Australians are now so disinterested in the freedoms previous generations loved and fought for that Labor - or any group of politicians - can do as they please. And they will.

Unfortunately, What the author calls religious freedom and the right to discriminate against those who are not of binary sex are in conflict. Religious freedom as far as I am concerned is the right to believe anything about religion that you choose to believe. It is not the right to discriminate.

The author wrote: These state policies conflict with the belief of most people that humans are either male or female, and that a person cannot biologically change their sex. The policies will certainly conflict with many faith-based schools who for moral and safety reasons will oppose allowing boys who identify as girls into private female spaces.

Laws should not be made to conform with belief but to reality. The reality is that humans are not either male or female but exist on a gradient. The fact is that many people find themselves in a body of one sex but with instincts of the other sex. Therefore surgical changes can be made so that the person’s physical sex conforms to the person’s mental sex. Boys who identify as girls become girls, and girls who identify as boys become boys. Where belief denies reality, reality should take precedence.

The change that the Greens and Labor would make to the law would make the law conform to reality. That should prevail over religious belief that does not conform to reality.

Emphatically disagree with this author's patently partisan views. If however, he is genuine in his concerns!?

Why then has the conservative side of politics (Sergeant's Schultz syndrome) rigidly opposed, with die in a ditch first, resolve.

Rights, one of which would undoubtedly protect the right to worship! The other the right to decline service on religious or alleged moral grounds.

But not the age-old right to discriminate or persecute! Which seems to be what the, I believe, obsfuscating obstructionist recalcitrant wants!?
Alan B

reprobate minds setting policy and displaying bigotry to Christians.

How can anyone expect religious or any other freedom while accepting tax-payer money through a secular state? It is only common-sense that money and indoctrination come hand-in-hand.

The right thing to do if one is to have children, is to never register one's educational facilities as "school", but instead register the children as "home-schoolers", then one should be able to teach their children whatever they want, have them sit only alongside approved friends, employ whoever they want to teach their children and implement whatever toilet/change-room policies they like.

Otherwise, stop making such a big issue about gender, in fact it is best to ignore this silly issue of gender altogether - there is so much more to religion!

What utter & complete RUBBISH

John Ryan,

<<What utter & complete RUBBISH>>

That's a merciless way to address a person who has presented an article for us to discuss.

You gave not one reason why it is 'complete rubbish'.

Pat,

<<What about the right of students, parents and teachers in faith-based schools to hold and manifest their belief, whether founded in biological science or in religious scriptures, that humans are immutably male or female?

What about the right of schools to maintain their religious ethos by refusing employment and enrolment to activists wanting to impose such policies on the school?>>

These are real concerns for those of us who are committed Christians. A group of Australian church leaders was motivated to compose letters for the Coalition and ALP.

Over what happened to Folau, ABC News reported: Israel Folau's clash with RA ‘over his fundamentalist religious social media posts’ motivated ‘nine prominent Christians to send letters about the protection of religious freedom to Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten’. These people included leaders from Presbyterian, Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, and Apostolic churches, Reverend Dr Hedley Fihaki, a Uniting Church minister and the national chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations as well as a number of religious school leaders', http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/israel-folau-religious-leaders-send-letter-to-shorten-morrison/11104094

Anna Patty, in writing for The Age, pointed out some of the apprehension of religious leaders:

"The letter to Mr Shorten details concerns that Labor Party policies do not go far enough to protect religious freedom and have the potential to impact on the free expression of traditional views of sexuality and marriage. It asks Labor for an assurance that religious institutions will continue to be able to hold such views and defend them in public….

"The Liberal Party has committed to introducing a Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Act, but the religious leaders asked the Prime Minister to go further by protecting believers in associations including churches, mosques, charities, schools and corporations", http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election-2019/christian-leaders-challenge-major-parties-on-commitment-to-religious-freedom-20190508-p51lgo.html.

Up to this point, Australia has been a country that allowed and encouraged religious groups to proclaim their ethos because of free speech and freedom of religion. With the Labor and Greens' policies, this threatens to be wound back. It will be to the detriment of multiculturalism and will spin our society into censorship, according to the left wing elite's values.

Has anyone ever noticed that whenever the vexed topic topic of religion and religious freedom comes up there seems to be a common assumption that everyone who subscribes to the mainstream religions are necessarily "conservative" as defined by News Weekly, The Australian Christian Lobby and the bloviators that infest the Australian "news"-paper.

This aint necessarily so because, surprise, surprise, many Christians, including "catholics" support liberal and/or progressive ideas and causes, including the very real phenomenon of human caused climate change.
For instance check out the essay "The Christian Left - a case study of value driven social progressives?" by Anthony Hogan on the Pearls and Irritations website.

Daffy Duck,

<<surprise, surprise, many Christians, including "catholics" support liberal and/or progressive ideas and causes, including the very real phenomenon of human caused climate change. For instance check out the essay "The Christian Left....>>

What is the title of this article to which you replied?

Pat Byrne called it, 'Religious freedom will be suffocated if ALP elected'.

He began with: "It is a sad reality that in Australian law there is an absence of strong protections for freedom of belief. Indeed, as some leading lawyers have commented, religious freedom has been reduced to tenuous exemptions in anti-discrimination laws introduced since the 1980s".

It doesn't matter whether you support Christian 'left' or 'right' values or an atheistic ethos. Will those values be protected if Labor comes to power?

Pat was not talking about Christians on left or right but warned about the censorship (my word) of a religious ethos if the ALP is elected.

Dear OzSpen,

«warned about the censorship (my word) of a religious ethos if the ALP is elected»

If I order a restaurant meal and instead they give me something other than what I ordered, then I am entitled to receive my money back. Yes, even if what I get is better recommended by the chef.

The same applies if an evil secular government pays/bribes you for indoctrinating your children into their filthy godless ethos, but fails to receive their intended result.

Look at the coin - it has Caesar's face on it, so give it back, avoid it like fire.

Yet another bogus-scare article from a rightwinger.

Why publish today? Because tomorrow we vote.

For corrupt, self-interested:

- Chequebook journalism Barnaby

- au pair Dutton, and

- wanna fight a war Abbott

Again?

Religious freedom just not include a right to discriminate on a thoroughly discredited gender ID basis, that have their fatuous foundation in inculcated, stone age belief and like a witch doctor pointing a bone? Have no currency or alleged veracity whatsoever in any truth based religion

Here's the thing, a man and a gender reassigned woman walk down the aisle? The priest nods assent and proceeds with the "sacrament" of marriage. The whole congregation weeps with joy as the love and commitment is clearly displayed!

The following week two females, one a gender reassigned male give a repeat performance. Much to the delight of the watching congregation

Yet and given a literal interpretation of the Churches man-made rules and only around three hundred years ago, all who have participated knowingly or not are complicit in a series of dreadful sins! And may have already occurred in hundreds of caseS around the world?

The marriage of two genetically male men or women!. Even where science has proven they alone as gays have genes only ever found in gays! Their reassigned genitalia alters nothing save it may more closely conform to their internal and true nature.

And just as the creator made them! All that has been actually changed is purely cosmetic and external! And given that's so/. How can religious freedom include the right to discriminate based on stone age inculcated and fatuous belief?
Alan B.

Are we being led by the nose towards voting Liberal?

Checkout this article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-17/liberal-supporters-spreading-fake-news-in-hidden-chat-rooms/11121194

where Liberal Party supporters today are speading scare campaigns in chatrooms targeting voters in key marginal seats, by sharing misinformation on refugee intake numbers and the SAFE SCHOOLS policy.

Sounds like Pat Byrne's article today? An article which bangs on about SAFE SCHOOLS?

Dear Alan,

«How can religious freedom include the right to discriminate based on stone age inculcated and fatuous belief?»

Religious freedom means the freedom to follow God rather than to follow society and its norms.

While it is possible to be ignorant or deluded about what exactly God wants in a given situation, one is better off to follow, out of the pure and unselfish intention of their love of God, whatever they sincerely believe, even mistakenly, to be God's wishes, rather than to follow a practice, even a better practice, only because society expects it.

If you do not believe that people have the right to follow God the best they understand, then you do not believe in religious freedom.

Alan,

Yeah. Of course. Yadayada. Rights should be defended. But that's not all that relevant: what does the bible say, right or wrong, primitive or not, what is it that many Christians (backward bastards!) believe. You don't need to re-hash all that - us non-believers never believed it anyway (certainly not those cruel judgements on drunkards and fornicators), and believers will simply get hot and bothered that someone is attacking their beliefs. All a bit pointless, but quite satisfying I suppose, especially for all those who have recently un-believed.

So the critical issue surely is: has Folau the right to his opinion ? After all, he's not exhorting any government or hit-squad to exterminate or terrorise any transgressors. His quote from the bible probably offends many believers, homosexuals (are we still allowed to use that word ?), drunks, fornicators, thieves, idolators, adulterers, etc., etc. If we don't come under any of those headings, why should we give a toss ? And what the hell has it got to do with rugby ?

So yes, maybe Labor - once it's in government next week - urgently needs to reinforce basic freedoms, of expression, of opinion, of speech. Or will they expose their totalitarian side and throw Folau to the wolves by their silence ?

Joe

Come on Joe calling Christians belief's backwards is hardly accurate. Surely you have seen all the deviants prancing around at mardi gras. Now that is very backward. We read of similar stuff with Sodom and Gomorrah and the fall of Rome. Call Christian belief whatever but at least try to be accurate. And as for 'secular' beliefs? That's right it changes with the wind and uses pseudo science as a justification for every evil.

Loudmouth,

<<You don't need to re-hash all that - us (sic) non-believers never believed it anyway (certainly not those cruel judgements on drunkards and fornicators)>>

One minute after your last breath you'll wish you had listened to us. But, 'Too late, too late will be the cry', http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061021111306AA7HUct&guccounter=1

Alan Joyce should explain....!

What did Alan Joyce really Mean with these two statements ( made in response to Duttons criticism of qantas support for gays, and their marriage dictatorship).

“There is an economic argument for marriage equality, backed by research. In short, ...NB...*more open societies attract better talent*.”

Joyce said "Qantas was one of 200 Australian companies publicly supporting marriage equality ...NB...“because we don’t think some people should have fewer rights than others”".

Wonder if Joyce's linage could be traced back to Starlin?

Joke of the year so far...sorry Folau, you don't count!

Dan

More evidence of Alan Joyce's "Partisan" leanings towards the Godless society:

...The partnership with the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras has played an important role for Qantas in celebrating and supporting the LGBTQI community...

This segregated society nonesense should be brought back into line!

Joyce should be sacked!

Dan.

The religious in general and Christians in particular have an obsessive persecution and martyrdom complex. They have a heightened sense of paranoia as well as about their importance in the world.

We see it every Christmas and Easter with the usual nonsensical stories about how the mysterious but unnamed "they" are trying to ban this or that, and from others who hear satanic backmasking in music or the alleged demonic possession of many public figures (but only those they disagree with).

Why the obsession with toilets and change rooms but a tactful blind eye to what happens to children in the vestry, especially when there are scant reports about the former but plenty of criminal convictions for the latter?

.

Dear Patrick J Byrne (the author),

.

You wrote :

« What about the rights of parents to expect a high-level duty of care for their children and of their "prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children", as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What about the liberty of parents "to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions", as recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? »
.

The Human Rights you refer to are, more precisely ; “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. None are absolute. All three are equal and must be respected.

Each must accept and tolerate the other two.
.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS :

Freedom of religion and belief are recognised as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948 as ‘a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’. Article 18 states:

« Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance »
.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS :

Freedom of religion and belief are also recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1966. The Australian Government ratified (that is, became a party to) the Covenant in 1980. Therefore, the Australian Government has obligations (set out in Article 2 of the Covenant), including to respect and to ensure the civil and political rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction. Article 18 of the Covenant states:

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

« 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

« 3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

« 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions »

.

Never mind. A Green/Labor/atheist government coming up. More Muslim 'refugees'. The boats coming again. You Christophobes won't have to worry about Christianity for much longer.

Hi Ttbn,

Speaking of boats, do you recall a Left conspiracy theorist, maybe a couple of weeks back, declaring that the Morrison government would allow (or provoke, or encourage) at least one boat of illegal immigrants to set out from Indonesia, to be caught before it got the the Australian coast ? i.e. a plot to discredit Labor policy ?

There's still a few hours before closing time, but I'd bravely venture that this Morrison plot hasn't eventuated.

But I suppose some Leftist child, after his or her netball practice, can find a Labor Party poster to deface in such a way that the Libs can be blamed. Should be an exciting day.

Cheers,

Joe

Maybe it sank, Joe.

Runner and cohort. I almost always disagree with everything you and your fellow homophobes say but would defend to the death your right to say it. While you, on the other hand, would probably aim a gun at my head if you could for voicing my science and evidence-based views?

If you and your fellow "Christians" are so hung up on religious freedom and freedom of expression? Why then are you and your's first in the vanguard opposing the very bill of rights which would guarantee both.

Yutustu.

In the future, I'll thank you not to mischievously reinterpret my words, meaning or motives.

.Nobody can follow God given God is everywhere present. Not in the constantly revised reworked and re-edited pages of ancient books. Which have a woeful history of repeated plagiarism and extensive embellishment so as to fit a popular or particular narrative!

If you would follow something? Why not the mighty irrefutable truth! And wherever you do that you will be following God!

Belief proves nothing whatsoever! Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free!
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

As a non-believer, I support your stand, that Folau has the right to express his opinions, and his right to worship how he likes. He's not expecting to necessarily convert anybody, or to be angry and hurt if someone doesn't. Since I don't believe that there is a hell (or a heaven), I suppose it means that much less to me than to, say, Runner. But those rights are his too. And of course, yours :)

Cheers,

Joe

rache,

<<The religious in general and Christians in particular have an obsessive persecution and martyrdom complex. They have a heightened sense of paranoia as well as about their importance in the world.>>

Do you have your eyes closed and ears plugged? Who killed the worshippers in Christian churches in Sri Lanka recently? Were these Christians persecuted or is this only a 'nonsensical' story? See: http://www.vox.com/2019/4/21/18509739/sri-lanka-easter-sunday-attacks-terrorist

What about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East? Is that part of our 'martyrdom complex' or is it factual? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL. How about the slaughter of Christians in the Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa? Is that part of this 'martyrdom complex'?

Jesus Christ reminded his followers:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me (John 15:18-20), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A18-25&version=NIV

Alan B,

<<Runner and cohort. I almost always disagree with everything you and your fellow homophobes say but would defend to the death your right to say it. While you, on the other hand, would probably aim a gun at my head if you could for voicing my science and evidence-based views?>>

I voice my historical science views and you're not listening because of your truncated view of science: http://www.eurozine.com/can-history-be-a-science/

I present evidence-based views but you don't like or agree with the evidence. You seem to have a BIG blind spot here.

<<Why not the mighty irrefutable truth! And wherever you do that you will be following God!>>

Which truth? Your kind of truth?

YMBSM* OzSpen

Don't ya know a spoonful of Thorium a day keeps the Special doctor away?!

* means You Must Be Sh-ting Me

If parents want to indoctrinate their children in fantasies such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, God, Allah, Mohammed flying to Jerusalem, virgin birth or other religious nonsense they have a right to do this. However, they or their religious institution should pay the entire cost. Chaplains in the public schools and religious schools should not be financed by the taxes of taxpayers who do not subscribe to religious fantasies.

david f,

<<If parents want to indoctrinate their children in fantasies such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, God, Allah, Mohammed flying to Jerusalem, virgin birth or other religious nonsense they have a right to do this. However, they or their religious institution should pay the entire cost. Chaplains in the public schools and religious schools should not be financed by the taxes of taxpayers who do not subscribe to religious fantasies.>>

This is nothing more than your false representation of God, the virgin birth and the need for continuation of the Christian heritage on which this nation was founded - with the First Fleet.

You continue to pump out your Stawman Fallacy, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

Dear OzSpen,

There is no true representation of God, the virgin birth and other Christian fantasies whether or not these superstitions are grounded in history. They are nonsense, and people who do not subscribe to that nonsense should not pay by their taxes for the promulgation of the rubbish. The nation was founded in an era when people were more grounded in superstition than they are now. Hopefully, there will be a greater separation of religion and state than there is now. However, I don’t think the Christian religion with its ignorance and superstition will disappear any time soon.

Dear Alan,

«In the future, I'll thank you not to mischievously reinterpret my words, meaning or motives.»

An example, please...

«.Nobody can follow God given God is everywhere present.»

I would have thought that the presence of God should actually make it easier to follow!

The problem is not that you cannot follow God, but rather that you prefer to follow your own desires.

«Not in the constantly revised reworked and re-edited pages of ancient books...»

Have I mentioned any?

«If you would follow something? Why not the mighty irrefutable truth! And wherever you do that you will be following God!»

Indeed.

Now if something is subject to change, then surely that cannot be the mighty irrefutable truth. Nothing in this world is not subject to change, so better follow, at least try to follow, the changeless and everlasting.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You cited the gospel of John 15:18-20 in which the author claims to quote verbatim what Jesus is purported to have said more than 90 years earlier :

« If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first … that is why the world hates you … if they persecuted me, they will persecute you also … they will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me »

According to the historians, the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110.

Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four gospel authors are anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century). None of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The so-called "John" is the only one to (falsely) claim to be an eyewitness. Like the rest of the New Testament, all four gospels were written in Greek.

The anonymous “John” does not appear to be a very credible source, to say the least. None of the earlier anonymous gospel authors back-up "John's" claim to the validity of the discourse that he presents as having been pronounced by Jesus.

If you have any evidence testifying to its validity, perhaps you would be so kind as to share it with us.

.

Well, they haven't been elected! And because as in the very surprising Trump election the pollsters were so wrong as to be off the chart and the coalition was assisted by an aggressive getup and an extremely autocratic anti coal caravan led by God's gift to Australia democracy, Bob Brown.

And by a smart-ass pom/ex-union leader who lacked both authenticity and charisma. And just wouldn't listen to the concerns of both his Victorian and Queensland blue-collar base. Both Queensland and Australia are absolutely dependant on coal and coal mining for export dollars and jobs.

Tony Abbott lost his seat because he had tin ears on many critical to the moderate middle! Labor lost in a veritable landslide and now is almost confined to the political wilderness. As the world shudders from one man-made crisis and economic contraction to another.

Labor and Australia need coal! Why? because of an ill-informed and moronic resistance to CLEAN, SAFE, CHEAP carbon-free nuclear energy. More on the question of coal and jobs.
TBC Alan B.

Labor lost Queensland because they wanted to jettison/keep coal and coal mining!

And an absurd reliance on more expensive than nuclear energy, renewables.

Back to coal/jobs in the mining industry. We must have baseload power, even if we get to 50% renewables! NO QUESTION!

And how we do it in a carbon-constrained future, without tanking the economy.

First, we need a national gas grid, whether we do or don't mine coal or extract coal seam gas. A huge shot in the arm for the national steel industry and construction jobs and in the bush by and large!

The second is changing the way we convert coal-fired power to electrical energy. It has to change because the current model is unfundable! Current clean coal concepts are horrendously expensive. That said there's another way that lowers emissions by 75% immediately it's implemented!

Removes huge current maintenance cost into the bargain. Coal is cooked with flameless heat. My preference? MSR thorium because it's vastly cheaper than the only other option, solar thermal.

Once all gas is cooked out of the coal, it's scrubbed and piped to the electrical consumer then transformed into electricity via Australian invented fuel cells. The exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapour!

As a gas, it can be produced during daylight then stored for later use. Both at the production facility and at the recipient's address. Where one of the by-products would be endless free hot water/no blackouts!

PROVING THIS SMOG FREE CONCEPT, IN ACTION, WOULD MASSIVELY BOOST EXPORTS AND LOCAL CONSTRUCTION/MINING BASED EMPLOYMENT!

A pipeline can be buried or used to transport this gas to any large market in our region or interstate! Even via Bass Straight!

This coal-based gas would be cheap and last for 4 times longer if used as proposed. Some of which needs to be quarantined exclusively for use in our own economy.

Which would be massively boosted by this and the medical tourism that would follow MSR thorium and the consequent comparative, large scale production of miracle cancer cure bismuth 213!
Alan B.

Yuyustu. Example? Your last contribution and verbal will do just fine And fairly typical of your debating style. Where one presumes you invariably judge others on your own flawed standards. Moreover, I do not suffer fools gladly.

If we were to say, follow your's and other's prescription of God we would be passing ourselves coming back given the directions all you believers want to take the world? And you seem to want to refute the unrefutable truth?

I mean at least some of you have to be wrong!

Believing in a flat 6,000 world at the centre of the universe never made it so! nor any other unproven belief based philosophy! AND, I AM NOT QUOTING YOU!

Following as I see it, is replicating (walking in your Master's shoes and naught else) the evocations/examples of the various religious leaders who have as always been men and women who preached peace and peaceful cohabitation as law-abiding neighbours.

And doesn't ever mean we must believe as they do or indeed any other comparative philosophy, let alone fight wars and kill one another over any of this or that completely unproven he said she said belief system!

If you want to quote me?

By all means. but never ever again misrepresent my words or cast a different meaning on them nor attempt to infer that I've said something in so many words which I've never actually uttered or inferred!

If you don't understand what I've said ask for clarification before (repeatedly) conferring new meanings on what I've actually or have not actually said!
Alan B.

As the virtue signalling labor is now to remain on the opposition benches for another 3 years, this entire thread is redundant

Shadow Minister,

<<As the virtue signalling labor is now to remain on the opposition benches for another 3 years, this entire thread is redundant.>>

To the contrary, it not only is relevant, but also was prophetic.

The Prime Minister gave credit to ‘quiet Australians’ for his shock election victory on 18 May 2019. Pollsters predicted a Labor win. They got it wrong – very wrong, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/19/scott-morrison-credits-the-quiet-australians-for-miracle-election-victory.

Many of these 'quiet Australians' were so concerned about Labor's agenda against freedom of religion that they did what Pat Byrne recommended: Don't vote Labor. Pat hit the mark when he stated:

"Key exemptions in the federal Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), that allowed faith-based schools to enrol and employ people according to their religious beliefs, are under serious threat. The Labor Party and the Greens are committed to removing these exemptions in the next Parliament....

"There has been little public debate over the wide-ranging consequences of removing exemptions for faith based schools in the Sex Discrimination Act, yet those changes are undermining Australia's tolerant democracy and pose a serious threat to freedom of religion, belief and speech".

That's just one reason why the Pat Byrne article points to action this new government must implement.

Fairfax news reported the importance of the content of Pat's article AFTER the election:

"Christian leaders believe religious freedom was among "sleeper" issues that influenced votes for the Coalition in marginal seats across the country.

"Mark Spencer, national executive officer of Christian Schools Australia, said parents in marginal seats had expressed their concerns to his organisation over the protection of religious freedom.

"There are mums and dads across Australia who want to choose a school that reflects their values,” he said.

“We know that parents in key marginal seats across Australia were saying to us how important the protection of values, beliefs, and freedom of religion are to them.

“With religious freedom featuring in the campaign like never before, it is impossible to imagine that values were not front of mind for voters", http://theworldnews.net/au-news/christian-leaders-say-religious-freedom-was-among-factors-that-influenced-voters

Oz,

If Labor doesn't change they will forever be in opposition. I don't think even they are that stupid.

Dear Alan,

«but never ever again misrepresent my words or cast a different meaning on them nor attempt to infer that I've said something in so many words which I've never actually uttered or inferred!»

Still no example of that.

I presume that you are referring to my post from Friday, 17 May 2019 4:50:00 PM, right?

Here again is what I wrote, so as to make it easier for you to point exactly where I misrepresented your words or otherwise inferred anything about things you did or did not say:

<<<
Dear Alan,

«How can religious freedom include the right to discriminate based on stone age inculcated and fatuous belief?»

Religious freedom means the freedom to follow God rather than to follow society and its norms.

While it is possible to be ignorant or deluded about what exactly God wants in a given situation, one is better off to follow, out of the pure and unselfish intention of their love of God, whatever they sincerely believe, even mistakenly, to be God's wishes, rather than to follow a practice, even a better practice, only because society expects it.

If you do not believe that people have the right to follow God the best they understand, then you do not believe in religious freedom.
>>>