“there is a balance to be struck between the freedom to practice a religion and not pushing those beliefs on the rest of society.”

this is evidence of an "anti-religious bias"? benson quoted this, but he doesn't seem to have the vaguest sense of what it means.

I see how our wonderful bill of rights in Victoria which allows Christians to be charged for telling the truth prohibits the outlawing of bikie gangs that gang rape, murder and steal. NO doubt the lefties who love defending criminals and terrorist are proud of their achievements.

Dear runner,

One person's religious truth is another person's blasphemy.

Freedom of religion by all means; but it is hard to credit that people are still arguing the toss about the silliness of all religions in the 21st century. The whole nonsense is man-made, and should have been dropped long ago. Prior 'religions' worshiped idols. It is even sillier to worship or believe in the non-existent.

AND there is the old question of religions not paying taxes. Is my freedom of religion (to have or have not) violated by paying taxes whilst religions I do not support pay none? Does religious privilege amount to reverse discrimination?

It constantly amuses me that those who scream loudest for the separation of Church and State if there is the slightest hint the Church may have a valid argument in a particular case are also the ones who wont to impose the state on the church. Why do we want to follow those bastions of democracy like Cuba down the gurgler of Human Rights? To me some of the ideas here are similar to today’s article on a bill of rights, it is elite trying to tell us the great unwashed what we can and cannot think. Freedom of religion means you can think what you like about God or the Gods or their non existence, you can follow your rites up to the point you do not infringe on others rights to ignore or criticise your faith/non faith. It has only been through such vigorous debate as exemplified in this forum that the differences of various religions are compared. Should such a lively debate be emasculated because a religion sees it self as beyond critical analysis? - I do not think so. Another problem is the leap of logic in equating criticism of a religion with racism. Such stupidity is an attempt to nullify any analysis of their position

foxydude wrote: It constantly amuses me that those who scream loudest for the separation of Church and State if there is the slightest hint the Church may have a valid argument in a particular case are also the ones who wont to impose the state on the church.

Dear foxydude,

Can you give me an example of a person who is for separation of church and state and wants the state to impose itself on the church?

I am for separating church and state to a greater extent than they are separated in Australia, I oppose the school chaplaincy program, subsidising religious schools and having chaplains for parliament. I think it is legitimate to have chaplains for the army, prisons or any other place where people do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of religious services of their choice.

However, I am not for officially atheist states. Separation of church and state means exactly that. The religion or lack of it of its citizens should be no business of government. I am an atheist, but I am not a communist and do not want to impose my views on others.

Most of you don’t really understand Government do you! Government is when a Church, any church gets itself political power, and imposes its will upon a hapless minority. We have currently in Australia nine Governments. These nine Governments are all secular churches in which two major factions and some minor ones calling themselves political parties fight for control.

The Constitution uses the word government; little g uncapitalised in S 51. The Australian Government is nothing except a secular church. Two organized religions compete for the control of it. The Labor religion and the Liberal religion, and both have colluded in the merger of Church and State. The separation of powers was taught by Jesus Christ about 2000 years ago, and adopted by the English in 1297.

He said My Father has vested all judgment in me so that you may honor both my Father and myself. ( John 5 verse 22 and 23,) He then goes on to teach the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, the Trinity. The Trinity is the separation of Church and State, and its abolition in Australian law is a heresy that needs immediate attention.

The Trinity means that good government is vested in the courts. Capital G governments throughout Australia have established capital C Courts, so that the capital G Government can be a compulsory church, with total control. Juries are good government.

Political parties had limited power until Abe Saffron and other racketeers started to fund political parties, and in 1970, persuaded the Parliament of New South Wales to enact laws making lawyers the Government. While we have no way of enforcing any Statute law in a court, since that right was abolished in 1970 in New South Wales, the gangs rule.

The courts of Ch III Constitution have been abolished without a referendum, and the stooges of organized crime, vested by Government with all political power, now infest the Courts of Australia. You must attend the compulsory State Church when summonsed, on pain of imprisonment. Christians must realize juries are a Christian right. Christianity is the truth that sets us all free

You have to be suspicious of people who claim they want to enhance our freedom of religion when we are already totally free to follow our convictions on the matter.

Perhaps those at the AHRC have nothing better to do and need to justify their existence. We saw what the sages in Victoria’s Labor did while attempting to fix what wasn’t broken. Their religious vilification laws were unworkable and only succeeded in making themselves look silly.

Also, I would like to respond to those who complain about the tax free status of churches. All businesses, enterprises, individuals, and community minded endeavours make their contribution to society in various ways. The government then apportions the paying of tax proportionate to what they deem fair and appropriate.

Many in our society don’t pay tax. For example, I think of sporting clubs. Cricket umpires in local competitions are given exemption on the money they receive for each match. For it is considered by authorities that they are usually old men gaining a little pocket money while at the same time making a healthy and worthwhile contribution to their community.

All cases need to be looked at in their proper context.

And as for those who say they don’t like the pushing of beliefs on others, why do they bother clicking on a web site like this? That’s all anyone ever does here.

>> Their religious vilification laws were unworkable and only succeeded in making themselves look silly.

i agree. it doesn't change the fact that benson's article is silly and selective.

>> . We saw what the sages in Victoria’s Labor did

yeah, this is a Labor thing. god, i miss howard's sense of humanity.

>> Many in our society don’t pay tax

true. now how might I get a piece of this? perhaps i could start the
Bushbasher Benevolent Fund? nah, that won't work. but how about
the Bushbasher God Group? a much better chance!

of course there are criteria that the BGG would need to meet. do these criteria
have anything to do with "contribution to society"?

>> And as for those who say they don’t like the pushing of beliefs on others ...

on the one hand we have people arguing the position that beliefs should *not* be pushed.

on the other hand, we have people calling for the imposition (or maintenance) of intrusive laws, not by reason but on the basis of what's written in some old book.

yep, not a jot of difference.

Bushbasher,
Your response leans towards the satirical but doesn’t get past frivolous.

If you want to start a new religion or benevolent fund, then go ahead. No one’s stopping you. In one episode of The Simpsons, Homer started his own religion. It wasn’t a total failure.

If you dislike churches avoiding tax, perhaps you could be thankful that our weekly donations to churches don’t attract a tax deduction like they do in some other Western countries.

And those particular laws in Victoria were passed by a Labor state government, were they not? Why should the credit go elsewhere?

yeah, dan. whatever.

Whosoever...