Getting away with it all messed up, that's the living. Words can be the blade.

All the best.

Katie0: << CJ – The author of this piece is an ex-Muslim and a regular contributor to Islam Watch. >>

That's as may be, Katie0. Nonetheless, the article's still a good one. Those of us who aren't intellectually disabled by religious faith are able to judge an argument on its merits, rather than on the existential angst of its author.

In this article, Hussain makes sense. Unfortunately, his capacity to communicate such sound ideas to Muslims is compromised by his apparent abandonment of Islam. A pity, the world needs such messages from within Islam, rather than from the outside. I understand that the 'apostate' perspective isn't exactly valued within Islam.

Which is pretty similar to any religion I can think of, actually.

Lev,
Perhaps you should try reading your own links before you post them.

What I wrote was entirely correct. The Menhennitt ruling helped to interpret the Act, but it never changed it. The ruling helps to describe under which circumstances abortion is legal. But abortion is still on the books as an illegal practice.

If this was not the case, why would Labor in Victoria currently be considering decriminalising abortion?

RObert: <unless there is some important message attached to Piss Christ then it seems to me the balance was lost…
but to deliverately seek to offend just because I can is a different thing.>

You sound so rational and reasonable, I find myself agreeing with you, and then I wake up. You are trampling all over the freedom of expression that the UNHRC was set up to protect. Let me be the first to shake your hand when you are appointed as the UN Special Rapporteur.

Our author wrote this prior to the UNHRC resolution being adopted:

“….Imposing a wholesale ban on any kind of expression, as intended in the latest UNHRC resolution, is exactly the opposite of what freedom of expression stands for.”

Rhian: As per the original charter of the UNHRC, it should be our goal to PRESERVE the freedoms enshrined for ALL, globally, without limitation.

The privilege of religious organisations to cry foul whenever something perceived to be offensive is made public is NOT western liberal democracy. The original charter has been turned on it’s head. Even your post here could be perceived to be “highly offensive” to some sensibilities

BTW: I meant to say that I enjoyed the comment on DIScouraging bad art.

CJ: Good gosh. We agree (I did say "enlightened").

Vanilla: I had to click through the link, my curiousity got the better of me. The artwork is beautiful. Graphically stunning. Fortunately, I’m not as hung up on the iconography as my Catholic brethren. And in any case, I believe in the risen Christ.

But back to RObert, I am interested to find out if this artist has a particular ideology to push. I can’t even work out if this artwork is an installation (with a constant supply of fresh urine, which let’s face it, looks like a glass of VB with that lovely golden hue) or a painting. The artist has won the right to express his mind, context is everything (I’d love an explanation – anyone?) Dare I say this might just be a flash in the pan.

Vanilla.. .. I saw that..I saw that ! :)

just a minor point of order though.. my 'diatribes' are against Islam, generally not mozzies.

If it were not so easy to find a basis for murder in the doctrines and practices of Islam and its prophet, there would not be any Mohammad Buyeri's killing Theo Van Goghs. I don't know if you have ever examined the similarity .. between Mohammads ordering the murder of a Jewish poet Ka'b bin Al Ashraf but seriously, you would benefit greatly from at least becoming aware of this in terms of how you percieve many of my posts.

Please take 5min to survey this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf

Muslims are very defensive of this murder, and use it as an example to justify murdering political opponents. The Muslims emphasise "He was plotting against Mohammad", but they neglect the 'mocking poetry' aspect, though they often do add "But he also mocked Muslim women" as if 'that' is justification to murder him.
They also neglect the gravity of Mohammads brutal and merciless execution of the Qaraysh nobility after the Battle of Badr which was the trigger for Ka'b's ill feeling toward Mohammad.

TOPIC. An important social pointer which demonstrates how we must defend free speech at all costs, is seen in the fact that most 'former Muslims' who speak criticially about their former faith, have to do so under assumed names and protected identities.

Such is not the case with former Christians. Bart Ehrman being a prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This bloke has 'been there done that' re evangelical Christianity, former pastor, Moody Bible institute (they don't come much more 'Bible Believing' than Moody) Now.. he campaigns widely against evangelical faith.
No death threats.. no phyical attacks.. still uses real name.. is not in hiding. We are 'going after him' though :) our method -DEBATE.
(Dr James White is scheduled to 'murder' him in debate later this year)
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1286

It is still a point of wonder, Boaz, that you cannot see any connection between the violence you describe, and the daily evidence of the impact of religious conflicts of every kind, around the world.

>>Mohammad Buyeri's killing Theo Van Goghs... Mohammads ordering the murder of a Jewish poet Ka'b bin Al Ashraf<<

I realise that you don't accept that Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been fighting each other for centuries, nor do you accept that the Crusades had any religious foundation, or even overtones.

I suspect that you place the blame for carnage that followed the partition of India on the British, rather than on any religious leanings on the part of the population.

You probably consider the friction between Sunni and Shia to be political in nature, and nothing at all to do with their interpretation of their religion.

But to those who consider religion itself to be the problem, there is no significant difference between an Catholic execution of a Protestant, and the examples you provide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2859501.ece

"It took almost half an hour for Paul to die. Every major bone in his body was broken. During the execution, he cried for mercy."

Religion does strange things to people. It allows them to suspend their humanity, allegedly in the name of their God, and perform unspeakable acts in that name.

It doesn't matter how many times you bluster "it's not what Jesus wanted", the fact remains that his religion, as well as others, is used as an excuse for murder somewhere in the world, every single day of the year.

By their actions let them be judged.