Network Highlights: 
  |
Comment - Pastors' toil and trouble
By Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 07:29amAND so the witchhunt in Salem, Victoria, is over. At least for now.
But it is not enough to shrug at the persecution of Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot and say justice was at least done in the end.
It's true, the Appeal Court last week overturned the convictions of these two Assemblies of God pastors for breaking the Bracks Government's vilification laws at a seminar on Islam in 2002.
But the hunting down of these men by zealots, convinced we're seething with racists, has cost them plenty.
"It's been 4 1/2 years of carrying such a weight", says Nalliah, president of the Melbourne-based Catch the Fire Ministries.
"It's been terrible. There have been calls threatening my life, threatening my children's lives . . . I felt panic. I've been stretched to the limit."
And to the financial limit, too. Despite winning their appeal, the pastors must still pay half the costs of their challenge -- around $150,000 -- and probably also a share of the costs of the original hearing in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that first found them guilty.
Some victory. Some justice. These exhausted pastors have been harassed, threatened, denounced as bigots and flayed in the papers and on the ABC, and are now deep in debt.
And why? Because they quoted the Koran to their congregation. Because in that congregation were Muslim activists, sent by a discrimination commissar hired from a Muslim lobby group.
How preposterous, how sinister, has been this saga.
In fact, right from the passing of the Government's vilification laws, we've seen politicians and bureaucrats acting like hysterics on a hunt for witches the rest of us cannot see.
Let me describe, step by mad step, how the two pastors came to be so crucified.
THE LAW
The Bracks Government was just new when it decided to please its pet activists by giving us laws to punish -- even jail -- people who said nasty things about others on the grounds of their race and religion.
Just why we needed laws even tougher than the ones we had already was a mystery. Victorians are famously easygoing, and there was not a single sign of racists here getting out of hand.
In March 2001, for instance, just months before the Government passed its laws, the then chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission said: "I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that suggests that discrimination is increasing." Even the discussion paper the Government put out then admitted "documenting (racism's) extent is difficult".
But the laws' backers were so manic they were seeing racists in even our kindergartens, who might need to be treated like criminals.
I'm not exaggerating. The Uniting Church, in a booklet it published to "demonstrate why criminal sanctions are necessary", gave as an example some five-year-olds who had teased a poor Chinese boy at kindergarten by calling him "ching-chong".
Jail the tots!
WITCH-HUNTERS FUME
Pity our discrimination police. In 2001, they finally got these juicy laws to jail racists, but small problem: Victorians still refused to be rude.
Indeed, we were so nice to each other that a year later the EOC conceded just five people in the entire state had complained of any religious vilification at all in the previous 12 months. Five.
The EOC couldn't accept the obvious - that we are decent - and claimed instead that people must have been too scared to complain.
And, by heavens, it would fix that. Over the next year the EOC taught nearly 10,000 Victorians, particularly Muslims and Arabs, about the new vilification laws - and how to complain.
What's more, it hired May Helou, head of the Islamic Council of Victoria's women's support group.
Her job, the EOC said, was to ensure "Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws" and give "support to people wishing to make a complaint".
The hounds had been set loose. Around the state were now people primed to take offence, and blast back.
GOTCHA!
In March 2002, Helou told Muslim converts at the ICV headquarters of a seminar on jihad to be run by Catch the Fire and asked them to go.
Said one later, she didn't want the meeting to be held "without any Muslims present". So when Nalliah and Scot got up to speak at their seminar about jihad, they had in front of them 250 born-again Christians - and three people they did not know were Muslims.
And back at the EOC, Helou waited for the three to call with their complaint.
THE STAKES RISE
The Government was blushing. Thanks to its new laws, a lot of harmless people were being accused of vilification by crooks, cranks and cause-pushers.
There was the Salvation Army minister who'd been dragged into the EOC to answer a claim that he'd offended a pedophile witch in Ararat jail by calling witches "satanists" in his introductory course on Christianity.
There was the Christian councillor who was sued by a nice transgender witch for warning about "covens" in the City of Casey.
And there was the well-loved columnist who'd been denounced by a former One Nation candidate in a single hand-written page for having "demeened" Anglos by being too nice to Jews and Asians.
Of course, I and the other victims all had those complaints against us dismissed, but not without cost, worry, sweat and embarrassment.
But no one was more embarrassed than the Government, whose laws had let loose this freak show.
Some of the churches were complaining the laws weren't as harmless as they'd been promised. The Government made a few small changes, but badly needed a win.
THE PASTORS BURNED
The pastors were at long last tried at VCAT before Justice Michael Higgins.
Most of the case over the weeks that followed dealt with the lecture given by Scot, and some curious things soon became clear.
First, even one of the converts had to admit that Scot, who'd been born in Pakistan and got degrees there in theology and applied mathematics, actually understood the Koran far better than did the people complaining he'd misquoted it.
Second, as I wrote at the time, many of the complaints accused Scot of no more than quoting the Koran accurately. Yes, the Koran did tell men they could beat their wives. Yes, it did have verses calling on Muslims to fight infidels until they submitted.
The verdict was also odd.
The pastors were found guilty of vilifying Muslims even though the judge identified only one thing Scot had said that was factually wrong: he'd given the wrong birthrate for Muslims here. And, the judge, added, he'd failed to quote a verse that showed Allah was merciful.
Higgins said the real problem with the seminar was that it was not "balanced", and neither Scot nor Nalliah had said clearly enough that the hard-line Islam they were talking about was, in the judge's opinion, not followed by most Muslims here.
Here's another strange thing: Scot and Nalliah were convicted of stirring up hatred - of being "hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people" - even though they'd again and again told their congregation to love Muslims, however wrong their faith.
"We have to love them", Scot had insisted.
"Love should be not only in theory, in word, but should be shown in practice. You invite them for (a) cup of tea. You invite them for dinner, for lunch."
On he went: "Of course do not criticise their culture . . . We should not criticise their dress . . . Don't be afraid of (the) Koran . . . there are a lot of things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible."
What's more, there was no evidence that those listening to him were a danger to a single Muslim. The worst the judge could say of them was they'd responded "at various times in the form of laughter". Dear God - save us from the laughing Christian.
So, this is the kind of dangerous hate-preaching that had the pastors convicted under our new laws, and sentenced to apologise in expensive advertisements in the Herald Sun and Age.
And that was odd, too. Why did the pastors have to apologise to 2.5 million Victorians for comments they made to just 250? Why did the judge also ban them from repeating any of their claims from the lecture, no matter how truthful, in any state?
Mad, you say? Welcome to witch-hunting in Victoria.
PASTORS "WIN"
Be grateful that at least some Court of Appeal judges saw this much as I did.
On Thursday, a panel of three of them overturned the verdict, criticised the sentence and ordered a new hearing by VCAT with a different judge.
It's a confused ruling in that the judges disagree with each other over many things. But the longest, sanest and clearest findings are those of Justice Geoffrey Nettle.
His many objections to the way the pastors had been dealt with by VCAT makes me wonder just what was in the fevered air of Justice Higgins's court back then.
According to Nettle, the biggest mistake Higgins made was to confuse an attack on a man's faith with an attack on the man himself. As he put it: "It is essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view".
But Nettle also criticised Higgins for having brushed aside Scot's many exhortations to love Muslims, and for poring over Koranic verses to decide whether Scot's view of Islam was "balanced".
"Who is to say what is accurate or balanced about religious beliefs?", Nettle rightly asked.
But most astonishing were all the errors Nettle said Higgins had made in summing up the 19 different ways Scot had vilified Islam.
In fact, he said, Scot did not say Muslims were demons who thought it good to kill and planned to take over Australia.
And of the 19 examples Higgins had given of Scot preaching hate, Nettle found he'd misquoted Scot nine times and taken him out of context another nine.
In 15 cases, Scot had simply been quoting scripture or other sources. According to Nettle, Scot had been wrong only twice - in giving a wrong birthrate and misinterpreting a Koranic verse telling men they could take women captured in war.
And for this Scot and Nalliah have had to endure a legal torment that has lasted for more than four years, and is still not finished.
BACKFIRE
So that worked well, didn't it? See what these laws to curb religious and racial tension have actually achieved.
Christians have been pitted against Muslims, and witches against Christians. Tensions were so high during the Catch the Fire case that scuffles broke out on the courtroom steps and the pastors took along guards.
And guess what? In the five years we've had these insane laws against free speech, not a single true racist has been convicted. What a dreadful farce.
Have Your Say
Profile
Andrew Bolt
Andrew Bolt started his column in 1998, after working as a foreign correspondent. He also writes for Brisbane's Sunday Mail, and is a regular commentator on Channel 9's Today show, ABC TV's Insiders, Channel 10's Nine AM, Melbourne's 3AW, Adelaide's ABC, Perth's 6PR and Brisbane's 4BC. Andrew's book 'Still Not Sorry' was released last year.
Latest Articles
Recently Popular
| Article |  |
|---|
Categories
| Topic | Posts | Latest |
|---|
View Entries by Date
| January 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Monthly Archives
Most Recent Comments
Yilli, does this mean that islam only preys on the… John on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:33pm
A happy day today, I have been following this over the years… Dave on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:24pm
Posted by Dan_W on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 01:22pm … Sammer on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:21pm
Yilli said: > On the other hand people have insulted… Brad on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:15pm
Thank you, Andrew. You have done a very good job here. Thank… Mark on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 02:58pm
Andrew, You keep insisting how innocent the pasters are, well… Hakan on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 02:34pm
Dear Andrew, THANK YOU! Finally someone brings some… Dianne on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 01:49pm
Our Blogs
- News Blog (News.com.au)
- Your Say (News.com.au)
- Travel Tips (News.com.au)
- Blogocracy (Tim Dunlop)
- Splat! (Evan Maloney)
- Smart Investing (Robin Bowerman)
- Gotcha (Crime)
- Blog Cabin (Entertainment)
- Alpha Magazine (Sport)
- From Lisa's Lips (Perth)
- Over the Fence (Perth)
- Sports Talk (Perth)
- Your Say TV (Perth)
- Your Say (Daily Telegraph)
- Piers Akerman (Daily Telegraph)
- Joe Hildebrand (Daily Telegraph)
- Anita Quigley (Daily Telegraph)
- Sydney Confidential (Daily Telegraph)
- Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun)
- Sport (Herald Sun)
- Faithworks (Herald Sun)
- Robyn Riley (Herald Sun)
- Richard Berry (Herald Sun)
- Adelaide Scene (Adelaide Advertiser)
- Mia Handshin (Adelaide Advertiser)
- Straight Shooter (Adelaide Advertiser)
- Your Say (Adelaide Advertiser)
- Vital Interest (Courier Mail)
- Community (Courier Mail)
- Watercooler (Courier Mail)
- Music (Courier Mail)
- Literature (Courier Mail)
- Arts and Entertainment (CourierMail)
- ShowBritz (CourierMail)
- Education (Courier Mail)
- Football (Fox Sports)
- Rugby (Fox Sports)
- League (Fox Sports)
- Cricket (Fox Sports)
- Whistlestop (Fox Sports)
- Your Say (Fox Sports)
Feeds
Feed of all the Andrew Bolt articles
Related Links
Tools
Your Comments Show Oldest | Newest first Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
I used to live across the road from May Helou.
When news got out about her engineered "confrontation" she disappeared overseas for about 6 months.
What makes a person like that tick? Swapping fruit from our tree's in our back yard one minute, setting up a confrontation to screw two pastors the next?
My comments had nothing to do with being published. My post was regarding your eagerness to defend the pastors when you would not have been so hasty to do the same for Imams who incited their followers in a similar manner.
But nice bait and switch effort.
BillK - Good to see you are one of the few here who have managed to penetrate the geographical boundaries of their suburbs and went overseas to see for yourself.
Malaysia, Dubai, Cairo - I ask Australians to go there and see how you will be treated. For the most part, you will be treated exceptionally well as Andrew will testify when he visited some Muslim majority countries.
I can guarantee you will be treated far better than a foreigner or "alien' waiting in line at US immigration.
Posted by Susan of Victoria on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 11:55am
Susan, I don't follow your logic about churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. How many mosques in Rome or Botswana? The fact is 99.99% of people who live in Saudi are Muslims.
8% of Egypts population are Christians and there are churches all over the place. Same goes throughout the Arab world. By the way, Arabs only make up 10 or 12% of the worlds Muslim population.
30,000 Jews live in Iran and have synagogues and representation in parliament.
If the existence of places of worship are indicators of a societies level of religious tolerance, then those countries deserve a noble mention.
I don't see where you are going with your post sorry?
Posted by Rick on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 12:32pm
I know the family too so cool!
From what I understand, she went because word got out they were going to speak negatively about Islam.
And the pastors didn't dissapoint.
But I strongly reject the idea of suing them. I would have refuted him right there and then like I did for one meeting held at Burwood in 2000.
The pastors name was Fernando Vasquez and after he moonbatted for an hour about the evils of Islam, I refuted him to the extent he publicly apologized and retracted a lot of what he said.
Never saw or heard from him again after that. If anyone here comes across him, please send him my warm regards
Andrew, congratulations on today's review article on this whole terrible saga, and congratulations on your almost single-handed crusade against this repulsive law, and keeping the public informed all along about both the case and the underlying law when most other journalists either shrugged their shoulders or even wanted the two pastors brought down. I have newspaper clippings on file which demonstrate this mean-spirited and vengeful spirit towards them from the self-vaunted, "compassionate" Left.
In the light of the judgment by the Supreme Court one can only hope that the law will now become a dead letter. The dogged and heroic stand by the two pastors has, I understand, made Bracks and co. utterly furious, but probably has brought a result which will de facto nullify the Act. Bracks and co. are of course too proud and full of cocksure arrogance to repeal it, so it will likely join ranks with a host of other silly laws which decorate the statute book merely to placate noisy, moonbat interest groups.
Andrew,
This just highlights what we have here running this state. As said above, dob in people etc, to government departments, in a similiar fashion to Eastern Europe back in the old days of leftist dictatorships. Bureaucrats with more power, than in some cases our legitimate police force. Who, incidently cannot, or are not allowed to use force to stop feral demonstrators from damaging property, but can enforce rediculous speed camera limits, for revenue raising. We have some Judges appointed with the same idealogical tenets as the government.
To Chris M, this government is not "weird ass kooky', its just plain dangerous, with their Race Villifacation Laws and star chambers hunting down supposed racists etc, but still will not tighten laws to ensure real criminals are properly punished. In some aspects, you are guilty until you prove your innocence, in the eyes of this collective mob. Anyway, they were re-elected, I suspect, because Victoria is devoid of any real opposition. A shame really.
Sammer, Christianity is a religion that encourages everyone, follows especially, to examine, probe and question the texts.
This is the opposite of Islam and why I think Christianity is so popular.
If an Imam ridiculed the Bible, as they often do in the West - without any repercussions, Christians would ask "Does he have a point?" If he does, we ponder it, if not, we ignore him. No violence takes place. In Arab countries, questioning an Imam, even if you are right, can often get you sentenced to death.
Islam is about blind obedience and submission – don't think, follow. Christianity is about understanding the truth, question everything, for if it is true, it will stand, otherwise it is false. Christianity is very "scientific" in this sense; naturally most of our best scientists have been either Christians or Jews.
My last sentence.
"They just a bunch of rascist and prejudice idiots."
Ok, I should not have put the word rascist in there. I do appologise for that. But I still stay firm on that they are prejudice organisation. They pray on the weak and convert them.
Andrew I would like to point something. I did not have a go at there faith, or there religion. All I was doing is questioning there sermons and the methods they use to convert people. On the other hand people have insulted and abuse my faith by calling the prophet a pedophile, rapist, murderer,etc. Not once have you ask these people to apoligise. I think you need to look in the mirror. I admit I should not have put in the word rascist and I am a man enough to admit my mistake. I think you should be man too and admit your mistakes.
ABC Lateline has done a couple of stories on the original convictions - what chance anyone will ever see Lateline spend as much time reporting the acquittal?
Bolta,
Excellent article and you have highlighted what we all know but just shrug and ignore. The bureacrats control everything and manipulate our politicians.I know a few of these "crats and they really enjoy the power they hold and don't hesitate to tell you about it. Victorians are the most docile group in the country, and free speech is quickly dying.Fines are applied for everything, even if a group of kids decide to train on a football ground! These pastors have paid a terrible price and if this is what the future holds then maybe it is time to move North.
Dear Andrew,
THANK YOU!
Finally someone brings some sense into such a fiasco....Thank you Andrew for searching out the facts and details behind this.
Australia is a "she'll be right" nation. Very laid back, (which can be good), but we think things like this couldn't possibly happen here.....
Well as we have seen...it has happened...
The old adage of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" is as true today as it ever was.....
But..sadly today... the squeaky wheel tends to be the minority.
Those making the rules are acquiescing for "political correctness" sake, possibly scared of being "labelled"... or worse?
And the general public (sadly including myself) is sitting back oblivious (or shaking our heads) still thinking "it couldn't happen here"...
In Galatians, the fruits of the Spirit are listed as LOVE, joy, PEACE, PATIENCE, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and SELF CONTROL.
We LOVE someone, when we are prepared to make the truth known.
Praise God for the pastors Danny & Daniel.
Once again thank you Andrew, and bless you.
Andrew,
You keep insisting how innocent the pasters are, well then you should have no problem in publishing the full article to the speech that was given that day or even show us link please.
So you dont have a problem with a paster who calls all Muslims liars and demons, l wonder if he meant demon supporter?.
Well l do have a problem with that and l am glab that the I.C.V or who ever took them to court did and support them all the way.
With him saying all Muslims he included my Children my father my mother and so on Andrew and if you cant see a problem with that, then l think you arent living in the real world but a looney right fantasy, who wants it all for him self.
So please go on let the people decide wether they deserve a break or not by providing the full sermon on the day.
When l go to my local Mosque in Dandenong, my Imam only talks about how we can better our selves, not once have l heard him speak about how evil other religions are.
Why is the topic so important to bag the other religion unless you need them to look so bad because you have nothing good to offer.
Thank you, Andrew. You have done a very good job here. Thank goodness for people like you.
Yilli said:
> On the other hand people have insulted and abuse my faith by calling the prophet a pedophile, rapist, murderer,etc.
It's the Muslim sources themselves that "insult" your "faith" by recording what Muhammad did. His defloration of the 9-year-old Aisha constitutes both pederasty and rape. The killings of Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan and many other human beings with Muhammad's connivance show, at the very least, conspiracy to murder.
Ami I "abusing" you by stating these facts? Your quarrel, friend, is with reality.
Posted by Dan_W on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 01:22pm
"Sammer, Christianity is a religion that encourages everyone, follows especially, to examine, probe and question the texts. "
Yeah, right Dan.
Explain to me the "just accept' mentality when it comes to the Trinity? I can assure you this area does not actively encourage people to "probe and question texts'!
"In Arab countries, questioning an Imam, even if you are right, can often get you sentenced to death. "
No Dan, it won't. I've been to many Arab countries and questioned Imams, as have thousands of others and we agreed to disagree like normal people. There's no clergy in Islam or hierarchy.
Questioning is good and I feel necessary, but purposely mocking then abusing this line of argument as a defence didn't do those pastors any good.
A happy day today, I have been following this over the years and I gave up hope for Australia after I heard the initial verdict but there is still justice in this country and still hope.
Excellent article.
Yilli,
does this mean that islam only preys on the strong, and tries to convert them. Or does not try to convert?
The Christian experience of conversion can not be truly forced by man. It is when we "give in' to Jesus that we are converted. However, this now becomes a religious argument, and not a part of this blog. However, I have asked on many sites before, and will now ask you personally please, with facts, prove that islam is peaceful.
Thanks.
Andrew,
I'm really angry about this. I read 1984 again on the weekend and the similarities are uncanny.
I just contacted the EOC in Victoria and spoke with Ben Rice, the EOC Senior Legal Advisor. Needless to say, he has never worked in private practice. I wanted to know if they disputed any facts in your article, and if not, to issue a media release apologising to the pastors.
Fat chance, but I felt like a stir.
In any case, this column is certainly doing the rounds over there. Poor dears are moving desks today, and you've put them in quite a tizz.
Disturbing is perhaps not the right wiord to use, but I am too angry to try to think at the moment. Upon contacting the EOC regarding this matter, I was told that the EOC is "impartial".
The next sentence was "I wouldn't go so far as to say that lives have been destroyed".
The next sentence was "We viewed the original decision by VCAT as groundbreaking". That's right, folks. The impartial minnows up at the EOC think that this was GROUNDBREAKING.
Interestingly, they stated that a number of people have been convicted under this legislation. I'm about to look at the case files on http://www.austlii.edu.au and will report back!
Cheers
Jessica
it is depressingly telling that none of the commenters here have responded to Bolta's article by defending either the religious vilification laws in principle or their practical outworkings in the conduct of the EOC and ICV and the procedure at VCAT. All are a shameful, indefensible shambles.
However I have come to the view that most of the electorate don't care - the laws are a powerplay by one group of ideological minorities (leftist bureaucrats, race industry sinecure-holders, liberal ecclesiastics and advocates of islam) against another (conservative christians and others of strongly conservative political conviction).
If not for Bolta, how many people would know of the clandestine role of the EOC in manufacturing this whole event (sending in spies to the seminar...) 3LO (as I still call them) have hardly bothered to cover the case.
Hakan of Dandenong for Pete's sake the Court of Appeal just found that Justice Higgins of VCAT was in error when he accused Scott of claiming that all Muslims were demons - Scott was actually talking about the importance of demons and angels in Islamic religious thought. Try to become properly informed before you weigh in old boy.
Andrew - how about persuading the Herald Sun to back you in a suite against Robert Manne for vilifying Australians by falsely accusing them of stealing a generation of Aboriginal children for racist reasons?
If you win you can then concede that you shouldn't have - because the law shouldn't exst.
If you loose you can point out how selectively the law is applied - and that it shouldn't exist.
Posted by John of Sydney on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:33pm
Why does Yilli have to prove to you Islam is peaceful? Can you convince us Christianity is peaceful first considering the last few invasions have been committed by Christians whose leaders claim The Allmighty talks to them?
Posted by Brad on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:15pm
You are obviously a noob to this blog. These allegations have been addressed many times in the past. It's very odd though that you choose to beleive these Muslims sources when you feel they speak ill about Prophet Mohammad and Islam but ignore the very same sources when they don't suit your agenda.
So don't pretend you actually care what the sources say.
Hakan, very good request to Andrew - why don't we get a link posted to his entire speech and see if all he was doing was merely "quoting the Quran'?
While we are at it, please let me "just quote the Bible'...
On second thought, Merry Christmas
Hopefully that well known Christian Kevin Rudd can persuade his mate, that other well known Christian Steve Bracks, to revoke this "big brother" law. Maybe "PM in waiting" Kev can give some real support to his Christian comrades in their time of need.
Posted by John of Sydney on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 03:33pm
John,
You asked Yilli about Peace in Islam, let me try and help you with this question.
Sura 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
This is from the Quran so can you tell me where all this Muslims want to convert us, comes from, its all ear filled talk and nothing on paper propaganda to give the other side a bad name.
If Muslims where so violent, then the whole world would be a hell whole considering the population in Islam alone.
Yes the Quran talks about war but about something that already happened and not something that is going to happen.
People fall into the same trap to only read a line from the Quran such as
Sura 47:4 When you encounter the unbeliever, strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them, tie up the remaining captives.
Now to understand what this is talking about you need to read the full verse and understand it is talking about a war, the war of Badr, not just a daily affair. A battle takes two sides to occur. You cant say the Muslims were fighting and the enemies were simply standing there like good little peaceful men.
When and if you read a verse from the Quran please read the full verse and not just a paragraph as many do, so you can understand it better.
Seriously, if we were so evil, then why would we even bother with words and try to explain things like this to you and others.?
Several people on this forum have defended taking the pastors to court. It seems that you have missed the facts.
Scot did not say Muslims were demons
The appeal judge found that in the original conviction Scot had been misquoted nine times and taken him out of context another nine by the magistrate himself.
In 15 cases, Scot had simply been quoting Scripture or other sources.
In fact many times the pastors encouraged Christ to love Muslims, have open discussion with Muslims and to invite them in for meals.
So can those people who said they would also take the pastors to court, please examine the facts of then case and then post your exact reasons for making this statement.
Christians have put up with nuns, priests and even the Pope being ridiculed in the Gay and Lesbian mardi Gras. We have had people try top pass off images of the crucifix soaked in Urine as works of art. Comedians Mock Christianity on a daily basis. Maybe when you have put up with even half of what I as a Christian have had to put up with, and if you can still manage to turn the other cheek then maybe you will have the right to complain
The fact is, Islam does not have a reputation of being very tolerant of anyone who says anything against them, Even in Countries where freedom of speech is not only a way of life, it's the law.
Which religion was it whose followers rioted all over the world because of a cartoon about their prophet? Why were those followers (during the same riots) allowed to march through the streets of London chanting "Bomb England, Bomb USA"? Where were the vilification laws then?
Visit the following Website and watch the trailer and then tell me how much Islam tolerates and respects other religions.
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer.htm
"Posted by Sammer of Wantirna on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 01:03pm
Susan, I don't follow your logic about churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. How many mosques in Rome or Botswana? The fact is 99.99% of people who live in Saudi are Muslims. "
Sammer, you know there are many mosques in Rome and other European cities. A big new one is or has been recently built in Rome.Old churches have been converted into mosques.
My point is that there are many foreigners, (no Jews I am sure), who work in Saudi Arabia. Are their religious needs being catered to as indeed in many western countries there are mosques for muslim minorities? I believe you cannot even wear a crucifix in Saudi Arabia, let alone bring in a Bible.Is that correct?
Bostwana is a red herring! There are probably no mosques in Tahiti either.
Yes, I know there is at least one Jew in the Iranian parliament. And I also know that not all muslims are arabs as indeed not all arabs are muslims.
I do, however,respectfully have a serious question for you:
Why do the Sunni's and the Shi'ites hate each other so much? Why are they so intolerant of each other that they must kill each other.
Please don't mention the UK and the IRA. This isn't relevant here as in most places different denominations of Christianity have now gotten past this sectarian violence.
Yilli, your grasp of this complex issue is extremely tenuous.
You are, of course, entitled to share your views in a public forum like this because we live in a democracy and Andrew is a very patient man. We are all entitled to share our views here, regardless of our backgrounds or beliefs, and that's terrific.
However, it would benefit you if you gave greater thought to the way you express your ideas at times. If you had any genuine self-awareness about the clumsy way that you've attempted to articulate your views in this thread, you'd realise that you're embarrassing yourself.
Your initial post, which rightly prompted a stinging retort from Andrew, potentially perpetuates some reader's prejudices about those who share your religious faith. I'd have thought that was the very last thing you wanted to do.
Based on the reactionary comments you made about the two pastors, I would guess that you know very little (if anything) about Catch The Fire. I think all you understand is that two pastors were (wrongly) accused of saying nasty things about Muslims. I'm not sure if you understand they were innocent of these charges.
Your post sounded very much to me like a kneejerk reaction, coming from someone who believes someone from their "team" said nasty things about your "team" and you feel duty bound to defend your friends. This behaviour is appropriate and admirable in the right context, but this clearly isn't it.
This case isn't about schoolyard bullies calling people names. The way that this ridiculous law came into being and the way this travesty of a case was conducted smacks of something sinister in our state's legal system.
For your own sake, Yilli, please think more carefully about the way you communicate your views because your contributions actually weaken your position rather than enhancing it.
If this sounds a little harsh, I apologise. My intention isn't to belittle you – it's to prompt you to really think about the way your comments position your audience.
Posted by Sammer of Wantirna on Wed 20 Dec 06 at 10:46am
Interesting comment Sammer, in fact a Brunswick Imam has done just that as recently as August 2006. This site has links to the speech - http://tinyurl.com/yal5zd
He wasn't brought before the VCAT under these vile laws, Sammer.
ArchbishopCardinel Pell, while not taking up his offer of a debate, which would have been very entertaining, repliedNow Sammer, listen to the other guys rant, and tell us, do you understand Cardinel Pell's answer?
Dear Andrew,
Great Article! Thank you.
I note that the website of the Islamic Council of Victoria - who accused Catch The Fire Ministries of "villifying" Muslims, recommends a site called "Islam Online" - http://www.icv.org.au/resources.shtml
Islam Online explictly advocates the MURDER of apostates (those who leave Islam) . . .
"If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
See for yourself at tinyurl.com/rjgs6
"Many Christians around the world believe that "Allah' of the Muslims is the "God the Father' we serve. I must advise that this not correct. Allah is a common term for any god in Arabic. However, the Allah (God) we serve as Christians is not the Allah Muslims serve." - Danny Nalliah.
My God is the true God, yours is false, blah, blah, blah. What does he base this on, a voice in his head? Give this man a dictionary for christmas. This loon and his ilk are a mirror image of the Wahhabists in Saudia Arabia, but scarier because they closer and more palatable to impressionable minds in this community.
"Six years ago the Lord spoke very clearly with me about the spiritual plans afoot to divert Australia from God's full will and purpose in this hour." - Danny Nalliah.
He speaks to God as well, but so did Jim Jones of Jonestown fame. I would love to hear what this extremist thinks about Harry Potter.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5012/5012_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp
I'm more than happy to stump up a few dollars for the man if it is used to treat the voices in his head and not for his court case.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >