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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.