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 > General Discussion > Should freedom of religion be part of an Australian human rights act?

Should freedom of religion be part of an Australian human rights act?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
It looks as if Australia will get a human rights act. See for example:

http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

Should such an act include a specific right to practise a religion?

If your answer is "yes" please explain why a belief system deservers special protection merely because it is labelled a "religion".

What special privileges should be granted to religions that are not covered by rights to free assembly, free speech and a general right to believe whatever you want?

The recommendations of the "National Human Rights Consultation report", the so-called "Brennan report" has this to say about religion:

Recommendation 24:

The Committee recommends that the following non-derogable civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act, without limitation:
...
...

--"Freedom from coercion or restraint in relation to religion and belief. No person will be subject to coercion that would impair his or her freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice."

(How is this different from the right of a person to adopt a political belief of his or her choice?)

Recommendation 25:

The Committee recommends that the following additional civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act:

...
...

--freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs

(How is this different from the right to manifest one's political beliefs?)

See:

http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/Report_NationalHumanRightsConsultationReportDownloads
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 19 October 2009 6:57:07 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
your link links to a buzz piece...its links link to their..'study''..lets go to the actual document
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

<<Article 2.
Everyone>>>>lol..excluding athiestrs//lol

<<is entitled to all the rights
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,

without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, *religion, political..or *other opinion.. national or social origin, property, birth or other status....>>

<<Article 18.
Everyone has the right...to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;>>>

lol except athiests

<<this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief*,
and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief* in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

you lot are soi full of the poor me
reading each others selectoive spin
you end up only decieving yourselves

closed minds/..the blind blinding the blinder
athiesm the belief of non believing/disbelieving...yet protected

we will defend..even..your right to disbelieve..besides as a member of un...we automaticlly adopted the rights...applicable to all un members..but not it seems their courts...

your links link to some decption/spin.. basic lies

you cant rebut lies with spin..if you dont read the source texts yourself...stoop trusting liars...but then again its your right

believe if you have it
disbelief if you got no belief
but confirm the fact's..FOR YOURSELVES

de-niale is more than a river
believing is disbelieving...see the joke

many of mans scince beliefs...
now..and in times past are proven fraud

going over 25mph...produces o starvation...
evolution of species validating evolution of genus...
is but two..of the scientific frauds

so many more

we could fill this post with the science frauds...
that simplton believers trusted the assurances of the high priests of science on...

often...incorreectly as it turned out
Posted by one under god, Monday, 19 October 2009 11:25:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven
Absolutely! Within the boundaries of State law of course.

Religion just shouldn't have a favoured position or hands on the levers of state power.

Oh, and yes, 'deliver us from zealots' and those uninvited people who knock on my door, to save my soul ( if I had one it's too late, I think). If I were religious, I'd assume my place in God's creation was resident stress ball when he/she is dirty on everyone else or needs some nasty amusement. Therefore their efforts are but an annoyance and interruption to their God's purpose. Shame on them disagreeing with their God. :-)
Posted by examinator, Monday, 19 October 2009 2:35:47 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
<< Religion just shouldn't have a favoured position or hands on the levers of state power. >>

Power like this for example:

"A Texas man who faces execution after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible when deliberating his fate should have his death sentence commuted, Amnesty International said on Friday.

Khristian Oliver, 32, is set to be killed on 5 November after jurors used Biblical passages supporting the death penalty to help them decide whether he should live or die.

Amnesty International is calling on the Texas authorities to commute Khristian Oliver's death sentence. The organization considers that the jurors' use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality.

A US federal appeals court acknowledged last year that the jurors' use of the Bible amounted to an "external influence" prohibited under the US Constitution, but nonetheless upheld the death sentence."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Otherwise I concur, freedom of religion should be a part of human rights. However, would like also like to see freedom FROM religion, in that religions only qualify for tax exemption for charitable work.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 19 October 2009 2:57:51 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
Good grief.

IF you don't it legal unleashes people like yourself to vilify people BECAUSE of their beliefs. Ignorant and intolerant people like yourself don't need the freedom to openly victimize those who believe is something other than what you do.

"(How is this different from the right of a person to adopt a political belief of his or her choice?)"

Isn't your reason for being to separate religion from state?. Non-stop troll you are.
Posted by StG, Monday, 19 October 2009 3:18:53 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
Examinator,

With respect you are missing the point. Why, in a secular state, does religion deserve to be privileged above other belief systems and ideologies?

A human rights act should guarantee all of us the right to:

--Peaceable assembly,

--Freedom of expression through speech and other means of communication

--Freedom to believe whatever we like.

Why are these rights insufficient to guarantee freedom of religion?

Why does religion merit SPECIAL MENTION?

StG

I'll put it even more bluntly for your benefit. If religion is to be mentioned at all I would like to see an explicit right to say things which adherents may find hurtful.

I am not a "troll" at all. My agenda is absolutely transparent. I do not want to see blasphemy laws brought in through the back door in the guise of prohibitions against the vilification of religions.

In fairness, the Brennan report does NOT call for "anti-vilification" laws. However those who seek to defend such laws are the true "trolls".

Incidentally, there is another problem.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A RELIGION?

If I establish the "Church" of Nazism (cf "Church" of Scientology) are my rights to express my religious beliefs protected?

Is it going to be left to the courts to determine what is a "real" religion as is happening in Germany with the "Church" of Scientology?

Do we want to open that Pandora's box?

Wouldn't if be better to have rights applicable to all without bringing religion into it?

Fractelle,

I wholeheartedly agree. I see no reason why religious organisations merit special tax treatment.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 19 October 2009 4:26:06 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. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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