The author ends his essay with the phrase "persons of goodwill".

I would suggest that Catch the Fire (CF)and its associated fundamentalist groups such as Saltshakers are not persons of goodwill at all.
They quite deliberately and intentionally inflame (pun) tensions.
And that they have no intention of promoting mutual tolerance and understanding.
It seems to me that any of kind of freedom (including freedom of speech)implies the necessary disipline of responsibility.
The responsibility to get your facts right.
I would suggest that CF and their fellow travellers have no intention or even capability of exercising such responsibility.
Their ideologically driven "world-view" being full of absolute binary exclusions. No shades of grey or paradox or ambiguity allowed!!

It seems rather obvious that as far as the god haters are concerned that everyone has free speech except the Christians. The two Danny's spoke nothing but truth in love and are then charged under these ridiculous laws.

Many god haters are happy to appease Islam (as shown recently with cartoons) and promote any other religion as long as it is tolerant of the intolerant. Christ is mocked daily in the media and in workplaces.

The good news is that everywhere that Christians get persecuted the church ghrows stonger and stronger (China being a great example). Christians have a responsibility to call good good and evil evil. No amount of laws will silence genuine believers from speaking the truth.

I feel sorry for the 2 Danny's to be subject to such unfair treatment but am glad that the ridiculous nature of some of the god haters have been exposed. Mr Bracks and the appropriate ministers should be ashamed of their actions

Runners use of language is a typical example of the use of the black and white language of binary exclusions I mentioned in my first posting.
The language of "righteous" confrontation which, when extended and projected on to the world stage via the various kinds of mass inflamatory media, becomes the catalyst for the fight to the death murderous wars of mind that you can see on the daily "news".

Ho Hum

I don't think you need to worry about the mass media promoting Christian values. In the West most of the media does not support Christian values and in many cases opposes them. As far as your comments about righteous language is concerned, any believer knows he has no righteousness of his own. A person's righteousness either comes from Christ or self. Self righteousness to God is as a filthy rag. That is why Christ died. Your attempt however to portray Christian views as bigotted only highlights how bigotted many of the god haters actually are themselves.

Dear HoHum
I'm not sure what to make of your position. Could you please clarify ?

If we were ranting against Hitler, would you be harping about 'shades of grey' ? Would you have been one of those in England at the time marching in favor of Adolph ? There were plenty.

I honestly think you are missing a fundamental difference between the Christian prophetic call, and the Islamic STATE. One is basically spiritual, the other political.

Have you ever studied the unfolding blood/political/fear relationships between MOhammed and his 'Companions' ? Have you examined exactly how they (the most qualified) interpreted the Quranic verses about 'fight the idolators' ?
If it can be shown that it is obligatory on true Muslims to follow Mohammed's example, (as he interpreted the Quran) then one would have a good case to support in every way, the lack of distinction made between 'moderate' and 'mainstream' muslims and radicals which Daniel Scott outlined in his seminar, and for which part of the Judgement came down against him.

I refer you to this information which I compiled, and ask your assessment in terms of evidentary value, (as it comes from Islamic sources) and then, perhaps you might be better positioned to criticize those of us who only seem to know 2 colors.
http://www.truetruth.wikispaces.com

You are bemoaning our binary focus, while others are erecting a State within a State around you and us, which will unless challenged, ultimately become a prison of the darkest kind. You cannot be 'tolerant' of the degree of intolerance inherrent in Islam.

Runner - your use of terms like 'god haters' is one of those tactics used to polarise debate and demonise one side. Who do you define as a 'god hater?'
I'm a pacifist agnostic, who is in favour of the separation of church and state. Am I therefore a 'god hater?' how can you hate something you're not convinced exists?

You argue christianity is persecuted. Perhaps you missed the title of this piece. Note the Islamic council is the one forking out the costs.

I find it a bit rich to hear that christianity is persecuted in Australia. I can only assume that to you, persecution means anything less than a totally encompassing influence.

Our prime minister and leader of the opposition are both christians. Our health minister is a staunch catholic. While you can wail about the liberal media, it fails to acknowledge that all the most prominent columnists are right wing, christian friendly.

And runner... one day you may need to accept that plenty of Christians are remarkably bigoted. It's sad but true - many of them bear little resemblance to the behaviour and teachings of your almighty jesus.
Christian views may be all about social justice... it's a shame more christians don't get down and dirty with the whores and lepers like jesus did.

BOAZ... you don't make any distinction between the various shades of Islam. You call christianity a 'prophetic call' while denouncing Islam.

I'll grant, those of Islam who do honestly seek to impose their views with force are a problem, though I'd say the same of any christians. But believe it or not, not all Islam's impose their views with force. Plenty just preach non violent means and abhor violence. I happen to believe that there are indeed parts of the Qu'ran which espouse violence, but the central message is one of peace.
Like Christianity, though those opposed like to pick bad bits. Problem with Islam: there are too many people following the bad bits,not adopting the key parts of any functioning civilisation, though with a billion muslims, you're bound to get some badeggs.

Yes I agree with Palmer, Christian fundamentalists and zealots have the God given right to defame,accuse,and set the social, political and moral tone against all other religions. Just ask them

To all those disingenuous dills equating fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam, please point to one place in the world where Christians are strapping bombs to themselves and deliberately killing civilians in the name of their religion.

It's worth noting that Nalliah and Scot aren't off the hook yet.

The Court of Appeal has determined that there were errors in the Tribunal's decision. When the Tribunal looks at the case again, it may determine that what Nalliah and Scot said in their seminar was unlawful vilification nonetheless.

We just have to wait and see.

There aren't many Grn.
Christians have gotten better at it - they use planes. And generally can convince troops to do it. They're also a bit less keen on chalking it up to their religion. They do like cash and power though, I suspect that's cause they know that's where influence lies.
It's all part of the wonderful world of religious awakening.
The christians haven't been keen on the up close and personal approach since the crusades.

Note: there's a significant element of facetiousness here. I'm only, say... 23 per cent serious.

Christians also have better PR people.

That comment on the other hand was at least... 72 per cent serious. Perhaps even 74.

Freedom of speech is the most important freedom of them all. If freedom of speech goes we shall lose ALL our other liberties in short order.

If freedom of speech means anything it includes the freedom to criticise, lampoon, satirise, heap scorn upon and generally hold up for contempt ANY belief system regardless of any offence this may cause. This freedom needs to extend to anyone. You should certainly not have to prove your right to exercise free speech, your bona fides if you like, to the satisfaction of a judge or any other state official.

Attacking a belief system is NOT racism. If some people want to believe that a seventh century warrior merchant is "God's final messenger" or whatever, that is their right. But they should not expect to escape either scholarly criticism or outright ridicule for holding that belief.

Victoria's "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" is a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It does not need to be "improved" or better interpreted. It needs to be repealed.

The very idea that a belief system needs any sort of protection is preposterous.

I respect the right of anybody to be a Muslim. One of our precious freedoms is freedom of religion.

BUT

I do NOT respect Islam.

Does anyone think passing a law is going to make me respect an asinine belief system?

Grn, would you like examples of where mainly Christian soldier are invading non-christian nations (like iraq) and shooting civilians?

Oh, sorry, this is called "democratisation" and does not count as a religious war does it. Cos CNN and conventional western thought tells us so! You can dress soldiers up in uniforms, get them to swear allegence to a Christian GOD cos this God favours western countries and its no longer religious. Yeah sure!

Got some bad news for you, Stephany. You do not have a right to freedom of speech. In Australia, the only type of speech which is protected is political communication (meaning comment about the affairs of government), and even this is only protected by implication. http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/1997-98/98rn03.htm

Regardless what you think of it, Australian states are free to make laws limiting particular types of speech, and most have done so.

When people abuse their freedoms, the pressure increases for governments to make laws limiting certain types of speech. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4813#52952

Of course, if you think that the freedom to speak your mind should be guaranteed, then I would urge you to contact your member of parliament and express your strong support for a Bill of Rights: http://www.humanrightsact.com.au

w,

I am well aware of the appalling absence of free speech guarantees in Australia. I know that the states and the Commonwealth can and do curb free speech.

Fortunately in Australia we do enjoy, de facto, a high degree of freedom of speech. But it is being steadily eroded. The so-called Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is but one example of this erosion.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the proposed Human Rights Bill. I shall study it.

This may surprise some, but I agree most with Stephany here. I think that the Victorian legislation goes too far, and its application in this case was heavy-handed in the extreme.

On the other hand, I think that the protection of individuals from vilification for whatever reason that is afforded by common law is an essential corollary to the principle of free speech.

Of course, if we had a Bill of Rights in this country it could take care of both of these aspects of public discourse.

Religious antivilification laws only serve to keep lawyers in business and free speech in private. When should it ever be the state's role to adjudicate in religious affairs? Effectively, the expression of religious believers is subject to the approval of the state. If believers of one faith wish to affirm their beliefs by denying the beliefs of any other faith they risk being brought before a tribunal and fined or imprisoned. It is a ridiculous and deplorable state of affairs!

grn, are you nit picking (they have to strap bombs to themselves) or are you willing to accept other acts of terror?

Ignoring the acts of nominally christain governments - the issues do get more complex there.
You might consider the reign of terror run by the IRA across parts of Ireland and Britain in the not so recent past. Plenty of innocents killed there by avowed terrorists who considered themselves christain (even if some other christains disown them). You might also consider the involvement of some of the prodestants in that conflict, different but also innocents killed.

You might consider the actions of christains who have murdered people as part of a stance against abortion including those not actually involved in the abortion business itself.

You might consider the need for Nato intervention to save the lives of muslims at the hands of christains in bosnia/serbia not so long ago.

You might consider Hitlers statements clearly attributing his work to doing gods will - plenty of muslims don't consider the terrorists muslim.

And of course you can look back a bit further in history to see the mass slaughter of innocents in the name of christ.

Now back to the topic.
None of what I've heard looks like the truth was told "in love" but that can be a fairly handy excuse to say pretty much what you like and pretend to be the good guy.

Still I'm glad to see the possibility of this intrusive restriction on free speech being wound back. Free speech has it's pains and it's responsibilities but we loose much if we surrender it.

R0bert

R0bert: "None of what I've heard looks like the truth was told "in love" but that can be a fairly handy excuse to say pretty much what you like and pretend to be the good guy."

Now who else does that remind me of...?

The High Cpurt ruling has been handed down, and as the Judge said the Two Pastors has not vilified any person or group with the purpose to incite hatred. The Muslim Council had by their persuance of these Pastors had expected that Christian Pastors have lesser rights to criticism than afforded to ordinary members of the Public. The Muslim Council are not happy with the Judges decision and are appealing his findings.

The Christian Church ought to recognise the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5: 3 - 10; especially verse 10. Perseverence under persecution grows the Church and is considered a blessing of God. Christians are encouraged to be forgiving and caring of persecutors as this develops true character, acceptance and tolerance. Christians should care for their opponents and critics without prejudice, so love them as Christ who prayed for and healed his detractors.

However in Australia we are a civilised people following predominantly Christian values of equality and acceptance but we also have laws that outlaw personal violence and assult. We do not support laws against blasphemy for criticism of Christ or the Christian faith as do the intolerant shari'ah blasphemy laws of Islam.

It is through challenge and criticism that the human character is developed and grows. Human development happens in all fields as challenge and criticism to failed or poor proceedures is challenged.

To say there were errors in the tribunurals findings is well and truly understated; Try absolute subjective criminal garbage; But when the law is applied to another, who other than Leftoids Altruist Idiots, then there is no law and jurisdiction; Guilty regardless.

I would actually like some Lawyer for a change to put the Entire Qur’an on trial, under secular LAW, with objectivity in mind;
Then I could guarantee it would be outlawed without equivocation;

But that is exactly what they are preventing, because even the most basic principled law student would realize; The Qur’an would not withstand scrutiny, not even the mildest, simplest scrutiny; because it is in total an utter; “Fraud”; but so are leftists proletariat lobotomized.
It would fail in principle-in authentication- archeological- and criminal intent disclosed in its volumes- all be it but for a very short period in the beginning of Kissy Cuddly bits to win (Con) hearts and minds, the rest of its history reads as if the 5 horsemen of apocalypse had taken seed on earth; the list is so vast it is incredible the amount of deception deployed to protect it; But I don’t think many people are aware of that; and some still buy The Religion of Piece antitheses?
Absolutely incredible dilation of intelligence to believe anything of it.
It is there in print, plain and simple, it tells you what it is, and our useless idiots are selling to us what it is not.

Lets put it on trial now. and find out.

Some questions are yet to be examined

Why was the Islamic Council of Victoria, which originally brought the complaint, asked to pay only HALF the court costs?

Why were there Muslims in the seminar in the first place - if not to trap the speakers and test the then new Bracks law?

Why are Muslim Imams regularly criticising everything non-Islamic and getting away with it?

Why is it when Islam or their holy book are exposed, one can only find negatives and anti social values?

Why do we continue to allow a political movement like Islam - that has at its core aim the destruction of our free democracy - to exist and prosper in our midst? Haven't we learned our lessons or are we becoming so brain-dead to the real danger of Islam to our National Security?

The real terrorist is not the stupid self detonating Jihadists but our own suicidal approach to our dear Muslim compatriots who deep down have no interest in our way of life, and are forging ahead to change (it) and us.

Stephany put her finger on most of the issues here, but did not bring up the truth-is-no-defense aspect of the law, which intensifies the threat to freedom of speech.

This is what Linda McGrew at the Right Reason blog said at about the time of the first trial (6/7/05):

"This is because of a very important aspect of the law, namely, that the truth of what one is saying is no defense against the charge. In other words, this is not comparable to a law in the United States against defamation of character or libel. It is an entirely different legal category in which the entire question is whether what one has said is likely to arouse hatred and revulsion against a particular group, setting aside the issue of whether one’s statements are true. Pastor Nalliah states that the lawyer for the complainant (the Islamic Council of Victoria) mentioned repeatedly in the trial that "truth is no defense," so that Scot and Nalliah were unable to defend themselves by pointing out that their statements about Islam were in fact supported by quotations from the Koran. Debbie Mortimer, the lawyer, allegedly told Pastor Nalliah in court that he must only give references to (rather than quote) Koran passages that endorse ill-treatment of women, as quoting the passages would constitute a new act of vilification! This claim is borne out by the fact that one of the counts against them in Judge Higgins’s ruling was the mere fact that they said "that the Qur'an ... treats women badly, like a field to be plowed" and tells men "use her as you wish." Again, the charge is that they said this, not that it is false."

C.J.. Let me guess.. 'ME' :)

BUT.. lets talk about 'vilification'.. that which 'marginalizes and stigmatizes a whole group of people on the basis of their religion.

Quran 9:30 (Christians..by name) "Allahs curse be on them, they are deluded and away from the truth"

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle ....he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

So, here, on his death bed, we are being 'cursed' by him in Allah's name for simply building a Church at a place of strong remembrance of our Lords burial.

This is outright vilification.... specifically of Christians.

Imagine if I did a web site "GOD CURSES MUSLIMS" and ran a seminar "THE CURSE OF GOD ON MUSLIMS"
and handed out pamphlets outside a mosque "GOD CURSES MUSLIMS"
and.. handed those same pamphlets out at Flinders street station to all and sundry.

I thinnnnnnnnk Muslims might be a tad upset.

As it stands, I plan to stand on the steps of ST PAULS CATHEDRAL and the the SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE with a sign "Allah curses Christians"
or "MOHAMMED CURSES CHRISTIANS" and I'll have a little handout explaining what the background is.

Now..who is the bad guy here ? .. is it the Prophet and Religion of Islam+Quran+Hadith which curses my very existence, or.. is it me who makes this fact known to passers by ?

We have just had further vilification by Hilali 'Muslims have more right to Australia than Anglo Saxon descendants of convicts' etc.. and he also vilified all of Anglo Saxon background 'They are the greatest of liars' kind of sentiments....

Any one who does not think we have reasons for serious concern is of concern to me.

A pastor is supposedly a person offering spiritual guidance. Seems to me that some of the pastors' supporters and the usual crew are way short on guidance when it comes to talking about their fellow humans in aa decent Christian manner.

Maybe you all need to get some pastors guidance from real pastors who really believe in doing good rather than starting fires.

These pastors and their fellowers remind me of vandals. You see I have often marvelled at the way God made it so hard to do good deeds and so easy to destroy things. For intstance: It takes a lot to develop a sense of belonging - one unguarded moment to destroy it.

Maybe that is why the Bible teaches us to be patient. Warfare and negative propanda that can lead to conflict, whether practiced by Islam or Christians, is a negative that can destroy families, infrastructure, peaceful, happy times and all those good things in an instant that have taken centuries and lifetimes to come to pass.

These pastors have little to do with spreading the Christian message and more about creating conflict. By their fruits you will know them.

Dear Ronnie....what do you make of this, in terms of starting fires?

Quran 9:30 (Christians) Allah's curse be on them, they are deluded, away from the truth.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets."

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.

If you notice carefully, we can observe 3 things here.

1/ Mohammed Curses Christians and Jews
2/ The Quran Curses Christians and Jews
3/ Mohammed attacked people, withOUT warning! (who were simply doing their daily routine) killed many, took captives of women and children.

Basis for his attack (not found in the Hadith) was that their chief had made an alliance with another tribe who were Mohammeds enemies.

LESSON. Unless 'we' have a treaty of peace with the Muslims, WE ARE THE ENEMY and can justifiably be attacked ANY time. Remember, serious Muslim minds (like Hizb) are very much in this mould, and they regard Mohammeds life as their supreme example. London bombings, US embassy bombings, 9/11, Bali are all in complete harmony with Mohammed actions here.

Pastors Scott and Naliah were quite correct in their assessment of "Once the Muslims become strong, they (the likes of Hizb) will seek to take over, by force".. it will be justified by similar reasoning used by Mohammed.

Divergence,

I consider "truth is no defence" one of the most pernicious aspects of the legislation. That's why I think it needs to be repealed.

ronnie peters,

Are you implying that Nalliah and Scott have to pass some sort of "Good Christian pastor" test before they're allowed to have their say?

That is not free speech.

BOAZ_David,

You appreciate that your last post probably contravenes Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance (sic) Act 2001

God-botherers like CTF should be cared for in the mental health system, at least until their sky-god delusions wane enough to stop them sowing ignorance and hatred in public. What a joke these folk are, still rigidly stuck on stories invented thousand of years ago (that goes for fundamentalist Muslims and Jews too).

Liam wrote:

"God-botherers like CTF should be cared for in the mental health system,.... (that goes for fundamentalist Muslims and Jews too)."

In other words, you are in favour of censorship using the "metal health system." That, of course, is one of the ways they silenced people in the Soviet Union.

This isn't about what "God-botherers" say. It's about the right all of us should have to say what we want.

Freedom of speech does not mean only the right to say things you consider sensible. It includes the right of people you loathe to say things that disgust you.

The only reasonable limitation I can see on freedom of speech is outright incitement to commit a crime of violence. Note the use of the term "outright."

Saying Islam is a load of male bovine excrement and the so-called "prophet" a charlatan is not "outright incitement." Saying "kill Muslims" is.

Stephany, I'm not convinced that even incitement to violence should be outlawed if you want to truly uphold freedom of speech. As soon as you outlaw incitement to violence then you have to consider outlawing any speech or writing that can be deemed provocative or inflammatory, not simply outright instructions to kill. That would have to include banning those religious texts that incite violence, and you would have to have some way of policing it. I think it would be very messy and ultimately unworkable, nor would it serve in promoting religious or political dialogue.

There should never be any need to curb freedom of speech or expression even if it promotes violence. Wherever there is the freedom to incite violence there is the freedom to promote peace and harmony. Responding to incitement should not be with censorship laws, that hide the problem causing ignorance of it, but with words of understanding that promote the alternative that is peace and harmony.

I feel very comforted by the fact that I would incur serious legal sanctions if I were to whip a mob into a frenzy and then suggest to them that anyone with the online name Crusader deserves to be kicked to death.

Doubtless I don’t have sufficient charisma to do this, even if I were so inclined. However charismatic individuals all through history have been able to incite others to acts they wouldn’t otherwise commit. These charismatic individuals need to be held to account for their actions, just as if they were doing the kicking.

The problem with anti religions vilification laws is that it crosses the line between discrimination based on a persons race, gender, height or other characteristics that cannot be changed, and disagreeing with a persons choice of religion, sexual preference or even football team. Having said that, we should allways respect the individual even though we may disagree with their opinion or preference.

I should be free to disagree with with the practice of homosexuals or muslims or collingwood supporters as long as I do not disrespect the individuals involved. I should also be free to disagree with that practise without being subjected to personal attacks.

I do resent negative labels such as Homophobic. Now it seems that Muslims have also taken to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as Islamaphobic. They say that attack is the best form of defence and what better way to attack somebody who disagrees with you than to accuse them of having an irrational and ilogigal fear. What will this come to? Is Kevin Rudd a Liberalaphobic or was Peter Brock a Fordaphobic.

If we are so insecure and unable to inteligently defend our opinions and ideas without resorting to name calling then maybe we need to review our opinions and ideas

Freedom of speech is the only way to reveal the TRUTH.

Unfortunately, that word: Truth, has long lost its potency giving way to the more palatable: Relativism.

Since we have lost the definite benchmark that clearly defines someone's belief as true or false, someone’s intention as good or evil; we should not be surprised that freedom of speech is now swimming in the same PC pond as relativism.

Muslim activists know that well, and are using it to their political advantage. They know how to use our legal system, language and mentality to advance their cause. Our law makers are yet to understand Muslims political ruse and double edged language – let alone deciphering their true motives.

Islam is relying on our naiveté and idiotic western laws that are irrelevant and quite impotent to their community. Islam’s best ticket for infiltration is our secularised (non-religious) society that is nurturing pluralism and multiculturalism. We are allowing a destructive movement to exist and to prosper by hiding behind our tolerant democratic laws and political correctness.

Islam is not simply another new colour that could blend with our social canvas – it is an formidable invader of the nastiest kind.

Dear Stephany.

contravened the RRT ?

I don't quite see how, but can you demonstrate any flaws of reasoning and in what I said ?

I linked the post to the likes of Hizb... did you notice that ?

The problem with the 2 dannies (I read the judgment) was that they were said not to have made a distinction between the radicals and mainstream Muslims.

I didn't generalize, I specificaly said 'The likes of Hizb'.

Apart from that, do you recognize this situation as a danger to Australian security ?

"Unfortunately, that word: Truth, has long lost its potency giving way to the more palatable: Relativism."

Natually, it's always the other guy who's guilty. Not that I will take issue with your truth, or a competing one; such a debate is by definition circular.

Why not take a look at some more generalised truths about "truth"?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion

Hi Bennie
yes.. truth can be rather plastic at times. But it does depend on the context quite a bit.

My handout re the possible St Pauls thing, would be along the lines of encouraging Christians to contact their local member urging him/her to campaign to change the law RRT2001 which has been used against Christians predominantly. I am aiming for 2 changes.

1/ Truth IS a defense.
2/ Motive DOES matter.

I would also be encouraging people of the Christian and Jewish faith to make complaints to the EOC about the inherrent vilification in the Quran and Hadith which are publically available, i.e. sold in bookshops and online.

If those documents said in a general nature "Allahs curse on the infidels" meaning all unbelievers, I would not take so much issue with it, but the specific mention of Christians and Jews by 'name' takes it into the arena of religious vilification in my view.

cheers.

You will be able to send a petition to the NSW State Premier and Prime minister to have the militant Islamic group Hizb-Ut-Tahrir (Liberation Party) banned in NSW and Australia. Muslim extremists use our freedom of speech rights to incite violence and death against our way of life, freedoms our democratically elected representatives and anyone who denounces their views as bad. They want rule by Immams appointed by the Islamic Council like Hilali etc, not persons democratically elected by the whole nation.

"If those documents said in a general nature "Allahs curse on the infidels" meaning all unbelievers, I would not take so much issue with it, but the specific mention of Christians and Jews by 'name' takes it into the arena of religious vilification in my view."

Such a distinction makes it OK? Fine if you're Christian - you can vilify pretty much anyone. Or to word it differently, Islam gives less leeway?

“4. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.”

“5. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months; and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

I'm not trying to needle you, but it sure seems you're hedging your bets. It seems many religions require adherents to stomp on the other guy.