I believe there is freedom of religion in Australia. There are a broad range of religious beliefs in Australia and the Government is committed to maintaining the Australian traditions of tolerance and respect.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other system of beliefs are free and the followers can practice their religions.
Still some religious people think that there is not freedom of religion in Australia. Why?

Hi Angela..hows things ? Hope ur well.

"Freedom of Religion" is a very broad statement, which can have many meanings.

"Communist Chinese" religious freedom means..

a) As long as the body is registered.
b) As long as the State controls, or.. that State sympathetic leaders control the body.
c) As long as the body says nothing which the government might view as 'distasteful'.

Islamic Religious Freedom.

MALAYSIA: Non Muslims are free to practice their faith EXCEPT when it comes to sharing that faith with Muslims. This is illegal.
Freedom to choose a religion is available to all except Muslims, who cannot choose a non Islamic faith.
MAURITANIA: For leaving Islam, death penalty.

DRAFT AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: contained elements which were remeniscent of the 'Charter of Omar' back in the early days of Islamic expansion. They include 'freedom' to 'practice' non muslim faiths (except idol worship I think) EXCEPT that
a) Cannot seek to convert Muslims
b) Cannot build new churches, only may repair existing ones, and cannot extend existing buildings. (= Cultural Religious genocide over time)

SAUDI ARABIA.. Freedom to be Muslim, no Christian Churches..not a single one.

AUSTRALIA.

Victoria: People are free to practice and propogate their faith.
The greatest danger for religious freedom in Victoria (and Australia) comes from 2 sources.

1/ Jewish Lobby + Muslim Lobby and the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
2/ Homosexual lobby.

In both cases, I predict there will be increasing pressure to 'forbid' Christians from using passages such as
Galatians 1:6-9 which condemns those who pollute the true Gospel.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GAL%201

and..

Romans 1:18-27 (which targets homosexual behavior and condemns it.)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=47;

The context of all those passages is crucial.
-Any condemnation of false teaching is related to Church, not to State. There is no justification for witch hunts or lynching atheists.

-Condemnation of specific behavior is 'eternity' related. No pohysical ill treatment in this life is advocated against homosexuals, but the State can legislate against such behavior democratically.

Angela, Boazy demonstrates the problem quite successfully. People who don't choose a deity based faith system (angostics/athiests/?) have their freedoms imposed upon by extremeists.

On faith group holds a disproportionate level of power in this country (disproportionate compared to the numbers in the general population who actually take that faith seriously). Perhaps a result of their unhealthy interest in imposing their faith on others and the issues that leave so many feeling a need to tell others how to live.

Freedom of religion is one of those odd things where the arguments for limits on it seem to be contradictory. I'd happily impose on Boazy my beliefe that Boazy should not have the right to impose the consequences of his beliefs on others. When he see's his freedom of religion as a right to deny others the opportunity to live in happy relationships because he and his god don't like then I think a line has been crossed. His freedom to believe should not outweigh the rights of others to manage their own lives and have the same legal protections that others have in our society.

We could also consider the access that pushers of Boazy's beliefs are given to our school system. From media reports I've seen Queensland has specifically refused agnostics similar access to conduct RE sessions in the state school system.

R0bert

Under any reasoable definition Australia has freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, as Boazy so often demonstrates, what we don't have is freedom *from* religion.

Hi BOAZ, Robert and CJ Morgan

I am very curious and interested to know about these Muslims who are waiting for permission from Prime Minister to teach Quran. I think they have some reasons regarding anti terrorism law which may not allow Muslims to recite or type Quran for others (as they say) because the anti terrorism law prohibits any comment that incites or instruct terrorism even "indirectly". But still I am not as goog as you guys to understand these things :)
Can someone explain to me why these Australian Muslims are waiting for permission of John Howard to start teaching the Quran?

http://www.sheikhharon.com/articles.html

Angela84, I did not read the whole thing but the page you refered to looked political rather than an honest concern. Our laws do prevent hate based teaching (sort of) but plenty of muslims don't see their faith that way and manage to teach their faith without fear of prosecution.

There may be grey areas in the law, we have those in most parts of the law. I'm not sure how you ever totally remove them, if everything is nailed down tightly then the schemers avoid the prohibited words or phrases and promote the same message in other words and phrases. If the law uses "reasonable person" type phrasing then it depends on what you consider reasonable.

Freedom of religion should be limited so that religious are free to practice their faiths in regard to their own lives but not allowed to practice them in a way that imposes the consequences of their faith on others.

R0bert

Robert I've read all but still I need you guys to read carefully and explain. They don't fear, they are saying that they believe in all of the Quran and they won't accept if the government makes few verses of the Quran prohibited as an exception based on anti terrorism law.
They have mentioned the number those chapters and verses and they are waiting for the answer of John Howard to know whether or not reading those verses of the Quran are legal.
hi BOAZ can you check those verses mentioned and let us know what subjects they are about? Hey BOAZ don't be offended and surprised why I am asking you to do it lol I know you are not religious :) but you are good in this to find out about the verses. If you can't don't worry about it

Angela84

Australia's biggest threat from freedom of religion is from the fundamentalist humanist who insist their wonky philosophies are based on science. Somehow they loathe the freedoms established in our nation through biblical principles and champion earth worshiping policies that include murdering the unborn. They often champion pagan religion that leads to all sorts of dysfunction in a society and label anyone who oppose them as bigots. They seem to be over represented by the homosexual lobby which is not surprising considering their philosophies which really come from paganism

"Unfortunately, as Boazy so often demonstrates, what we don't have is freedom *from* religion."

So CJ, you want the government to protect you from ideas and beliefs you don't like, and you would call this protection freedom?

Actually, freediver, my comment wasn't meant to be a very serious one. However, if you want to interpret it that way, I think that are still far too many areas of law and regulation where mostly Christian beliefs are imposed on the rest of us.

I'm thinking of stuff like stem cell research, abortion, censorship, discrimination against gays, prohibition of recreational drugs, prostitution etc etc.

Of course I support the right of people to hold whatever beliefs they like, so long as they don't impinge upon the rights of those who don't share those beliefs.

All Australians are free to follow any religion they choose, so long as its practices do not break any Australian law. Australians are also free not to follow a religion.

If any religious group fears for their religious practices - the causes of their fear needs to be examined. If they are being targeted by some racist group - such as the recent attacks on temples and mosques. Their fear is justified. These are unlawful acts and the authorities should be called in to deal with them.

If however their fear comes from what they are or aren't allowed to teach - that depends on the teaching. Although we have freedom of religion in this country - it does not entail - preaching hatred or inciting violence. That understandably is not lawful. Same as freedom of speech does not entitle you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

"I think that are still far too many areas of law and regulation where mostly Christian beliefs are imposed on the rest of us.

You mean like "thou shalt not kill" and all that bothersome high horse stuff?

"I'm thinking of stuff like stem cell research, abortion, censorship, discrimination against gays, prohibition of recreational drugs, prostitution etc etc.

You don't have to be a Christian to oppose abortion etc. It is a moral issue regardless of your religious beliefs. I know plenty of non-christians who are also strongly conservative and against individual freedoms like the ones you listed.

Just because a law is purportedly based on religious doctrine does not necessarily mean the law is unjust.

freediver, "You mean like "thou shalt not kill" and all that bothersome high horse stuff?"

Most societies end up with something like that along with some rules about other peoples property etc. For the most part (including in our western civilisations which have been predominately "christain" for some time they have been applied more strongly to our friends than enemies. We allow killing in some circumstances, historically we have invaded other countries to take their stuff/land.

No credit to christianity for that stuff, it's just what you need to keep things going.

R0bert

Unfortunately, as Boazy so often demonstrates, what we don't have is freedom *from* religion.
Christ ! I'd have never believed I'd be able to agree with CJMorgan but here it is.

So you won't credit christianity with thou shalt not kill, yet you do blame them for all the laws and proposed laws you don't like? How do you justify that? Is it only a christian thing if you don't like it?

Come on freediver, this argument's pretty stupid even for you. "thou shalt not kill" is not a law, it's more a guideline, even amongst Christians.

There are so many exceptions you cannot say it's a law eg.:
......except when being attacked
......except when ordered to do so in the military
......except when it's a punishment (a lot of Christains still believe in the death penalty in Texas, especially GW Bush)

....and so on. Most (if not all) societies believe in not killing unecessarily and it is likely a prerequisite for cooperative behaviour, so much so that people who do not recognise this idea are considered pathological (ie sociopath, psychopath), not atheistic or any other -ism of choice.

But laws against stem cell research, abortion etc. require a solid belief in the existence of a soul and divine retribution, this falls solidly into the monotheistic religious camp, and our most common and powerful to us at the moment is Christianity. I know you understand this, stop being obtuse.

Hi guys, I,ve read all your comments, all nice, but you are not talking about the topic of thread.
Sheikh Haron and some other Australian Muslims believe that two Australian laws are in conflict with each other. One: the laws which give the freedom of religion (so base on those laws Muslim are allowed to rcite or type the Quran for others) in conflict with another law, anti terrorism law, which prohibits "inciting or instructing terrorism even if it is "indirectly" ( so base on this law Muslims are not allowed to recite or type some parts of the Quran). For instance the following verses:
Chapter 2, verses: 190, 191,192,193,194,214,216,217 and 244.
Chapter 3, verses: 142, 156 and 200.
Chapter4 , verses: 71, 75, 76, 84,95 and 96.
Chapter 5, verses: 35 and 87.
Chapter 8, verses: 15, 16, 39, 45, 46, 60 and 96.
Chapter 9, verses: 12 to 16, 19, 20, 24, 29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 73, 123.
Chapter 22, verses: 39 and 78.
Chapter 48, verse 17.
Chapter 60, verse 8.
Chapter 61, verses: 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Chapter 66, verse 9.

http://www.sheikhharon.com/media.html

"But laws against stem cell research, abortion etc. require a solid belief in the existence of a soul and divine retribution

Hardly. If you won't link murder laws to thou shalt not kill, what on earth are you going to link abortion and stem cell laws to? And it doesn't require religious beliefs. Anti abortionism is based on the sanctity of human life (I dope you don't confine that to the religious) and how you define human life (which is not defined in any way in any religious book).

Actually freediver, I don't think you need to define human life at all. I'd prefer you to define "sanctity" and not make it religious.

Angela, there certainly is freedom of religion in Australia
and it would be great if there was freedom from religion too.
We are not there yet, but we are working on it :)

I havent checked all the Koranic verses that you quoted,
but clearly there would be some conflicts between our
human rights and what some of the old time religions
believed. Australians would be protected by our human
rights and laws, but that does not mean that the religious
can't believe whatever they want, in their own time and how
it affects them. They might just not be able to enforce
their religious laws on the rest of us.

Somewhere in the old testament it says that I should kill
my neighbour for working on the Sabbath. I actually quite
like my neighbour and have no intention of following that
law. Similarly, old Mohammed had moments where he suggested
to kill the infidels. Clearly that would not be acceptable
under Australian law, just as killing my neighbour is not
acceptable.

So yes, freedom of religion applies in Australia in terms
of what you believe. But that is for you, you cannot afflict
your beliefs on the rest of us

Amen to all that, Yabby, Bugsy et al.

I'm also interested in this notion of 'sanctity'. Is this the same freediver who makes a sport out of killing other species?

Seems more like sanctimony than sanctity to me.

There's a fundamental hypocrisy amongst the various comments here. You talk about the right to hold what you call 'religious beliefs' as long as they do not impinge upon the lives of others. Firstly I must dispute the definition of 'religion' as being restricted to belief in a deity, websters dictionary says, "any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system humanism as a religion"... Religion includes a system of beliefs and ethics, such as non-belief in a deity (atheism / humanism) and that there is no independant existence of the physical body and soul and the associated beliefs this entails, i.e. no absolute right or wrong, doing whatever makes you happy is OK as long as it does not effect others (which is in itself a furphy because everyhting we do affects others)...In this way, the definition of wrong or right is more a reflection of the overriding cultural and social dynamics in place at a point in time and are constantly in a state of flux...

As a christian, the religion of 'humanism', does indeed impinge upon my life, it tells me that each individual life is not worthy of protection from the moment of conception and that the right of the one bearing that life is of greater importance, it tells me that my belief in the definition of marriage and the structure of family that this entails is too narrow and that I need to be accepting of any relationship as being worthy of being called a marriage, as long as the two individuals purport to love one another and that I should teach these same principles to my children, you try to tell me that not doing so is intolerant yet you by your own definition are as equally intolerant of my position and try to force your humanism upon me and my family, through youur comments here and the media...

You espouse freedom, but only as long as the result of that freedom brings about consequences you agree with, I'm sorry but that is twisted logic..

JF, a few points. Firstly humanism is not a religion. There are
Xtians who claim to be humanists, there are agnostics, atheists,
all sorts.

Secondly, yup I believe in freedom, but its not compulsory. You are
free to follow your religious beliefs much as you please, just not free to
inflict them on me. Under our system you are even free to brainwash
your kiddies into accepting your religious beliefs, as so many
do. Luckily most of those poor kids will eventually turn 18, be able
to leave home and be exposed to other thoughts, opinions and philosophies.

As to morality, you claim there is such a thing as objective morality
and that it happens to be your interpretation of your particular
version of your particular holy book. There have been many religions,
many interpretations, many so called holy books. None has given
us subtantied evidence to prove that they are in fact in touch
with the Almighty.

Personally I believe that morality is actually grounded in biology,
but thats another story.

So I'm quite tolerant of your right to believe whatever you want,
but intolerant of any attempts to force those beliefs onto people
like me, based on laws of the land. As to your kids, AFAIK you
can teach them whatever you want, until they can escape at 18.

jERICHOFORCE, very little twisted logic. Freedom of religion like all other freedoms has boundaries around it. You have the right not to have an abortion, JW's have the right not to take blood transfusions(but should not have the right to incite children to follow that belief). You have the right not to conduct stem cell research.

Those strongly opposed to your faith don't have the right to burn down your church no matter how strongly they feel about the wrongness of the message preached there. The law limits the freedoms of those opposed to particular religions.

In regard to the issue Angela raised I suspect that the issue is not about the right to read particular verses but rather the right to present them in a manner that incites others to act on them.

As others have pointed out the bible contains verses suggesting the killing of people which I would hope the law would involve itself in if someone was preaching from those verses and inciting others to follow them. I would suggest that the same should apply to the Quran.

R0bert

"As others have pointed out the bible contains verses suggesting the killing of people which I would hope the law would involve itself in if someone was preaching from those verses and inciting others to follow them. I would suggest that the same should apply to the Quran."

These acts cannot be performed legally of course despite the text of the holy books of both religions suggest that this killing should be done. So there is freedom to believe whatever you want, but the freedom to act out these beliefs is not extended to the point where it conflcits with the law of the land. Sanity prevails to prevent the fundamentalist lunatics from acting out their fantasies.

So if you want to perform killing in the name of your favourite relgion, make sure you restrict it be carried out on Highway 61.

Now that it seems a consensus has been agreed and I wont be highjacking, I have a question to ask. It has been puzzling me for ages actually. I have seen on many threads regarding religion that the terms "humanist" and "secular humanism" are reserved for the greatest of villification and, apparently, applied to the worst enemies of society and/or religion.

Have I missed something? Is there a new branch of - oh I dunno - devil-worshippers or anarchists who have started using this term? Just as the philosophies of the Stoics and the Epicureans have given their name to somewhat twisted versions of what they stand for, has the same happened to the Humanists? Is there now another meaning which differs from the traditional?

After all, thousands of Christians in America proudly reiterate the words of the most famous Humanist of all, John Locke, each time they recite "All men are created equal..." and seem not to have any qualms about it. Why, in this forum, is the word used to denigrate? Could someone "please explain"?

Dear Romany,

Words can be twisted and interpreted to mean whatever a 'writer' pleases. But that does not mean that the meaning is accurate, logical, or even (dare I say it) sane.

Some people use words as a weapon to attack things they don't agree with.

To me humanism is a way of looking at our world which emphasizes the importance of human beings - their nature and their place in the universe. As the Latin writer Terence said more than 2,000 years ago, "I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me."
Humanism teaches that every person has dignity and worth and therefore should command the respect of every other person.

Obviously some posters on this forum - don't agree and place their own interpretation on the word.

The numerical superiority of the views expressed here adds no credance to their truth, for thousands of years most thought the earth was flat too, didn't make them right though. I object to the constant assumption that a follower of Christ has been brainwashed as a child, maybe it makes you feel better, but it is very far from the truth. After graduating from the UNSW in History and Law I researched the claims and truth of both Christ and the bible from an historical and scientific perspective and found the evidence supporting the claims to be overwhelmingly supported, certainly no one brain washed me as a child. If you want to argue with the definition of 'religion' I gave argue with Websters.. If humanism is about the integrity of human life why are so many humanists pro-abortion, or is an unborn life not human according to humanism?

I take objection to this comment

You are free to follow your religious beliefs much as you please, just not free to inflict them on me

So you are free to inflict your, by the definition I originally gave, religious set of views and values on me? Every day I am afflicted by those that hold the view that this life is it, that want to impose their own standard of morality or should I say lack of of morality on others. Just like anyone else, if you don't want to hear someone talking to you about their beliefs whether christianity or not, then walk away, you don;'t legislate against it otherwise everyone would need to keep their opinion to themselves, because it might affect someones right to be inflicted by anothers beliefs...If I want to share with someone my faith, I should be free to do it, if they don't want to participate I am not holding a gun to their head (unlike Islam)...

Just to clarify, the way a christian views secular humanism is pretty much a relativistic interpretation, the view that there is nothing absolute, and that all meaning and standards are relative based on your own culture, point of view or just what feels right, rather than a set of absolute moral standards that are immutable and unchangeable, not altered by culture, history or personal background, it is acknowledging that there is an absolute truth as given by a divine creator who established those standards for our own good. We have some classic outcomes of this type of society in Stalins Russia and Nazi Germany, both atheistic and relativistic socieities that expounded heavily Darwins, survival of the fittest as justification for expunging millions of 'inferior' lives..

Jerichoforce said "I researched the claims and truth of both Christ and the bible from an historical and scientific perspective and found the evidence supporting the claims to be overwhelmingly supported."

That is an extremely broad sweeping claim to make. Perhaps you'd care to share some of your more significant findings here in this thread.

JF, perhaps people thought that the earth was flat, because
of the bible reference to the 4 corners of the earth.

Now you might not have been brainwashed as a kiddy, but millions
are. They tried to scare me as an innocent 5 year old,with talk
of burning in hell forever etc. Fact is that 95% of religious
people keep the faith that was brainwashed into them as kids.
So religion is very much about geography and where you grew up.
Had your family lived in Mecca for instance, there is a 95%
chance that you would be a muslim today.

I am certainly not free to impose by beliefs on you. You are
free to live according to your morals, your beliefs. You just
can't enforce them on the rest of us.

Humanism in my case is about people and suffering, not about the
rights of cells. Your little line in the sand is simply at a
different point to mine.

As to the bible, claims of its innerancy have been shot to
pieces long ago by people like Farrel Till, an ex preacher who
knows the bible far better then most of us.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/

But even I can figure out that when the story of Noah and the
flood was dreamed up, they forgot all about the freshwater fish.
Did Noah have little aquariums on board? :)

Just what we need - another self-righteous godbotherer. It's a very familiar script, isn't it?

JF will undoubtedly learn that his/her expressed views are tolerated at On Line Opinion, but open for critique and perhaps ridicule. I think it's fine if s/he wants to propose a new definition of religion and argue on the basis of it, but s/he can't expect anybody else to accept a novel definiton of 'religion' that incorporates not having a religion as consitituting a religion.

Despite the fact that a few Christian fundies babble on about 'secular humanism' being a 'religion', I don't think anybody much takes them seriously. In fact, it's been specifically refuted many times here, as JF will discover if s/he peruses the archives.

I don't think "taking exception" to unspecified comments that don't conform to your peculiar worldview will get JF very far at OLO, but s/he's welcome here anyway.

Now, about that filter...

Dear JF,

I can only speak from my perspective (by the way I'm also an alumni of the UNSW - for my undergraduate degree). However, today faith has passed from the passive and complete acceptance of a body of truths to the honest search for total commitment.

The world has become meaning-centered, and the individual measures the traditional truths in terms of personal value. She/he refuses to accept irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a passe and speculative theology which explores publicly dry and distant formulas, a law which does not explain its own origins.

She/he demands a pastor/priest who reaches him/her in honest dialogue.
She/he will not be bullied by an authoritarian demand for the observance of parish boundaries, nor by moralizing which ignores the true and complex context of modern life.

The layman/woman has witnessed a more humane eucharistic fast, a more open view of mixed marriages, a more understanding discussion of the
birth-control (and abortion) problem and of the dilemma (in my case) of Catholic education.

She/he has recognized the human face of the Church which has been forced to change its expression or die. This has given her/him the courage to hope and push for greater changes still.

Rob... should the practice of 'non faith' and its consequences be 'imposed' on those of faith ? :) seems like the other side of the same coin to me.

I am mystified as to why you don't see this.

For me.. a faith based life and world view is 'normality' and a secular approach is not. Its just as easy for 2 secular based idea systems to be in conflict as it is for faith based views.

In fact.. it is the nature of things, life itself.. for conflict between viewpoints to exist. There will always be one which prevails, and those on the 'non prevailing' side will more than likely whine about how the other is 'imposed' on them.

For example.. lets look closely at the 'deal' done by the Greens with Labor.. and see if there are any little morsels of moral compromise which will now be 'imposed' on the community, yet only maybe 5% of the community voted for the Greens.

Is it possible that with a Labor Victory, aided by the Green preferences, we will see changed to the 'same sex' related issues ?
-Gay adoption
-No more legal discimination for same sex 'couples'
-Same sex 'marriage' ?

If such were the case, I would feel intensly 'imposed' on, simply because the nature of our society, would tend to make those who share my own views, 'more marginalized'.... Now.. you might consider that a good thing.... I'm sure CJ would break out of his little pin sticking dolly room and openly rejoice with leaps and bounds at such an eventuality.

Consider this. My child goes to school, I've taught him that marriage should only ever be between a male and a female. He finds kids who have '2 daddies' and they pick on him.... for having 'bigoted' views, he comes home... in tears. Yep....'imposed' is the only word.

There can only be 'imposition'...and its either this way...or that.

While we say we would , some of us ,like freedom from religion in Australia we will not get it.
Worth noting Islam calls for my death for this but there is no God.
Never was never will be.
Christians once would have burnt me alive for that, many would still like to now.
For now Christianity rules us in far too many ways even our sex yes some want to control that , in a way always have, yet there is no God.
Some time in the future BOAZY tells us ,in truth many do Islam may have the numbers to control us, why do we put up with it rule in the name of any God?
Is there room to debate why should our governments let religion control us?
Angela you ask questions we do not wish to answer I understand the impact of those cartoons not long ago and know my Post could be inflammatory for some, could get me killed.
But in truth PC and fear shreds true debate on followers of non existent Gods.

Notwithstanding the sophistry employed in redefining 'religion' to include specifically non-religious ideologies, not to mention Boazy's looney-tunes fantasies about the wicked and evil Greens, in the cold light of day let's look at the facts.

At the current state of counting, the Coalition has 37 Senate seats, the ALP has 32, the Greens 5 and Family First 1. [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/]

This means that the avowedly fundamentalist Christian Family First party effectively holds the balance of power in the Senate, on something like 2% of the vote (in the last election - they actually did worse this time).

That's why people like me think that we need freedom *from* religion.

Boaz says "Consider this. My child goes to school, I've taught him that marriage should only ever be between a male and a female. He finds kids who have '2 daddies' and they pick on him.... for having 'bigoted' views, he comes home... in tears. Yep....'imposed' is the only word.

There can only be 'imposition'...and its either this way...or that."

Oh it's such a cruel world isn't it David. You come across someone with different opinions to you and next thing you know there's trouble at school for your children. Look at it from another angle. Children who share your child's view pick on the kids with two daddies. So who is being imposed on now?

What do you expect? Every differing opinion to lead to conflict and result in objections to being imposed on? Oh come on!

Remember I think there is no God, in truth a great many do think like me.
Yet we all, will be ruled by a very few who think differently, have always been ruled in the name of a fantasy.
The senate? even my party miss uses me and all who vote above the line.
IF people knew who gets the preferences even via conservative votes they would be stunned and insulted.
But few take the time to vote below the line, some could not it it without ruining the vote.
In my seat the lower house how to vote gave my preference to a rat bag group, scutineering showed like me most voters disobeyed the how to vote putting greens second and the racist last.
Back to the thread, why do we let POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and maybe fear stop us debating the rights and wrongs of all religions impact on the life of all in our country?
I have heard of preachers who have said they went on every Sunday preaching something they no longer believed in, because it was good for mankind?
We should be free to have open debate on every religion and we never in truth will be.

CJ.... I see exactly what you are saying. FF holds the balance of power.. at the point when your post was made.
But consider this. The Greens actually stated outright that THEY want the balance of power.. ok...good for the goose...good for the gander.
You say 2% determines? as opposed to your 6% or thereabouts? now who is kidding who :) neither 2% nor 6% are anything like a majority.

So.. don't point to the 'Christian' speck, when there is a Green 'plank' in your eye mate.
In short..'you' want it.. 'we' have it. :) (maybe)

This IS...'democracy'..and we all have to live with it. Sad but true.
We could always opt for a Pol Pot I guess....nah.. that might be a problem. They (Khmer Rouge) were only a small percentage of the population too... *shudder*.

CJ.. if ever you were going to MAKE my long standing point about minorities, including 'religious' ones... being able to make deals and shape the values, political, social and the cultural climate in a democracy, you have done so now on turbo... If, at this point, you cannot see the clear and present danger of ANY policy direction which would facilitate such a thing, then.. please resign from your job at Uni, and take up basket weaving or something.

ONE....SEAT... can change a country. Thank you for being the one among my usual opponents to finally agree with me.Now we are on the same page.

DITCH.... the deeper point in my comment about the kids etc, is the "clash of values". Kids are kids no matter what, so teasing will occur. If you feel that a society with men marrying men and women marrying women is ok....then you go right head and follow that agenda. I'll follow another. (and dare I say it... "God's") Now that should raise a few eyebrows :)

BELLY... the day people want to 'kill' you for not believing would be the darkest day of all. I'd be with you to defend your right to disbelieve against a 'Church' thought police squad which tried to force you.(On a political level)

I must say Boazy, that your last "anal-ogy" was one of the grubbiest you've made. I as a parent would be furious that your children bullied an innocent child for having parents that are different. After all, that child didn't have a choice in who their parents were. And if your children thought that that kind behaviour was somehow acceptable because of what you had taught them, then that is what is wrong here. What kind of parent do you think you would be perceived as, raising bullies and then arguing that your religious rights were being imposed upon? The idea that gay marriage is wrong is not the main point of that "analogy", bullying is wrong, bullying is the "imposition", your kids are free to believe as you do, but defending their behaviour because of your "values" would be the worst part of it.

Your really are not a great Christian Boazy, many of the real Christians I know would try to empathise with the bullied child and try to raise their children to not be thugs.

Boaz said "the deeper point in my comment about the kids etc, is the "clash of values". Kids are kids no matter what, so teasing will occur. If you feel that a society with men marrying men and women marrying women is ok....then you go right head and follow that agenda. I'll follow another. (and dare I say it... "God's") Now that should raise a few eyebrows :)"

So what do you expect Boaz? That everyone should have one opinion/belief for everything just so the kids don't get teased at school? And why pick a topic such as gay marriage to illustrate a very simple point that can apply to a multitude of topics. Suit your agenda does it? Of course it does.

You've got to start looking beyond the end of your nose fella.

Boazy "If such were the case, I would feel intensly 'imposed' on"

You may feel imposed upon when you can't force others to live by your rules but a fair minded understanding to being imposed upon would suggest that being imposed upon would be something like an extremist group banning mixed race marriages (something you want to be part of which some others don't like). You might be being imposed upon if athiests pushed for (and were sucessful in ) having private expressions of religious belief banned).

Both have been imposed by extreme groups in the past and are not that dissimilar to the type of imposing you promote against the choices of others.

You are not being imposed upon when others get to make choices about how they live their own lives you are just not getting your own way.

R0bert

Boazy, I'd suggest that you take the little story about children you presented in defence of you homophobia and substitute a child with mixed race parents where you have a child with two daddies.

Take some time on it and see how comfortably your views fit when it is your own lifestyle choices, your own kids who's safety and freedom which are at risk because of the hateful and biggoted views of others.

R0bert

BD, so what are you going to do, if one day one of your sons
comes home and comes out of the closet, introducing you to
his new boyfriend ? :)

I could draft a post that would have you heatedly on my side BOAZ DAVID.
I truly have concerns about the freedom of females in some Islamic country's.
I agree with every post after your last one a human is a human color sexual preferences nothing can change that.
EXCEPT religious biases.
My point over and over will be the same ,why should any religion have any power over us?
For me it is heartbreaking pain suffering even murder all in the name of too powerful but non existent Gods.
Enslaving of women in that name or Christian bigotry it is never the less evil.

Bugger! Weve just elected another proud Christian to the Lodge. What were you thinking of Belly?

Getting rid of the old Devil we had

...better the devil you know, sez I

Rob...the fundamental flaw in your argument is this.

>>You are assuming that ANY behavior, however offensive or disgusting, is 'ok' as long as it does not physically harm anyone else<<
Now.. sadly for all of us, this simply is not the case. It might be argued that sex with 9 yr old girls does not 'harm' them..and there are 1.2 billion people who would agree with that position. So...lets say we don't 'impose' a marriage age of 16 on females, or.. . but allow it to be 'at puberty'. Also don't 'impose' a maximum age of a man who can marry a girl of puberty onward. Ok.. now.. show me the (secular) pshychology which supports that position... and I'll show you pigs flying :)

The only way such a position can be argued, is that 'in the context' of such a society, there are sufficient THREATS against those who dislike it, for it to continue unchallenged. This does not in the slightest mean it's a good or moral thing.

You also fail to recognize the social impact of 'permitting' behavior as opposed to 'stopping' it..... No matter which way you go, there are problems. Its just more suitable for your own argument to hold the view that the 'non imposition' of rules, laws and customs has no ill effect.

Taking my favorite illustration from Cape York... this is a classic example of 'removing' laws..and 'allowing' women and children to have access to steel axes. If you follow the issue up, you will see that the result was the breakdown of the complete social structure and virtual extinction of the tribe.

The other problem with your approach, is... WHERE....do you stop?
By what criteria do you decide "This far and no further" when you know full well that the gay lobby politicized itself and managed to sway large slabs of public opinion. Why can others not do the same with things which are repulsive to us.

In case you've not tweaked yet..I am seriously trying to persuade you to change your mind.

"It might be argued that sex with 9 yr old girls does not 'harm' them..and there are 1.2 billion people who would agree with that position."

You harp on and on about this one BD, yet it seems that in Britain for
300 years, the age of consent was 10! Sheesh, those god fearing
Brits, your ancestors, were paedophiles in our language!

This is the point. Morality is about lines in the sand that we draw.
Look at the age of consent today.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

In one country you will be quite legal, in another thrown in jail.

Hi Yabbs :) yes, I harp...but not so much because of the age of the girl... its more because of the age of the MAN....in that specific instance. 53....9 .......53.....9 ; go figure.

You are quite right... we draw the lines in the sand... and in one case "Jail" and in another.. "Free".....16rs and 1 day "free", 15 yrs and 11 months "jail"

Doesn't this tell you something about 'moral relativism' and where it can lead? If we have no foundation on which to build our social values, then they can and do charge off in any old direction depending on who has the loudest voice.

I'll live dangerously here and quote the bible.

1Tim5:1 Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

Can you find any fault with that passage? I sure can't.
Common sense tells me that 'marriage' should be between people reasonably close in age for a host of practical reasons.

Note also, that the above passage is an exhortation, not a 'law'... it has to be such because you can only fulfill those things from the heart...not under law. The last one, about young women and purity. Well, we do draw a line in the sand for the sake of social well being, and so that all people may know what IS the line... and that's fair enough also.

But does it take a Christian to persuade you that

-respect for the older
-treat young men as brothers
-treat young women as sisters

is a good thing?

I think that because of us losing our soul and spiritual connection to the Almighty, we have become selfish, and self absorbed. So, perhaps there is a point where we need a divine prod to realize those thing are important.

Boazy, I recall that when I was growing up it was quite common to hear derogatory comments about "half casts". That people of other races were ok but the half casts tended to get the worst traits of their parents races.

Is that a line in the sand that you are sad has been crossed or a particular piece of bigitory which thankfully is largely behind us?

Just as we need care moving forward we need care clinging to the past. I'd rather risk allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices than risk clinging to vile restrictions which brought unnecessary misery to people.

The line in the sand in regard to sexual activity is about consenting adults. It's not about 9 year olds despite your often expressed focus on them.

R0bert

"but not so much because of the age of the girl... its more because of the age of the MAN.."

BD, thats this week, last week was different :)

You do what so many religious do, take one little verse in the
bible somewhere and use it to suit your agenda.

Now lets look at what the bible says about marriage etc:
Its a real free for all! I can take on a number of wives,
sleep with the maid if the wife won't fall pregnant, etc.
etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

So you can make it up as you go along, just quote a different
verse. Thats how they justified slavery for years and many
others things.

In old times age was never the big issue in marriage, it was
about resources. Women starved if a man could not provide
food for them and the offspring. Still today, look at what
American society (deeply religious btw) said when a young
Anna Nicole Smith married a 90 year old oil billionaire.
What a great catch! She became a star!

Thats exactly why old fellas like you still tend to perve
on young birds and women still like a man with money.
Its part of our genetic history.

R0bert:

It would seem that you and I are a couple of sane voices among the religious others.

Religion is one of the worst traits of humankind (other than our ability to kill each other in an increasingly efficient rate). In fact religion feeds this propensity in an even more alarming manner.

I wonder how many people throughout history would have lived a longer life if they hadn't died in the name of religion?

Iluvatar

I wonder how many more babies would of saved their lives if it was not for the irreligious. I wonder how many lives would of been saved if it wasn't for communism (who denied the existent of God). I wonder what would of happened to our indigeneous people had the Japanese took over in the last world war. The irreligious easily win out in the killing stakes.

Runner:

Dunno mate!

At least I don't waste time thinking about things that don't exist (i.e. God / Allah / Krishna etc.) or in living with the false promises of "prophets" (e.g. Jesus / Mohammed / Bhudda ) who want to variously convert or save me / kill me / or reincarnate me because of what THEY believe!

Whoa...calm down guys! Take it easy. Just remember what Mr Thwackum,
a character in Henry Fielding's novel, 'Tom Jones,' declares,
"When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion' and not onlt the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."

Most people are like Mr Thwackum" when they mention religion, they have their own in mind.

Whatever our religious beliefs may be, we usually learn them from other people through socialization into a particular faith (or through resolcialization, if we convert from one faith to another). The religious convictions that anyone holds are thus influenced by the historical and social context in which that person happens to live.

Someone born in ancient Rome would probably have believed that Jupiter is father of the gods; at any rate, he or she would certainly not have been a Southern Baptist or a Hindu. Similarly, if your parents are Catholic, you are probably Catholic; if they are Mormon, you too are probably a Mormon.

We are not the passive prisoners of our upbringing, of course, but even people who decide to convert from one religion to another must almost inevitably select their new faith from the unique range of options that their particular culture happens to offer at a particular point in its history, even if it means you chose not to believe or follow any religion.

This cultural variety means that there are a large number of religions, many of whose members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked...

So Lighten up people - your beliefs are yours - don't inflict them on others - PLEEEAAAAAAAASE!

Iluvatar, I'm not here to pick on religious beliefs. Religion has played a role in human history and individual lives that at times has brought great good and at other times great harm. For some it provides a useful framework to justify values, a means of putting aside concerns about their own mortality and a tool to promote values beyond self interest. If people choose to believe in a spiritual world that I see no evidence for then fine.

I draw the line when they seek to impose their own beliefs on others, when they seek to restrict others ability to live happy and meaningfull lives. Foxy summed up part of the argument very well this afternoon.

R0bert

Yabbbbbbby.. to quote Foxy -WHOA...nottt so fast there young pella...

You said:

>>Now lets look at what the bible says about marriage etc:
Its a real free for all! I can take on a number of wives,
sleep with the maid if the wife won't fall pregnant, etc.
etc.<<

Ok.. seconds out.. gloves on :) *DING*.. round 1.

BD leads with a left jab.. "can you show me a commandment which specifically allows multiple wives" ?

Follows up with a right cross " I can show you one which says a king must NOT have many wives" (Deut 17:7)

Ok.. that should shake you up a bit.. now I step back and await your counter punch :)

While I'm waiting, I'll give you my impression of the link you provided. errr.. ur not serious right ? That was hopeless. Like someone grabbing a hand full of sand and chucking it in the fact of their opponent...... no design, no shape.. no science.. just a hand full of sand. No points for that sight mate :

"Follows up with a right cross " I can show you one which says a king must NOT have many wives" (Deut 17:7)"

Deut 17:7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2017:2-7;%2029:18&version=49
7"(G)The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people (H)So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

Well Boazy you are running true to form with your interpretation of the bible. It's really easy to see from that how kings can't have more than one wife.

R0bert

Yabby,
How many directions do you refer to when compassing the sphere of the Earth. Don't tell me North, South, East, West as this means four corners.

The term "religion" refers to a belief system of rules on behaviours and practises that governs ones life or a system of rules on how people are to be governed. It encompasses a "world view" on how one sees the world and its harmonous function. Humanism falls within that group. The term "religion" of itself does not imply belief in a creator or a supreme or divine being controlling material things.

"Theism" is the doctrine of belief in a deity or belief in spirit beings that control our Universe. This belief in Theism in most cases happens to involve a religion. That is a set of rules to be practised or adhered to too for personal or national wellbeing as blessing by the God /gods.

"Amen to all that, Yabby, Bugsy et al.

"I'm also interested in this notion of 'sanctity'. Is this the same freediver who makes a sport out of killing other species?

This post from CJ Morgan is a good demonstration that it is not religion that is about imposing yourself on others, it's morals. One of the biggest threats to our way of life are the radical animal libbers who wills top at nothing to get their way. Their views are obviously not based in religion. They are contrary to the 'patriarchial' religions that the cafe latte crowd like to whinge about most. Yet they are the ones engaging in terrorist acts in the US.

R0bert,
Please explain to me how a child came into the world having two daddies.

Miraculous Stuff - sounds amazing. I've only ever believed that a mother and a father could produce children. Some new modern science I suppose? Is the anal passage in this case the womb? I suppose these children come into real excreta circumstances

freediver: "They are contrary to the 'patriarchial' religions that the cafe latte crowd like to whinge about most. Yet they are the ones engaging in terrorist acts in the US."

Not that I'm much of an 'animal libber' apologist, but I was under the impression that stuff like 9/11 was very much down to to extremist followers of one of the larger 'patriarchal' religions.

Freediver's psephological comments indicate that he has a functioning brain, but it seems to be a tad awry when it comes to religion. I think Dawkins is right when he says that we should treat the 'God delusion' as a form of intellectual disability, or perhaps mental illness.

Dawkins and his followers think they have proven that God doesn't exist. They are the deluided ones. I don't know any religious people who think the existence of God is a scientific question. There are very few scientists who believe it either. Dawkins is on a mission and he won't let anything stand in his way.

The CIA has listed several animal libber organisations as terrorist groups. They have started blowing things up. Not on the scale of 9/11, but it's only a matter of time.

Also, check out which groups in the EU conduct the most terrorist acts:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822/34#34

They are second only to separatists. They are the most recent terrorist type on the scene and they are growing rapidly.

Philo, you may not be aware of it but plenty of children have as a functional parent someone who is not their biological parent. Is an adopted child entitled to refer to the people who have adopted them as parents?

Parenting can be about the contribution of genetic material, it may also be about the love and sacrifice given to and for children by the adults responsible for their care.

Not all that difficult really.

R0bert

Um, the poster who gave a Webster's Dictionary definition of religion didn't actually quote Webster's. Here's it's real definition:

Religion:
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic) : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The last might include humanism, but the common definition is clearly contained in one and two. It seems to me pretty obviously disingenuous to claim humanism as a religion.

Australia has freedom of religion and worship within a secular state. I couldn't care less how religious people worship or which bits of their silly books they quote (I think it's terribly sad that they suffer their children to listen to it all, but that's what freedom of religion means), but they can't expect to influence legislation. That's secular - beyond religion. It's not a competition between the two. Secular = government. Church = well, church.

If two men fall in love, if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, what's it to do with you? I know you may believe these things are wrong. But I believe that Boazy is wrong to teach his young son to be a bigot. Nevertheless, because of the freedoms enshrined in our legislation, neither the Christian nor the humanist is able to enforce these beliefs on the other.

Talking of the two daddies, Boazy, you never answered the question someone asked – what will you do if your son turns out to be gay?

"but they can't expect to influence legislation

Everyone can expect to influence legislation regardless of their religion. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

"Nevertheless, because of the freedoms enshrined in our legislation, neither the Christian nor the humanist is able to enforce these beliefs on the other.

Wrong, both are able to, via our democracy.

BD, there may be no specific commandment to take more than 1 wife, but there are several example of it being entirely acceptable.

2 Samuel 5:13
2 Chronicles 11:21

Solomon and David, two of the most righteous kings are noted as having several wives and concubines.

Dont be so hasty to jump into the ring!

Robert.. *oops*..... I got the wrong verse.. give me a moment.
Deut 17:17 not '7'.

Interestingly, the Mishnah interprets this to mean 'not more than 18 wives'... I don't know where they get that figure from, but I feel they are going beyond the text.

Its the closest I can find to anything resembling a 'command' about limits to numbers of wives.

CG.. Solomon is an example of NOT following Deut 17:17 because exactly what it predicted ....DID happen to him.. his many wives (married for political purposes) indeed turned his heart away.

David ? well we know what trouble he got into. and Psalm 51 is also clear about how he felt about his track record "Lord.. against you only have I sinned, my sin is ever before me"

I can still go a round or 2 :)

BOTHERSOME... myyyy goodness your head needs some heavy duty de-brainwashing mate :) where in the WORLD do you get this:

>>but they can't expect to influence legislation. That's secular - beyond religion.<<

Absolutely NO..not..nyet... nada.. not a chance mate. In the same way YOU seek to influence legislation in terms of 'your' values.. no matter how whacky or immoral we may consider them to be, we will too.
I'm not going to argue it.. its a simple democratic fact of life.

Your values are indicated by 'If 2 men fall in love' ? Great SCOTT.... do you actually hear yourself ? Taking that line, you simply cannot..canNOT stop the line at '2 men'... you have to be quite open to 'man and dog'... woman and horse.... woman and many men, man with many women. and so it goes on.

The major problem with you secular lot is you don't 'seeeee' the implications of your lack of a moral anchor.
Same goes for CJ. (but there is hope.. prays on :)

"The major problem with you secular lot is you don't 'seeeee' the implications of your lack of a moral anchor."

Boazy, I suspect that most of us have a far better understanding of that than you do of the implications of arbitarily picking a "moral anchor" then assuming that it is absolute. See Foxy's excellent earlier post.

As for verses about number of wives you could also look at the conditions for being an elder of the church. "Husband of one wife" - you could ask if that means you must have at least one wife or at most one wife? It suggests to me in context with the lack of specific teaching and the history of key OT characters that the preference was for one wife but that polygamy was accepted in the early church but not encouraged. Ranked alongside being a lover of money and some other less than desirable characteristics.

R0bert

Ok, for all those who've criticised my last post, I take your point. I expressed myself badly. Of course, individuals with religious beliefs can influence legislation. I simply mean that the religion itself does not determine it. In the abortion debate, for example, religious people singly and as churches strongly express their views, and seek to influence the government. But because we have a secular state that view does not constitute the law, it is simply one voice among many.

I just meant to say that I think this is a dumb debate. Of course we have freedom of religion in Australia. But we don't have a religious government.

Boaz: "Your values are indicated by 'If 2 men fall in love'"

I quite agree. Thank you. Your values are indicated by teaching your son that marriage can only be between man and woman. I find that terribly sad, and decidedly immoral. It saddens me for both the two men in question, their son, and your son.

Boaz:" you have to be quite open to 'man and dog'... woman and horse.... woman and many men, man with many women. and so it goes on."

Sorry, that doesn't follow. In my moral universe, people's sexual lives are their own business, so far as both parties consent. *Properly* consent, that is. My view is shared by the majority of Australians, who believe that homosexuality is ok*, but bestiality is not. You may confuse the two practices, but please don't transfer such sexual moral equivalence onto others.

To paraphrase you, Boazy, the problem with you religious lot is you don't see the implications of your arbitrary, antiquated, bigoted moral position.

Why doncha try a bit of morality based on rationality, compassion, freedom and fraternity? Garn. Give it a go.

* See the Australia Institutes map of homophobia: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf

Aaahh bothersome :) I see I still have a bit more work 2 do with you.

You signed your own debating death warrant when you said "In my moral universe"...and that is entirely my point mate. Your post-modern credentials are quite in order there.

You also claimed that the way I socialize and educate my son morally is 'immoral' to you.. another nail in your positions coffin..

You see..without agreed values not only do we have you and I acting like chickens and ducks.. but we have the ferret, the Wombat and all manner of other moral systems going for broke to make their mark.

I agree that we 'GB's cannot say "change the legislation to such and such 'because God says so'....no, we should not do that (even though we might believe it) we can only say 'we want it this way or that way' full stop.

Now..you don't see 'woman and horse' following from your arbitrary value system, because most likely you don't find that 'marraige' option particularly appealing. But in terms of logical/reasonable implications.. it follows exactly.
If a proposition is "Behavior is not morally good or bad in itself"
Then clearly "any behavior believed to be ok, is likely". You and I are clearly different, and this is evidence of the truth of this.

ROBERT.. well quoted. Yes, leadership in the Church is meant to be very high principled. That's the biblical pattern. Polygamy 'tolerated' ? I have no real firm position on that aside from what I believe to be the very clear indication overall of 'one man, one woman' marriage.

Firstly, Boazy, I find the way you address me slightly creepy. Can we stick to Botheration? I'm happy to call you whatever you prefer.

Um, I don't understand your argument. I do believe in good and bad behaviour – I think my last post made that clear. I don't think anything is ok. I have a strict moral code. I think consenting adults – those who don't abuse or hurt or coerce or manipulate others – may do what they like in private. Clearly we don't agree on values, but individuals within society frequently don't agree on values, and culture/society/politics makes a ruling.

As I see it, you haven't advanced an argument in your response, so I've nothing to respond to.

botheration, Boazy appears unable to accept that it is possible to have a meaningfull moral code unless you have an imaginary friend to back it up.

He conveniently ignores that he has made value judgements in determining which imaginary friend to make his own. He assumes that now that he has one the values of ancient middle eastern sheep herders are somehow more credible than the those derived from the best of the last few thousand years of learning. Boazy's model "T" morality will beat your latest model mercedes morality any day in Boazy's estimation.

R0bert

R0bert, yes, I often wonder how religious people come at that. If I were to find religion, I would find it suspiciously coincidental to be particularly persuaded by Christianity. Surely, given that I was raised in a country with a Christian background, it's just a little too convenient that I should alight on that religion as the one-true-religion? Why isn't Buddhism the thing? Or Islam?

Seems so arbitrary.

And talking of things that sh!t me, you're right, I do get that Boazy is one of those people who believe atheists have no moral code. I know it's just dumb and whatever, and I shouldn't let it upset me. But it does, all the same.

"You see..without agreed values not only do we have you and I acting like chickens and ducks.. but we have the ferret, the Wombat and all manner of other moral systems going for broke to make their mark."

BD, you miss the point completely, but then that is not unusual :)

Fact is that the religious do not have agreed values! Look around
you, lots of religions, lots of versions, brands, sects, cults,
all squabbling about their holy book and who is right about
their particular interpretation.

At least us secular types can use our ability to reason, think,
feel, etc, to come to a conclusion. You religious get bogged down
by some word in some holy book and squabble about it endlessly, as
you have for hundreds, thousands of years and common sense and
reason fly straight out the window

Hey guys what happened to the main questions of my thread?
I haven't got the answers yet.

I will have a go at that answer Angela, yes there is freedom of religion in Australia too much.
But sometimes none, if you want to build some Church's and schools in some places some will say no, I remain unconvinced they are always wrong for doing so.
Considering religion is said to be based on loving one another it often fails.
Most different brands consider only theirs to be the true one, all have too much influence on non believers life.
In the end they all are a fantasy from the days man thought the sun was a God.
We would be a better world if we had freedom from every religion, primitive beliefs are holding men apart not uniting them.

Boaz, my understanding of Deut 17:17 is that the commandment is that you not marry wives that are not of your religion (backed up by references to other verses and the explanation in the contemporary english bible), as they would worship their own gods and want their husband to do the same. It was common and accepted practice for the king to have many wives (and concubines). Just that they needed to not be foreign (maybe this is where the general dislike of interracial marriage comes from).

Botheration, when my parents married, they were from different protestant churches. Mum grew up with her parents going to different churches every Sunday and was determined not to put her kids through the same seperation. But at the same time being a strong-willed independent-minded woman, there was no way she was simply switching to dad's version. She went and researched every religion (including islam), and the main christian sub-branches, and arrived at the conclusion that dad's version (inherited) was pretty reasonable, so she switched. I'd love to be able to quiz her on her findings and why she eventually settled on the high anglican church as being ok, but she's been gone near 20 years now. So I guess that if you were to question the religion or version of that you "belong to", then there is nothing to stop you finding out about the others and making an informed decision. especially in this age of easy information.

Country Gal, it's interesting that we hear very little about the second half of Deut 17:17

17"(V)He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself."

So the first half is about the best Boazy can find against polygamy in the bible and the christain church is almost universally against it. It seems that the concern with multiplying wives is not with the risk of harm to the participants (or their children) but rather that it's more satisfying than god.

Much easier to find verses about the dangers of wealth and I've heard very little advocy to have wealth banned (especially from the fundy crowd). I can't imagine that particular campaign would help the donation plate much.

If ever I get really bored I'll have to check the verses speaking against same sex relationships compared to the verses against greed and an excessive love of money. I won't be surprised if there is more said directly about the latter than the former.

R0bert

I think you would be fairly right there R0bert! Its even more interesting that the prior verse instructs that the king not "multiply horses". Maybe this is where BD gets the impetus to think that allowing same-sex relationships will automtically lead us to allowing bestiality! (note that he invariably refers to relationships with horses)

Religion just creates problems. Do we really need religious freedom?

Religious freedom creates far fewer problems than any attempt to remove it.

How do you know until you try it?

You want me to go to China or the middle east to see what lack of freedom of religion is like? How about we try dictatorship instead of democracy, just to make sure?

botheration,
Your conclusion that humanism is not a religion ignores the fact of what religion means. Any system of belief that ends in "ism" is a system of, or state of belief or a set of rules for people to live by either enforced or allowed by a free State. The term "Religion" is not defined by Theism alone as many religions have no belief in Theism. Buddahism denies the existence if a deity yet it is defined as a "religion" in any Government document. Humanism is exactly a religion if people follow and live by its principles.

"4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The last might include humanism, but the common definition is clearly contained in one and two. It seems to me pretty obviously disingenuous to claim humanism as a religion."