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.

"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

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.

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.

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!

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.