Well, Ah say, boy, a bill of rights? Next thing they'll be wanting the same rights and privileges as we old cotton plantation owners, Or refusing to pick without pay or land rights in fee absolute?

The Gaul, the very idea, who do these folk think they are? Part of the old privileged class or equal of the master class?

These folk need to be kept very firmly in their place as the servant-class and accept the privileges we dole out at Christmas time or on the eve of an election where they can be made to believe for a few hours that the ruling class give a rat's about them or their Alleged rights.

I mean what's the world coming to?

Next thing they'll want is genuine true equality and who will pick our cotton or fight our wars then, Us?

Ridiculous, this cannon fodder must learn that they were born to serve, from the cradle to the grave! That's all! As for religious rights? Do as ah say boy and not as I do!
Alan B.

We certainly should avoid a human rights act, which would transfer power from elected representatives to activist, unelected and unaccountable judges. And, we have too many laws already. Big Brother should not be involved in individuals’ religious beliefs as long as they do not impact on others who do not hold the same beliefs. As for SSM, and who officiates, that should be judged as free trade. Homos will always be able to find someone to hitch them, and they have no need to try to involve dissenters for any reason other than sheer bitchy nastiness.

And, about ‘rights’: BENEFITS are mistaken for rights. We are led to believe that we have a right to healthcare; to housing; to education; to warmth in winter; to clean water; to nourishing food; to safety in our homes and streets; free speech. WE DO NOT! We have no inalienable right to any of these things. These “rights” are benefits which individuals and societies have to earn and constantly tend. They can disappear at any time.

Human ‘rights’ are illusions.

"Our founding fathers consciously decided not to include a Bill of
Rights in the Australian Constitution because of their strong belief
that establishing a robust parliamentary democracy was a better way
to ensure the protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms."


Fine. Then let's agitate to fix up our parliamentary democracy.
Representative democracy is a relatively weak form of democracy
even when it is at its best.

Currently, many of the 'representatives' often don't even attempt to
represent, except for vested interests. And our adversarial system
seems to be becoming more adversarial. That makes it very difficult
for parliament to act for the good of all.

Favour parliamentarians over judges? With a good system I could
accept that argument. Within the current systems I expect (and
believe I observe) less bias in the courts than in parliament.

Islam is showing the West how not to be pushed around on the issue of religious freedom.
It demonstrates an intolerance towards secular interference, which is refreshing.

Christianity needs to toughen up, stand up and follow suit. The time is right.

Religion should be a personal thing & not taken outside the home's front door.
Make all public places of worship a place to reflect on the insanity of religion.
By all means id people feel the need to believe in those stories go right ahead but do not bring them outside your home. Because, if there really is such a God he definitely doesn't need to be worshipped, he just wants people to be decent.

Religion is the ultimate force in the universe, so nothing is more paramount than the freedom of religion.

However, the problem with legislating for religious freedom, is that the state, including its parliamentarians and judges, does not have the faintest idea of what comprises religion. Should such legislation be made, it would likely only cover the superficial rulings of the major churches, leaving the truly religious behind and unprotected.

A general bill of rights is therefore likely to include more religious freedoms, though still not provide a full cover.

To rely on legislation of any sort is to rely on a splintered reed of a staff¹: religious people should never ask the state for anything, but rely on God alone!

___
¹ "Look, I know you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him." [2 Kings,18:21]

bobd35: Hear, hear and well said!
Alan B.

Perhaps the first and most important question to ask is; does conventional institutional religion and religiosity have anything to do with Real God, or Truth & Reality, and The Beautiful too?

Obviously not.

Without exception ALL of the god and gods of human beings are (whether male of female in their descriptive gender) merely the personal and collective TRIBAL (and entirely dualistic - or conventionally subject-object-bound) myths of the separative entirely godless human ego-mind.

Put in another way all of the now existing institutional "religions" are primarily power-and-control-seeking political corporations, all of which are competing for market share, and thus by extension worldly power, in the market place of whats-in-it-for-me childish and even infantile mommy-daddy religiosity.

Personally, I object to, unelected by the people - judges, making decisions on national issues.

To me that is undemocratic.

Also we’ve had members of government removed because they have dual citizenship.
Should this also not apply to Judges, if they are making national decisions overriding governments

Who are these judges, not elected by me or any of the people, how come they can override truly elected representatives.
They are faceless to the general population.

If the right to religious belief, is enshrined in law, what happens if a religion believes in killing someone for blasphemy.

Maybe the Bill should read, “the right to believe in a non violent religion that can not impose itself by violent means.

Generally speaking judges and the governor general are appointees and need to pass peer review by folk of honourable character, who know their compatriot quite well!?

And a better selection system than political preselection that forces folk of sometimes questionable repute or character into some very powerful places, where some of the most important decisions are made! Like, say corruption central alias the NSW state parliament, perhaps?

I'd sooner take my chances with a fair-minded and thoughtful judge who on average has to be significantly more intelligent than the average backbencher/party hack?

Religious freedom already adequately guaranteed in our constitution! What these folk want enshrined in law, is an ongoing and special right to selectively discriminate on gender or religious grounds? All while actively advocating that rights codified in law are effectively denied to the general population at large!?

That's just not the alleged example of J.C. Or in line with esoteric Christian philosophy! Or progressive conservatism!
Alan B.

“the right to believe in a non violent religion that can not impose itself by violent means.
CHERFUL,
That would stop the fanatics you think ?

Just like Christian Paedophiles whose career is based on God ?

Dear CHERFUL,

«Maybe the Bill should read, “the right to believe in a non violent religion that can not impose itself by violent means.»

This is redundant because religion and violence are contradictory terms.

---

Dear Alan,

«Religious freedom already adequately guaranteed in our constitution!»

No, it is not.

All that the Australian constitution guarantees is that no special laws will be made to oppose religion ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion"): nothing at present protects against the indirect prohibition of religious practices by other laws and nothing at present prevents legislation that indirectly demands religious people to act in ways that are prohibited by their religion.

---

Dear Individual,

«Just like Christian Paedophiles whose career is based on God ?»

1) Everything is based on God, including every career.
2) Christians are supposed to be paedophiles (child-loving).
3) When "paedophiles" is mentioned in the abusive context of mixing up love with sex, there are no Christian "paedophiles", only "paedophiles" who pretend to be Christian.

Yuyutsu you say,
“This is redundant because religion and violence are contradictory terms.”

Violence and religion are not contradictory terms. The Muslim Koran(religion),actually commands
muslims to kill non believers. The Infidel.

Religion and violence were certainly bedfellows when the Catholic Church persecuted
the “The Heretics” in middle centuries England.

God should command love and peace, true spirituality. I think you are referring to this
when you make the above statement. But alas,religion is always deciphered by mankind.
And mankind is very far removed from the true spirituality and wisdom of God.
So any laws made in respect to enshrining relious rights would have to deal with the violence of religion in the world we have here and now..

Individual,

No I don’t think it will stop the fanatics, I’ve never had much faith in treaties or laws
they are not worth the paper they are written on unless there is willingness to enforce them

As for the gender benders, I do not think they should expect the Christian Church to
go against their religious beliefs and marry them. And I’m not against gay marriages
But there are plenty of ways they can find marriage celebrants to marry them.

They may even find celebrants who are Christian to marry them
I don’t see why they couldn’t have a civil wedding, and then get a devout Christian friend or person to marry them
in Gods most beautiful church. The great outdoors.

They may even find celebrants who are Christian to marry them
CHERFUL,
I imagine they'd be blasé kind or fake Christians then or do you think a committed Christian would participate ?

Re Individual's comment: Because, if there really is such a God he definitely doesn't need to be worshipped, he just wants people to be decent.

Exactly. In fact, that's precisely what the Christian bible says, it's just been badly misunderstood.

Clergy are not in the habit of quoting Amos 5:21-24 - "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them ... Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream".

In other words, don't sit around in church singing hymns, get out there and start doing some good deeds.

Agree that a bill of rights is a bad idea.

In the US there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of Supreme Court cases about what the religious freedom part of their constitution means. The concept of religious freedom is meaningless, which is why all it really means is more money for lawyers.

There is no such thing as religious freedom. There is no such thing as freedom of speech. Only freedom subject to law, i.e. subject to the many statutory and common law restrictions on speech and religion that already rightly exist.

The idea of RIGHTS has very little clarity in any discussion I have read or listened to. Most of the things people express as RIGHTS are not RIGHTS at all but a benefit of belonging to a society with a governmental culture of allowing, even supporting, the expressed needs of a minority sub-group of people in that society. I am all in agreement with such a society and governance. However, without RIGHTS as a clear set of principles, i.e. something unchanging that underpins how the governmental culture can deal with the needs of sub-groups, then the tendency is for RIGHTS to become whatever the powerful group who can swing a majority, can pass into legislation. That is patently unfair. It is the failure of being able to sound a clear RIGHTS principle, that is preventing the Uluru Statement from getting immediate traction. Once a RIGHTS principle is clearly established ie where every philosopher and legislator can accept, and the average 15 year old, understand, then all religious and minority groups are provided the necessary freedoms and limitations to pursue their potentiality. Until then there will just be an inadequate conversation in forums like this

Dear CHERFUL,

«Violence and religion are not contradictory terms. The Muslim Koran(religion),actually commands muslims to kill non believers. The Infidel.»

The Muslim Koran, at least to that extent, is therefore not a religious text.

«Religion and violence were certainly bedfellows when the Catholic Church persecuted the “The Heretics” in middle centuries England.»

And to that extent, the Catholic church is not a religious organisation either.

«God should command love and peace, true spirituality.»

This is an idiom because God does not actually command anything, rather, certain acts lead towards God and other acts lead away from God.

«religion is always deciphered by mankind.»

Idiomatically so. In more accurate terms, people often fail to find the path to God, including even those who devote their lives to actively seeking that path.

«So any laws made in respect to enshrining religious rights would have to deal with the violence of religion in the world we have here and now..»

Given that even those who actively devote their lives to seek the path to God, often fail, how could you expect legislators (who have different goals in mind) to be more successful in identifying religion?

At best, they could try to oppose all violence in principle, without any specific reference to religion, but can they be trusted to recognise violence, especially while engaged in violence themselves? and can they also be trusted to never mistake non-violent actions and wrongly consider them to be violent? Some have tried, but they are all bound to mumble, stumble and never get it right.