Fine, Gary. I won't call your opposition homophobic. I'll just call it C*^&servative and tyrannical. Because that's what policies and people who only care about their own civil rights genuinely are.

There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage”, just as there is no such thing as “carnivorous vegetarianism”. Claiming gays are discriminated against because marriage has one meaning and not another is as silly as claiming that funerals discriminate against the living because you have to be dead to have one. That opinion polls show such support for “same-sex marriage” show how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with a few well-chosen slogans, such as “marriage equality”, lies, such as the claim that gays are not already allowed to marry, and phony framing of questions, such as should same-sex marriage be legalised, when it is not illegal but non-existent and therefore cannot be legalised. The media and corporate worlds have fallen into line. Labor has caved in despite being totally in favour of marriage in 2004 when it supported the insertion of the common law definition into the Marriage Act to forestall activist judges redefining the word. The High Court, even though it was not asked to do so, has amended the Constitution by deciding that the word “marriage” in it does not mean “marriage” as it did for the 113 years it had been in there but something else entirely. Those who speak up are called names and abused in order to intimidate them into silence. Those who did not give a damn about the non-issue in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960 or 1950 and who joined the bandwagon only last week freely condemn those who have not. In case all these manoeuvres do not work, the would-be word thieves drag the logical thinkers before thought police tribunals. The whole thing is the most absurd non-issue to be taken seriously in my lifetime. It proves you can con people into anything at all if you put it the right way.

Wow, Chris. I guess by that logic, cancer patients get special rights since you aren't allowed to have chemo or radiation therapy without the dreaded Big C.

Besides, marriage is a civil institution as much as it is a religious one. And in modern society, we should learn to live and let live.

Your hypocrisy on this issue is as heinous as that perpetrated by the anti end-of-life choice community. To be consistent, we would have to deny all their members access to pain relief, INCLUDING sunscreen and surgery.

The takeaway is that in increasingly diverse countries, centralised programs on health, education and social issues don't seem to work.

Strage? Safe schools was perfectly fine when rolled out and fully funded by the (inclusive, ha, ha, he, he, ho, ho, oh my aching ribs) Abbott Government!
Rhrosty.

AyameTan:

"Besides, marriage is a civil institution as much as it is a religious one. And in modern society, we should learn to live and let live."

Marriage is not an institution at all - it is a relationship. You can be married without having anything to do with government all you have to do is change the definition of marriage to make it a private agreement between the two people involved. Many people have this type of relationship and are quite content for it to have nothing to do with institutional government or religion.

So you wouldn't care if there were no government benefits for married couples, Phanto? Benefits like a halved income tax and the right to visit your spouse in hospital?

I will not be drawn into discussing the [silly] contents of those pastoral letters that were sent by the church to its members, but we should be really worried about the fact that people are prosecuted for sending mail to their friends - this is the road which leads to North Korea.

What I cannot understand is, why the cowardly archbishop agreed to appear and grovel before the committee. Even if he was brought in chains he should have spat in their face. It certainly did not add to his blessings as Psalm 1 says: "Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take OR SIT IN THE COMPANY OF MOCKERS".

Christianity was at its best when it was underground - perhaps it's time for it to shine again there, but then do not be surprised when despairing members of Christian splinter-groups blow themselves up in airports and train stations.

AyameTan:

Those rights are distributed on the basis of you being a couple - not a married couple. You don't need a marriage certificate to obtain any of those rights.

Christophobia is far more prevelant than homophobia. Homosexuality is promoted and held in high regard especially by our national broadcasters. Their hatred of anything Christian is very noticeable. No wonder they want to infect the minds of the kids before they learn any decency. Wasn't it Turnbull who defended his mate photographing nude teen girls. Oh that's right its called art.

Ayame,

Rights have nothing to do with it. Cancer patients don’t get special rights. They get treatment for the disease they have. Heart patients get treatment for the disease they have, but we don’t start calling heart disease cancer and call those who think cancer is different from heart disease heartdiseasephobic bigots.

Of course marriage is a civil institution, though it arose organically. It was not created by church or state. The union of a man and a woman is the institution, and marriage is the name that institution is given. The union of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman, each of which has also existed throughout history, is not a marriage. Any gay who wants to marry may already do so. Years ago, they did to protect themselves from discrimination. Now they do not need to. Why anyone would want to call their relationship by the name of a relationship that they were once pushed into and would actually hate to have is a mystery to me.

I have never seen an argument for depriving the language of a word that means the union of man and a woman, just a lot of specious claims about rights and discrimination, none of which makes the slightest sense, and abusive name-calling.

Of course anyone who calls another person a homophobe is a bully, just as only bullies call people they disagree with racists, or any other disparaging word - most of which are usually completely wrong, merely a nasty attempt at a put down by a nasty person who has really no backing for a nasty belief. The only way to deal with bullies is to ignore their pathetic abuse, and stick to your guns. Politicians might be cowed by the thought of being called 'homophobes' or 'racists' etc because they are addicted to votes and power. The rest of us have no such needs, and we have as much influence over politicians as the bullies do. Ignore the bullies and say what you think.

As readers may know, I don't like personal attacks, I find them so distressing and almost always quite unnecessary.

But, AyameTan, you're a moron. Take your own advice:

" ... C*^&servative and tyrannical. Because that's what policies and people who only care about their own civil rights genuinely are."

People who don't have cancer should be able to get treatment for cancer ? Married couples pay half income tax ? The right to visit your spouse or de facto in hospital ? Where do you get these half-witted ideas from ? The Unsafe Schools program perhaps ?

Advice: Stay at school, ignore the hordes of bullies and apply yourself - by the time you reach Year 10, much will become clearer.

Joe

Just more Extreme Right wing Rubbish and BS was the usual suspect

John, the thousands of years old practise of marriage is " extreme right wing rubbish?"
Who knew?

Hi John.

"Just more Extreme Right wing Rubbish and BS was the usual suspect."

If you wish to change people's attitudes, the onus is on you to persuade them: your case is not helped by insulting people, or trying to (I'm pretty sure we're a thick-skinned bunch). Do you want to demonstrate a case for something, or just empty your dunny cart ?

As they say, he who asserts must provide evidence, otherwise whatever he claims can be ignored. In Latin, 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis.'

The alternative is that, by simply throwing insults, you leave the field of evidence open to alternative viewpoints, which only make your mountain that much harder to climb over, eventually. Or, of course, show to all and sundry that you have no case at all. Ah - hence the insults ?

Joe

Garry Johns wrote -
"In its pastoral letter, “Don’t Mess With Marriage”, the Australian Catholic Bishops reminded readers that “every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth”. Federal Greens candidate, and same-sex marriage advocate, Martine Delaney hauled Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous before the Tasmanian anti-­discrimination commission to justify his view on marriage. This smacks of hubris."

Yet, Ms Delaney said the language used in the booklet, that "messing with marriage is messing with kids", implied criminal activity.

"In Australian society 'messing with kids' is generally used right across the country as virtually code for sexual abuse or paedophilia," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/anti-discrimination-complaint-an-attempt-to-silence-the-church/6810276

"To quietly sort of add that to the booklet to me suggests that there is an attempt to lay some insinuations to make some statements without being honest about what you're saying."

She said some of the content breached a section of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act, making it illegal to insult offend or humiliate an individual or group on the basis of a listed attribute.

"It appears to be a whole lot of statements of Catholic belief but then it also makes quite bold, and I think very questionable, statements," she said.

The Catholic Weekly acknowledges Delany's position -

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/anti-discrimination-commissioner-reportedly-finds-archbishop-julian-porteous-in-possible-breach-of-act/

.

"Rest assured, there is no discrimination in law against gay people."

Yes, there is. Given how societies and it's members now view homosexuality.

McReal,

"Yes, there is. Given how societies and it's members now view homosexuality."

You don't know much about society. Countries similar to ours have voted for same sex so-called marriage, and there is more than a 50% chance that Australian society will do the same, such is the degeneration of society. You will get what you want, but you will always be fringe-dwellers, separate from the rest, including most of those who vote for it; they are just 'feel good' types who don't understand that 'equality' is not always appropriate, and they won't be inviting you around to their heterosexual, normal households any time soon.

Give it up Chris C.
If the word marriage meant only a man and a woman then how come we use the word in so many other contexts?
Like for instance saying the marriage of idiocy and malice. Or the marriage of vegimite and hot toast. Even the marriage of one poncy art style with another. A marriage of reggae and funk was a description used for the band The Police.

The word means and can be used for so much more than just hetero coupling. Your argument is facile and disingenuous and doesnt fool anyone

mikk,

Look up the difference between “literal” and “metaphorical”, or are you suggesting the Marriage Act be amended to define “marriage” as “the union of vegemite and toast”?

Hi Mikk,

Marriage entails or affects divorce, widowhood, inheritance and birth, raising and custody of children.

Once 'married', I wonder how a piece of toast could get divorced from the vegemite spread on it ? Perhaps not if one was Catholic. Fortunately, on the other hand, they usually are widowed together, down to the last crumb, and neither leaves offspring, and disputes over inheritance of survivor versus children are avoided, so I suppose a piece of toast with vegemite both die intestate.

But imagine the hassles if one spread jam on a bit of toast instead of vegemite: can the vegemite sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery ? Can a half-eaten piece of toast with vegemite be apportioned appropriately after such a divorce ?

Thanks Mikk, for raising such crucial issues, and for conclusively proving the existence of the hitherto-undiscovered marriage of idiocy and malice.

Joe

Labelling anyone as homophobic shows how out of touch with human nature the labeller really is.

Homophobia is not a disease but a feeling. It is a fear and as such it does not have any value of good or bad. Claustrophobia, agoraphobia and arachnophobia are the same. These things are neither rational nor irrational – they just exist as part of our human nature. Denigrating the reality of these feelings is to denigrate human nature.

Whether homosexual people like it or not there are many heterosexual people who are repulsed by the sight or thought of homosexual behaviour. This is a fact that could be measured physiologically in the same way that other phobias can be. How they behave in response to their feelings may be open to criticism but the fact they have those feelings can never open to criticism.

Homosexual people expose themselves when they try and criticise people for being homophobic as being out of touch with their own human nature. It shows a lack of understanding of fear and revulsion and how they play a fundamental role in how we cope with reality.

ttbn,
The proportion of people that are fearful of or irrational about homosexuals is progressively decreasing. They're people.

You can’t be fearful of homosexuals but you can be fearful or repulsed by homosexual behaviour.

How could you tell that such feelings are decreasing without some physiological data? It is not a question of what they do in response to those feelings but whether or not those feelings are as valid as any other feelings that are found in human nature. All feelings are valid.

Many people may have those feelings but still choose to support same-sex marriage. Many people may have those feelings but they are too afraid to express them. Many people have them but suppress them.

The numbers will not go up and down any more than the numbers of people who have claustrophobia will go up and down. You cannot control those feelings only the way you behave in relation to those feelings.

It is pointless to say ‘they are people’. Murderers are people too so should we be uncritical of their behaviour?

Hi McReal,

"The proportion of people that are fearful of or irrational about homosexuals is progressively decreasing. They're people."

Do you mean that the people who are fearful etc. are people ? or the people that they are fearful about are people ? Or that the proportion of people who are perfectly rational about homosexuals is increasing, which says what, either way ?

It's so irritating when the English language is so imprecise, isn't it ?

Joe

Yuyutsu: What I cannot understand is, why the cowardly archbishop agreed to appear and grovel before the committee. Even if he was brought in chains he should have spat in their face.

So what you are advocating is that the archbishop should have adopted bullying as per the Left-wing lynch mob that trashed Senator Cory Bernardi’s electoral office on 18 March 2016.

Dear Raycom,

No, I do not advocate anything like it. I find the attempted analogy very strange.

As the leader of his flock, the archbishop should not allow his faith to be humiliated by responding to the committee's summons. He should have ignored them completely.

IF however, he was physically dragged and brought before them in chains because he refused to willingly appear before them (and obviously the brats you refer to did not experience anything remotely similar), then he should spit in their face, clearly demonstrating to his flock that the only one to be feared is God, not the secular authorities.

Loudmouth, I mean homosexuals are people. and Yes, I think the proportion of people who are rational about homosexuality is increasing.

Apart from their sexuality, and perceptions of what they might get up to, homosexuals are no different to you and I. They deserve to be understood for the reality that they do not choose their sexuality. Expecting them to not be sexual, or to not nuture, is unreasonable.

phanto, to somewhat conflate homosexuals with murders is pretty weird.

There are plenty of heterosexual people who like anal sex, and there are plenty of homosexuals who don't.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Religious laws have no legal status in this
country. There is but one law that we are all
supposed to abide by and if an archbishop
or anybody else breaks the law - they must be
held accountable.

Dear Foxy,

<<Religious laws have no legal status in this country.>>

Neither are the laws of physics:

- Apples are not legally obliged to fall down to the earth rather than fly to the moon.
- Light will not get a speeding ticket if it goes faster than 299,792.458 km/second.
- No two perpendicular sides of a triangle will be prosecuted if the sum of their squares would not be equal to the square of the triangle's hypotenuse.
- Man is not legally obliged to die, ever.

So in fact, many laws operate in Australia, even if only few of them have a legal status.
Moreover, we are accountable to many of these laws: for example, if we dive into an empty pool then we can expect to break our head on its floor.

As for obeying authorities, I think you may like this reference: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framechapter10.html

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked in an
interview on the "7.30 Report," "But don't you think
Australian Muslims - Muslims living in
Australia also have a responsibility to adhere to
Australian law?"

To which he answered. "This is a big problem. There are
two laws - there is an Australian law and there is an
Islamic law."

Peter Costello tells us in his book, "The Costello
Memoirs," that -

No, this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and
conscience, but there is not a separate system of law
derived from religious sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society. The source of our law is the democratically
elected legislature. Our State is a secular State. As such
it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.

Dear Foxy,

This Costello guy was speaking for himself: he said "There is one law we are all expected to abide by" - it is by himself. He, Mr. Costello happens to expect everyone to abide by his kind of laws - so what? these are his private expectations. I don't have any such expectations, nor does Ben Brika, nor many others.

<<there is not a separate system of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society.>>

Looking from the other side, it is rather the Australian law that attempts to compete with and supplant all natural and religious laws with its ambition to create a civil society and force it down the throats of all the inhabitants of this continent.

<<The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature>>

Speak for yourself please. It could be, at this point in time, the source of YOUR laws, not mine.

<<Our State is a secular State.>>

Again, speak for yourself please. I don't own any states, I just happen to be their victim, nor do I have a desire to control other people and tell them how they should live.

<<As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.>>

When I want the cat to guard my cream, then I'll go and ask him to.

A huge part of why people are becoming more tolerant of queers are because society is becoming too messed up with political correctness.

I think at some point peer pressure is being traded for political correctness.
The youth had a different idea of what was accepted once but now things are a whole lot different.
Things were different before mobile phones and the internet.

PC has fragmented what once was peer-pressure and now we have a huge plethora of different social groups all with different moronic social agendas.

The information age has been balanced with just as much disinformation and bs that people are losing their way.

Peer pressure isn't there in the way it was to keep them on the straight and narrow.

And that's why men have become effeminate whining skirt wearing pansies with social agendas.

Dearest Foxy,

"Peter Costello tells us in his book, "The Costello Memoirs," that -

"No, this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

"Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience, but there is not a separate system of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature. Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship."

Spot-on ! In Australia, we have achieved a separation of church and state, with state laws always prevailing. The problem with Islam (well, one major problem) is that they cannot recognise the separation of church and state, since the Koran is supposed to be the perfect word, unchangeable for all time, of Allah. Hence they cannot recognise even the existence of a State separate from Islam, and most certainly not in competition with it: by definition the modern state is thus kafir.

With that belief, there is bound to be 'tension' between Islamic believers and the Australian state, no matter how often politicians say there is no such 'tension'.

Lots of love,

Joe

Armchair Critic,
It's not 'political correctness'. It's a combination of live-and-let-live and greater understanding (ie. empathy) and compassion.

Political correctness is a term of derision, which is all that many have.

Well said McReal. It is amazing to see a transformation in beliefs about homosexuality in many people when someone's own child or grandchild turns out to be gay.
I just wish this same compassion was felt by all, because being gay in today's society remains a challenge in many ways.

Loudmouth, you surely don't think that only the strict adherents to Islam and the Koran are alone in thinking that their brand of God and religion trumps any country's man-made laws? One only needs to read the responses of many on this forum to realize that fact.
I think that this is a problem with all religions and their imaginary gods...

Loudmouth lauds Peter Costello today Friday, 25 March, 9:59am

" .. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

"Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience, but there is not a separate system of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature. Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship."

Spot-on ! In Australia, we have achieved a separation of church and state, with state laws always prevailing."

Yet, state laws haven't prevailed with respect to suitable justice for child abuse at the hands of church individuals & its mishandling by authorities.

Loudmouth's pronouncements about Islam might, like Ben Brika's, might apply to elevation of Canon'Law' above state law.

that is why, to paraphrase Loudmouth, why there is " 'tension'between Christian believers and the Australian state".

And, one thing Costello doesn't address is freedom from religion.

McReal,

I was quoting Foxy, by the way.

Yes, state laws do operate in the case of child abuse by church personnel, but the wheels of justice grind slow sometimes. There are no church laws which are recognised by any state in Australia which protect abusers, and nor should there be.

'Canon law' or Shari'a law must never be recognised to have any effect whatever in Australia's civil society: the civil rights of all Australians, believers or not, must be protected by the State.

Hence the 'tension', McReal: one belief system holds that religion should eventually prevail over the State and all individuals, while the secular State MUST uphold the principle that it prevails totally over any religion and protects the rights of all individuals.

'Tension' ? It's more like undeclared war, as we shall learn in due course.

And freedom OF religion always includes freedom FROM religion, thankfully. There can be NO compulsion to believe in any secular state - isn't that obviously logical ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

While it is quite possible to not believe in any gods and the like, it is impossible to be free from religion, even more impossible than being able to live without oxygen - nevertheless, we should be able to be free from all organised religions as well as from all other organisations, states included.

Even if there were no organised religions whatsoever, there would still be no justification for any man-made laws that were devised by a particular group of people to prevail over others who never consented to belong to that group.

Hi Yuyutsu,

You're entitled to your opinion as an extreme anarchist. The state protects your right to such opinions, they won't jail you for them.

But like it or not, you ARE in this society. You have the protection of the laws regarding civil rights. You don't even have to do much to 'earn' that protection.

So how do you think you would go under Shari'a law ? Or strict Catholic Canon law ? Count your blessings :)

And how would any homosexuals go under Shari'a law ?

Yes, it's an irritatingly complex world: a lot of give and take, Yuyutsu.

Joe

Dear Joe,

So you consider the view that imposing oneself on others is wrong, as "extreme"?

All it takes to have this view is the principle of non-violence, or ahimsa: the same ancient principle that was promoted and followed by Mahatma Gandhi, the very first tenet and requisite of Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga, without which spiritual progress is hardly possible.

In Western culture, this is often referred to as the "Golden Rule", which was also taught by Jesus, who on this date died on the cross to teach it. But of course we always knew Jesus to be an extreme radical!

As for Sharia and Catholic Canon laws, pointing one's finger at others and claiming that they are "even worse", is never a valid excuse for one's own bad actions.

Yuyutsu,

Sometimes trying to untangle your non sequiturs seems futile. Still, I'll give it a go.

I am not the State. I don't impose myself on others, the State does, as every State has the right to do, in the fulfilment of its obligations to all citizens, not just you or me. We elect members of parliament, the majority of them choose a government and that government takes on the duties of the State. How do you propose to stand alone from all that, and from the rights, benefits and obligations that flow from it ?

My remarks about Shari'a and Canon law pertained to their position with regards to State law. In a secular, democratic society, they have no standing. Good or bad, 'better' or 'worse', is irrelevant. As it happens, I do think they are far 'worse', more backward, than contemporary secular law and its recognition of the equal rights of all, regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

Joe

Well said Loudmouth.
I have often struggled to understand where Yuyutsu is coming from, with his stance about not wanting any sort of human law or government in his life, but yet wanting others to agree with his stance on religion.

It is all a silly dream anyway, unless he wants to go back to the time of the caveman, where any disputes were settled by a quick clubbing to death of your rival...

Loudmouth,

I can agree with all that you wrote. However, not being a lawyer I still think there is an essential difference between the claims of Canon and Sharia laws.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law#Canon_law :

“Sharia, also known as Islamic law is the moral code and religious law of Islam.

Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.

The reintroduction of sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries.”

In distinction,

“Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organisation and its members.”

In particular, no Catholic, even the most fanatic, would want the State law (in a Western country) to be replaced by the Canon law. The most they want is that the State Law does not contradict what they see as the Christian moral code, distinct from the “laws and regulations” for the running of the Church organisation.

As you begin your day as a Christian, you need a religious inspiration that will guide you through all the daily problems. Life Application Bible Study – Chronological Reviews with Lessons and Prayers is such a book that not only does only do the guiding, but also inspires you to understanding Christianity and whom God wants you to be.
The book is structured in an easy way to comprehend; it guides you into understanding Scriptures chapter by chapter. It further guides you about situations of your life using bible tone and references.
Lesson by the Life Application Bible Study look at both the New and the Old Testament, with each day guided by a different scripture. The Bible verses are arranged to focus on a particular message. A continued follow-up in the lesson gives you – as a reader – deeper insight of the teaching to capture God’s divine inspiration to benefit your daily living.
Make Life Application Bible Study your daily companion, and indeed, you will see the difference in your life.
http://jamestaiwo.com/life-applications-bible-study-chronoogical-reviews-lessons-and-prayers-ebook/

As you begin your day as a Christian, you need a religious inspiration that will guide you through all the daily problems. Life Application Bible Study – Chronological Reviews with Lessons and Prayers is such a book that not only does only do the guiding, but also inspires you to understanding Christianity and whom God wants you to be.
The book is structured in an easy way to comprehend; it guides you into understanding Scriptures chapter by chapter. It further guides you about situations of your life using bible tone and references.
http://jamestaiwo.com/life-applications-bible-study-chronoogical-reviews-lessons-and-prayers-ebook/

Thanks Golem Azoom,

Thanks, I'll bear all that in mind.

Hi George,

Yes, I agree that - for all sorts of historical reasons - Christianity has never wielded the dictatorial power than Islam seems to wield over their respective flocks, and over the day-to-ay running of the State. Perhaps from the outset of the adoption of Christianity, secular power, that of the Emperors, struggled with it, while in Islamic states, Islam ruled from the outset of their invasion, with weak but necessary secular power taking its cue from the Koran, and secular power always being subordinate to religious authority.

So in Fukuyama's terms, Christian states rarely succumbed to the rule-in-one of a Caesar and a Pope - what he calls 'Caesaropapism' - while it was pretty much the rule in Islamic territories, until Ataturk abolished the Caliphate in 1924.

And since the Koran is pitched as the literal word of Allah, unchangeable and perfect, Muslims are stuck with it. Until Muslims separate Church and State, and are comfortable with secular authorities being responsible for secular issues and wielding secular power over a secular State, then they are doomed to acquiesce in the goal of Islamists: the conquest of the entire secular world in the name of Allah.

Joe

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Again, I agree. Christianity had to go a long way to arrive at the contemporary clear (theoretically at least) distinction between Church and State, Islam has not yet even embarked on such a journey. Perhaps the reason is that Christians had already in the Bible “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's“ from where to proceed, whereas Koran, as far as I know, has no such advise.

Dear Joe,

First, we are in agreement that Shari'a and Canon laws are "are far 'worse', more backward, than contemporary secular law and its recognition of the equal rights of all, regardless of their religion or lack of religion."

The difference between us is that I am not willing to rest on my laurels, content with ranking third from the bottom.

The same reason that makes it wrong for Muslims and Christians to impose their sexual norms on others, makes it also wrong for states to impose their own norms on others.

Muslims are nothing but a group of people, Christians are nothing but a group of people and states are nothing but a group of people: what possibly gives one group a right to impose themselves on others - but not the other?

Your mention of elections, parliament, majority, duties, rights and obligations is a red herring: these are merely mechanisms by which a state handles its internal matters - but for those to have any meaning, one must first freely consent to belong to this group of people which call themselves "state". As this condition was never met, none of those is relevant.

I agree that Western/democratic states are less cruel than the Islamic State, but that difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. Both types believe that they have a right to control all the people who happen to live in a given land-mass which they conquered.

It is OK to have states, so long as their jurisdiction is based on their citizen's consent rather than on an arbitrary territory. Indeed, it is unlikely that you will be able to obtain the free consent of all the people who live in a huge area such as the continent of Australia, so then you are likely to end up with smaller states - and this is as it should be. Nothing then prevents these smaller independent states to freely enter into a network of mutual agreements on various aspects of life as their people wish.

Yuyutsu,

Oy. Can you see that your opinion that states have to "be able to obtain the free consent of all the people" - "all the people" - suggests that, ultimately, there should be no states at all, that people somehow should exist free of any obligations to anybody else, but also at the mercy of anybody else who may be stronger ?

So who would build the roads that you travel on ? Who would supply the water and electricity that you rely on ? Schools for your kids ? Hospitals ? Public transport ? How would you agree on a price for what you buy from any shopkeeper stupid enough to try to run a business in a world without common rules ?

Can't you see that even the most basic hunter-gatherer societies provided more structure and safety, coupled with obligations, that what you are proposing ? What you are suggesting is, without any exaggeration, akin to some sort of pre-human society that has never existed, one without rules, duties, obligations in return for some basic order, human relationships, and security.

Democracy - across an entire nation - may have imperfections (since there never has been, or will ever be, a 'perfect' society) - but it's how we, the people, make it. If you want perfection, immerse yourself in religious fantasies like the Islamists: how do you reckon that's turning out ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Obviously, you want a state and apparently so do most others, so what stops you from having your state the way you wish?

The only difference, if you care to not be a violent brute, is to leave those others alone who aren't interested in sharing the benefits and obligations of your state, be they few or many. Live your way, but stop dictating your way of life to others, who would then either remain alone or form their own small states - that's their business, not yours. Nothing stops you of course from defending yourself and your people if others threaten you from without, but that's a different issue: so long as they are peaceful towards your people, you may not include them in your civil dreams and aspirations.

<<Democracy - across an entire nation - may have imperfections...>>

The same red-herring again: while democracy is fine, the issue I raised has little to do with the way a "nation" governs itself and handles its internal affairs, but rather with the very notion of "nation" and who may legitimately be included. I'm not asking for states to be perfect - only that they do not include others who do not wish to be part of their group.

One point I raised in my previous post is that smaller states can still have agreements between them which can facilitate many of your expectations.

Alternately, you can try to attract people to your state by assuring them that whatever happens, those things they cherish most will not be jeopardised if they join your state. Let your constitution assure for example that under all circumstances, homosexuals be allowed their sexual practices, that Jews won't be forced to eat pork or be summoned to court/work or made to carry electronic items on the Sabbath, that Sikhs will never be separated from their kirpans and Muslims never prevented from praying 5 times a day. As other groups of people may offer similar or better freedoms, you will be in competition with them over individual/group liberties - and that's an excellent result.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, this discussion has become just too idiotic.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Perhaps you are right, perhaps it is idiotic to demand justice in the face of violence. The official advice for tourists in South America is "If attacked by armed robbers, you should give them what they want".

Yuyutsu,

And is it possible that states in South America need to have more, not less, widespread and effective security measures across their respective countries, while safeguarding the civil rights of all their populations ?

Except, of course, those who do not wish to be part of the country, and who therefore have no rights in it, not even the right to be protected from 'armed robbers' ?

Travelling to South America soon, Yuyutsu ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Very much so for your first two questions, no for the third.

The primary function of a state is to protect its citizens, I never suggested that they should stop doing so.

Of course you need to protect your people against those who threaten to harm them, but assume for example a peaceful monastery up the hill whose only wish is to be left alone so they can pray and meditate - you have no need to protect against them.

Indeed, those who do not wish to belong to a state should not be protected by it (unless of course some mutual agreement is reached between both parties). I could suggest that those monks/nuns should better defend themselves, but whether they do is really up to them.

Yuyutsu,

" ..... assume for example a peaceful monastery up the hill whose only wish is to be left alone so they can pray and meditate - you have no need to protect against them."

Of course, they are still entitled. I don't know what you mean by 'to protect against them'. Even if they are left alone, as they would be, they are still entitled to the protection of any government of the territory they are living in. There must be many, many people in any country who want 'to be left alone' but are still entitled to be protected.

This would not put any obligation on them to actively take part in any of the affairs of the State. They would be free no to do so. As long a they are not harming anybody else, they are entitled to protection. Check out Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper's principles of positive and negative freedom, and of open and closed societies.

Joe

Dear Joe,

As it stands, Australia does not subscribe to the libertarian ideal you present: it is not currently possible to live in the Australian continent, yet be left alone. I wonder whether you can name any country which at present does subscribe to it.

But let's for a moment assume that the state of Rylvania does not interfere with the people who live within its borders and only wish to be left alone, but does protect everyone within its borders unconditionally:

Do you consider it fair for the willing citizens of Rylvania to have to take arms and risk their lives in order to protect those monks who wouldn't contribute or lift a finger to help protect themselves?

Worse, what if the monks are pacifist who believe in turning the other cheek and that by allowing themselves to be protected they incur sin?

Or what if the monks performed human-sacrifices, annually slaughtering one of them (who lovingly accepts) on the altar? Would Rylvania remain indifferent?
(note the similarity with the question of euthanasia!)

Or what for example if two such monasteries traded with each other, using their own currency, buying and selling raw milk and dog's meat (or the meat of the above-mentioned sacrificed monk)? Would it still be fair for other Rylvanians to pay taxes to keep the police-force to protect the monks while the monks pay no taxes?

Or let's say a whole village on the border of Rylvania unanimously agrees to join the neighbouring Unnkulia (hey, it just almost happened in Crimea, although that was not completely unanimous) - should Rylvania still be obliged to protect this village?

Libertarianism is fine, but so is democracy, so is socialism, so is monarchy, so is aristocracy, so is every other system of governance that is accepted by the people it governs. What we therefore need is states whose borders (if any) are defined by the properties belonging to its willing citizens rather than by arbitrary or battle-lines. What regime those states have, I am open-minded about and leave it entirely to the wishes of their citizens.

Yuyutsu,

Pacifists are also protected: even if there were conscription, they may be exempted. No, nobody has to come to anybody else's aid, but most, I think, would.

Most people have the intelligence to realise that, if they use the roads or hospitals or any other public facilities, or if their kids use the schools, then they can rightly be expected to contribute in some way, financially if they can.

As for your ridiculous example of human sacrifice, the 'victim' would have the right to be protected, not to be killed. Or is that the sort of micro-society that you would prefer ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

I fully agree that if people want to use the services of a state then they should contribute/pay for them. Put simply, you can't eat the cake and have it too.

It is great when someone wants to come to somebody else's help so long as the "helpee" actually wants to be helped. The classic example is of the boy-scout escorting an elderly lady across the road when she didn't want to be on the other side to begin with.

Yes, the just-example of human sacrifice looks ridiculous and foreign from Western perspective, but the vast majority of Westerners do support the similar act of euthanasia, having in common that one person kills another with their blessings, so there is no victim. While some religions value sacrifice, the Western culture values the easing of physical suffering: one may try to peacefully convince, but one may not dictate to others what others should value.

To conclude, states should offer a social contract, then individuals are to decide whether they take it or leave it - or they could instead offer a counter-contract which the state too could accept or reject. Obviously, those who do not accept the contract will not be entitled to roads, hospitals, schools, or even state-protection against robbers - what's fair is fair.

It is to be expected that individuals would not insist and accept minor restrictions if the benefits of citizenship outweigh them, but it is also to be expected that individuals will reject any such contract that does not assure their ability to maintain those practices (both observances and avoidances) that are most sacred/dear/valuable for them.

When a state is unable to ensure what is most sacred/dear/valuable for everyone, the result is likely to be several smaller states/nations. However, most benefits of the bigger state can still be achieved through international agreements between the smaller states.