west, i don't think aqvarivs represents anything except aqvarivs.

as for the messages of christ, i think you can ignore the superstitious mumbo jumbo, and extract the lessons for human society. of course, these lessons cannot be justified as the word of god, but that doesn't mean the lessons cannot be justified at all.

i think any moral rules have to be justified in terms of pragmatic human notions, ideas of human dignity and reciprocity and the like. in this way, i think it is easy to value christ's teachings, independent of whether you regard christ as mythical, or a pagan rerun, or whatever.

Amen West,

I have felt this for a long time. I am heartened to hear about the Liberation Theology growing in South America, though the dark forces are gathering. The current Pope was head of the department in the Vatican that used to be called The Inquisition, and he is gunning for those pesky radicals over there. The connection between socialism and real christianity has been made in South America, where the vast majority live in poverty. They have the motivation to join together, and give life to this ancient prophesy; the meek will inherit the earth. I feel South America is going to free us all.

Our problem is our wealth. We believe we can go it alone, and that those who are poor are somehow deficient. This has led to the breakdown of family and community, as they are no longer in our self-interest to maintain. The Social Contract has been broken, though our self-sufficiency is an illusion. The convergence of Peak Oil and the limits of growth/consumption should hit about the same time, and we are going to relearn very quickly that everything we have relies on the labour of others. Once this ride is over, small 'c' communism will be the only answer, or as I like to call it these days, Grassroots Democracy. As power becomes diffused and filters down, the influence of Churches, Governments and Corporations will wane.

What we will have left is what Christ and Marx said; each other.

Every person and every group should have the right to express their views however, this Christian Lobby Group is a fundamental organisation that spreads hate just like their Islamic counterparts. When the Beattie Government was going to reform religious education in the state schools, not once did they jump on the religious hate this group spread about pagans.

Hateful messages including, telling people that Witches will be going into schools teaching kids how to hex and curse each other. This group demonises any group that disagrees with and see our marshmellow politicians cowering to a bunch of hate filled war mongereres is extremely disappointing.

I certainly would not allow the Christian Lobby Group in my office due to the extreme religious hatred that this group spreads.

Hi Pericles...

yes..Anne Coulter is indeed colorful in her language :)

I'm not sure on what authority she says to "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".. but it surely is not the Bible.

At least people notice what she says...... and can take a position on it.

I rather doubt that many people would adopt her rather forceful view, and if they did, they would probably just become collateral damage as the various gun toting factions sorted themselves out.

One thing I might say though.. when a 'WASP' starts talking like a radical Muslim... you actually take notice don't you....

Well.. now chanel that caution and revulsion into supporting my posts on radical Islam :)

You see..the difference is..Anne Coulter cannot support her position from Scripture.. Radical Muslims CAN.

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY BOOK SHOP.

RACIAL and RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

*WARNING*

In regard to the selling of this book, Melbourne University Books shop is hereby warned that an investigation is now being carried out, to determine if this book or the sale of this book contravenes the abovementioned act.

Examining the section of the Act which relates to 'exlusions' reveals it may not provide protection for the sale of the book, if the book is deemed to be calling religious beliefs into contempt or ridiculing them. Dawkins is on record as 'hating' religion, and thus, his words must be interpreted in the light of this 'emotional' rather than academic statement.

Please be reminded that in a recent VCAT case involving 'Catch the Fire' ministries vs Islamic Council of Victoria' the costs associated with this trial exceeded a million dollars.

All it will require Unity Australia to do to make a successful prosicution of the UMBS on this issue, is to show that the intent of the book is to 'mock/ridicule/incite serious contempt for' as opposed to 'making a reasoned evaluation and scholarly enquiry' of the issue at hand.

Please note, people have already been offended by this publication, and are aggrieved. The compensation sought for this will be substantial, and punitive and may include the requirement of paid public advertizing of apologies to the aggrieved parties.

Boaz David

LAWS... CAN BE AWFUL THINGS.... WHEN "BOTH" SIDES OF THE COMMUNITY DECIDE TO USE THEM :)

SOLUTION.. remove the stuuuupid law.

Don't forget, Boaz, by their deeds shall ye know them.

>>Yes..Anne Coulter is indeed colorful in her language :) I'm not sure on what authority she says to "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".. but it surely is not the Bible.<<

I hate having to quote the scriptures at you, but sometimes it is the only way to get through to you.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16

[According to a respected biblical source, the word "fruit" used here is "Strong's Number 2590, which means 'work, act, deed'"]

So whenever we come across a Christian who vomits such hatred into the world, let's remember this, shall we? That it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they follow the "Boaz Guide to Evangelism" (or even "Christianity for Dummies", come to that), they a) are self-professed Christians and b) should be understood as such.

The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large.

And please, do not wriggle out of this by saying "ah, but the Qur'an says this and the Bible says that", because we are by now totally accustomed to your ability to select only the passages in the Qur'an that support your argument, and to deny that any passage of a similar nature in the Bible actually means what it says.

As for your Melbourne University Book Shop item, if this is a true record (and let's face it, your history on such matters is not entirely, shall we say, spotless) then it says far more about the University than it says about the law. Sadly.