Posted on 12/17/2004 3:27:05 AM PST by kattracks
It is quite interesting that the secular multicultural fundamentalists are bringing back heresy law. And ironic, of course.
This is why I'll be watching President Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court with great interest. To me, the appointments will be the strongest of indications of which way this country will go in the future.
Leni
Coming soon to an apostate nation near you. REALLY near.
Dan
/c8
Yup. Merry Chris...ooops, sorry. Someone might be offended. Happy Ramadan.
.....see you in the catacombs next year?
Islam is pretty open about what it teaches, and the 4 schools of interpretation are not terribly different in any case. In fact, there are numerous Islamic websites where the complete outline of their theology is laid out like a Venn Diagram ~ a task virtually impossible with any other religion! Someone well versed in the "Book of Common Prayer" might well think citing some of the better known Islamic beliefs was simply casting ridicule on the whole thing.
Seems to me the judge set this whole thing up for a big tumble when he referred to "their God Allah", rather than just to "God". Now that doesn't mean he intended to do so, but it is instructive that he ended up thinking that way after having a parade of Moslem witnesses and complainants come before him.
I still think Australia needs to be put on the State Department's restricted travel list until they figure out whether or not they want to be a free society or one which recognizes Sharia Law, like the Islamofascist state to our North we call Canukistan.
I would vilify Islam with a burst of six that would have the moderators ban me forever.
But, keep this in mind, the following was the sentiment of Omar M. Ahmad, the Chairman of the Board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, as told at an Islamic conference held in Freemont, California, in July of 1998.
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
I am guilty.
I'm more distressed to see members of the anglosphere turning in the direction of thought and speech control. Australia, Canada, England .... they all appear to have "bosses" who tell them what they can think and say.
Render unto God the things that are God's -- TRUTH is God's.
"Much of what the judge considered offensive was simply quotations from the Koran," he added. "To argue that quoting a religious book makes one guilty of vilification would put 98 percent of religious discussions out of bounds."
If the truth hurts then outlaw truth. Brilliant.
From what I have read of this law, the facts of this case do seem to match its provisions reasonably closely. If they didn't it might not be as moronic a law as it in fact is.
In my view, the Judge was on a hiding to nothing in referring to 'the God Allah'. If he hadn't made the distinction, he'd probably be being attacked by Christians at the moment for making a legal ruling that suggested that Allah and the God Christians believe in are the same God (which some Moslems and some Christians do say is the case, but which is certainly not something that is proper for a Judge to rule on.) His distinction in my view was simply an attempt to avoid that issue. Basically he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in that situation.
As for your suggestion that Australia should be put on the US State Department's restricted travel list, that would be a great way to antagonise one of the few countries that has stood with America in recent years. Now maybe if this was an act of the Federal government I could understand wanting to do that - but this law is a product of one of the most left wing governments in the country in what is probably the most left wing state in the country. This is not an Australia wide issue - it's an issue created by a state government that would love to embarass the Federal government overseas.
Frankly, I don't think Steve Bracks is all that important even in Australian terms - and his misguided policies certainly don't seem to me to be anything for Americans to be getting their knickers in a twist about.
Advocate whatever you like - but frankly, I think some Americans are seriously overestimating how important this issue is. It's one minor court in one left wing state - and it is almost certain to be overturned when it reaches a higher court.
As I understand it, the Judge in this case hasn't even mentioned the Free Speech issue and that strongly suggests that he knows it's the real issue - and he's leaving it to the higher courts (which can set far wider precedents) to deal with.
I am curious about something. I wondering how all of these people who are defending Islam will feel when Islam is THE majority religion of their regions and the Muslims show them no respect and give them no favor. IOW, the Muslims are using them to further their cause. When they reach their goal these people will be useless to them.
Right. If I were a Smart Guy, I'd write an molten, acid essay on our Constitutional Right Not To Be Offended. You've read that one, right? It's plainly on open display -- in the Penumbra to the Constitution.
Dan
Still, as you note, free speech is the issue, as well as a little knowledge of history. This particular judge, if he and his gumbahs running Victoria state keep it up will be bowing to Mecca 5 times a day, and feasting on stew made up out of those wild camels you fellows keep.
I don't think anyone was arrested - I can't swear to that, but the case has been generally handled as a civil case rather than a criminal one (even though criminal penalties can be imposed under these laws - the Judge has pretty much ruled them out in this case).
Police are not looking for people breaking these laws. Rather what has happened is that an Islamic group has chosen to bring a case under them.
I'm sure somebody could make a case against certain Moslems under this law, but so far nobody seems to have chosen to do so.
But there's nothing 'funny' going on. It's simply a matter that somebody really has to make a complaint for this law to apply.
f**king terrorists
Like I say, I don't think it's fair to blame the Judge. He has a job to do and he's not at a level where he can really interpret laws outside the narrow statutes. In Australia we tend not to like low level judges changing what the law is - that's a function for the various Parliaments and in rarer cases where there are conflicts for the state Supreme Courts and the High Court of Australia.
But as for the actual Victorian government - while I don't think they are *all* bad, most of them are pretty clueless and driven by a fairly hard left ideology that hasn't yet worked out where the real threats are. The biggest issue in Victorian politics really seems to be whether a particular road should be a freeway or a tollway - they are not interested in any really serious issues that I can see.
Proves you can't win with these judges.
Intriguingly, that's what the Moslems use to peddle Sharia Law ~ a promise that you won't have to deal with the Trial Court judges anymore.
Guess that makes it attractive to some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.