Polly: "FRACCY.. you asked me a question and I tried to answer it with real world experiences. What in the world do you expect in this 'written' type forum?"

What I hoped for was that you would look within yourself for that is where the answers are. Not some stoush with the Marxist equivalent of a bible basher. Anecdotes were not what I was seeking, nor did I request that. You were asked to conduct some self contemplation, the effects of your behaviour on others who have no argument with you except that they are different; gay, female or muslim. How you would feel if you were any of the above and were told that you were evil whether or not you had done any wrong or were ever likely to? But evil nonetheless because the bible tells you so.

Dear Fractelle.. let me turn that question around a bit "How would you feel if... you were told you were evil" etc?

That dear Fraccy IS the whole issue.. it is the epicentre of it all.

It IS about "how I feel" when described as "evil, deluded, away from truth, Cursed by Allah, to be destroyed by Allah" all of which (If you care to look) you will find in the 30th vese of the 9th chapter of the Quran.. with Christians NAMED!

And that is why I point it out. Because "I" and every other Christian, including the 900 families who have fled Mosul in fear for their lives in the past few weeks after receiving the 'choices' from Muslims.

-Embrace Islam
-Pay the unbelief Tax
-Fight and die
-Leave the country.
All of which are found in the preceeding verse to 30..i.e.. 9:29

So..let's be absolutely clear and unambiguous... my response to being described as all those things... is to TELL IT LOUD AND CLEAR TO ALL WHO WILL LISTEN.

Where you and Pericles and CJ go wrong..is that you feel for some surreal reason that to SPEAK about how I and my faith are condemned by another....... (think about that) is somehow to spread fear and loathing of THAT faith!

Err NO..it is to warn people about how THAT faith declares MY faith to be..and me as a person to be..

It says
-"Your FAITH is rubbish" (See surah 19:91-92)
-"YOU are rubbish" (deluded/away from truth)
-"YOU should be destroyed" (happening right NOW in Mosul)

And if we take power.... we will make sure everyone knows this.
Doubt me? try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXcVkBYo5SI This my 2nd home (Malaysia).. can you imagine how I feel about this? My relatives all live under.....THAT.

Back to Pericles Error.

The core difference between us is

YOUR POSITION.

"To criticize a faith is to criticize it's followers"
"To criticize thus spreads fear, hate, loathing"

MY POSITION.
"Criticizing a Faith ..is just that."
"It is especially so when my own faith limits my 'feelings' to the ideas, not the people."

You don't 'get' this because you are outside of Christ Pericles.

This very point is the issue argued at the appeal.. (so now you know) of CTFM and ICV.
You can download (have emailed to you) a copy of an academic assessment of the appeal process and relevant arguments here.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1022397
You need to take out a free membership then select the paper and they will email it to you in PDF.
I refer you to page 16

START:
(iii) Hatred of religious belief, and hatred of the believers
One of the more significant passages of argument in the oral submissions at the Court of Appeal
concerned the relationship between criticism of a religious belief and criticism of the believers. It was
common ground that

<<the Act does not protect BELIEF, but does protect BELIEVERS.>>

This is an important factor in the legislative project because, in contrast to the laws of blasphemy, it is the hatred of persons
which is the focus of religious vilification laws.
END

The ICV said: "it was impossible to distinguish between criticism of the belief and criticism of believers" (sounds like Pericles is on their staff!)

Note THIS:

<The (ICV) submission was challenged by all three Justices of Appeal>

Then

<The court’s response suggests that the decision will almost certainly reject this submission expressly.>p.17

I agree.. I don't mind 3 supreme court Judges as my 'company' :)

I'm feeling rather cheery actually.

Another classic Boaz sidestep.

When challenged and found in error, shift the groundrules, pretend you were talking about something else entirely, and claim victory.

But first of all, the outright misrepresentation of all misrepresentations:

>>YOUR POSITION.
"To criticize a faith is to criticize it's followers"
"To criticize thus spreads fear, hate, loathing"<<

No Boaz. Criticizing a faith is fine with me, so long as you conduct it it a fair-minded and rational manner.

Unfortunately, you unfailingly link the words you quote from the scriptures you select with all Muslims.

Your position is "if you do not believe these words that I quote from your own book, you cannot by definition be a Muslim". The other side of the same coin is that every Muslim must, as far as you are concerned, by definition be on a mission to kill all unbelievers.

If you are prepared to publicly repudiate your position on this, and from now on conduct any discussions on Islam in a scholarly, non-inflammatory manner, then you and I will have no issue.

Now, back to the bit where you change the groundrules.

I have absolutely no problems with the Supreme Court's assessment of Justice Higgins ruling. But this has nothing to do with the point that I made, and that you took me to task about.

Let's revisit it, hopefully for the last time, as we are boring Fractelle again.

Me: "For the zillionth time Boaz, I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text. You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me."

You: "BINGO :) *You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.* Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :) It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)"

I agreed with you that [random excerpts from an ancient text] represented evidence to Justice Higgins, but gently pointed out that he was overruled by the Supreme Court.

Dear Pale.. my turn :) I replied with a 'thanx' to your email..and I suggest that your inablity to find it is evidence of a tech error at ur end, or.. maybe ur looking for specific support for your cause. I tend to avoid moving too far in that direction as I have my own very time consuming causes. But I wish you well in yours.

Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 7:07:51 AM

Polycarp

You told me you didnt get our invitation or email-

Now you say you sent a reply and it must be our (inablity to find it is evidence of a tech error)

Which one is it?

Sure we are looking for support for Gods Creatures from Christians.

I dont always disagree with you btw when you raise some arguments about migrants etc.
I have had plenty of words with some of our Muslim mates- just like I have you and others.

Still I cant help but notice they at least have made an effort to speak out about cruelrty to Animals as Religious leaders which is more than our Church leaders have.

Anyway do you mind if I ask you-
What is your work?

Tell us what is it you are trying to achieve because tbo we see it as raising fear of Muslims in Australia.
Warning us they are here to take over.

Am I correct? Is that or isnt that your "work"

If not pls spell it out.

'What really is your work David'?

Polly

I courteously asked you a clear and straightforward question, and you, like a spoilt child, asked the same question back at me.

BTW I have been told I am evil on this very forum for the apparent 'crime' of being female and atheist.

You do not treat the players with the same respect you demand for yourself, then you whinge that "they're picking on me, mummy".

Not very christian of you, but very characteristic of a controlling, manipulative personality who must always win.

You left the "terrible twos" decades ago. Time to grow up.