|
Christian Pastors Found Guilty of Vilifying Islam
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) December 17,
2004Christians in Australia are pondering the implications
of an explosive ruling handed down Friday by a legal tribunal,
which found that two Christian pastors had vilified Islam.
Immediate reactions ranged from an evangelical commentator's view
that the decision spelled "the beginning of the end of
freedom of speech in Australia" to that of a liberal church
denomination which said it sent a welcome message to
"Christian extremist groups."
One of the pastors at the center of the dispute said he was
saddened by the outcome, but he predicted it would galvanize
Christians and other Australians who cared about free speech.
Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found to have breached
a section of the state of Victoria's controversial hate law,
which says a person must not incite "hatred against, serious
contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" another
person or group on the basis of religious belief or activity.
The complaint arose from a seminar on Islam run for Christians by
Nalliah's evangelical Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne in
2002.
Three Muslims attended on behalf of the Islamic Council of
Victoria and subsequently submitted a complaint under the state's
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which had come into effect
just two months earlier.
A lengthy legal process, weeks of public hearings before a
tribunal set up under the law and months of delays finally
reached a conclusion on Friday, when tribunal judge Michael
Higgins handed down a summary of his judgment. A full 100-page
report will be produced next week.
Higgins said the three respondentsCatch the Fire, Nalliah
and Scothad violated the section of the law covering
hatred, contempt, and revulsion.
The law provides for exemptions in cases where the offending
action was taken "reasonably and in good faith ... for any
genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose"
or in the public interest. But Higgins found that the exemptions
did not apply in the case before him.
"I find that Pastor Scot's conduct was not engaged in
reasonably and in good faith for any genuine religious purpose or
any purpose that is in the public interest."
Scot, a Pakistan-born scholar of Islam, was the main speaker at
the seminar. He and Nalliah argued throughout the case that they
had merely informed Christians attending the seminar about Islam
and its teachings, based on the religion's own texts.
The judge disagreed.
"Pastor Scot, throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim
beliefs and conduct," he said in the summary.
"It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of
Muslims' religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is
essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim
people, their god Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general
Muslim religious beliefs and practices."
Higgins referred to some of Scot's statements, including the view
that the Koran "promotes violence, killing and
looting"; that Muslims are liars; that Allah is not merciful
and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing; and that Muslims
intend to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation.
He said Scot "preached a literal translation of the Koran
and of Muslims' religious practices which was not mainstream but
was more representative of a small group in the Gulf
states."
Higgins also said he had found Scot evasive and lacking in
credibility.
Apart from the seminar, the judge also dealt with two other
issues: a newsletter article written by Nalliah and an article
posted on the Catch the Fire website shortly after 9/11. In the
newsletter article, Nalliah claimed that Muslim refugees were
being granted visas to Australia while Christians who suffer
persecution in Islamic nations were refused refugee visas. He
also referred to the high birth rate among Muslims in Australia
at a time the birth rate in general was dropping.
Higgins said Nalliah suggested that Muslims were "seeking to
take over Australia."
"Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements
are likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims."
Regarding the article posted on the website 15 days after 9/11,
Higgins said it suggested that Islam was "an inherently
violent religion." The author, whose full name was not
given, "implies that Muslims endorse the killing of people
based upon their religion," the judge said.
Under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, the tribunal is
empowered to order public apologies, the payment of compensation
or other steps. Higgins will announce penalties in late January.
"Truth is no defense"
Speaking by phone from Melbourne after the judgment was
delivered, Nalliah said the verdict had not referred at all to
the issue of freedom of speechthe grounds on which the
pastors fought their case.
"I'm saddened because we've lived under [Islamic] Shari'a
law, and I thought those were the countries where you could not
speak [freely]. And we come to Australia and make Australia our
home, and we find ... freedom of speech is completely
bound."
Sri Lanka-born Nalliah worked with the underground church in
Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, while Scot fled persecution in his
native land in 1987 after being condemned to death under
Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
"It's very evident that all we have said is the truth, but
that has not been taken into consideration," Nalliah said,
noting that lawyers for the complainant had stressed to the judge
throughout the case that "truth is no defense."
While one could vilify someone according to race, religion was
clearly subjective, the pastor said.
"Religion makes claims of truth. Each religion says 'we are
the right one.' How can you vilify?"
Nalliah also lamented that a judge "who possibly does not
know head or tail" of either Christianity or Islam was
giving a verdict in a case of this type.
A similar view came from Bill Muehlenberg, vice-president of the
Australian Family Association, who attended Friday's hearing.
"How does a secular judge with no expertise in religion make
such decisions when Islamic scholars themselves are divided on
such crucial questions of theology, interpretation and
exegesis?" he asked afterwards.
"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."
Muehlenberg called on Christians to protest, lobby and pray about
the decision, which he said "marks the beginning of the end
of freedom of speech in Australia and the official restriction of
proclaiming the Christian gospel."
"Extremists"
In sharp contrast to Muehlenberg's view, the state's Uniting
Church welcomed the verdict.
"Today's ruling will send a clear message to extremist
groups in Victoria that their activities are not welcome
here," said the church's social justice and international
mission head, Mark Zirnsak
"These groups now have been given a clear warning that they
will not have an unfettered ability to promote hatred and
hostility in the community."
Zirnsak also commended the state's Labor government for passing
the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
"In our view, the beliefs and actions of groups like Catch
the Fire Ministries do not represent the broad view of Christian
belief in this state, where respect, tolerance and acceptance are
the hallmarks of daily religious life."
The Uniting Church is a unique Australian denomination
established from an amalgamation of the Methodist, Congregational
and some Presbyterian churches.
Last July, it became the first church in Australia to openly
allow practicing homosexuals to become ministers. It has a strong
social focus and opposed the war in Iraq.
"Wake up"
Nalliah said Friday that he, Scot and their advisors would study
the tribunal's full judgment when it became available and would
then decide on a future strategy.
"It seems bad, but ... when Christ died on the cross,
everyone thought it was defeat. But time proved that he rose from
the dead and brought victory. Time will prove that this is not
the end of this case [either]."
He said he believed the whole episode was part of a broader
divine plan.
"I think this will really stir the church up, to wake up and
take a stand. And not just Christiansevery Aussie who loves
freedom and freedom of speech is going to be affected by this
decision."
©CNSNews.com. Reprinted with permission.
TSS
January
- February 2005 The Sabbath Sentinel
|