I came across this quote that may lighten things up for everyone.
It's by George Carlin:

"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man?
living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute
of every day. And, the invisible man has a list of 10 specific
things He doesn't want you to do. And, if you do any of those
things,He will send you to a special place, of burning and
fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever,
and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time.

But He loves you. He loves you and He needs money."

Dig deep *your idol here* needs a new swimming pool.

Dear_Spikey

now that was by and large a post worth responding to...

You_said:

<<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.>>

The fist point is 'behavior and belief'.. You say the law does not deal with belief/motive but behavior.
I've responded this legal fallacy a number of times, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. “Murder/Manslaughter” the only criteria for differentiating the 2 crimes is...MOTIVE.. ie.. 'what the person who committed the crime 'believed' . - If they did something with malice aforethought intending to kill,..it's murder. If an accident..it's manslaughter.

Similarly, when a person is informed that saying certain things is 'offensive' (and untrue) and they repeat it deliberately.. it no longer is innocent..but wilful.

The reasonableness tests.. relate closely to what a person is seeking to prove.
The vilification act covers more than 'incitement to hatred'... there migth be incitement to hatred in the words “Christianity is a lie”.(all Preachers are liars?) But if a Geneticist says it... well that is one of the 'circumstances' which a magistrate takes into account.

The law ALSO covers the following:

-Severe Ridicule.

'Ridicule' is the easiest to prove...simply because the perpetrator in this case deliberately provoked it by the timing and nature of the words “come on Vic police..get me”=admission of guilt/confession.
(Stokesonline) and then Bugsy.. he actually dares the issue. So... as to the reasonableness tests... for ridicule they would be “would a normal_person be encouraged to regard Christians as fools on the basis of the assertion”.. well obviously, because they believe “a lie”.
The only issue to be decided here is whether it is severe in nature.

CJ.. I look forward to and long for that day also :) The Mufti of Australia will *have* to answer questions posed...under oath. He can also be cross-examined!

Christianity is a lie and you are not a lawyer, Boazy.

Oh dear David BOAZ,

The more you pontificate on the law the more evident it's not the law that is a complete ass.

"The only criteria for differentiating the 2 crimes of murder and manslaughter," you say, is "...MOTIVE.. ie.. 'what the person who committed the crime 'believed' . - If they did something with malice aforethought intending to kill,..it's murder. If an accident..it's manslaughter."

In fact murder may involve an unintentional killing, that is an accident, but with a willful disregard for life or a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. The concept of "malice aforethought" is complex. It does not necessarily mean premeditation. Malice can also be implied. Deaths that occur during certain serious crimes even if accidental are considered to be murders.

Manslaughter can involve the killing of a person either by a voluntary act or an involuntary act. A person may also be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, e.g. if it is proved that the killer was suffering from a medical condition that affected their judgment at the time.

There is also a defence in NSW - controversial as it is - of provocation which might lead a charge of murder being amended to manslaughter. Under the Victorian Crimes Act SECT 3B, the longstanding provision that provocation was a partial defence to murder has been recently revoked.

You know David, it really would serve you and OLO posters if you did some homework before showing the world you are ignorant.

"Some of the atheists in this thread have been upset because they have interpreted me as saying that to be an atheist is to be evil. That is absurd."

oh, gosh! i feel like such a fool! dear peter, how could we have so, so misunderstood you? please, on behalf of all the atheists here, let me acknowledge our unforgivable carelessness, and please accept my most humble apology.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

sellick, you're a clown.