RMIT MULTI FAITH RELIGIOUS CENTRE.

There is quite a struggle going on at present between the RMIT management and one element of the student body.

The Management have been establishing a 'MULTI' faith facility which will be open to all traditions and denominations and faiths.. but it appears there is one group who are opposed to the open, non discriminatory, tolerant nature of this facility and demand that it be for their group alone.

Monash seems to have the right idea
http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/community-services/chaplaincy/clayton/religious-centre/

The Religious Centre is a multi-faith centre that symbolises the centrality of the spiritual dimension to university life. In an effort to encompass all religious affiliations and denominations, while maintaining an arena conducive to the liturgy of the main traditions practised at the Centre, the architect chose a circular design free of overtly religious imagery. In the Main Chapel, for instance, there are no Christian statues and symbols, except for a large removable cross. The stained glass windows evoke a church atmosphere, but are abstract in design and without religious embellishment.

Sounds good to me.... who could find fault with this?

Who's the one group BD?
Dont like even the original concept from the 60's.
Its a soup of everything and too many cooks spoil the broth.
Im narrow (loving its protection) and say born again christians shouldnt mix it with others... not full-time.
Its like my pastor.
Goes to a foreign country, preaches Jesus to the people, then gets out.
Doesnt pick up other ways.
Keeps the Christ in him pure and untainted by other false beliefs.
Like preaching at Kings Cross, Sydney.
Get in, preach to the girls, get out.
Dont go to their rooms.

interesting concept ,multifaith implies a comming together [beyond any particular prophet [messenger] to join as one for god

Yet i note the pictures have a cross behind the alter, when jesus isnt god ,despite what some would believe he didnt die for us either, he died [and reserected for his people , who believe we die and sleep till some reserection day [wrongly]

Jesus died and was 'born again' as we all are [into heaven [or hell] according as the deeds we do [love to do] acording to our fruits

That being said the concept of the one unifying god [and all of us joining as one for god is a great concept] ,but im not sure about the use of the benches ,or where is the alter facing [would islamists [mohanidians [peace be upon them] have prayer rugs facing meckka ,would they be bowing towards the cross of crucifiction?[or worse have other bits facing the alter when they bow to god.

It seems the link is more an advert [indicating it has little use] it seems to have been built in 68?] yet no photo's are shown of it being used by different religions.

Is there a calling to prayer call box, is there dedication prayers [i didnt notice the windows but seenm to recall images in them,[not sure the children of mahamoud would feel comfortable there

It also seems very grey in one picture.
but enough

It is easy to critisize , the concept of one faith cant work[god sent many messengers for good reason ,[we tend to fixate on the messengfer and the ritual , thus seem to constantly be missing the living god, jesus didnt need churches [or perhaps more the early christians didnt]

but still its fine to finally have a topic i feel i want to respond to, you are a good man boaz david ,

you know the good voice of the life giver [god] the living loving logus ,logic , life and light

so may gods peace be upon you

GIBO.. do a google on 'RMIT prayer centre'.. you might like to add 'green left' to that search and see what crops up.

The point I'm seeking to advance here.. is that public educational facilities are rather duty bound to emphasize non sectarianism in the way they allocate facilities.

I think it would be quite improper for a University to fund (or even to allow on it's land) a facility which was for the exclusive use of say Protestants or Catholics or Buddhists.

The wiser and fair approach to facilitating a place of spiritual reflection is just to do what Monash did (pending further information) and what RMIT has now decided.. that the one facility provided for spiritual focus be open to all and any.

Unfortunately, it appears that one group gained the impression that this was being built specifically 'for them and them alone'.. and now that the RMIT management has suddenly realized this would produce an outcry that they are being sectarian, intolerant and discriminatory, they have firmed up the 'purpose' of the building as 'general use' spiritual centre.

Christians don't need anything other than a roof over our heads, just a place to gather is all we need.. a bit of shelter.
I don't see why any special provision should be made other than that..for any group.

OUG.. the thing is, any group, no matter which faith, can use these facilities.

If they want to use a prayer rug and stand on their heads while praying it matters not.. all they have to do is book it for a certain time and all is well.

It is totally unnaceptable for any group to try to monopolise facilities for their sect only at Government/Tax payer funded educational institutions. Which is what one group is seeking to do.

I don't agree with your theology about the Lord Jesus :) but that's for another topic.
-blessings

Oh dear, and so is goes on again.....

Boazy, don't follow this link

http://www.monash.edu/international/studentservices/salaam.pdf

It may be disturbing to you. What you especially shouldn't read is page 5.

Apparently the Monash "Religious Centre" has a dedicated room for this certain element, oh dear. In fact, most universities have them. I find it interesting that you think you know what is proper for universities, do you work in one?
Is this what has been promised to RMIT students? After a bit of reading it appears not. In fact, it seems they will be losing their dedicated facilities. And you wonder why they seem a bit upset.

Why don't you go down to their next meeting and and tell them all they need is a bit of space and a bathroom, just like your group, and after morning prayers, you can cook them all some bacon and eggs, free for the whole month of September this year.

Bugsy.. I already read that bit on page 5.

I'm surprised you seem to be supporting discrimination and intolerance and also the unconstitutional nature of the State 'making laws' (if you accept the judgement of the US supreme court about this kind of thing..which I don't)

The argument goes "The weight, power and prestige of the State is added to 'prayers' at graduations...thus the impression is of a State sanctioned activity, thus unconstitutional"

But I don't have to 'know' what is appropriate for Universities, I just have to know what is discrimination and sectarianism. I also have only to know that my and your tax dollars have no business supporting sectarian religious interests at PUBLIC educational facilities.

This is especially dangerous and in reality illegal (discrimination on the basis of religious orientation) if people are denied access to a public building on such a basis.

I think the only thing this kind of scenario is awaiting is a test case such as a complaint to the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY commission.

Denial of opportunity to public facilities based on religious orientation is illegal.. plain and simple.

So, any facility on a public education institution which did so would be unlawful.

A university has no lawful business promising exclusive sectarian facilties to ANY religion.. be it Catholic protestant or other.

The Monash spiritual centre is used by ALL Church traditions which desire it. Good for them..good for all. After all..this is Australia.

Just another Boazy troll.

Amusing, though that he's calling for the removal of all those lovely Christian chapels at every university in the land.

To anybody with a brain: let's just let the idiots have a circle jerk on this one, without encouraging them?

Just one more CJ....

What I don't find surprising at all, is that Boazy doesn't understand the nature of universities or the student bodies that inhabit them. That Muslim students are mostly international students, that pay full fees (quite substantial ones in many cases), and are not supported by the state. That the universities most often want to have prayer facilities and accommodate the needs of these students to make it more attractive or them to come here, and that then we can can export our knowledge and education and who knows, maybe some friendship and values.

One last question, do you think that the Australian Catholic University accepts public money? Should they?

Gibo, you've said something I agree with, that is you're narrow. (Do you mean narrow minded?)

I thank God there were Born Again Christians that were willing to mix with me before I was converted. I would have never have come to know Jesus if they had have rejected me.

Gibo, leading people to Christ is not a simple proceedure, sometimes it takes quite a few months or even years. My former church (Former church, because I moved), witnessed to prostitutes that worked the Great Western Highway between Blacktown and Penrith. The Church would take tea and coffee and sandwiches and cakes to the girls, rather than preaching God's love, they showed it.

My best freinds Gibo, are generally not Christians, but nevertheless are very good people. They will come to Christ eventually through my actions more than through my words.

I now live on my own, but in the past due to financial necessity I've had to share houses with people, out of a total of 19 housemates the 3 worse were the three Christians. One was another single male who wanted to control my life, and the other two were a husband and wife couple. The husband was a complete religious nutter (and a hypocrite) and his wife an interferring busybody who meddled into my personal affairs and was a non stop talker during my favourite TV programs. The 16 non Christians I lived with never meddled with my personal life.

Jesus Christ was often critisised by the Pharisees for eating and drinking with the Gentiles (Non Jews) in his day. I find your attitude Gibo, is very much like that of the Pharisees.

I am a Progressive Christian, that is I take my faith seriously but I am not antagonistic to other religions (even those whose beliefs I oppose), nor am I antagonistic to the Gay and Lesbian community.

It seems to me that the entire story is not being told here. And that's not morally fair.

I googled, "RMIT Multi-Faith Centre," and one of the following items came up under the title - "On the RMIT Prayer Room Issue" :

http://austrolabe.com/2008/05/18/on-the-rmit-prayer-room-issue/

dated - 18th May 2008, and I quote:

"For decades, the RMIT campus had prayer rooms for Muslmi students, including separate rooms for males and females. In 2005 Muslim students pointed out that the existing rooms were two small and unsafe to use. In 2006/07, RMIT APPROVED a new proposal to design and build a replacement Muslim Prayer Room.

On March 18 word broke out that RMIT HAD BROKEN its promise to build a bigger Muslim prayer room and instead decided to make it a multi-faith spiritual centre.

It was only at the first Student Services Religious Advisory Committee meeting that students heard of this intention. Ironically, advertising brochures for international students are still being published at RMIT promoting the new "Muslim Prayer Room." (end of quote).

This is not a case of a certain group of students asking for special privileges. This is a case of a University reneging on its promise to
the growing number of students from the Muslim world (that the university is actively trying to attract).

Other universities, have not converted their prayer rooms into unisex multi-faith prayer halls.

If a university makes a promise - it should keep it.

But then RMIT has a lot to answer for - the last lot of students that they reneged on were ones with disabilities. They won their case.
Let's hope in all fairness that the Muslim students will also win theirs. A university should be held accountable for the promises it makes to students that it accepts. They can't promise and then not deliver.

Is not the tax-free status for non-charitable work of the Churches, a form support against the tenet of the Constitution. Sanitarium foods doesn't pay tax, and therefore has a commercial advantage over Kelloggs.

Worrying about, say, a chapel in a hospital or airport is moving "the deck chairs on the Titanic". Herein why should secularists pay more tax, while, say the Catholic brothers at St Mary's Cathedral are afforded tax free accommodation. Inceditably , I am told, there is a room generally left vacant for the Pope's exclusive use.

Why should the Catholic church buy expensive jewellery for its Bishops, before paying taxes, which can used to help the poor or relieve the general tax burden. Why should a pastor or minister's spouse have access to a tax-free car to go the shopping for his/her family?

Except of charitable work, Churches should be treated as if mercantile entities.

Oliver,

A few facts about the "tax free" status of religious institutions.
Last financial year my church received an "income" of about $150,000. Of this income, all but a few dollars of it was received of offerings from the members, and the remaining few dollars came from a small amount of bank interest received. The church has expenses that it must make, besides the Pastor's salary there is maintenance of facilities and money is spent on both local and overseas work. From the Church's Income and Expenditure statement more money was put into the community than taken from it. If the church is compared to a company, the offerings received from the members would be classed as injections of capital from the members and therefore is not considered income. The church does not make a profit, otherwise church members would be receiving dividends like the shareholders of companies. Church members, unlike company shareholders contribute to the running of the church and do not financially benefit.

As for church pastor's wives using the church vehicle tax free - I can tell you that as a loans officer this benefit is not only available for churches but available to all employees of non profit organisations such as charities and hospitals. Employees of these organisations usually receive a small taxable salary to live on and house payments and car allowances are made available as part of a salary package. Many people may not agree with this, but this arrangement is not restricted to religious organisations.

Yay CJ and Bugsy. Good for you. A toast to you, in fact. Well done.

Steel Mann,

Good reply. Thank you.

Just the same, it is not unusual for secular businesses or individuals to be under financial pressure. Presumably, high oil price hurts the taxi industry and water restrictions; war washers.

Your church's income is modest. What about Christian charity between churches & parishers. Why don't rich share their branches bounty with the less forrtunate. Holistically, the Catholic and Postestant churches are not poor. They have huge wealth.

Herein, I have seen on a TV documentary that the City of Rome, for some reason, offers the Vatican one million US dollars each year, which the Vatican, presumably for diplomatic reasons, always turns Rome down.

If you work in the financial sector, you would be aware that [still?] Been out of it for a while] Charge Card Services operates on behalf of Banks, not a Bank,i.e,sharing this collective resource. Some unis and TAFEs, take this approach too, e.g, libraries.

Christian churches could share resources or outsource mass/service to under mutiplex structures*, sell their property to help the needy.

*Separate times and/or theatres.

Mathew 19:

19.21: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I would suspect the employee, General Manager/Secretary whom heads Apex or Lions, would pay tax on their personal income. The Queen does, despite her charity work. Moreover, a car provided, would be under salary-sacrafice deal. The NPOs are separate.

If the NPOs are engaged in private activities, as, say, income for the Scouts on holiday, then tax them too,but selectively.

Luke 20:

20:23 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

20:24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

20:25"Caesar's," they replied.He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Would not the money spent on expensive rings, for the laity to kiss, be better spent on helping street children?

Citations: Bible KIV

All,including Boaz & Sells,

Christans, do I cite a reliable speaker?

Kind regards.

Fascinating snapshot of the finances of a church, Steel Mann, many thanks.

Without wanting to be too nitpicking, I don't think this would fly:

>>If the church is compared to a company, the offerings received from the members would be classed as injections of capital from the members and therefore is not considered income.<<

A company would most certainly not be permitted to label such monies "capital", Steel Mann. There are some fairly strict rules that the taxman applies, and I wouldn't imagine that the church would be in a position to treat the individuals concerned as shareholders.

There really isn't a convincing argument for churches to enjoy tax-free status.

Certainly, there is every reason for charities to be exempt, so long as they fulfil the criteria. But is does seem a little odd, from an atheists perspective, that we provide the wages of a wide variety of religionists through our taxes.

I don't mind supporting, say, famine relief in Africa. But subsidising someone's belief in a deity is a little off.

Apart from anything else, there is no agreement between the religions as to which one is "right".

So the odds are extremely high that my money is being spent on something either illusory or erroneous.

I see the problem BD.
Its difficult when there are so many erosion attempts by Islam and Australians seem ill-equiped to deal with them.
My heart says dont give Islam an inch anywhere.
They would own us if they could.
There is a civil war coming with Islam on Australian soil, I believe it, and as much as I hate to see it, may The Lord permit it earlier than later, under His Controls just so we can get it over with and save democracy.
Islam needs to be bound and gagged in Australia, so we dont eventually suffer under its persecution.
Hope thats not too radical?
Oz for oz and for Jesus Christ and His governing.
There were no christians committing evil acts on September, 11 2001 as far as the records show.

"..the architect chose a circular design free of overtly religious imagery. In the Main Chapel, for instance, there are no Christian statues and symbols, except for a large removable cross. The stained glass windows evoke a church atmosphere, but are abstract in design and without religious embellishment.

Sounds good to me.... who could find fault with this?"

I for one BD and I know I'd have a lot of company if people knew about it. At a time when educational provision is being increasingly compromised due to the severe under funding of our public universities, why on earth is money being wasted building religious facilities?

Quite apart from their inappropriateness within secular institutions, will they be the places of peace and unity their creators envisioned? Obviously not, if this sad little altercation is typical. And judging by the amount of bickering we all witness constantly between the different belief systems, it most probably will be. Far from being places of unification, they'll do nothing but breed further disagreement and division.

"I also have only to know that my and your tax dollars have no business supporting sectarian religious interests at PUBLIC educational facilities."

Let me make this very clear to you BD, our tax dollars should NOT be supporting ANY religious interests at ANY public educational facilities. Whether or not they are multifaith or denominational is irrelevant. If religious groups at tertiary institutions think they need to meet somewhere, they can meet in the common room as any other group would do.

The fact these groups can even think of demanding that public money provide them with places of worship shows just how much the line between church and state has blurred during the Howard years. It needs to be demarcated once again, strongly and clearly. But unfortunately I don't think sleeve-wearing Christian, Rudd, will be the one to do it.

Gibo,

On another thread I cited the distruction of of the Alexandrian Serapeum by Cristians, acting in a very Taliban manner, under Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (389 CE). Perhaps, we, likewise have some extreme Islamic elements too.

Herein,while the Temple was being routed, many a Christian would have been at home, at work and or going about their business. Likewise, I sure, that most Muslims will do the same, if let be.

That is not to say, there will not be some fundamentalists. But that is what intelligence agencies are for, to protect us.

Stoking the fires using the differences between two monthesist religions is to be avoided, lest it unnecessarily creates friction, producing self-created, self-fulling results.

The Muslim's Moorish Spain/Cordova was far advanced to the Christian Western until c. 1100. Moreover, they accepted other religions, unlike the people at Camden.

http://www.xmission.com/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

Actually Bronwyn, it appears that is exactly what BD is also saying. I disagree with both of you. It appears to me that the universities (the secular ones at least) have been fac ed with the choice of accomodating either no religion on campus or all religions on campus and have infact decided in the spirit of inclusion to go for the latter.

Hey, gay students, rock climbers and chocoholics often have fellowships/clubs/societies on campus, I don't see a problem with religious fellowships/societies either. They are all lifestyle choices after all and universities generally have an ethos of tolerance.

Indeed Bugsy...

Actually at RMIT there is a separate Queer ZONE.. different from the Spiritual centre. But it's just a room which is used by them at certain times.

Bronwyn.. personally I don't really have a dispute with you about what you said.. The issue for me is equitible treatment for all not "lets have a denomination x special facility".

Me saying "Who can find fault with this" was only in respect of "if" they are going to have a facility for reflection and spiritual expression, that it should be open to all, not just one.

If you wish to campaign for better ways of spending education dollars..I really don't have any argument with that.

For me, as a Christian, we simply don't need ANYthing other than a bit of space.. the Church IS the people.. not the building. So.. a class room, a library, a garage.. a humpy.. no biggy :) we are cool. (as long as not cold)

I sure hope you understand this, because it seems a lot of peole want to project a 'But you want YOUR thingy' deal on us.

The biggest danger in this is not so much from the Muslims but the LEFTOIDS who got 'realllll emotional realllly quick' when I refused to sign their petition. I mean..they were shaking :) trembling with anger and rage... They are not the slightest bit interested in dialogue.. unlike the member of that faith I had already chatted with.. they were determined ideolog's of a most bigoted variety.

The Crazy thing is, I've just finished talking with someone who's religion allows them to just kill or sell as a slave any atheist (in their own lands) and these lefty marxist spoonbills are naively helping them to "express their faith". Most surreal and twilight zone-ish :)

Oh yes, you're just a model of tolerance and equality Boazy.

There is nothing in your post to suggest that your position is based on equality or truly wanting equitable treatment.

Universities look after their students, it's as simple as that. All they want is the space that was promised to them. Nothing extraordinary. They're just a bunch of young adults from various parts of the world here to learn (and learning more than you, obviously), not a bunch of mullahs ready to carry your children off to slavery at the slightest provocation.

Leave them be you old fool.

Hi Bugsy....

there is more to this than you apparently realize.

"They just want what was promised to them"

A visit to RMIT will quickly reveal that there is not much 'real estate' available for separate buildings. If it was, you can be sure that Melbourne CBD property values would dictate something more substatial than a separate meeting place for one sect.

The "Spiritual centre" is part of the overall building complex and not a separate building. It's part of the old Melbourne Jail structure.

If the university "promised" something which is outside the law.. such a promise is invalid. The nature of the request from the group concerned, would have mean't discrimination and denial of equal opportunity to other groups, which of course as you would know is unlawful on a publically funded establishment.

I am indeed intolerant of some things.. ideas, policies etc..no question about that. I will not tolerate an intolerant and discriminatory invasion of public tax payer funded educational establishments by sectarian interests. The same goes if it were a Catholic,Anglican, Orthodox, Hindu or a Buddhist mob seeking an "exclusive brethen" approach to this. If it was my own mob, I would expect extreme criticism and flack from all sides and quite justifiably so.

If you ask me to 'tolerate' the preaching of "Jesus was just a man and no more" in our own church.. yep..I'd be standing up and suggesting the preacher take his heresies elsewhere.

But if that same person knocked on your door to say the same thing, well it's up to you entirely what you do with that.

Nothing wrong with appropriate discrimination and intolerance :) it all depends on context.

Boazy, I find it amazing that you think that this is about discrimination towards Christian or non-Muslim students. Hey, their prayer rooms are non-denominational too, there's room for Sunnis, Shia, Sufis, you name it. Any student can go, nobody stands outside the room with a gun.

You still didn't answer my question about the ACU.

There is no more to this than I realise, regardless of real estate. They just want a room so they can pray in peace, I would have thought Christians would understand that.

But then again, I realise you are hardly a real Christian.

Dear David,

You said, "... but it appears there is one group who are opposed to the open, non-discriminatory, tolerant nature of this facility and demand that it be for this group alone."

This is NOT TRUE.

All the Muslim students are asking is that the UNIVERSITY KEEP THE
PROMISE IT MADE TO THEM by providing them with a 'prayer room,' as the university said it would. The Muslim students don't object to the Multi-Faith Centre at all. In fact they can't see WHY the university can't have BOTH a Multi-Faith Centre and a Prayer Room.

And neither can I!

THIS IS A QUESTION OF AN INSTITUTION KEEPING A PROMISE THAT IT MADE TO
A STUDENT BODY THAT IT ACTIVELY SOUGHT, AND ACCEPTED, INTO ITS FACILITIES. THEY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THAT STUDENT BODY - AND ARE NOW BOUND TO ABIDE BY IT.

Dear Foxy
perhaps the difference between you and I on this issue is thatI went personally and visited the establishment and spoke to a leading identity in the community in question and the Chaplain.

A number of points should be made or re-iterated.

1/ The Spiritual centre is available for the community concerned, but not exclusively except when they book it for a certain time.
2/ The discussion 'on the ground' with those concerned was abundantly clear that they want a 'special them only' place as they feel non them would distract or pollute the place (which is an insulting attitude)

3/ The Uni appears to have promised something UNlawful in that it denies equal opportunity and is discriminatory.

4/ I am not denying that:
a)The university promised them this and that.
b)The University renegged on that (unlawful) promise.

It should be understood that Arabic sloguns were on the walls, and were removed when an RMIT staff member apparently made protest about this imposition of sectarianism.(presumably on the basis of equal opportunity law)

What I AM saying.. is that whatever the background to this issue in terms of promises etc.. you simply cannot embark on blatantly discriminatory use of public facilities at tax payer expense.

IF...they did, they would be liable for uncountable law suits and discrimination actions.

I would not have a problem with one of the normal rooms being allocated for prayer but not for the exclusive use of just one group.

When the rooms (which have been closed to the group) were available, they were only available for part of the day, like 8:00am to 5pm.. after that, they were general use.

The big problem here is, that if we pander to the cumbersome religious requirements of any group, we must do so for all.. and obviously that is impractical.

RESOLUTION. It is simple to resolve
1/ Explain to the group that such an exclusive permanent allocation of use is unlawful.
2/ Emphasize that if they desire exclusive use each friday from 12.00 to 1.00pm they can have it. (By booking)

Do you see any difficulty there?

It never ceases to not surprise me that you don't really know about what is lawful or not. Especially since you have not really established who exactly is being discriminated against.

Universities are not 'public facilities' in the sense that you appear to mean them to be. Not in the way of directly administrated government institutions are, like state schools etc. They are autonomous incorporated entities with their own governance and their own incomes, some of that income comes from government and taxpayers, certainly, but not all of it. This however, does not give every Tom, Dick and Bozo the right to say what goes on within these institutions.

The university can allocate space however it sees fit, within the law. Allocating space to a student body or organisation is not against the law. Alternatively, refusal to do so is not unlawful either, which I am guessing the petition was started- to indicate that they have support amongst the student body generally and to ask the administration to keep its promise. That many of the students in question are often full fee paying students and the universities get paid quite a lot for their education, they are entitled to at ask for what they consider a service. If the administration considers how much money they get from being attractive to students (especially international students), I believe that they should get a fair hearing.

Now, if the university believes that they will be "liable for uncountable law suits and discrimination actions", then they would have said so. But they didn't. Why? Because it's bull@#$%.

Dear David,

As Bugsy points out - a university is not entirely a public-funded institution. Student's fees (very high ones for international students)constitute a substantial part of their finances. And I agree with Bugsy, the university can decide what it wants to do with its spaces.

This IS a moral issue. If you take someone's money under false pretences - you must be held accountable.

In this case - the students were promised their own 'Prayer Rooms.' The university must keep its promise. I do not for one moment believe - that this is unlawful.
Nor that it's going to impact on anyone else on campus. The University Student Council speaking on behalf of the entire Student Body, agrees with the granting of these 'Prayer Rooms.'

I firmly believe that the university is giving in to 'Islamophobia'
and political pressure from certain other groups in this case.

They should have thought of it PRIOR to actively seeking students from the Muslim world ( The Gulf, Malaysia, Indonesia, et cetera),
and accepting them as students, taking their money, and making them a promise. Now they have to wear it.

Bugsy

"Actually Bronwyn, it appears that is exactly what BD is also saying."

What is it with you? Not so long ago you accused me of making up a statistic I'd quoted. Now you're telling me that my argument is exactly the same as BD's even though I've just spent 300 words clearly refuting his position. Quite apart from posting manners, you need to learn to read with a little more perception before you jump in and make sweeping statements about other people's arguments.

My position and it couldn't be clearer is that public money should not be spent on the provision of religious facilities at universities (or anywhere else for that matter). BD's position is that it's okay to spend public money on multifaith religious facilities, but not on facilities specifically for Muslims. They are two very different positions.

I stand corrected Bronwyn. But I still disagree with that position. For the same reasons outlined previously. Pretty much every university in the world has such facilities, public money or not. While I appreciate that God doesn't exist, many people think he/she/it does. It's about student welfare and what makes them comfortable, and unfortunately religion plays a large part in society and peoples lives. Let the babies have their bottle.

People.. (all)..

on the issue of 'public funded' I am open to correction there. The precise details are actually of little relevance as the bigger issue is the "discrimination" one.

Now..according to the HRC Website for Victoria we find the following:

"Discrimination laws apply to public behaviour, not to private conduct.
Public areas covered by the law include accommodation, clubs and club members, disposal of land, education, employment, goods and services, sport and local government."

Now.. RMIT is a public institution, and not sectarian, while it welcomes people of any faith, it does not in itself represent one as a private religious school might where it would qualify for an excemption under the Act.

The next paragraph is mildly suggestive of a possible exception:

"A club that exists primarily to preserve a minority culture or a school that operates for students of a particular faith may restrict membership and enrolments based on religious belief."

My opinion, is that RMIT is not a 'club' in that sense, nor is the space offered/claimed of that mould.

It remains a fact that under the first part.."education, employment, goods and services" to restrict the opportunity of all but one group to a facility, is blatant discrimination.

So..publically or privately funded, discrimination is still discrimination unless the whole operation is run by a sectarian group FOR that sectarian groups stated puproses.

Clearly the problem exists in the alleged 'promises' made then allegedly broken and the position related to the law.

Now..RMIT does in fact have 'specifically Muslim prayer rooms'
http://www.rmit.com.au/browse;ID=rbhnlagxt42y

The RMIT Islamic society has information about prayer facilities here
http://rmitis.org.au/index.php?module=facilities
It includes the Spiritual Centre.

MORAL ISSUE. For me, the primary moral issue is that of promoting values which include blatant hate speech against most Australians.
It is immoral to facilitiate and advance any group which has in it's foundation documents (constitution) words which are soaked in hate toward specifically named other groups.
It should be remembered that the group concerned DO take their 'constitution' very very literally.
Thus, the promotion of hate speech is unlawful under the Terrrorism Act.

MORAL ISSUE....continued.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 13
Provision of goods and services

It is unlawful for a person who supplies goods or services to the public or to any section of the public:

(a)
to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person; or
(b)
to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person except on less favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to which he or she would otherwise supply those goods or services;

by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person.

COMMENT. Regarding this particular issue (the claim on the Spiritual Centre)
there might be a legitimate claim for compensation by any donor who provided funds to the project (if any were accepted from donors) under an advertised understanding that it was specifically for one faith group who they supported.

Even so, it does not change the other moral issue of the promotion of hate speech against both a race (Jews) and religions(Jews and Christians)
It cannot be argued that such a group does not 'promote' hate speech because insofaras they agree or state that their foundation documents are correct and relevant to this day and age, they therefore affirm that hate speech and in so doing identify themselves with it.

So, one might wish to examine IF there is "actual" hate speech in the foundation documents or not, or..if such an allegation is simply a misguided interpretation of the facts.

Surely the best people to comment on the 'interpretation' of such texts are the people of that faith. When they agree that it means such and such...then the case is reasonably and surely made.

The same applies to any seditious statement in the foundation documents.

It should also be realized that one reason this group may seem 'reckless' at times in agreeing that their texts mean this and that, is that they actually believe this material is "directly from God"

BOOM! And there it is, the classic Boazy topic switch. Now arguing that a whole religion can or should be outlawed on the basis of hate speech legislation. Legislation I might add that that I have seen you (Boazy) disagree with as being immoral when used against Christians, but can apparently now be used against your favourite target. Way to go genius. A+

Well hi there Bugsy

I'm against hate speech when MOTIVE is not taken into consideration.

For example, if Christians point out that someone elses holy book contains SPECIFIC and hateful words about 'CHRISTIANS' and Jews.. and they raise awareness about this.. clearly the motive is self preservation.
MOTIVE...MOTIVE..MOTIVE.. get it now ? You can add to that 'CONTEXT'.

For example when Paul says "Jews demand signs and Greeks demand wisdom" it is not hate speech but a statement of cultural fact.

There is no 'hate' speech in the New Testament against any specific race or religion. You might consider there is some against homosexual behavior, and indeed there are statements which utterly and totally condemn such practices.
But then..that was an ILLEGAL practice some years back, and considered a psychological disorder. The Bible and the Law were in harmony.
Changing the law cannot therefore hold the Bible or Christians liable because they cannot and must not change their Holy book.
The point to note about Romans 1 is that there is NO CALL to destroy or curse or harm anyone. All that is said is "They received the due penalty for their actions in their own bodies" (amazingly up to date wouldn't you say?)

If you condone such laws being used against Christians for this, then you are simply admitting the very things which I've been saying all along, which is that each community, ethnic or orientation, will always seek to advance their own agenda at the expense of others.
Good..now we are on the same page.

By the way, I did not argue that any religion be 'outlawed' kaching.. you failed 'basic clear thinking' there :) I said that is part of the Moral Issue.
10/10 for 'projection' of bias
0/10 for clear thinking :) cheers

"When the Left sees the Light (Right?)"

Universities and Discrimination.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0308vip-valdez0309.html

Amazing. It seems the American left is way ahead of ours. They actually recognize 'discrimination' when they see it. (even the Christians come in for a roasting here but we can handle that)

Hello Boazy,

Should the Bible be available in hotel rooms?

[Please rejoin interpretation thread. Questions unanswered.]

Cheers,

Oly.

Hi Oly
on the Bible in Hotel Rooms? interesting question. Being 'available' is different from 'having to read it'.

The idea began with 2 blokes who found they were Christians at a hotel chance meeting:

http://www.essortment.com/all/gideonbible_rcwz.htm

The sole purpose of the group is to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through personal witnessing and the distribution of Bibles and New Testaments.

Today, the association counts more than 140,000 members in 175 countries. According to its web site (www.gideonsinternational.org), the Gideons distribute more that 56 million Bibles and New Testaments every year. This averages out to be one million books every seven days, or 107 per minute.

Quite a growth from the initial 'bright idea'. No one has to read them, and I'm sure that if requested the hotel would remove them from a given room.
It is quite widespread knowledge that most hotels will have them, so a request to remove should not be a huge thing I would have thought.

The Gideons are non denominational.

Many people have been on the brink of suicide, and but for the bible in the room, would have carried it out.
I don't think they are such a bad thing..do you?

If some group wants to put the Bagavad Gita there..or a Quran.. or anything.... they are free to do so are they not?
Hotels could even have a 'check-in' question "Religious material in or out"?..or.. the default could be 'out' and a check in question ticked for 'in' :)
I'm not fussed by it all.

Hi Boazy,

Bible or Koran in a hotel. It is a religious article occupying space in the public domain, like a prayer room in university or hospital. The latter you appear to disagree with. No one is compelled to go onto prayer rooms or read scripture. That said, extrapolating your posit regrding prayer rooms; would that not also apply to holy books in hotels, contrary to your previous post?

Regards.

Oly...like I said.. I'm not fussed by it :)

I'm really not.

It would not bother me either way if hotels banned them... we don't have any right to place them other than good will. If that was withdrawn.. we have no come back.

Occupying public space? hmmmm as I said.. there are ways around that, and I think I recall finding a Quran in a hotel in Malaysia but no Bible.

It's a matter for hotels and Gideons and patrons to sort out.
I sure don't wave the flag to make them 'must have'.....

But I DO wave the flag about 'DO NOT ENTER'at a university just because I'm non 'them'. and My flag waving is about much much more than a simple 'building'.. I thought you realized that by now mate.

I wave the flag about what the 'place' into which I may not enter symbolizes.

Boazy,

I must have read the posts to quickly and missed something. Are you saying that non-Muslims are banned entry? That was not my experience in Singapore. My wife and our friends were even shown around "back rooms" by a guide. [The East Christian Churches (Greek Orthodox?) are the Ones who become touchy about the Holy Holies, as a friend from then from Moore Theological found-out, when sent somewhere he shouldn't have.]

I understood your posts to mean that there should not be a Muslim holy place at universities; herein, in a see the bibles in hotels as a parallel.

My friend, in Texas, tells me some communties have banned references to the Christian god on insignia in Court Houses, as Church & State issue.

Kind regards,

Oly.


O.

Hi Oly

my primary point is this.

There should not be an 'exclusively' Muslim (or Christian or any faith) worship centre at any public university.

RMIT has apparently tweaked to the fact that a central and major piece of Uni real estate, which other students have to physically pass day in day out, which is covered in Arabic and Islamic propoganda, might just cause a tiny bit of ill feeling among other students.

It's a bit like family.. if there are 5 children and 1 child gets special treatment.. gets bigger presents, more freedom, more affection etc from the parents while the rest are noticably neglected.. well I think we all know where that would lead. Imagine how much worse it would be if the privileged child actually looked upon the other siblings with contempt and berated or ridiculed them for feeling uncomfortable about the discriminatory behavior ?

This is surely part of the reasoning behind equal opportunity laws?

The protest among the group concerned is for an exclusive "just for them and no one else" facility.

If you saw just how integral and central the actual building is, you might better appreciate my concerns.

If it was a Catholic University, and the prayer centre was decidedly and exclusively Catholic, I wouldn't have any gripe about it, because all going there know what its about.

I really cannot imagine a Catholic university allowing protestants or Buddhists to run services in their chapel.

If you doubt me just read Webby and Joaanne's posts in the other thread :)

JOANNE
"For anyone here,the proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ."

WEBBY
"Christianity is one. There is but one true Church which is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God"

Have you ever seen a statement like these from me about my own denomination ? :)

Dear Boazy,

[1] Thank you for the explanation.

[2] What Joanne and Webby are referring is Apolostic seccession, wherein Jesus said Peter is the Rock upon which his Church would be built. The Protestant Churches are regarded as being prodicals, in that only God can found a Church. Humans cannot start Churches, according Catholics.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Historically, the first 10-15 Bishops were Jewish.

As mentioned in previous posts, Christianity extended towards the Gentiles owing to Hadrian exciling the Jews from the Holy Land and Nicaea, beforehand there was an intermediacy period, where the Jewish-Christian Church was much closer to its mother faith, Judaism. Recall, Jesus was enveavouring to re-establish the House of David.

Oliver,
Not many people would complain about a Bible being in a hotel room. I know people who say they read it when they were there because there was nothing else to do. No one is forced to read the Bible, and it is not taking up space in a public domain. Hotels are generally privately owned. I don't read the Bible when I stay at hotels because I generally have my own with me. If people find the presence of a Bible offensive, what about TV's and radios, newspapers, liquor in the fridge and the list goes on. You could always stay at home.

Oly.. minor theological correction :) (don't you luv this)

Jesus 'was trying' ?... aarrgh.. no my friend.. Jesus was DOING..... (but not what you said in the sense you mean't it)

MARK 8:27

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."

29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ."

30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

CAREFUL OBSERVATION REQUIRED....

1/ What did Peter just confess to?

2/ What happened next?

3/ What is the 3rd word of verse 31? I'll let you answer this. That word is CRUCIAL to understanding Jesus ministry.

Now..see chapter 9:30-32 (see how the disicples are described? I think you are a little like them :)

Now Chapter 10:32-34 .. what did Jesus say there? again?

Note.. the period from Mark 8 to chapter 16 is around 2 weeks in real time. The first 8 chapters are about 3 yrs. What does this tell you about Marks purpose? and what is he trying to tell us about Jesus?

You might also compare Mark 10:45 for additional insight.

Things often become clearer when we refer to the Bible rather than 'scholars' speaking "about it" :)
blessings.

Steel Mann,

I, personally, am not worried about Bibles in hotels, either. Nor would I be about the Koran or Rosary Beads. My point was to Boaz on the assumption that there are many whom feel religions [Islam, in Boaz's case]should not be sponsored or even visible in the public domain. Good point about hotels being privately owned.

Yet, I do support the separation of Church and State.

Boazy,

Thanks for the references. A bit busy with my own research at present, but will have a look as soon as I can.

Boazy,

MARK 8:31 I read as Jesus' ministry on Earth and, an allusion to suffering and substititionary randsom. I posit the Catholic position to be more direct:

Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church".

My own position is that Jesus was intending to organically grow a Jewish sect, via the greater inclusion of the Gentiles. The House of David had traditionally ministered to the Gentiles [Thiering]. At Nicaea, the reverse happened, Constitantine substitued the Christian-Jewish godhead for the Serapis godhead and the Roman god Sol Invictas.

Oly..I don't think your position stacks up with the facts.. you seem to be placing a kind of 'theory' on the New testament..rather than letting it speak for itself.

Remember the opening of Mark? "the beginning..as it is written....

Jesus is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament.. as he himself says in Luke 24:44-49 please have a read.

The Catholic position can be disputed, from history and theology.
The 'Pope'... as in infallible leader of the Church? :) I hardly think so.
I am "Sola Scriptura"... The Catholic position is contrary to Romans and the Gospels.. they have structured the dogma to pretty much fit in with an authority structure, and have made the Church an intermediary between man and God. "Jesus" is the Way...not a Pope nor a priest.

By pushing mans access to God back behind a priest or the Church structure.... they gain much power in this world.

This is one reason why the Communists have a partial point in saying 'Religion is the opiate of the masses'.

Look at Matthew 28:19ff Luke 24:25ff (very important)

Don't be surprised if I fade from OLO for a while.. indefinite.. I'm being unfairly censored at the moment (in my view) so..I'll do what I feel appropriate :)
newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com if you want to follow up anything.

warm regards
BD

Good morning Boazy,

I am not arguing the Catholic position for myself, but from the strength of the statement in Matthew, wherein, Jesus clearly mentions the Church, nor do I believe in Papal infallibility:

"In 1870 Pope Pius IX ... compensated for the loss of the Papal States by declaring Papal infallibility on matters of faith and morals prounced, "ex cathedra" ... against the advice from the cardinals of pluralist societies, notably Americian, German and French cardinals and Cardinal Newman from England." - Thomas Keneally

If we moved Jesus' birth back to 7 BCE to have him born at the time of Herod and the conjection of three planets [star-like appearance] and the numerology of Judaic calendar*, it places Jesus' youth at a time when the Herods held ascendancy over the Annas.

Herod was appointed by Julius Caesar. The House of David traditionaly ministered to the Gentiles. Apply Occam's razor to this situation. Recall the Herodians were Arab not Jewish.

Moreover, the history of Nicaea is well documented. Herein, I have explained the godhead on previously posts. Constantine originally believed in Sol Invictas & duality vis-a-vis monotheistism.

Recall Herod was dead, if we take the Bible's timeline.

When dealing with multiple document sources, I suggest it better to compare these documents against each other and, against history and if possible the sciences.

In your analysis, there is a tendency to compare everything to the Bible; rather than, compare the Bible to everything :-).

Will look the passages you recommend. Thanks.

Cheers.* Its complicated, but basically Jesus could play to the end times being the Jewish Year 4,000 [60 CE].

Clarification of Above:

* "

Its complicated, but basically Jesus could play to the end time being the Jewish Year 4,000 [60 CE]." - O.

More particularly, the apocralypic writings in Revelation could appeal to an end time.

It could have been Jesus was only claiming a Dynasty against a non-Jewish contemporary. The Hedorians fell out of favour under Augustus.

Boazy,

Don't miss my post on Page 8, please.

Mark 9-10, largely addresses the transfiguration and suffering and by implication substitutionary random no the establshment of the Church.

- The Catholics, to me, seem to have the clearer scriptural foundation.

What does John 2:19 imply. Jesus is the the Church/Temple?

Moreover; Is the Temple in Jesus clears in his or his Father's house? What does the scripture say, John 2:16? Would not the Temple, also be Jesus' if Jesus is God in ousia? Jesus is splitting the godhead.

Lastly,

Why are children Baptised:

- In the Name of the Father, and
- And of the Son, and
- And of the Holy Ghost/Spirit

Again, splitting the godhead.

Splitting the giadhead alludes to polytheism. Alternatively, Jesus was not making the claim to be in ousia withe Father.

Cheers.

It would be very sad, Boaz, if this is indeed the case.

>>Don't be surprised if I fade from OLO for a while.. indefinite.. I'm being unfairly censored at the moment (in my view) so..I'll do what I feel appropriate :)<<

Compared to many of the fruitbats that hang around OLO, I find your presence here on the whole relatively benign. I know I make a bit of a noise every time you dress up in your whack-a-mozzie outfit, or wave your "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" banner about, but I find it difficult to believe you have it in you to commit censorable acts.

But if indeed you are taking early retirement, let me be the first to wish you well.

Boazy,

Also, my very best wishes, if you are leaving OLO. I just took it that you were in disagreement with Graham's over a posting matter and faced a time-fine. Nothing permanent.

Perhaps, if you do return, at some future time, we can enjoy some further encounters.

Take care.

Kind regards,

O.

Surely it can't be true?

David (Boazy) - leaving OLO?

How sad that would be...

No. I don't believe it.

Vanilla's gone, Ginxy's taken off - now, David?

We need strong voices on this Forum.

But, if it should be true...

Then this is for you: -

Dear David, (Boazy),

I wish you, and yours, All That is Beautiful in Life!
I found it very stimulating sharing all these discussions with you
on this Forum. And, I will miss them very much.
However, I'm hoping that you shall be back - and soon.
Please?