Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975
Concerning "upholding the law as written", the facts of the situation simply do not match the provisions of the law even if the lawmakers had intended it to do so.

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.

27 posted on 12/17/2004 5:31:29 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah

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.


32 posted on 12/17/2004 5:43:21 AM PST by naturalman1975 (Sure, give peace a chance - but si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson