Cossomby, I hate a lot of things, usually because they are wrong, or I just don't like them.
Or they restrict my freedoms, freedom of choice, freedom of speech and so on.
I must explain, even though I was raised a RC, it became obvious to me as I grew older that the concept of religion was in fact a con.
So you see any comments I made about God, Jesus or Jews, were not said as a man of faith, but possibly more rhetorical.
Cossomby, you won't find me preaching the word of God, rather questioning the word of the bible.
As a realist and pragmatist, I believe in objectivity.
To believe in God or the scriptures is more an act of subjectivity.
So in answering Issy, I was answering the specific questions put to me.
I appreciate the argument of hating a group today for something that happened decades or centuries ago, as a non-starter, but if the evil blood line has carried through to today then it is not unreasonable for them to be hated.
Not for the crimes of centuries ago, but for the crimes of today.
A recent documentary on a particular gypsy family in England who had been terrorising people and stealing for decades in the same region.
Now after watching the interviews with most of this family, I came away hating them, and for good reason.
You might disagree with my attitude, because they've done nothing to me so why should I even care.
Well that is one of the phenomenon of human emotions, different people react differently to the same situations.
But each of us have that right.
No one, no govt has the right to legislate on peoples feelings or emotions, they are just another natural human sense, of which we have many

SR,

You are doing far worse than Folau ever did. For starters your anti semetic "quote" was not actually from the bible.

https://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/John8%3A44

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies"

However, this is completely irrelevant, as the judgement clearly showed that it was the context of which the quote was used.

Altrav,

You seem to really believe in some conspiracy theories.

Suggest an Aspro or two and a good lie down (Bex are no longer available).

Issy, it is always wiser to be be cautious and suspicious than it is to be gullible and naive.
I prefer to question anything that sounds anything but reasonable.
In doing so I have uncovered many flaws in society and the public in general today.
I have found that all is not what it appears on the surface.

Altrav,

"Apparently Hitler was the illegitimate son of a Rothschild, who had a penchant for young ladies so he would rape his servants or girls who catered to him domestically.
And of course one became pregnant with Hitler and the rest is a matter of record"

Care to give a reference?

The genealogy of Hitler's family has been thoroughly researched but perhaps you have an insight that the experts (and the amateurs) have missed.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The quote was from a newspaper report on the incident.

Here is another link detailing the story. It shows an image of the killer's GAB account. There you will see he wrote “Jews are the children of Satan (John 8:44) --- the lord Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooter-gab-robert-bowers-final-posts-online-comments-a8605721.html

Here is the King James version of John 8:44;

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

The chapter uses the term “the Jews” four times.

The killer's summation of the verse as “Jews are the children of Satan” may well seem to you and I a complete perversion of the scriptures and the product of a deluded, mind however as illustrated it was a view held by the foremost intellects of the faith.

Words have power and I certainly don't want to have these views, seemingly supported by biblical verses, proliferate unchallenged, unchecked, and rendered legal simply because they are argued to be scripturally based. However it seems you do.

But you are now conceding;

“However, this is completely irrelevant, as the judgement clearly showed that it was the context of which the quote was used.”

Which is a far cry from;

"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."