Grossly abusive or insulting comments? Moot.
Grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred? It’s possible some comments are. The majority of comments aren’t even about matters “held sacred”.
Thereby causing outrage to a substantial number of adherents? Yes, you have a readership of religious adherents who are positively apoplectic.
Intent to cause such outrage? Mmm, of course, publishing comments on a site highlighting the folly of a piece of legislation demonstrates a clear intent to outrage.
Intent to mock the Defamation Act. PASS!

The Act is nonsensical, but claiming it curtails the freedom of expression or silences the exchange of ideas is bizarre.

Expressing an opinion, criticism, repudiation, negative thought or feeling is entirely different from being abusive or insulting. Not even if every adherent is outraged.
Being abusive or insulting hasn’t been criminalised either. Unless your intent in expressing it is to cause outrage… to a substantial number of adherents.

So it is against the law to succeed in a mission to cause outrage amongst people who have beliefs which fall under a particular definition by being grossly abusive about what they hold sacred. Shocking violation of your rights.

The Act is unjust because does not regard all people as equal before the law.
100% support a referendum to completely secularise the Constitution.

Once you can get a person to believe absurbities;
You can get them to commit atrocities!

Bravo and thanks.

If you update your list at some time in the future, please allow me to send you a copy first of Baubles of Blasphemy by Edwin F. Kagin–published first by the Atlanta Freethought Society and more recetly by American Atheist Press.

With especially high regards,

Ed Buckner
President, American Atheists

1. If “the symbolic meaning of Genesis integrates Darwin’s theory without any problem” how do you explain the two distintly different version of creation in the book of Genesis: one by the El god (a Babylonian god) and one by the Yahweh god (a Middle Eastern desert god)? Which myth is symbolically correct, and why is the other one included in the book?

2a. Where is your evidence that people coming from an oral culture are immune, or even significantly better, at repeating spoken material correctly after many repetitions, even from the same person let alone through several others? Are you familiar with studies which have tested your hypothesis that those from oral traditions make no mistakes in passing the material from one generation to another.
2b. How do you account for the variety of copies of the various books included in the Christian Bible, which have wildly different texts?

3. It is apparent that your version of god is not “big” enough to ensure that his followers agree of the “deep meaning that stays through the different versions”. The world of Christendom is one seething mess of incompatible interpretations of these texts and of the traditions behind them. This is not helped by the fact that the bulk of the original scriptures were written in minor world languages which are no longer spoken and which is re-interpreted every time they are translated into another language. An all-knowledgable being would be well aware of the serious problems attached to this method of information dissemination. An all-wise and all-powerful one would have avoided them. If Jesus shared these characteristics he would have written his own book in all the major languages of the world or turned up in all the major and remote cultures so that every human had a fair and equal chance of getting the message – unless they were deaf, blind or intellectually impaired. He would have at least picked disciples who were literate in at least one language.

In other words, your version of god is fatally impaired.