Relda,

Thanks for your interesting post. I will reflect on your remarks and reply soon.

Pericles,

"100% of Australians today are practicing (sic.) atheists. We must go the church when summonsed." - Peter the Believer

This anomaly in thinking is called "flood of thought" and, this form of sentence is referred to as a "distractible" sentence. See how the subject wanders? Peter might have only limited control over this linguistic patterning.

We should be aware of his condition and accepting of him, even, when not agreeing with his views. Especially, me, as I cannot type and have dyslexia.

George,

I feel Dawkins is sometimes stretched in his understanding of several disciplines, he readilt cites. Dawkins' case might have been better put, were "The God Delusion" written as an anthology, using topic experts.

Among popular books, The Goldolocks Enigma by Paul Davies' (now working in the US),I feel presents some thoughtful discussion on god, intelligent design and existence.

Peter the Believer:

* For the government to force us into atheism, they would have to enact a law banning us from believing in any deity whatsoever. Can you please point me in the direction of the Act of Parliament that contains this ban?

* Furthermore, for the government to force us into atheism, they would have to enact a law preventing us from leaving Australia to follow our beliefs. I think the latest legislation you have mentioned was passed in 1986. I have left the country three times since then. What measures did they put in place to ensure that I did not secretly engage in religious practices? As I went to a papal audience on all three occasions, what consequence can I expect?

* Finally, in order to enforce this legislation, they would have to use some sort of thought police. What procedures do these thought police use, and what blocking tactics can I use so that I can hide my belief in God from them? You are obviously doing a good job of this.

And Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family:

* Have you considered private health cover? Or, failing that, have you considered paying for your root canal yourself? I don't see why I should pay for it with my taxes, especially when my taxes should not (as you have pointed out) pay for churches, private schools or events that are not necessarily all-inclusive. Speaking of such events, I take it you are against public funding for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. I mean, I get nothing out of that.

Some may find this post puerile, but it has to be said. The arguments presented by both are unclear and, while they are clearly well thought-out, are wide open for rebuttal. I suspect an argument is what the posters want here.

I am sorry my thought processes pass over some peoples heads. When it really matters, when earth shattering events occur, we are now deprived of the rock of Christianity to turn to for justice. In 1970, the atheists really made their push in New South Wales, and abolished the common law, which was Christianity. They legislated for a new testament to be written by a committee of nine lawyers, mostly Judges, as the secular book of common prayer. Every other Court in Australia has done the same, completely destroying Commonwealth integrity.

The rock of Christianity was the jury. When way back in Isaiah, 9 verse 6, government was to be placed upon Jesus shoulders. The Jews read this prophesy to mean Jesus was to be King. Jesus Christ did not want to be a King, and when Almighty God handed all judgment over to him, in John 5 verses 22 and 23, Jesus Christ demurred, declared the only un-forgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost or Spirit. ( Luke 12 verses 10-12). The Clever English were the only ones to figure this out, and in 1297, so their King and Judges were nor sinners, they found in Matthew 18 verses 15-20, the template for a way to have justice without sin; the Magna Carta

I may be dumb or dyslectic, but the principles of Matthew 18 verses 15-20 appeal to me. The first idea is that you talk to your adversary, and try to reason with him. The second is that you take two witnesses so that you have concrete evidence he is not seeing things your way. The third is that you take him to church; the body of Christ, the government. This option was adopted by the British, and caused them to survive as monarchies and republics collapsed around them.

The body of Christ is the Trinity, Father/Priest/Justice, Jury ( two or three gathered together in my name) and justice came from the verdict of a jury sworn on a Bible. Abolish juries and you have atheism, the one unforgivable sin; No jury; no justice

Dear Peter,

Please note, I didn't claim you have dyslexia. I said I have dyslexia. However, I do think your sentence structure, with regard to its structure, represents a "flood of thoughts," including jumping subjects, which makes it hard for readers to follow.

The two cognitive anomalies are in no way related. The former represents an aberration in serialising coherent thought; whereas, the latter, represents incoherent (to others) patterning of thought.

Neither one has antthing to do with being "dumb", as you state.

The above said and now returning to topic:

Given Jesus was born under Herod the Great, the common dating of his birth is out about seven years. Assuming Jesus was a priestly descendent of the House of David, under the Herods, it is likely, Jesus would have been appointed to preach to the Gentiles.

Moreover,, Jesus would have been well positioned to, (a) claim dynastic title and (b) leverage his position amongst the Gentiles, to develop a counter sect, thus, making in-roads into the Roman population.

If so, he would have been opposed to mainstream Jewish Law, which saw Gentiles, as second class. And, by establishing a new monotheistic sect, Jesus would have been highly unpopular with the Roman society, wherein, institutions and the pagani were more tolerant of polytheism.

Jesus had a great plan, but at the wrong time. It took Constantine,to steal Jesus' ambitions, to set Christianity on its way. Albeit, Constantine's top-approach proved more power than Jesus' bottom-up approach.

Dear Blair

You ask me: "Are some of these photos examples of inciting people to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs?" And you attach
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/01/21/pics-from-the-disgusting-hamas-rally-in-melbourne-last-

Your site had 4 photos. Assuming you ask in good faith, I'll chance my arm with a personal opinion on each - BUT the law is complaints based, and until a complaint is made (and if unresolved through mediation) then tested legally, it's not my opinion that counts.

A particular problem in relating insults or worse about Israel and Jews is that it would always be difficult to say whether the statement is about international politics, culture, race or religion.

Picture 1: Probably not. It's a political comment presumably about historical events in WW2. It's not even clear to me which side is being attacked. I could read that at least two ways neither involving incitement.

Picture 2: Certainly not. There is no connection to incitement to hatred of any particular religion.

Picture 3: Doubtful. Poor taste but open to a wide range of interpretations (given the variety of meaning attaching to Jewishness).

Picture 4: As with 3. I find it extremely distasteful and personally confronting; but it seems like a strong comment on current events. I'm not sure I could sustain a case in this instance that this is incitement to hatred based on religion.

I'd be interested to know your opinion and that of others. I personally think it's good that we debate what we think is and is not incitement to violence and hatred on religious (or other) grounds. I can't assume that other reasonable people like you will agree on every example.

Regards

Spikey

Hi Spikey
I've just looked at the pictures and I'd agree with your assessment. Is context relevant? If it is, I'd say that expressing views by means of a public demonstration implies peaceful protest rather than a call to violent action.

Peter The Believer, I'm afraid I just don't follow the connection you make between the law, government etc and atheism. In fact, organised religion is given all sorts of privileges under our laws that are denied to the atheist, agnostic or unaligned spiritual members of society. Your right to swear an oath on the Bible has not been removed, nor is it diminished by my right to make an affirmation.