theory) become secondary to the laws of the community. This may seem to be a stretch, but it is actually what is happening in Canada and England.

This legislation is a step on the road to the loss of the right of free expression and the right of equality under the law. Free speech, while never absolute, becomes severely limited by vague notions of what may or may not offend another group, or what constitutes “truth” and what is “context.

Continued...

You must know that certain groups are easily offended, and will certainly make use of this type of law. “In Islam, contemptuous, irreverent speech or sacriligious acts, not only about God, but also about the Prophet Muhammad and all other prophets, and the members of these prophets’ households, as well as the holy scriptures, including the Qur’an, and other things that are of a similar religious nature (i.e., which are regarded as sacred) are all acts of blasphemy.”
This is from http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm (where you can also read about the how Muslims in Canada want the right to kill apostates and blasphemers).

Just to show you how hypocritical these groups are, in the case of a similar law being passed in England, a Muslim group went to the Home Office and ... “The delegation made suggestions to the minister to that it may be preferable to totally exempt the holy text, which will include the Qu’ran and the hadiths from the remit of the Act. ” This if from:
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=F57CA56EE76D4431733025FC&MENUID=MCBNEWS&DESCRIPTION=Archives (Issue 87, June 2005)

How cute, they want this type of law and at the same time they want themselves exempted. Of course, that “kill all the infidels wherever you find them...” quote in the Koran could be a problem to most people, but then again, the PC left-wing activists, politicians and judges can be counted upon to understand that Islamic culture cannot and should not be held to the same standards as Western societies.

The only “active campaign of misinformation” here is by those who support this legislation. If a law cannot be specific as to the nature of the offense, it is just an arbitrary imposition of one person’s opinion over that of another, resulting in a limitation of individual rights that are the foundation of Western Societies. Maybe that is what they want!

John AKA kactuz

MUSLIM AGENDA

It will take a while for the ‘ordinary fair go’ Aussie to find it, but if you look hard enough, you WILL.

And here it is, in a Canadian Islamic site, waxing extremely eloquent about ‘Multi culturalism’ and in the next breath, about how different communities should be allowed to follow their own legal system “the special needs of the Muslim community” I had to read a lot of woffle to get this little word bite, its in the conclusion to a long discussion on Apostasy. (and the Islamic punishments for it)

http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm

“In the context of the special cultural/religious needs of the Muslim community in respect of their beliefs about blasphemy, it indeed behoves a broad-minded people like Canadians to ACCOMODATE their (Muslim community's) needs by simply taking that EXTRA step discussed earlier - this will not diminish the rest of us”.

Only blind Nellies deaf dumb and blind son Neddie would be unable to extrapolate this kind of madness into the Australian context.

The first 2 points on the Islamic Council of Victoria “Goals and Objectives”

1. To vigilantly maintain and apply the true Islamic doctrines as, contained in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed (May Allah's Blessings and Mercy be Upon Him) at all times in the carrying out of the objects of this Constitution.

2. To vigorously and vigilantly combat and correct any misrepresentation of Islam.

It is not “misrepresenting” to state from Islamic (or Christian) history warts and all.

With regard to the Canadian example, the most DANGEROUS aspect is the underlying assumption of the “Islamic Legal State within a State” idea. The urging of allowing Sharia Law is exactly based on the assumption of a political/religious Islamic State.

Note Goal 1 of the ICV “as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed”..... as PRACTICED ? !

Is it any wonder they tried to SILENCE any criticism ? Just ‘as mohamed practiced’ (by murdering an offensive poet)
I don’t think I need to repeat what has already been stated umpteen times about ‘his practice’ towards perceived enemies

"I want Ajay, The Alchemist, and Xena to have the absolute right to their convictions and the right to express them publicly. I have nothing to fear from their misrepresentations of what I know, practise and believe."

Philo - And I want you to be able to continue to feel that you are morally superior for being superstitious - I wouldn't have it any other way.

Cheers

"The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act provides a safeguard against a small minority of people who would seek to promote racial or religious hatred in the community. The law allows us to hold opinions or beliefs - even if hateful or destructive - but if we act to promote hatred then we may risk action under the Act."

I think that this is a blatant racist and religio-centric provision. It isolates a section of the community and places them above the rest of us individuals. What if people just promote hatred against a mainstreamer for no apparent reason? For instance: I have had the local "Christain" mob cause trouble. Most of the things that Zirnsak says have happened to Muslims have happened to me.

I know there is vilification going on. I know if I was one of the favoured and recognisible minorities there would be moral outrage. But there is no political mileage to be made when white vilify whites.

I knock about with a person who has a purple mowhawk, tats and piercings - why isn't this person afforded the same protection. I expressed this concern to a local police officer and, of course, it is not in their portfolio - "see your local member". Verbal abuse, bullying and vilification for this kind of difference doesn't get a look in.

This is one reason why I think cultural supremacism needs to be acknowledged more in our society as it may lock politicians and media into a non-racial, non-religio-centric way of thinking.

Vilification is plain wrong and should also be applied to any other equally - regardless of race, gender or religion

A response to Mark Zirnsak’s article “Religious tolerance will ensure community safety’
Mr Zirnsak states in his column, “There has been an active campaign of misinformation run against the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, particularly in Victoria’s religious communities.”
I would like to remind Mr Zirnsak that just because he doesn’t agree with someone else’s opinion, that does not give him the right to call their statements “misinformation” or deliberately misrepresent them.
Despite willingly throwing the accusation at others, it is clear that Mr Zirnsak likes to indulge in his own “misinformation”. He has done this in a number of ‘communications’ put out through his paid position in the Uniting Church’s Justice and International Mission Unit. He has circulated information, which he has taken completely out of context, and used it in an attempt to denigrate those who disagree with him. Hardly a ‘Christian’ thing to do!!
The fact that he does this while purporting to represent a Christian denomination in Australia is itself mis-representation. His comments DO NOT represent the UCA position, just that of the UCA Justice and Mission department he works for. I have received many letters from UCA members and ministers pointing out that he does not represent them.
Peter Stokes, CEO, Salt Shakers

Let's face it,the anti-religious vilification laws were brought in because of the potentially violent and intolerant nature of some Muslims.They are a capitulation to the rule of fear and violence.

If we don't have the courage to face it now,our grandchildren will be fighting for their freedom because of our cowardice.

1
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."

2
the legal persecution of opinion and expression undermines the concept of democracy and enables entities to become immune to critical consideration. The transparency of open debate and the right to reply is adequate protection.

3
existing laws already cover illegal behaviour against all Australians. Laws relating to offensive behaviour, assault and battery, defacing property and incitement to riot are sufficient.

does anyoen have a petition agaisnt these laws, i made one with those 3 points in it, but dotn know enough on which gov commitee to adress it to etc or have anyone group who can take it on... maybe there is one around already or someoen can help me with this one.

Arjay, i think Islam would use the law against free speech more than us be prtected by it

Even if I were not Christian, even if I thought, as many on this forum do,that all religion was black magic.Even then I would feel towards islam as I do now.
Moslems claim that their koran follows and corrects the two Christian Testaments. These two books, according to islam, had been re-written and thus were far from what was delivered by God originally. Yet the book of Isaiah unearthed in 1948 at Qumran, a portion of the 'dead sea scrolls'This scroll had lain untouched, untampered with, since AD 70--Five hundred years before mohammad. This rendition of Isaiah supposedly 2,000years old is identical to the version in our modern Bibles. So much for the koran superceding the Bible.
On terrorism: Syrian born cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between moslems and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity" "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy"
Moslem cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza:" Told young British supporters that murder,bank robbery and looting are legitimate weapons against the enemies of islam"
If you are Christian, hindu, buddhist, non-believer,or whatever even if you are tolerant towards islam you are an enemy of islam. Your life is worth nothing at all.
"Trust them sure can't" numbat

I prefer to actually hear what is on people's minds and in their hearts so we can be honest with each other. Supressing attitude so we pretend we are nice to each other is dishonest and dangerous. Such control leads to speaking with forked tongue, smiling and being nice as a pretence while planning the downfall of an opponent. That is why under this law it is OK to deceive for the benifit of harmony, while planning destruction. We are controlled by the law of fear and not by an honest heart.

[Deleted for being merely abusive.]

One of our posters has done some valuable research on sexual abuse and discrimination in detention. See who are the PERPetrators, and who are the VICTIMS... its quite noteworthy.

<<When the Inquiry visited Curtin, Port Hedland and Woomera, Sabian Mandaean families complained about their treatment at the hands of some Muslim detainees housed in the same compounds. As well as physical assaults, Sabian Mandaean families complained of verbal abuse (being called 'untouchable' and 'unclean').>>

<<The (Christian) boys recounted an incident on the boat where one of them drank water blessed by the largely Muslim 'passengers' and although water was a scarce commodity it was poured into the seas because of contamination by a Christian.(120)>>

So, while Trinity and Xena wax eloquent about setting these people free, perhaps they and others should look more closely at the nature of the people themselves.

This was just a small sample of VOLUMES of material, which indicates a pattern of abuse by muslim males against non muslims. (Sabean and Christian). A very noticable pattern is the theme that single or unprotected females are 'fair game' to adult males. Sounds rather like the mentality of the Muslims males who pack raped the girls in Sydney. ... and MORE of them are coming here ?

.. the mind boggles.

BD - this thread is not about setting free people who have committed any crimes - if that's what you are getting at - having trouble even following your post. I have not stated on any thread that anyone should be set free, that I can recall. I have asked for tolerance and a cessation of deliberate vilification of particular people. Also Trinity has not even posted here.

You are attempting to put words into others mouths - goes beyond taking comments out of context and on into well.... just lying. I don't think JC approves of lying BD.

Just goes to show how far you will go to stereotype a religion you do not approve of. Pathetic really.

As for women being raped - I don't understand what that has to do with this thread either. Just another opportunity to try and trash an entire religion for the behaviour of a few idiot muslim males.

Reality check BD - men from all persuasions commit rape. Husbands rape wives, father rape their children, boyfriends rape their girlfriends - most rape is commited by men the victim knows. If you are so concerned about women being raped - do some volunteer work at a rape crisis centre. Then you will obtain a very clear picture of just who is raping whom.

Also I live in a suburb with a high muslim population - I have yet to be harassed by any muslims at all.

You are still attempting to vilifiy the behaviour of the many for the behaviour of the few. Hitler did that to the Jews in Germany; white men did that to negroes in USA.

Fact: most people, you know, human beings, want to get along with each other. This campaigning about muslims wanting to take over Australia is arrant nonsense. Time to stop the misinformation.

And , furthermore, people like you BD REALLY make a good case for atheism.

Is the cultural incidence of rape a vilification of that culture? You can be sure the culture must be brought to account if it is a factor introduced by the perpetrator. Though rape was not in view in this thread, it should be remembered that doe-eyed Aussie girls were rounded up and raped in the name of the male’s culture.

They were unlikely to rape a tattooed sandal wearing butch woman wearing tongue studs. As you know rape is not about the pure sex act it is about male power to dominate in a sexual way.

Statistics from France and Holland suggest the incidence of rape has increased involving Muslim males. This is not vilification it is factual and the communities must deal with this behaviour by young Muslim males who feel non-Muslim girls are moral sluts to be pillaged and subjected shame for their power thrills.

Xena
lets be clear about something please. This article is about 'religious tolerance'. I referred to incidents of 'religious INtolerance' by Muslim assylum seekers against Christian and Sabeans among them. The intolerance shown, was of the worst imaginable kind.
Suggesting that people were so 'unclean' by virtue of not being Muslims, that precious water is better thrown overboard.
Further, that sexual harrasment by Muslim males in detention is quite a serious and frequent occurrence.

I was using this evidence taken from official reports, to show that bringing such people to Australia, will not contribute at all to an atmosphere of tolerance, something u speak a lot about.

At no time, did I suggest or state that 'ALL' Muslims are rapists or intolerant. I referred to specific examples, which further supports my other oft mentioned contention that much tighter controls of would be immigrants, and their attitudes is vital for a harmonious society.

If highlighting these things makes me a good case for Atheism, well,its regrettable, but I think also dishonest. Any person seriously seeking eternal answers would not look to me as the epitomy of all things holy, nor as the only source or example of information on such matters.

If you want to test the tolerance of Coburgs muslims, put a T-shirt on which says "I have sex with women" and see how you go, I can't predict, but I tend to think you might get a comment or 2 of a slightly negative nature.

I always value your comments even though they differ from mine.

BD - I walk down Sydney Road hand in hand with my girlfriend. You really live in a bubble don't you?

Oh I DO know what this thread is about BTW. Not stupid even if I am a helpless little girly.

For a change of pace - if you really are sincere - why don't you post some of the atrocities committed by christians hmmmm? You DO seem a tad fixated on muslim-only crimes.

Isn't it marvellous eh? I read books, I visit islamic sites and I read that according to the koran it is fine to kill Christians, Jews and all who are not moslem.
This koran is the book of the moslems whether terrorists or "nice and gentle?" ordinary moslems.
This koran tells pious moslems that they can slay us. This book tells pious moslems that our deaths are as nothing.
This same koran tells it's believers that suicide bombing is good and will gain them a place in paradise.
Then some 'bleeding hearts', usually those with no beliefs, tells me that Christians have also committed atrocities - go on really!
These same bleeding hearts also say "I have walked this or the other streets and nothing happened to me so all moslems are good."
Then I am berated by these same 'bleeding hearts' for being racist and for hating moslems.
NO! I do not hate pagan moslems but I do hate their seemingly hate filled, death worshipping religion.
I do not hate moslems but if their imams preach hatred to Australia and Australians. Preach hatred towards democracy and what this nation stands for - then I hate their death dealing, seemingly misogynistic religion.
We had the 'bleeding hearts' when nazi germany was on the rise. This evil movement had their 'koran' it was called "Mien Kampf" This book which, like the koran,told all non-nazis just what was in store for them, especially the Jews. We ignored it much to our cost. Now we have the koran yet - READ the flamin book or excerpts then make a valued comment. numbat

We must realise that all those that naively believe Islam is a toterant religion of others faith do not live in Muslim dominated cultures.

eg Indonesia: Govt won't prosecute Muslim hard-liners over church closure
Muninggar Sri Saraswati and Yuli Tri Suwarni, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta/Bandung
"The government said it would not take action against Muslim hard-liners who closed down dozens of churches in West Java last year, arguing that what was being closed down were not churches but "illegal congregations". "We will do nothing. We only clarify here that there were no church closures," Minister of Religious Affairs M. Maftuh Basyuni said late last week after a Cabinet meeting. "The case has been settled and the church side understand this."

He explained that the group closed down the illegal congregations set up in residential areas because they "had created anxiety among local residents" in the predominantly Muslim province. The government, he added, has issued regulations for establishing houses of worship that must be obeyed by all citizens.

The minister was referring to a joint ministerial decree signed in 1969 by then religious affairs minister Moh. Dahlan and home minister Amir Machmud, which requires those who want to establish places of worship to obtain permission from local administrations and the approval of local residents.

Moderate Muslim leaders, including Azyumardi Azra and former president Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, have urged the government to resolve the case and take firm action against a small intolerant section of the Muslim community. They said that only the government is authorized to close down houses of worship. ..."
At http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20050829.A0

Along the lines of Philo's last, Brunei has laws prohibiting gatherings in homes, of more than 5 people. (non dwellers of that house). For the same reason.

Atrocities committed by Christians. "honesty time"

Oliver Cromwell rose from the middle ranks of English society to be Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland, the only non-royal ever to hold that position. He played a leading role in bringing Charles I to trial and to execution; he undertook the most complete and the most brutal military conquest ever undertaken by the English over their neighbours; he championed a degree of religious freedom otherwise unknown in England before the last one hundred years; but the experiment he led collapsed within two years of his death, and his corpse dangled from a gibbet at Tyburn. He was - and remains - one of the most contentious figures in world history.

That is an example Xena, closest to 'home', i.e. my own protestant tradition.... and your point of course is.... ?

Again, I can only say 'compare his actions with the teaching and example of Christ' but also, remember Romans 13 and how this may complicate a 'Christlike' approach to the affairs of State.

Cromwell also grappled with this idea, where the 'Emporer' is a Christian, how should he act ? If he is a prominent leader and the 'Emporer' is an evil tyrant, what does Justice demand ?
The Apostles had never had a situation whre the Roman Emporer was anything but hostile to them, yet the Word of Christ ascended to the highest position of state.

From what I can see and read, Cromwell was overly cruel and brutal towards the Irish Catholics. His wars with the 'Crown' of England seem at least 'just' if not Christlike. His fight was about 'freedom' not enslavement as the goal of the Crown was. It was CERTAINLY not about wealth or accumulating women.

Indonesia: Conversion to Christianity Rising

Indonesian Ulemas Council alarmed at rate of conversion to Christianity

ASSIST News Service, August 23, 2005

"The Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) discussed a "problem" at their four-day national congress the last week of July. According to the Jakarta Post, the clerical delegation was concerned Christian preachers were converting Muslims "at an alarming rate." They were "most disturbed" by "the phenomenon of the construction of churches." Demonstrating the extent Muslim hard-liners have infiltrated and now control the MUI, the congress released an 11-point fatwa (edict) denouncing liberal interpretations of Islam, secularism and pluralism as un-Islamic, and promoting a hard-line, intolerant orthodox Islam that denies equality to women and non-Muslims...."

This what happens to fredom of belief in Islamic society.

Numbat, Boaz, Philo predictably intolerant as usual.

Fact: Only a minority of Muslims ARE extremists.

No one is saying go soft on terrorists. DUH!

However, reasonable moderate people like the average Muslim should not be subjected to the constant abuse and vilification by 'christians' such as yourselves. You do not help. You make other christians look bad and you further hatred.

Xena: I DO NOT HATE moslems, moslems I DO NOT HATE but I hate the brutal, death-loving, misogynistic, pagan worshipping religion. This religion which is a threat to all I hold dear. I do not hate hindus, buddhists, as a matter of fact I do not hate anyone - would you believe, my God forbids me to hate! If any heathens want to follow their silly religion - fine, though I will feel sorry for them and wish that they would follow the real, actual, Creator God, the God of the Bible. I repeat I DO NOT HATE moslems etc. numbat

To Xena
Why do you, and so many people/minority groups etc., immediately resort to using the word 'hate' to describe people who disagree with you.
We have a national campaign to oppose smoking - Do we hate smokers? NO. We don't like smoking, and for good reason because the facts (evidence) show smoking is harmful.
The recent establishment of a Muslim political party in Canberra that says it has as ‘a long-term goal of controlling parliament’, should concern all people who believe democracy is right.
Three Christian Sunday school teachers have just been jailed for 3 years in Indonesia for running a Sunday school to which kids invited their Muslim friends. Is this good democracy or religious freedom? Should we not be concerned, and able to speak against the promotion of this type of 'non-freedom' being promoted in Australia without it being called "hate"?
We should keep the debate to 'facts' and 'truth' - after all this string started with accusations of misinformation

Peter Stokes

I don't know how you interpret it but I find the continual trashing of a religion to be a form of hatred, intolerance - an excuse to persecute a large and diverse group of people for the actions of a few rat-bags.

I agree we should stick to the facts and the truth.

Fact: Majority of Mulsims are peaceful, reasonable human beings.

Fact: Vilification of a person's religious beliefs creates alienation and divides communities.

I am undecided whether the Christian teachers should have been convicted or not - I wasn't there. However, if Christianity was subject to the same amount on abuse on OLO as Islam has been I would be just as offended for the same reasons.

I am a member of a minority that is frequently persecuted - perhaps this is why I am sensitive to constant disparagement of particular groups such as Muslim people.

Freedom of speech should be protected - this includes my right to speech out against the religious vilification that is occurring on this forum.

Very few posts actually relate to the topic - ironically 'misinformation campaign' most posts are concerned with pointing out the faults (perceived of real) of Islam - faults which apply to any religion you care to name.

Sunday School Teachers sentenced to Three years in prison
Compass, 1 September 2005

"Indonesian judges today sentenced three women to three years in prison for allowing Muslim children to attend a Christian Sunday school program. Rebekka Zakaria, Eti Pangesti and Ratna Bangun received the sentence after judges found them guilty of violating the Child Protection Act of 2002, which forbids "deception, lies or enticement" causing a child to convert to another religion. The maximum sentence for violation of the Act is five years in prison and a fine of 100 million rupiah ($10,226). The Sunday school teachers had instructed the children to get permission from their parents before attending the program, and those who did not have permission were asked to go home, according to Jeff Hammond of Bless Indonesia Today, a Christian foundation operating out of Jakarta. None of the children had converted to Christianity..."

At: http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=394

Xena...

I take issue with your statement "Majority of Mulsims are peaceful, reasonable beings."

Checkout http://peacefulmuslimah.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to Feb12 post where she comments.... "No one seems to object to the photos of terrorist beheadings that are currently be circulated on mobile phones here...."

I can point to similar postings and comments of torture/beheading videos circulated on videos/phones in Muslim communities in Germany, Norway and much of the Arab world. There was one especially horrible video of a young Russion soldier (Afghanistan) being tortured in gruesome ways. What do you think about a community that is so often associated with this kind of vile behavior?

Are these "peaceful" Muslims? Why does this appear to be an Islamic thing? The fact is that most Muslims will not stand up for human rights and equality. They are bigots and given the chance to do us harm, they would do so, or they would not speak up against it.
Look at the situation of Non-Muslim minorities in Islamic lands. If they are quiet and accept second-class citizenship, they survive. If Muslims were truely reasonable the Copts would not have a page like this: http://www.copts.net/demands.asp

Xena, I will ask you the same question I have asked others here.

Given that there are about a dozen accounts in Islamic writings of hideous torture inflicted on people by Mohammud, can you condemn this man for these barbaric acts? Was he scum or was he a 'good' torturer?

It is a simple question, I think. If you can't contemplate that one, here is an easier question: Can you really say that people who cannot condemn brutal repugnant acts by their leader are 'peaceful' or 'reasonable'?

Muslims cannot be trusted. Given the chance and opportunity, and having control of society, they would - at best -institute sharia and suppress individual freedoms. At worse they would come looking for outspoken infidels to..., and their wives and daughters to....

Xena, you may be a nice person, but you are the disciple and follower of a brutal torturer. Read your own histories. Think! Be honest!

Kactuz

Xena

your sense of 'awww stop picking on them' is understandable. But you need to distinguish between picking on 'them' and outlining the root central issues of a faith which attemped to take over the whole world by military means, stopped in only 2 places. Tours in 732 (Western Europe) and Vienna in 1689 (Eastern Europe) Nothing that I can see has changed in the fundamentals driving this faith. Now they want to control Australia by a senate balance of power... nothing has changed.

If pointing out root causes, and their inherrant dangers is going to alienate people, why do they not simply look at the things we take issue with and outright condemn them ? They won't and cannot because they were done by the man on whom their faith rests. Hence the problem.

So, the alientation is basically self inflicted. Sure they can condemn 'terrorism' but can they condemn Mohamed's terrorism ? doubtful.

Xena, please read this link, about the Charter of Omar, and ask yourself if this was applied to bi-sexual women who happened to have clubs etc... how would u feel ? what would it mean for you? Then, you can get an inkling of why those of us who have studied both history and their doctrines (and have experienced life under them) are quite passionate about this issue.

The clear intention of this pact was nothing less than the humiliation, cultural and spiritual genocide of all Christians

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

Be that as it may, you should also appreciate that this does not mean we are lurking on the side of the road waiting for the first Muslim who passes by so we can bash him/her. It also does not mean 'hate' as Peter pointed out. It means serious concern for one's welfare.

Kactuz - I AM AN ATHEIST - I do not follow any one - I am responsible for my own actions.

BD & Kac - following your logic the same can be said for many atrocities commited in the name of christ - should I fear you?

Mark Zirnsak has been proved correct by the narrow minded and hostile posts attempting to spread misinformation and to vilify an entire religion for the actions of a FEW NUTBAG TERRORISTS.

OKAY?

To Xena
You say you are “an atheist” – and that “you are responsible for your own actions”. So what do you base your opinions on? You so easily dismiss the evidence of others as “narrow minded and hostile posts attempting to spread misinformation and to vilify an entire religion for the actions of a FEW NUTBAG TERRORISTS” , All the ‘right’ words there, narrow minded, vilify, misinformation, but how do you know? What research have YOU done?
Yes, people have strayed from the original topic – but mainly because people like yourself appear to base your responses on your own preconceived ideas and/or ideology, which appears to be based on ‘there is no God, all religions are equally worthless’ so the information they give is also worthless or biased. Instead of being prepared to look at the facts before making your ‘judgements’ you dismiss them.
It is the same with lifestyle choices – people ignore the truth because it suits them to – if they did look at the facts, the dangers, the effect on the society, they might be persuaded to change their minds or modify their behaviour and that would never do, would it?
When you believe in ‘nothing’ you think can do what you like, but it is that sort of thinking which causes society to collapse into the sort of anarchy we have seen in New Orleans in recent days.
You said in your post of Sept. 7 that you don’t know how to interpret the information that is presented to you, yet you are prepared to call it “continual trashing” and “a form of hatred”? Is this unwillingness to accept other peoples facts simply an extension of how easily people want to dismiss any opposition to their own chosen minority lifestyle?

Xena...

There are sure a lot of Atheists here that are really protective of a certain religion (You and Trinity, for example). Anyway, that is fine with me. I don't really care if you are Atheist, Buddhist, Christian or Don't know.

But you didn't answer my question!

I would think that as a certified, grade AAA atheist you could do so without hesitation.

I will make it easy. Type the following words:

BASED UPON ISLAMIC ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET MOHAMMUD, ON OCASSIONS HE HAD PEOPLE HORRIBLY TORTURED.

That statement is just a simple reading of the Hadiths - there should be nothing controversial or difficult about it. Then, based on the above, add something like this (you can use your own words, but be direct):

I CONDEMN TORTURE. I CONDEMN PEOPLE WHO TORTURE. BECAUSE OF THESE RECORDED ACTIONS, MOHAMMUD WAS A TORTURER AND THEREFORE A VILE, EVIL MAN.

That should not be hard. It is merely a matter of reading history and making a simple value judgement (A+B=C).

For 2 months I have been trying to get people to admit the obvious. I kind of suspected that it would be difficult with Muslims (denial, denial and more denial...). This is actually a project I started about Muslims deleting "inconvenient" postings (no matter how true) on Islamic sites (You can't collect their replies if they not only don't answer your question, but delete the post). It then evolved into a "lets see if they can be honest" research on non-Muslim sites. I have saved all the my posts and replys (or lack thereof) and entire threads and I'll put them on the Internet.

So, dear Muslims, please explain these events in the life of your dear prophet so that all people can understand them properly from the Islamic prospective. I don't want anybody to say that I didn't give Muslims a chance to defend their dear leader and/or justify his actions. I will end this project this weekend, so speak up!

Kactuz

The track record for christians is hardly any better. The KKK are murderers therefore all christians are murderers. Just using your sad logic kactuz

Cheers

Xena,
You lack perception of reality and understanding of the basic concepts and foundations of a religion. The logic is not the same. Books or articles written by the KKK are not the authorised text of the Christian Faith. The Hadiths are writings from the early life of the prophet from that they interpret the Koran. Please identify a text written by the KKK used as authoritive text by all Christians. NONE!

Oh, poor Philo, I fully understand why you would want to distance christianity from those KKK extremists, it is really upsetting when your religion is linked to extremist groups now isn't it?

Xena,
You certainly have a lot more reasons to butter up Islam since you are an atheistic Lesbian. Otherwise under Islam your life is ended unless you denounce your atheism, and marry like every good little Muslim girl and have lots of children.

The Pastor who your article refers to grew up in Pakistan as a muslim. He converted to Christianity when he was an adult and he was persecuted for it. What the Pastor danny Scot was doing was simply telling his congregation of the disgusting religious intolerance in Pakistan, in many tribal areas christian converts would be killed. He came to Australia to avoid a similar fate. The reason he was referring to the Quaran is because he was reiterating the passages that muslims themselves have read to him and others, explaining the religious "proof" that they have to kill those who leave Islam.
If this can lead to vilification of some sort then we are all in trouble. The day I am banned from simply demonstrating to others of another's racism, whether this delves into "an old book" or not, is a
sick day for justice.
What it really is is a further demonstration that the "left" multicultural idiots do actually realise that they have been wrong, but rather than admit this by joining the "One Nation Party" or such they would actually change such a sacred law! This simply speaks of the "lefts" arrogance for everyone else, even our laws can go to hell, as long as it helps to cover the big bulge of rubbish already under the rug!

Just a quick correction - Daniel Scot was never a Muslim.
He did grow up in Pakistan and he did study 'Islamic studies at University, he passed with 100%. He needed to study this to teach in a University.
What a pity university lecturers do not have to study our Christian heritage and freedoms before teaching in our Universities.
Ps Scot was driven out of Pakistan - his life was threatened - he was told that unless he converted to Islam his life was in danger.

Ramallah, West Bank, September 3-4.
Some 15 Muslim youths from one village, Dair Jarir, rampaged against Taybeh, a neighboring all-Christian village of 1,500 people.
The reason - A Muslim woman from Dair Jarir, Hiyam Ajaj, 23, fell in love with her Christian boss, Mehdi Khouriyye, owner of a tailor shop in Taybeh. The couple maintained a clandestine two-year affair and she became pregnant in about March 2005. When her family members learned of her condition, they murdered her. That was on about September 1; unsatisfied even with this "honor killing" – for Islamic law strictly forbids non-Muslim males to have sexual relations with Muslim females – the Ajaj men sought vengeance against Khouriyye and his family.

Two days later in an assault they took Taybeh. The Ajajs and their friends broke into houses and stole furniture, jewelry, and electrical appliances. They threw Molotov cocktails at some buildings and poured kerosene on others, then torched them. The damage included at least 16 houses, some stores, a farm, and a gas station. The assailants vandalized cars, destroyed and looted extensively.

"It was like a war," one Taybeh resident told the Jerusalem Post. Hours passed before the Palestinian Authority security and fire services arrived. The 15 assailants spent only a few hours in police detention, then were released. As for Khouriyye, the Palestinian Arab police arrested him, kept him in jail, and (his family says) have repeatedly beat him.

As the news service Adnkronos International notes, for Palestinian Christians "the fact that the Muslim aggressors have been released while the Christian tailor-shop owner is still being held, at best symbolizes the PA's indifference to the plight of Palestinian Christians, at worst shows it is taking sides against them."

A cousin, Suleiman Khouriyye, pointed to his burned house. "They did this because we're Christians. The Khouriyyes and others recall the assailants shouting "Allahu Akbar" and anti-Christian slogans: "Burn the infidels, burn the Crusaders." To that, an unrepentant cousin of Hiyam Ajaj replied, "We burned their houses because they dishonored our family, not because they are Christians." (New York Sun, September 13, 2005, An excerpt)

yep just a few local small town extremists ... nothing to worry about

PHILO .. strangely remeniscent of the Telopea street boys and the attack on Lakemba Police station.. by an extended family. Sounds also like the attack by Muslim males on Jeff Fenech.

So I repeat my call for a MUCH tighter immigration scrutiny and a laying down of the law, (our law) and conditonal citizenship "P" plate type, with deportation a real possibility for anyone bringing such attitudes to this fair minded country.

The same would go for ANY person wishing to migrate here, not just the Muslims/Lebanese who we seem to be most often referring to.

I'd add another little tid bit. "Cultural manners" which would include NOT having your ghetto blaster blaring out Afghani music wailing away from your table at a public picnic place, while the extended family goes for a walk, subjecting all the 'others' to a form of cultural insult and rudeness that boggles the mind.

Meredith.. well said.

Kactuz, amen. How blind are they who cannot see this 'stands out like a country toilet' situation at the root of Islam. There is a difference between pointing out the evil fundamentals of a faith, and directly condemning all adherants of a faith. We have the common sense to know that most people just want to see 'good' in their faith.
So the issue is one of informing them of reality.

Xena, I'll book you in at the Medonick eye clinic for some laser surgery :) by the way, I'm waiting for your response with some feedback from your muslim friends. ( I did my bit)

Xena, I have been following your thoughts, and would like to offer a suggestion. Rather than getting bogged down in who did what in the name of what religion - enough evidence to condemn us all - I would suggest you compare the life and teachings of the two leaders of the religions in question: Jesus and Muhammad. Followers of both these leaders have messed up - we must base our judgements on what is being taught by Jesus and Muhammad and compare them.

Religious Tolerance should allow us to compare our leaders without fear of litigation.

Wend

Mark Zirnsak actually shows his bias against non-mainstream Christians by applauding the decision by Judge Morris for the Salvation Army, while having a sly dig at the pastors from Catch the Fire Ministries. According to Zirnsak, quoting controversial scriptures from the Koran in the context of explaining the Muslim beliefs concerning Jihad, while telling ones listeners that as Christians they are to love their Muslim neighbours "promotes hatred" which, according to the HREOC website is the basis of vilifying behaviour. How paradoxical!

Funny, Mr Zirnsak, I thought that tolerance meant agreeing to differ with people whose opinion differed from yours, be they Muslim or 'fundamentalist' Christians. That being the case, the 'misinformation campaign' you so strenuously criticise is still valid, as this law has allowed two Christian pastors and the Salvation army to be dragged through expensive court-cases for varying lengths of time, with varying outcomes, because some people took exception to some of their comments, which is exactly what opponents of this law predicted.

I am as opposed to those who promote hatred as the next man, but this law has some serious flaws and, I believe, can be (and has been) badly misinterpreted by some Judges (actually, one in particular). I welcome the changes to this law, I only hope they go far enough to redress the balance.