The Australian Law Commission has worked on a major report
that has just been released about anti-discrimination laws
and religious schools in Australia.

This has been anticipated by the LGBTQ Community which
apparently wants to ensure that students cannot be expelled
from religious schools and to also ensure LGBTQ teachers do
not lose their jobs.

Some religious schools have also been campaigning to
maintain their right to hire staff who share their religious
beliefs.

Should religious school have the right to discriminate?
Should they still get public government funding if they do?
Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?
Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?

Dear Foxy,

In answer to your questions:

«Should religious school have the right to discriminate?»

Any school, religious or otherwise, which is not financially supported by the state should be able to select their teachers and students as they see fit.

«Should they still get public government funding if they do?»

No, it is shameful to be in receipt of public government funding in any case.

«Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?»

You speak about kids who are already politically active at a tender age?

Well political activism should not be grounds for exclusion from religious education, so long as the student is still able to respect the teachers - otherwise, if a student believes that they know better than the teachers then what is the use of them being there (and likely disturbing other students)?

«Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?»

Each school should answer that question for themselves, but if you ask me, I would not mind so long as the teachers' political activism does not interfere with their teaching.

Hi Foxy, good topic.

You might already know my view on this "religious freedom" nonsense. No schools of any description should have the right to inflict their bigoted prejudices onto students, teachers or the broader community, but they are quite happy to do so.

We already have freedom of religion. The Albanese Bill would remove many of the freedoms of religious institutions in favour of the freedoms of others to impinge on religious teaching and beliefs: in religious schools, for just one example.

The idiot Albanese regime, if it has sense to do do, should stop,threatening to turn Australia into a Communist state and stop interfering with our institutions.

The gap between them and the other idiots has now shrunk to 51/49, and the prediction for Comrade Albanese after the next election is, at best, a hung parliament.

to also ensure LGBTQ teachers do
not lose their jobs.
Foxy,
To me that spells Green Light for queers to flood the education system ! Get ready for mayhem !

The Albanese government - probably all Western governments - could well be putting the final touches on ending Western civilisation, including Christianity, anyway, if commentator Peter Smith (https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/society/2024/03/civilisation-becomes-civil-lie-sation/) is on the right track.

Smith believes that we are already done for; we just don't realise it yet, and the demise will be recognised only by future historians.

Despite the ramblings of cynics and atheists, Western civilisation IS based on Judeo-Christianity: the very thing Albanese et al are attacking.

Mass immigration, beloved of Albanese, is a weapon against that Judeo-Christianity - not too much of that amid Third World colonisation of Australia by immigrant hordes.

Mass immigration; identity politics; special privileges for minorities (pure Maoism); censorship; lies about the cause of climate change; Net Zero, now the attack on Christianity thinly disguised as “religious freedom”.

Dear Ttbn,

«We already have freedom of religion.»

Well yes, we retain our freedom to practice our religion even if persecuted, tortured and being fed to the lions - is this what you meant, Ttbn?

Probably many differing points of view on this topic.
A conflict between laws and sins?

Is the 'right to religion' really a right or is it a privilege?
If it was a right, then it would not be hindered by laws, right?

Laws state 'equality for women and homosexuals'
Laws also stand in between religious beliefs and acts of religious extremism.

Are all religions the same?
Is one religion the same as another?
(Assuming a 'right' to believe in any of them is 'equally' accepted)
Are some more ethical and less hostile than others?
A 'turn the other cheek and forgiveness' approach?
Or an 'extreme, segregated, approach supporting vengeance and domination over others?
Are some religions more or less tolerant of others?
Are religions themselves lawful, and SHOULD all laws apply equally to them?

None of the religions are really ethical, which is why we need laws.
Right now we witness a large number of Christians either openly supporting Israel,
- or at a minimum turning a blind eye to the killing of innocent Palestinians.
Do the religious really support their own religions?
Or only some parts of it, sometimes?

If the so-called religious don't even support their own religions all the time, then what's the point of any of it, including this discussion?

As for 'the Right To Discriminate?'
Are we talking about the right of the religious to discriminate against others?
Or are we talking about about the right of others to discriminate against the religious?
And who wins here, if anyone?

Folks,

Here are the facts freely available on the web:

1) The federal government has released a major report
about anti-discrimination laws and religious schools in
Australia.

2) The report was done by the Australian Law Reform
Commission.

3) The Australian Law Reform Commission's job was to
provide the federal attorney-general with advice about how
to bring the law into line with current social conditions
and community needs.

4) The Australian Law Reform Commission is made up of
independent legal experts.

5) The Commission first started looking into the rights of
religious schools in 2019 at the behest of the Morrison government.

6) This debate has been complicated by a mix of relevant state
and territory laws and the lack of laws protecting against
discrimination on religious grounds at the federal level.

7) The report notes that many religious schools in Australia
already have inclusive enrolment and employment policies and
they don't want to discriminate against either students or
teachers on any grounds.

8) The Commission also highlights the importance of religious
faith in the Australian community and says families should
be able to continue to choose schools for their children
that align with their values and beliefs.

9) The Commission also notes that the laws do need changing
to make sure that religious schools are not given a blanket
exemption from the rules designed to protect people against
discrimination.

Hi Yuyutsu,
"Well yes, we retain our freedom to practice our religion even if persecuted, tortured and being fed to the lions..."
- After watching this earlier I say no thanks to that.

http://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1771941338109350346
A man wakes up and finds a lion looking at him through his window.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask :

1. « Should religious schools have the right to discriminate?
2. Should they still get public government funding if they do?
3. Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?
4. Should gay teachers be allowed to teach? »

My opinion :

• Religious discrimination is related to religious persecution. People have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed for heretical beliefs.

• Article 18 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) of the UN protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.

• Any exemptions from that rule should apply universally and not just in favour of religious schools.

• If religious schools are exempted from the rule they should automatically lose the protection afforded by Article 18 of the ICCPR and government funding.

• Gay teachers should not be treated differently from other teachers.

.

"7) The report notes that many religious schools in Australia
already have inclusive enrolment and employment policies and
they don't want to discriminate against either students or
teachers on any grounds."

At what point does the need to comply to laws taint the religious message itself?
And if the religious message is tainted, then is it really a religious school, or just another government run institution?

At what point does the requirement to not offend gay students and teachers inhibit the religious school from giving the religious education?

One might argue that religious schools should not get funding if the do not adhere to discrimination laws, yes?
But should a student at a religious school be deprived of all funding that would otherwise be given to them if they were not attending a religious school?
- So no money for young Isaac, Ishmael or Matthew to learn english and maths?
And if religious schools did not get government funding, would that mean they would then BE permitted to discriminate, and would Australians support this or consider it lawful, if Islamic kids were permitted to be taught to hate infidels?
And that Jews are permitted to be taught that they will rule over Goyim?
And that Christians give blind support to Israel, and march towards Armageddon?

Should we not have a serious look at the pro's and con's of religions themselves?
Ethics allows us to compare religions against each other or no religion at all.

Dear Banjo,

The Australian Law Reform Commission recommends amending
laws so that religious schools are subject to the same
rules as all other educational service providers (including
public schools).

However at the same time the Commission recommends that
religious schools should still be able to " build a
community of faith" by giving preference when hiring
to teachers who share the school's religion, providing
they don't breach other workplace laws.

We need to keep in mind that the Australian Law Reform
Commission, although it is made up of some of the
sharpest legal minds in Australia, it cannot change the
law itself. Only federal parliament can do that.

And unless these recommendations pass into legislation by
Parliament the debate around religious discrimination and
schools in this country will continue for some time yet.

If the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform
Commission are passed in parliament and become laws
not much would really change for most schools. And
for some schools in some places like Victoria this
change would simply align with state and federal laws.

However, these changes may make a difference to some
people's lives. For example schools would not be able
to deny enrolment to trans students. They could not expel
a child for having gay parents. They could not refuse
to hire teachers on the basis of their sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

Albanese would probably like this piece of woke, race-obsessed, rubbish from the UK:

“The Diocese of Birmingham is advertising for the role of ‘Anti-Racism Practice Officer (Deconstructing Whiteness)’ to work in a ‘racial justice’ team across churches in the West Midlands ….”.

Even the woke Archbishop, Justin Welby, rang them up to ask WTF?

It’s all to please the GMH [global majority heritage] and UKME [UK minority ethnic] backgrounds, who are likely to be non-Christians.

Surely this officer's job would cover all religions,
including Jewish, Islamic, and others. Not only
Christians? BTW: not all Christians are white.
And just like the monarch represents all citizens
in the UK. This particular officer would surely represent
all religions in the UK to limit discrimination and racism.

Just saying.

Anyone remember the crackpot Australian Green’s, Christine Milne, who has been ranting about the “extreme right wing religious views embedded in politics”, just because the Church and State conference is being held in Hobart in April.

Not surprisingly, the neo-Communist Greens regard Christianity as extreme right wing, sitting as they do at the other extreme. There's no doubt that they will barracking for Albanese's assault on Christianity (Islam and other non-Western religions are OK with the Leftist, atheists and anti-Judeo/Christians, and Western morality in general - all the things responsible for everything that they have in life.

And, more shock and horror for Milne: Christian Conservative, Eric Abetz, has been elected to the Tasmanian Parliament.

As far as the LGBTQ staff matter is concerned the answer is simple.
They should not be allowed to teach any subject to children.
If they are unable to accept simple science facts then they are not
mentally stable anyway. It really is that simple.
This should apply in government schools as well.

As far as gays are concerned I would not have liked my sons to be
exposed to "Gay Rights & ideas" by gay teachers.
Kids in the class would work him out pretty quick and as he realised
they knew he could start working on them bit by bit.
He would make it seem so normal, but of course it is not and the proof
is there for all to see as gays will never procreate children.

A private school, religious or not, should be able to decide who or
what teachers are employed and indeed what is taught.

* "Should religious school have the right to discriminate?"

No, but they should have the right to distinguish between those that adhere to its principles and those that don't ... and proceed from there.

* "Should they still get public government funding if they do?

Yes. Every kid that goes to a non-government school saves the government vast sums. That should be encouraged by partially subsidising the schooling.

On a completely different topic, should those who organise the Mardi Gras pounce, and who discriminate against hetros receive government funding?

* "Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?"

No, they need it more than most, if they want it. They should daily be advised, if its a Christian school that, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.". If its a Mohammedan school, they should have it explained to them regularly that being pushed off 8 story buildings isn't good for your well-being.


* "Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?"

Yep. And so long as they agree to not teach principles contrary the the school's ethos, they should be allowed to teach at any school that'll have 'em. My wife, raised Baptist and a strident atheist taught at a Catholic School for many years without a hint of problems. They operated on the 'don't ask-don't tell' principle. No government interference required.

"No schools of any description should have the right to inflict their bigoted prejudices onto students, teachers or the broader community,..."

Uh-oh.. Paul comes out against government run schools.

Dear Critic,

You made lots of good questions, let's see:

«Is the 'right to religion' really a right or is it a privilege?»

There is no such right, but it is a privilege to serve God and walk in His ways.

«If it was a right, then it would not be hindered by laws, right?»

Well there isn't and religion is sometimes hindered by laws.

«Laws state 'equality for women and homosexuals'»

That is a civil issue, not a matter for religion.

«Laws also stand in between religious beliefs and acts of religious extremism.»

They may try, but God will always prevail - assuming the said acts are indeed religious, which I doubt.

«Are all religions the same?»

No, each person has their own religion. There are both similarities and differences between them.

«Is one religion the same as another?»

They all lead to the same, to God.

«Are some more ethical and less hostile than others?»

Following God is the highest ethic.
The question being, whether what we commonly consider "religions", indeed are following God.

«A 'turn the other cheek and forgiveness' approach?
Or an 'extreme, segregated, approach supporting vengeance and domination over others?»

Vengeance and domination do not lead to God, they are born of the ego.

«Are some religions more or less tolerant of others?»

All true religions are tolerant of others.

«Are religions themselves lawful, and SHOULD all laws apply equally to them?»

Presently the practice of religion is not always lawful, but it should be.

«None of the religions are really ethical, which is why we need laws.»

All religions are ethical. Some behaviours are mistakenly considered religious, but are not.

«Do the religious really support their own religions?»

The religious PRACTICE their own religion.

«Or only some parts of it, sometimes?»

Most people fail to follow their religion at all times.

«If the so-called religious don't even support their own religions all the time, then what's the point of any of it, including this discussion?»

To create a supportive environment where people are encouraged to follow their religion more.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«As for 'the Right To Discriminate?'»

Without discrimination we would not even be animals, let alone human:
even animals usually discriminate between nutritious and poisonous foods.

«Are we talking about the right of the religious to discriminate against others?»

The true religious sees God everywhere, hence where can discriminating against enter?

«Or are we talking about about the right of others to discriminate against the religious?»

They would do so anyway, due to jealousy and fear.

And who wins here, if anyone?

God always wins - Jaya Bhagavan!

«At what point does the need to comply to laws taint the religious message itself?»

When a person is weak-minded.

«And if the religious message is tainted, then is it really a religious school, or just another government run institution?»

The latter.

«At what point does the requirement to not offend gay students and teachers inhibit the religious school from giving the religious education?»

Never. Religion does not teach to offend.

«One might argue that religious schools should not get funding if the do not adhere to discrimination laws, yes?»

No school should receive tax-payer funding anyway.

«But should a student at a religious school be deprived of all funding that would otherwise be given to them if they were not attending a religious school?»

Nobody was suggesting that students be deprived of their parents' funds.

«And if religious schools did not get government funding, would that mean they would then BE permitted to discriminate,»

Discrimination is a virtue and should be encouraged in any case, especially discriminating between good and evil and between truth and untruth.

«and would Australians support this or consider it lawful, if Islamic kids were permitted to be taught to hate...»

That would depend on state laws alone, nothing to do with religion.

«Should we not have a serious look at the pro's and con's of religions themselves?»

But only after studying and understanding what religions are.

From what I have witnessed over the past 50 years religious freedom is discrimination !

We've had years of failed attempts to legislate
the issue of religious schools and discrimination.
A thorny issue that still has many at loggerheads.

The PM does not want to proceed to reform anti-discrimination
laws unless the Coalition guaranteed its support. He does not
want a repeat of "The Voice" situation. And who can blame him.

Meanwhile, we have LGBTQ advocates increasing their pressure on
the government to legislate the law changes while religious
groups have penned an open letter to the PM urging him to scrap
the proposed overhaul on the basis that it opposes their rights
to practice their faith.

A delicate situation all round. And at present - no signs of
coming together, as yet.

At the root of this issue are deeply held beliefs and
divergent community views about discrimination and
religion. The Australian Law Reform Commission has
acknowledged this divergence noting it had received
more than 40,000 public responses. There were many
mixed responses and feelings were running high.

The assumption is that parliament will eventually have to
make a decision one way or another.

"At the root of this issue are deeply held beliefs and
divergent community views about discrimination and
religion. "

No. At the root is the desire of the alphabet community to attack Christians and Christianity wherever it flourishes. Why would a homosexual want to teach at a school where their views were in outright opposition to those of the school's principles other than to try to break up those institutions.

This is all about the war on Christianity waged by the left. Were this law to come into effect you can be bloody certain that you won't hear from a transgender lesbian atheist demanding the right to teach at a Mohammedan school.

Albo is caught between a rock and a hard place. He'd love to satisfy his far left base by giving them a win here, but knows it'd be as popular as his idiotic referendum. So, as with most things, he freezes like a rabbit in head-lights

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« … the [Australian Law Reform] Commission recommends that religious schools should … be able to " build a community of faith" by giving preference when hiring to teachers who share the school's religion ».
.

I beg to disagree with the ALRC.

Our old colonial constitution has established Australia as a secular country and our system of education must respect the secular principle of the separation of state and religion.

That is the supreme law in Australia. The state has no place in religious affairs and religion has no place in state affairs.

Secular education is a state affair governed by the state and religious education is a religious affair governed by religious institutions. Secular education and religious education are two distinct domains that must remain separate with absolutely no overlap or interference with each other.

It would be anti-constitutional to “build a community of faith by giving preference when hiring, to teachers who share the school's religion”. Religious schools must hire “teachers who share the school's religion” to teach religion, and they must hire other teachers who “do not share the school’s religion” to teach secular education.

We have seen what the “community” of fact and faith can lead to under the influence of religious zealots in the US. “Intelligent design” and “creationism” continue to be taught in many schools despite the ruling of the US Supreme Court that such teachings are unconstitutional.

Already in Australia, according to Wikipedia : “Creationist views are popular among religious education teachers and creationist teaching materials have been distributed by volunteers in some schools”.

Dr Jennifer Bleazby, a senior lecturer in the School of Education Culture and Society at Monash University, argues :

“[Secular] education aims to foster reflective and critical thinking, intellectual virtues, an awareness of cognitive biases, and the capacity for collaborative inquiry. It is counter-productive and hypocritical for schools to claim they actively discourage post-truth phenomena if they’re simultaneously running religious instruction programs that aim to indoctrinate and risk encouraging the very types of thinking associated with the post-truth world”.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«It would be anti-constitutional to “build a community of faith by giving preference when hiring, to teachers who share the school's religion”»

I am not a lawyer, but if you are correct, then fùck your constitution.

Your claim that "The state has no place in religious affairs and religion has no place in state affairs" is hollow when you only mean the second half of that sentence.

Education is the parents' affair, not the state's - and more in general, everyone should be able to hire and fire anyone as they please, that is their private affair.

And since you are likely to ask the next question, the answer is NO - nobody should be interested in your filthy state's money.

Dear Banjo,

The parameters set by the Australian Law Reform
Commission ( ALRC), were that religious schools
should be able to operate in accordance with their
beliefs, but must not discriminate against staff
or students on the basis of sexuality or gender
identity.

At present religious schools can practice such
discrimination. The recommendation of the ALRC
needs to be implemented. Your point about Australia
being a secular country is valid.

Article 18 of the ICCPR: (International Covenant Of Civil Public Rights):

“The Government may not impose restrictions on the right to hold positions based on religious or other belief, nor may it impose religious or other beliefs. The Government may also be obliged to take positive steps, where necessary and appropriate to protect this right, where failure to do so may result in offensive attacks on religious beliefs.”

Australia signed up to this Covenant in 1972, but it was never put into domestic law. “Coincidentally”,
the extreme Left Whitlam government was in power then.

Now, we have even a more extreme (ultra) Left government trying to knock Christianity (that’s its real target, not other religions) in the head.

The Opposition was probably asleep at the wheel then, as it is now.

Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. We have avoided the really nasty stuff up to now in Australia. But what protection there was looks like coming to an end under the very nasty Albanese regime, who's most egregious overt act against Christianity was its recent refusal to overrule the ACT government’s take over of the Calvary Catholic hospital because it wouldn't perform abortions. The federal government has that power over a Territory.

There are many reasons why Albanese's popularity has plummeted during his regime from 60% to 37% now. Whether or not his attack on Christianity in favour of perverts and weirdos is one of the factors is unknown - probably not, given the sheep-like Australian voters, all but a third of whom now say they reject Christianity.

Let's see how they like it when the basis of their society is gone, and imported Islam takes over from secular Australia and it's useless politicians of all brands.

Religious educational institutions account for over 90%
of the private schools in Australia and approximately 30%
of non-private schools. That is a sizeable portion of the
education system that would be frequented by LGBTQ students
and teachers.

These institutions are in prime positions to educate their
communities on fairness and equality and should actively work
against using a narrow perception of faith to demean.

Anybody denying that Albanese is out to get Judeo-Christianity in particular has only to heed the obvious fact of the lack of action against Islamic-hate speakers (there are already laws for that), and the lack of action against Muslims shouting “gas the Jews”.

Defender of Christianity, Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, rightly says that Christianity itself is being removed "slice by slice".

No one is forced to attend a private school. No one is forced to attend an institution that doesn't support their particular philosophy.

No one is forced to work at a private school. No one is forced to work at an institution that doesn't support their particular lifestyle.

This is especially true as regards teachers. The public system is crying out for teachers. Anyone working in a private school that had views they found problematic could easily find a job in the public system. They don't for reasons that are rather obvious.

"Discrimination is endemic in religious schools and
organisations around Australia, a ground-breaking report
by Equality Australia has found."

We're told that - "Australia is out of step with
international law and practice and LGBTQ students are
more likely to attend an independent school that
discriminates against them than supports them."

We're told that - "Reform is needed at a Commonwealth level
and in all states and territories." This is the first
report that attempts to fully quantify the impact and scale
of the problem.

We're told that - "One in 3 students and 2 in 5 staff are
enrolled or employed in private schools, most of which are
religiously affiliated. More than 70,000 students and
10,000 staff in non-government schools are estimated to be
LGBTQ according to the report." Which includes personal
accounts of discrimination.

"These organisations rely on billions of dollars of public
funding but are not required to comply with the same laws when
it comes to employment, education, and service delivery as other
organisations."

" The law in Australia is out of step with 21st century community
expectations and it urgently needs to change. Everyone deserves
the same legal protections from discrimination."

"The report also found that Catholic school authorities maintain
a damaging and oppressive culture of silence, with 9 out of 10
of those reviewed (educating 90% of all students in Australian
Catholic schools) publishing so little information about LGBTQ
and inclusion that perspective parents, students or employees
can't tell whether they will be welcomed or face discrimination."

"This is also the case for 1 in 3 independent schools."

There's more at the following:

http://equalityaustralia.org.au/discrimination-endemic-in-religious-schools-around-australia-new-report-finds/#

" Introducing the report, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG
former justice of the High Court of Australia, described the
broad-based exemptions in anti-discrimination laws as -
"neither principled nor just" and said the direction the
report took to reforms was "basically simple."

" There is increasing understanding and broad acceptance in
Australia, that the past overly broad religious exemptions go
beyond what is essential and sometimes diminishes the
enjoyment of the dignity and rights of others," he said.

Not before time, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has lodged a vilification complaint with the AHRC (good luck with that government sham) against Islamic hate-preachers.

Given the legislation available to Albanese to deal with hate speech and support for terrorism, it is a disgrace that a group or individuals have to do this at their own expense.

Rule of law seems to have gone out the door in Albanese Australia.

The useless, politicised police bleat that there's ‘nothing that they can do about it’; but, what about the equally useless Attorney General, and Albanese himself (on $560,000 plus perks to do the job).

BTW. The junk reference given by this anti-Christian fanatic is an extremist site for alphabet people and extremist deviants: the sort of rubbish that would obviously want Christian beliefs crushed. Anyone wanting to look at it should be aware that even Google describes the site as “unsafe”.

This thread represents everything that is rotten in Australia. We can't individually do much about the lunatics spreading the rot, but we can try to get a better sort of political class with careful, thoughtful voting. We will not find them among Green Labor or the Liberals.

Dear Foxy,

«Discrimination is endemic in religious schools and
organisations around Australia»

This is good news: Discrimination ('Viveka' in Sanskrit) is the quality of telling right from wrong and truth from untruth - would you rather expect religious schools to be dumb and dull (a fit description for government schools)?

«"These organisations rely on billions of dollars of public
funding but are not required to comply with the same laws when
it comes to employment, education, and service delivery as other
organisations."»

Indeed, shame on them.
Haven't they read the Bible, "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

Nobody should rely on tax-payer funding, but nobody should have to comply with the government's laws either, especially those who adhere to a Higher law.

«publishing so little information about LGBTQ
and inclusion»

Wait, these are two totally different things, so why are they mentioned in the same breath?

Inclusion: A Catholic school would surely teach inclusion because that is part of Jesus' teachings, don't they teach the Bible?

LGBTQ: Schools are meant for study, not for political activism and provocations.

"... a ground-breaking report by Equality Australia has found...."

This is how Equality Australia says of itself....
"Equality Australia is a national organisation dedicated to equality for LGBTIQ+ people.

We combine legal, policy and campaigning expertise with thousands of supporters to ensure LGBTIQ+ people are treated with dignity and respect."

So an organisation founded by and run for the alphabet community issues a report that favours the alphabet community. Wow...very persuasive (he said with tongue firmly in cheek).

And the report is introduced by Michael Kirby..."Kirby has been openly gay since around 1984. "

Even more persuasive....(change cheek).

Equality Australia is Australia's first national LGBTQ
legal advocacy. The Human Rights Law Centre supported
its establishment to continue the unfinished
business of achieving equality for LGBTQ people.

The link given was to show another perspective in this
discussion and hopefully add to the debate.

As for the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG?
He was a former justice of the High Court of Australia.
And is more than qualified to speak on Australian laws.

"The link given was to show another perspective in this
discussion and hopefully add to the debate."

But its not an impartial perspective, is it? The statistics in the report are utterly unsupported and in any case are reflective only of the attitudes of the alphabet community.

"He was a former justice of the High Court of Australia.
And is more than qualified to speak on Australian laws."

But he's not impartial is he?

The national report of Equality Australia through an
extensive investigation of publicly available records
and financial information, including personal stories,
has revealed the impact and true extent of LGBTQ
discrimination in religious educational institutions
and faith-based service providers in Australia.

The full report can be clicked on the link provided
earlier.

The Hon Michael Kirby's comments on the anti-discrimination
laws are valid.
He was speaking as a former justice of the High Court of
Australia and expressing his knowledge his knowledge of the law,
not his personal feelings.

Its true if you believe it.

Of course, even if it is true or valid or believable or even close to accurate it doesn't obviate the fact that....

No one is forced to attend a private school. No one is forced to work at a private school.

But keep trying hard to ignore that.

No one forces private schools to take billions of dollars
in public funding. And, because they do, they need to
be held accountable the same as other schools. There remains
widespread agreement about the values that school education
should promote. Values of respect, fairness, equality. So
that children will grow into decent human beings as adults.

Therefore:

Organisations must be accountable for the public funds
they receive and the large increase in government funding
for private schools prompts the question of whether these
schools are sufficiently accountable

Dear Foxy,

I fully agree with your last post:
Let us have no funding and no restrictions.

Enough of the twaddle! The Albanese government is anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic, and it wants to convince the rest of us that that they are both bad. Nothing new. Christians and Jews have always been exposed to hatred and ignorance, and persecution; and they have survived it pretty well for over two millennia.

Dear Ttbn,

«Christians and Jews have always been exposed to hatred and ignorance, and persecution; and they have survived it pretty well for over two millennia.»

"Christians must on earth
Be Christ’s true disciples.
For them await at every hour—
Until, in the blessed hereafter, they have overcome [this world]—
Torment, ban, and great pain."

- Christen müssen auf der Erden, from Bach Cantata #44, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NsWscJiiNE

.

Dear Foxy,

.

As you are probably aware, the Australian Christian Lobby and Archbishop Peter Comensoli of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne persuaded Scott Morrison (whose Pentecostal faith is notorious) to grant them a certain number of religious privileges that resulted in the current project of law reform that has been maintained by Anthony Albanese :

http://twitter.com/i/status/1549574311442366464
.

Personally, I see no reason why all schools, whether they be public, religious, or so-called independent should not be treated on an equal footing by the law.

In my opinion, the same law should apply to all schools irrespective of who owns, manages and finances them. None should be privileged in any shape or form by the law.

The curriculum from preschool/kindergarten up to Year 10 should be the same for all pupils and students throughout the country dispensed by professional teachers who meet the proficiency requirements of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

All schools, whether public, religious, or so-called independent should, without exception and wherever possible, provide non-compulsory religious instruction by the clergy of religious institutions exclusively for those pupils and students who specifically desire and request it.

Under no circumstances, religious instruction should be dispensed by the schoolteachers or any other members of the staff or direction of the schools.

As referenced by section 116 of our old colonial constitution, the principle of secularity should, in my humble opinion, always be respected.

.

With visions like Banjo Paterson's, where the principle of secularity is made sacred,
we might as well invite Godless China to take over as that would then make no difference.

"No one forces private schools to take billions of dollars
in public funding. And, because they do, they need to
be held accountable the same as other schools. "

They are held accountable. They are required to follow the teaching curriculum the state determines, and they are accessed and monitored in regards to that teaching. Schools exist to teach skills, not implement the left's agenda.

And private schools, overall, do better at teaching those skills than schools run for the benefit of the teaching profession aka public schools.

"No one is forced to attend a private school. No one is forced to work at a private school."

Its rather telling that you are trying very hard to ignore that.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I hope you had a happy Holi Festival and that it has brought you and your family some joy and amusement to cheer you up during this Springtide 2024.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2024/mar/25/holi-festival-photos-pictures-spring-hindu-festival-colour?utm_term=660256578f74813f8de77fafef672a6b&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email

With best wishes,

.

From reading all the articles here discrimination is evident in all, as is discrimination in raising children, discrimination is used in choices we all make for our children on whom they mix with for behaviour and values. Paul is the ultimate extremist discriminator of religion. He would not like his children taught Christianity, this is his right. Discrimination is given to the wise in making choices. Most parents do not want their children taught by trans teachers.

Dear Banjo,

I knew that this topic was going to be divisive.
I was told growing up, that religion and politics
were always subjects to be avoided. However, I
thought with the recent release of the ALRC report
and its recommendations it was important to have
this topic up for debate.

I agree with you. I also see no reason why all
schools whether public, religious or independent
should not be treated on an equal footing by the
law.

I am still hoping that there will be a bipartisan
support with an open consultation process to get
this legislation up and through parliament. We
were able to do it with racial discrimination, and
sex discrimination, why not religious discrimination?

"Children must be taught how to think,
not what to think."

(Margaret Mead).

"I am still hoping that there will be a bipartisan
support.."

Me too. I live in hope that one day the fascists of the left will realise that they don't have the right to demand that everyone lives by their standards and that individuals and like-minded groups have a right to live by their own standards.

A bipartisan view that one person's rights don't end where another person's feelings begin. Unlikely but who knows.

Of course, for some the word 'bipartisan' means "everyone should agree with me".

While we're at it, I also live in hope that there'll come a time when people realise that just because government deigns to return some of the money it took via taxation, doesn't give it the right to demand adherence to its dictates in return for said money. But in such a world, the power that the fascists of the left crave would be diminished and therefore its unlikely to happen.

Dear Mhaze,

«I also live in hope that there'll come a time when people realise that just because government deigns to return some of the money it took via taxation, doesn't give it the right to demand adherence to its dictates in return for said money»

Government printed that money and government took some of it back, it is their money and they can do whatever they like with it.

If you ask for their money, then they may set their conditions and should you accept these conditions, then you only have your own greed to blame.

The way to get rid of governments and their demands, is to spit on their money and not want anything to do with it - stop accepting bribes so the only thing they could do with the money they printed is to wipe their bottoms with it.

Yuyutsu, the money the government has is what it took from the citizenry. Its not their money, its taxpayer money. They are effectively confiscating a portion of the wealth and effort of the taxpayer.

That they deign to return a portion of that to those it took from doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how you live your life.

In this instance, government says it has a duty to educate the populace and it uses the funds it confiscated to do that. They can't then turn around and say they'll only perform their duty if you live by the standards they set - well at least not in a democracy.

«Yuyutsu, the money the government has is what it took from the citizenry. Its not their money, its taxpayer money.»

When they started printing money, they also set some conditions on it, and one of them was taxation. Take it - or leave it!

«They are effectively confiscating a portion of the wealth and effort of the taxpayer.»

That "wealth" is mostly in money which they created, your real wealth is much harder for them to take away.
Were you not aware when you initially acquired that kind of wealth that taxes are an integral part of it?

This is exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees: "Give unto Caesar what is his".

The greatness of Jesus was that he was neither tempted by nor ever scared of them.

«That they deign to return a portion of that to those it took from doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how you live your life.»

Only if you accept their filth, especially being money that they forcibly took from other tax-payers with or without their consent, in which case they succeed in making you an accomplice in their crimes.

«In this instance, government says it has a duty to educate the populace»

Well of course, this is what governments are all about, they are not content with their money but want your childrens' souls as well.

You can obviously see through their lies and recognise that they have no real duties whatsoever.

«They can't then turn around and say they'll only perform their duty if you live by the standards they set»

Well they obviously can and they do!

They can say anything they like, because they have a tongue and they can even cut off yours, but even then you and I know too well what these predators truly are and how all they say is false.

«- well at least not in a democracy.»

Have you ever seen any such thing - or is this supposed to be a bitter joke?

This may be of interest:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/23/australias-religious-and-sex-discrimination-laws-need-fixing-a-new-report-says-what-happens-next

It looks like this debate will continue for some time yet.
As stated earlier.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your enthusiasm
for your beliefs and your faith. And your opinions.

I wish that all the schools in this country, in all
their diversity, were simply available to all children
and their families without discrimination.

Enjoy the holidays with your families.

"When they started printing money, they also set some conditions on it, and one of them was taxation. Take it - or leave it!"

Utter rubbish. Taxation existed way before money existed. Several thousand years in fact.

"This is exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees: "Give unto Caesar what is his".

Have you ever heard of "of the people, by the people, for the people"? The government is the people. The taxation is the people's. People elect government to distribute and mange their money.

You carry on as though the people are the subjects of the government. That's not true in a democracy.

Yuyutsu, have you ever ridden on a train? Driven on a public road? Watched the ABC? Lodged a tax return? Then you are also participating in using the services of government. Its impossible to live here, or anywhere else for that matter, and not participate in the actions of government.

"Have you ever seen any such thing [democracy] - or is this supposed to be a bitter joke?"

Ahhh....the cynic who doesn't actually know what democracy is.

Dear Foxy,

«I wish that all the schools in this country, in all
their diversity, were simply available to all children
and their families without discrimination.»

All schools are already available to all, provided the parents have enough money to pay for them, provided that they are not too far from the child's home for them to travel each morning, and provided they are willing to comply with the school's laws, well also provided that they do not have serious disabilities that prevent them from studying and require different kinds of schooling.

Now such unfortunate children and families that are without discrimination, don't even know or care which school they go to.

---

Dear Mhaze,

«Taxation existed way before money existed. Several thousand years in fact.»

Exactly, and it was very wrong and cruel:
while people asked nothing of the kings, the latter nevertheless raided their homes and took away by force their crops, animals, tools, sons and daughters.

However, when money was introduced, people were no strangers to taxes and should have known that if they accept that money then it would be subject to tax.
Why then did they accept it? For convenience? Then they should not complain when they had to pay for that convenience.

«Have you ever heard of "of the people, by the people, for the people"?»

I have heard of that and so many other propaganda slogans... like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

But who ever asked the actual people whether they even want a government?

«Its impossible to live here, or anywhere else for that matter, and not participate in the actions of government.»

Indeed, and that is very sad and unfair.

«Ahhh....the cynic who doesn't actually know what democracy is.»

I know too well about that concept, but wouldn't approve of it even if it was ever successfully implemented.

"I know too well about that concept [democracy], but wouldn't approve of it even if it was ever successfully implemented."

Yes, it is truly said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried.

"«Taxation existed way before money existed. Several thousand years in fact.»

Exactly, and it was very wrong and cruel:"

But but but...you'd just got through saying taxation was introduced when money was invented.
If you're gunna change your entire argument when I present facts, perhaps a little acknowledgement wouldn't go astray.

Trying to quote Churchill are we mhaze? Next time do a 'Google' and get it right.

It always surprises and amazes me people I consider reasonably intelligent and educated, people who would say its an absurdity to believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Yet the same intelligent people wholeheartedly believe in winged angles fluttering around the place, devils in fires, as well as an old man sitting up in the clouds with his son and a ghost.

Dear Mhaze,

«But but but...you'd just got through saying taxation was introduced when money was invented.»

In agreement with you, yes, taxation was invented before money, but taxation on money was not introduced before money itself.

As I said earlier, taxation on one's crops, animals, tools, sons and daughters, etc. is wrong and cruel: that is because the king comes in unasked to rob innocent people.

But taxation on money is different: in this case, the king printed/coined the money and therefore it is OK for him to set conditions over its use, taxation included, so if people willingly accept that money because they find it convenient, then there is nothing wrong about paying for that convenience in tax.

Hi Yuyutsu,

It's believed that in Ancient Egypt the common people had to labour for part of the year for the State/Pharaoh, a kind of tax. That's why it thought the Pyramids were constructed by both slaves and free men, some labour was paid, but it was in the form of beer.

Hi Paul,

What did the pharaoh say after his tomb was ransacked?

I want my mummy.

What did the pharaoh say to his driver?

Toot-and-come-in.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

It took the Catholic Church 450 years to realise that Copernicus was right and it was wrong to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the inverse. In the meantime, the Catholic Inquisition condemned Galileo for heresy in declaring that he had arrived at the same conclusion as Copernicus from his telescopic observations.

It took the Catholic Church 490 years to realise that it was wrong to judge Joan of Arc guilty of heresy and have her burned at the stake when she was 19 years old.

Le Chevalier de la Barre, the last person executed for blasphemy in France, was tortured, decapitated, and burned at the stake when he, too, was only 19 years old :

« On 1st July 1766, Chevalier de la Barre, a young nobleman accused of blasphemy, was executed in Abbeville [France]. His death sentence came soon after the name of Jean Calas was cleared, notably after a long struggle waged by Voltaire. The executioner tossed a copy of Voltaire’s Pocket Philosophical Dictionary into the flames as the decapitated body of de la Barre was burned at the stake. Despite his efforts and those of other authors, the philosopher failed to obtain a judicial review of the de la Barre case. However, Voltaire’s 1791 re-burial in the Panthéon presented an opportunity to restore the chevalier’s good name ; Alexandre Devérité, the printer and Jacobin from Abbeville who was elected to the National Convention in 1792, had advocated it as well, in anonymous articles published as far back as 1776. And so began a process that culminated in a decree issued in the autumn of 1793 by the National Convention, that finally cleared de la Barre’s name » (http://www.cairn.info/revue-histoire-de-la-justice-2020-1-page-75.htm)

I wonder how long it will take the Catholic Church to realise that LGBT+ individuals are just as natural and respectable as heterosexual individuals.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013-7) found that the Australian Catholic Church had a particularly bad record with sexual abuse of children and failing to respond to it. It recorded 4445 claimants who alleged sexual abuse in a Catholic setting. Some 7% of Catholic priests were alleged offenders, with offending occurring at a constant rate from the 1950s to the 1980s » (http://australiancatholichistoricalsociety.com.au/history-resources/the-sexual-abuse-crisis/)

The Australian Christian Lobby and Archbishop Peter Comensoli of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne persuaded Scott Morrison (whose Pentecostal faith is notorious) to grant them a certain number of religious privileges that resulted in the current project of law reform that has been maintained by Anthony Albanese.

They want to change the law so that religious schools can discriminate against schoolteachers who do not share their brand of religion and hire only those schoolteachers who do so that there will be no contestation about what they teach the children in their custody – or what else they do with them.

It’s an extraordinarily quick turnaround for the Catholic Church from its disgraceful paedophile pandemic that has left such a vivid stigma on its reputation and remains an open wound that’s still so fresh in everybody’s mind.

I think they should wait at least another four or five hundred years for that just as they did for Copernicus, Galileo and Joan of Arc.

Don’t you ?

.

Dear Banjo,

You put things far more eloquently than I ever could.

And certainly religious institutions have a lot to answer.
As you say - hopefully it won't take another 400 years
or more, for them to instill tolerance, respect, and the real
values that they're supposed to believe in, teach and practice.

Poor Galileo was made to recant his theory of the universe.
And we can see that we can't dismiss religious intervention
as a thing of the past especially on issues which require
radical solutions that are likely to harm vested political or
economic interests. Hence the existence of censorship today.

At least the current government is trying to find acceptable
solutions. Whether they succeed or not is up to all sides of
politics giving the support to something that's long overdue.

"It's believed that in Ancient Egypt the common people had to labour for part of the year for the State/Pharaoh, a kind of tax. "

There's two schools of thought here. One is as Paul states, that it was a form of enforced labour in lieu of taxes.

The other is that it was considered a religious obligation. Remember the Pharoah was considered a god. Much like Muslims are required to visit Mecca at least once in their life, it is thought Egyptians were required to spend at least some time working on the god's monument. As such, like Muslims visiting Mecca, the labour was given freely and with joy as a form of religious tithe.

We haven't yet discussed - picking the right school for
a child.

Picking a child's school, and wanting it to be a good school
takes research and an open mind.

Choosing the right school
is not an easy process because what is bad for a child's
education is narrow-mindedness and institutionalized ignorance,
Therefore, being careful in the choice of a child's school is important to most people.

Parents are often limited by the choices open to them. Be it
geographical location, finances, religion, non-religion,
co-education, culture, acceptance by grades, familial
ties to certain schools, and many other
factors.

The single most influential
educator in a child's life is usually their parent.
if the parent is
narrow-minded and ignorant that will be the worst for the
child's education. Choosing a good school is quite a big
responsibility. And one that parents have to make for better
or for worst.

A brief summary:

At the request of the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, the
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has released a report
putting forward its proposal and recommendations for how
the federal government should address the questions of
should religious schools and other education bodies have the
right, as they now do, to discriminate when it comes to whom
they employ and enroll.

The overwhelming majority of non-government schools are faith-
based and committed to teaching the tenents of their particular
religion.

Given their religious character the question arises as to what
extent they should be free to manage themselves without
intervention.

This report will undoubtedly have consequences for the 2,724
religious non-government schools across Australia,
plus the 1.4 million students and their parents
who make financial sacrifices to choose such schools.

Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, Anglican, Presbyterian, religions
and the Australian Christian Lobby and the National Civic
Council all agree that faith-based schools must be allowed to
act according to their religious tenants and beliefs.

Quite a conundrum for the major political parties.

Often forgotten or ignored in debate about human rights is that
there is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do whatever
you want. With a liberal democratic society like Australia each
person's rights are always balanced against the rights of others
and the community in general.

The current government has made it clear that they will not
proceed unless they have Coalition support. In any case these
proposals can only pass into law by the parliament.

We have to wait and see what happens next.

The ALRC recommendations do not necessarily become law unless
they have the support of Parliament. However we should note
that over 85% of ALRC reports have been either substantially or
partially implemented making the ALRC one of the most effective
and influential agents for legal reform in Australia.

Interesting times ahead.

There's just one more thing I'd like to add:

We all need our rainbow's end
Or a patch of blue
Where the sun shines through
May we be blessed to find it.

All the Best to you all!

Dear Foxy,

«The overwhelming majority of non-government schools are faith-
based and committed to teaching the tenents of their particular
religion.»

A good intention for a start, but do they truly know what their religion is and what its tenets?

«Given their religious character the question arises as to what
extent they should be free to manage themselves without
intervention.»

Why do you assume their religious character to be "Given"?
Just because someone thinks or claims to be religious, does not automatically imply that they are so.

If indeed they are religious, then isn't it obvious that one should not intervene against God?

And to tell for certain that they are not religious, one needs to be a prophet - any claimers here?

Therefore, in the absence of living prophets, EVERYONE should be free and be given the benefit of the doubt that their actions could possibly be in line with God.

«Often forgotten or ignored in debate about human rights is that
there is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do whatever
you want.»

Whether we know it or not, we all have unlimited freedom to do whatever we want: nobody can take our freedom away, not even if they lock away or kill our body.

Today of all days we should remember one man who was fully aware of his absolute and unlimited freedom, whom no one and no government could stop or have control over, not even by nailing his hands and feet to a cross, a man who freely forgave all our sins because he recognised that we are lost sheep who understand not what we are doing, a Son who won eternal victory over all evil on his Father's behest. May we all follow his example!

«We all need our rainbow's end
Or a patch of blue
Where the sun shines through
May we be blessed to find it.»

The ones who most need a patch of blue where the sun shines through, are the hostages that are 40 metres deep in Gaza's tunnels - may they be blessed to find it soon. Amen.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for sharing your enthusiasm for your faith.

Time for someone to start some new threads: like those characters who have never done it before, but just sponge off those who do.

Paul stop misrepresenting the facts of Christianity, with the nonsense you past. "Yet the same intelligent people wholeheartedly believe in winged angles fluttering around the place, devils in fires, as well as an old man sitting up in the clouds with his son and a ghost."

None of the followers of Christ I know believe such childish nonsense. An angel is a person who bears a clear message from God, a devel is a person like yourself who tries to delude following the principles god has laid down, God is the universal dynamic personality and presence that creates, changes, decays and destroys whom humanity reflects.

Christianity is a World view that godly parents want for their children, and it is not cheap as fees are involved. The fees are to employ teachers, and are not Government funded, so the school should have the right to employ teachers who represent the values of the parents and administrators. Parents of private and religious schools are taxpayers also and their taxes are paying for public schools, teacher and curriculum they do believe in.

Politics like Religion is by nature discriminatory, as it is based on opinion. What should happen if there should be no right of religion to discriminate, the same should happen to politics, and we become a Communist dictatorship. One Party one enforced world view such as Russia, or China. All other opinions are discriminalised and put to death.

A couple of thoughts:

If each of us fights
cruelty. injustice, and greed
in our own little worlds
perhaps the will be no need
for the next generation
to go to war.

And:

Who gives society
the right to act
as judge and jury
condemning individuals
for the alleged crime
of "being different."

Dear Foxy,

Nice thoughts, but are you sure you posted them on the correct thread?

What "cruelty. injustice, and greed" were discussed here?
What "condemning individuals" and by whom?

Neither issue seems to be connected with the present discussion.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but the fastest-growing religion in Australia identified over the two last censuses has been Hinduism, which has increased from 0.7% to 1.3% to 2.7% of the population.

The second fastest-growing religion is Islam which was 3.2 per cent of the population at the last census (2021).

Christianity remains the most common religion, with 43.9%. But Christianity has reduced from 52.1 % in 2016 and 60.1% in 2011. The largest Christian denominations are Catholic, 20% of the population and Anglican, 9.8%.

Even more significantly, Australians are becoming less and less religious. There are signs of fading belief in the God hypothesis with 30.6% of those aged 75 and over no longer believing in it, compared to 46.5% of the millennials (25-39 years) who no longer believe in it.

As possible explanations of the phenomenon :

• The anthropological school argues that religion functions as an early form of science, answering questions that human reason cannot yet explain.

• The psychological school argues that people gravitate towards religion because it provides a sense of comfort and security to help cope with difficulty, uncertainty, pain, anxiety, etc.

• The sociological school argues that religion provides a sense of social cohesiveness and solidarity.

• The economic school proposes that religion functions as a means of controlling the underclass to the benefit of those in the higher social strata.

Anthropologists, E.B. Tylor and James Frazer look at religion from an evolutionary approach. In examining societies that they regard as less complex, they argue that as civilisations advance, it is inevitable that their system of belief advances as well. The more complex a society, the more complex the religious system.

They observe that all societies demonstrate some form of religious belief, and note that religions function scientifically in that they provide mythological explanations for the existential questions surrounding human origins, purpose, and afterlife.

Tylor and Frazer both foresee that as civilisations advance from religious reasoning to scientific reasoning, religion will eventually die out, as science can offer more rational explanations to those existential questions.

.

Hi BP,

With Christianity I have great difficulty making the quantum leap from Jesus Christ the man, to Jesus Christ the God, the supernatural being, the mystical deity. I find Christian believers simply use the irrational notion of "faith" to explain all. By applying the belief principle of "faith" Christians have managed over the ages to create a false interpretation of Jesus Christ, and all that is now near and dear to practising Christians is based on a world of hocus-pocus beliefs.

What I find astounding is that very intelligent people, including Priests, that I talk with seem unable or willing to ditch the irrational in favour of the rational when it comes to religious beliefs. Recently had a discussion with an Anglican Priest friend about the concept of Angles, his explanation for me that Angles were "messages from God" not messengers, but messages, seemed to me as totally irrational nonsense that he was making up on the run. I presented the "facts" about Angles as detailed in the Bible, he had no answers to that. I found it a bit like having an Intellectual discussion with Einstein and his attempts to explain the 'Quantum Physics of the Tooth Fairy'. The discussion left me rather nonplussed, going away thinking my educated friend was talking a load of bunk.

Yuyutsu,

All over the world people face inequality, discrimination,
violence, injustice and cruelty just because of who they
love, how they identify themselves, and who they are. Our
government is trying to support human rights so all
Australians are treated equally and justly - hence the
ALRC report and its recommendations. Also hence this
topic for discussion and my recent thoughts - especially
as for many - this is a special time of the year.

Food for thought.

That's ANGELS not angles they may as well be angles, more believable.

Talking about angels?

Has anyone read the NY Times bestseller -
"Heaven is for Real?" it's based on a true
story and sold over 11 million copies.

A film's been made of the book, and it's available
on DVD - from JB HI FI. Its a little boys astounding
story of his trip to heaven and back.

During surgery the 4 year old son of a pastor leaves
his body and goes to heaven. When he awakes he recounts
his visit in full detail to the other side and the people
he meets who he couldn't possibly have known. They existed
before he was born.

A very warm and lovely film - very suitable for Easter
giving.

I've bought two copies as gifts.

In 1994 My brother asked me to accompany him to Bundaberg with a load of furniture from Sydney on his Pantech. We arrived in Brisbane at just after midnight needing diesel and were lost, he prayed that God would send his angel to show us the way. Just then a soft-top red MG sports car pulled up and said to us, "You guys Lost' we said yes. He said just follow me when you see me put on my blinker at the Bruce Highway you turn there. He received a message from God to know what we needed. Several events have happened similar. You ask me if I believe in angels I'd have to say yes.

Hi Josephus,

When I was in hospital having surgery - I wasn't feeling
the best. The staff and care that I received was
truly amazing. I think the front-line staff in hospitals
who have to deal with some very difficult situations -
are really angels. And I'm grateful to each and every one
of them for the difficult work that they do.

Angels come in different guises. Anyone who does good
and helps others - makes our world a better place.
We all have the capability of being angels.

Time for someone to start some new threads: like those characters who have never done it before, but just sponge off those who do.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 29 March 2024 11:38:40 AM

Answer-
A fortnight back I tried to create a thread about the lack of support for Anglo-Self Determination in the form of access to Anglo doctors- and how this seemed to be a form of genocidal policy denying culturally appropriate medical treatment to Anglo Australian's. I think I alluded to Mao's four pillars policy to take over the institution's through Education, Health, Army, Courts.

For some reason the thread was never approved as far as I could tell.

Sometimes my other priorities don't let me contribute to OLO as much as I would like.

Perhaps GY in his wisdom thought it didn't work. Overall I've been happy with his decision's even though I don't always get what I want.

Sometimes even the best of us needs to be constrained.

No one is omniscient...

That might be one of the reasons that many don't post their own threads ttbn- I'm sorry that it puts more pressure on you.

Poster- Banjo Paterson said-

Anthropologists, E.B. Tylor and James Frazer look at religion from an evolutionary approach. In examining societies that they regard as less complex, they argue that as civilisations advance, it is inevitable that their system of belief advances as well. The more complex a society, the more complex the religious system.

Answer- E.B. Tylor appears to have come from a broken home after the death of his parents. Frazer appears to come from a line of serial academics. These sorts of backgrounds seem to explain why in some cases why people have rejected UK cultural traditions. Sometimes it seems to explain more about their particular psychological illness of alienation and isolation than the projection of their psychologies upon society. Perhaps this is also true of socialists more broadly.

Recently someone said to me that "the government should help orphan's" or similarly children without parents. I said no... if anything the government should help their relatives to look after them as at least they have some vested interest in their future. A foster parent whether employed by the government or not will never have the same trust of the child as a blood relative. Even in this age of "Working With Children Check's" children are still being abused by the system and by political ideology often by those that claim the child's interest.

"The government should help orphan's" is a variation on the theme of "we have to help the poor" that Ayn Rand decries as creating victim culture. As Benjamin Franklin said we build hospitals for the poor not because it's good for the poor but because it's good for the rich. Opportunity doesn't come to you- you have to strive to grab it. No one knows if an opportunity will bear fruit- there is risk- but safety according to Gustav Le Bon is not sought or obtained by avoiding risk- but by managing it.

Angel in Hebrew is mal'ak and Greek is angelos and means messenger, one who conveys a message from God. People who know and practice holy living are able to give a message reflecting the character of God. Both in Hebrew and Greek it refers to human messengers. It is also the influence persons or groups impact on others for good or ill. We are all influencers and leave a character / spiritual impression on those we meet for good or ill, even after death. Gabriel was one appointed who guarded the throne of Israel to remove or announce a new king.

The Roman Catholic Church developed their view of angels from the Persian Zoroastrian view of angels as spirits had wings as influences had to fly from one person to another.

Kudos mhaze for the information about taxation. Personally I don't see a difference between taxation with or without money- assuming it's proportional. Roman tax collector's were often privatized and seemingly taxed a fixed amount per village- so many goats, so many standard weight of grain, etc. Aristotle talked about government by laws or principles. Ayn Rand said that when governments don't have standards or principles and just continue to take without limit to their own power and without the balance of responsibility- then civilization will fail.

Communist's say that Capitalist's will sell us the rope to hang them

Josephus- I understand that the four archangels were based on four cardinal archetypes- and one of the names has been lost.

It might be interesting to learn a little about
homosexualty in the ancient world and how far back it
actually goes.

http://worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/

http://britannica.com/topic/homosexuality

Josephus,

When I was 6 years old, I lost a tooth, my mother said place the tooth under a glass and pray the Tooth Fairy comes, and takes your tooth and leaves a shinny new shilling in its place. I did what my mother said, and after all she would know, given my mother never lied. Sure enough the next morning the tooth was gone, and a shinny new shilling was there in its place. Absolute proof of the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Not sure if he arrived in a "soft-top red MG sports car", more likely in a flaming chariot pulled by 1,000 white horses! Agree?

«All over the world people face inequality, discrimination,
violence, injustice and cruelty just because of who they
love, how they identify themselves, and who they are.
...Also hence this topic for discussion and my recent thoughts»

OK, fair enough, but these are new issues which you now introduce for the first time: why did you not present them earlier or even in your initial introduction to this discussion?

«It might be interesting to learn a little about
homosexualty in the ancient world and how far back it
actually goes.»

Again, this is the first time you mention homosexuality, ancient or modern.

Are these issues which you now like to discuss here, instead of about the freedoms and obligations of private religious schools, the way this discussion started - or would you rather start a new thread in order to make a clear distinction between these topics?

I hope you are enjoying a good Easter.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«the fastest-growing religion in Australia identified over the two last censuses has been Hinduism, which has increased from 0.7% to 1.3% to 2.7% of the population.»

This is rubbish: most people don't know what religion is, and whatever they enter in their census is based on social affiliations instead.
I for one, never answer that question.

«As possible explanations of the phenomenon»

All four schools you mentioned are completely blind and without a clue, because they attempt to understand the spiritual in terms of the material.

1) Religion does not offer (or attempts to offer) explanations for material nature.
2) Those who mimic the behaviour of religious people in an attempt to gain psychological comfort, may perhaps gain some psychological comfort, but aren't religious.
3) Religion does not provide social cohesiveness. A religious person is loyal to and cares about God alone.
4) Those who want to control others, are not religious, but impostors.

---

Dear Paul,

«What I find astounding is that very intelligent people, including Priests, that I talk with seem unable or willing to ditch the irrational in favour of the rational when it comes to religious beliefs.«

Religious beliefs mean such beliefs that help bringing their believer closer to God.
It is therefore rational and an intelligent choice for those who want to come closer to God, to believe in them.
And for others who aren't interested to come closer to God, entertaining such beliefs would indeed be irrational.

In other words, it isn't the content of the belief which matters and determines its rationality or otherwise, but rather how that belief affects the believer.

«With Christianity I have great difficulty making the quantum leap from Jesus Christ the man, to Jesus Christ the God, the supernatural being, the mystical deity.»

You are not the only one with such difficulty.
It takes lifetimes of hard efforts.
So if you wish to make that quantum leap, then keep working on it, don't give up!

Note also that God is neither a being nor a deity, even the Bible does not make such absurd claims.

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and expressions of empathy.
.

You wrote :

« E.B. Tylor appears to have come from a broken home after the death of his parents. Frazer appears to come from a line of serial academics. These sorts of backgrounds seem to explain why in some cases people have rejected UK cultural traditions »
.

Allow me simply to observe that while the death of E.B. Tylor’s parents when he was 16 years old must have contributed to the shaping of his worldview as an adult, he was a Quaker and believed that animism is the true natural religion and the essence of all religions.

He considered that the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that they were no more advanced than primitive societies. This implied that contemporary religious practitioners did not understand the ways of the universe and how life truly works because they had excluded science from their understanding of the world.

Tylor’s concept of religion certainly evolved but I don’t think it is true to say that he rejected the UK cultural traditions he acquired during his youth, nor, for that matter, those he later acquired in the US after migrating to that country like many other British Quakers.

As for James Frazer (later known as Sir James George Frazer), he is often considered an atheist in light of his criticism of Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism in his book "The Golden Bough" (a comparative study of mythology and religion) but his later writings and unpublished materials suggest an ambivalent relationship with Neoplatonism (a doctrine that all reality derives from a single principle, "the One") and Hermeticism (a religious system based on occult philosophy and magic).
.

In my view, it is difficult to shake off one’s culture, whether inherited or acquired, even long after certain firmly held beliefs are found to be irrelevant and consequently discarded.

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"Religious beliefs mean such beliefs that help bringing their believer closer to God."

Possibly beginning with a false premise; the existence of a god or gods. I am ambivalent on the subject of the existence of supernatural beings, and see myself as agnostic on the subject of the existence of god(s). If one accepts the existence of the Christian God, then one can accept the existence of all gods, Egyptian, Greek, Roman etc etc, literally thousands of gods.

With Jesus Christ, many early Christians particularly the "School Of St James" (brother of Christ) did not accept Christ was God, a great prophet and leader, a reformer of Judaism, but not God. It was Saul of Tarsus (St Paul 5 AD - 65 AD) the most influential of early Christians who successfully propagated the notion that Christ was God. It was in the Gospel of Matthew (circa 85-90 AD) that the notion of a "Trinity of God" was first written, it included Jesus as part of that Trinity.

Dear Paul,

«Possibly beginning with a false premise; the existence of a god or gods.»

Well I was not relying on any such premise.
If you follow my posts here over many years, you may know already that I do not support the idea of God's existence (in fact, that idea can easily be refuted).

Nevertheless, the ability to come to closer to God does not depend on God's existence, so if you claim that it is not possible (for whatever reason) to come closer to God, then you are effectively claiming that religion does not exist. If that is your belief, then why not just say so?

«I am ambivalent on the subject of the existence of supernatural beings»

Whichever the case, religion is not about and does not depend on the existence of supernatural beings.

The source of that confusion, as if religion was related with supernatural beings, is in the fact that worshipping supernatural beings can, in some contexts, be used as a religious technique/method. Their actual existence, however, is not required for the worship to produce the intended results.

«and see myself as agnostic on the subject of the existence of god(s)...»

Fine, that is a scientific question, not a religious one.
You are welcome to research it if so inclined.

«...many early Christians... did not accept Christ was God»

Christ was God, You are God, I am God, this forum is God, the keyboard you type on is God, etc. because there is nothing and can be nothing but God.

The only difference is that Jesus Christ knew that beyond any doubt, while the rest of us still doubt it.

«It was Saul of Tarsus... who successfully propagated the notion that Christ was God. It was in the Gospel of Matthew (circa 85-90 AD) that the notion of a "Trinity of God" was first written, it included Jesus as part of that Trinity.»

Assuming these are true facts, that means that Saul started looking at God from two particular angles while Matthew started looking at God from three particular angles.

Comment Posted by Banjo Paterson

Allow me simply to observe that while the death of E.B. Tylor’s parents when he was 16 years old must have contributed to the shaping of his worldview as an adult, he was a Quaker and believed that animism is the true natural religion and the essence of all religions.

Answer-

Some 89% of Quakers worldwide belong to evangelical and programmed branches[9] that hold services with singing and a prepared Bible message coordinated by a pastor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

Comment-

He considered that the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that they were no more advanced than primitive societies. This implied that contemporary religious practitioners did not understand the ways of the universe and how life truly works because they had excluded science from their understanding of the world.

Answer-

I believe it's Don Cupitt's series that talks about the division of subject matter into ethical (church- moral value) vs non-ethical (Science, other- descriptive). According to Cupitt- Galileo was only persecuted when he threatened the distinction between Church and Science. Some call this Scientism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVUIaMDAYwqjMlxhXDehb4k8Oqa5n5KAP

Does "Banjo Paterson" think that other belief's such as Hinduism, and paranormal Buddhist teachings, as well as the unscientific elements of communism should be considered primitive and be destroyed under these auspice's. Or is it just White Western Nations that should shed their culture? In many cases I've found similar views to be Anti-White.

Do we just follow Aristotle's view that all idea's need to be tested to be true- and reject Plato's abstraction. Does this mean that analogy should be banned in the superior colonialist expansionist nation of "Banjo Paterson"

There are ideas that transcend "perceived reality". There is an argument between Hebrew physicists Lee Smolin's "Anthropic Universe" and Leonard Susskind who says the idea isn't scientific because it's unfalsifiable.

Yip Man said that Bruce Lee's criticism of Wing Chun Kung Fu in the creation of Jeet Kune Do was invalid because he didn't finish his studies and therefore didn't understand Wing Chun. The same could be said here.

There are those that struggle to find success in society and so seek to tear it down rather than working within the system. Otoh there are some systems that deserve to be torn down- like Communism. I'm reluctant to tear down systems that have been in existence for thousands of years- in the name of Nihilism. Ayn Rand and Nietzsche talk about the culture of envy and theft. Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged indicates that John Galt doesn't want to stand in the way of others morality but to get out of the way of his morality- in the end those with a successful morality will survive.

Cultural principles are the bones of survival- perhaps the idea's of "Banjo Paterson" are the ones that should be "discarded"

It seems that in certain cases ideas are seemingly advocated to be torn down for the very reason that they are successful over a long period of time.

There is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do
whatever you want. Within a liberal democratic
society like Australia each person's rights are
always balanced against the rights of others and
the community in general.

All over the world people face inequality,
discrimination, injustice, and cruelty, because of
who they are.

The government is trying to support human rights so
all Australians are treated equally and justly
within the law. Hence the Australian Law Reform
Commission report and recommendations.

The ALRC recommendations don't necessarily become
law. However, over 85% of ALRC reports have been either
substantially or partially implemented making the ALRC
one of the most effective and influential agents for
legal reform in Australia.

We have to wait and see what happens next and what parliament
decides. The PM has made it clear that unless the Coalition
supports the recommendations he will not proceed with the
legislation.

Dear Banjo,

I admire your patience, integrity, and of course
your civility. This is a controversial and emotive subject.
thank you for taking part in this discussion and adding your
balanced insights.

Dear Foxy,

«There is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do
whatever you want.»

By rising from the dead, Jesus proved that no human action can stop us in God's service - neither legislation nor persecution, torture and execution can affect God's servants.

«All over the world people face inequality,
discrimination, injustice, and cruelty, because of
who they are.»

God's people never cause any injustice.

«The government is trying to support human rights so
all Australians are treated equally and justly
within the law.»

Absolute justice is already being carried out by God, without fail.
What fools think that they can duplicate His work and do things better?!

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for once again sharing your enthusiasm
for your faith.

There remains widespread agreement in the Australian
community about the values that school education should
promote. All children have the right to a high quality
school education.

Organisations must be accountable for the public funds
they receive and the large increase in government funding
for private schools prompts the question of whether these
schools are sufficiently accountable and are they committed
to the public values that all schools are expected to uphold?

While the private school sector, in all of its diversity
promotes some of these public values, some of the time,
Many private schools fail to uphold them.

I hesitate in making sweeping judgements about religious
schools. The only thing that is bad for a child's education
is narrow-mindedness and institutionalised ignorance, both of
which can be found in religious and non-religious schools
about the same measure.

We need to remember that the single most influential educator
in a child's life is their parent. If the parent is
narrow-minded and ignorant that will be the worst for the
child's education.

Picking good schools takes research and an open mind.

Foxy said "There is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do
whatever you want. Within a liberal democratic
society like Australia each person's rights are
always balanced against the rights of others and
the community in general. "

Answer- In Foxy's nation she would ban me- in my nation I would ban her. Some cultures are incompatible- good walls are necessary.

A person who thinks only about building walls,
wherever they may be and not building bridges -
is not Christian.

(Pope Francis).

Hi again Yuyutsu,

If you are being brought "closer to God" and God does not exist then that is a contradiction in terms. To be drawn closer to something, then that something has to exist. If God does not exist then you can not be drawn close to the non-existent God. You can only be drawn closer to the creator of the God myth, and what they want you to believe.

Analogy; The Earth is being drawn closer to the planet Zog, but the planet Zog does not exist. Please explain.

Christianity relies on the existence of a God, its whole fundamental meaning is based on that existence, for it is only in that way can Christianity claim validly and legitimacy. If the Pope (only used to represent all Christian leadership) was to say I want you to pray to the non existent God for salvation etc, then Christianity would collapse as being meaningless.

Analogy; Earth must make all efforts to avoid a collision with the planet Zog, but Zog doesn't exist. Please explain.

Talking about banning?

Lets look at what should be banned:

It would be great is stereotypes and prejudices that
stem from our cultural divides and beliefs, including
religious beliefs. Things
that promote superiority complexes for one's own
faction and despise for other belief systems.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Unfortunately these things get traction when there's
unawareness and lack of sound judgement amongst people.
Also it becomes more complex when politics is
involved for the sake of election benefits.

These are just some things that come to mind.

Foxy promotes a belief system that is Communism, where everything is held equally, and everyone is common in thought and practice. There is no discrimination of beliefs or practices. Paul on the other hand believes in anarchy, where you believe there is no values or principles because these are based in the view there are social commandments given by God to discriminate right from wrong. He does not wish to believe in a God because he would be accountable for his behavior.

By making choices we are discriminating, the blind cannot see they also make discriminating choices.

Josephus,

The rise of hatred and oppression have tortured the
souls of those who seek peace and kindness to others.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox tells us that as long as those
souls are tortured Christ will remain crucified:

"I saw the mill, the mine, and shop, the little slaves of greed
I heard the strife, of race with race, all sprung from one God-seed
And then I bowed my head in shame and in contrition cried
Lo after nineteen hundred years, Christ still is crucified."

"Foxy promotes a belief system that is Communism...... Paul on the other hand believes in anarchy"..... Where is Josephus on the scale of isms, right up the top, often promoting racism and white supremacy in his posts. Proud Boy Jose' still believes Aboriginals were happy and contented living under rusty old iron sheets on river banks, whilst the gubba's like himself were warm and cosy living in town.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your good questions.

With objects, indeed for two objects to come closer to each other, they need to exist. What separates any two objects, like Earth and Zog, is space, so to come closer, the amount of that space between them (i.e., distance), needs to be reduced.

God, on the other hand, isn't an object (not even the Bible claims that), and what separates us from God is not space - what separates us and God is our ignorance.

Ignorance works in two ways: it obscures the truth, and it substitutes something else, some illusion in its place.

In our case, the truth is that We and God are one and the same, and the illusion that substitutes it, is that we are just limited human-beings (itself an object).

Religion provides methods to reduce, and eventually eliminate, our ignorance of our true identity, that being God.

Specifically, and I am being extremely sketchy here for brevity, religion teaches that it is our sins that play a large part in holding our ignorance together, so once we improve our character and recover from our sins, that veil of ignorance that separates us from God will not hold for much longer.

Christianity [at its best, before being corrupted] is one such approach and set of methods to overcome sin.

These methods do work independently of God's existence or otherwise, but how can you convince people to start practising them?

It is a fact of life that many beginners would only be motivated to practice these methods if they expect to gain some material rewards from it. After a while they can realise that there is so much more to gain from the practices than material rewards, but for that they somehow first need to make a start.

Some clergy conveniently allowed their flock to believe that God were an object in order to explain why they can also gain materially from these methods (which happens to be true but with a very different explanation).
That made them popular, yet incorrect. Unfortunately, some clergy started believing so themselves.

Foxy seems to believe in no walls for White people this is Anti-White genocide. White people aren't allowed to protect their own culture in Foxy world. Can Aboriginal's protect their own culture, can Hebrew's protect their own culture, can Palestinian's protect their own culture. Foxy appears to be an Anti-White murderer.

Hi again Yuyutsu,

Christian religion propagates the notion of the existence of God as a separate supernatural being. John 4:24 says "God is a spirit" and a spirit has to exist. Therefore if God as a sprite does not exist, then you cannot become closer to the non reality God, either spiritually or physically. Christians believe that on death if their sins against God are forgiven they will enter into the presences of God, but if God does not exist then they cannot be in God's presence. Agree?

My priest friend realising that the Biblical account of Angels was bunk, tried to invent a new interpretation on the run. But I disagreed, the Bible even goes to the far fetched extent of giving names to certain Angels like Michael and Gabriel. I also said does not the Bible also claim certain Angels through free will we cast out of Heaven and descended into Hell with the Angel Lucifer. How can messages as opposed to messengers have names and free will? Then when the argument is lost the religious will throw out the great red herring called "FAITH"!

Dear Paul,

Firstly, Lucifer is not mentioned in the Bible.
Isaiah 14 actually refers to a nickname/simile of the king of Babylon.

«John 4:24 says "God is a spirit" and a spirit has to exist.»

In context, along the previous verse [John 4:23-24]:

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth".

The word "spirit" can mean "ghost", but it can also mean "non-material" as well as "the real meaning or the intention".

Reading the two verses together, they clearly are not speaking of ghosts, but about the mode of worship which needs to be adopted. In fact, any dealings with ghosts are strongly shunned by the Bible.

«Christians believe that on death if their sins against God are forgiven they will enter into the presences of God, but if God does not exist then they cannot be in God's presence. Agree?»

Agreed: one cannot be in God's presence, because in order to be in the presence of someone there must be two separate persons, whereas in truth one cannot be separate from God.

Nevertheless, this concept of "entering the presence of God" has its place as a devotional expression - it describes a strong emotion of love and reverence towards God rather than an accurate situation.

As for angels, people seem to be quite confused about them,
so I rather leave the question of their existence or otherwise for science.
Perhaps you want to be the one who breaks through and finds the answers?
That would certainly be worthy of a Nobel prize!

Nevertheless, thinking of angels, sometimes even believing in their existence, can at times be beneficial - both religiously and emotionally. That varies from person to person and from situation to situation. I am happy to deliberate and explore when, where and to whom it is helpful to believe in them, but the objective questions I live for science.

Foxy is not against "anti-white." She sees the world
in all the wonderful multi-colours that it truly is. In
all its diversity. She believes in building bridges not
walls.

She also believes that mean-spiritedness with petty and
ungracious actions towards others should have no place
in our society. But she also realizes that there are
prickly, abrasive, and churlish people, who are bad-
tempered, rude and cruel, coarse, vulgar and uncouth,
spiteful and malicious.

Those people's views are really none of our business.
They should be treated like graffitti on public toilet
walls.

If each of us fights cruelty, injustice, and greed in
our own little worlds perhaps there will be no need for
the next generation to go to war

Canem, Foxy has no skin colour problem, she wants everyone to be rainbowed eyes and see no differences in society, this is an attempt to make everyone communist, there are no distinctions. Everyone is equal. She has been brainwashed to believe the communist lie.

Dear Josephus,

It is not nice to make assumptions about people and try to guess their intentions.

If you like to better understand Foxy's responses, then why not ask her directly:
"Dear Foxy, I know that you have been recently badly and inappropriately hurt by another OLO member. It is not my intention to hurt, but may I ask you some questions: 1) Do you want everyone to be rainbowed eyes? 2) Would you like to see no differences in society? 3) would you like to make everyone communist? 4) Do you believe that there are no distinctions and Everyone is equal? Thanks in advance".

Josephus,

Both you and Canem Malum should seriously consider drafting up
petitions as a warning about socialist/communist
ideology. By getting people to sign your petitions the problem
of mass brain-washing will be shown in the spotlight and
hopefully will stop further social hostility towards other
forms of government created by these dreadful socialist/communist
views.

You both need to spread awareness of this problem as these
dreadful people may have connections to well respected media
organisations.

It should be your duty to expose this problem. Not only will
this help your cause - but it will make you feel much better

Go for it!

Yuyutsu,

The following link is worth a read. It is a long read and
is more than 6 years old - but it's still relevant today:

http://theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race

I stand by my posting record on this forum -
which should be clear to
any rational person.

Here is another link that may be of interest:

http://time.com/4512430/colorism-in-america/

It explains the difference between racism and colorism
for those interested.

Dear Foxy,

This discussion started off about religious freedoms, with a particular stress on religious schools.

6 days later you introduced the topics of inequality, injustice and homosexuality, then now, 8 days later, you introduce the new topic of racism.

Could we please conclude one issue at a time, then move on to different discussions on different threads?

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

You ask :

1. « Does "Banjo Paterson" think that other belief's such as Hinduism, and paranormal Buddhist teachings, as well as the unscientific elements of communism should be considered primitive and be destroyed under these auspice's ? »
.

I think you have in mind my penultimate post in which I wrote :

« Tylor and Frazer both foresee that as civilisations advance from religious reasoning to scientific reasoning, religion will eventually die out, as science can offer more rational explanations to those existential questions »

While that does seem plausible to me, I think it might take an eon or two for the process to be completed.
.

2. « Do we just follow Aristotle's view that all idea's need to be tested to be true- and reject Plato's abstraction ? »

I see no reason to believe that they are necessarily contradictory.

I understand that the classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle who set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and treated compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

He posited that if a hypothesis is thought to be true, but a subsequent empirical investigation does not demonstrate that it is, then it may be concluded that the hypothesis is false.

As for Plato’s so-called abstraction, I have the impression that there is no consensus among philosophers as to exactly what he meant by the term “abstract objects”.

According to the OED the adjective “abstract” means :

« denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object »

That sounds like “imagination” to me, in which case, perhaps Plato means “imagined objects” – such as the unique design of a building imagined by an architect before he puts pen to paper.

However, as it seems Plato did not offer a clear definition of what he meant by “imagined objects”, I suspect he might have been just floating a trial balloon to test the reaction of his colleagues in the philosophical community at the time – keep them guessing.

.

Yuyutsu,

They're all inter-connected threads of the same tapestry.
As the title tells you - "Religious freedom - Or the
right to discriminate?"

Dear Foxy,

«They're all inter-connected threads of the same tapestry.
As the title tells you - "Religious freedom - Or the
right to discriminate?"»

Sorry, but I fail to see a connection between religious freedom (+discrimination), and these newly-introduced issues of equality, injustice, homosexuality or racism.

Could you please elabourate?

Yuyutsu,

No. My posts are quite clear.

Dear Foxy,

«No. My posts are quite clear.»

Your posts may be clear, but they do not address such alleged connections.

---

Well Everyone Else,

Foxy seems unable to demonstrate a connection between religion and/or discrimination on the one hand and inequality, injustice, homosexuality and racism on the other.

Is anyone else here interested in trying to give it a go?

Yuyutsu,

I've already given it a go.

Go back and read my posts.

I can't be held responsible for your inability to
see the connection.

Arguing with you does not interest me.

Dear Foxy,

Nobody is holding you responsible,
not everyone is designed to be a teacher,
not everyone has the patience,
not with a thick-headed student like myself,
so since you cannot help me, perhaps someone else can.

Kudos Josephus.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Foxy proposed this debate on “The Forum” as follows :

« The Australian Law Commission has worked on a major report that has just been released about anti-discrimination laws and religious schools in Australia … »
.

And you replied :

« In answer to your questions …

“Should religious schools have the right to discriminate?
Should they still get public government funding if they do?
Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?
Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?” »

… you replied to every one of these 4 questions, Yuyutsu.

You now ask :

« [Please] demonstrate a connection between religion and/or discrimination on the one hand and inequality, injustice, homosexuality and racism on the other »
.

The report explains :

« On 4 November 2022, the Attorney General asked the ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission) to consider reforms to Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws (including s38 of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act).

According to the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry, the purpose of the reforms is to ensure, to the extent practicable, that Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws reflect the Australian Government’s commitment in respect of religious educational institutions and anti-discrimination laws in a manner consistent with the rights and freedoms recognised in the international agreements to which Australia is a party, including the ICCPR.

As stated in the Terms of Reference, the Australian Government’s commitment is that an educational institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed:

• must not discriminate against a student on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy;

• must not discriminate against a member of staff on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy; and

• can continue to build a community of faith by giving preference, in good faith, to persons of the same religion as the educational institution in the selection of staff »

Here is the report :

http://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ALRC-ADL-Final-Report-142.pdf

I hope this helps, Yuyutsu.

All the best.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you very much for the trouble you have taken to help me!

Now I see, I was asking for a connection between the original questions and the issues Foxy added later, now I understand that this connection is through a mental link or association which Foxy makes between them because they are mentioned in the same paper of some government department, which she must be taking very seriously.

«… you replied to every one of these 4 questions, Yuyutsu.»

Well, I looked and continue to look at the questions as they stand, not through the eyes of an enemy and the brainwashing propaganda they wish to inflict on us.

Religion is very much connected with discrimination, but it is not a discrimination against anyone, but a discrimination between good and evil and between truth and untruth.

Accepting tax-payer's money, and the secular dictates which naturally come with it, is not an example of religious behaviour. Such schools that accept such tainted money may call themselves "religious", but are they?

We are not discussing race or injustice, Marxists cannot see the difference between held opinions with exclusivity and race and justice. Communist mantra is all must abide by the same opinions otherwise it causes conflict. That is why Uyghurs in Communist countries are discriminated against, because of their exclusive beliefs.

It is also coming to the point where science is denied and we must accept rainbow beliefs in our churches ans schools otherwise we are discriminating unjustly, this is a Marxist ideology, in and attempt to destroy the rights of parents to chose a child's upbringing and family values. That is why the rise of children raised in two mum's or two dad's homes are now seeking their biological missing parent. Because their true identity is missing.

This country of ours has always had a tendency to
move to the centre politically. The mandatory
requirement to vote and the active political
discussion and involvement has a lot to do with
this. Right-wing groups are as marginal as left-wing
groups.

Difficult economic times as well as controversial
and emotive issues - stimulate
both groups, but they never gain any real ground and
they tend to collapse over time. The victories are
marginal and short lived. The communist party has
disappeared into history in this country and Pauline
Hanson will also disappear again soon.

The ALRC report and its recommendations are as follows:

http://alrc.gov.au/news/adl-final-report-tabled/

Religions based in scientific facts are discriminated against, only a man and a woman can produce offspring in their image. Gender is set at conception by the chromosomes and all other relationships violates divine design and destroys the real person who pretends to be something else.

Foxy believes all these dysfunctional genders must not be discriminated or condemned by the Christian Church, Muslims Imams and Orthodox Rabbi Jews. It is these leaders who are in her mind promoting injustice and discrimination. Because Religion is based in belief, so is political parties. The dominant one being Marxism, whom she believes will control all minds, so as to destroy family values and religious faiths.

Try all the One Nation candidates joining the Greens Party in an attempt to change the values of the Party. Would they be discriminated against, because they hold a different belief system? They would be considered Branch stacking.

Dear Josephus,

«we must accept rainbow beliefs in our churches ans schools otherwise we are discriminating unjustly,»

It is not unjustly that if one accepts payments from the devil, then they must abide by the devil's conditions in return.

Schools that accept government money become essentially government schools, with only the slight variation that parents add a bit of extra money to allow their children to also learn their particular culture under the same roof.

Churches and schools that accept government money are in essence cultural institutions, not religious institutions.

«in and attempt to destroy the rights of parents to chose a child's upbringing and family values.»

An attempt which parents cooperate with?
They don't have a gun pointed at them, it's only a financial temptation, so who is then to blame?

«That is why the rise of children raised in two mum's or two dad's homes are now seeking their biological missing parent.»

The preference for traditional families over homosexuality, for example, is a cultural feature, not a religious one.

Every culture should be able to pass down its values to its children, but by accepting government funds, they forfeit their freedom.

«Because their true identity is missing.»

What?!?

Are you trying to say that our true identity is sexual?
Just cut off one's genitals, inject hormones, change their minds and suddenly they are someone else?

How ridiculous!

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with our identity.

Sexual orientation is something we have, something we HAVE, something we <underline>HAVE</underline>, not something we are!

The Australian Law Reform Commission provides the government
with reports outlining recommendations for law reform that
contribute to the government's objective of achieving an
equitable and accessible system of federal justice and the
harmonisation of Australian laws and practices.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has welcomed the tabling
of the recent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission on
Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discriminatio0n Laws.

The ALRC's recommendations would ensure that students and
teachers are protected from discrimination on the basis of
their sexuality, gender identity, or marital or relationship
status regardless of which school or educational institution
they attend.

The report also recognizes the right to freedom of religion and
that religious schools should be able to preference the
employment of people who share the same religion, where this is
reasonably necessary and proportionate to the aim of building
or maintaining a community of faith.

The Human Rights Commission urges federal government to introduce
legislation that is consistent with the recommendations in the
ALRC report. This is in keeping with international human rights
law.

Dear Foxy,

Earlier you asked us seemingly innocent "Should" questions -
"Should religious school have the right to discriminate?
Should they still get public government funding if they do?
Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?
Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?"

To which I responded, according to what is good, right and proper.

But now, by repeating that story of the ALRC and internal government intrigues, you dropped your gloves and effectively admit that how things should be does not really interest you, that what matters for you instead, are the objectives of your government:

«The Australian Law Reform Commission provides the government
with reports outlining recommendations for law reform that
contribute to the government's objective of...»

Enough said, you want to make the politician predators happy - I don't.

Surely we can all agree
To support fairness, justice, and equality
And stop the personal attacks
To give minorities what they lack

The government is trying to do its best
To finally put prejudices to rest
It's relying on the majority to do what's right
The government on this does not want a fight

The law is clear and we need to see
That this is what simply needs to be
In a democracy we must all abide
By the law in order to do what's right.

I've been reading and laughing when I see Foxy refer to the "independent" Australian Law Reform Commission. These things are never independent and are frequently stacked. All current commissioners are Labor appointments. Three come from Victoria and one from South Australia. I know nothing about three of the commissioners, but the commissioner with most say is the President, who is justice Mordecai Bromberg, who as a judge seems to make a habit of being overturned by appellate courts over his ideologically motivated judgments. This is the Fin Review's coverage of his appointment http://www.afr.com/politics/federal/controversial-judge-to-head-law-reform-commission-20230620-p5dhy9.

If it were an independent body there is no way you would appoint as president an ideologue and former ALP candidate for election.

On the discrimination front, discrimination is lawful, it's just some discriminations that aren't. The word just means to make a clear distinction, and we all do that multiple times every day. The law makes that process illegal in certain areas involving immutable characteristics, and given the prevalence of discrimination as a necessity of life those areas ought to be strictly limited.

It would be just as absurd to require a religious organisation to hire someone who didn't support their religion as it would be to require a political party to do the same with respect to political belief.

I note some suggestion there is no right to religious freedom. In fact clause 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Yuyutsu,

For your information:

The rule of law, defended by an independent judiciary plays
a crucial function by ensuring that civil and political
rights and civil liberties are safe and that the equality
and dignity of all citizens are not at risk.

The rule of law also helps protect the effective performance
of the various agencies of electoral, societal and horizontal
accountability from potential obstructions,
and intimidation by powerful state actors.

The Australian Law Reform Commission's
recommendations to government help to simplify the
law, promote new or better ways to administer the law and
improve access to justice. Of course it's recommendations
have to be passed into legislation by parliament. That is
why the PM is waiting for bipartisan support before
proceeding.

As for Justice Mordecai Bromberg?

He has been appointed President of the ALRC for a five year
term from 10 July 2023. His appointment follows a merit-based
process. The Hon. Justice Mark Moshinsky is the acting
President of the ALRC - as a part-time Commissioner.

Justice Bromberg has significant experience in the
leadership of legal research and expertise across a broad range
of practice areas, including industrial law, personal injuries,
commercial law, product liability, constitutional law,
administrative law, and trade practices.

He's been a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. He was the
founding president of the Australian Institute of Employment
Rights and now chairs the Advisory Board of the Centre for
Employment and Labour Relations Law at the University of
Melbourne.

The ALRC plays an important role in ensuring our laws
continue to work in the best interest of the Australian people
and it has some of the sharpest legal minds in the country.

cont'd ...

There's more at the following:

http://alrc.gov.au/about/

And -

http://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/node/40739

Foxy, Some of the sharpest Legal minds are found in the CCP.

Josephus,

How do you know?

Dear Foxy,

«For your information:»

This is not for my information, this is in attempt to scare me.

However, instead of scaring me, this rubbish, this cheap government propaganda, only gives me indigestion and makes me want to vomit.

«The rule of law... plays
a crucial function by ensuring that civil and political
rights and civil liberties are safe and that the equality
and dignity of all citizens are not at risk.»

I don't care for civil and political rights.
Had it not been for your government and its hounds disturbing our peace, I would have my liberty and dignity anyway.
And as for 'equality' I have no need to compare myself with others: I live my life and they live theirs.

«The rule of law also helps protect the effective performance
of the various agencies of electoral, societal and horizontal
accountability from potential obstructions,
and intimidation by powerful state actors.»

I don't care for any of those invented functions - I spit on your rule of law.

«In a democracy we must all abide
By the law in order to do what's right.»

Trying to scare me again?

To begin with, there is no democracy, never was,
but even if there was, why should I care where it was not by my free choice to have any?
No, there is no need for anyone to abide by the laws of evil governments, yours included.
Most people have been doing what is right anyway and naturally out of the goodness of their hearts, but now instead, some good people are forced to do things that are wrong and against their conscience for fear of the police and finding themselves at the painful end of your law's stick.

People who thus habitually instil fear in others have a name: "Terrorists"!

And you seem to support them.

Shame!

Yuyutsu,

Shame indeed!

I am not responsible for how you feel or react.

Please do not address any more posts to me.

I'm out.

I tried to post a UTube clip of what is behind the agenda of gender ideology and it would not post. Our freedoms are already blocked.

Josephus,

You need to chill out because you are going too far.
Could you lay off a little bit. Not to be rude but you
are being a bit too weird for me.

Josephus,

You really are scaping the bottom of the barrel
with your news sources.

Rebel News is a biased source of hate-group propaganda.
One of its prominent contributors is the founder of the
White Supremacist Proud Boys

So you are out only when convenient, Foxy?

---

Dear Josephus,

Foxy has been adding new and unrelated topics to this discussion in order to obscure the original issue she originally claimed to raise on March 24th:

Please don't overload this discussion yourself with gender ideology as well, because that is a social issue which has nothing to do with religious freedom. Thank you.

Yuyutsu,

No. I am not out because it is convenient for me.
I'm out as far as you are concerned.

As I stated earlier I am not responsible
for how you feel or react. I'm only responsible for
what I do and my intentions. Your interpretations are
your own and frankly none of my business.

I'm going to step away and come back when I have the
time and will to argue. For now you've crossed the
line . You have gone too far. And for me your behaviour
is a bit too weird.

Yuyutsu, Gender ideology is part of the issue that Christian Churches and religious schools face. Obviously foxy dismisses sources and is incapable of facing logical arguments. She probably did not watch the clip because of her opinion of Rebel news. Her mind is closed to debate.

Dear Josephus,

«Gender ideology is part of the issue that Christian Churches and religious schools face.»

Yes, and not just them, but these are cultural issues, not religious ones, whereas the topic here is about religious freedom.

To the best of my knowledge, no Australian Catholic/Christian school ever wished, suggested or has any reason to expel students or teachers due to their sexual orientation. Indeed why would they?

In the hypothetical and academic discussion that ensued, I supported their right to do so if they wished, although that would be a completely unrealistic scenario and out of character.

Of course, gay ideologists/activists are a different category altogether because they disrupt the peaceful learning environment, that even if they are heterosexual themselves in their personal lives. I can well understand why they are unwanted in schools.

I have mentioned before in this forum that I have both homosexual and transgender members in my extended family: none of them was ever gay, none of them ever participated in gay demonstrations or parades - they have no interest whatsoever in that rubbish. The homosexual member has a very respected job and raises two beautiful boys with his male partner, both the biological sons of the same lesbian mother who continues to see them with her partner - his children in effect enjoy having two fathers and two mothers!

Yuyutsu, I have nothing personal against any person's choices, however I do not consider they belong in the Church or in religious education of children. Their lifestyles are not new, they have been around for millennia, and the Christian Church emerged during the Roman period from such practices.

If you note Foxy's believes no one else is allowed an opinion other than hers, by her outright rejection of my sources.

Jose'

Would you be happy to see Catholic clergy return on mass to Catholic schools? These religious have extremely bad reputations, do they not. Agree?

Dear Josephus,

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinions, this is OLO after all!

And I must say that I like some of them very much.

«Their lifestyles are not new, they have been around for millennia»

There is no such thing as "homosexual lifestyle": if you saw my relative you could not have guessed that at home his intimate partner happens to be a male. He does not trumpet it around like the gays, I only know about it because he comes with his partner to family gatherings.

«I do not consider they belong in the Church or in religious education of children.»

But why?

I understand that some Christian conservatives believe that homosexuality is a sin, but then who is religion for? for the saints and angels? not for sinners like you and me? Did Jesus also reject sinners?

Of course, if someone goes around the schoolyard and continuously preaches that stealing is good and everyone should do it, then they do not belong there.

No, this is not a religious issue, but a cultural one, regarding a certain culture that was historically formed around some Christian Churches, possibly as you say, in opposition to Roman culture.

Not to speak of religion even, when people wish to preserve their culture (and assuming they are not in receipt of public funds), then I will fight, with tooth and nail, for their freedom to do so, including against any law that tries to stop them.

This is granted, but is preserving one's culture even more important than delivering God's good news?

---

Dear Paul,

«These religious have extremely bad reputations, do they not. Agree?»

I don't.

While I agree that Catholic clergy has a bad reputation today, I do not agree that the paedophiles among them were religious.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"While I agree that Catholic clergy has a bad reputation today, I do not agree that the paedophiles among them were religious."

You can say that, they considered themselves religious, and that's all that matters. BTW, paedophilia is live and well among the Catholic clergy in Australia, its gone off shore, with priests and brothers now making regular visits over seas to third world countries like the Philippines, where control is limited, and children are plentiful.

From NY Post; "But, the young man later told The Associated Press, those days were happy only for the priest. They were years of misery for him, he said and for the other boys who investigators say were sexually assaulted by Father Pius Hendricks." One of many foreign clergy still abusing children in third world countries with impunity! Out of sight, out of mind.

Dear Paul,

«they considered themselves religious, and that's all that matters.»

To you, that's all that matters to you.
To most others it is clear that paedophile priests followed neither God nor Jesus Christ.
Had they really considered themselves religious? I wouldn't be sure of that even!

So how would you feel if some member of the Greens serially raped and then strangled old ladies, then declared, "I am a Green, I did it for the Earth"?
Did they actually do it for the Earth?
Did they even believed in their heart that they did it for the Earth?

Hi Yuyutsu,

I wouldn't want to be a member of any organisation, political, social or religious where 30% of the hierarchy were/are paedophiles. Would you? Yet 1.3 billion people belong to such an organisation. BTW the organisation itself admits that 15% of its hierarchy were just that.

Dear Paul,

«I wouldn't want to be a member of any organisation, political, social or religious where 30% of the hierarchy were/are paedophiles.»

Nor is anyone asking you to.

«Would you?»

I would take that factor into account, then weigh carefully the pros against that con.

Mind you, there is one other and bigger con that would stop me from becoming a member of the Catholic Church: that they accept financial benefits from the state!

«Yet 1.3 billion people belong to such an organisation.»

I am pretty sure that they do not belong there BECAUSE 30% of the hierarchy were/are paedophiles, but DESPITE it. They too have every right to weigh the pros and the cons for themselves.

«BTW the organisation itself admits that 15% of its hierarchy were just that.»

That depends what you include in its "hierarchy".
If you only count the priesthood than you may be correct.

Today the Catholic Church suffers a severe shortage of priests, and so most of its functions are performed by lay-people. The Catholic priests and hierarchy are already becoming less and less relevant for Catholics.