Reading through the posts I gained the impression that GI_Jane has sympathy for the idea that the holocost has been overplayed. In the opening post she said the following

"Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII." but I've not seen anything which clearly stated that she considers the whole thing a hoax.

Before I go on I want to point out that I don't hold any serious doubts about the reality of that shamefull chapter in mankinds history. I was not there to observe it but I've seen enough of the accounts of those who survived it to consider the horror beyond what I can relate to.

The emotiveness of the reaction to GI_Janes questioning of history does bother me. We know that winners write history. We know that the issue is emotive.

The kind of society I value allows people to question what everybody knows to be true. It meets ill informed conclusions with evidence but as long as it does not get repetitive enjoys the opportunity to deepen understanding.

Conventional wisdom is not always right. What everybody knows to be true is not always true and the history books are not always right.

The holocost deniers are wrong but if they are condemed for the wrong reasons we all loose.

Boazy points out that I don't have a mob tracking me down for speaking against his god. It's worth pointing out that Boazy can say some quite offensive things about non-christains without a crowd of us getting together to sort him out. No grace of god in that, just some things our society has needed to learn through some big periods of change.

R0bert

While I understand the need that some people feel to have to remain anonymous in order to say what they really think, I think that they inadvertently collaborate in curtailing their own "freedom of speech". I'm also aware that this is a controversial view, particularly in this forum.

I think that an important corollary to the notion of freedom of speech is that those who speak have to be responsible for what they say. Indeed, there is no element I can think of that is more integral to sociality, by which I mean quite simply people getting along together. Yes, there are social and legal restraints on what we can say, but it is a nonsense to suggest that any group of more than two people could live together without them.

Having said that, I'm personally opposed to all enforceable laws that restrict free expression, and I've been known to flout sociocultural coventions for the hell of it on occasions.

But I do that openly and publicly, in my own name. Yes, I have to be careful about how I express my frequently unpopular views, but I regard that as part of my responsibility to the other people with whom I'm interacting.

As I've suggested, I think that everybody should be able to say whatever they think, but that carries with it a responsibility to wear the social consequences. That may involve legal or informal retribution, but in real life I'd suggest it's actually the latter that keeps most people relatively sociable.

I simply think that we'd all be better off if people 'owned' what they say and do, rather than hiding behind anonymity or other devices to separate them from the consequences of what they say and do.

Dear CJ... of all people you should know that anonymity is important whan one is dealing with the issue of Islam. Someone had been tracking my posts for years here.. gathering any information they could, to try to determine where I lived, and as you also know, I received direct threats to my welfare "Perhaps a couple of Muslim brothers should visit you". The case was referred to the AFP and this resulted in some very important and refreshing invterviews.

Responsiblity for what one says.. is entirely fair enough in a social context where the worst that will happen is a bit of verbal rough and tumble. But such is that nature of the Muslim community, that there is always an element.. some.. who feel that, in accordance with the actions of their prophet.. murder is the best option.

Freedom of speech, must also include 'safety' in speech.
As you probably also know, I've placed myself in harms way in the past, when publically making a point, (remember 'Blame China') and I've been physically attacked by a woman who came nose to nose with me and said "I want to punch your face in"... then, she tried to get the 20,000 odd unionists in the vicinity to whack me. (they ignored her)

So, there is nothing 'cowardly' about me... in regard to saying controversial things and 'being there' to back them up.

FOXY.. If Jesus himself had arranged the murder of errr..lets say "Caiaphas" the high priest, because he 'opposed Jesus'..and insulted God, how would you feel if you were Robert or CJ or Ginx or Bugsy ..and I knew where you lived ? If you don't get this point, then I would expect you to post more 'strange' posts from you. (like that last one)

MURDER.... and religion.

IF.. Jesus used the example of another religious figure of history, His 3 yrs may have turned out rather different.

JESUS.
Luke 9:1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

OTHER.(To his companions)
-The Quraysh have boycotted you, therefore raid their caravans, kill them and take their goods (and women) as plunder.
-The town of Ta'if Mocked me, therefore go..and beseige it until they submit to Islam and Allah's messenger.
-Ka'b bin Al Ashraf. "Narrated Jabir Abdullah: "Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?"
(Foxy.. are you noting 'who' said this? would you like the reference/source?)

Now.. if some of kind folks don't see that such values are threat to Australian society I strongly recommend you attend court 3-3 at 250 William street Melbourne any time over the next week or so, and 'meet' some of the people who take the above example to heart, and who discussed murdering the Prime Minister plus as many Victorians as 500kg of Ammonium nitrate can kill in a crowd.

"Good" Muslims.. follow the example of their founder. Don't give me any twaddle about 'not all Muslims are bad'.. the most you can honestly say is 'Most Muslims do NOT follow their founder' the few who do... are terrorists in waiting. MOhammad is said to be the "Best of all mankind" and is regularly proclaimed as just that in Australian mosques and religous schools.

It is not 'wrong' to show that Mohammad arranged the murder of people for the 'crime' of opposing Allah and opposing him. What IS 'wrong' morally and in every sense, is to try to stifle free discussion about such things. Stifling information such as this, is like stifling discussion of Pablo Escobar's drug brutality, while allowing only speech about him building hospitals, churches, soccer pitches for the poor.

Dave here again in regards to freedom of speech I give you a couple of quotes I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it ; the truth hurts but it is the truth ;never get involved in gossip as gossip undermines the very principleof natural justice thanks for the time Dave

Let me state again- what I've said in a previous post ...

"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man."

Within this sentence, Jesus condemns bigotry and persecution in His name... which on this Forum happens to define the actions of certain people who ironically embrace Christianity...the teachings of Christ...as part of their strategy.

Throughout His documented life story Jesus' most incendiary comments and actions were aimed at 1) Satan. 2) The men who mixed business and religion (sound familiar?). Nary a word denouncing ... well, except in the Bible used by these Christian Fundamentalists known as the - "Fake Bible Which I Made Up to Suit My Bigotry: Large Print Edition."

As I've said in another post - The Bible contains a lot of hogwash which, in modern context, has little or no validity. The Bible tells us that anyone who comes into contact with a woman who is menstruating must do penance. The book of Leviticus, condemns homosexuality under pain of death. It also condemns the touching of pig flesh on the Sabbath...under pain of death.

That would certainly make football interesting. Whoever touches the ball dies.

Let's hear it for 'Freedom of Speech.'

Just because George W. Bush cites the dictionary definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman," doesn't make it right or justified. This from a man who thought "misunderestimated" was a word.

My previous post was described as "strange."And this from a man who
professes to be a Christian - but whose behaviour is not very
exemplary with Christ's creed of "Do unto others."