The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religious tolerance will ensure community safety > Comments

Religious tolerance will ensure community safety : Comments

By Mark Zirnsak, published 24/8/2005

Mark Zirnsak argues it is time to stop the misinformation campaign against the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
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!
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 6:33:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 8:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 10:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 10:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 10:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy