Two australian pastors convicted

I'm glad. They are going to jail because they refuse to apologize. They can have a time out to think how to act like human beings. I'm happy as a peach.

God works in mysterious ways...

 

"I'm glad. They are going to jail because they refuse to apologize."--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, they better build some big jails, because there or going to be a lot of folks going to jail if refusing to apologise is illegal!!!!!

DavidsonBap, do you realize that these pastors did not go and find a Muslim to insult. The Muslims came to there meeting for the express purpose of accusing them. If they wold have just stayed away from the meeting, they would not have gotten offended, would they?!!!!!

 

Wow .......I have not heard about this either. Bad manners is inexcusable, the first breach into the chaos of decivilisation.

 

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/hate2.html
Here's some clarification. Do you Briony-Gloriana and DavidsonBap have more information than I do that causes you to disavow these two pastors integrity?

 

[From that link]


So, they have given the "Queen's sovereignty" to the European Union.

Hmmm.........

 

pssst, hillclimber...I don't know her very well, but I think Briony-Gloriana was being witty and sarcastic

 

So, unless I am misunderstanding you, there is no accountability for what was said?

From the link that hillclimber provided:

Notice that the statement was made about "Muslims," and not "radical Muslims."

Would it be fair to assess our faith by the actions of the extreme positions of some people claiming to be Christian?

Regards,
BiR

 

I sure hope so but doubt it.

 

So, unless I am misunderstanding you, there is no accountability for what was said?

From the link that hillclimber provided:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The offending statement included the view that the Koran promotes violence and killing; that Muslims lie; and that Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""Notice that the statement was made about "Muslims," and not "radical Muslims."

Would it be fair to assess our faith by the actions of the extreme positions of some people claiming to be Christian?

Regards,
BiR ""--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, Baptist in Richmond scores a point for governmental cinsorship of religion. Get ready Baptist board folks, you are all going to jail for having opinions!

 

BIR is an opponent of the Patriot Act and also an opponent of Free Speech? Interesting development.

 

Apologies to any if my response implied I was anti the pastors. I know absolutely nothing of the case.

The pastors may have responded to an insult to our Lord....i have since read the article cited. I mean what I say abuse and rudeness is not to be tolerated by anyone. When someone takes the Lord's Name in vain it is as a slap to the face to those who would not have Him wounded.

Again I do regret the fact that we can not see each other to appreciate body language or facial expressions and therefore it is very easy to offend when due care is not applied.

 

Unfortunately, in dear old Oz feelings are pretty high at the moment along with the temperatures and whilst the pastors do on the surface of the report APPEAR to be inciting intolerance, I have found the media is very good in DISTORTING the facts. Let us not forget that this behaviour is not restricted to one group and in isolation. It is probably not politically correct to be reporting the other side at this time.

 

Abject fatuity, nothing more.

Please provide us with any comments I made about government censorship of religion. Where did I say ANYTHING about government censorship?

This too is abject fatuity, nothing more. Where did I mention ANYTHING about the Patriot Act or free speech? Where did I introduce these topics? These are points that you have introduced.

Anyone who read what I posted knows that I wrote about accountability. Perhaps both of you should actually read what I write before you click on the "add reply" button.

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

BIR, if that is not what you meant then I am willing to accept your clarification. But if you know the case, you realize the two pastors were taken before a government tribunal for words they spoke at a Christians meeting. That is government censorship. So this is what your words communicate. If that is not what you wanted to imply, than I will accept that.

 

Willing to accept my clarification?
What did I need to clarify? You failed to note that I never wrote anything that you claimed. It is abundantly clear that I never wrote or implied ANYTHING about government censorship, as I was discussing accountability.

Let me be perfectly clear on this point: I do not speak in implication, and it is irresponsible for you to assume something as implied when it was never stated. By that, I mean assuming any implied meaning/subject/thought by anyone in a somewhat anonymous forum like this.

In this particular case, you attributed the topic of government censorship to me when I wrote absolutely nothing on this subject. In other words, nothing I wrote spoke of this directly or indirectly. In my post, I was VERY CLEAR in my discussion of accountability. I noted that the comments in question (according to the link provided) were directed at all Muslims, not simply the extreme fundamentalists. That is all I said. I neither said nor implied ANYTHING about government censorship. The least you could have done was admit that I didn't do this. Oh, well....

Regards from frigid Buffalo,
BiR

 

BIR, since you started this particular discussion be responding to something I wrote, you words were taken in the context of your reply to what I wrote. Communication is an art and context matters. You can't just assume everyone knows what you are saying apart form the context in which you say it. The discussion is about what the government did. They are the one's who held him "accountable" as you say. So when I am discussing that point and your reply asks if there is no accountability if the government does not do what they did then it appears you condone what the government did. Are you at this time prepared to say that the government of Australia was terribly wrong and tyrannical and practising censorship of religion.????? I hope so!

 

BIR,

You are on record on this board as being opposed to the Patriot Act and now you seem to be opposed to free speech by your statement about "accountability" in your post. Those seem to be contradictory positions.

It is one thing for a church to hold its members accountable for their attitude or their words spoken - it is quite another for the government to assume that role.

So are you for or against free speech? And if so then how free? Please clarify your position.

 

Again, abject fatuity, nothing more. There is no issue of context as I quite simply DID NOT write anything even remotely approaching what you have offered.

Here is what you said again:

I wrote absolutely nothing about government censorship. You are seemingly having difficulty admitting this, but the fact of the matter is that I wrote absolutely nothing about government censorship. Your claim of "context" is quite foolish as I wrote absolutely nothing about government censorship. The best way to keep things in "context" is to read what I have typed. Once you have read what I have written, then you ask questions or make comments based upon what I have written. Don't make foolish assumptions and then claim "context" when you have been called on it. There is no such thing as "context" when I never wrote anything about that which you claim.

You have really made a point to show that you didn't bother to read what I wrote. If you will go back and read it again, you will notice that I asked you two questions. I didn't discuss anything and I most certainly didn't write ANYTHING about government censorship. Think about that: I asked you two questions. I really was hoping to get your opinion of what has transpired here. As a result, I asked you two questions. The least you could have done was to answer them. Oh well......

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

Ok, whatever you say.