Hi there Stokesonline :)

I notice you did not repeat your clear vilification after the warning...
good.

Regarding the previous complaint I made.. and why the EOC claimed it had no substance, it's worth looking at that in regard your your own vilifying comments.

REASON.. The EOC maintained that the RRT Act exempts 'Works of Art'
from guilt. Da Gospel According to Ali G was a work of art.

I changed the focus of the complaint to the publishers and ABC shops for disseminating vilifiying material. So..while the AUTHOR may have the protection of the Act..the re-sellers may not if they continue to distribute the work AFTER they have been informed of the vilifiying nature of the material. So.. it got as far as VCAT.

There is absolutely ZERO protection for a person who repeats a vilifying comment in a public forum AFTER they have been warned about it.
There is a difference between public interest and vilification.
Criticism of a religion based on it's own texts is not vilification.
Claiming "Those texts are all lies" IS..."vilification"...

You could write and publish a 2500 word essay on "God committed Genocide" referring to the Old Testament.. and I would not say "boo" about it other than to engage with you and point out that it was an act of divine Judgement. I would possibly take issue with the Title, and suggest there are better, less offensive ways of doing it.. e.g "Divine Judgement in the Book of Joshua" where it leaves people to decide for themselves about what this means about the Almighty.

Even "God's Final Solution" would work...."What happened to the Amalekites?" "Midianites..what was their crime?"... stuff like this.. all pretty much ok.....

"Christianity is a lie"...nope..sorry.. not lawful.
"I believe Christianity is a lie"... lawful. :)

TOPIC.. Sells last post seems to be saying "God was created in the image of man".. a very good argument for the atheists.

But I prefer "I am the resurrection and the life" Jesus.

Christianity is a lie

BOAZ_David,

You are so literal and simplistically black-and-white in the way you think (sic). Motive doesn't count as such, but effect does. The law deals not with belief but with behaviour. But that's not to say that because an effect exists it amounts to vilification under the law.

There are several other conceptual tests you need to satisfy relating to matters such as reasonableness and good faith. Not all acts that you are upset by amount to vilification as the law defines it. You have to do more than say it's vilification because you 'feel' it to be.

In Fletcher v The Salvation Army Australia [2005], VCAT 1523, Justice Morris observed that the RRTA does not prohibit proselytising. See also the amendment to Section 11 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. I suggest proseltysing can go in both directions - speaking for a religion to persuade a would-be convert or speaking against it to dissuade converts.

Religious vilification complaints can be declined by the Commission for being frivolous, misconceived or vexatious. I strongly believe that if you lodged a complaint against the several people on OLO who have said "Christianity is a lie", your case would be declined on those grounds alone.

You should note in the Act and in learned commentary on it that words like inciting hatred, intimidation and violence as crucial. I sometimes wonder whether your regular diatribes against Islam don't sail pretty close to the wind; but I would never dream of lodging a complaint under the Act because (a) it would give your silly views oxygen and (b) I believe in spirited debate on matters of religion (especially when it is well-informed).

Yes, I make no mistake: you have demonstrated that your legal qualifications are minimal and that your opinions are based on a poor reading and misinterpretation of legal proceedings.

I think that Christianity, like all religions, is a big lie. From OLO I know that some of the most sanctimonious Christians are liars.

Porkypuppet: << There is absolutely ZERO protection for a person who repeats a vilifying comment in a public forum AFTER they have been warned about it. >>

I really, really hope that the person who uses the aliases 'BOAZ_David' and 'Polycarp' in this forum is one day hauled before the courts for his persistent and unrepentant vilification of Muslims, about which he's been warned inummerable times.

Such a hypocrite.

.../ Continued from previous post (those pesky 24 hour limits)

George

Many atheists believe in the sames things as many Christians - peace, love, caring for others, humility etc.

I am not sure how Sells sees God as I am one of those who has had no religious instruction and don't understand much of the non-lay terms but I am sufficiently possessed to be able to understand the ideas that Sells is putting forward despite the theological jargon.

Is God something that is within us all that connects us to each other, is God a man in a white beard in the sky who rules/punishes us from above, is God merely an idea of goodness and his/her worship a way of providing a moral framework? I don't know how most Christians might define their concept of God or what sort of entity he/she is.

The problem is as an atheist, even if the idea of God might be a good one (I don't necessarily think it is but remain open to the possibility) how can you believe in a figurehead or icon when you know it isn't real? Also the idea that religion can be at the worst extreme utilised for evil or self-interested purpose.

While not ignorant of man's flaws, I have greater faith over man's natural altruism over a man-made belief that might override a sense of reason in certain circumstances (killing done in the name of the Lord/Allah/Buddha whatever).

This may explain my initial reaction to the article. Perhaps hate and loathing were terms too strong and I perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts more diplomatically.

The article started interestingly, but lost me on the second page
with all the personal attacks on atheists.

When someone indicates that one person's belief is "dark,"
as opposed to their belief, I automatically lose
interest.

Sorry Peter Sellick, you could have done much better.

Disappointing all round. You started well, but then lost the
plot.

Back to the drawing board for you.