Legislating Religious Correctness

Legislating Religious Correctness

Nov 6, 2005

ON SEPTEMBER 6 AND 7, Pastor Daniel Scot, who last year was found to be in breach of Victoria, Australia's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, met with human-rights lawyers and policymakers in Washington, D.C. In these meetings, Scot described his experience defending himself in Victoria's courts against the charge of inciting hatred against Muslims. Many of the people and groups with whom Scot met hope his visit will serve as a springboard for a campaign against the religious vilification laws that have been increasingly considered, and adopted, in Western countries.

From the Koran:

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. {That violates the new laws of Australia

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet '''the Unbelievers''' in fight, [jihad] smite at their necks. [Behead them!] That incites people to carry out murder

In all fairness - Place the New Testament - the Christians' Holy Book upon the same table - and present one Scripture where humans are aloud to hurt each other. Just one.

The Koran offers writing after writing that violate all humanitarian laws.

The New Testament offers none.

The WHOLE world has both books opened unto all.....for ALL to see.

What should be the punishment of the judge who is unfairly condemning Daniel Scot for telling the Truth? truth that is on a level that a child can understand?

Scot, a diminutive 55-year-old bearded Pakistani with speckles of white in his black hair, was forced to flee Pakistan for Australia in 1987. As a devout Christian who says that he's filled with evangelistic zeal, Scot had never shied away from debating Muslims on theological matters. Unfortunately for him, in 1986 Pakistan adopted a vague and open-ended blasphemy law, section 295-C, which prohibited any speech that directly or indirectly defiled the Prophet Muhammad. Punishments included the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Much is to be said for Daniel Scott. He is being chased and persecuted for speaking the Truth - a commandment for ALL Christians} Eph 4:25 warning society of the dangers of the teachings of Islam - and so far - the leaders who have been given a voice - the numerous 'Christian' leaders - both religious and political - along with 'human rights' groups have not caused any uproar in his defense.

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

The teachings of Islam:

Mass Murder}.........................009.005 033.061

Mass Rape}............................033.050 033.052

Beheadings}...........................047.004

Cutting off hands and feet}....005.033

Crucifixions}...........................005.033

Those teachings are sickening. There is no other way to put it.

Who are the judges that are willing to defend them?

Know this:

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, {because God ALREADY ordained only a certain amount of time to each and every human - leaving the whole body of Islam without any wisdom for explaining away commanded murderous acts like beheadings] but after this the judgment of God - not men

Rev 21:8 The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. {There was a death that reigned already} Rom 5:14

Jam 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

The teachings of the Koran are BRUTAL! on a level that any child can understand - leaving all judges and leaders who refuse to confront them without excuse.

According to Scot, he came under official pressure to convert to Islam near the end of his time in Pakistan, and was charged with blasphemy when he refused. When he fled to the safety of Australia, he didn't imagine that he'd again face legal penalties because of his faith.

Upon his arrival down under, Scot noticed many Australians converting to Islam. This prompted him to begin lecturing about the faith. "I wanted to help these people learn what's in the Koran so they could make an informed decision rather than an ill-informed decision," Scot explained in an interview. But just as Pakistan imposed penalties on improper religious speech in 1986, Victoria did so too, on January 1, 2002, when its Racial and Religious Tolerance Act went into effect.

Then why are these aloud?????????

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. They are unbelievers according to the Koran....

009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

These are commanded of the Muslims against '''the unbelievers''' ......

Mass Murder}.........................009.005 033.061

Mass Rape}............................033.050 033.052

Beheadings}...........................047.004

Cutting off hands and feet}....005.033

Crucifixions}...........................005.033

Theft of lands}........................008.067 {Treason

Why is Australia "Tolerating" such teachings?

The Act prohibits conduct "that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of" a class of people based on their religious beliefs. Its force was brought to bear against Scot and another pastor, Danny Nalliah, after three Australian converts to Islam covertly attended a seminar they held in March 2002, took notes, and then filed a legal complaint.

Although many controversial ideas were put forward in the seminar (Scot contended that the Koran makes offensive jihad obligatory and that Islam places women in an inferior position), the presenters made clear that they weren't attacking Muslims as people. A transcript reveals that Scot admonished the audience to remember that "we are not here learning how to fight with Muslims, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help them to see the truth." Despite this, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined in December 2004 that Scot and Nalliah had violated the act. Their case is currently under appeal.

A number of U.S.-based organizations believe the time is ripe to stand against the spread of religious vilification laws in the West. The Australian states of Queensland and Tasmania have adopted laws similar to Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. A religious vilification law is in force in Sweden, and such legislation is being considered in Britain. Further, it isn't uncommon in Europe for people to be taken to court for criticizing Islam. In France, actress Bridgette Bardot was fined last year for lamenting the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam." Italian author Oriana Fallaci faces trial next year over charges that she defamed Islam in her book The Force of Reason.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an international law firm that defends the right of free expression for all faiths, has submitted a pair of letters to Australia's attorney general arguing that Australia will violate international law if Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is used to punish religiously-motivated speech in Scot's case. The Becket Fund's position is that the government shouldn't put itself in the role of referee over religious debate by determining which religious criticisms are "legitimate" and which are out of bounds. In an interview, Roger Severino, legal counsel for the Becket Fund, outlined why the Fund chose to oppose Victoria's religious vilification law.

First, Severino contended, the act converts secular courts into religious review boards. "If you believe in the separation of church and state, you shouldn't let the government determine what a reasonable interpretation of a faith is," he stated. This is exactly what happened in Scot's case. When Scot was accused of violating the act, the court was put in the unusual position of having to parse the Koran and hadith (neither of which it had an expert knowledge of) to determine whether Scot's interpretations of Islamic law were reasonably accurate.

009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! {So here we have the proof as to who the unbelievers are...and this is what the muslims are commanded to do to the unbelievers....

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet '''the Unbelievers''' in fight, [jihad] smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

004.104 And slacken not in following up the enemy throughout the earth} 004.100 004.101 004.094 : If ye are suffering hardships, they are suffering similar hardships.

009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.

Does it really take an 'expert' to understand those words?

Are there any IFS ANDS or BUTS about these?

009.005 fight and slay the Pagans ''''wherever'''' ye find them

005.033 THE PUNISHMENT of those who '''wage war''' against Allah and His Messenger IS: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet. {Should western nations start handing out these punishments to 'terrorists'?

Which dovetails with Severino's second criticism: The act is contrary to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. "If you believe in freedom of conscience," Severino said, "someone should be able to discuss their beliefs freely with respect to other religions." {That preaching ignores the fact that it is against the law to incite people into carrying out murder:

SEE} Men Armed 'Only With Words' Can Commit Genocide

The U.N. sentenced three men to life in prison:

"You were fully aware of the power of words, and you used the radio ? the medium of communication with the widest public reach to disseminate hatred and violence"

"Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians".

Human rights advocates praised the verdict. \ How about that?

And what about this?....

009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet '''the Unbelievers''' in fight, [jihad] smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

Are those teachings lawful? in the west?

Many observers fear that the act could have a chilling effect on religious debate, with people being forced to consider the possibility of legal liability before commenting on theological matters.

Finally, Severino argued that the Act subverts its own purposes. The act was intended to promote religious harmony, but appears to have done the opposite. {Just as the preaching of "Tolerance" and "Diversity" has done. They ignored the fact that a culture such as Islam can not be mixed in with non-muslim societies. Muslims are commanded to slaughter ALL who believe in the Son of God 009.030 {They are commanded to behead them 047.004 among other things] Scot was charged with violating the act because three Muslim converts covertly attended his seminar--essentially, as spies. "They took offense, but they went there to be offended," {They were not FORCED into being there. Islam on the other hand - FORCES itself upon all} 009.029] Severino said. Severino says that because such spying "has now taken off" in Australia, a law intended to foster religious harmony seems instead to have produced acrimony.

It is the government's responsibility to prosecute and shut down ALL who incite others into carrying out murder - and not for deciding whether a person can speak out loud or not.

Father Keith Roderick, And call no man your Father upon the earth Mat 23:9 the Washington representative of the human rights group Christian Solidarity International, has another objection to religious vilification laws. "The way the laws are being used is to protect Islam from criticism and silence those who wish to challenge it," he says. Exactly

While religious vilification laws are neutral on their face (and indeed, some Muslims have been prosecuted for religious hate speech), there is a remarkable convergence between these laws and the Islamist vision of a blasphemy-free society. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, published an op-ed in the Telegraph in December 2004 arguing in favor of Britain's proposed religious vilification law--in large part, he claimed, because European writers have a history of "taking liberties" in their discussion of Prophet Muhammad. Sacranie analogized the proposed law to the Satanic Verses affair, and then stated: "Is freedom of expression without bounds? Muslims are not alone in saying 'No' and calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."

Similarly, Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, argues on that group's website that Canadian Muslims should be protected from blasphemous speech:

In the context of the special cultural/religious needs of the Muslim community in respect of their beliefs about blasphemy, it indeed behoves [sic] a broad-minded people like Canadians to accommodate their (Muslim community's) needs . . . . Surely it will be worthwhile to rise above the pettiness and the "terminal meanness" of linguistic, regional, racial and narrowly defined cultural considerations.

One suspects that as religious vilification laws spread, the liberal proponents of these laws will end up unwittingly empowering those who believe that their religion should be above condemnation.

Here is the test:

Place BOTH the Koran AND the New Testament upon the same table. Let BOTH books speak for themselves - and then let the new Laws take affect!

The Works of Christ - The Son of God:

Mat 5:44 I [Jesus] say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. [Because God is the Judge in the end - of each individual]

1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good.

Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I [Jesus] should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them [eternally] before me.

Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels [NOT HUMANS] shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.

OR

The works of Muhammad:

009.005 fight and slay the Pagans ''''wherever'''' ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

033.061 They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy.

009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what '''the unbelievers''' of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.

002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?

009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight [jihad], smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

005.033 THE PUNISHMENT of those who '''wage war''' against Allah and His Messenger IS: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet.

019.083 Seest thou not that We have set the Evil Ones on against the unbelievers, to incite them with fury? [Seest thou not? - that it is the Muslims who are the ones being incited with fury?]

Even an atheist would have to agree - that the latter violates the new laws

Hypocrisy is anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.

Who is the judge that is not revolted by the 'religious' commands of the Koran?

Introduction