We don’t have to discredit you Tom.
You do it yourself when you dismiss opposition to your agenda as “a growing fundamentalist religious lobby, in areas such as same-sex relationships, stem-cell research and abortion”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/17/2366511.htm
Also when AHRC President Catherine Branson QC says that “we cannot always trust our Parliament to pay sufficient regard to the protection of the human rights of every one in Australia”
(Who should we trust, unelected Tom and Catherine?)
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/op_ed/20081210_preventing.html
These statements “might be construed as implying that the project has some preconceived ideas” wouldn’t you admit?
You say that “The Australian Human Rights Commission’s interest is - and always has been - in having a national discussion to see if there are any ways that groups can continue to be civil to each other or, better still, more civil: a necessary condition to maintain a civil society!”
I find your conflation of civil discourse with civil society problematic but the real question is Tom, how do intend enforcing your notion of civility?
Finally, comparing yourself to Jesus Christ because you claim to be similarly embracing a radical agenda takes the cake. (Hey, at least you didn’t compare yourself to Mohammed)
But don’t worry Tom, we don’t want to crucify you.
We just want to stop you before you do any more damage.

Every day we have a class of individuals elevated by the State Churches, to the position of Almighty God and given the power and the glory rightfully said to be His. I talk about the Judges and Magistrates of Australia, capital letter atheists and dishonest to boot. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law they refuse to accept. The Judges like playing God in their own theatres called Courts.

The automatic refusal of the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia to grant a Christian the right to jury trial may be coming to an end. The Parliament of the Commonwealth under Whitlam established an Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Liberal Government and all others since emasculated its powers for thirty four years, by convincing them that the separation of powers derived from the Constitution, was legitimately served by merging the administrative functions of the Federal Court with the judicial functions of the judges, reserved by S 79 Constitution to be exercised by a plurality, in a court without a capital C. They refused to consider reviewing administrative functions when done by a Judge. Court and Judge as words are not in the Constitution. A Justice is the word used, not Judge.

The words court and church are synonymous. The Greek word for church in Matthew 18:17 is ecclesia; a gathering of the people, and when Jesus Christ said Tell it to the church, he meant to tell it to a gathering of ordinary common people who make up a church and are compelled to exercise the judicial power. When Whitlam proposed a class of State Churches, to be called the Federal Courts, the Liberals supported the abolition of Protestant Christianity and substituted priestly rule.

What they introduced into Australia was the Roman Catholic legal system where a priest rules supreme. The State priests are the Judges and Magistrates of Australia. The Protestants have been too busy gazing at their navels to notice, but at last the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is now recognizing that administrative functions can be reviewed by them even when done by a Judge

Religious freedom?
Are you kidding?

I've been trying for over a year to get a novel "Jewel Of Medina" and cant because its a book about the marrierd life of Mohammed and his bride,Fatima, who was 9 years old.
Why the queasiness? We all know what legitimate married life entails. It happens the world over. So?

socratease

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OF SOCIETY

It is not society that is intolerant of religious groups so much that religous groups are intolerant of society. They form religious groupings or (tribes) that marry only those of their own beliefs and pretty soon they have formed a breakaway bloodline. Society is not intolerant of them until this happens. It is not their beliefs that anger society so much as their segregation of themselves into tribes who then seek political power by standing for government. The Family First Party is a prime example of this. They have gained some balance of power vote in the senate or so I read.

Can someone actually tell me why in a so called secular government a religious party like this is actually allowed to seek power. The laws surrounding those with strong religious affiliations and their right to stand for political election needs to be urgently reviewed and tightened if we are serious in wanting our system of government to separate church and state.

What does anybody really care if the bloke down the road believes in pink fairies at the bottom of the garden as long as he does not seek to form big groups who then seek to impose their will on the rest of society by seeking power. Believe any damm thing you like just do it in private at home. Once you get priests on your payroll, that is-: depending on church donations for their wages that’s when the trouble starts.
I’ve never seen one religion yet that didn’t try to control the feritility of women because that means more bums on seats and more money for the church and higher wages for the priests. A horse called self-interest in fact.

Socratease- That is a very interesting piece of information, that you cannot obtain a copy of Jewel of Medina, relating to Mohammed's marriage to a 9year old girl.

It seems that Western authorities have moved very quickly to ban any such books because the Muslims don't like to hear any such truths about Mohammed. Obviously they fear uprisings and murder in the form of Jihads if it is allowed to be freely read.

This backs up what I say in the post above that it is religions who are intolerant of the society around them. To the point where books have to be banned in the surrounding society because of the religions intolerance of information they would rather not hear. It is the religious believers seeking to censor the freedom of information of the non-believers. Religious intolerance indeed.

KMB and PtB, the moment gods stomps down into the Simpson Desert and announces that we should all be Christian, you can have all the theocracy you like.

Until then, you'll have to accept that either God doesn't care or doesn't exist, and tolerate laws that treat humans like humans.