" ... We just want to stop you before you do any more damage. ... "

Ooooo! who's we KMB?

..

Keep up the good work Tom. My favourite Church was vilified in '71 for memory for marrying 2 Gays. "Spiritually" speaking they still do though the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom does not recognise it.

No true religious freedom here mate.

..

Ey!? Re Mabo & Terror Nullius- they knew there were BlakFellas, but classified them as animals for convenience didn't they?

When they overturned the Terror notion, they should have applied the law of the time shouldn't they?
(TREATY or WAR)

NaNaNa NaNaNa,
NaNa NaNaNa NaNa NaNaNa NaNa NaNaNa NAAAAAAAAARRR NAAAAAAAARRR

TREE EE TEA TREE EE TEA.

..

I reckon there's lots of reasons, but one reason they discriminate against BlakFellas is to bolster their legal defence by saying BlakFellas always needed to be positively discriminated against. Still no good reason for not managing whiteys and others who neglect and abuse their kids ey? I am pleased to note that Al Jazheera have made ugly australian guvment discrimination against BlakFellas part of their opening promo.

It's coz they forcibly transferred the children from one group to another in contravention of the genocide convention act post WWII, and I'd wager that some of that land is loaded with wealth. And what do they say, oh, sorry, no continuity of BlakFellas for Land Rights.

..

Hey they're talking about Samuel Adams on CNN at the moment.
That was a N.American style of RagHead rebellion wasn't it?

HaHaHa

"Australia is also a free society. Freedom of thought, expression and belief are fundamental to our lives as Australians. Any attempt to close down discussions about freedoms relating to religion and other belief systems, would be deeply concerning."

Tom, I agree with your desire for inclusion and tolerance (acceptance). As an Australian I enjoy the freedoms we take for granted and the laws that we have enacted for our protection including freedom of speech.

However freedom of speech is one thing, but if we were to bring into law certain concessions or changes in a rush for religious 'tolerance', equality and inclusion I would urge some caution.

Not all religious rituals, rites or activities fit well with the other rights and freedoms we take for granted. Female genital mutilation just for starters, or punishments (incl. death) for non-marital sex or infidelity. These are extreme examples but they are not considered extreme in some countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Inclusion and tolerance does not mean that we tolerate changes to long fought human rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy. A person should not have the 'freedom' or right to inflict pain or punishment on another person because of socially skewed views about religious tolerance.

How much are we willing to tolerate? Tolerate is an odd choice when we really mean acceptance. Tolerance implies we don't like it but we put up with it. Are there some things we should not put up with under the guise of religious freedoms?

Most immigrants to this country come here for a better life, improvements in living conditions, freedom from persecution and religious freedoms. It would be ironic if in a rush for religious freedom we actually became less free.

There are many issues that need nutting out and what might seem obvious about religous freedom is not as simple as it might appear. Certainly more discussion is needed to nut out definitively what we mean by religious freedom.

That is a good description of the problem that the call for religious freedom creates.

One of the values that can become a casualty is the importance of reason and logic as a backbone to behaviour. We have just had a case where a man wearing a turban won a case of discrimination against a club who forbade the wearing of any head gear in the club. They were forced to change their rules to make an exception for ‘religious reasons’.

Presumably they had good reasons for banning head gear and would have presented them in their case. The man with the turban only had to say that he needed to wear the turban for religious reasons. Exactly how do you prove the logic behind that argument? We strive as human beings to always act logically and rationally and that is the basis of how we resolve problems. It seems that religious behaviour is exempt from this kind of scrutiny. A person just has to say ‘religious reasons’ and we are expected to give them freedom. Why are they not called upon to argue that their behaviour is in fact a logical conclusion to reasonable facts? What are those facts? Why should your religion be taken seriously? Does your God override reason? Does he override the Gods of other religions? Why do you need to be religious? Can’t your find other ways to solve your problems? Can’t you dress like most people and still be religious? What exactly do you mean that it is a part of who you are? Isn’t religion a thing of the heart? Can you provide proof that it is what God wants?

The point is that we have to argue and give reasons if we want to change laws. Religious people only need to cite ‘religious freedom’ or claim discrimination and we feel like we have to stand aside and let them through. Either we strive always to behave according to reason and logic or we just throw up our hands and let the loudest religion win. We cannot really have it both ways.

I don't think anyone is say advocating for, say an extreme example for the sake of argument, the *Church of Satan* where Holy Maiden sacrifice on Black Friday is considered acceptable.

Certain religious problems to which *Pelican* alludes are easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional Human Rights.

Such as the Right to Freedom of Thought, Freedom not to be Raped, Tortured, Intimidated, Indoctrinated from ChildHood or Murdered .. or to have your body medically interfered with unnecessarily.

Say in the case of Muslims, yes by all means have a Mosque, but no you can't have a speaker to shout at everyone in the neighbourhood, no everyone doesn't have to donate or be run out of town, no everyone doesn't have to attend unless they truly want to, no you can't coerce women in any matter as she has the same Human Rights as you, including to run off with someone else, married or not.

Of course, dob in programs, inspections, legal representation and enforcement must be part of the equation.

Same with over population - link it to Human Rights. If a State cannot provide water, food, medication, education, and economic security and a decent standard of living for everyone then

STOP BREEDING!

Thereafter adopt, and when placements for more rug rats comes on line, put the names of those who are keen in a hat, with no person having advantage over another.

"I don't think anyone is advocating for, say an extreme example for the sake of argument, the *Church of Satan* where Holy Maiden sacrifice on Black Friday is considered acceptable.

Certain religious problems to which *Pelican* alludes are easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional Human Rights. "

DreamOn I was more than alluding I thought I was being direct.

I seek exactly what you suggest, enshrined Constitutional rights that are unambiguous and cannot be abused. It is not unreasonable to seek clarification on what we mean by religious freedoms and how far we extend these freedoms?

You may accept certain behaviours as obviously unacceptable here in Australia, but if you have ever lived overseas there are very different takes on 'normal'. You may think that my example of genital mutilation OTT but there have been cases here in Australia. It is exactly these sorts of issue we need to be clear about.

Another one is strict religious sects in Australia that can destroy families by refusing to allow children to visit with a parent that may have left the Church and are now seen as outsiders who lose these parental 'rights' based on strict Church doctrine.

phanto

I am familiar with the Manuka incident and there was no reason to deny entry to the gentleman concerned. The owners conceded it was poor training on their part in relation to making their staff aware of cultural differences in relation to dress code. The act of wearing a turban does not infringe apon anyone else but it was an important part of the wearer's religious beliefs.

Dream on- Certain religious problems to which Pelican alludes can be easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional rights.

And if one of these religious groups ever gains power by being democratically elected, they will in all probability quickly dispense with any human rights laws that don't agree with their religous beliefs.