Actually freediver, I don't think you need to define human life at all. I'd prefer you to define "sanctity" and not make it religious.

Angela, there certainly is freedom of religion in Australia
and it would be great if there was freedom from religion too.
We are not there yet, but we are working on it :)

I havent checked all the Koranic verses that you quoted,
but clearly there would be some conflicts between our
human rights and what some of the old time religions
believed. Australians would be protected by our human
rights and laws, but that does not mean that the religious
can't believe whatever they want, in their own time and how
it affects them. They might just not be able to enforce
their religious laws on the rest of us.

Somewhere in the old testament it says that I should kill
my neighbour for working on the Sabbath. I actually quite
like my neighbour and have no intention of following that
law. Similarly, old Mohammed had moments where he suggested
to kill the infidels. Clearly that would not be acceptable
under Australian law, just as killing my neighbour is not
acceptable.

So yes, freedom of religion applies in Australia in terms
of what you believe. But that is for you, you cannot afflict
your beliefs on the rest of us

Amen to all that, Yabby, Bugsy et al.

I'm also interested in this notion of 'sanctity'. Is this the same freediver who makes a sport out of killing other species?

Seems more like sanctimony than sanctity to me.

There's a fundamental hypocrisy amongst the various comments here. You talk about the right to hold what you call 'religious beliefs' as long as they do not impinge upon the lives of others. Firstly I must dispute the definition of 'religion' as being restricted to belief in a deity, websters dictionary says, "any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system humanism as a religion"... Religion includes a system of beliefs and ethics, such as non-belief in a deity (atheism / humanism) and that there is no independant existence of the physical body and soul and the associated beliefs this entails, i.e. no absolute right or wrong, doing whatever makes you happy is OK as long as it does not effect others (which is in itself a furphy because everyhting we do affects others)...In this way, the definition of wrong or right is more a reflection of the overriding cultural and social dynamics in place at a point in time and are constantly in a state of flux...

As a christian, the religion of 'humanism', does indeed impinge upon my life, it tells me that each individual life is not worthy of protection from the moment of conception and that the right of the one bearing that life is of greater importance, it tells me that my belief in the definition of marriage and the structure of family that this entails is too narrow and that I need to be accepting of any relationship as being worthy of being called a marriage, as long as the two individuals purport to love one another and that I should teach these same principles to my children, you try to tell me that not doing so is intolerant yet you by your own definition are as equally intolerant of my position and try to force your humanism upon me and my family, through youur comments here and the media...

You espouse freedom, but only as long as the result of that freedom brings about consequences you agree with, I'm sorry but that is twisted logic..

JF, a few points. Firstly humanism is not a religion. There are
Xtians who claim to be humanists, there are agnostics, atheists,
all sorts.

Secondly, yup I believe in freedom, but its not compulsory. You are
free to follow your religious beliefs much as you please, just not free to
inflict them on me. Under our system you are even free to brainwash
your kiddies into accepting your religious beliefs, as so many
do. Luckily most of those poor kids will eventually turn 18, be able
to leave home and be exposed to other thoughts, opinions and philosophies.

As to morality, you claim there is such a thing as objective morality
and that it happens to be your interpretation of your particular
version of your particular holy book. There have been many religions,
many interpretations, many so called holy books. None has given
us subtantied evidence to prove that they are in fact in touch
with the Almighty.

Personally I believe that morality is actually grounded in biology,
but thats another story.

So I'm quite tolerant of your right to believe whatever you want,
but intolerant of any attempts to force those beliefs onto people
like me, based on laws of the land. As to your kids, AFAIK you
can teach them whatever you want, until they can escape at 18.

jERICHOFORCE, very little twisted logic. Freedom of religion like all other freedoms has boundaries around it. You have the right not to have an abortion, JW's have the right not to take blood transfusions(but should not have the right to incite children to follow that belief). You have the right not to conduct stem cell research.

Those strongly opposed to your faith don't have the right to burn down your church no matter how strongly they feel about the wrongness of the message preached there. The law limits the freedoms of those opposed to particular religions.

In regard to the issue Angela raised I suspect that the issue is not about the right to read particular verses but rather the right to present them in a manner that incites others to act on them.

As others have pointed out the bible contains verses suggesting the killing of people which I would hope the law would involve itself in if someone was preaching from those verses and inciting others to follow them. I would suggest that the same should apply to the Quran.

R0bert