I have no problems with a charter of rights where it is balanced by a charter of responsibility.What I do object to is any legislation that limits an organisation's right to employ whoever it chooses. You say, inter alia
"Churches can refuse to hire someone whose lifestyle is inconsistent with biblical teachings. The fear is, these religious freedoms could potentially be negated by non-Christians who use a human rights charter to demand their “right” to work for any school or church"
Rightly so. If I'm running a fashion business, there's no way I would employ a scruffily dressed or tonsured person, with or without tattoos.
I would employ someone who fitted the nature of my business.
There's much credit in the old saying "shape up, or ship out!"

What keeps me coming back to OLO is the occasional article that challenges the dominant view of the world, and makes me look at things in a new way. This is one of those articles.

I particularly admire the muscular faith that says ‘we’re up to this.’ The attitude that christianity will thrive in spite of anything that a secular society can throw at it is both refreshing and powerful. Regardless of whether you subscribe to this view or not (and I don’t), there’s breathtaking confidence in the statement, “the concept of inherent human rights is almost certainly a Judeo-Christian gift to the Western world.”

Still, even in this most intriguing christian perspective on human rights, when reaching for an example of the most confronting thing that governments can do to believers, what do the authors come up with? Same-sex marriage: “Australian society may well choose to enshrine particular rights that are inconsistent with historic Christianity - gay “marriage” rights, for example.”

Really guys, get over it. If christianity can be destroyed by two blokes settling down together for life, then it should be. It will not be a self-sacrifice to share in the happiness of your gay brothers, sisters, and children: it will be an act of love. The sooner you escape from this idea of homosexuality as an imposition on your beliefs, the better it will be for all of us, believers or not.

Christians won't have to give up anything in a charter of Rights. Christians and others, won't be forced to marry someone of the same sex nor will they be forced to participate in euthansia or abortion should their own personal beliefs forbid it.

I am not convinced by all of the arguments for a Charter of Rights for similar reasons outlined by the author. But do make the point that governments need to play a more effective role to ensure that the interests/rights of one sector don't dictate unreasonably to other groups on issues that are largely private matters and where there is no wider social harm.

How can we, in the 21st Century continue to discriminate against gay couples?

As for employment, there could be a strong case for arguing Christian schools have the right to select Christian teachers in the same way that Rape Crisis Centres, for obvious reasons, hire women. Or men's help groups hire men.

Personally I can't see why it would matter if a Maths teacher or an English teacher should necessarily be Christian, it would only seem to matter if the Religion teacher was not a Christian. Many Christian schools do hire non-believers.

But if that is a right that religous schhos wish to protect, I would not see it as a great infringement of the rights of others, given one assumes a religious school operates within the parameters of their beliefs and would seek like-thinking personnel.

I wonder though, if Christian teachers of Maths or Geography, would feel discriminated against should they not be selected in a public school if they did not embrace secularism.

Sometimes Rights are about balancing Rights - we all want Rights but we need to ask if our Right will infringe on another's in an unreasonable way. There are many grey areas on this issue.

I am rather sick and tired of academics who have failed to understand basic principles of Australian Law. I am also sick and tired of lawyers who also fail to remember their basic training, who have failed in their due diligence, and I include in their number Robert McClelland the Attorney General.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted by Malcolm Fraser in 1981, and continued by the Hawke government in 1986, as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . Dumb blood sucking users happy to take the governments money have spent the past year gallivanting around the country as professional liars.

A Schedule is part of an Act, as S 12 and 13 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 tells us, if we look. I am also sick of the Commonwealth failing to enforce or make it possible to enforce the laws made by the Commonwealth, because they refuse to accept what is enacted Statute Law.

The States would have to accept that they have NO JUDICIAL POWER, other than that of the Commonwealth, if it were possible to enforce Federal Law. The High Court in four cases posted on the website here, make that abundantly clear, but neither Liberal nor Labor have shown any willingness to accept any of this binding authority. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=512

How long must we continue to be systematically oppressed by State Governments, out of control, systematically attacking the civilian populations of Australia while the Commonwealth sits on its hands. OLO is a good placed to express an opinion, but without any backbone in the Federal Government, and about 300,000 dishonest public servants in Canberra, what use is an opinion. Without the basic civil right to enforce Statutes as passed by Parliaments against offenders, there is no democracy.

We would have to be the most docile over governed bunch of spineless jellyfish, ever to get self government and give it to a single profession to rule us, without mercy or common sense. This article is just simply plain ignorance, and reflects no credit on the authors

"It is no accident that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads like an exposition of the 8th-century BC writings of Isaiah and Amos and the first century teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

That's the same Isaiah and Amos who go on and on about God smiting evil people in Sodom and Gomorrah, is it? and the same Christ who said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...he cannot be my disciple." So I guess gay rights and parents' rights are both out of the question... why did we ever think they were acceptable? Punish us, O Lord!

The new face of Australia is emerging but we are at a turning point.

As true blue citizens it is not good enough anymore to promote false optimism to please those with vested interests.

The way we share the deal reflects our treatment of our own citizens on the ground. As a nation we are growing, but there is more to be done to improve our local, regional and national institutions .

This is why I see Human Rights as a national tool.

I don't care what some of the famous people have said who deny or undermine the pressing issues at the core of this topic. Perhaps the truth is, they have not seen what I have seen. Perhaps they have not spent time living and working with those bearing the naked side of life.

Addressing the "gaps". There is presently narrow access to take on the system by citizens with disabilities, Mental Health concerns, the elderly, working class families , on indigenous issues, issues of gender, politics and ethnicity, on cultural or civic wellbeing indices which include all those struggling, who survive for reasons, below the poverty line.

In regional and remote areas as one example, it is not good enough to accept low access to educational training and job networks, transport, housing, limited access to the economy, inadequate access to legal or health institutions. Bad communication systems.

Through human rights we are facing a question that takes account of the dignity of all human beings.

As a national tool, a Human Rights Charter could help to display the right for people to work with institutions, to change and reverse some the negative aspects of class, poverty injustice[s], alienation and access concerns by putting a greater value on individual rights to basic needs which include the right to work, freedom and autonomy.

On a greater scale it is about our nations transparent confidence, building a pathway toward dealing with humanitarian issues and, check balance our core.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

“First, the concept of inherent human rights is almost certainly a Judeo-Christian gift to the Western world.”

This is an arrogant assumption. Human rights is just another name for justice for all peoples. Human beings have known about justice for thousands of years before Christianity. Human beings know that when they are not being treated fairly they feel anger – a physical reaction. Conversely when we treat someone else unfairly or aggressively we feel guilt – another physical reaction. We feel the way we do because a sense of justice is built into our human nature. We do not need any religious experts to tell us what we already know as a cause and effect in our own bodies.

People sometimes suppress their guilt and go a head and act unjustly anyway. This does not mean there is something wrong with human nature but that there is something wrong with that particular person. The way to achieve justice for all is for each individual to become aware of their guilt and right the wrong they are causing. The appeal should be to get people to act according to their nature and not according to some set of rules based on authority figures that may or may not exist.

Religious people who appeal to outside authority in order to control the behaviour of others are themselves contributing to the problem. A great deal of religious behaviour demands that you suppress some of the most basic attributes of human nature. You are told you should feel guilty when often there is no corresponding physical reaction. You are told to suppress your anger when your whole body is screaming for justice. You are told to ‘turn the other cheek’ even when your most basic human rights are being violated.

Religion has nothing to contribute to any charter of human rights. Human rights should begin from a premise that is common to all human beings and that is our feelings. Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda.

First, I'm against a BILL of human rights (while being very much FOR protecting human dignity and human rights as far as possible!)

This podcast pretty much sums up my opinion to date. But that could change, because my opinion about this particular matter is secular and open to current political wisdom, not the unchanging truth of God's word.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

To Phanto:
"Religion has nothing to contribute to any charter of human rights. Human rights should begin from a premise that is common to all human beings and that is our feelings. Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda."

"Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda."
They were doing no such thing, but arguing the historical origins of the concept, not some sinister plan moving forward.

They were mainly discussing the historical origin of the IDEA of human rights, but that a Christian position can be either for or against a BILL of rights depending on one's political wisdom of the day.

As for the historical origin coming from 'our feelings'.

Do you remember the ancient notion of the inherit superiority of Kings and Rulers, not just of their political position but that the King himself was somehow of the God/s themselves? They were born special, entitled to subject their citizens to whatever slavery or lack of dignity the King felt necessary. Christianity teaches that *all* are fallen and equally need the Lord's forgiveness, just as it teaches *all* were originally made in God's image and have something of the divine about us, even the *common man*. This is why Christianity has traditionally been a religion of comfort for the poor.

...continued...

...continued....

Other religious traditions teach us that suffering in this life is the result of a crime we can neither remember nor make amends for, because it apparently happened in a previous life? If you are born into a poorer caste, it is just universal balance restoring itself, the result of Karma. Basically, Karma says you deserve it. So why would there be any move towards social justice and rights for the poor when Karma is already getting the job of JUSTICE done, and these poor people end up with the burden of GUILT and social discrimination for their condition. The discrimination can perpetuate and exacerbate the actual poverty.

And one only has to watch the ABC on origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece to realise that universal 'human rights' was also far from their minds. Democracy was more about the most effective way of administering the expanding glory of Athens than anything so idealistic and 20th Century as a Charter for Human rights.

As far as I can tell, John and Greg are historically correct when they assert that the Western world basically owes the tradition of "Human rights" to the Christian world-view. No matter how arrogant that may sound, and how alien to our modern ears, it just may be the historical truth.

"...John and Greg are historically correct when they assert that the Western world basically owes the tradition of "Human rights" to the Christian world-view. No matter how arrogant that may sound, and how alien to our modern ears, it just may be the historical truth."

It's ironic really that Christianity was believed to have been the original instigators of the concept of human rights.

Catholicism taught us that:

-women cannot become Priests or Bishops.

-Divorce is not allowed- even if there
is violence in the marriage.

-Women cannot have an abortion and thus
must be forced to carry an unwanted
pregnancy

-euthanasia is not allowed.

Yep, sounds like a veritable human rights fest to me alright!