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 > Freedom of conscience, thought and religion - but perhaps not in Victoria > Comments

Freedom of conscience, thought and religion - but perhaps not in Victoria : Comments

By David Palmer, published 31/7/2009

The proposed amendments to Victoria's 'Equal Opportunity Act' will have a detrimental impact on the guarantee of religious freedom.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
palmer quotes the UN Declaration, that "freedom of religion ... should be fully respected and guaranteed", and challenges anyone to disagree. but then the question is, what does "freedom of religion" actually mean? palmer claims that one cannot distinguish between "core and non-core" activities.

in other words, palmer claims that any act he chooses to label "christian" should be protected as freedom of religion. does he really believe this? for any religion? does anybody really believe this?
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 31 July 2009 8:05:20 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
So the Author wants his religious views to be able to justify any action he does that the rest of us wouldn't like? Bashed any slaves to death over a couple of days latley.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:44:00 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
The real world does not permit this to happen.
Religions that segregate themselves behind gates.
Other religions won't mingle because of the way people choose to dress.
The world is a long way away from this concept.
What people believe in spills over to the streets.
Thats why not all religious people can mix.
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 31 July 2009 11:23:40 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
Palmer wrote: This distinction between core and non-core simply does not exist. For Christian, Jew and Muslim, religion is a whole of life affair.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are not concerned with religion unless they are actively engaged in religious ritual. Even then an attractive rump may distract Australians of all sexes. In 22 years I met only one person to whom religion was a whole of life affair. That was a missionary whose main topics were how good Christians were and how bad Muslims were. I have traveled much in Australia and have never been in a community where religion is a whole of life affair.

He also wrote: Parents who send their children to religious schools want a religious education for their children. They expect all the staff, not just the religious education teacher, to be faith affirming people who model the tenets of their religious belief in daily school life.

Janitors, cleaners and other service people have to follow a faith? I should think that most parents want a good maths teacher regardless of faith. Religious groups should have no more right to discriminate in employment than non-religious groups. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate where one's religion has nothing to do with the job.

He also wrote: The Church has always been to the forefront of education and the provision of health and welfare services.

The welfare state has arisen precisely because provision of health and welfare services by religious groups and other non-governmental agencies were inadequate.

He also wrote: Parents who send their children to religious schools want a religious education for their children.

That is not why most parents send their children to religious schools. The parents may consider the public schools inadequate. The religious schools may have special facilities. Because private schools can be selective a parent can feel that a child is unlikely to have to put up with problem children. The parent may want to keep a child from associating with children of another faith or ethnic group. A parent may fear attachments leading to intermarriage.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 July 2009 2:26:04 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
Lets take catholics for an example. There richous beliefs only come in to affect when it suites them. They mingle into crowds and no one would know they had such solemn beliefs.
It's a different story with other groups, even though they were born in AU. The dear old dad is still at home and he is a hardliner.
If we need these sort of people they should be imported as orphans.
It's only creating long term trouble spots in doing what we are doing now.
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:23:46 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 existing legislation allows for mysoginistic clubs like the melbourne club and indeed clubs exclusively for women to exist - indeed it allows for the hoteliers at pubs like the Laird O' Cock Pen and the Peel to give women the arse (figuratively speaking) from their venues - and it permits dykes to dance together without the fear of being hit on by lascivious gentlemen ( just other girls ) as has recently happened in Victoria - any move to tweak the legislation that upsets each or any of those apple carts will not see the light of day - it is much more than just about religion.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:39:51 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
What often is not said, is that science is and has been the religion of choice for most of the western world for the last couple of centuries.

Ever since the Copernican revolution, religion has become more of a hobby for society than any real reflection of on the world around us.

People who are intensely religious find themselves immersed in a highly scientific and analytic world that much of their ideas have a hard time coming to terms with and often forces them to go to extreames to express their views.

It must be said...that it is not morally wrong to ask philosophical questions or be critical about peoples religions.

If we are forced to ask ourselves "I am frightened to ask that person that philosophical or critical question about their religion"

Then we are going down a very dangerous path.
Posted by bluealien, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:15:54 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 agree with the proposed legislation because it exposes the intrinsic discrimination that exists within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In fact these monotheisms discriminate so easily and so freely against women, gays, and other faiths that the adherents have been blinded to the curruption of their own ideology.

And I should point out the irony in the coincidence of this essay appearing at the same time as Keyser Trad's Supreme court debacle. His lawsuit against a Sydney radio station was revoked because the Judge found him‘‘offensive" and "racist"!
Posted by TR, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:39:21 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
David Palmer has obviously been working hard and is seeking to express himself carefully. Well done David. Hopefully all contributors will be as considerate.

As to my own comments, perhaps it will be helpful to respond to another contributor, David F.
He wrote "Christians, Jews and Muslims are not concerned with religion unless they are actively engaged in religious ritual."

Surely any religion must be a whole of life affair as it affects the way we think, speak and act. Our religion helps to determine our worldview, our attitudes and our moral framework. It is perhaps more obvious when people are involved in 'religious ritual' but if that's all that it is, then you're not really connected to the religion/faith.

He also commented regarding schools "Janitors, cleaners and other service people have to follow a faith? I should think that most parents want a good maths teacher regardless of faith. Religious groups should have no more right to discriminate in employment than non-religious groups. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate where one's religion has nothing to do with the job."

He's absolutely right to say that all parents expect the maths teacher to be able to teach maths regardless of their faith or lack of faith. However, within the context of a religious school, if you have someone who can teach well, or any of the tasks around the school, and they are a part of the faith community as well, then its a win all round for the whole school.

I have two sons at a christian school and knowing that the school is staffed by people who have the same christian perspective as we do is fantastic. So from my point of view, I see no need to change the current law. But I'm glad I live in a country where we can have a debate on such a subject.
Posted by bones01, Friday, 31 July 2009 11:18:53 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
bones, what you have written is quite reasonable. i don't agree with it all, but it is a reasonable and reasonably stated position. however, what palmer has written is not reasonable. it asks way too much in the name of "freedom of religion".

i can appreciate that being christian is more than engaging in christian ritual. but one cannot go so far as to say that any act by a christian is a christian act. one cannot even say that any act which a christian claims is a christian act is indeed a christian act. not for the purposes of "freedom of religion". to do so would be to condone all manner of violence in the name of christianity. (don't believe me? ask the christians bombing abortion clinics in america).

freedom of religion is fundamentally about freedom of belief. then, the expression and the exercise of such belief involves acts. society seeks to protect religious beliefs, and thus some associated acts. (i don't see why religious beliefs should have a special status in this regard, but that's off the point). but not all associated acts, and not all acts that particular christians wish to associate with their christianity are thus protected.

there is a limit. you and i may discuss the limit, and may disagree on the limit. in fact, i have strong reservations about applying equal opportunity laws to employment in religious schools. but palmer presents himself as an absolutist. that's just silly. he doesn't deserve your applause.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 1 August 2009 12:03:41 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
people should be free to think, free to choose and practice any religious belief. And free not to practice any religious belief. It's all about freedom!
Posted by elano, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:30:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that David Palmer is being disingenuous in this article. He presents an argument about "freedom of religion" that is on the face of it quite reasonable, but the devil is in the detail that he avoids providing.

For example, while he claims that there is no distinction between "core" and "non-core" activities engaged in by religious organisations, he doesn't specify which activities the SARC is proposing to be non-core, beyond vague allusions to schools, health and welfare services. I think his vagueness is quite deliberate and is designed to conceal his real agenda, which is to defend the discriminatory practices which church-run businesses get away with under the guise of "freedom of religion".

I'm thinking of situations like the recent case where a Christian church discriminated, because of their homosexuality, against a gay support group that had booked a resort it runs for a weekend retreat. Besides avoiding paying taxes on this business because it is church owned, they are allowed to discriminate by claiming that their homophobia is a product of "genuine religious belief or principles" [ http://tiny.cc/wPRPC ].

If Palmer wants to enlist support for his promised campaign of "legal challenges and civil disobedience", he should at least be honest.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 1 August 2009 7:38:30 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
The secularist are not happy with the contamination of their own organisations. Rampant stds, divorce, teen pregnancies, abortions, aids, pornography, pedophile must be shared as far as the secularist are concerned. Don't smack your kids and then be dumb enough to ask why we have the violence in society that we have today. The secularist know nothing of conscience because their own have been seared. Just listen to those who claim their are no absolutes but are happy to be violent in order to impose theirs. Legislating the murder of the unborn does not stop it from being murder. Legislating in favour of perverted does not stop it from being perverted. I hope a few more people have the guts to stand up to this crap.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 1 August 2009 8:35:33 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
"Considering that religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his conception of life then that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed."

I've never worked out a satisfactory reason for a blanket view that religion is more fundamental to people than other things which people get passionate about. People can get very passionate about all sorts of things, some with very good reason, others not so much. Should we grant a racist special exemptions in the law to discriminate because their views are really deeply held?

I'll accept that it's legitimate for a faith organisation to insist that those roles which are directly related to the teaching of that faith are believers but anything beyond that is just discrimination regardless of how comfortable it makes people to know that everybody shares their faith.

Should we have state schools which deliberately exclude staff with religious faith because some parents might be more comfortable with that?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 1 August 2009 8:47:14 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
Employees should be able to employ people who share the same ideals and have the same ethos. Faith communities such as churches should be able to "discriminatle" legally to employ people who share their faith. Why should they not employ teachers, janitors, administrative staff and other professionals who are not like-minded? The core positions in a church must be holistic in aims, and all parts should function together to be part of a whole. Multicultralism and diversity have gone too far, and our society is becoming more fragmented. These laws will cause further cultural disunity and conflicts and judges will be left to decide whose rights are greater than whose.
Posted by VivKay, Saturday, 1 August 2009 1:20:34 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
runner: I agree with your commment. The secular world has a lot to answer for on matters of morality. Any responsible parent wants what is best for their children. Part of this is their right to enroll their children at a school that adheres to their perspective on life. One may not want their child to be taught the morals of the state e.g. liberal views on matters such as homosexuality, marriage, abortion etc. Having the school teach a different perspective on such issues is a recipe for confusion in the child's mind, disharmony at home and possible rebellious behaviour leading to other troubles.
Posted by A. Dobrowich, Saturday, 1 August 2009 4:16:19 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
Dear o dear Mr Palmer.
The concept, and the political reality, of “Human Rights” is secular, arising from a long history of aristocratic and religious tyranny—the two were arm in arm back then of course. Indeed, history shows that religion and power are always in symbiosis. And yet you invoke human rights as “fundamental to all Australians”, and in defence of the rights of religion—that’s rich—one of freedom’s (the concept) greatest antagonists; a doctrinal “denier” of human rights. What are “human” rights in the context of God’s dispensation? The “right” to be subjected? And what are you doing dabbling in these worldly affairs anyway, Mr Palmer? I would suggest that you are taking care of business, wittingly or unwittingly as the case may be. Religious schools are big business indeed, very lucrative as well as being the seedbeds of the next generation; investment in religious education is investment in the church’s continued wealth and power, is it not?
There is no freedom of religion, there is only freedom “for” religion to recruit via whatever underhand means, or hypocrisy, necessary. The UN should be more intent on freeing the “individuals” it holds so dear from the disingenuous proselytising of businesslike ideologies. Schools should be religion free zones. Children should be protected from cynical ideologies.
And Vivkay, so-called “faith communities” only want the power to “discriminate legally” when they employ; they don’t equivocate when it comes to indoctrination—all comers welcome! The more parents and innocent children religious corporations gull, the more they expand their empires. And I do believe Jesus Christ would agree with me!
The issue of human rights is bogged down by Enlightenment thought, which should have treated corrupt religion in the same manner that it treated its bedfellow, the aristocracy!
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 1 August 2009 4:31:22 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
It is a pity that Runner, VivKay and A.Dobrowich find it necessary to dispense insults to the secular element of society by attributing to it all that is execrable in that society. Prior to their dishonest diatribes such ignorance had become noticeable only by its absence.
The suggestion that lack of religious faith is the cause of social ruin is more in tune with the terrible tyranny that religious faith exerted in the Dark and Middle Ages of Europe when it was enthusiastically aligned with royalty, aristocracy, power and privilege and withheld even biblical scripture from the masses, deeming the masses' ignorance and poverty a sacred blessing and should be dealt up to them good and hard by sacerdotal authority in furtherance of their god's wishes.
FAITH yearns for the return of these dreadful times and at the same time avoids contemplation of how such a glowering vengeful god can morph into a loving father lachrymose at his failure to produce perfect toys for his indulgent attention.
Too often do the faithful ignore the fact that religion divides society far more than secularism or the lack of faith. No wars have been fought in the name of secularism, agnosticism or atheism. They have no flags or banners, no mottoes or battle cries to man the barricades, no shield or escutcheon, no doctrines and dogma extolling self-worthlessness. They discriminate against none and proselytise by example only in living by the Golden Rule, a rule expressed by societies far older than those governed by the abrahamic religions.
It is so typical of the smug self indulgence of the faithful that they see themselves as arbiters of how society should conduct itself. They withhold tolerance toward exactly the same claims from other elements but demand tolerance in return. Such bigotry is a major divisive threat to society. Those of no religious faith expect reciprocity in the matter of respect. It is religious faith that would hinder reciprocity.
Posted by Extropian1, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:40:08 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
The gist of the article is that:

Freedom of religion = the unrestricted right of church schools to force feed their pupils on a particular branch of religion.

Considering that the catholic schools form a considerable chunk of the education system, and receive considerable government subsidy, I am not surprised that their archaic exclusionary principles have begun to rankle with the education departments especially as the catholic schools have moved from being a charitable service to the community to being a profit centre.

The non catholic religious schools do not require the pupils and teachers to follow strict religious adherence.

They cannot claim to be providing a service take the government subsidy and yet both make a profit and produce indoctrinated catholics for the future.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 3 August 2009 9:41:38 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
On this website are two good speakers on religious freedom
http://www.free2believe.org.au
Posted by crestall, Thursday, 13 August 2009 8:56:18 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. 4
  6. All

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