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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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 His lawsuit against a Sydney radio station was revoked because the Judge found him‘‘offensive" and "racist"!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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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