The SSM debate and plebiscite is over! And the recent Vic election result, a thundering endorsement for safe schools.

The only thing under threat here is the ability of bigots and homophobes merely masquerading as religious advocates, to discriminate against God-given, God created difference!

And to prove it, just wait for the spittle-flecked foaming insults to fly in my direction instead of reasoned debate on the part of folk, who routinely ignore or reinvent established evidence?

I and indeed most reasonable human beings are so over this rearguard action by religious fanatics and fundamentalists to say, if you don't like us our views and cultural norms?

Feel free to go elsewhere and to some stone age or trapped in time, medieval culture where your abhorrent views and your miserable selves/excuses for human beings, will be in good company.

As you continue to abuse your power and privilege on a minority, just because of a natural aberration of nature.
Alan B.

The sky is falling! the sky is falling!

Never mind that this bill will have no influence on anything. It will quietly disappear. And of course the greens have no real political power, especially at the federal level.

Why should the secular state pay for any "religious" outfit to "educate" its adult members whether they be future ministers, pastors, "missionaries", sunday school teachers or general members of the congregation?

Meanwhile one of the "team members" of the ICS is associated with this essentially dark fundamentalist outfit:
http://calvinistinternational.com

He also supports the USA Alliance Defending "Freedom" which is a right-wing christian fundamentalist outfit which could even be classified as a hate group

So I refer now to another completely stupid document - A Qld Education Dept Report into Religious Instruction released a document in 2017 which contained this language - Quote

"While not explicitly prohibited by the Legislation References in the Religious Instruction Policy. The Dept expect schools to have appropriate action.

If they are aware that students participating in religious instruction are "evangelising".

This could adversely effect the school's ability to provide a safe supportive and inclusive environment.

They define it as - Preaching or advocating a cause of religion with the object of making converts to Christianity.

They then give examples of "evangelising" -

Sharing xmas cards
Referring to Jesus birth.
Creating xmas tree decorations
Author - (traditionally given away to class mates)
and making beaded bracelets.
Author ( traditionally given away to class mates)

This report was intended for ("Primary School) standards.

At first reading of this report, I thought it was a joke, however, sadly it wasn't.

The idea that a primary school child with goodwill that comes at Christmas season can't hand a mate a card to say, I wish you a merry Christmas and happy new year, or a hand made glitter little star or dove for the xmas tree - is heartbreaking.

And this report is for outside the classroom - so what is occurring inside!

So to those "Government report makers" - with all their so-called policies of "oh our fragile kids" these are kids in school playgrounds, making life-long friends, they are not running around with knives - but a simple xmas card.

Get over it - let our kids be kids.

School is where our kids are supposed to receive instructions to "mould" our youth into critical, thought provoking, young people, able to proudly move from school environment into "life after school".

School is supposed to provide our next generation of workers/leaders with the "tools of life", both in knowledge of our diversity, culture and respect for all - both young and old

Glenn makes a number of important points in his overview of the Greens' proposed amendment, including his final para: " Australians of any faith or none must be allowed to make their choices and live their lives in accordance with their beliefs and values, inside or outside religious contexts."

This exhortation falls short of explaining why religion should play any role at all in our behaviour.

My opinion is that for millennia, humans have relied on a belief system in which some supreme being directs the thinking and actions of persons, rather than accepting the fact that spirituality guides moral and ethical behaviour through reason and awareness of the effect of thoughts, speech and action.

We are witnessing more examples of the futility of conforming to the dogma and implied wishes of some imagined superpower; so much needless argument and debate is taking place over something which really has no relevance in the scheme of things.

The Sex Discrimination Act serves to reinforce some segments of society's inability to accept sexual understanding in a balanced, reasoned way.
It is more a vehicle for those who profess some kind of religious, hierarchical authority as the reason to attempt to control the thinking and behaviour of their gullible followers.

And don't think this Greens' initiative will handicap the ability

of High Church Diocese to protect the abilities of Church

Schoolmasters, Priests, Monks and Chaplains in little children.

A morality exemption protected by Churches, Popes, Cardianls, etc

for centuries.

While defending/advocating the actions of the Alliance Defending "Freedom" the same chap also stated that the "law" as given/defined by his tribalistic cultic "deity" should always considered to be superior to or trump any and all of the laws as defined and put in place by the secular state.

Someone once prophetically warned us that when fascism (inevitably) comes to Amerika it will be heralded by self-righteous flag waving zealots loudly invoking "freedom", while simultaneously carrying bibles and crucifixes in the other.

"Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates"

[Deutoronomy 11:18-20]

So the Greens expect believers to deny God and teach their own ideology instead. Well, this shall not come to pass: people of God already sacrificed their life to follow [in the least what they believe to be] God's word and they will do so time and again if necessary, so if the Greens are successful then this will start a civil war in Australia, producing a trail of blood. Never mind, I suppose, so long as it's only human blood, not whales'.

I was going to preference the Greens above the two dinosaurs, but now I don't think that this is going to happen.

---

Dear Alan,

«Feel free to go elsewhere»

How generous! so given that nobody invited in the religious people of Australia (with the exception of Israel that keeps inviting the Jews at any time), it looks like you really are willing to cede some Australian territory for those who want to pursue a different lifestyle?

- or is this only the first step and a "final solution" is there to follow?

---

Dear Daffy,

Not only should tax-payer's money never be offered to church educational and/or vocational-training programs, but even if it is, churches must not accept such tainted stolen money. According to this article, however, the Greens' prohibition on teaching religion does not depend on the source of financing.

As for «tribalistic cultic "deity"», this is the Ishta-Devata of all Abrahamic religions, of about half the worlds' population: how can you ignore the the devotional benefits?

Hasn't this already been discussed? At least twice now from not too long ago?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20054&page=2

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20002

Look at the comments section of those articles. Not much will need to be added that wasn't addressed already.

In case it's lost in the comments, here's the point I gave in both of the other articles. If a school (religious or not) is doing it's job of teaching well, and is avoiding harassment or abuse to it's students or it's staff, then there is no reason for the government or the law to get involved. If it's not doing it's job well. Or it turns into a dangerous environment, then yes bring in the police or the politicians to fix the issues.

Not hiring, firing, or restricting what is taught based on the values of that school should have no legal issue for government involvement unless there's sexism, or racism involved. Or unless there's a dangerous ideology that helps make gangs and criminals.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Hasn't this already been discussed?»

I think not. If the article is correct, then this is a very serious escalation. It's no longer just about the selection of teachers and students, but about contents: what one may and may not teach, including over the pulpit.

«If it's not doing it's job well.»

Whose job?

Jobs are defined by the patrons who pay for it - and one cannot serve two masters.

If government pays for schools, then it naturally expects these schools to serve its secular purpose, to seduce children to admire and go after material things, thus turning them into cogs in its modern industrial machinery.

If you want your children to learn to serve God and not stray after the material, then you should pay yourself for their education. Then indeed government should have no say in what they learn. However, according to this article, the Greens want to change even that.

«Or it turns into a dangerous environment»

But who is to define "dangerous"? Isn't forsaking God and embracing sin dangerous? It's much more dangerous than losing life or limb!

Police? What do THEY know about it?!

«unless there's sexism, or racism involved. Or unless there's a dangerous ideology that helps make gangs and criminals.»

Suppose the parents want to teach their children sexism or racism - who are you to deny their freedom to do so? As for gangs and criminals - isn't it the state who calls them so? China for example defines the Falun-Gong as a criminal gang: as it's them who make the laws, it's them who define people as criminals!

For far too long, churches have been tamed by the state, which paid them to be mild and quiet. If the church and similar "religious" institutions are serving the state rather than God, then they better not exist at all.

To Yuyutsu.

Best case sitution this new legislature is only for schools, and will only be applied towards schools. In that scenario, giving them the benifit of doubt, do assumes the best case of application, I'll stick to my critisms.

Moving away from that benifit of doubt (and the justifiable reasons to reject the legislature based on the best case scenario), is the terroritory of secular society becoming more and more invasive towards religions and squeeze any freedoms out of religous people peacefully practicing their beliefs and their faith. At that point forget what legislature says and the governing of certian laws, and just continue to be Christian, Hindu, Muslium or anything else. If the law steps away from being good, then strive on to be good in spite of the law.

As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. But that's not open for outright rebellion. That just means to stick to your foundations. Where the law of the land is infringing on the precepts of God's teachings, don't follow the law of the land. Where the law of the land doesn't do this then obey the laws of the land. For further study on this concept, I recommend reading the book of Daniel in the Old Testiment of the bible. Jesus also taught to obey those who rule over you so He taught to not rebel, even though following God outranks following the rules that try to distance us from God.

If the laws say a preacher can not teach according to the bible, or the church will be shut down, then I would suggest to just start going to home based bible studies and fellowships gathered in homes instead of church buildings. What are they going to do? Arrest everyone who peacefully ignores the law? If that became the case Australia would either in no time become a third world country dictatorship, or the laws will be repealed in no time at all.

Moving back to the best case scenario, my critisms are already made.

//Not hiring, firing, or restricting what is taught based on the values of that school should have no legal issue for government involvement unless there's sexism, or racism involved.//

Why shouldn't schools be able to hire and fire on sexist or racist grounds, if that is in keeping with the values of that school?

Why shouldn't schools be able to hire and fire on sexist or racist grounds, if that is in keeping with the values of that school?
Toni Lavis,
They do that in majority indigenous students colleges with no repercussions.

Not_Now.Soon

Where you claim:

"As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. "

Its only Men who have explained so-called "God's" rules.

It was self appointed men who claimed to have "heard" God's voice.

And most of the New Testament was edited by a Roman Commitee. The Roman leadership class that years before had slaughtered Chistians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

Not_Now.Soon

I, as a self-appointed saint heard you uttereth my typos. So behold below I fixteth:

Where Not_Now.Soon claims:

"As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. "

Its only Men who have explained so-called "God's" rules.

It was self-appointed holy men who claimed to have "heard" God's voice.

And most of the New Testament was edited by a Roman Committee, line by line, based on scraps of multilingual scholarship.

This Committee of Roman men also selectively minimised the few mentions of woman, consigning woman as whores or saints - no normal woman in-between.

The Roman editorial leadership class that years before had slaughtered Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

One could never expect a parliament or some other secular body to determine what is or isn't the word of God.

To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.

Mainstream churches have been spoilt for too long to think that the moment they mention "word of God", the regime will jump to attention. Well, this will no longer happen, so they better get used to this new reality which smaller religious streams faced all along and support unconditional freedom for all.

To Plantagenet.

Are you offended that I am Christian? Or that I identify my understanding or my points come from a Christian foundation. I would not be insulted if someone says "as a doctor," "as a woman/ as a man," "as a student," or as anything else. It is a phrase to explain where a person's points are coming from. They aren't saying that they are saintly or anything like that, nor am I saying that. Since you decided not to reply to the actual points I had made, I have to assume that the conversation is of no value to you, but instead your insulted that Christians actually hold the bible to be from God in one way or another. I will not apologize for being Christian, and if you're insulted, that's on you not on me.

To Toni.

That's not a bad question. As far as racism goes I can't think of any reason to justify it. From a religious perspective I don't think race is a factor. It's the teachings that matter not a person's heritage. Regarding sexism the only arguments that can be applied to sexism could be if a religion says that women should not teach, that women are not allowed in a certain religious position (like a priest or something similar), or in a non-teaching environment being sexist to a job based on a strength level between men and women (an argument for women to not be active police officers, firemen, or soldiers). Only one of those reasons applies to schools, and even that reason is not an excuse for so many examples of sexism from wage difference to condescending attitudes towards women or men.

To Yuyutsu.

You said:
[To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.]

I agree. The only things to restrict this is whether there is a dangerous, criminal, or terrorist element within the schools or the teachers lessons; and the other is if the school teaches a minimum subjects to ensure the students leave school with the tools to make it in the world. Math, reading, and writing would be that minimum in my opinion. Anything beyond that would be up to the government such as history or science classes. But for religious freedom to exist then any religious teaching should be allowed to be taught from a religious teacher. That said, if a teacher wants to say they teach correctly, then a peer from that religion should be able to say they are or are not teaching correctly.

No Worries Not_Now.Soon

As a card carrying Christian, who wears it on his sleeve.

You must be holier than we unbelievers.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

It is a legitimate form of self-defence to try to stop terrorism or crime: here the concern should never be "for the welfare of the child" or "for creating the society I want", but rather "for the protection of myself, my family, my friends and those who sought my protection" - that's the only legitimate reason.

We see it too often, however, that a regime declares anything it doesn't like or which challenges its power as "terrorist" or "criminal".

As for "tools to make it in the world", the danger is that the regime wants people to fit IN ITS OWN VISION OF THE WORLD and uses "education" as a means to forward this vision. Now schools ought to teach children to fit in the world, but which version of the world would it be? If parents feel that the world as it stands is an evil or unwholesome place, then they should, in defence of their children, be able to withdraw from their schooling such skills that would allow their children to integrate. They would still be teaching reading, writing and math, but perhaps in different language(s) to avoid exposure to evil.

Obviously nobody should ask government to finance teachings that go against its own ethos: once you beg for tax-payer money then, you lost your freedom and no longer have a base to demand it.

Good news Glenn and Not_Now.Soon

Part of the Australia's ABC article today https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/gay-student-gets-standing-ovation-after-coming-out-at-school/10560048

[specially read the last sentence below]

A student at a Catholic boys school got a standing ovation when he came out as gay during a speech at assembly.

Mr Stannard told 7.30 he was overwhelmed to receive a standing ovation from his peers.

Mr Stannard said the love and support of his family and boyfriend helped give him the courage to make the speech.

His mother was the first person he came out to.

"I said, 'Mum, I think I might be gay'. While she was definitely surprised she was by no means overwhelmed. She gave me the biggest hug and she kissed me and said she loved me," he said.

"That was when I knew I'd be fine in everything that came my way. I always knew I had a supportive family."

His parents were at first worried about his plan to come out in front of the entire student body.

"Not everyone can be kind about a young man taking on his identity and being proud of who he is," Meaghan Stannard said.

Mr Stannard says everyone at school has been "so supportive".

"They were so supportive. The school has been amazing. They've supported me the entire way," he said.

Next year Mr Stannard will start a teaching degree at university. And he will be following the public debate over the right of religious schools to hire and fire teachers on the basis of their sexual orientation.

"People should be hired for the job if they're the best for job. Sexuality has nothing to do with that. It's all about how they can help students learn and get the abilities to be themselves," he said."

Dear Plantagenet,

Indeed, "People should be hired for the job if they're the best for job. Sexuality has nothing to do with that".

Indeed, sexuality is not important, yet your Meaghan Stannard thinks otherwise - she considers it to be no less than one's "identity", as well as something to be proud of. How foolish to think of one's sexuality as who one is, how foolish to be proud of an attribute of your body which you probably never even consciously chose!

I am who I am, I neither feel the need to be proud of who I am nor seek the approval of others because of who I am.
So if being a queer is so normal, then why would you feel relief or surprise when anyone shows you more pity than pride for what you are, and not who you are.
We are humans and as such we are of many types and sizes, but, one thing we are is all of a particular structure, as it is demonstrated at birth, when you are given the once over to see if all is 'normal'.
If something is not 'normal', the system begins a rigorous regime of tests and checks and balances to determine what is wrong with you (as a recently born baby) and 'how' much is wrong.
A queer is the result of abnormalities, to do with, amongst other things, the mind.
Given that most cases are redeemable, I find it arrogant and selfish in the extreme that we are forced,(through peer pressure and virtue shaming) to accept what is clearly, un-acceptable.
Like most human psychological and emotional dis-orders today, they are treatable and if they cannot be cured then I would suggest the person should be pitied just as someone with cancer who tried to get cured but failed.
It's the ones who seem almost proud of the fact they are broken, and almost thrive on the attention and notoriety that comes with being a queer.
Apparently today, 'it's cool to be queer'.
No it's not, and the sooner people stop facilitating these sicko's, the sooner we can throw PC in the bin and get on with our lives without having to tip-toe around them as if walking on egg shells.

Just to clarify, ALTRAV speaks for himself/herself, not for me. Just because I mentioned that one should not identify with their sexuality, does not imply that there is anything wrong with their sexuality.

We are NOT humans, we only mistakenly identify ourself with a human, for the time-being. One implication is that whatever impurities our human body and/or mind have, are not OUR impurities and whatever strengths they have are not our strengths either - nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be proud of either.

Yuyutsu, WTF, what are you on about.
Don't attempt to explain what I am saying, as it appears you have not fully grasped my views, read it again, and this time without emotion.
Rather than suggesting I was agreeing with your stance, I was in fact making my own point, as I do not always agree with everyone on everything.
A major problem with all this queer stuff today, is an unwillingness to confront an awkward and uncomfortable issue, head on.
We are seeing more people submit to things they would have once stood firmly against.
Whether it is a loss of courage or just laziness, it is easier to go along with those who are obviously over invested in some cause or another, than to stand and challenge them in disagreement.
It is discrimination to force a particular belief upon someone who clearly does not concur with that belief.
So the greens and all the other irrelevant parties and people, can go and get stuffed.
If some sick moron wants to call me names, I don't care, as long as I get my point out, because by doing so is going to hurt those same sick morons who so desperately want their beliefs upheld, so they get their way and the majority can go and get stuffed, according to them.
A great portion of the blame must go to the do-gooders,for pushing this dangerous agenda.
They may think they are well meaning, but in fact they are being quite irresponsible and as a result causing long term harm and damage to otherwise, sick and unstable people and their friends and family

To Plantagenet.

Have I said I am holier then you? Better then you? Or anything else that should cause your reaction to my being Christian? Let me correct this for you. I recognize that I need God, trust in Him, am thankful for what He's done for me in my life and for what He and His son did 2000 years ago.

But what of a non-Christian? From my understanding God loves you as much as He loves me. In fact it's said that there is more celebration in heaven for one sinner turning to God, then 100 saints who've stayed true to Him. Regardless how many bridges you burn between you and Christians, or how many bad relations you would have with a Christian community, God will always welcome you to come to church or to seek Him out in other ways. Though several nonbelievers here have tried my patience, I know God love them still. It's a sobering thought.

I will not apologize for being a Christian. And if you or anyone else is insulted by my faith when I've said nor done anything that causes you harm, then your reaction is on you, not on me.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the student who was accepted for coming out, that's encouraging. I know homosexuals live their lives with their sexual attraction in the background of debate throughout their society and their lives. Many of them have said if they had a choice to choose, then they wouldn't choose to be homosexual. So with that in mind it's good for them to know that they are encouraged and accepted, because that ongoing controversy could trap them into thinking they are outcasts and unwelcome.

However, that is on an individual level, and it doesn't approach the point of "now what" where homosexuals acknowledge their attraction but don't act on it when it comes to sex (if they are trying to uphold religious beliefs), or how to stay safe, healthy, and well rounded if they decide to be active in their homosexuality. The "now what" element is an often ignored aspect of homosexual acceptance. That might be a contributing factor for why homosexual lobbies, agendas, and cultural overtones have a smack of being over sexualized, or narcissistic. It's a problem that can be seen on a societal level when homosexuality and politics overlap.

To Yuyutsu.

You would restrict the government's ability to govern and to police it's nation? Your right what counts as a criminal, or a terrorist is up to that nation and it's government. Some factors that go into this are the ruling body, and whether or not the people and their culture have a say or only if the ruling regime has a say. In most democracies I am not worried about the government being able to identify who are truly dangerous and act on that, as opposed to those who are innocent and not harmed anyone. Australia's only restriction on this are politicalized agendas that try to ignore harms or crimes being done, so that their agenda gets more support. This is what is happening with growing crimes among Islamic migrants. Instead of trying to fix the issues, they try to ignore it, stuff it under the rug, and demand everyone else to do the same or be called Islamiphobes. If politicians listened to the police officers on the ground then they might know what is really going on, to make the government act justly towards the actual dangers and criminal issues. For countries that are ruled more out of government or religious dictatorship, the issues are more on the leaders being moral and not an extension of injustice. It's a much bigger blind spot then politicians mucking it up.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding schools teaching practical tools for the students they teach, I stand by my previous statements that this is the responsibility of the schools. They should hold up this responsibility with the roles that are required from being a teacher. If a parent or an organization wants to teach their kids better (including religious organizations) then they can go into the process of starting their own school or setting up a homeschool environment. As long as the kids and staff are safe and are not turned into dangerous criminals, nor that the students are being neglected from being taught a minimum of subjects, then the government does not need to get involved. The school is doing it's job. The same principle can be applied to religious organizations like churches, Jewish temples or anything else that teaches and preaches but is not a private school. As long as they are not causing harm or creating criminals the organization should be free to operate as they do.

Hi Yuyutsu,
I'm not all that interested in your religious views. But I am left scratching my head when you say we are not human.

I see myself as human. Being human is often the starting point for how I think about most other things, and forms the basis of a lot of law making in this society (the laws making abortion legal notwithstanding.)

Alan B spoke entire nonsense above when he said that if we don't like these new PC lefty laws, then we're free to go elsewhere. But where would we go? If we're Australian, if we are born here, where are we supposed to go?

Now this nonsense. "We're not human". Well, I'm not planning on leaving Australia, as Alan B would suggest I do. And I'm not planning on leaving the human race. For better or for worse, I am human.

Alan B,
You've spoken of a "natural aberration of nature." Could you try an explain this concept. I don't think you've thought it through.

A natural aberration of nature is a contradiction in terms. If such an idea was even possible, the we must be able to conceive of an unnatural aberration of nature. But I'd think I'd just be tying myself up in semantic knots.

I don't think you've thought it through. I don't think the Greens think much through at all before they start drafting their legislation.

Alan B,
As you say, the Victorian election result is in. And the Greens have lost most of their seats from last time. Their nutty type legislation has not been endorsed.

To the recent Senate committee hearing, one member of the Looney Left said, with a straight face, "People are free to hold certain religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to express them."

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and any other type of freedom we've come to expect in a civil society. If you are not free to express your beliefs, then you are not really free to hold these beliefs. There is no point having the freedom to hold a belief which you are not also free to speak and share.

What will be next? Will the Greens attack freedom of thought? What happens when they invent a machine which makes thoughts audible? The Greens will love it. They'll put their PC machines into hyper-drive.

Dan S de Merengue, welcome aboard.
Good to see another with some reason and common sense, and hopefully a common hatred for PC.
I am sure we will differ on some issues, but for now it's good to see you here.

Alan B
We come to the end of this debate. So what do the Greens want?

I went to school with kids who associated as "gay" .... so what?
Oh shock horror this was in the 60/70's and we - as kids - accepted these kids as our friends.

We were taught by "lay" teachers in Catholic Schools (some) could have been gay ..... so what?" We were there to be taught relevant subject/s. Oh shock horror this was in the 60/70's.

So we now are supposed to want to change laws effecting religious teaching in schools - which has always been there - in protection of any child who believed they may be gay.

Catholic schools have always accepted "any" pupil - completely regardless of said child's sexual orientation.

Catholic schools have accepted teachers (gay or not) on their academic achievements. Employed teachers have adhered to "said" school/religious ethos......so shock horror, what's new?

The Greens aspersions as to any other "view" ( as we kids who grew up in the 60's, 70' 80's can attest to) is completely false, and just "seeking for a cause" of reckless rebellion throughout society.

Hi Not_Now.Soon and/or Glenn

Gotta be careful who you tell you're a Christian.

Those rich Roman blokes who re-wrote the Books of the New Testament (word by word) fed poor Christians to some very hungry lions only a coupla centuries before.

And the offspring (all male of course) of those rich Roman blokes still own the Vatican (central Roman real estate - tax free) a self-appointed Holy Kingdom.

and even worse:

They appoint characters as Cardi-nals in the biggest, most powerful, richest (tax free again) Church in all Australia.

Poor Jesus, who represented the poor, would be cheesed off with what rich, pampered, jetsetting Church higherups are doing (and not doing) in his name.

Cheers

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Was Robin Hood a criminal?

«If a parent or an organization wants to teach their kids better (including religious organizations) then they can go into the process of starting their own school or setting up a homeschool environment.»

Yes, this is exactly what we discuss here, and seem to agree on, that according to this article, the Greens want to stop our freedom to do the above (though I must be careful here because I have not learnt about this from the Greens directly, only from the article).

As for official, state-funded "private" schools, I agree: they are a lost cause - of course they are expected to serve their patron, even at the expense of their souls.

«As long as the kids and staff are safe and are not turned into dangerous criminals»

What about being encouraged to sin? is it not dangerous?
Public schools are NOT a safe place: what do they know about safety anyway?
"And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell"

Dear Dan,

«I'm not all that interested in your religious views.»

My philosophy and religion are intertwined, but bearing your request in mind, I will endeavour to respond in philosophical terms only.

«I am left scratching my head when you say we are not human.»

Excellent! So everyone should: pondering who you are is the best pursuit.

Now it is good that you don't say "I am scratching me head", this means that you are already aware that you are separate from your head. Same for any other part of your body: should, God-forbid, that part be cut off, you still will remain no less you than you are now. Even if you lost your memory or your sanity, it would still be the same YOU who lost it, just the same, the one who once had no head, the one who one day will no longer have a head and the one who presently scratches his head.

Humans and human brains in particular are excellent machinery, but still a piece of material machinery. The same could be extended to the human mind, if you believe that it exists separately from the human body (but I won't expand of it, in case you don't).

So humans are essentially physical objects and like all objects (material and if you believe in the immaterial, then that too), are operated on by the laws and forces of physics (or an extension thereof for the immaterial, if it exists). Though they may have memory, just as computers have, humans are still just objects, not subjects, for they have no subjective experience (or else every particle of matter would).

On the other hand, YOU do have subjective experience. You cannot prove it to others, but you know it too well for yourself - and that set you apart from all objects, humans included.

//To the recent Senate committee hearing, one member of the Looney Left said, with a straight face, "People are free to hold certain religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to express them."

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and any other type of freedom we've come to expect in a civil society.//

Seems to me that if Christians don't want to be oppressed and discriminated against like that, the very best thing they could do would be to lead by example and not oppress or discriminate against other people.

I mean, it's a bit Matthew 7:3 to cry foul when anti-religious people say "People are free to hold certain religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to express them.", only to then turn around and say "People are free to be gay, but should not be free express that by actually having a relationship with somebody of the same sex."

Toni, all these issues are collateral to the main overarching point, and that is, there are those of us who may feel sorry, even pity for someone incarcerated inside a body of the wrong gender, but you know, we really don't care.
You were dealt this hand by nature, we had nothing to do with it.
You're the one in turmoil if you are the queer.
You deal with it, I neither have to nor want to, so why the hell am I and the rest of society, persecuted and attacked for something we didn't do and don't want to know about.
Our angst is the fact that these social misfits have 'forced' their misfortunes onto the rest of us, without being invited and with malice and prejudice.
So excuse me if I don't give a sh!t about a handfull of 'freaks' but it is not us who are making trouble or unsettling good people, because we don't have a problem, it is they who insist in getting in our faces, and in so doing have alienated the wider community.
And so it is that everything was just fine before we were thrown this bucket of excrement and told we had to like it, well we don't, on both counts.
It is a fact that the way things were, worked just fine, and so it is that things should go back to the way they were, so we can all live happily ever after.

Dear Toni,

First, I agree with what you said:

«Seems to me that if Christians don't want to be oppressed and discriminated against like that, the very best thing they could do would be to lead by example and not oppress or discriminate against other people.»

I just wanted to comment about the example you provided:

«"People are free to be gay, but should not be free express that by actually having a relationship with somebody of the same sex."»

Gay people do not express it by having same-sex relationships - they express it by provokingly shouting, demonstrating and parading sexuality. People who have relationships with somebody of the same sex are homosexuals, not gay, and I can't see why anyone should have a problem with them.

//Gay people do not express it by having same-sex relationships - they express it by provokingly shouting, demonstrating and parading sexuality.//

Bollocks, most of the gay people I have met don't go in for any of that carry-on.

//People who have relationships with somebody of the same sex are homosexuals//

Correct.

//not gay//

Incorrect. People who have relationships with somebody of the same sex are definitely gay, because gay is a synonym of homosexual. When used in the context of human sexuality, 'gay' and 'homosexual' share the same meaning. If you don't believe me, then have a look at what the Oxford has to say on the matter:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gay

QED

//so why the hell am I and the rest of society, persecuted and attacked//

Gosh, how awful for you. Do you mind sharing with us the specific examples of persecution you've suffered?

Dear Toni,

«Bollocks, most of the gay people I have met don't go in for any of that carry-on.»

Then they are not gay.

There are probably quite a few who would like to increase their numbers by counting your friends as "gay", but I personally know homosexual people who are not interested in politics, who like to remain private and would be insulted if they were referred to as "gay".

"Gay" is a political orientation, not a sexual one. In fact, people could be gay even while having an aversion in their private life to sexual intimacy with members of their own gender.

So you quote the Oxford dictionary? They too have taken a political side on this matter, not surprising for university academics!

//"Gay" is a political orientation//

OK, fine, I can't be bothered to deal with your particular brand of stupidity at the moment. You win, and gayness is a political orientation... in exactly the same way that being left-handed, having blue eyes, being tall and preferring dogs to cats are political orientations.

[But we all know secretly that none of those things are actually political orientations]

//So you quote the Oxford dictionary?//

Yes, it's considered the foremost dictionary of the English language in the world. Certainly a greater lexicographical authority than Yuyutsu, and it's not hard to see why: the Oxford is descriptivist, so it's definitions are based on common usage. Whereas Yuyutsu's definitions are apparently totally arbitrary, and often bear no relation to the language the rest of us are speaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qT8ZYewYEY

To Plantagenet.

I don't know of the Glenn that you're referring me as. But if it's a poster here, can you put a link down where he's commented? After all if you confuse him and me, it might be an encouragement that someone else has views similar to mine. I'd like to see for myself what Glenn has said.

Regarding your point of being careful who I say I'm a Christian to, is that what you really mean? Or is it more accurate to say "don't say your a Christian to anyone, keep it private." If that's the case then you fit in line with the concerns of this article. The greens seem to want Christians silent on things they disagree with. Not just for Greens to have their say, but for Christians to be silent while they are not. If that's the case, then what can I say? I will not apologize for being a Christian, and I won't keep it a secret either.

As for trying to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, you don't have much to go on there. I know God is real and I searched for Him enough to trust the bible. So far outside of unjustified criticisms, I haven't found any reason to doubt the bible. In fact, I've heard some amazing things in the archeological world that confirms what's written in the bible. From discovered texts like the Dead Sea scrolls that match closely if not exactly to the texts we currently use for translating bibles; to also archeological finds that confirm descriptions of the places or the people of that age. It presents a strong case that the bible hasn't been corrupted and rewritten. The Roman or the leaders of the church, I'm not worried about. I have the bible to put them to the test. That way their words and actions will be justified or they will be rejected.

To Yuyutsu.

I would argue that Robin Hood was a criminal. It's whether he was considered justified in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor that he has become a story of a hero. But yes robbing people at gunpoint, knife point, or bow and arrow point in the woods all make a criminal as far as I can tell.

You said:

[though I must be careful here because I have not learnt about this from the Greens directly, only from the article]

That's a very fair point, and I'm glad you can see the reason for caution on this. If the article is correct in what it suggests, then I would say what I said before. Obey the law as much as you can, but don't follow the parts that stop you from obeying your faith. As long as you aren't harming anyone else then you should be justified in your commitment to God, and your commitment to teach others about God.

If on the other hand the article is blowing smoke to try to get us angry with the greens, then my advise still holds true regardless. Obey the law as much as you can, but don't when it stops you from staying true to your beliefs and following God (except if those convections harm others).

Regarding state funded schools, I don't think I agreed that they are worthless. All I meant was that if a person or an organization thinks they can do better, then they can start their own private school, or homeschool their kids. But personally I am glad that there are state funded schools so that the burden for paying for an education isn't resting on the people, many of whom probably couldn't afford to send their kids to a school out of their own money.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding sin, and being encouraged to sin. Look at the world around us. It's up to the parents to raise their kids the right way, the would is already full of sin to tempt people into doing. The schools can help, but they can't raise the kids for you. Even if you start your own school and design it to the degree that you think is right, that won't be enough to rid the children from a world of sin that is around them. They need their parents to raise them up right for that. To not get angry, to be respectful, to not do drugs, or anything else. As well as have a good outlook; with knowing what's BS and what's reliable, what's moral and what to walk away from, even to have an open mind or a critical one. That's part of the parent's roles and responsibility.

.....Ha! I just saw that Glen was the author of the article. Sorry for that Plantagenet.

Yes Glenn, not "Glen".

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, overall I agree and I think that this discussion has been exhausted.

On a completely different matter, you asked me a while ago about evidence for reincarnation, so I just encountered this and thought you may be interested:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/druze-toddler-amazes-experts-by-speaking-english-without-having-learned-it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mx4LmeaKNc (mainly in Hebrew, but you can hear the boy speaking English, especially 2:45-4:50)