The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Freedom of conscience, thought and religion - but perhaps not in Victoria > Comments

Freedom of conscience, thought and religion - but perhaps not in Victoria : Comments

By David Palmer, published 31/7/2009

The proposed amendments to Victoria's 'Equal Opportunity Act' will have a detrimental impact on the guarantee of religious freedom.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
palmer quotes the UN Declaration, that "freedom of religion ... should be fully respected and guaranteed", and challenges anyone to disagree. but then the question is, what does "freedom of religion" actually mean? palmer claims that one cannot distinguish between "core and non-core" activities.

in other words, palmer claims that any act he chooses to label "christian" should be protected as freedom of religion. does he really believe this? for any religion? does anybody really believe this?
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 31 July 2009 8:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the Author wants his religious views to be able to justify any action he does that the rest of us wouldn't like? Bashed any slaves to death over a couple of days latley.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:44:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real world does not permit this to happen.
Religions that segregate themselves behind gates.
Other religions won't mingle because of the way people choose to dress.
The world is a long way away from this concept.
What people believe in spills over to the streets.
Thats why not all religious people can mix.
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 31 July 2009 11:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Palmer wrote: This distinction between core and non-core simply does not exist. For Christian, Jew and Muslim, religion is a whole of life affair.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are not concerned with religion unless they are actively engaged in religious ritual. Even then an attractive rump may distract Australians of all sexes. In 22 years I met only one person to whom religion was a whole of life affair. That was a missionary whose main topics were how good Christians were and how bad Muslims were. I have traveled much in Australia and have never been in a community where religion is a whole of life affair.

He also wrote: Parents who send their children to religious schools want a religious education for their children. They expect all the staff, not just the religious education teacher, to be faith affirming people who model the tenets of their religious belief in daily school life.

Janitors, cleaners and other service people have to follow a faith? I should think that most parents want a good maths teacher regardless of faith. Religious groups should have no more right to discriminate in employment than non-religious groups. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate where one's religion has nothing to do with the job.

He also wrote: The Church has always been to the forefront of education and the provision of health and welfare services.

The welfare state has arisen precisely because provision of health and welfare services by religious groups and other non-governmental agencies were inadequate.

He also wrote: Parents who send their children to religious schools want a religious education for their children.

That is not why most parents send their children to religious schools. The parents may consider the public schools inadequate. The religious schools may have special facilities. Because private schools can be selective a parent can feel that a child is unlikely to have to put up with problem children. The parent may want to keep a child from associating with children of another faith or ethnic group. A parent may fear attachments leading to intermarriage.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 July 2009 2:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets take catholics for an example. There richous beliefs only come in to affect when it suites them. They mingle into crowds and no one would know they had such solemn beliefs.
It's a different story with other groups, even though they were born in AU. The dear old dad is still at home and he is a hardliner.
If we need these sort of people they should be imported as orphans.
It's only creating long term trouble spots in doing what we are doing now.
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the existing legislation allows for mysoginistic clubs like the melbourne club and indeed clubs exclusively for women to exist - indeed it allows for the hoteliers at pubs like the Laird O' Cock Pen and the Peel to give women the arse (figuratively speaking) from their venues - and it permits dykes to dance together without the fear of being hit on by lascivious gentlemen ( just other girls ) as has recently happened in Victoria - any move to tweak the legislation that upsets each or any of those apple carts will not see the light of day - it is much more than just about religion.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:39:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy