EXAMINATOR wrote:

"There IS no moral right to get stuck into/vilify someone/religion you don't like."

Half right. There is no moral right to vilify someone.

But attack a religion? Why not?

I mean how does this work Examinator? I can dis socialism, capitalism, fascism, nazism, Marxism, any damn "ism" or ideology or belief system I like unless that belief system is labelled a religion? Then it is somehow off limits?

So I can dis Marxism but if someone starts a "Church of Marx" I have to back off?

Please explain your logic Examinator? Why do ideologies and belief systems that are labelled "religion" get immunity?

I can also disparage people who are members of the Liberal Party, the Greens, the ALP or the US Republican Party for their political beliefs; but I can't disparage people for their religious beliefs?

Why on Earth not? Why can I "get stuck" into John Howard, Kevin Rudd or George Bush but not into some bishop, imam or rabbi?

Please explain your reasoning because I do not understand it.

CJ MORGAN WROTE (in another thread)

"I've thought for quite some time now that the God described in the Christian Bible is a Righteous Tool."

Not exactly respectful of Christianity. How come it's OK for you to attack religion but when I do it it's somehow morally reprehensible?

Please explain.

You write:

"...he [meaning me] should be free to do so [attack religions] if he's willing to wear the grief that it will cause him, because of course he is likely to attract retaliation for his deliberate offence."

Adherents of a religion that I attack have the right to attack my attack. That's part of their right to free speech. If that's what you mean by "retaliation" I have no quarrel with it.

I agree Steven- religious vilification laws have no place in a supposedly free society- to put religions above criticism is pretty nutty- we might as well be honest and call it a blasphemy law.

Unless the person is inciting hatred (say endorsing, inciting or encouraging a person to commit an illegal act or offense against someone based on such criteria- or doing so in the workplace, THEN they are stepping out of line.

STEVENLMEYER WROTE: << How come it's OK for you to attack religion but when I do it it's somehow morally reprehensible? >>

Steven, please don't quote me out of context and also put words in my mouth.

I was making fun of a religious tool, and I'm quite happy to wear the consequences.

If you want to engage in some personal war against Islam, I think you should be free to do so - as long as you don't whinge about the consequences to you.

LOL CJ MORGAN

Not that hoary old chestnut!

Can't you be a little more original than to claim you were quoted "out of context"? :-D

I must correct you on one point. While I make no secret of my disdain for Islam – along with other religions – my ire is not directed against Islam per se. It is directed against those who seek to appease Islam; who make excuses for outrageous behaviour from Muslim clerics and spokespeople.

Get that?

It's not the Muslims.

It's the kafir apologists for Islam that make me angry.

I have made this plain on a number of occasions.

I think the difference between me and the kafir apologists for Islam is that I am not a racist. If you try to peddle holy codswallop to me I'll call you on it regardless of your skin colour or ethnicity.

And BTW CJ MORGAN it is you who brought up Islam on this thread. I was writing about religion generally.

FRACTELLE

I agree with everything you wrote in your last post.

KING HAZZA

Precisely my point. Once you enshrine "respect" for religion into an act of Parliament you have a de facto blasphemy law.

As Fractelle has pointed out, we already have a sort of privatised blasphemy code operating.

It is incumbent upon all who value freedom to show maximum DISRESPECT for all religion. This can be hard. As I can attest, there IS a price to pay

STEVENLMEYER, you are truly HAVING A LEND OF YOURSELF if you don't think that those of us who are familiar with your Islamophobia and disingenuously cumbersome 'BAIT AND SWITCH' tactics aren't on to you.

Unfortunately, as in this case, you occasionally make a good point that you subsequently STUFF UP when you start aserting your RIGHT TO OFFEND people. You may claim to be against all religions, but it's only ever Islam that you denigrate seriously.

Freedom of speech should include any honest and logical challenge to an idea or world view [religious or otherwise] even if it offends the holder of such a view because that is the way society improves and develops. However if the criticism is aimed at the person to demean or threaten them that could be challenged at law under a human right.

Of course that then is determining motive and intention and it would take a totally impartial judge or jury to evaluate motive or intention. This would bring the whole adjusting forgiving society to a scarry pensive holt as people wonder about criticism someone is making of their ideas and beliefs - are they aimed at me?.

I am not afraid of critics as it has helped me to rethink ideas and concepts. I have been an engineer designer and can accept ideas and improvements on my designs. However I am offended if I am told I am stupid by someone with malicious intent. But I would not take it to court. If our hurt pride is is a case to be brought before a Judge then our society has gone completly mad.

You see I follow one who was vilified and put to death for his ideas and unlawful religious actions [healig the sick and harvesting grain on the sabbath], one who could forgive his enemies and bless them as they crucified him. So to be his disciple I should do the same!