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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.