Religions should be paying company tax rates. Anyone who can tell me a difference between the catholic church running businesses (ranging from publishing, private schools charging lots of money to attend, hospitals and even banks) and a business running those same businesses and why the catholic church should deny the tax payers tax income from those business operations.

Sure, if they actually DID contribute all their profits into actual charity work (not just advertising their superstitious beliefs), but they don't by a long shot.

Well, the only trouble will be that (like in US politics) we'll be dividing votes that probably would have gone to Labor and letting the liberals get first past the post.

Tony Abbott is too fucking scary to contemplate: the man's not only a climate change denialist, he's a creationist, homophobe and let's not forget how he acted while in charge of health (abortion drugs needed his approval for some bizarre reason) and his stance on stem cell research was appallingly ignorant.

So I'd say that I agree with you that (like the last few elections) it's important to send a message, and I have voted in that fashion before (a labor/greens coalition might be interesting), but not so much that you let tony abbott end up in power (e.g. then we're doubly screwed: no talk of "postponing" climate action, just "it isn't our fault and mining rocks and saved us all from poverty!")

Anyhow, we've got preferential voting: use it people. Just be aware of another family first nutjob sneaking in via the quirks of it.

:) well, vs something that actually looks remotely like a bearded guy.. But I guess that's the point with the original cartoon: the southpark thing didn't look like a person.. So the rage occurs with anything named mohammed: a teddy bear named mohammed nearly gave a raging mob the scalp of a teacher (although strangely enough: naming your kids "mohammed" seems to be fine)

Anyhow, the whole thing makes me both mad, sad and worried. Our tolerant societies put up with stuff that they really shouldn't. The whole for evil to triumph = good men do nothing concept.
My recent post First useful scripture period in NSW History

Abstract art: bit of a cop out there..

Really shows how afraid people have become of angry Muslims who have stupid (stupid's not really strong enough) superstitions. Add to that they're ignorant of the past when there were drawings of Mohammed (see the wikipedia page for a bunch of historical depictions which people now want to get upset about).
We not only should not "respect" people with these sort of superstitions: we should actively fight against them lest we find ourselves permanently under the threat of continued violence.
The Qu'ran isn't the divine word of god: any text with "that which your right hand possesses" scattered through it (referring to slaves) is an instant failure to meet acceptable standards in this day and age. Praising mohammed: a dirty old man (who "married" and then raped a pre-pubescent girl) shows a very poor choice of role models.
The only complaint about depicting mohammed should be that the subject matter is too repulsive to consider picture worthy.
My recent post First useful scripture period in NSW History

Perhaps I should have clarified: the religious leaders and types like Fred Nile whining in the press at the moment. :)