Again I am in agreement with Grateful. Do join in the discussion at Muslim Village.

A link to the rules:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/46311-muslimvillage-forum-rules/

QUOTE:

"- We require our Members to respect Islam at all times. You may not speak ill of our Creator, Allah, the Almighty, our beloved Prophet Muhammad and all other Prophets and Messengers of Allah, Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon them, and his Companions, May Allah be pleased with all of them."

A link to some supplementary rules for kafir members:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/27829-all-new-members/

QUOTE:

"As Admin. Sam likes to say......There is no free speech on this forum. Posting is a privilege not a right."

However we have observed a more liberal attitude in the past nine months. I think the admin's realised they had chased all the kafirs away which made for a boring forum.

Grateful quoted quranexplorer.com in one of his posts. Another popular site that posters on Muslim Village regard as authoritative is sunnipath.com. Here is a link to sunnipath's statement on the Danish Cartoons.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=9528

The statement is worth studying. It counsels against outright violence but has this to say:

"6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration CRIMINALIZING any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure."

(Capitalisation added)

In other words, the EMINENT SCHOLARS who signed this statement want to see the introduction of global blasphemy laws.

This statement and those like it have been discussed a number of times on MV. You will now understand why I regard grateful's assertion that he has not given the matter much thought as the purest equine excrement.

The admins on MV exert a subtle kind of pressure. Because they are so ready to suspend or ban posters there is quite a lot of self-censorship going on among kafir posters. This is not guesswork on our part. We have spoken to some of the kafirs who post there

I oppose all antivilification legislation. Speech can lead to undesirable action, but I believe the danger of suppressing speech is greater than that of allowing it.

Although I differ greatly with Graham Young on some issues he has neither censored me nor penalised me in any way for the expression of that disagreement. That’s the way it should be if one sets up a forum for discussion, and I greatly appreciate this forum.

Free speech is not absolute, but the restrictions in this forum are minimal.

stevenlmeyer cited:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=9528

"6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration CRIMINALIZING any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure."

The above completely opposes democracy. This eliminates not only serious biblical criticism but also any questioning of the elaborate fictions of religion.

Moses, if he existed, is portrayed as almost superhuman in the Bible although subject to human failure for which he was not allowed to enter the Holy Land. The story is mostly fiction.

The statements of faith of Jews & Muslims: “Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One.” “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” To Christians Jesus is more than a prophet, he is Lord. The Christian view of a humanoid God is blasphemous to Judaism and Islam.

My view of Muhammad is that he was a charismatic, religious nut.

What penalty for the above statements?

I asked grateful, “Is it ok to be an atheist?”

It was significant that he didn’t answer. It apparently is not ok. I do not think it ok to missionise people who don’t want it. I doubt that AGIR agrees.

At this time there are two law suits in Australia based on Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. One would eliminate the National School Chaplaincy Program and the other would eliminate funding for non-public schools. I support them both.

david f

What about the biggest scam of them all - tax breaks for religious organisations?

grateful
Truth by definintion means a wrong or a right answer. It cannot be used in my opinion with regard to religion. Someone's truth is another's lie in matters of faith.

This is much the same as trying to argue religion with Christians. There is no argument one can offer to faith based beliefs we can only plead for rationality and that those who choose to believe in the supernatural don't impose their will or force others to do likewise. If someone needs their religion or a higher power to set the standards of their behaviour well and good, but not everyone requires that framework or the fear of punishment after death to behave well.

david f said
"I oppose all antivilification legislation. Speech can lead to undesirable action, but I believe the danger of suppressing speech is greater than that of allowing it."

I am leaning towards this myself david, thinking much of the harassment in racial villification can be dealt with under the current laws in relation to abuse and harassment.

Will need to do a bit more thinking on this one. It would be counterproductive if villification legislation had the effect of scaring people who might criticise or make a complaint against a person of a minority ethnic group if there was fear of villification accusations. eg. as in the neighbourhood dispute examples outlined in discussions with Banjo.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

The following section contains all the references to religion in the Australian Constitution.

Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

To the best of my knowledge exemption from taxation is decided by administrative decision rather than by legislation. Neither administrative decision nor legislation can counter the Constitution.

All you have to do eliminate religious tax exemption is to elect a government willing to make that decision.

If you can make Phillip Adams prime minister rather than Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd he might do it, although even Adams might hesitate. Make me prime minister. I'll do it.

Graham,

I join David f in thanking you for allowing free and open discussion on this forum. Your "light touch" moderation is much appreciated.

David f & Pelican

Like you are I am totally opposed to so-called "antivilification legislation". Mostly the threat of action under such legislation is used as a club to intimidate critics of noxious belief systems.

The mere existence of such legislation can have a profound chilling effect on open and honest debate.

David f

There is no need to take the radical step of electing YOU as Prime Minister to get rid of tax breaks for religious institutions. Elect ME and I'll do it asap.

A QUESTION FOR ALL POSTERS

There is an interesting phenomenon I've noticed on this and other threads. Whenever someone points out some nastiness in Islam someone feels it necessary to point out sone nastiness in Christianity.

So here is the question:

When someone points to nastiness in Christianity do you feel an equal need to point out nastiness is Islam?

Is it only attacks on Islam that bring out this desire to in you to some how "level the playing field"? If so, why?

Actually this represents progress of sorts. At least we've moved past the "Islam is a religion of peace" BS that dominated discussion in the wake of 9 / 11.

ANOTHER QUESTION

I've noticed certain posters just love the "I" word as in "Islamophobe".

Why do they never use the "C" word as in "Christianophobe".

Do such posters understand that in legitimating the use of nonsense words like "Islmophobe" to demonise people (like me) who find Islam loathsome they are opening the way for the demonisation of people who subject Christianity to critique, analysis, satire and scorn?

Is that what they want