The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religious freedom and the resurrection > Comments

Religious freedom and the resurrection : Comments

By Greg Bondar, published 28/3/2022

'Just as it would be wrong to tell the Mardi Gras not to be gay, or to tell an ethnic body not to be ethnic, religious organisations must be allowed to remain religious in their guiding principles and practices.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Well reasoned Greg. I pray that a Religious Discrimination Bill will be passed in the NSW Parliament and in the federal House of Representatives and Senate. We desperately need them.

Too often Aussies think of discrimination or persecution overseas when they are happening in our own backyard.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 28 March 2022 7:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion Is persecution !
Posted by individual, Monday, 28 March 2022 7:15:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

<<Religion Is persecution!>>

To the contrary, religion is belief or beliefs. Please explain how religion IS persecution.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 28 March 2022 7:19:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Freedom of religion is a universal human right to be protected for the benefit of all – but particularly those of the Christian faith."

Freedom of religion is not only a universal human right, but a universal principle that ought to be cherished by all lovers of God. Neither should it be limited to humans, nor only to those of the Christian faith.

Religion can be found everywhere, religion makes the world go round, thus it cannot be limited to established institutions and doctrines.

The danger with any laws that supposedly favour religion, is that they would only favour such large and powerful institutions which claim to be religious and have the financial/legal resources to "prove" it in court.

Religiosity and spiritual alignment with God can never be proven in court because courts can only be furnished with material evidence: it is easy to foresee how courts could mistakenly classify certain beliefs and expressions that may be culturally-established but not truly religious as "religious", while refusing protection to other true religious beliefs and expressions that are private or limited to small groups thus not as culturally common.

If the author wishes to provide strong legal powers only to Christianity (and possibly also Judaism), then that is their political pursuit, which is well within their democratic right, but has little to do with Glorificetur Deus.

Bar having [true] prophets employed in the public service (which is not feasible in this era), secular authorities have no way of telling religious expressions from other mundane expressions, thus the way to support freedom of religion, should one truly value it, must pass through supporting maximal freedom for everyone, humbly acknowledging that only God is to judge what indeed aligns with His ways and what does not.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 28 March 2022 8:37:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are aspects of Christian teaching that give over to bigotry, vilification and hate. That was most evident during the "gay marriage" debate when some Christians were fear mongering and vilifying gay people. Is Greg suggesting that Christians are a special case, and deserving of exemption from laws that the rest of the community are subject to. Does Greg want carte blanch rights for Christians to say and do as they please supposedly base on some biblical interpretation.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 28 March 2022 8:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
religion is belief or beliefs.
OzSpen,
Yeah, that's what they try to make people think but reality perpetually proves otherwise.
It's akin to saying people are inherently good !
Faith or belief are an effective control mechanism for the conniving & comfort for the decent !
It's a good-evil see-saw !
Posted by individual, Monday, 28 March 2022 8:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The phrase religious "guiding principles and practices" suggests that a number of Australian political organisation, and religions, that purport to live by an infallible Bible as their guiding "principles and practices", are very coy when it comes to their adherence to some of the injunctions clearly enjoined in that Bible. For example, both the "principle and practice" of "honour killing" are enjoined in the Bible - in both Testaments. Such injunctions encompass family life ("honouring of parents") and selected sexual practices. Is legislating against the practice of those injunctions to be regarded as religious persecution?
Posted by Blowy, Monday, 28 March 2022 9:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christians are the ones being persecuted. Christians, not Muslims and the rest, are the most persecuted people in the world. Not in Australia - yet; but given the sneering, nastiness and ignorance that abounds, and the increasing intolerance and violent demonstrating - particularly by giggling, foul-mouthed children, there is worse to come.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 March 2022 9:44:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blowy

*… Is legislating against the practice of those injunctions to be regarded as religious persecution?..*

Yes. Because that particular legislation now makes a crime from following the moral dictates of (in your example), the Bible.

EG A Christian baker refusing to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, and the now obvious consequences of the moral action by the Christian following his conscience in this regard.

This was an early consequence of gay marriage and its true intent of destabilising a Christian society.
Then of course further consequences of progressive, (actually regressive), legislated persecution as time moves on, with the example of Israel Folau paying the price for daring to air his religious views in public.

So the moral playing field became one over time, where the persecuted gays became the victors in pay back: Which is what their nasty campaign was focused on achieving all along.

And the sooner this nasty cable of terrorists are put back in their debauched corner, the sooner a moral and dignified society will return.

Dan.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 28 March 2022 10:15:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious bigitory is not and never was a religious freedom. Nor is quoting from 2,000 text that has be revised, rewritten and edited to the point where the oldest know version of the bible and todays approved version, bear absolutely no resemblance!

Organized religion is in its death throes, with as little as 15% attending their weekly dose of bigitorial brainwashing!

To quote Paul is to quote a self confessed homosexual and were J.C. to walk among us today, with his preference for exclusive male companions and gentle nature, many would conclude, he was gay?

Religious freedom has never ever included selective quoting and partial quoting to infer an other meaning to text that just does not say what some fanatical bible bashing fundementalists would have us believe!

It has never included claiming a flat earth or that being born different was some kind of sin!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 28 March 2022 11:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual AB, you completely miss the point.

*… Organized religion is in its death throes, with as little as 15% attending their weekly dose of bigitorial brainwashing! …*

Compare the following; the federal Liberal party has a membership of 80k members across 2k branches in Australia Alan. A rough percentage of = .29%, of the population.

People generally care infinitely more about religion than politics it appears Alan.

And as with the hard core of politics, so with gays Alan. Gays have a hard core of overly influential agitators which need dealing with.

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 28 March 2022 1:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In all societies, there are groups.
They form out of what passes for common interest.
Some form of protection is felt by the adherents.
They have a sense of belonging.
People are driven to these groups by instinct rather than reason.

With the coming of awareness, humans were shaken out of their 'somnolent soporific state'.
Suddenly humans became aware they were part of an 'unfeeling, unheeding, unforgiving' system we call nature.
Instinct was not enough to enable them to cope any more.
They needed other strategies.
Enter religion, and similar concepts.

The fundamental belief system in place in many of these groupings is wildly at variance with the truth.
Rules, based on convenience, are usually devised by one person aided by a few supporters.
In fact, these groups can operate very much like a dictatorship.
Some are indistinguishable from such.

The purpose of many of these groups is to allow 'members' to escape the harsh reality of life.
Truth is conveniently left behind, so that members can dwell (mentally) in an artificial world?
Persons of doubtful integrity capitalise on their need to do this.
It allows the 'leaders' of these groups to dictate to the followers.
'Leaders' can flex their muscles, and feel powerful.

Is it really logical for otherwise 'fully functioning adults' to pursue a way of life based upon fiction?
Does that not lead to those people behaving like children playing 'dress-ups'?
Should the rest of society have to 'put-up' with such absurd practices?
Should it pass laws which protect these people, when they engage with their hazy pursuits?

I say no.
The state should not be beholden to the whims of the few who control these groups.
I think we have been 'persecuted' by them for far too long.
It is time to allow these dictatorships to die a natural death.
Posted by Ipso Fatso, Monday, 28 March 2022 1:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While man sees the external actions and hears the spoken words, only God sees to the heart.

Whether it be the Christian baker, Israel Folau or St. Paul, only God or possibly His prophets can tell whether the very first thought that led to their words and actions was devotional or bigoted.

We must be very careful not to judge and always err on the side of caution to assume that their motive was truly religious. We need not worry if we happen to be wrong because in that case, God has plenty of perfect ways to repair their souls.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 28 March 2022 2:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is what I think.
I think the truth of the following is self-evident....^_^
People must think for themselves.
Not just follow blindly because it sounds right.
Whatever anyone says, be critical and cautious.
Think, and arrive at your own conclusion.
Seek other opinions if you are unsure.
Give yourself a wider knowledge base.
Allow yourself time to assemble facts.
A society where all people follow sound, and carefully thought out, principles, which principles are based on truth, is preferable to one where groups of zombie like humans predominate?
So use truth as your engine.
Truth is the one indispensable, and unchangeable, facet of life.
Truth in all things is essential for progress.
Regrettably, I have noticed a rather unfortunate trait, evident in some humans.
They cannot handle the truth.
Jack Nicholson got it right?
Posted by Ipso Fatso, Monday, 28 March 2022 3:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The current opinion of mental health professionals, for example both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, on conversion therapy is that it is fraudulent, even if the homosexual is desperately anxious to change. You might compare its practitioners to the charlatans who tell you that coffee enemas will cure your cancer. Not only is it highly unlikely to work, but it can be actually harmful to the mental health of the patient.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=American+Psychological+Association+conversion+therapy

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-reiterates-strong-opposition-to-conversion-therapy

There is increasing evidence that homosexuality has biological causes. Search "fraternal birth order effect homosexuality". A man who has several older brothers is more likely to be homosexual, provided that they have the same biological mother, than one who does not. The theory is that some women have an overactive immune system that reacts against a fetal protein needed for normal male development, once she has been sensitized by a previous pregnancy with a male fetus. The more boys she has, the stronger the effect.

Christians no longer burn witches or condone slavery, so why persecute homosexuals? Better to concentrate on your own sins.

Did this man sin or his parents that he was born blind? John 9:2
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 28 March 2022 4:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
different was some kind of sin!
Alan B,
Different as in being more conscientious, respectful & caring is definitely deemed a sin now !
Posted by individual, Monday, 28 March 2022 4:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The irony...is that Latham, who has professed not to be a Christian, has become one of the most notable defenders of religious freedom..."
No irony in that, none at all. It is precisely what a true lover of free thought and free speech should profess. There is zero value in a belief in those freedoms if it applies only to beliefs shared between two parties.
Posted by TomBie, Monday, 28 March 2022 5:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I once postulated to a friend that homosexuality was nature's way of curtailing population growth.
I said it is a function built in to the reproductive process.
I said we should be thankful it is so, and not rail against those whose sexuality does not match their physical person.
We should be thanking them instead.
As an aside, about five years later he said the same thing back to me, as if it were his own thought.
It is interesting how minds work.
Anyway, I didn't remind him of our previous conversation.
I didn't say a word.
But I still think it entirely possible that nature's hand is in the till.
I have another thought.
Enabling homosexuals to reproduce goes against any good that nature has wrought?
So I don't exactly approve when I hear of it happening.
But, who am I to deny others the right to fulfil their instinctive need, when nature is clearly directing that too.
And in all and any circumstance, for any person to say that homosexuality is sinful or degrading, is total nonsense.
Such persons really need to understand more about the human body, and get a grip on reality.
And it would be helpful if they were to be guided by fact as well.
Posted by Ipso Fatso, Monday, 28 March 2022 5:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence.

Whatever the reason for homosexuality, it will be no different in cause or causes than five thousand years ago or two million years ago: And no doubt into the future homosexuals will continue to exist alongside, the normal in society.

What is changing, particularly in liberal Democracies, is the power of its peculiar tribe to forcibly impose its values attributable to its narrow belief system, onto the vast majority of normal society.

Forcing tolerance of it by dictate is not helpful or necessary. Defending from its imposition is in fact, more than obviously necessary.
The calls for a religious bill of rights, proves the cart now travels before the horse.

The unequal power of the rainbow flag needs to be curtailed. Politicians have gifted the nonsense of it a free ride for far too long, to the point where homosexuality is elevated to a religion with more rights than traditional cultural religions such as Christianity.

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 28 March 2022 5:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And one more thing.
No one comes back to life.
Once the brain ceases to function, and degrades physically beyond a certain point, it cannot be reactivated.
But I think the 'degrading physically' stage can vary a great deal.
There are those who have been (wrongly) declared dead, and yet awoken the day after.
(as happened in a case reported in the news some years ago)
It is thus quite reasonable to assume that someone who 'comes back to life' was, in fact, not dead in the first place.
There must have been sufficient oxygen etc, getting to where it was needed, to keep the brain, and other body parts, 'alive'.
It might appear to be a 'miracle' to those who are impressionable, and wanting it to be that way, but I think the truth is otherwise.
Posted by Ipso Fatso, Monday, 28 March 2022 5:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan,

So long as the homosexuals are not harming innocent people and don't impinge on you, why do you care what they do? I find that Rainbow Flag stuff mildly irritating, and especially the transexuals with their pronouns and demands to participate in women's sports, but it is a minor irritation in the wider scheme of things. I don't believe that people choose to be homosexual. Let them live their lives with what happiness that they can find and you live yours.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 28 March 2022 7:10:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Divergence. Dan seems overly obsessed with homosexuality? Almost like he himself is thus afflicted and needs to butch it up and persecute difference to prove he is not like them?

Dan reminds me of a story Sir Richard Bramston tells about a highly placed, flat earth society official, who he invited on a trip on his low orbit space craft.

The official accepted and as they ascended, with a round globe appearing in the porthole where the official was glued. Whereupon landing, Sir Richard enquired, and what do you think now?

Well, replied the official, the graphics were almost believable as were the special effects and walked away refusing the evidence of his onw eyes!

Dan, like the aforementioned, has no interest in contrary evidence? Given that is so, seems to be, just another fanatic, willing to persecute those unfortunate enough to be born different!

And given what the poor bastards have to tolerate from others, who would actually choose to be gay? And explains the high suicide rate among young homosexuals unable to accept their normal God given sexual bias?

We didn't knot the rope they swung from, but those who persecute those born different may as well have and will need to face their own ultimate justice and Divine judgement!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 29 March 2022 12:51:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DD should get together WITH SM, he's obsessed with paedophilia, they could compare notes. Is it a religious thing?
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 29 March 2022 8:53:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's talk about heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Everyone else seems to be.

What is a person?
A person is the output of a computer program, running in what we call a brain.
We cannot ordinarily see or hear a brain 'running'.
And the brain couldn't exist by itself.
So it needs an interface, which will enable it to interact with the physical world.
This is where the body comes in.
The body is a support system, a reproductive system, a communication system, etc.

We cannot change the basic program in the brain?
And were that program all we were, our existence would be very limited.
Luckily, we have the ability to observe and remember stuff.
And we can use that 'stuff' to plan ahead. (reasoning)
This nicely expands our activities.

The sex drive is a function of the body, and develops as the body grows and changes.
Who that drive is directed towards is a function of the brain, and cannot be changed?
Some are sexually 'attracted' to those of the same sex.
Heterosexuals produced these persons, and they should be accommodated in society like all others.

There are many different kinds of people born.
Some have an extremely capable brain.
Some have physical differences which limit their activities. (disabilities)
Some have a different sexual orientation.
Only those who are unable to restrain themselves from being harmful should be thought of as undesirable.

Rejecting difference means a natural instinct is at work.
But we should use reason to overcome that, and accept difference as natural and needed?
Whatever way people are born, all can contribute usefully to our world.
And the world works better when stupid persons don't try to impede those who are born with difference.
Whatever our inclination, we must behave in a grown up way, and use reason to direct our actions.
Posted by Ipso Fatso, Wednesday, 30 March 2022 10:15:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ipso Fatso,

«Let's talk about heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Everyone else seems to be.»

Yes, it seems that they all deserted the original topic.
It may be interesting to discuss sexual orientations, but the important topic of religious freedom has once again been hijacked.

You did however bring up some very interesting points and it would be lovely to discuss them on some other appropriate discussion thread.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 March 2022 12:37:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a line of thought that Christianity was a gay breakaway sect from Judaism. John the Baptist initiated a naked Jesus into the sect while his gay followers watched on and cheered. St Paul was persecuting gay Christians until he had his Damascus moment and realised he way guy himself, and joined in.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 30 March 2022 6:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

There is a line of thought that the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.o.h) passed to his followers some seeds of a spelled Banyan tree that can grow through anything: a couple of years ago such a seed was found and confiscated by ASIO, then secretly planted upside-down from the cleaner's room in Canberra's parliament building, so in about 6 years it will grow all the way through the center of the earth and its top leaves will emerge in the northern Atlantic ocean, where it will suck up nuclear Russian submarines and fetch them to Australia for free and much earlier!

You see, I just made that one: lines of thoughts are very easy to produce - like to buy a dozen?

Now that you achieved your purpose of gaining our attention, is there anything you want to tell us about religious freedom?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 March 2022 7:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

I have no problem with "religious freedom", no more than I have a problem with "secular freedom". Providing no harm is done to others, physicality or mentally, I see no reason to restrict the practices, and you certainly can't restrict a persons inner beliefs, of Christians or any other group in society.

If there was a revelation and the narrative changed, to one that Jesus was gay, and the true founder of Christanity St Paul etc was also gay, would that deminish the value of Christian teachings in your eyes?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 31 March 2022 5:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Thank you for your response that you are not opposed to religious freedom.

You say that one cannot restrict inner beliefs, but then beyond beliefs there are practices and there it gets more complicated.

Let me give an example:
"If you come across a bird’s nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life." [Deuteronomy 22:6-7]

That's a poor English translation, found in most common English versions. The original Hebrew verse, and the prevalent Jewish understanding, says that you should send the mother-bird away, then you MUST take the young.

Now suppose a Jew walks in a nature reserve and comes upon a nest with a mother-bird of an endangered species sitting on her eggs: they may not be interested in the bird or the eggs, but the Bible commands them to chase away the bird and take the eggs (then they don't have to use the eggs, they can return them to the nest, but by then the mother is already gone).

State laws could demand that no person may touch the nest, scare the bird or take the eggs, but Jews believe that God commanded them otherwise: what to do? This is a question about religious freedom that is more pertinent than that silly discussion of homosexuality.

«If there was a revelation and the narrative changed, to one that Jesus was gay, and the true founder of Christanity St Paul etc was also gay, would that deminish the value of Christian teachings in your eyes?»

No, but then you need to present this question to Christians, not to me who am not.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 31 March 2022 6:02:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Religious bigotry was a real issue a hundred years ago, but the overwhelming majority of people today will not be concerned if you worship God in the wrong way. There is still discrimination against Muslims,but that is because of Islamic terrorism and cultural practices such as honour killings, not their beliefs.

The people calling for this bill are mostly evangelical Protestants and Catholics. They are not the target of discrimination in terms of jobs, welfare, housing, etc., although I agree that people should be able to talk about what their religion teaches, even if others are offended by it. By and large, however, what these particular Christians really want is the freedom to discriminate, and not just with respect to roles such as priest, pastor, or religious teacher, where people are expected to serve as examples of Christian living. Homosexuality is relevant here, because homosexuals are the Christian fundamentalists' prime (but not only) target, even if they are not flagrant about their sexual preferences.

Concerning your example, so far as I know, our laws don't accept religion as an excuse to do something that is otherwise illegal and antisocial. We don't allow human sacrifice or burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, for example. I would hope that the authorities throw the book at anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who harasses an endangered species.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 1 April 2022 1:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Divergence,

Thank you for your considered response.

It makes no sense to me how discriminating against homosexuals could be a religious act, in other words, how such an action could lead anyone closer to God - but then I have sufficient humility to acknowledge that I am unlikely to be aware of everyone's special circumstances, where they start off their spiritual journey from, thus what unique route they need to take in order to reach God.

Regarding the freedom to discriminate by failing to employ someone for inappropriate reason(s), foolish as they may be, stupidity in itself must not be considered a crime. Nobody is obliged to employ others to begin with, so as long as no actual injury is made, nobody, and states are not excepted, may legitimately coerce others to avoid foolish acts, how more so coerce others to actively perform a given action, virtuous as it may be.

Insulting and abusing people, including homosexuals, is of course wrong and a different matter, but for a private person or a truly-private organisation to just tell them plainly and politely "I do not accept your work application", should never be illegal.
(note however that a publicly-funded school is not truly private)

Regarding the bird:

Throwing the book at someone who truly acts out of faith, would only create martyrs, possibly even terrorists. One who truly believes that their actions are ordained by God, would surely not stop at the instructions of mere flesh-and-blood.

It is better to show such people that disturbing the bird is not truly ordained by God, nor the true spirit of the Biblical commandment.

There is vast Rabbinical literature on this topic which provides several exceptions by which observant Jews are allowed not to climb that tree (where the endangered bird is perched).
This topic is fascinating and I may get back to it later, but I am running out of time right now, so in short for now, the answer is EDUCATION, not punishment.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 April 2022 5:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

Not sure what you are referring to as "practices", that could range from the simple benign practice of kneeling and praying, or the murderous practice of child sacrifice. If Christians want the right to religious freedom based on an unfettered interpretation of the Bible, then I see that as extremely dangerous, that could lead to all sorts of macabre practices. BTW if Christians are to have such rights base on their holy book, should not all other religions have the same rights based on their teachings? Should such freedom be restricted to religion, should it not be extended to all other interest groups in society?

No more than I can support the right of Christians to impose their beliefs over all others, based on biblical interpretation. Nor should Christians or any other religious be permitted to promote hate within society based on their beliefs. I don't see the need for a "Religious Freedom" law if its only intention is to legitimise a minorities right to be bigoted and vindictive. I understand the strong opposition in the NSW parliament was because the proposed legislation went too far in that direction.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 April 2022 6:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,

<<There is a line of thought that Christianity was a gay breakaway sect from Judaism. John the Baptist initiated a naked Jesus into the sect while his gay followers watched on and cheered. St Paul was persecuting gay Christians until he had his Damascus moment and realised he way guy himself, and joined in.>>

On what evidence is this "line of thought" based? Do you make decisions based on your own "lines of thought"?
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 2 April 2022 8:32:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ozspen,

On what evidence is this "line of thought" based? Do you make decisions based on your own "lines of thought"?

Like other religions, if irrefutable evidence was required to establish belief, then Christianity would not have a leg to stand on. Christians make all sorts of assumptions, and ultimately derive a belief based on the lines of thought of others. The three great monotheistic religions of the world Judaism, Christianity and Islam very much discourage "free thinking", as conformity and rigidity is essential for control. The elimination of blasphemers and heretics was a priority of Christianity for hundreds of years. Why the necessity of public stoning's and burning's to eliminate these dangerous people, for no other reason than they posed a threat to the Churches social control of the populace.

To answer your second question; I certainly hope so.

A study of Buddhism will show a far different approach to making personal decisions to achieve fulfilment in ones life. Buddha can only offer guidance, ultimately it is ones personal decisions that hopefully lead to enlightenment. "All men are capable of being enlightened, but not all men seek enlightenment." - Buddha.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 April 2022 6:42:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Clearly your intentions are good. You don't want to allow people to abuse religion and promote hate towards others: neither do I.

Now by "practices", in this context, I mean all actions and abstentions from actions, as opposed to mere beliefs. Religious-practices are thus any actions and action-abstentions that bring one closer to God.

Thus understood, no one should fear religious practices, for how can evil acts possibly bring one closer to God?!
Moreover, attempting to obstruct a devotee's path to God attempts to obstruct the very purpose of life, which can only end in disastrous results.

«If Christians want the right to religious freedom based on an unfettered interpretation of the Bible, then...»

Well, that's a far-reaching claim, as if one could tell whether a given action is religious or otherwise based solely on the Bible (and its interpretation). Think about it and you should quickly conclude that this claim has no basis in reality.

So, if a given action, whether or not it's based on the Bible, isn't indeed a religious action, then surely it wouldn't come under the cover of religious freedom!

Regarding legislation to "protect religious freedom", while I'm not opposed to the principle, I consider such legislation impossible, futile and unworkable. As I just noted, nobody needs to fear religious practices, but how could police or a court of law possibly determine whether a given act is religious or otherwise? They just cannot! Well in theory, perhaps that would have been possible if the courts were advised by prophets, but you and I know that no prophets are available in our day and age, and even if they were, they wouldn't be willing to be employed by secular civil authorities.

Yet, religious freedom is so important because the results of attempting to obstruct someone's path to God are so horrendous, thus I believe it best to err heavily on the side of caution, rather acquitting 1000 people on ground that their actions could be religious than convict even once someone for truly following God. This can be achieved by reducing legislation all over.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 April 2022 12:42:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,

<<Like other religions, if irrefutable evidence was required to establish belief, then Christianity would not have a leg to stand on. Christians make all sorts of assumptions, and ultimately derive a belief based on the lines of thought of others. The three great monotheistic religions of the world Judaism, Christianity and Islam very much discourage "free thinking", as conformity and rigidity is essential for control.>>

This statement is loaded with your presuppositions:

Irrefutable evidence is required to establish belief;

If such is so, Christianity wouldn't exist, i.e. "would not have a leg to stand on." The fact is that good evidence backs up Christianity, but you seem to be more interested in brushing off Christianity than considering the evidence.

My Christian faith is based on the facts of God's existence, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The life of Jesus can be examined using the historical method. I'm not talking nonsense as I have a research-based PhD on the historical Jesus.

What "free thinking" should be allowed into Christianity? That of Kierkegaard or John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar?

As a Bible-believing Christian, I'm not forced into conformity, rigidity and control. I live in the freedom of Christ and have been released from the bondage of sin that bound my life. I don't expect you to understand such freedom since you have excluded such relief from your life.

Seems to me you have a fixated view of Christianity that blocks the truth of this faith from your life.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 3 April 2022 7:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi OzSpen,

No I didn't say "Irrefutable evidence is required to establish belief", I prefaced that with the word "if", which gives a different meaning. No, a belief can be established on circumstantial or rater scanty evidence, even on an assumption. I don't deny your right to believe in a supernatural being, a sky father, a god or whatever, personally I am agnostic on that subject. I have spent most of my life exposed to Christianity and its teachings, and the believers with their beliefs are as diverse as the non-believers and their take on such things. BTW, what evidence have I not considered? Typical of believers is such evidence as; "The Sun rises in the mornings, I have no reason for that occurrence, so therefore I believe it must be the hand of God at work." A belief can be fact, but it can also be fiction, belief is not dependent on fact.

One for you to ponder, I can say I have met a god, a true and living god. Once time venturing into the Waipoua Forest in NZ, there I met the God Tane Mahuta, in the form of a giant kauri tree. To Maori people Tane Mahuta is as real and as significant as your God. I am not one to deny that belief. My question to you is; Do you accept that Tane Mahuta is as real and as significant to Maori people as your God is to you?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2022 8:13:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What risible reverse victimhood rubbish.

In a country where the PM is part of a hard right fundamentalist sect of Christianity, where publicly funded chaplaincies exist in virtually every school, and over a third of our school students are educated in private, mostly faith based schooling, we still have the whining religious bigots claiming victimhood.

Can you please just shut the hell up.

You are essentially calling for religious based schools, hospitals and welfare organisations which are taking billions upon billions of taxpayers dollars, to be able to discriminate on who can work within those organisations. This quite frankly is utterly un-Australian and should be utterly rejected by anyone with the least regard for this country.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 3 April 2022 9:38:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SteeleRedux,

«You are essentially calling for religious based schools, hospitals and welfare organisations which are taking billions upon billions of taxpayers dollars, to be able to discriminate on who can work within those organisations.»

Firstly, who said that these are indeed religious-based schools, hospitals and welfare organisations?
I bet that these claims were made by those very same organisations:
Saying that one is religious, or religious-based is one thing, being in fact religious is quite another.

Other than that I agree with your last post, but I wonder what your view is of such schools, hospitals and welfare organisations which DO NOT accept a cent from the taxpayer?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 April 2022 9:52:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point Steele,

The Christians would rather talk about the god fearing cake shop owner, who does not wise to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on the grounds it an abomination before god.

To quote The Gospel of Cyril ch 17, verse 6; "Thou shalt not bake cakes for faggots."
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2022 9:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,

<<BTW, what evidence have I not considered?>>

We would need an extensive conversation about the evidence you have considered and this is not the place. Firstly, we need to believe in God's existence: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

There are 2 pieces of evidence from Scripture that state or allude to the evidence for the existence of God. Both are in the Book of Romans.

Firstly, Romans 1:20 states, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Secondly, the evidence from conscience is in Romans 2:15, "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

Evidence for the existence of God in design in creation is also in Psalm 19:1-6.

Those are the only 2 pieces of evidence I find in Scripture to declare God's existence. However, your statement, "god fearing cake shop owner, who does not wise to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on the grounds," indicates you do not take this topic seriously.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 3 April 2022 1:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Who says they are faith based? They themselves.

You ask: “what your view is of such schools, hospitals and welfare organisations which DO NOT accept a cent from the taxpayer?”

As much as I see them as an affront to Australian values I would accept them dictating their own hiring practices to a degree. However just as I wouldn't accept them putting out a sign “No Jews need apply” a “No gays need apply would be equally unacceptable to me. How do you feel in this regard?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 3 April 2022 1:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SteeleRedux,

«Who says they are faith based? They themselves.»

Indeed, but you changed my words:
I asked, "who said that these are indeed religious-based schools?"
and you rephrased: "Who says they are faith based?".

Faith is often required on the spiritual path in order to persist and find the strength to cross the rough patches of the journey, but faith itself is not always connected with religion, thus it is quite possible to find a faith-based organisation that only consider themselves religious where in fact they are not.

«However just as I wouldn't accept them putting out a sign “No Jews need apply” a “No gays need apply would be equally unacceptable to me. How do you feel in this regard?»

I would feel antagonistic towards such people/organisations (both cases), and urge others to shun them and avoid their services, but I would not go as far as making stupidity illegal, assuming that these signs were only placed within their own private property. If such signs are visible outside, then I may erect a wall around their property to stop them being visible outside.

---

Dear OzSpen,

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him"

Faith is not binary. Nearly everyone has some measure of faith, but only extremely rare individuals have complete faith.

While I have my own measure of faith in God's providence and invisible qualities, which I try to increase, I do not subscribe to His "existence", because attributing existence to God would constitute an insult to God, as if God were just yet another worldly object. While God's divine and infinite attributes exist, God Himself is indescribable and way beyond any attributes, including existence.

In the original Hebrew, Psalm 19 does not mention existence: since I don't know Greek, I wonder what exact words are actually used in the original NT text, which I believe were erroneously translated into the modern, "post-enlightenment" concept of existence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 April 2022 2:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<In the original Hebrew, Psalm 19 does not mention existence: since I don't know Greek, I wonder what exact words are actually used in the original NT text, which I believe were erroneously translated into the modern, "post-enlightenment" concept of existence.>>

What was the original language of Psalm 19?
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 3 April 2022 3:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again OzSpen,

The cake shop owner was a real case hotly discussed several years back. I do take this topic seriously.

Simply quoting passages from the Bible is not objective evidence for the existence of God, the writers already had a belief/faith in the existence of God before they wrote what you are quoting. You say; "Firstly, we need to believe in God's existence" and the extrapolation from that is once you believe God is real, then he must be real. That's a belief, or as some say faith, but that's not evidence of his existence.

What Buddha had to say about the existence of God. I find this interesting, particularly the last minute or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcnxrIDhjM

You have not responded to my question about the God, Tane Mahuta. Why is that?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2022 7:13:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I don't believe any school was looking to ban hiring gays. What they were looking for is the ability to enforce a code of conduct that all new employees had accepted as a condition of employment.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 4 April 2022 5:41:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM, back in the 80's when my oldest son was attending Catholic primary school, two teachers, male, female, become an item and moved in together. Both were married with children, both excellent teachers, in fact my son had the male teacher 3 years in a row, couldn't be faulted. The female teacher had been in an abusive marriage and had rightly left it. The Parish Priest on learning of their living arrangements had the Principle dismiss them both, on moral grounds. The irony was a few years later the old Parish Priest was exposed as a paedophile. He was quietly retired and moved into a church home. Figure that one out.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 April 2022 6:10:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OzSpen,

«What was the original language of Psalm 19?»

Hebrew, certainly and the first 6 verses in my own translation are:

1. For the conductor, a chant by David:
2. The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament tells of his handiwork.
3. Day to day expresses a saying and night to night presents an opinion.
4. There are no sayings and no words - their sound is heard without them.
5. Their (days and nights) line has emerged in the whole land and their words at the edge of the universe, in which He placed a tent for the sun.
6. and he (the sun) emerges like a bridegroom from his dome, glad like a hero to run the path.

I see no reference there to God's presumed existence.
Yes, God's glory and divine qualities exist, but how possibly can this be said of God Himself, that He could be in existence in Whom alone is existence itself!?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 4 April 2022 6:24:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I'm not sure what relevance this story from 40 years ago has today other than to demonstrate that appalling hypocrisy is not limited to the greens who pushed for Israel Folau to be fired for far less.

The freedom of religion act is primarily to prevent people from voicing their religious beliefs (within limits) without being arbitrarily persecuted. Such as the catholic priest that a moron left whinger tried to prosecute for publishing Catholic doctrine.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 4 April 2022 7:07:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM, nothing out does the accused pedophile LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER, accused of raping a 16 year old girl. The alleged grub is not seeking re-election. Why is that?
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 April 2022 9:17:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I justifiably conflated religious with faith-based for this particular topic. Perhaps you are being a little overly semantic.

Especially given a large majority of faith-based schools and hospitals in Australia are Catholic, something undeniably a religious order, then I feel my point stands.

You opine: “I would feel antagonistic towards such people/organisations (both cases), and urge others to shun them and avoid their services, but I would not go as far as making stupidity illegal, assuming that these signs were only placed within their own private property.”

However if such an organisation, for instance the Catholic Church which is taking billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money and often being the only provider of services in a particular area, then shunning them or erecting a large fence around their premises is hardly feasible is it.

Do you have a realistic answer?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 4 April 2022 9:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SteeleRedux,

«Perhaps you are being a little overly semantic.»

Well, I think that this distinction is very pertinent to this discussion and the proposed law: Does that law seek to protect religion or does it seek to protect faith (and faith-groups) - these can be quite different!

«Especially given a large majority of faith-based schools and hospitals in Australia are Catholic, something undeniably a religious order»

Well I challenge that assumption.

I personally know Catholics for whom Catholicism indeed functions as a religion.
But is Catholicism as a whole, including the Catholic Church, indeed a religious order, or is that only what they claim? Another possibility is that Catholicism indeed used to be religious at certain periods and/or in certain places, but may not be so today or everywhere.

Just because an organisation, large as it may be, claims to be religious, does not automatically guarantee that indeed it is.

«However if such an organisation, for instance the Catholic Church which is taking billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money and often being the only provider of services in a particular area, then shunning them or erecting a large fence around their premises is hardly feasible is it.

Do you have a realistic answer?»

Yes, that's a very easy question: since they accept public funds, they are a public organisation, not a private one, and as such they must comply with public standards, which include not to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 4 April 2022 10:44:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steele,

In the case of payment of compensation to the multitude of victims of CATHOLIC PAEDOPHILES the Church argued that it consisted of many Incorporated Entities and could not be sued directly! It suggested the victims go off and sue the OLD COCKS, or their HOLY ORDERS as such, and keep their grubby hands out of the bulging Church coffers!

Can't be fairer than that, would you not agree?

SM, a more recent case,

An old Parish Priest who was exposing himself to young primary school children at the attached school. When it got too much for even the Church, the old paedophile was quietly moved on to a Church residence to live out his remaining years in comfort. The problem was the Church gave the old bastard a car, and he kept returning to the school, and entering the playground, as had been his custom for years beforehand. Obviously seeking the "love" of the little children.

The police should have been called, and having the bastard arrested, that was never done.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 April 2022 12:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pauliar,

Compared to the actual multiple senior green paedophiles which is much much worse.

As for Porter about whom you frequently lie through your teeth, firstly
sex by an adult with someone below 14 is paedophilia, and above 16 is the age of legal consent at which statutory rape no longer exists.

And as Porter didn't even have sex with the psychotic woman once again you are a liar and a fraud.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 4 April 2022 12:55:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pauliar,

Originally posted this in the wrong thread:

**

Compared to the actual multiple senior green paedophiles which is much much worse.

As for Porter about whom you frequently lie through your teeth, firstly
sex by an adult with someone below 14 is paedophilia, below 16 is statutory rape (for a man 18 and above) and above 16 is the age of legal consent.

And as Porter didn't even have sex with the psychotic woman once again you are a liar and a fraud.
Posted by shadowminister, Monday, 4 April 2022 2:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shonky,

Glad to see you give equal standing to a scum bucket GREEN, being a failed candidate in a municipal election in 2012, and a scum bucket LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER.

BTW, in the past you claimed PORTER had nothing to worry about, in fact you claimed he was in for $10 million plus in compensation, a groveling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC employees sacked to pay for it all. You are a joke, the up shot is PORTER has been arse-holded from government.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 5 April 2022 6:17:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pauliar,

Lying again I see. Even the lies against Porter don't sink to the levels of the scumbag pedogreens.
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 5 April 2022 9:43:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy