Spikey,
Thanks for your response to my question. It seems you know a lot about the issue. So much that I’d guess that you’re either a lawyer or an ALP spokesperson.

I would agree with you that absolute free speech needs to be tempered by law. And you’ve said enough to convince me that in drafting these vilification laws, the ALP was just being trendy rather than employing a cynical vote catcher. Yet I still question the law’s implementation and effectiveness.

The one case regarding these laws that I followed rather closely involved Daniel Scott, who was convicted of vilifying Muslims, essentially for quoting from the Koran. As opposed to what another lawyer said above in this thread, the law deemed that speaking truth (in that Scott accurately quoted from the Koran) was not allowed as a defense.

The conviction was wrong in that the decision was overturned on appeal. In this it could be argued that it was not the law that was at fault, only the judgement. After many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees suffered by both sides (lawyers being the big winner here), the appeal judge ordered the parties to further conciliation. So laws that were intended to promote tolerance within the community only created the opposite, inspiring rivalry and tension.

Perhaps we’ll put this down this down to teething problems for a wonderful new law. Yet I understand (perhaps you could help me here) that no one has yet been convicted under these laws. One reason for this, I still contend, is the subjectivity attached to the consideration in the laws for what is ‘reasonable and in good faith’. After all, how long is a piece of string?

That this law creates confusion rather than tolerance or understanding is on display above, where many have wasted their breath arguing over whether as statement such as “Christianity is a lie” is legally vilifying, a non-discussion before these laws were enacted.

Vigorous discussion is great. These vilification laws are only helpful to lawyers’ pockets. We were doing fine without them.

I don’t hear from anyone here any indication whatsoever that you have any idea what our legal system is. I will quote the late Lionel Murphy, High Court Justice, and noted atheist. Our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency. Murphy was a great justice, and at his premature death at 62, specifically instructed his family not to harbor resentment towards those who had persecuted him. That was very Christian of him.

Every Atheist has a world view inconsistent with the Holy Bible, inconsistent with the Australian Constitution divisive and destructive. Atheists have destroyed the Commonwealth. Having no respect for the will of God defiles every court. We have little gods, answerable to no one, without any understanding of the Rules that replaced the Law of Abraham, and Moses. If lawyers are sinners, many churchmen and priests are too. The New Testament is the New Covenant. Forget the old law of retribution.

The law god, which atheists worship, is not consistent. It is essentially tribal. Christianity abolished tribalism. The twelve divisive tribes of Israel, were held together by the Abrahamic code. Christianity abolished that law, and extended a super law, not only to Jews, but also to Gentiles, us. It is only two laws, the first is have only one God. The triune God of Christianity.

As an example to us God himself submits to the will of the Holy Spirit. Even He is not above the law. Jesus Christ was made judge, he gave that power to the Holy Spirit. When the power of the Holy Spirit came, as promised, Jesus Christ promise in Matthew 18 verse 20 is kept. To access the power of Almighty God a Christian must request a jury of at least three. With twelve God knows, with only one Judge/sinner, God cannot know if the defendant is doing unto others what he would like done to him. That is the second law. It underpins all contracts, all promises, all trusts, and no atheist in a scarlet clowns suit, or black satanic robes, should ever be a Judge of that

bushbasher,
Sorry, not “attributing” but “assigning negative attributes”.

>> who on earth redefines "atheism" in such a manner if they really care about being understood?<<
Very much to the point. I myself have been wondering about some articles and many posts here along the same lines: who on earth redefines “belief in God” (or faith, Christianity, etc. - not the same things) in such a manner if they really care about being understood?

We could carry on and on discussing various reasons why Sellick should not have referred to atheists in what he wanted to say about various Christian concepts of God.

Instead, let me finish this exchange with an old joke:

A reporter is being led on an excursion through a lunatic asylum by its director. After having seen various patients they come to a locked door. The director explains: “This is the most dangerous patient - imagine, he thinks he is Napoleon when everybody knows that I am Napoleon.“

The case of a doctor infected by those he wants to cure. Aren‘t there also some Christians who while wanting to “cure” disrespectful and disdainful atheists become themselves infected with disrespect and disdain for their fellow humans? And aren‘t there also some atheists who while wanting to “cure” self-righteous, irrational Christians become themselves infected with self-righteousness and emotionally driven irrationality? In both cases according to the pattern “he thinks his is the only proper way of seeing reality when everybody should know that my way is the only proper one“.

You might like to reflect a little on this, Peter the Believer.

>>I will quote the late Lionel Murphy, High Court Justice, and noted atheist. Our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency. Murphy was a great justice, and at his premature death at 62, specifically instructed his family not to harbor resentment towards those who had persecuted him. That was very Christian of him.<<

I may have misunderstood, so help me out here.

Murphy was an atheist.

Murphy performs a "very Christian" act.

Murphy's contention - that you appear to admire - was that "our legal system is based upon the premise that you cannot have inconsistency"

Now, to me that would indicate that there can be no inconsistency between Murphy's atheism, and the performance of what you would describe as a "very Christian" act. Which in turn leads me to conclude that such an act cannot, by definition, be solely attributed to Christianity, as you would have us believe.

A conclusion with which I would heartily agree. Christians do not have any form of monopoly on responsible behaviour, honesty, integrity, or consideration for others.

Except that you continue:

>>Every Atheist has a world view inconsistent with the Holy Bible<<

But surely, you have specifically and directly contradicted this in the previous paragraph?

You just demonstrated that at least one atheist has a "world view" that coincides with your instruction manual.

Or are you perhaps, rather perniciously, suggesting that Murphy had some form of deathbed conversion, in order to perform his "very Christian" act?

I'm afraid that you fall into the classic trap, that of arrogantly assuming that only your mob has the answers, and that - by definition - anyone who doesn't wear your team's badge must automatically be evil.

The news this morning reminded me why I am so comfortable in my atheism: the Catholic church has excommunicated the church of Saint Mary's in Brisbane, because it didn't abide by the 'rules', although it had a large and loving congregation, yet I have never heard of a paedophile priest being excommunicated and the Catholic and other churches do their best to protect these criminals and deny their victims justice.

"From Galileo onwards the (Christian) church has consistently fought against the findings by scientists and have only modified their positions when they became patently ridiculous." - Shadow Minister

And, before Galileo too. Since at least the fourth century CE, the Christian Church has tried act as a Rationer of Knowledge> Wherein, probably knowingly, promoting false propositions under the strongest contrary evidence. Thus, The Vatican waited until 1992, before recognising that the Sun was the centre of the Solar System (Most other people believed in the celestial mechanics which allowed the Moon Landing in 1969. No Crystal Spheres were broken!):

The reason why Vatican astronomers would not look down Galileo's telescope to view the true universe was, because the Christian Church held the Geocentric Universe and accompanying Crystal Spheres (Ptolemy) supported Christian anthropomorphic claims, regarding a natural Earth and a supernatural heaven (the universe). Denying the same threatened Christian posits.

Even today, many Christians would deny the Christian Churches true political motives (unification and continuance), for focusing of fourth century dogma (Nicaea), rather than first century histographies (what is known of the time): e.g., the relationship of the House of David with the Harodians and the Gentiles and, perhaps, the Gospel of St Thomas, which sees Jesus as human, rather than divine and, The Dead Sea Scrolls providing evidence of re-writes of Genesis.

Herein, we don't have ministers and priests saying in their sermons, "Hey the Church could be wrong! You know, what I said about Genesis, well on the basis of new discoveries… ".

Atheist and Agnostic scepticisms are built on revealed history and scientific discovery and sceptics’ recognition, that Christian religions feign infallibility, while retaining knowledge unto themselves and dodging historical and scientific bullets.