If my life and eternal salvation depended on the absolute almighty truth! And I had a choice between it and being brain washed right back to the stone age, because the latter warms the cockles of my heart/reinforces a predetermined conformation bias!

Then I'd chose the former!

Those that would chose the latter, demonstrate everything that is inherently evil with fundamental, organised, flawed, belief by indoctrination! The "Mufti's" position?

Thus we once justified slavery, lynch mobs and murder, unquestioning obedient incubator wives, who lost all their personal property rights with marriage, and "acceptable" child labour!

Me I'd opt for the truth and trust in that and that alone! Even if if cost me my every cherished dream! Cause sometimes that's the price you pay for staying true to the truth!
TBC, Alan B.

Peter Costello put it so well in his book -
"The Costello Memoirs,":

"In this country we have laws that we are all expected
to abide by. They are laws enacted by Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. Those laws protect the
freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals and conscience however
there is not a separate stream 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.
That is the way it needs to remain."

Many people objected to the representation of "Piss Christ,"
many felt that galleries shouldn't show representations
like that. However we have to recognise that they
should be able to practise their "offensive" taste without
fear of violence or a riot. "Muslims don't like
representations of the Prophet. They don't think newspapers
should print them. But they too must recognise the fact
that this does not justify violence against newspapers or
countries that allow newspapers to publish them."

We need to make it quite clear that we are asking all
citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the
rights and liberties of all. This is not optional.
"We expect everyone living in this country to subscribe
to them. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
We are a secular country. There are countries that
apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Iran
come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law
there are countries where they might feel at ease. But not
Australia."

A long long time ago, a boy sat near his cooking fire while tending his fathers flock. Then out of the darkness came strangers and their horse drawn wagon.

They asked the lad for directions to the nearest inn and offered sweetmeats to win his trust.

Then as they turned to leave, they turned back so quickly the lad was completely take by surprise and unable to use the bow or sword his father had trusted him with! Bundled into the back of the wagon he was taken on a journey that seemed without end.

As they departed his small village, the last thing he heard was his own village bell. At journey's end he found himself standing in a Roman slave market!

For years he labored, winning his kind master's complete trust. Then one fateful morning was handed a bag of gold and ordered to saddle a horse and ride like the wind on some important errand.

As he rode off he formulated other plans and so began an interminable search for his homeland and devastated Parents.

He wandered for years eking out his gold store to survive and push on. From time to time the sound of a distant bell led him on,only to find, as he crested the last hill, it wasn't his beloved village.

Finally one day a very familiar ring lead him on and as he drew within sight, there beneath his gaze stood his very own village.

So also is it so for every human, who all have within them the ring of truth! And you will know it by the response it engenders within, when you hear absolute irrefutable truth!

And or, by the tiny small voice of doubt that tells you the opposite and which you ignore at your ultimate peril! There's no truth in anger, hate or revenge!
Alan B.

Dear Foxy,

«"In this country we have laws that we are all expected to abide by."»

Well this is a pretty violent declaration.

«We need to make it quite clear that we are asking all citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all. This is not optional.»

No problem about asking nicely, but do you mean "asking", or "ordering"?

A "framework" could contain anything, in this case well and beyond its stated purpose of protection. You may ASK others to subscribe to your framework and if they like it then they MAY subscribe to it, but the only thing that you are entitled to DEMAND is for others not to infringe on your liberties. Costello demanded much more and you seem to support his violent and unreasonable demands. In doing so, Costello undermined his own claims of supposedly opposing violence.

---

Dear Alan,

I am impressed!

If you side with truth and goodness, then you are already on God's side and you may not be in need of any further theology.

But let's face you in a dilemma: assume for the purpose of this exercise that your brain is wired for paedophilia, making you extremely and sometimes uncontrollably attracted sexually to young boys. Now assume that a hypnotist offers you a treatment whereby as a post-suggestion whenever your eyes see a young boy, your brain will actually convert his visual-image into the image of an old lady.

If you take that offer, then on the one hand your perception of facts would be untrue. On the other hand, this will unmask the truth of your heart whereby you love others and wish to not hurt them.

Which is better then: the truth of your eyes, the truth of your mind, the truth of your penis or the truth of your heart?

Dear Yuyutsu,

In this country to be an Australian citizen one
pledges loyalty first to Australia. One pledges
to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs -
to respect the rights and liberty of others and
to respect the rule of law.

There's a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we
have a consensus of support about how we will
form our legislatures and an agreement to abide
by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy our
rights and liberties without being threatened
by others. We have a compact to live under a
democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.
In doing this the rights and liberties of all are
protected. Terrorists and those who support them
do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of
others. The right to live without being bombed,
without being maimed, and as such they forfeit the
right to join in Australian citizenship.

Costello told us the story of the radical Muslim
cleric Ben Brika who when asked in an interview on
the 7.30 Report las year, "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."

As Costello states, 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. If you can't accept that then you don't accept
the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands
for. Our state is a secular state. As such it can
protect the freedom of all religions for worship.
There is not a separate stream 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.

Dear Foxy,

«One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs - [1] to respect the rights and liberty of others and [2] to respect the rule of law.»

Of these two I share only the first belief: respect for the rights and liberty of others. I have no idea why you label this ([1]) a "democratic" belief because it is universal and based on spiritual principles rather than on a particular system of governance.

You have gone to great lengths to explain the importance of [1], where you have my full agreement anyway, but provided no arguments in defence of [2].

As an interesting exercise, what do you do when [1] and [2] are in conflict?!

«Unless we have a consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by others»

Well we don't have a consensus, there never was any: a consensus means that EVERYONE agrees and that was never the case.

Does it mean that we will never be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened? No, because your statement is unsupported and in fact the above is not a necessary condition.

«We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.»

Under duress!

«In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.»

Not in a democracy, where a majority is able to destroy even the most cherished freedoms of minorities.

«If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.»

Indeed I don't. Accepting those "fundamentals" is mediocre: while terrorists and their ilk aim below it, it is also possible to aim above it!

«Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.»

"can" is different from "does". The existing record is patchy and favours the big established churches over individuals' and smaller groups' private religions.