Hi Stele,

You put your finger on a very fraught aspect of the freedom of opinion in relation to religious organisations:

"The day that a Falou Mk11 steps up and starts posting about Jews being the spawn of the Devil ...."

My understanding, perhaps very inaccurate, is that some religious doctrines do proclaim exactly that. So what if your Folau Mk II takes his advice from his imams and cites, completely accurately, from his preferred book ?

Despicable as such an assertion is, and provided it does not influence anybody towards violence or humiliation (now, there's a big 'if'), I would reluctantly support that person's right to his opinion. I think it's instructive to let people shine a light on the dark and stinking corners of their minds.

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“Clearly you weren't reading the judgement.”

What?

This is what you claimed of the judgement;

"What the UK appeal case shows clearly is that someone quoting the bible on social media is neither hate speech or vilification and that doing so is not grounds for taking punitive action."

Whereas what the judgement says is;

“The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”

Please tell me you understand the difference between “does not necessarily” and “shows clearly”.

You had 'clearly' read the judgement but then formed a view of what it said which in no way aligned to its finding.

As I said it will only be when some of the more vile hate speech contained within the Bible is given air through social media that this will be really tested. Although the fact that Folau inserted the word homosexual into the Galatians list should also be examined in this case.

Dear Loudmouth,

A Falou MK11 would not have to step away from the Christian faith to quote anti-semitic verses, the same verses which have had such a profound impact on the intellectual gaints of the faith as I posted earlier.

St. Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”

Martin Luther: “Know, 0 adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew who truly seeks to be a Jew... a Jew, a Jewish heart, are hard as wood, as stone, as iron, as the Devil himself. In short, they are children of the Devil, condemned to the flames of hell.”

These are all scripturally based.

But whether it came from Christianity or Islam the question still arises, are we prepared to acknowledge parts of our religious scriptures are of their time and quoting the more obnoxious sections may well be hate speech?

SR, semantics?
Really?
And you did not form a view?
The only view that is patently obvious is that both sentences are in defense of Folau, implying he is NOT guilty of hate speech.
After all is that not the crux of this whole debacle

SR, tell me, if you are a religious person, and your book of faith (bible?)teaches you these things, do you reject that faith or ignore it's teachings, if you regard such words as 'hate speech'.
I suggest that one needs to take the meaning of these words and put them into the language of the times they were written.
The Islamic faith, and probably even the Jews have not had serious 'rewrites' such as the bible has over the centuries.
So maybe it's all in the translation.
Otherwise, as I have always said there are certain Jews who will put their own mother to death, the Rothschilds are the most obvious.
If one looks at the words of Martin Luther, my point is made.
Any Christian is justified in hating the Jews because they basically had Christ killed because he dared to criticise and attempt to stop them from making money, which leads to power.
The things these 'elite' Jews worship, money and power.
Who do you think was behind the gassing of the Jews, through Hitler of course?
They have no God, I'm not sure if they are still waiting for some kind of messiah, I'm not a Jew nor am I even interested, but maybe someone who knows more about it could enlighten us to the Jewish God, I didn't think they had one.
So SR, I would say that their are people today that are out of touch with reality and are too immature to be taken seriously.
I'll say it again, if I want to call someone a 'whatever', I will do so because that is what 'I' feel 'I' should say to best convey the message 'I' am attempting to convey.
'I' don't care what the other person thinks nor what any third party thinks, such as the govt sticking it's nose into my private affairs, or what I say.

Altrav,

"Any Christian is justified in hating the Jews because they basically had Christ killed because he dared to criticise and attempt to stop them from making money, which leads to power"

Is that so?

Then would the Irish be justified in hating the English because they were responsible for killing Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais?

Or the Ethiopians for hating the Italians because of the murderous invasion of their country?