Thank you, Greg Bondar, for your succinct analysis of " a red herring". It is one of Morrison's ploys to distract the public from his ongoing problems doing what he has failed to do in the past three years- manage the government of Australia. He is always too worried about his self-image, that he has never looked in the political mirror to see/know that if he looked after the small details, the larger ones, usually fall into place. His abject performance at the recent National Press Club was an admission of failure, albeit never given voice, as his pride gets in the way. He trips over it every morning getting out of bed. Dishonesty and lies have become his bedfellows- by necessity. To put it in an Australian language, which we all know- he is a slacker!

Greg,

Don't you think a Religious Discrimination Bill is needed, considering the recent Citipointe Christian College saga? The pressure placed on Citipointe has led to its withdrawal of the anti-gay contract. It was promoting the biblical view of homosexuality and its eternal consequences as articulated in Romans 1:18-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Will the RDB cover schools and allow them to promote these sexual values in their enrolment contracts?

In 2019, Scott Morrison stated "he supports the law of the country but wouldn’t say if his personal opposition to same-sex marriage has changed since it was legalised. . . . Mr Morrison abstained from voting for marriage equality when it passed the House of Representatives in 2018, and he voted “no” in the national survey" (SBS News - AAP - 13 May 2019).

I look forward to see how the RDB will be implemented to allow evangelical and Pentecostal schools and organisations to be faithful to biblical Christianity in the ethos of their beliefs.

From what I have seen, the bill would stop Christians from 'discriminating' against people in their schools and institutions who are don't actually believe in Christianity - atheists and homosexuals, transgenderists and other perverts. The Muslims love the idea of gagging people from criticising their horrid religion, too.

Discrimination is a natural and healthy thing. You might as well not believe in anything if you don’t discriminate. Discrimination doesn't mean violence or nastiness: it means 'Thanks, but no thanks. You stay in your yard, and I'll stay in mine'.

I am amazed that people are still waiting for Morrison to make a decision or have a opinion on this Bill or on anything else.

Why all the fuss about Citipointe?

If parents didn't like the 'contract', they could have sent their kids to any number of schools not so fussy, including government schools where anything goes - anything except a proper education, that is.

Note that the ranting, raving MSM didn't say if, or how many, parents approved of the school's discrimination according to belief. Like other businesses there was an offer to sell; the customer can accept or not.

First of all, all forms of discrimination need to be legislated against/unlawful! Given we already have religious freedom with few impediments!

Alan Saunders, a world renowned genetisist and his team, in peer reviewed research, found two certain gay genes and three probables.

At one time the men of religion and letters believed in a flat earth, then that earth was the centre of thee solar system and the universe. And non believers excommunicated for believing otherwise. Today, we base belief, [most of us,] on evidence based belief!

And those like the flat earth society sidelined like the brain-washed nutters they are! Along we the religious cranks that believe the bible to say things, that JC never uttered!

Why, even Paul was a self-confessed homosexual, persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews. And only found sanctuary inside the early esoteric Christian community!

Today he would find a very different Christian community full of very vociferous bible bashing hypocrites! Persecuting (born that way) difference!

And ignoring any evidence that contrary to their narrow (brainwashed from birth) belief system! No change is needed to guarantee freedom of religious worship! We already have that in spades!
Alan B.

>a religious discrimination act to protect Australians’ religious freedoms

I think the religious do themselves a disservice because all they do is pick and choose what they want to hate on. There are a few good people who are religious but that's despite their region not because of it.

Those of us from the outside find that incredulous and serves to simply identify that a old fashioned book of myths is being used as a shield to protect a select few from being allowed to proclaim their hate speech (banned by for everyone else) loudly and proudly.

The Bible is either the word of god... or it isn't

Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)
Kill blasphemers (Leviticus)
Kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
Kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
Kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)

Your supposed to marry your rapist, you're not supposed to eat shellfish, or wear clothes of different blends but that's all cast aside and you can hate on gays ? If the religious then are discriminated against or taken to task for their hate in a level playing field, or have to pay taxes etc its apparently egregious ?

There is no gay gene Allan B.

It’s more accurate to state that environmental factors are the greatest influence on choice.

Relativising the conjunct of homosexuality to the normalcy of a heterosexual society is hugely anti-social and an affront to decency.

There is no excuse for promoting the perversion, and when you push their barrow it reduces your relevance accordingly. Take some advice.

Dan

http://videopress.com/v/2AVNyj7B

We don't need religious Rights, what we need is religious responsibility !

What we really need is personal responsibility elevated to its rightful place
Religion is a personal choice; nobody is forced to comply to its demands on lifestyle and personal choices, and nobody should be persecuted to the point where it becomes necessary for righteous members of society to seek protection behind the barricades of an act of parliament, (which this bill will in some form or another be implemented as an act).

What a sad indictment on this country it is, when religion in its many cultural and social forms is so much under pressure to comply to leftist dogma which is considered inappropriate to the same dogs of disruption that were capable of spitting on our returning Vietnam Veterans on their return to Australian shores.

Why do we tolerate these fools?

Dan

.

Dear Greg (the author),

.

You wrote :
« So, will the Religious Discrimination Bill see the ‘Light of Day’? - not on your nelly. Alea iacta est » [the die is cast, there is no turning back].
.

I sincerely hope you’re right, Greg. The bill is blatantly unethical.

It states that contrary to international human rights law, the manifestation of religious belief must be privileged over other human rights. It allows religions to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs as well as those they consider to be unacceptable because of their sexual orientation, disability, race, etc.

Freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in article 18 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) signed by over 160 States, including Australia.

In addition to freedom of religion, this right includes the right to adopt, change or abandon a religion or belief, and to profess no religion or belief.

“Freedom of religion and belief” and “Freedom of opinion and expression”, are two intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing principles founded in the universal, indivisible and interrelated nature of all human rights, whose purpose is to protect individuals – not doctrines of thought such as religions and their symbols, which do not constitute subjects of law.

In sum, Australia (or any other country, for that matter) does not need the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021.

What we need is what every other democratic country in the Western world already possesses, i.e., a comprehensive Bill of Rights embedded in our federal Constitution.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Here is what the Law Council of Australia wrote in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 :

« The Law Council considers it is preferable to embed freedom of religion in a comprehensive and coherent framework of substantial rights protection, which recognizes that limitations on rights must be necessary, and proportionate to the specific need, in order to be justified and permissible. This is best achieved through a federal human rights act.

In the absence of such an act, piecemeal legislation which places an undue emphasis on giving effect to single freedom may risk unjustifiably limiting the rights of others ».

That seems like good common sense to me.

I can't imagine that our Prime minister thinks otherwise – but, no doubt, he has his political (religious?) imperatives to deal with ...

.

diver dan,

<<There is no gay gene Allan B. It’s more accurate to state that environmental factors are the greatest influence on choice.>>

I agree there is no gay gene but your diagnosis of "environmental factors" influencing choice is just as problematical.

God's view from Scripture is that He "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:24-27).

The cause of homosexuality and other sinful actions is "the sinful desires of their hearts." I don't expect you to accept this diagnosis but it's as true as the living God is holy.

*.. It allows religions to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs as well as those they consider to be unacceptable because of their sexual orientation, disability, race, etc…* go on ey.

Well you miss the point! Protecting rights should be performed at street level. That’s a human tradition stretching back millennia, and it’s that particular quirk of history that is seldom recognised.
Make all the theoretical rules you like, in the end people will ignore them in their own self interest.

One big missing part of this jigsaw is who are the enemy of religious freedom?
Out of that question grow many others.
The gutlessness of those throwing these proposals around in high places, is testament to the failure of the political system.

Dan

OzSpen.

I appreciate your point.
My view of religion is its imperative in stabilising society, a major part of our culture, whether a believer or not. Living Cheek by Jowl with the devils creation called gay rights is galling to many. I refuse to buckle to it!

Dan

.

Dear diver dan,

.

You wrote :

« Protecting rights should be performed at street level. »
.

What we are talking about here, diver dan, is a project of law : the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021.

Are you suggesting that this is something we should fight out in the street if it becomes law and our rights are not respected ?

Could you be a little more explicit please and perhaps give a few examples of how and when we should “protect our rights at street level” – single-handed, street brawls, gang-bangs, armed combat, etc. ?

Whatever it is, it certainly sounds like an interesting method of protecting one’s rights, diver dan. You say it’s “a human tradition stretching back millennia”. Sounds like you have the Stone Age in mind.

I believe the Stone Age began about 2.6 million years ago when researchers found the earliest evidence of humans using stone tools (and weapons). It lasted until about 3,300 B.C. when the Bronze Age began.

I doubt that banging someone over the head with a bronze tool would meet your criteria in terms of power of persuasion. Stone would probably be more effective.

Unfortunately, submissions are now closed for the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, otherwise, you could have contacted the Parliamentary Joint Committee and reminded them that “protecting rights should be performed at street level”.

If you’re serious about wanting to get things back on track, your best bet now would be to send a Tweet direct to the Prime minister himself.

I'm afraid he’s the only one who could do anything about it at this late hour.

Good luck, diver dan – but don't hold your breath !

.

OF course, the bar association promotes a bill of human rights as it is a lawyer's picnic.

The reality is that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. Muslim's beliefs are often far worse, but they appear to be a protected species.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

1. « OF course, the bar association promotes a bill of human rights as it is a lawyer's picnic »

I cited the submission of the Law Council of Australia. I could have cited many others that also "promote" (as you say) a bill of rights. If you are interested, I suggest you consult the 400 odd submissions to the two federal parliamentary inquiries on the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021.
.

2. « The reality is that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs »

Religious intolerance is a fact of life, I’m afraid, shadowminister. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. Conflicts are inherent in the mosaic of certitudes they profess. Christianity is no exception to the rule. It has often persecuted and been persecuted throughout history.

According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's 2020 report, Christians in Burma, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Vietnam are persecuted; these countries are labeled "countries of particular concern" by the United States.

Happily, Australia does not have a history of religious persecution. Christians in this country have the freedom to gather and worship freely, to meet in public places, to join the army, to teach, to vote, and to be prime ministers. Christians own and run vast institutions. They are still the largest religious affiliation in Australia.

Of course, there may be the odd exception, but it would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that Christians are a persecuted group in Australia.

.

Banjo,

I find your comment "Religious intolerance is a fact of life, I’m afraid," somewhat flippant.

How about "Racial intolerance is a fact of life, I’m afraid,"

or "Gender intolerance is a fact of life, I’m afraid,"

etc.

Instead of an entirely new bill, simply including religion under 18c would do the trick.

Secondly, savvy people would realise that this is a political wedge issue. Labor in blocking this bill would not gain any votes from atheists but would seriously piss off believers.

Why else do you think Juliar blocked gay marriage for so long?

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

1. « How about "Racial intolerance is a fact of life, … or "Gender intolerance is a fact of life, … etc." »
.

Yes, shadowminister, regrettably, intolerance, in all its forms, is a fact of life.

To quote Amnesty International :

« We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, gender, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, age, health or other status »

And Article 1.4 of UNESCO’s “Declaration of Principles on Tolerance” states:

« Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior, and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others ».
.

Social intolerance (as opposed to medical intolerance) is a psychological phenomenon that has its roots in fear, prejudice, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, mental rigidity, ultra-conservatism, bigotry, and various forms of superiority complex. Taken to its extreme level, it can lead to hate, discrimination, violence, colonisation, ostracism, dehumanisation, war, and genocide.
.

2. « … savvy people would realise that this is a political wedge issue. Labor in blocking this bill would not gain any votes from atheists but would seriously piss off believers »
.

Political cynicism. I am inclined to agree with you, shadowminister. Quite disgusting really.

.

BP

Your last post appears to make the case for the religious discrimination bill?

Valley Guy,

<<The Bible is either the word of god... or it isn't

Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)
Kill blasphemers (Leviticus)
Kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
Kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
Kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)>>

I think you ought to stick to your day-time job. With this comment, you demonstrated you don't have a clue about the differences between the commands of the Old Covenant for Israel and the New Covenant commandments for Christians. All of the commandments you quoted are for the Israelites only, to keep them a holy nation. They are not in force today for Christians.

None of the Old Testament law is binding for Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law and its application to Christians(see Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

Not if you interpret it through the lens of my previous posts.

.

BP,

I disagree strongly. Your last post made a clear and cogent argument for protecting religious rights.

That in a previous post you flippantly claimed that there is no religious discrimination in Aus thus no need to enshrine the right is both intellectually lazy (as that would indicate that the bill should have no resistance) but also substantially incorrect, as there have been several actions taken against those that state their religiously based opinion. Israel Folau and a cleric in Tasmania are well-known examples.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

1. « Your last post made a clear and cogent argument for protecting religious rights. »
.

Not just religious rights, shadowminister, all human rights. I have always had and continue to have the utmost respect for human rights – all human rights, including religious rights.

Perhaps you missed it, but this is what I wrote to Greg (the author) on page 2 of this thread :

« The bill is blatantly unethical.

It states that contrary to international human rights law, the manifestation of religious belief must be privileged over other human rights. It allows religions to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs as well as those they consider to be unacceptable because of their sexual orientation, disability, race, etc.

Freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in article 18 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) signed by over 160 States, including Australia.

In addition to freedom of religion, this right includes the right to adopt, change or abandon a religion or belief, and to profess no religion or belief.

“Freedom of religion and belief” and “Freedom of opinion and expression”, are two intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing principles founded in the universal, indivisible and interrelated nature of all human rights, whose purpose is to protect individuals – not doctrines of thought such as religions and their symbols, which do not constitute subjects of law.

In sum, Australia (or any other country, for that matter) does not need the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021.

What we need is what every other democratic country in the Western world already possesses, i.e., a comprehensive Bill of Rights embedded in our federal Constitution ».
.

(Continued …)

.

.
(Continued …)

.

2. « That in a previous post you flippantly claimed that there is no religious discrimination in Aus thus no need to enshrine the right is both intellectually lazy (as that would indicate that the bill should have no resistance) but also substantially incorrect, as there have been several actions taken against those that state their religiously based opinion. Israel Folau and a cleric in Tasmania are well-known examples. »
.

What I wrote was :

« Happily, Australia does not have a history of religious persecution. Christians in this country have the freedom to gather and worship freely, to meet in public places, to join the army, to teach, to vote, and to be prime ministers. Christians own and run vast institutions. They are still the largest religious affiliation in Australia.

Of course, there may be the odd exception, but it would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that Christians are a persecuted group in Australia. »
.

I could have added that the Australian Christian Lobby organisation is very active on the political scene both in Canberra and in the states where it exercises its influence freely and effectively.
.

But, as I am sure you are aware, The Australian Christian Lobby has now withdrawn its support for the Religious Discrimination Bill package and called on the Morrison Government to withdraw the Bills from the Senate, explaining :

« Taking away protections for Christian schools is a price too high to pay for the passage of the Religious Discrimination Bill. The amendments voted on by Labor, independents and these Liberal MPs unnecessarily interfere with the operation of faith-based schools »
.

We can now all breathe a sigh of relief.

As you said yourself, shadowminister, this whole thing was just “a political wedge issue” anyway.

Seems like a happy ending.

.

Banjo,

<<We can now all breathe a sigh of relief. As you said yourself, shadowminister, this whole thing was just “a political wedge issue” anyway. Seems like a happy ending.>>

That might be a "sigh of relief" for you but it's reverse discrimination to Christians and others whose values are being stomped on by the delay of this Religious Discrimination Bill.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« … discrimination to Christians and others whose values are being stomped on by the delay of this Religious Discrimination Bill … »
.

That is a sweeping statement that is inexact, Ozpen. Values of only some are being "stomped on". The palette of Christian values is by no means homogenous – quite the contrary – it is a vast and complex mosaic !
.

The Prime Minister withdraw the proposed legislation from the senate when five Liberal senators rebelled to repeal section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act that allows religious schools to discriminate against students and teachers on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.

Here is the testimony of Trent Zimmerman, one of the Liberal senators :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ll5eMKajc&ab_channel=GuardianAustralia
.

The promotors of the Bill wanted to make it legal for religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students and teachers.

These are the “values” you regret are being “stomped on” by the delay of this Religious Discrimination Bill, Ozpen.

You affirm that they are the values of “Christians and others”.
However, I note that this is not the case of the Catholic Church whose Catechism states as follows in the section dealing with “Chastity and homosexuality” :

« 2358 – The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition ».

Many other Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as sinful or immoral. Even the positions of the evangelical churches are varied. They range from liberal to fundamentalist or moderate Conservative and neutral.

Some evangelical denominations have adopted neutral positions, leaving the choice to local churches to decide for same-sex marriage (Wikipedia).

.