Citizen you are right on the ball, imagine what it would be like if we could not speak out against the bigots on this site,

Dear AJD

thank you for underlining the very point I'm trying to make.
We were described as 'whackos' :) and I totally defend your right to express ur views in that way. Even THOUGH it 'vilifies' me :)

The problem I have with the RRT2001 is not so much its intent, but its implementation. Did you notice my explanation of the dubious at best nature of the background to the complaint ? (the conspiratorial nature) ?

Then.. the absolute hum dinger is the quote from the ICV lawyers who claimed "Truth...is not a defense"... now.. can you explain to me how speaking 'truth' is vilification ? To incite hate on the basis of falsehood is truly criminal and bad. But to demonstrate the danger of a faith on the basis of TRUTH about its fundamental nature is surely social responsibility?

You cannot in anyway point to 'vilfication' of National Socialism when their basic doctrines are exposed and their history revealed can you ? Please answer this, because it is important.

In other words, we cannot seek protection from vilification when our actions and attitudes are 'vile'.

You said you are familiar with the case. Have you read the full judgement ? do you understand the Christian mentality/mindset which does not promote hate... rather it promotes compassion, but not for 'ideas' like National Socialism or others who would remove our freedom.

The RRT2001 does not allow 'motive' to be taken into consideration, which is preposterous. "Murder" and "Manslaughter" are differentiated by ONE thing "Motive". "Did he MEAN to kill that person"..or..was it an 'accident'... This is a legal principle which cannot be ignored.

For the ONE point in the judgement which had merit, being "They did not sufficiently distinguish between 'mainstream' Muslims and fundamentalists" it would need to be shown that if 'radicals' managed to stage a coup or takeover, that the 'moderates' are unlikely to support it. However, a reasonable person would consider this most unlikely. Therefore the judgement is in error I believe.

Dear Athair

not at all mate.....

The point is that we need to be robust enough in our faith to withstand accusations of "whackos" :)

Does the use of the term not 'Hold Christians up to public ridicule" ?

Does such a term not "hold Christians up to public contempt" ?

Of course they do :) I would not say they incite hate, but the act covers the issues of 'ridicule and contempt' also.

I want YOU and AJD and all to have the freedom to even say "Christians drink blood and eat babies" which was said about us during the Roman Persecutions.

I also want the freedom to say such things as the CTF pastors were saying about Islam.

Now.. I re-iterate the point, that since the CTF seminars claiming that 'Muslims were seeking to takeover' which of course is nothing more than saying "The Socialist Alliance is promoting REVOLUTION against capitalist borgoise in Australia" ... we have had a number of people now committed to trial for the very thing they claimed.

Their error was this, they failed to make the important distinction between the radicals (who are in fact the 'true' Muslims if you examine closely the Quran and Sunna) and the 'slack cultural' Muslims.

So, when subjected to accurate scrutiny, it is still quite true to say 'Muslims' are seeking to take over Australia. Given the meaning of 'Muslim' in terms of the Quran and Sunna.
It is not true to say "All people claiming to be Muslims" are seeking to take over. But this is pure semantics and does not change the fundamental truth of their claim.

Just to clarify my understanding of a few things so to try to ensure we are speaking the same language.

1. "difference between questioning the tenents of a religion and vilifying people who practice it.”
Example: going back to the dark ages will suit your mates David

2. “bigots”
Example: which one should I pick?

3. “vilification”
Example: “”all of the christian, muslim and jewish wackos” , “idiots”
Support (aiding and abetting): “Citizen you are right on the ball”

Athair,

"I have been waiting for you to write about what the Pope did not say, we all know what he said about Muslins."

Apparently not. He quoted an Emperor to explain an academic point. Your hatred of Catholics seems to have you clinging to the media rumour that the Pope bagged Muslims.

Just as he would have considered it inappropriate to bag Muslims I’m sure he would consider it inappropriate to bag Catholics. The Emperor he quoted did not make disparaging remarks about Catholics.

Further, “mass murder” is a term normally used to describe a psychopath going on a thrill kill of innocent people in peace time. Why did you fail to preface any such comment with a statement that you consider leaders engaging in warfare to be mass murders to ensure no misunderstanding?

You do realize that, apart from keeping most of Europe and stopping the rapid decline in its territory, Christendom didn't do well in the Crusades? The Middle East (the cradle of Christianity) may have bounced back and forth but it ended up mainly Muslim and Muslims ultimately maintained their conquests as far as Turkey. I believe that in the first Crusade Christians had great success in taking back territory but overall, apart from having their advance into Europe halted and failing to hang on to Spain, Muslims did quite well.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to call David one eyed? Contrast your side’s bigotted approach continually vilifying Christians with David politely arguing his case.

mjpb,

"Useing someone elses name/quote to put across your opinion"!

That is what I call hiding behind/pointing the finger away from oneself a clever act, that is used time and time again by political and religious leaders,

So you now believe I am one of "them" well thats what your mindset tells you, you dont know me, or anything about me, I speak out against anyone who stirs the pot of hatred, I do not belong to any side involved with hatred, but I do belong to the group of Christians who love their brothers some who are Muslims, facts speak for themselves, the Pope dug up a racist statement from the past to fit into his speech, and because he failed to speak about the blood thirsty Popes of that time is clear evidence that it was his intention to villify Muslims, even Pell approved , threw his hat into the ring,

"Christians had great success taking back Territory"!

That statement proves how un/Christian your thinking is, Christians involved in killing their brothers, anyone who kills is evil, and certainly not, carrying out Gods work, Maybe you can explain this to me why do you see stained glass windows in Christian churches that depict Saints looking towards heaven with a blooded sword in their hand, maybe the real reason is the God being worshipped is a antichrist desguised as the true God ,
Now if you read what you write you will see you always bash Muslims, your friend Benny Hinn disguised as a Christian has said many times on National TV that Muslims are evil, it is he who is evil because he spreads evil, he too uses God as a tool /shield to hide behind,

The Pope qualified his use of the quote to ensure that there was no misunderstanding and after BBC's mischief he revisited it clearly stated that it was not his own opinion. Certainly many leaders do use quotes in that way with great success but that plainly is not what happened.

All I know about you is what you type and I respond accordingly. If you keep pouring out hatred and insult I assume you hate the group you are insulting. If you don't like stirring the hatred pot then stay true to your beliefs and look at what you are doing and supporting. If you read the speech as you claim to have done it is surprising that you missed the fact that the Pope had a dig at Western society not Islam telling them that they need to tap into the heart of Christianity and that religion is incompatible with violence. BBC used the comments to create newsworthy conflict. You and others use the comments to denigrate Christians. Pell used the comments and events to support the view that Muslims are violent. The speech simply argued for nonviolence. You are all misusing and misrepresenting a speech to suit your own agenda. You say that you are a Christian. Are you an Anglican?

You are entitled to your opinion but in mine you seem to be deliberately obtuse to the point made and overly pedantic. I consider in unChristian thinking to devote oneself to scraping for examples to vilify Christians.

On that note I can't explain the Christian saint thing. I have never seen it. Is it definitely saints not Angels? I could imagine St Michael sword in hand doing battle with Satan.

I have been rather partial to people who are usually insulted in a similar breath to Mr Hinn but I have never warmed to him. This is due to the way he presents and his multimillion dollar mansion. I have never heard his views on Muslims but I'd suggest taking the same approach to Christians is worse.