But religion can only survive in mental isolation. Surround yourself with people who are capable of questioning your most deeply held beliefs and sooner or later you will start questioning them too. This is simply self-preservation at work. (It is no coincidence that the most fundamentalist and bloodthirsty cults develop in the most isolated regions.) By cutting their believers off from the outside world the churches in the West may manage to survive for -- what, another decade?

If religious groups were operating entirely on their own I'd agree however that's not the way it works.

There should be no exemptions where tax breaks are accepted or where public money forms part of the budget. Church run schools get a lot of tax payers money, church related activities get a variety of tax breaks and rate breaks at the exense of those who don't share their faith.

I also don't think that there should be any exemptions for activities involving children, reinforcing artifically false views of human sexuality on impressionable children is abuse, not religious freedom.

I want the religious freedom not to have to subsidise the activities of religious organisations spreading their messages.

R0bert

Well.. we didn't have to look far to see why this Author is seething with Anti Christian hatred, fear and odious loathing.

"Danny Stevens.. Member of the Greens"!

//FIRST they claim the right not to be criticised as being a right to religious freedom. There is no such right. Blasphemy laws suppress the right to free speech. If a faith cannot stand up to criticism it is not a strong faith.//

WHO claims that right? It's not the Christians ..it's the MUSLIMS!

//SECONDLY they claim the right to be appart and not to have to encounter other faiths and so on.//

What-the? Greens policy

http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/international-relations

Greens believe that: #4 ALL peoples have the right to self-determination.

OR...... do they now?

//THIRDLY they claim a right to withold employment or service from those that do not pass religious orthodoxy tests, or moral tests.//

and you better believe it! We absolutely and unashamedly and UNcompromisingly defend the absolute RIGHT to maintain and practice our Faith free from state or GREEN interference!
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s14.html Victorian Charter of Rights.. section 14

(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and
belief, including-

(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.

Note "as part of a community"

Sorry Danny, your loathesome attack on and hatred of Christians and your Christaphobia are not even thinly disguised.

Danny's Dictatorial (true Green) nature comes out here:

//I don't believe they gave the Baillieu government a mandate for this change. I would say to the people of Victoria that you need to make the government aware that you don't agree with their stand.//

yeah...right.. 'YOU' might not believe that, but if you even half knew of a fraction of the work and lobbying done by 'us' to overturn your Green/Progressive INQUISITION and your Green/Progressive 'STAR CHAMBER' giving the HREOC a 'new POWER'....to INITIATE investigations withOUT any complaint... you might get a glimpse of just how strong the feeling is in the community.. AGAINST such things.

The problem is.. most people never had a CLUE about that unvoted for Green/progressive/Marxist change to our law but I can tell you one thing...when they FIND OUT about it they are horrified. And trust me...I'm doing LOTS of telling.

Attacking Danny shows your ignorance and bias against free expression and even scientific progress. Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth, the Bible does not. It is an ancient work of fiction supported by many people as Danny said who stick their finger in their ears and go la la la not listening.

This is fine to be ignorant, but do not impose your ignorance on the rest of us. Oh! but the legacy of the Bracks/Brumby government is the Racial and Religious Vilification Act. Six months jail for severe ridicule of a religion, this law conflicts with the Clayton's Victorian Human Rights Act and violates international Human Rights Charters. I am a Greens supporter, no surprise there, they are the only party who support science and Freedom of thought. My expose of the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act is below as I will passionately fight for the right to not be dominated by narrow minded religious views which impede science and free expression which stinks of the ignorant la la la not listening mindset.

They do not mind their own business and leave us be, we have holier-than-thou politicians like Senator Conroy (The alter boy) pushing for laws to filter everything on the internet, an ignorant bully sucking up to Jim Wallace and the Christian lobby for electoral support. If you believe in science and evolution, there is only one party you can support, the Greens, well done Danny.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#religion

Tim Anderson

Interesting, Tim:

Assuming you represent the Greens, I have a few questions for you:

Do the Greens support the suppression of religious freedoms in the name of science and evolution?

Do the Greens idea of Freedom of thought include the freedom to think religiously, or even unscientifically?

Do the Greens idea of Freedom of expression include the freedom to live your life, minding your own business within your own small community while refusing to mix with the general Australian community?

Do the Greens consider Evolution as a mere scientific fact, or also as something that must be actively pursued?

Thank you.

Good old ALGOREisRICH has demonstrated quite nicely the blunt, evil stupidity of the position that I am arguing against.

1) He starts off attacking the person, not the arguments. A typical piece of illogic from his side of the divide. "Oh my, Danny is a member of the Greens. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth!"

2) He blames muslims for trying to stop criticism of religion. They certainly do try, and they have pushed for blasphemy laws to come into play world wide. So have the catholics, and many other christian sects. ALGOREisRICH would, it seems, also like some kind of gag mechanism to restrain people from criticising his version of christianity and its influence on politics.

3) He seems either to be unable to read or is purposely misconstruing my comment, that religious groups wish to form isolated ghettos of true believers. I noted that if that is what they want to do, and they can find somewhere to do it, then fine. I agree with the Greens that ALL peoples have the right to self-determination. That is why I say people should not be pulled unwillingly into such ghettos.

4) He carries on like a rabid terrier about freedom of religion, entirely missing the point that imposing religious tests on others is religious oppression.

5) The fact that a lot of work has gone in to trying to impose religious oppression does not lend that work any merit whatsoever.

6) The rest of his disturbing rant is just name calling and spewing of bile. I would hope nobody reading it is swayed by such rubbish. I wont even bother to defend myself against the slurs, they are transparently foolish.

Thanks for having a look Yuyutsu, I can't say I represent the Greens, I am not a party member, just a supporter.

The Greens would support free choice for any belief, Jesus was a great role model or the best of Islam some Sufi beliefs are like psychological self study "know thyself" your own faults and errors like a Christian confession and striving to be a better person.

Religion (Historically is has since Copernicus and Gallileo) can impede science lobby groups like The Christian Lobby or the Jewish lobby obscure the truth of science. Believe whatever you want, hopefully though be tolerant of others as you seem to be, anyone can have a go at me for not having faith, as they often do, but that does not mean I don't have values or respect for others.

Unscientific thinking can be a problem when it direct academic research, it can introduce a bias into the results or experimental design. So long as the bias is managed, funding is disclosed and the sampling and statistical analysis is reproduced by others it would be valid science.

There are enclaves and fringe groups who stay isolated, I would worry about the education the children might receive in some groups, education is a state responsibility, so if a religious school started teaching that man and dinosaurs co-existed I would be troubled by that.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been proved over and over again by genetics and archeology, just one mammal skeleton from the Cambrian period would disprove evolution, it has stood the test of time and been proved over and over again, one essence of a scientific theory is that it can be disproved, evolution is such a theory, but the Bible and faith cannot be tested or verified.

I am not sure the Greens have a specific policy on evolution, they do seem to accept science more than Liberal or Labor, they seem to welcome me as a questioning heretic while there is no place for me in the Liberal or Labor party.

Thank Yuyutsu Bless you :-)

Welll...nothing quite get's my 'terrier' blood going more than the opportunity for a good verbal 'exchange' with a Green.

Though I find it a bit curious that me calling you out on "is a member of the Greens" is somehow in your mind, tantamount to "attacking the person not the arguments"

Well.. if you take being called "a Green" as a personal attack.. so be it.
Moving on.. you THEN say I didn't address your arguments...yet I listed them one by one. (you do read don't you?)

I simply showed you for what you and your Watermelon mates are really on about.

I also happen to have rung a number of Green Parliamentarians and a sizable number from Labor PRIOR to the Green/Labor imposition of draconian hateful anti Christian laws in the EOC Reform Act. We KNEW what you are on about way before it was passed.. and the EVidence is in how WE were treated by a hateful bunch of people and a kangaroo court even with the present law.
The NEW law would take us back to the Dark ages and to 'Star Chamber' Orwellian "ministry of truth" territory and THAT is why the Coalition which now has the numbers in BOTH houses will not only abort that law, but also 'deal' with the Chairperson of the Vic Commission.
"Bigotry OUT"
"Fairness and equality IN"

In my view, the Greens hate Christianity because the parties leader is a homosexual and the Bible utterly condemns homosexual behavior, and it's members appear to think the same way about Christians. (let their VOTEs be on their heads)

FYI.. 'we know' where you are trying to take our society, and it is a very very evil bad place. Your destination is like the big bad wolf dressed in Grannies clothes. Deceptive and ravenous.

PS.. be careful what you say about our faith and Christians.
*you have been warned*

@ Tim Blair

Hi Tim,

you say: //Attacking Danny shows your ignorance and bias against free expression and even scientific progress. Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth, the Bible does not.//

1/ "Attacking Danny" I said

"this Author is seething with Anti Christian hatred, fear and odious loathing." I then...connected this with his membership of the Greens.

Why would I say those things? hmmmm well maybe.. because I've FELT that loathing and overt attacks in the GREEN sponsored/supported EOC Reform Act....which they ALL voted for. Had it not been for divine providence in changing the culpable Labor/Green government.. we would have gone back to the dark ages.

I did not 'attack' him..I showed his true colors based on very real evidence.

2/ "shows your ignorance and bias against free expression and even scientific progress."

errr...what was that you were saying about 'attacking' people ? :)
But what you said was much more serious. You seem to be suggesting that Christians are not mentally capable of understanding science.
But I absolutely support free expression, however..if I don't like what's expressed..OR..what lies behind it.. I'll give it a serve as I think fit.

3/ Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth, the Bible does not.

Huh ? Evolution? Oh I love this-

DARWINS book "Origin of the Species by Natural Selection" or.. the alternative inside cover title "Survival of the PREFERRED races in the struggle for life"...ooopsy......

The logical extension of Darwinian evolution is:

a)Humanoids developed differently in different place at different times.
b) It thus follows that some (like all species) are more developed than others. (wooo..danger signs)

c) It further follows that some are SUPERIOR in intelligence and ability annnnd...that others are 'inferior'.(YIKES.. is that Joseph Goebells I see?)

d) SO.. EVOLUTION is the basis for RACISM.

/continued- next post

AlGore,
"..the Greens hate Christianity because the parties leader is a homosexual and the Bible utterly condemns homosexual behavior" has to be one of the most bigoted and narrowminded comments from you so far (and there have been many).

The Bible also "utterly condemns" the eating of shellfish or the wearing of two different types of cloth but you're yet to imply anybodys hatred of a belief system based on that comparison.

However you've clearly demonstrated your own.

Oh dear Boazy/AGIR at it again, and you STILL can't get the goddamn title right! It is:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

It's not just about humans.

Oh I read another chapter recently:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Recognise it?

You're a terrible Christian. But at least they'll have you.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I thought that in this nation the principle that all people are born equal was paramount. Everyone who believes that all people have the same basic human rights regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation will be outraged and appalled by the proposed actions of the Victorian government. Freedom from discrimination in employment is a basic human right. This issue is not about religious freedom. It is about giving religious organizations the right to infringe on other people's human rights.

Homeschooling and private schools will continue to grow. Many parents agree with the dogma of non discriminatory policy but don't want a homosexual teaching their kids as anyone with a brain knows that teachers are role models. Also anyone interested in science wants their kids to be also show the massive amounts of evidence that contradicts evolution let alone being taught facts that support a Creator. This will never be done when the faith of secular humanism continues to be the predominant dogma.

""In my view, the Greens hate Christianity because the parties leader is a homosexual and the Bible utterly condemns homosexual behavior, and it's members appear to think the same way about Christians (let their VOTEs be on their heads)""

Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 18 February 2011 7:58:09 PM

"the Greens" - as in a policy to hate Christianity, or the significant results of a poll, regular pronouncements .... or just your view

Is misrepresentation on your head?

"FYI.. 'we know' where you are trying to take our society, and it is a very very evil bad place. Your destination is like the big bad wolf dressed in Grannies clothes. Deceptive and ravenous.""

Deceptively or Openly?

The destination - in Granny's bed?

Runner said: "Many parents agree with the dogma of non discriminatory policy but don't want a homosexual teaching their kids as anyone with a brain knows that teachers are role models"

Do they also worry about their daughters being taught by men, lest they should decide to change gender? Do they worry about their sons being taught by women in case the boy decide to wear dresses? Children can know more be influenced to change from straight to gay than from male to female. You don't 'catch' homosexuality. You can't just decide to become homosexual. You either are, or you aren't.

In Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation (2005), Glenn Wilson, a reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, found that:

"… the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored . . . our sexual preference is a fundamental and immutable component of our human nature."

Further, Wilson and Rahman assert categorically that ‘the research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait’. They insist that children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality regardless of how overbearing the
mother or absent the father – ‘no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality’.

There is absolutely no basis upon which anyone could credibly argue that a homosexual teacher would have one jot of influence upon a child's sexuality. Any discrimination based of that belief is pure bigotry.

So, these private religious schools that take public money,

When their religiously vetted teachers abuse children, will the school prosecute them separately? or protect them using public funding, or just tax-exempt church money?

What penalties should extend to the hiring team for failing to apply an effective filter, supposedly something they care about?

How can they prove their religious filter works?

Rusty

History will judge you, members of the Victorian government and the Australian Christian Lobby, in the same way it judges the Inquisitors.

Neil of Ipswich writes
'History will judge you, members of the Victorian government and the Australian Christian Lobby, in the same way it judges the Inquisitors.'

You are wrong Neil. History is interpreted and re interpreted by all sides for political reasons. It will be our Creator that judges us unless of course we receive His pardon.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Tim Anderson

I suggest you argue with the many scientist who disagree with you. They are a growing number who don't swallow 'consensus' science because it is not science unless both sides are thoroughly investigated.

continued.....

EVOLUTION= RACISM.

From that..we arrive at the next train station "Eugenics"..after all..if we are the product of 'natural selection' then..why not help it along a bit? afterall..God doesn't exist.. what's to stop us?

annnnnd of course we know who ran with that idea...

1/ FABIAN SOCIALISTS
2/ ADOLPH HITLER.
3/ GREENS? yet to be seens but looks like they are heading in that direction.

//Evolution is a scientific theory that has been proved over and over again by genetics and archeology// yep indeedy.... racism from the Greens and Socialists is rampant, and attributable to ... "Evolution"

Now Tim.. you also claimed (spuriously) that...

//Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth, the Bible does not.//

I suggest that the Bible ABSOLUTELY explains both diversity and distribution. Read Genesis 1-3 for origins and Gen 10 for the distribution of mankind. Clear as a bell. *ding*

BIBLE=ONE ancestor (thus all are equal)
GENETICS=ONE ancestor (thus, all are equal)

The problem and conflict is....?

Now.. re you not being careful about how you describe our faith.. 2nd warning. Don't mock or vilify it/us. Argue and disagree..by all means.. mock and ridicule? nope..illegal. Section 8 RRT2001

RACHE..I call em as I see em and world wide, progressives and Greens HATE Christians and Christianity.. the evidence is clear, unmistakable and on the record!

BUGSY..
"favored races"...."prefered races"... difference ?

I'm so glad when you read the scriptures..and more glad when you quote them here. I hope all read them.

Tim Anderson your insistence on personal insults adds no credabilty to your arguement.

You write
'are so vain arrogant and ignorant, what rubbish will children lean in your preferred school.'

I have a son who was homeschooled for a number of years. He read widely. Having to go into the State system (due to no other choices) to get entrance to uni his secular science teacher called him 'brilliant'. I don't agree with that assessment however having someone willing to question the dogma of what he was being taught must of been refreshing to the teacher. He is now excelling in sciences at uni. My other homeschooled child is just finishing honors at university (having to ignore the dogma being taught to her).

Your assertion is both arrogant and incorrect.

Well runner, consensus science is what science is all about, but they call it replication of results, they are some lunatic fringe scientists for an example of the ridicule this deserves, see the Steve project, a tongue in cheek parody of your silly statement of scientists who don't support evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

You misunderstand science, it is about experimental conditions and the replication of results. CONSENSUS SCIENCE IS ALL THERE IS, if one lunatic reports a result, it is not accepted science until it is replicated by others, see Flesihman and Ponds cold fusion experiment, that not replicated by others is generally untrue. Time and Time again the results show simple beginnings quickly lead to more complex life forms.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Quite simply, organisations that want government funding for their activities should abide by the principles of the secular state that Australia still is. The proposed changes are bad.

Melbourne and Sydney Universities were justifiably proud that they were not tied to any church when they were established, by contrast at the same time, Catholics were barred from Trinity College Dublin and other British universities.

On ya Bugsy.. but you mocked ME..not my faith... mocking me if cool... it allows your creative energies an outlet..and it's fine.

Kicking the Bible all over the place is a bit dodgy though.

Some might describe that kind of sentiment like "Kicking the Quran all over the place"...hmmmm

I notice Tim is no longer mocking our faith.. good.. as it should be.

But let's not forget what this issue is all about

RELIGIOUS FREEEEDOMMMMM.. and how the Greens are trying to stifle it, and oppress the most intense source of anti homosexual behavior information in our society today, the Bible.

I can't imagine Bob Brown and his male partner sleep too well knowing that there is a huge Church bogeyman out there which could conceivably speak against their chosen life on a weekly basis.

Our parliament opens with the Lord's prayer.. = Bible based=Chrisianity based= CHURCHes...

For a man who feels he is attracted to other men for sexual gratification, it must be all he can manage not to lash out 'overtly' at the Church, rather than just making 'suggestions' here and there about 'moments of silence' rather than the Biblically based Lords prayer in Parliament. After all...that prayer reminds him of how God see's his behavior, and that cannot be pleasant.

So..the Greens, led by a homosexual, have a very strong motive for destroying the credibility and influence of 'The Church' and Christianity in general.

We've seen their ugly efforts in the courts.. we've felt their attacks on us.. in parliament.

We never had a problem until THEY and Labor decided to suddenly 'extend' laws which we never had for 200 yrs, but suddenly..they talk about Human Rights.. all the while denying us OUR human rights.

Well.. having seen, felt and touched all this Green/Labor/Progressive legal rubbish.. it's time to fight back... "fight dem back".... of course.. being Christian, we will use the courts..not raging mobs in the street.

BUT.. you might like this?
http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/

But it's currently under DSS or HACK attack... should be back online soon.. it's WAR....

Lol Bugsy! Very clever.
Oh the delicious irony of penning new words to an iconic song by an iconic gay singer, about an anti-gay contributor to this forum :)

The article points out some very pertinent points about the extreme religion-based discrimination allowed in some private schools, welfare agencies and hospitals, that is refused in the wider community.

"Who the faiths employ in their pulpits is their own affair. If they want to tear themselves apart over the ordination of women or homosexuals, they are answerable only to themselves. But ever since anti-discrimination laws first appeared 30 or 40 years ago, the faiths have fought for exemptions to allow them to employ only the sexually virtuous in their welfare agencies, hospitals and schools."

It is truly disgraceful that some private schools I knew of (Catholic)
refused to continue employing teachers when it was found the teacher had started 'living with their partner in sin'.
Oh goodness me, those disgusting unmarried fornicators!

On the one hand, they had employed what they had obviously believed to be a good teacher for their pupils, only to decide that their marital status now determines they are no good anymore?

Yet the Catholics seemed to have no problem at all moving paedophile Priests and Brothers around to different schools in the past, despite their despicable sins?

Why is it ok for one lot of teacher employers to decide on a moral code for their prospective teachers, and not another?
Isn't that pure discrimination?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Steady on there Tim, that ain't mockin'!

Runner is of course quite right in saying that history is interpreted and re-interpreted by all sides for political reasons. I am curious to know whether he/she thinks "our Creator" approved of the actions taken during the Inquisition. Would you like to satisfy my curiosity, runner?

Al I am not sure why you persist in this anti-Green rhetoric. Green supporters are like any group of people - a mixed bag - many are Christian. I am not sure how Senator Brown's sexuality has anything to do with his leadership. Do you realise Parliament House has many homosexuals even on the Conservative side. It is completely irrelevant.

Where is your evidence (as you claim) that Greens are anti-Christian? They are not. There is a difference as in the author's article arguing for anti-discrimination on the basis of religion (any religion) and being disdainful or anti-Christian.

You have offered no comment on the merits of the author's argument only responded with unjustified accusations.

The Greens have only ever fought as far as I can remember in the case of the EB (which if I remember is your religion - but correct me if I am wrong) was when members of the Church actively prevented parents from accessing their children in the event of marriage break down and where one parent left the Church. When a woman prevents a man from seeing his children it is the act of evil feminism apparently, but when Churches do it it is okay? Be fair in your assessments.

Not agreeing with an act committed by a Church or a religious person is not the same as being anti-Christian.

These accusations are disingenuous and are attempts at avoiding the issues at hand.

Excuse my ignorance Pelican, but what religion is EB?

I doubt anything anyone can say will change AGIR's radical 'Christian' views, especially where religious freedom is concerned.

Obviously, we are only 'free' to serve HIS God, and no other, or we are damned to hell!

Very free indeed.

And so you see the value of free speech. Algoreisrich and runner have just spouted in ways that expose their own ignorance and frightful bigotry. I assume they have done so on many other comment sections here at OLO. If more Victorians actual read their bile we would not have the dreadful problem that is occurring there today.

And my political allegiance or spiritual interests do not make any difference to the validity or otherwise of my arguments. Educated readers not filled with pig ignorance will judge what is written on its merits alone.

With regard to my personal opinion, for those that want to know, I think that judaism, christianity and islam are pretty crass and useless fairy tales with a strong anti-human, anti social bent. I do sometimes mock those religions but its a bit too easy. Many of the religious institutions based on those religions are particularly nasty and I will stand up against their attempts to dominate society. However, I will never oppose the right of the believers in those religions to their beliefs or to the free expression of those beliefs.

I would certainly never tell them to stop mocking me "or else".

Suzie I think that EB being referred to is exclusive bretheren. My impression is that David is OB (O for open and treat "open" as a relative term - open compared to the very cult like EB). Some decent OB's around and some extremists.

R0bert

I have deleted some comments above. I wanted to delete more, but that would essentially have meant deleting the whole thread. I haven't deleted any of AGIR's but that is only because I couldn't see a way to do that and leave the thread still intelligible. Despite that I'm going to suspend him as I think his tone and a number of his comments were definitely abusive and set-off the whole train of abuse on this thread.

I'll be keeping an eye on the thread from now on, and if I see an abusive comment it is coming straight off.

A good call Graham.
I found some of the content of some contributors to be a bit frightening.

Thanks for that info Robert. Obviously I lead a sheltered existence when it comes to religious cults that are out there :0

I looked up EB, and it explains some of the comments on this thread.

I'm out of here!
I will see you all on another thread.
Suze.

A difficult call for you Graham. I know that you have had to confront some controversy over decisions, to leave comments in or take them out, recently and I admire your stand.

In the case of the radically nasty comments in this thread they do serve the value of bringing these thought streams into the light of public scrutiny. It would be a shame to lose them, despite their ugliness.

That said I support your decisions.

Danny Stevens

Graham Young:

I congratulate your decision to keep an eye on AGIR's comments. Personally I found them extremely offensive. I am totally amazed that for someone who we all know flaunts his "Christianity" he absolutely disregards its basic tenant, "Do unto others..." His lack of Christian Charity is incomprehensible. And he owes the author of this article an apology at the very least.

Sorry Suze - I have only just seen your question. RObert has answered it nevertheless. EB = Exclusive Brethren.

The nastiness was pretty widely spread Lexi. It seems that those promoting religion and those opposing it can both be pretty intolerant. I don't think either side has good reason to feel smug.

Dear Tim,

Further to your answers, I feel that I need to clarify my questions further:

There is no doubt about what science consists of and there was never a doubt in my mind that evolution is scientific. Obviously what is not science should not be presented as "science", we have no differences here.

My questions pertain to those who are not interested in the scientific path or the western way of life and the technologies that come with it, not just in abstract and inconsequential thoughts and beliefs (which are as easy to tolerate), but in actual daily life, including the education of their children.

I can see from your answers that you personally have values and respect for others, so I wondered whether the same can be said about the Greens in general, whether the Greens are tolerant of other ways of life that do not place the State in the center, or ideas such as the advancement of humankind: in other words, how much individualism and deviation can they tolerate?

Aside from the obvious scientific fact of evolution, there is a prevalent tendency nowadays to try to generate faster evolution willfully in order to reach certain ends as a society. How tolerant or otherwise are the Greens towards people who do not share similar dreams? Further, how tolerant or otherwise are the Greens towards those parents who do not want their children to be tainted by such modern dreams which the Greens believe to be essential, but which the parents believe to be spiritually detrimental?

Thank you.

Graham:

I totally agree with you. However I suppose I fell for the religious
stereotype and therefore expected more in the form of "Christian Charity."

Well AlGore, I can now see that Christians hate Greens (and Socialists and Muslims and Progressives and Sikhs and Evolutionists and scientists just about anybody who disagrees with them).

However, some seem to be politically attracted to Neo-Nazis and all manner of conspiracists and always avoid the "bleeding obvious" as if they have some sort of Divine Insight into the True Ways of the World and set themselves apart as self-appointed Messengers of the Truth who feel compelled to "witness" at every opportunity.

Hence their innate intolerance and repressive nature.

As for all religions, it's not what you are it's the things that you do.

I also calls it as I sees it.

Hi Lexi,

I agree that Christians ought to be held to a higher standard - they set themselves up for that.

But I'm not sure that a lot of what I see proclaiming itself as Christian is Christian in any deep way, so I'm not sure that I should hold those people to a higher standard.

If we had the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even Cardinal Pell or the Moderator of the Uniting Church posting here I might be looking for a higher standard.

Oh Dear Graham,

I wish you hadn't mentioned Cardinal Pell.

Sorry, Danny, but it's a very poorly-written piece: bland, sometimes childish assertions, poor reasoning ability and poor grammar, punctuation and spelling ("appart", "encumbent" "lively hood").
Nobody on this earth has any moral or legal obligation to employ anybody, and it follows logically that, when they choose to do so, they have the right to state the terms on which they will employ a person, just as that person has the freedom to decline employment, or the terms of employment. It is reasonable to assume that anyone seeking employment with or membership of the Greens, for example, who did not believe in the slaughter of unborn human beings, would automatically be rejected. What more basic right is there than the right to life? Look in the mirror, Danny.

As an employer, I have to agree with Peter D.

>>Nobody on this earth has any moral or legal obligation to employ anybody, and it follows logically that, when they choose to do so, they have the right to state the terms on which they will employ a person<<

Where the author of the piece strays furthest from reality is here:

"Where the law of the land does not allow them to impose obedience they try to get around rights by insisting on rights they do not have... they claim a right to withold employment or service from those that do not pass religious orthodoxy tests, or moral tests."

This should never become an issue. If we accept that an employer has the right to hire on the basis of "fitness for purpose", the sole reason for rejection need only be "unfit for purpose".

It is hard enough, believe me, to wade through all the sticky red tape necessary to run a business in this country, without some PC busybody telling me whom I can and cannot hire.

The problem arises when people consider employment as a right, rather than a privilege that needs to be earned. Sadly, this attitude is also the reason why the ranks of the public service are so horribly overburdened with really nice people, who are patently "unfit for purpose".

(Sad about the spelling, too. I also winced at "concience", "innevitably", "exagerated", "withold". And "effected" where "affected" was needed.)

Pericles,
>>the sole reason for rejection need only be "unfit for purpose"<<
I completely agree. Perhaps an illustration of a situation similar to the one the author refers to, which does not involve religion: Microsoft might or might not want to employ a person who they suspect prefers Mac OS to Windows, but I do not think they would - or should be asked to - employ a person who publicly proclaims his/her belief in the superiority of Mac OS over Windows (Yes, I know Microsoft has also a Mac OS Department for MS Office, so this is not a perfect illustration).

Attention author & everybody else, just a thought, but do we even have "freedom of religion" in ANY modern, western, christian, democracy?

Our fore fathers here, in Britain, Europe & North America fought & died for the right to be "protestant" Christians. NOT anything else.

Cast your minds back several hundred years. Mr Gutenberg invented the printing press & hey presto soon there were bibles in French, German, English. People could read it for themselves & began to argue with the local preacher, NOT about the validity of Christianity itself, but about dodgy RE interpretation of scriptures by the Pope.

They also objected to corruption in BOTH, the Unholy Roman Catholic AND Anglican Churches of Satan.

Millions of dedicated, concerned Christians wanted the right to be Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, etc. NOT Muslims, Buddhists, Communists or Red/greens. (have we forgotten about GAIA?)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-e6frezz0-1225980594646

They did NOT want be anything other than, "Protestant" Christians.

Just a thought.

I would be curious to see the reactions of both fellow Christians, like Runner, AGIR to that thought, as well as the proponents of radical, extreme, NEW, Religions, like Fe"Man"Nazism & Environmentalism.

BTW, the Loony Left, in the "land of OZ" have done more damage to our environment, with their lack of "Bush Craft" than anybody else in history. Our forests are now much less healthy, because of the Red/greens than ever before.

http://www.infowars.com/ipcc-professor-calls-for-elite-warrior-leadership-to-rule-over-eco-dictatorship/

Our children have never been neglected &/or abused in such epidemic proportions, as now because of the Anti Christian, Anti Family policies of the Fe"Man"Nazis.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/docs-accused-of-hiding-truth-over-baby-death/story-e6freuzr-1225963635072

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/secret-files-show-kids-left-for-dead/story-e6frewt0-1225984283683

http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-monographs/article/903-fatally-flawed-the-child-protection-crisis-in-australia

And don't try the radical or extreme tag on me either, i am a moderate, middle of the road, mainstream, Centrist, bloke from the burbs, whose views are agreed with by over 90% of the population everywhere i go.

You people dare to question the motives of concerned, centrist, Christians? Oh i forgot.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

You people question everything, as a "sophistry" debating tactic in your efforts to "reform" Australia out of existence.

Dear Formersnag,

Thank you for the most interesting presentation of "The History of Political Correctness".

It is such a pity that in the course of history we needed that bunch of silly marxists just in order to maintain our God-given right to Free Choice. It would indeed have been better if the job of reminding us was performed by the Churches instead.

For you to have the unquestionable freedom to practice your protestant faith, you must also allow others to practice their own faiths and their own practices: be they Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Buddhists, or Gaia-worshippers. Even Reds/Greens should be totally free to practice what they preach, so long as they do it in their own backyard.

For you to have the unquestionable freedom to run a traditional family and educate your children in traditional wholesome values, you must also allow others to do their things sexually. Even if they kill their babies, it's their babies which they kill, not yours.

You cannot ask for your freedoms without allowing others to have theirs. Each to their own.

Oh, and don't tell me that only leftists have sex...

Having run a business, I too wonder at the need for all the red tape.

It is not always easy to apply a fair assessment of employer and employee rights in pursuit of the 'greater good'. The greater good camp is an honourable goal but is much open to interpretation and should ideally protect both parties.

The act of recruiting a suitable person can be a risky business. Employers and business owners also have rights and an investment to protect as well as having to properly adhere to some common law obligations around treatment, safety and payment of employees.

Many religious schools hire non-religious staff in teaching positions even if a particular religious ethos is preferred.

Students who attend private schools are often required to attend religious services and RI. There is no opt-out on these and one could equally argue this to be against the idea of a secular society and constitute some form of discrimination. However, the option is clearly stated, and if one chooses not to attend on that basis, that is also their right. I would like to see an increase in private secular schools to afford greater choice, but ideally the public school system should be up to muster.

People often go on a lot about rights but much is left unsaid about responsibilities.

As an atheist, I cannot see a problem with a Christian school preferring a Christian teacher. In a perfect world the best person for the job would get the job and for a religious school the best person may also include a sharing of a particular ethos.

It works both ways. Employers also have the right to discriminate should a religious person's devotion to God interfere with their obligations to their employee. eg. not being able to work on a particular day due to religious commitments where a business requires flexible people to work a shift work rotation etc.

Disabled people have less access to employment in some sectors and face more discrimination than anyone's religious or non-religious affiliations might incur.

Formersnag

You have obviously done your homework. I am no history buff but would generally agree with your comments

'Our fore fathers here, in Britain, Europe & North America fought & died for the right to be "protestant" Christians. NOT anything else.'

Personally I don't like the term protestant. To practice ones Christian faith would suffice (as in contrast to Roman Catholicism).
There is no denying your comments such as

'Our children have never been neglected &/or abused in such epidemic proportions, as now because of the Anti Christian, Anti Family policies of the Fe"Man"Nazis.'

Unfortunately though I disagree that your views are not extreme. They are not extreme when talking to the general population but to a godless perverted left wing media they are extreme. Just look at the vitrionic response when you defend the unborn, speak highly of stay at home mums, express a view on sexuality or demand proof for evolution from its high priest. Through indoctrination and the tolerating of the intolerable your views are becoming extreme unfortunately.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199117

Yuyutsu, au contraire, many christian churches have moved away from scriptures. The Bible both, "old testament" & "new testament" is clear, there is NO freedom to be a Christian & homosexual at all.

The separation of church & state has been RE interpreted to the point where Churches are forbidden by the Politically Correct Thought Police from talking about the evil deeds of our politicians.

What Jesus taught was that IF you admit you were wrong & promise not to do it again, THEN you can be forgiven. Merely saying sorry while continuing to commit sin is NOT how it works.

Another twisting of scriptures by, "liberal" "tolerant" christian churches is the idea that forgiveness, also means tolerating everything, including "devil worshipers", Anti Christian, Anti Family policies that were designed for the specific purpose of abusing our children.

BTW, nobody needed that "bunch of silly Marxists". The British, French, American Revolutions predate Marxism. They were led by Middle class, White Collar, Centrist, Christians. The Blue Collar, Working Classes, gladly "jumped on the band wagon" because everybody was winning except the filthy, stinking, super rich.

Left wing politics was invented as a counter revolutionary strategy to stop the blue collar, working classes from co-operating with the white collar, middle classes, so that future revolutions could fail.

Again, cast your mind back several hundred years to the immediate aftermath. Do you think the Pope was happy about millions of Christians leaving HIS flock? Do you think the British, European royalty & aristocracy were ecstatic about the guillotine?

But the Pope put one his best Jesuit trained humanities academics onto the problem & they came up with the perfect plan. They wrote what you think is the Communist Manifesto decades earlier, always with the Anti Semitic plan in mind to hand it over to a Jew, to publish, so that they could blame it on the Jews later if things went wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

http://www.angelfire.com/music2/fullcircle/mas2.html

The main problem however is that those people you mentioned, do NOT, "do it in their own backyard". They insist on teaching their filth to everybody's children.

Formersnag

Thanks for the last link which showed how Karl Marx was influenced heavily by Freemasonry. I never actually knew that but should not be surprised by it.

While it may be of some worth to work out how Australia has been allowed to be hijacked by Marxist I have a strong confidence that it has not taken God by surprise. He is still on His throne and the pathetic philosophies of man would be laughed at by Him for what they are. No doubt His heart would be broken for the victims of these godless ideologies. The dramatic increase in the sexualisation of kids, the total breakdown in families and society are a direct result of liberal theologians twisting Scriptures to their own destruction. Normally you only have to look at the life of a liberal theologian and you know why they push their barrow.

The church losing its salt has certainly played a large role in the degrading of our society. Thankfully a time will come when God says enough is enough. Puny fits will wave and hearts will be terrified but God will be God. The spurning of His Son will turn out to be the greatest mistake in the lives of many. There will be no more mocking, no more rebellion, no more evolution fantasies, no more immorality, no more diasters. Thankfully God's mercy is still giving sinful man time to repent.

Formersnag & runner,

David J Smith?

http://newswatchmagazine.org/

Ye Gods, you honestly believe that stuff?!

Cornflower

Certainly that is one man's view of things that you highlight. Some of what he says is no doubt right while some would be open to debate. However just seeing the fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture, the accurate description of man's heart by Jesus along with the pathetically benign attacks on Scripture is enough to convince me. Israel is certainly God's ticking clock so to speak.

Dear Formersnag,

Certainly nobody but you and your spouse have a right to decide what your children should learn and no government should have jurisdiction over what is said over the pulpit. The question is, how are you expecting to achieve this.

If you are intolerant towards others and their way of life, why wonder why they are not tolerant towards you and your way of life?

Whatever you do with yourself, with your family and with your church, and generally with any group of people that are in agreement, be it good or bad, so long as it is in your own backyard (including the communal backyard) should be up to you: it is only between you and God and nobody else has the right to intervene. However, you must accord the same rights to the Reds, to the Greens and anyone else.

That is the deal. The only fair and reasonable deal possible unless your are into violence, which I believe and hope you are not.

Surely even Jesus would agree that one has the total free choice to be a sinner. If they be subsequently judged for it, then it is their problem, not yours.

runner,

Having had Freemasons in the family and in our acquaintance, I am certain that they are a mutual admiration society, seeking (and finding from all accounts) fraternal support for a moral, non-discriminatory existence with sacrifice and nothing odd meant by that. They spend their free time serving charities for goodness sakes. A thousand percent better than them being in the pub, or at the TAB.

Might as well find plots in the Girl Guides.

Cornflower

'Having had Freemasons in the family and in our acquaintance, I am certain that they are a mutual admiration society, seeking (and finding from all accounts) fraternal support for a moral, non-discriminatory existence with sacrifice and nothing odd meant by that. They spend their free time serving charities for goodness sakes. A thousand percent better than them being in the pub, or at the TAB.'

I know a number of Freemasons and have had them in my family also. They do much good community work as do many other groups. They are to be admired for that. I personally doubt that any committed Christian would compromise their faith in praying to the 'Great architect of the universe'. You will find with limited study though many Freemasons are unaware of it they are very much a religion. These are the authoritive sources fro Freemasonry

‘the Ritual –what happens in the lodge
Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia
Mackey’s Revised Encyclopedia
Introduction to Freenasonry by Carl Claudy
A Masonic Readers Guide by Alphonse Cersa
History of Freemasonry by Robert Gould
The Craft and its Symbols by Allen Roberts
Morals and Dogmas

Really a little more than a nice social club for my liking.

Dear me, runner.

Read will you.

You can't read a bible, can you read anyting?

Evolution is a very boring fact.

Get over it. Go tell pastor it embarrasses you that he maintains otherwise.

Rusty

Has there been a thread with so many postings 'deleted for abuse'? I haven't seen so many before.

But getting back to the topic.

The whole purpose of faith based organisation is to spread the faith that they hold. Unlike the secular world (except maybe the party political sphere, which I will get back to shortly) faith based organisations do not make a distinction between whoever is in the pulpit and the person cleaning the pulpit, or the person writing curriculae and the person delivering it. It comes down to the fact that the people involved inthis activity must all be seen as working towards the same goal, or at least not opposing it.

All it takes is one inside person who, by personal example or speech, goes against the aims of the organisation and much of the work of that organisation would be undone.

I mentioned political parties: would the Liberal Party employ in a senior management role the head of a Labor Party branch? Would the Greens employ a senior member of One Nation? Sure, they would never declare that they wouldn't, but would find another reason to employ someone else.

My last point at this time, knowing what a faith based organisation stands for, why would anyone who at least is not neutral about that, or who is not willing to walk the walk, if not talk the talk, even want to work for that faith basd organisation?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199128

Gday Runner, i do like the term "protestant" christian because it always was a protest movement against corruption in both the Anglican & Catholic churches at the time. Plus against corruption politically, as well, all over Britain, Europe & North America. It is also what i was taught in both state & sunday school history lessons.

And i do disagree about the Loony Left being godless. They prattle on constantly about "mother nature", "GAIA", or some OTHER, new or old religion, (which they intend to replace Christianity with), then dare to belittle Christians, about having faith in our god.

But there is another aspect to this, that many Christians have not noticed. Devil worship, at lower levels, freemasonry is indeed a harmless social club that often does good work, like Lions club or Rotary.

At higher levels though, late 20's, early 30's, it is without a shadow of doubt, pure, stone, cold, evil, Devil worship. Look at the Luciferian Lies of their Spin Doctors, Weasel Words, Propaganda. Always, the exact opposite of the truth, or at best, a half truth, designed to deceive.

Loony Left politics is called "Socialism" but the "devil in the detail" of their "practical policy", as opposed to the the flowery, rhetoric of their mission statements, is ALL, "ANTI" Social.

They call it Communism & yet it is, in fact, "ANTI" community.

Make no mistake, many of them are indeed, practicing Satanists. As you said, "witness" their vitriolic responses to you & all other Christians, constantly on these debates.

They are NOT secular, "humanists", or merely disagreeing with you, on some matter of politics, they hate, loath, despise, Christianity & anything good or wholesome.

Q, What is the most efficient way to "groom" millions of children for abuse? A, break up the family, something they have been working assiduously on, for many years.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199139

Runner again, on the churches "losing their salt". Have you seen these ones, on a plot to have young Communists going into seminary to become Catholic priests?

http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/03/bella-dodd.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html

Would not such a person be tempted by the flesh?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199140

Cornflower, you can be quite sensible on some matters. Why can't you believe that Communists would want to infiltrate the Loony Left GAYLP factions in order to pervert our country, from within government?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5vajlNhSzWYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+aarons+the+family+file&source=bl&ots=_JqnT4mkHv&sig=23tiin36Jjg84b7-Ttuxxp7L3gI&hl=en&ei=jKD0TOiQD8fzcfH_mMcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or everything else of some importance, for that matter.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html?skin=text-only

http://www.henrymakow.com/australian_satanist_exposes_wo.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8103359

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

http://www.heineraffair.info/

http://australiancontacts.ning.com/video/australian-new-world-order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabian_Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frankfurt_School

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html

http://www.themonthly.com.au/node/2298

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8696960/nsw-labor-plummets-in-poll/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

All of the above are relevant to the GAYLP's imminent de-registration, Cornflower, but the last half dozen are among my personal all time favourites.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-e6frezz0-1225980594646

GAIA? Exporting Jobs? Child Neglect & Abuse is good? 100% of all Aussie husbands were raping their wives in the 1950's?

Ye gods do you actually believe this drivel that has been done by &/or promoted by, the Closet Communist GAYLP?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199141

Runner again, i think that "god helps those that help themselves" & it is up to us to ridicule, the ANTI social, ANTI community, ANTI family, ANTI Christian, Closet Communist Corporate Paedophiles of the Loony Left at every turn. Time for the boot to be on the other foot.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199142

Dear Yuyutsu, i & every other Aussie have been tolerant towards everybody over the last half century or so. THEY, (especially everybody on the Loony Left) responded by being "IN" tolerant towards Moderate, Mainstream, Middle of the road, Middle class, Christian, fair, reasonable people. Who make up between 70% & 80% of the population BTW.

I seem to remember you saying once that you are, or were an AFP officer.

Can you think of anything good about, most members of the extreme, radical, Loony Left, factions of the Red/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance engaging in a deliberate, premeditated, conspiracy to commit acts of social, economic & cultural treason/sedition, repeatedly over half a century?

Especially when the result is the neglect & abuse of children?

Stop stumbling forwards, punch drunk, lurching from one disaster to the next, like Jooolia wants. Look backwards with 20/20 hindsight.

Multiculturalism was invented by Communists to weaken, destabilise, Strong, Healthy, Mono-cultural societies. The evidence is everywhere around you.

Me, an AFP officer? Oh Dear!

Me, who disapproves of 90% of Australia's laws and of the government's moral right to legislate such laws in the first place, am going to serve Julia and her clones by enforcing their laws, me knocking on doors saying: "You have 5 seconds to open that door and let those guys install the NBN at your home, or else I'll break that door and shoot you down"?

Government should step right out of our lives, and one of the areas they have no mandate to interfere with in the first place is culture: mono-culturalism, multi-culturalism, western-culturalism, eastern-culturalism, Christian-culturalism, Muslim-culturalism, aboriginal-culturalism, whatever - it's up to individuals and the voluntary associations they form to decide which culture (if any) they want to live in.

Yes, Australian Christians are indeed a tolreant lot, unlike their American counterparts who burn abortion-clinics and shoot their doctors, Muslims who blow themselves up in infidel tourist-sites or the Jewish-Orthodocs in Israel who stab gays (notwhistanding the fact that they have above-average closet-homosexuals in their midst) and force women to walk on the other side of the street and sit in the back of the bus.

And so it should be, well done, a good example of turning the other cheek - but if you want freedom from the oppressive Reds/Greens, you CANNOT do it alone. Do not allow the Red/Green divide-and-conquer strategy to work: if you want to succeed and get the government right out of your schools and out of your churches, you must join forces with other minorities, including those who do not walk the Christian life (yes, that includes Gaia worshippers and those who want to sacrifice their first-born to Moloch), on the basis that every one should be allowed to live and teach their children according to their own beliefs. Wear a clothespin on your nose if you need to, but do it anyway!

It has been more than 12 hours since I suggested that political parties will discriminate in regards to whom they employ as much as faith groups.

No-one has responded to that comment, so I will add a little more:

Being an active member of a political party is as much a matter of faith as being a member of a religious faith group.

For the Liberals and Labor at least it is really only a matter of economics and the application of that so-called science.

For the Greens it is more, it is a world view that is summed up in the name 'The Greens', which seems to include a whole lot of other stuff, that would be best called a matter of faith, such as euthenasia, gay marriage and the like, rather than even so-called science.

Of course 'The Greens' are going to attack other faith-based groups. After all, more than the other political parties the churches are in direct competition with 'The Greens'.

So I will issue a minor challenge to any person who wants to claim here that they represent 'The Greens' in any way, shape or form.

Would 'The Greens' employ someone who publically lives, and states, any conviction in direct opposition, or competition, to 'The Greens' way of thinking about the world, human relations, 'politics' and the like?

Or are 'The Greens' really just like the faith-based groups that they wish to attack because they simply want to be able to remain united in their own faith-based activities?

"It has been more than 12 hours since I suggested that political parties will discriminate in regards to whom they employ as much as faith groups.

No-one has responded to that comment"

- Because it is too obvious: of course they will - what's the big deal?

So why choose such a charged word as "discriminate" when that's the most natural thing?
People and organizations (so long as they are not publically funded) should be able to exercise their choice and employ whomever they wish for whatever reasons, be they rational or otherwise, subject only to the agreement of the other party to be employed.

So, accepting that both "the greens" and "religious faith groups" have a personal-bias type proclivity to hiring people whose smell they like, lets look just a little further.

The greens have a very basic premise that overt pollution or resource depletion is bad. Religious "faith groups" have premises that cannot be reconciled, even with other similar "faith groups".

Further, do "the greens" regard their merely personal ethics beyond discussion, in the manner that "faith groups do their "morals"?

Would "faith groups" accept the word of a prophet who ordered the killing of children in military action, or the taking for rape of young girls, similarly acquired?

Just whose "priciples" are more questionable?

Hmmmmm?

Not so easy really, is it? Come on Yuyutsu, give us more than word games. So many can play those after all.

Rusty

Dear Rusty,

Your discrimination in favour of some faith-groups (eg. Greens) and against others (eg. religions) is obvious - and it is your right to do so. Your specific reasoning was that the later have more questionable "principles" than the former while the former's principles are more discussable - fine, you are entitled to your view and we need not go into it and investigate the truth or otherwise of that view since it is irrelevant to our current discussion.

It is obvious that you would like to see the former grow and the later disappear - and you are perfectly entitled to your preferences, that is, until you take active action against the ones you hate.

So it seems you decided to mete out punishment for the groups which you hate, which takes the form of denying them the right to employ whoever they want (yet allow your desirable groups to keep that privilege). Then why this particular punishment? you might as well have punished them by denying them the right to wash their socks or by forcing them to wear a yellow patch for identification. In fact, why not combine all the above punishments and add a few extras so that their life will become indeed so miserable that they will be forced to turn Green?

Once you allow yourself to persecute those you don't like, you are no longer better than that prophet which you mentioned.

Formersnag

Thanks for the links. You have no argumement with me with it comes to Freemasonry. I think anyone speaking to ex members or doing a small amount of research knows that at a high level it is very religous indeed. Interesting that Mormons at the high level also teach that Lucifer and Jesus were brothers. I wonder if Joseph Smith was also a Freemason. I suppose you could spend years studying all this stuff. You

I am not sure if I agree with your statement

'Runner again, i think that "god helps those that help themselves" & it is up to us to ridicule, the ANTI social, ANTI community, ANTI family, ANTI Christian, Closet Communist Corporate Paedophiles of the Loony Left at every turn. Time for the boot to be on the other foot.'

I think as Christians we have a right to speak out the ways of God and as Australians we have a right and responsibility to lobby and put a biblical case. The Marxist are champions of free speech unless it comes to Christians.

It is true however that all mankind is under sin whether from the right or left. Tony Abbott needs a Saviour just as much as Julia Gillard and Bob Brown. The fact that his policies in general are a lot more family friendly does not make him a better person than Gillard. It is the believers who are saved not those who think they are good.

I actually think God helps those who humble themselves before His Mighty Hand. This does not take away our responsibility but to have a faith that knows at the end of the day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord is a great comfort. Hopefully as many as possible will do it before its to late for them.

Why would someone want to do the gardening for someone that they disagree with? Because they need work and there is competition for jobs.

Should employers be free to employ whoever they want? A blanket yes just leads to eventual oppression. What if all the business owners decide amongst themselves that they will not tolerate employing people who eat ice cream. Ice cream eaters can then not get a job, unless they give up eating ice cream. The employers have forced a conformity on all employees, yet it has no relevance to their being "fit for purpose".

Will political parties employ people that don't agree with them? What, you think every office cleaner, chauffeur, chef and electrician is screened for political orthodoxy? What mad world do you live in?

Dougthebear asks "I mentioned political parties: would the Liberal Party employ in a senior management role the head of a Labor Party branch? Would the Greens employ a senior member of One Nation? Sure, they would never declare that they wouldn't, but would find another reason to employ someone else." The legislation does not refer to people employed as part of the religious services, butincidental employees such as secretaries or gardeners, and others who are not part of delivering the organisations religious message.

Oh, and Formersnag, "Our fore fathers here, in Britain, Europe & North America fought & died for the right to be "protestant" Christians. NOT anything else."? No sir, you dishonour them greatly. They died fighting against the kind of oppressions you wish to impose.

Dan Dare, you don't get it.

In faith-based organisations EVERYONE is expected to be involved at some level with advancing the purpose of that organisation, even the gardiner, the cleaner and the filing clerk.

And any faith based organisation that emplyed people who fundamentally disagree with that organisation's reason for being is only opening that organisation up to ridicule.

Dan Dare,

Dougthebear's apology is unwarranted. He should not have to plead with you for an exemption, or in fact he does not owe you any explanation in the first place on why he chooses to employ certain people and not others.

Employers (except in the public sector or those who receive benefits from the state in one form or another) have the full right not to employ ice-cream eaters. I suspect they will soon find that practice very stupid and un-economic so many of them will break ranks.

Get off this entitlement mentality: Nobody owes you explanations and nobody owes you a job.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199263

dear Dougthebear, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Your spot on, but it goes even further than that. The "old girl network" in the Red/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance goes out of their way with nepotism to give each other jobs. 90% of all social workers are Fe"Man"Nazis. if you are a young, gay, metro-sexual you might have a chance of a job there, if you can prove you are a "card carrying" party member, in the "politically correct" faction, & will "tow the party/factional line".

Investigate the history of the entire public sector, safe seats, bureaucrookracy, NGOs, QANGOs, sub contractors, infrastructure projects, anything getting any government money at all & you will find family, factional friends, donations, "performance bonuses".

Oh & the Red/greens really, truely, genuinely are a faith based organisation.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-e6frezz0-1225980594646

"Mother Nature" is the other one they always mention & worship.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11638#199266

Poor, dear rusty, Red/green policies have been & still are damaging our forests, "burning people at the stake", right now.

Q, Why do you think those bush fires in Victoria & everywhere else are getting worse?

A, fuel loads, not enough grazing animals, means to much "undergrowth fuel loads", real conservationists in the Australian Democrats were talking about this stuff in the 70's & 80's.

The RED/greens are CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists who pretend to care about, "the environment" as an excuse to oppose all developement, progress, industry, jobs, in "capitalist" countries.

And as for mentioning wars have you not heard of Stallin, Pol Pot?