Spot on Boaz David, but shouldn't that be "waffle" and not "woffle" - I note spelling is not your strong point.

Dangle the right bait and you catch what you seek, up bobs the 3 stooges. Definition of a stooge, butt, foil, puppet, good description of the religious.

Philo I read that article, its very apt in describing how desperate religion is in its attempt to prop up its fallacies when faced with reality.

Philo,. "Jesus went beyond warm and fuzzy maxims. He basically said ... 'whoever believes in me won't die'. Could you introduce us to all those that have believed, that haven't died, Or are you hiding them for a special occasion.

Bd says, “Why not pick an aspect of the issue,” I and other posters, have picked many aspects of religious issues. Could you be saying Bd, that you can't handle more than one aspect of an issue. Or that you are only prepared to debate aspects that you understand, but have yet to find any. The way you all avoid answering the myriad of questions about religion put to you, can only bring us to one conclusion, you don't understand your own fallacies.

Sadly like all those that lack the intelligence to understand the world around you, you then attack any aspect of a person you can. This is understandable by most of us, as it points out to what depths the superstitious and unevolved will stoop to in their futile attempts to defend their unexplainable fallacies.

But I won't waste my time any more, I have had my fun and established that things haven't changed in the religious world, merry go rounds are not my preferred option in life. As to training BD, you certainly have lacked that in your life, I have yet to see you establish truth regarding anything you say. Your god has trained you all very well, pity it has nothing to do with reason or fact.

Psychological fact, how to tell a liar. When faced with truth, they change the subject and try to attack. When unable to sustain their lie, they turn on all in an attempt to justify the illogical position they hold.

Religious vilification laws are not an infringement on free speech and I agree that the only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued.

I say we needn’t vilify anything nor one, to maintain a free standard of open speech, in Australia. As a nation, we must find a way beyond this.

I see a number of spurious arguments that makes Australia an International disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to live in Australia.

Methuselah you argue on the "ambiguity of the Act ... the type of humanistic 'doublespeak' of numerous UN covenants”, this view is not dead, but essential to open futher relevance. I believe the idea is to clean up the pretentious moral standards, so as to remain viable under the protection of universal law.

And to identify with Rainier's arguments, his pointed issues outlining protection against hate and violence, "So, what laws should exist to protect the rights of powerless minority ethnic or racial groups? I belong to a "powerless" minority group in this country and we certainly don't have the power to impose or suppress anyone's views about us and perhaps never will". I advocate Rainier, it is not the law we need to question here as much as our access to it, through the dilemma of "how" to meet legal costs.

Faustino, I feel you outline the purpose of "free speech" when you say "Personally, I try to avoid harmful speech, but in many cases being able to voice one's concerns, even when they might be hurtful to some others and may not have a solid basis, can release rather than exacerbate tensions, and can prompt a verbal response, a dialogue".

I think cultures that make practice to "internalise hurt, .... after several decades found it better to bring things in to the open, generally leading to clarification and resolution" are dealing with their denial. That the Vilification Act has nothing to do with creating laws which oppress so don’t get sucked into superfical arguments presented by a euphoriant part of Australia.

On vilification, while I may agree "You could almost apply the same argument to the outlawing of hatred as the argument for the legalisation of illicit drugs and Prostitution: “if it (hatred) is criminalised, it’ll only go underground." I don't believe it is because of a vilification law, I think it is because the cultural cringers themselves would be hiding from the fact that they are ugly and duly exposed.

And in Rainier's second argument which says; "There has not been an “active campaign of misinformation” that "The Victorian legislation is so nebulously worded that it can mean whatever some PC official Grand Inquisitor wants it to mean." Then wording ought to be the nature of the debate, not the vilifying cultural distain so typical of people who advocate parallelepiped agitated distortion to something that aims to set a standard for all; including this legislation, which is to assist us to prevent any instances of violence towards anyone; including minorities.

This debate ought to question whether; "... criticism be allowed" and "are the criticisms true'. However where Kactuz gets caught out is as he understandably asks; "Do you think that I am wrong to call a person's attention to the life and actions of their leader, and to ask that a person to condemn him for those actions that are vile and repugnant?" I say NO, but what is at stake is another’s choice to change their values and belief at their discretion, not the influence of you having decided to inform them of who-did-what-to-who? This information is important and must be exposed, but it's not our place to control people, once they have that information.

While I aspire to the principals of Fellow_Human that; Multiculturalism isn't working in Australia, I say let's not get too carried away here. Your US comparative is an appalling example. However I agree, Australia would make a better position, if it engaged with a multiculturalism that required leading the way to a clearer Australian identity, whereby reciprocal interchange (cultural influence and be influenced) shared more tolerance and autonomy with the sub cultures.

miacat,
Your articles are so confusing it is hard to determine your position. Do you believe in controling people's attitudes by laws?

See: Quote 1, "Religious vilification laws are not an infringement on free speech and I agree that the only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued".

Quote 2," I advocate Rainier, it is not the law we need to question here as much as our access to it, through the dilemma of "how" to meet legal costs."

Is the real issue the gaining of money to persue litigation against an opponent? This is not the Australian way. Since you are so ashamed of Australia's egalitarian society I suggest you might find a more acceptable country to live in, with statements like this. Quote: "I see a number of spurious arguments that makes Australia an International disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to live in Australia".

The vilification laws deliberately endeavour to supress expression that others might take as offensive. So your statement; Quote, "I think cultures that make practice to "internalise hurt, .... after several decades found it better to bring things in to the open, generally leading to clarification and resolution" are dealing with their denial. That the Vilification Act has nothing to do with creating laws which oppress so don’t get sucked into superfical arguments presented by a euphoriant part of Australia."

Stop the double speak and you might clarify your position

miacat,
Your attitude expresses a morally superior tone and vilifies ordinary Australians. Isn't it better that you are able to express this; so we Australians get to know what you are thinking rather than biting your tongue for fear of causing offense. You see what you said about Australia, I found very offensive. Sounds like racial vilification too me. What we need is to educated people's conscience to act responsibly; not more laws in an endeavour to control people. Learn self control by good conscience.