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.