Of course, but where is the balance? There is the danger that as religious adherents react violently to criticism of their favourite superstitions freedom of speech will be progressively eroded. Religion is an abstraction it has no rights to be violated and it cannot suffer, if religious individuals are offended by ridicule or criticism it's their problem.

The RRTA is fundamentally flawed because it addresses the *wrong* problem. Inciting ridicule, contempt or hatred towards people on the basis of them promoting revolting, contemptous or plain stupid racial or religious beliefs should *not* be a problem. Indeed it ought to be encouraged.

What is really needed is for an improvement and expansion on defamation law so individuals who have suffered demonstrable harmed by lies made concerning their group membership. That would be *just*
legislation.

It is wrong to to lie about person's racial or religious beliefs or practises. That causes clear and demonstrable harm to a person. They *deserve* the right to sue for damages.

It is right to truthfully point out that certain racial or religious beliefs and practises are inhumane, revolting and ridiculous. If they advocate such beliefs and practises then they are *deserving*
of criticism,

Let me break the law right here and now and give some examples of banned speech under the legislation.

The practise of involuntary genital mutilation upon women is revolting, loathesome and detestable. People who advocate such practises on the basis of cultural difference, racial history or religion rites are deserving of hatred and contempt. I encourage and
incite others to express the same.

Claims that that the Earth is flat, homosexuality is a crime equal to eating of prawns, those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death, that staffs can become serpents, stones can become camels, and people can talk with ants are deserving of extreme ridicule. Those who, as a matter of religious beliefs, claim that their "holy text" is the result of perfect divine revelation, are ridiculous (and possibly dangerous) individuals and deserve to be considered as such. I encourage and incite others to express the same.

Lev

You should also include in your list that people who murder the unborn, teach that we came from apes and scare the heck out of kids with global warming crap should be jailed.

OMG a creationist in the flesh. Runner, run back and hide under your rock until judgement day as yours is the kingdom of heaven and not of this earth. Leave the real world to the rest of us.

Hey runner - newsflash! You are exactly the kind of person Lev was talking about... what's your position on homosexuality, runner?

Tend to agree with the tenor of the responses to date. Islam is going to have to come to terms with the fact that, just like every other religion, secular society owes it no respect whatsoever. Its adherents of course, are entitled to respect, but not their idiotic belief systems, which are fair game. That is a subtle distinction (too subtle for some I suspect) but an important one

Runner,

1) Murder is, by definition, illegal killing. If abortion is legal it isn't murder. Go on, look up a dictionary.

2) Evolution and taxonomy teaches that homo sapien sapiens ARE apes, members of the hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans.

3) The earth is warming. That is a matter of fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I would be quite prepared to go to jail for expressing this knowledge as well. I'm suppose you're just the sort of person that would love to jail a person for expressing these facts? After all, if you can't 'win' an argument, it's better to get rid of a person than admit you might be wrong, isn't it?

Stickman

'Hey runner - newsflash! You are exactly the kind of person Lev was talking about... what's your position on homosexuality, runner?'
My position is irrelevant. God's position is to hate the sin but to love the sinner. People practicing adultery, fornication, lying, homosexuality won't inherit the kingdom of God. Thank God many have turned to Christ for forgiveness from these things. Homosexuality is unnatural, has a very high health risk and is largely promoted as a lifestyle by deviants. The promoters of this lifestyle generally are not happy to live out their lives quitely. They seem intent on spreading their poison through the schools and paint anyone disagreeing with them as the evil ones.

Yes Lev there is evidence to suggest that the earth has warmed by as much as 0.6 of a degree over the last 100 years. Similar evidence suggest that there was a mini ice age centered around 1700 where the temp dropped by as much as a degree.

Warming is not the issue. The issue is anthropogenic climate change and statistical forecasting. Considering we can't even predict the weather much more than a week in advance how do you expect us to believe we can predict climate change 10-100 years into the future.

The problem is that groups are now using sad looking Polar bears floating on icebergs and chunks of ice breaking away glaciers and ice shelfs as evidence that
1. we (via carbon dioxide) are producing this effect
2. catastrophic outcomes are, if not here already, own their way.

This replaces reasoned debate and allows legitimate scientist who are skeptical of many of the claims to be shouted down or silenced as environmental vandals.

There is not yet evidence to come to any conclusion except that the earth has warmed since 1900 but has not warmed at all in the last 7-8 years despite the co2 levels increasing.

There are other factors at play.

Mac's distinction is an important one - it's not religions or the things that inspire them that are hurt by religious defamation, it's the feelings of those who believe.

I hope that my feelings as a Christian will be respected in ordinary social interaction, and they usually are. But when I enter the fray in public debate or a forum like this, I expect my views and beliefs to be fair game and held up to scrutiny and - sometimes - forceful disagreement or even ridicule. And they are.

In no circumstances do I think the power of the law should be brought to bear to protect my religious feelings or silence those who disagree with me, nor would I extend that privilege to any belief system, be it religious, political, environmental or any other flavour. God cannot be hurt by a lie, still less by the truth. Honest, even vigorous, discourse, aids understanding and helps dispel false beliefs. “Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord.” (Isaiah 1.18). Amen.

Runner, please consider a different perspective. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Everywhere he shows compassion and inclusion for those who are marginalised, despised, mistreated and condemned, and rebukes the religiously devout who presume to censure and deride others. In his day that meant consorting with outsiders (tax collectors, gentiles, prostitutes and lepers), and conflict with the pious (Pharisees) and the religious establishment (scribes and Sadducees). Might not the modern equivalent be gays and others our culture despises (junkies, gamblers, drunks, the mentally ill) and the modern Pharisees, those who condemn them?

Perhaps we should make a distinction between simple ignorance and wilful ignorance.

Believing something you were told as a child, when you have never been exposed to any contrary evidence, is perfectly natural and reasonable. It is best dealt with by presenting the contrary evidence.

Believing something in spite of contrary evidence (or even BECAUSE of contrary evidence) is wilful ignorance, reprehensible and dangerous (how dangerous is religion? See

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

for just a few examples.). It should be treated in the same way as any other persistent failure to act like a sane and rational human being. It should not be excused because 'it's only religion', any more than threatening children should be excused because 'it's only paranoia'. Both are mental states that put people at risk to themselves and to those around them.

Hmm...how could I have missed this juicy topic till now ?

I see Peter Hodge has discovered "CHICK TRACTS"

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/jackchick.htm

(worth a look no matter what your religious position is:)

Regarding Dawkins.. he is ABSOLUTELY GUILTY of religious vilification, and based on the findings of the CTF/ICV case, he does have a case to answer.. I began the proceedings against Dawkins book in a small way, but lost that vital ingredient..'time'.... to follow though.

THE PROBLEM with the RRTA is

1/ section 9 "Motive" is not relevant.
2/ The interpretation of what consitutes vilification.
3/ TRUTH...is not a defense. (claimed by the lawyers for the ICV)

Now..this little morsel has had profound effects. Not only did it galvanize me into bombarding every forum I could with a sustained attack on the idea.. I've since found ways of multiplying ones impact many times over, even to the point of creating national headlines and obtaining world wide coverage of a particular issue.

The following people made public statements of concern.

-The Prime minister,
-Opposition leader,
-A Police Commissioner
-Minister of Education.
-Spokesperson of a particular group.

All this because of some strategically directed emails.

I'd prefer to leave the actual issue 'vague' at this point.

Yes.. we absolutely need to sort out this sorry state of affairs...

We do NOT need an Orwellian dictatorship of thought and expression.
At present..the RRT as written and intepreted, is just that.

LETS ALL WORK TOGETHER AND RID OURSELVES OF THIS TYRANT! (*echo's of Braveheart's speech floating through the air*)

Boazy: <<I've since found ways of multiplying ones impact many times over, even to the point of creating national headlines and obtaining world wide coverage of a particular issue.

The following people made public statements of concern.

-The Prime minister,
-Opposition leader,
-A Police Commissioner
-Minister of Education.
-Spokesperson of a particular group.

All this because of some strategically directed emails.

I'd prefer to leave the actual issue 'vague' at this point.>>

Talk about delusional. As I recall, various questions have been put in this forum regarding the efficacy of Boazy's endless ranting and preaching in bringing people to his version of God, but absolutely nobody here responded in the affirmative, i.e. for all his biblical quotes, preaching and other godbothering claptrap, not one other OLO member has been converted to his religion.

Now he expects us to believe that his emails create national headlines and provoke worldwide coverage of his obsessions. Dream on, Boazy. Do the radio and TV speak to you personally as well?

Little wonder he wants to be "vague" about the details.

RHian
Jesus does not condemn those practicing homosexuality specifically. The Apostle Paul does but no more than those committing adultery, fornication, lying or any other sin. To deny the seriousness of sexual sin is to deny the Scriptures and to cheapen the price Christ paid for us to be forgiven for these things. To include mental illness along with those who have given in to gambling, drunkeness etc is a little unfair. One is a choice while the other isn't.

Jesus did consort with prostitutes and tax collectors etc so that He could offer them love and forgiveness not to condone their behaviour. He did not say to the prostitute to continue in sin.

I am just as appalled as most when people practicing homosexuality are singled out to be mocked or have violence done to them. It is however often carried out among themselves due to extremely high rates of promiscurity. Even the GayBC acknowledges this fact http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1937854.htm

To allow social engineers to teach our children that homosexuality is normal is untruthful and damaging to society. These people need to repent just like anyone else living a sinful life. Thankfully God's grace extends to all who are prepared to accept Christ and turn from their wicked ways.

Paul,

Whilst this is getting a little off-topic, I suggest you take a closer look. The global warming of the 20th-21st century is more significant than the medieval warm period or the little ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Further, I believe you are incorrect concerning an alleged lack of temperature rises over the past 7-8 years. I urge you to look at the following.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The earth is warming, it is warming very significantly, it is continuing to get hotter and the scientific consensus is that it is attibutable to human activies. I wish that none of these things were true, but they seem to be, my personal desires notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Runner,

You may continue to make yourself look like a wilfully bigoted and ignorant fundamentalist, as you have done so numerous times in the past and will probably continue to do so in the future.

You may ask yourself however if homosexuality is so unnatural why did God create so many animals that practise it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)? Perhaps you are, once again, wrong - but also once again lack the cognitive ability to admit it.

One of these days you may decide to improve yourself and realise that not everything in holy book is the literal or complete truth.

Rhian,

Your sort of Christian would be welcome anytime at the church I attend. Thank you for those compassionate and intelligent statements that recognise that 'holy books' provide insight and recognition of the development of the human spirit, the ethical systems we devise and the failings and limits of anything written by the human hand.

Clearly the time has arrived for the Shepherd to reach out his hooked stick thing and BRING BACK a few of us to the tooooopiK. How did this morph into 'Global Warming/Gay rights'?

RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION is the topic people.. *pinch*

CJ.. there are those of us who dream.. and those of us who 'dream and do' :) and then...there are those of us who simply whine about those who 'do'.... I'll leave you to classify urself there 0_^

RHIAN.... you said both admirable things and some not so. Your willingness to have your faith mocked and challenged in forums like this is the admirable bit. (I share that view) But then.... leaping into the "Jesus did not condemn homosexuality" was quite a leap ..but into the dark I'm afraid. Jesus condemned a number of specific behaviors, but He 'generally' condemned 'Immorality' and declared that the immoral will not enter the kingdom of God. He also said "I came to fulfill the law" and "Not one jot or tittle will be changed" (of the law).. words to that effect...and the "Law" of which he spoke clearly and specifically condemns homosexual behavior. (Paul specifically mentions it also)..now.. I won't 'mock' your faith.. which would be innapropriate, but I certainly challenge your view based on the totality of scripture.

LEV.. to be consistent .. "Rhian your kind of Christian is welcome" etc.. you would need to be willing to ALSO accept and embrace members of Nambla who happen to come a knocking on your church door. If you accept that homosexual behavior is ok, then why not those who enjoy such homosexual fun with little boys? If 'adult/child' heterosexual sex is ok to 1.4billion people....why not 'adult/child' homosexual sex?

You leave yourself open to either charges of inconsistent hypocrisy or open slather acceptance of all.

Not only delusional, but back to his good old hateful self - which I supppose is appropriate to a thread about vilification.

<< you would need to be willing to ALSO accept and embrace members of Nambla who happen to come a knocking on your church door. If you accept that homosexual behavior is ok, then why not those who enjoy such homosexual fun with little boys? If 'adult/child' heterosexual sex is ok to 1.4billion people....why not 'adult/child' homosexual sex? >>

In a charming display of his deepest obsessions, Boazy vilifies homosexuals and Muslims in a single rant. This is, of course, precisely the kind of vilification that we all need to be able to tolerate for the sake of social harmony. Of course, such tolerance doesn't preclude pointing out the seriously deranged nature of the source of the vilification.

It seems that every now and again Boazy has to share with the world his obsession with Nambla, but this time he's excelled himself by linking them, in a classic display of twisted logic, with Muslims.

And did Jesus really say " tittie " !?!

Interesting that you decry the distance the thread has moved off-topic, Boaz, then immediately comment on an off-topic item.

>>Clearly the time has arrived for the Shepherd to reach out his hooked stick thing and BRING BACK a few of us to the tooooopiK. How did this morph into 'Global Warming/Gay rights'? RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION is the topic people.. *pinch*... RHIAN... leaping into the "Jesus did not condemn homosexuality" was quite a leap<<

Far from being the self-appointed shepherd, Boaz, you appear to be just another sheep.

And not a very convincing one, either.

>>Jesus condemned a number of specific behaviors, but He 'generally' condemned 'Immorality'<<

In response to the statement "Jesus did not condemn homosexuality", this is pretty weak. It is you who has decided that homosexuality is immoral, not Jesus.

To assume that because you, Boaz, hold a particular opinion on homosexuality, then by definition Jesus would hold the same view, is just a little presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

Lèse majesté, even.

Your further excursion into off-the-topic territory via NAMBLA was typical of you, and equally irrelevant.

>>If you accept that homosexual behavior is ok, then why not those who enjoy such homosexual fun with little boys?<<

This is like saying "if you consider eating dinner is ok, then why not accept that eating lightly-sautéed baby seals is cool too?"

But please, don't take my word for any of this, since I don't hold any of your Christian prejudices. Here are a few observations on the absence of biblical justification for your homophobic stance, written by (shock horror) a gay Reverend.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Let me know your thoughts, won't you?

Runner

I’m intrigued at your drawing a distinction between those for whom social exclusion is a result of their own “choice” and those for whom it isn’t. Jesus made no such distinction, forgiving the sins of the sick before he healed them (Matthew 9.3), pronouncing forgiveness of sinners without demanding that they first repent (Luke 7.47), inviting himself into the home of a tax gatherer for a meal (John 19.5) and using a woman of dubious sexual history to evangelise a Samaritan town (John 4).

I believe that the one who said “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12.47) and “do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6.37) had a very different view of humanity and sin than the one you ascribe to him.

Paul, though, is a different case. His values reflect the culture of a moderately cosmopolitan 1st century Palestinian. In some respects he was quite radical – for example his insistence at the equal status of gentiles and Jews – but in other respects he was a fairly conservative, and his views on modest dress, women covering their hair and being silent in religious gatherings etc are products of the culture of that time. Nowadays, all but the most reactionary churches happily disregard his instructions on these matters. In my view, his attitude to homosexuality belongs in the same category – a product of its time that we are not obliged to obey. We now understand that homosexuality is intrinsic to a person’s nature, not a lifestyle choice or deviancy. I do not believe that Jesus would condemn someone for feelings and attractions that are essential to their personhood, nor that he would try to impose on them a lifestyle of denial and repression.

David_Boaz

The “law” of which you write prescribes the death penalty for disobedient children, sharia-style mutilations for certain crimes, detailed instructions on the behaviour of menstruating women and men who have wet dreams, and extensive dietary prohibitions. Happily, none of these are taken as binding by modern Christians.

Jesus fulfilled the law by doing what Israel was supposed to do and thereby opening the door for the salvation of humanity. The crux of his message was not conforming to rules (in fact, he and his disciples often broke them), but recovering that to which the law was intended to point – the law of love, epitomised in as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10.26).

I cannot reconcile the idea of loving my neighbour as myself with disapproval of their sexual orientation.

Hi Rhian

You are a different to some of the religious types that post around here - i.e. very sensible. It is nice to see someone who is not beholden to the dogma that has grown around the religion that you follow. You are also not beholden to some of the excesses of the text that your religion is based on.

That last bit is where it gets interesting, for an irreligious person like me. Because you are sensible and use your rationality to determine what a loving god would and would not expect of his people (eg, that gays live a life of denial and repression) then I wonder what exactly the text does offer you?

Sam Harris writes about this very eloquently in his book "End of Faith." If you are interested in what the irreligious might have to offer in terms of philosophy, but are turned off by the zeal of a Dawkins or a Hitchens, he might be interesting for you to read. He writes specifically of the problem of "religious moderates."

Religious moderates are after all, people who do not take the texts literally. If the texts are meant to be the absolute word of God, then once they are not taken as such, there is an enormous room for subjective interpretation to creep in. And what is perceived today as a reasonable interpretation may not be seen as such tomorrow. Which of course is why fundamentalists exist - because it is far easier to think in black and white than to acknowledge the complexity of our world and its human relationships.

So what he (and I would agree) would argue is that what religious moderates really are, is secular humanists who have arrived at a position to determine their ethics through rational analysis of what works and does not work in human societies, based on evidence, rather than their religion. As Harris says, most people are better than than religion (as per their sacred texts) would have them be

Stickman

You raise some interesting points. I believe the scriptures are the product of more than a thousand years of human reflection on the encounter with God. They therefore reflect the ideas, priorities and cultures of their authors and editors. I see them as divinely inspired, but not the “absolute word of God” in the way that most Muslims, for example, may believe the Koran was dictated word for word to the Prophet.

Scriptures are also incredibly diverse in form and content, containing polemic, poetry, song, myth, letters, and narrative history. We need to understand these differences. For example, to read the Eden story as an historic account of human origins is a category error – it was never intended to be read that way, and if it is, it seems crude and ridiculous. But as a story about what it means to be human – our moral consciousness, self-awareness, alienation, angst at our mortality and sense that the world falls short of what it should be – it is profound and insightful.

You don’t have to take the bible literally to take it seriously.

Many fundamentalists argue that only those who take the whole bible literally are authentic Christians. But this is actually a quite modern perspective based on post-enlightenment views equating truth with demonstrable or historical fact, and developed in reaction to more liberal views on scripture that emerged in the past 250 years.

You are right that there is a danger of subjective and selective interpretation in my approach to scripture. But to insist on the acceptance of each story as an historical account and each law as binding on 21st century Christians doesn’t really get around the problem, it only seeks to bury it by asserting that only one possible interpretation of scriptures is correct. It also requires a form of selective blindness, as people are forced to ignore or rationalise away the bible’s evident internal contradictions and those laws and stories which are repugnant to modern sensibilities.

Dear Lev

I'm a bit concerned with what you said above.. the 'I incite others to hate' also.. mate..I joke not, that that is very dangerous legally.

I would not say that.. and I say some pretty red hot stuff about certain things. I don't incite hate deliberately, I try to incite scrutiny and common sense and awareness of evil things. To me.. doctrinal domestic abuse and child sexual abuse are 'evil'... even so, our duty is to call on the law of the land, or to invite people to change that law to make it tighter about such things.. not to specifically incite hate against individuals under existing laws which might permit such things.

The focus of my 'rants' is to change/tighten immigration policy, to consider banning certain religious documents from public availablity, and public declarations that certain religious practices are in fact abominable to our law and culture. Domestic violence and child sexual abuse are 2 very high on the list.

The other target of my rants is the RRTA itself. I want it ammended such that 'motive' and 'truth' are both VERY relevant to any case.

If a religion is 'vile' then to point out that vile-ness cannot by any reason be 'vilification'... it is 'exposure'.

Exposure can only lead to 'hate' in the mind of an immature irresponsible person. Society has such people.. sadly. Exposing insider trading would only cause an agrieved share holder to kill his stockbroker if he was immature and irresponsible.

Now..you used the example of regarding homosexual acts as a crime equal to eating prawns... ur a bit out of historical/theological context there mate. HS behavior is condemned in the OT AND the NT, eating of prawns is not :)

David,

The danger is less of a concern to me that the idea that such an prohibition should exist. Incitement to hate (to loathe, despise, to dislike intensely), after all, is not an incitement to violence ("fighting words"). The practise of involuntary genital mutilation upon women is revolting, loathesome and detestable. People who express the opinion that it is acceptable for 'cultural reasons' are deserving of such harsh language. Likewise people who promote ridiculous ideas are deserving of, well, ridicule.

"If a religion is 'vile' then to point out that vile-ness cannot by any reason be 'vilification'... it is 'exposure'."

Indeed. Hence my advocacy of an expansion of defamation law. It is wrong and damaging to say false things about individuals or groups. But likewise it wrong to prohibit what you call exposure.

"HS behavior is condemned in the OT AND the NT, eating of prawns is not"

But not in the Gospels; only by the Pauline chapters which are the worst books of the New Testament in my opinion. But even if one considers Paul's inclusion to the NT to have legitimacy there is still singnificant debate about the meaning. cf., (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm)

Boaz, how come you have never threatened me in this way? I feel most offended.

>>Dear Lev, I'm a bit concerned with what you said above.. the 'I incite others to hate' also.. mate..I joke not, that that is very dangerous legally.<<

Why do you suddenly take umbrage? I have been explaining to you the possible consequences of your actions, with examples, for years now.

If you stood up in front of a crowd and told them that the Jews ran the country and controlled the government, and should be run out of town on a rail, would this be "incitement to hate" or "incit[ing] scrutiny and common sense and awareness of evil things"?

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, your actions, together with the air of injured innocence when challenged, remind me irresistibly of the Limehouse rallies, and the highly contentious Mr Mosley. You make statements - that you infer from the flimsiest evidence - about the intentions of a religious group, and advocate that these folk be hounded and pestered for the views and actions that you bestow upon them.

People of lesser intelligence might justifiably perceive that you are inciting them to some form of action, based upon your words of condemnation. The feelings you engender in their manly breasts would, I venture to suggest, be a facsimile, simulacrum or even genuinely-felt hatred. And the only form of action comprehensible to these folk would, I further suggest, be violence.

The violence would be a direct result of your rabble-rousing talk about the hidden meaning of Surah this or that, arguments that you know would not be comprehensible to the majority of your audience.

Incidentally, I couldn't find anywhere in Lev's posts where he accused you of "incitement to hate".

Never mind, I'll do it for him.

From onset I do wish to make clear that personally I oppose any form of discrimination but having stated so as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have covered in my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series that Aboriginals are now (since the 1967 referendum and subsequent legislation) belonging to the group of being an “inferior coloured race” who have no citizenship rights.
The States have no constitutional powers to legislate as to racism and as such any race vilification laws would be unconstitutional(ULTRA-VIRES).
.
THEY HAVE CERTAINLY NEVER TAKEN OUT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ME OVER THE YEARS FOR PUBLISHING MY BOOKS AS PERHAPS THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT THEY WOULDN’T GET ANYWHERE AGAINST ME.
. After all it is like the issue of people being forced to vote in federal elections. Well I refused (despite being a candidate) to vote in federal elections and after a 5-year legal battle on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld my cases on all constitutional and other legal grounds.
.
While the States retained the legislative powers as to religion, on the other hand the (then) Colony of Victoria legislated of a separation of Church and State with invoking its 1871 legislation to keep finances of religious bodies away from the colony (now State). The Framers of the constitution made clear that no monies could be provided to a religious body. Yet we have that (unconstitutionally) monies are provided by grants, tax deductions, etc.
.
No State legislation could possibly use its racial vilification laws to litigate against me for exposing this as what is embedded in the constitution is what I am guaranteed as a right, including the funding of religion being unconstitutional.
As I do not practice any religion I oppose my monies being used through Consolidated Revenue and/or tax deductions as de facto Appropriation Bills for religious purposes.
As for funding of religious schools it should be clear that students of religious schools have the same rights on funding for secular books, etc as should private schools have in likewise manner as a public school!
See also my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH