In the course of researching the issue of the constitution in regard to another thread, I came across this interesting and rather controversial piece of information.

MARRAIGE.. It appears that 2 religions are using 'religious marriage' as a means of punishing their spouse who requests a divorce, and.. in some cases for fraudulent and malicious purposes.

The fraud relates to the abuse of the welfare provions, and the 'malicious' relates to the spouse concerned.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Civil_and_Religious_Divorce_Civil_and_Religious_Divorce_Part_2

When a woman in the Jewish and Islamic faiths wishes to divorce her abusive husband... the law can deal with the civil aspects, but the problem comes when the religious divorce is not granted within the community concerned.
The ramifications of this are as follows:

1/ The applicant obtaining the divorce is not free to re-marry within her faith or community because in their eyes she is still legally married to the husband.
Don't take my word for this, after all, I'm just 'whacking a Mozzie' and even worse this time. 'whacking some Jews' as WELL.

2/ The divorcing spouse would need to re-marry outside their faith and community, which could result in serious psychological consequences.

QUESTIONS/ISSUES. Should the law.. Australian law, make it unlawful for a religious group (this would apply to Christians equally) to use 'religious marriage' in this way?

Personally, I believe it absolutely should.

MULTICULTURALISM Obviously there are implications for this. It would therefore seem clear to me, that any aspiring migrant be told that in Australia, our law prevails over any religious law in the area of Marriage. (among many other things would be migrants must be told..such as female genital mutilation is unlawful.. a crime)

DISCRIMINATION/HUMAN RIGHTS. Given that Australia subscribes to the notion of 'human rights' which include 'freedom to practice religion' and that Sikhs claim the right to wear their Kirpan, (Australia/Canada) and Hindu's the right to protect a 'sacred cow' (UK) ... can they claim abuse of human rights when Australian law prevents them from these aspects of their religious expression?

Always enjoy your posts BD.

My answer would be 'who cares'? If people want to live in communities based on ancient cults, then they have to accept the cult's rules and regulations I guess.

The government can't tell people how they should feel, if you don't like someone because they get divorced then thats up to you. Get a civil wedding with your next partner and get on with your life. Maybe have a think about how closed-minded religion can make people.

cheers

gw

"1/ The applicant obtaining the divorce is not free to re-marry within her faith or community because in their eyes she is still legally married to the husband."

This does contradict today's views on marraige, however its not such a simple issue.

The fault does not lie in the couple at the divorce point, but in what they have contracted to in the marraige: 'till death do us part'. Here, the terms of the marraige, not the terms required for a divorce, must be adjusted. Legally, one party has the right to refuse a divorce under the terms of the covenant the couple executed - which is a legal document and contract.

The second factor is that free divorce, with no impacting rules & conditions, has consequences - not just for the couple, but more so for their family and then the community at large, finally on the nation and culture as a whole. Here, the issue of marraige becomes extremely precarious, as seen in the stats of those nations where no laws apply for marraige or divorce in its actual dispencing.

One way is to make driving tests and marraiges subject to better and more honest criteria, and to thereby alter the marraige vows: if the divorce criteria should be made very simple - but this should be only in ratio of the marraige laws being made more testing - in allignment with what they are signing and what it onvolves.

One cannot have it both ways - a contract is a contract. Siting only the issues in a divorce and ignoring the marraige terms will not resolve this issue. Siting only the marraige laws and not the consequences of a divorce will also not assist. Ultimately, it alligns with the laws relating to a child and his parents, and this applies more than ever in today's contraception age.

Perhaps a 'P' license provision must apply for any couple contemplating marraige - and I can her many shouting no way - then don't drive cars either?

Hi GW and I-AM J

Not sure if you blokes are catching the main point here.. forgive me if misunderstand.

Imagine..... you and your wife are .. let's say Jewish. You marry in a religious and civil ceremony or.. a religious which is then lawfully registered civilly.

Ok.. sure, you say ur vows etc, but one party breaches the contract by committing adultery or abuses or.. you name it. The other aggrieved party wishes to divorce, but the 'offender' does not wish it and while they cannot refuse a civil divorce..they CAN refuse a religious one.

So..in the eyes of that community, they face 2 choices.

1/ Apostasy.. rejection of the community and their faith.
2/ Compliance and subjection.

So.. a total bastard of a bloke could use this threat of 'social alientation' against the wife within their community.. extended family.. etc as a tool to keep her as a kind of slave.

So.. MY point is... that Australian law MUST.. absolutely must over-ride religious law on the issue and further.. not entertain any if's but's or maybe's connected to the religious background of the couple. In fact.. I'd go so far as to make it an offense to try to evade the Law against an ex spouse. Civil divorce MUST by law provide an automatic religious divorce, whether Jew, Muslim,Hindu, Sikh or Christian.

Please read the link to see the background.

Polycarp,
Reading the link you provided, I was intrigued by the section on marriage.

The way I interprupt the matter of polygamous marriages is that if a person holds duel citizenship he could leave Aus and go to his old country get married to another woman and bring her here and the polygamous marriage would be recognized by us.

This raises some questions.

Are social security payments available to both his spouses?

What happens if he has a polygamous marriage when he applies for him and family to immigrate?

I realize that you intended this thread to be about divorce, but this intrigues me, especially after discussion some time back on polygamy.

Maybe someone can shed some light on the matters.

Banjo this is what happens

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b14_1215782328

EasyTimes, just viewed your link.

Our tax dollars in action.

Sickening.

David, just to be clear - you are saying that Australian law overrides "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another commits adultery" or "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits addultery" and that anybody who teaches that stuff or otherwise tries to convince someone else that it's true is going against Australian law and values?

I'll be interested to see how your fellow fundies handle your rejection of the teachings of Jesus. Interesting times ahead.

R0bert

Hi Easy and Powerful... yes.. that vid is very illuminating.
Banjo... I didn't mean the thread to be just about divorce..nope.. the whole issue of Australian law and outside cultures.. the Marriage bit was conveniently highlighted in that link.

To answer your question.. If a man is married in Australia.. unless he divorces his first wife, he cannot bring a 2nd here even if he goes overseas and marries her. I spoke to Immig about this issue some time back. Centrelink recognizes just 1 wife and even if he has children by a 2nd, and while they can be brought to Australia as his offspring.. the mother cannot and no application for her to come here is available until they are 18 yrs old.

Robert.. the key point you are missing here.. is that what Jesus taught is not a LAW in the civil sense... it is an 'ethic' of the Kingdom of God.. not the kingdom of man.. that ideal certainly applies in principle in various church denominations, but I know of none which try to use Christs teaching as a means of holding a marriage together for 'malicious' purposes....which is the essense of the article in focus. To be sure, Churches would encourage people to put committment above squabbles and unless adultery is involved there is no 'quick fix' for a broken relationship.

Even the fix there, by our Lords literal words, are a huge challenge for most people. I'd say it's between them and He.

Austin Powerless, taxpayers underwrite every religion in Australia. Religions are tax exempt. This sort of fraud in religion, including corporate relationships, happens all the time.

Ironically it's the systems own intolerance and bigotry (intermingled with some ideologies) that has created the situation.

PC: "the key point you are missing here.. is that what Jesus taught is not a LAW in the civil sense... it is an 'ethic' of the Kingdom of God"

The same is true of the religious marriages you are talking about. Australian law *does* override them — the aggrieved party is still free to marry again in a civil ceremony after obtaining his or her civil divorce. If they don't like the constraints their religion puts around their marriage, then they should leave their religion. Those constraints have nothing to do with their legal rights as Australian citizens to marry or divorce.

Obviously this is more difficult in practice than it is in theory. Hopefully, other former Muslims, Jews and Christians can support those who want to leave their religion.

Sure, religion blows. But that's no reason to make it against the law.

Easy Times and Austin Powerless,
I saw that TV show and it is a bit of a beat up as the bloke can only marry one person at a time legally, He may marry another in a religous cermony but not legally. Therefore I see it as no different to any other bloke with a mistress. She may have kids by him and get all the social security a single mum is entitled to. Some non muslim blokes do that you know! A bloke could have half a dozen mistresses and they all could get single mothers benefits.

Why anyone would want more than one wife at a time escapes me. Especially in our society.

Polycarp,
Thanks for explaining that to me as it seems my initail interpurtation of the marriage section was not quite correct.

David, I think you are being less than truthful about the way some churches treat marriage. Not sure if it's still the case but some refused to marry divorcees up until quite recently and I'm sure many christains would still happily teach that divorce and remarriage is wrong except for unfaithfullness which is in practice no different to the issues you describe for other faiths.

To take the principle you are trying to use in a slightly different direction.

Homosexual relationships (and corresponding sexual activity) are quite legal in Australia, would you agree that it's wrong for religious groups to try and forbid members from engaging in such relationships and acts (let alone those depraved perverts who try and prevent non members from doing so)?

If not in what way is the christain churches stance and behaviour on that issue different to the stance and behaviour which you ascribe to jews and muslims?

Wiggle on that and there are plenty of others which are quite legal in Australian Law which some churches would treat as an issue worthy of church discipline.

By the way if you are concerned about religious types trying to force their faith on other believers why have you not stepped in to correct Gibo regarding his frequent attacks on Steel Man over his involvment in a legal activity?

R0bert

I think that Boazycrap's finally presented us with a subject worthy of serious examination. Religious sects that persecute people who wish to divorce are not all that uncommon. For example, Boazy's own cult is documented as giving 'apostates' a particularly hard time:

<< THE world leader of the Exclusive Brethren church intervened personally to break up a family this year, telling a 12-year-old that she would lose her mother if she did not renounce her father.

The Sydney-based Bruce D. Hales - the "Man of God," or "Elect Vessel" of the separatist cult - urged the girl to cease contact with her father, saying: "Your mother will not be able to accept you if you continue contact with him."

[...]

After the January 17 meeting between Mr Hales and the girl, the mother - with the help of the church - moved the girl, her sister and brother 700 kilometres away from their father. He has not seen them since. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sect-told-girl-banish-your-dad/2006/12/25/1166895241013.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Yes, I agree that something should be done about these religious fascists. However, I'm not sure it should be done by governments.

Ultimately, people adopt religious beliefs by choice. They can always choose to assert themselves and reject those ideological aspects of their faiths that enslave them.

As someone said elsewhere - Easy Peasy :)

CJ Morgan.
Polycarp is pushing an agenda in all his posts that of racial purity.
Like his idol he out of touch by at least 50 years.
Apostates are only an enforced feature of Islamic fundamentalists similar category of right to lifers who bomb clinics…..nutters. I can't say if Polycarp is in a unique cult or is, as usual cherry picking concepts to support his (odious) agenda.

I think the cases you mention clearly identify the flaws in the laws. Specifically what is a bona fide religion and which is an exploitive group sanctioning a sociopathic behaviour or commercial agendas? I wonder if banning closed sects (religions) is a possible answer?

As Australia is a secular country = STATE HAS PRECIDENCE OVER RELIGION. Therefore I favour making the test for a religious status harder to achieve and then only give tax rebates for social service work to those outside their religious community.

I would also advocate a level playing field for Commercial activities of Religious groups. They should taxed and Tax rebates given for clearly Community services. Not rebates for preaching or running their RELIGIOUS hierarchy.

Breaches to the above should be subject to property, asset confiscation fine like any corporation. What do you think?

FTR I am a secular humanist.

Robert... I think ur right about 'until fairly recently' some mainstream Churches would not marry those who had been divorced.

It's a difficult one for sure.. many aspects to that issue.

Re Jews and Muslims.. if the spouse refuses to grant a religious divorce.. it's probably the fastest road to 'liberation' and the embracing of a different faith I can think of.

For Christians? hmm if one's church is strict on it.. you can join a different brand.. no great hurdle.

I'm not in the Exclusives CJ.. you know that old son.. being a tad 'devious' there ya know.

Examinator.. 'racial purity' could not be further from my mind on this and other threads.. my wife has slanty eyes and brown skin and I have round ones and my 3 kids are in the middle.

I am in fact for 'VALUES' purity :) there is a difference.

MARY the SUDANESE GIRL...

I had a most stimulating conversation yesterday at KFC nearby.. there was a very black trainee behind the counter named Mary. I got my 3 piece pack and sat down.. and later she came on her break and sat down not too far away.. so I raised the issue of culture, migration and marriage.
She is 23 and married to a Sudanese bloke. She tried to hook up with a white bloke at first but:
a) He used to wash his hands after contacting her family...
b) He used to express concern about their food and hygene..
c) Her family did a lot of gossip about him/them...

She left that 9 month relationship and went 'black'

She explained also, that it's verrrry hard for them to leave their culture.. all the kinship structures are supposed to be memorized and appreciated.. you look after ur cousin or brother rent free when they stay with you.
Now..I could say 2 things here..

1/ White blokes don't understand that... (but why should they?)
2/ Black folks don't understand that in Australia we don't take those things very seriously ( and why should we?)

But as with many things.. mutual respect and a degree of moving towards the other party, compromise, is the best pattern.. So, it's neither 1 or 2.

Polycarp

Have I defamed you? Hmmmm.
Perhaps I should have said bigotry as defined by your posts’ lack of both Objectivity and Context (therefore credibility) in your ‘sources’ and citations. The over riding impression is that they tend be ‘cherry picked’ to suit an agenda rather than valid examples.

I think it’s fair to say your discussions seeds often employ Straw Man, Aunt Sally or ad Hominem arguments (tactics) to serve a biased (bigoted) didactic agenda.

Values are esoteric abstractions created by perception of motherhood culture, maintained the individual and therefore devoid of absolutes? Logically then Value Purity is simply an oxymoron.Besides "Purity" implies a rating who's the arbiter?

I wonder why you don’t read/quote more Bertrand Russell. His views on values he is more consistent with a search for a universal truth, more consistent, better thought through and far less politically motivated than Enoch Powell’s.

As for your description of your family I wonder at the reasons for your overly confrontatious description? Why? Especially since my reasoning is substance rather than style based.
….I subscribe to Martin Luther King jr’s dictum that “we are bigoted until we can meet a person in the street for the first time and ten minutes later remember the colour of their clothes before the colour of their skin” (my wording of his context). :-|

Steel, I didn't view this as an attack on any religion, I just saw the apparent abuse of the system that we are paying for.

Banjo, again I don't see the problem as being confined to members of any specific religion. You are right that an athiest's mistress can fleece the system too. 'Why anyone would want more than one wife at a time escapes me'. Exactly, why would you want two mothers-in-law?

I just hate to see the government throwing money at those who don't deserve it while the genuine needy are in strife.

Austin Powerless,
I also do not see the problem to do with only one religion but the link Easy Times gave was to do with a muslim bloke who allegedly had two wives. I was refering to that TV show when I mentioned muslims.

Yeah, two mothers in law and what if the wives went shopping together, one would be always broke.

Dear Examinator

You said:

Values are esoteric abstractions created by perception of motherhood culture, maintained the individual and therefore devoid of absolutes? Logically then Value Purity is simply an oxymoron.Besides "Purity" implies a rating who's the arbiter?

The answer to all those questions is... "we the people" :)

You are quite correct. But on the issue of values.. let's take but one simple example.

WIFE BEATING... now.. most of know that this practice is not only permitted by one major religion, but is also explained in detail as to how it should be done.. 'no bruises... no facial wounds' etc.. on numerous 'family help video's on Youtube taken from certain news/current affairs programs from the Middle East.

Australian values are "No wife beating".... now.. do you not see a conflict there? an easily identifiable one... ?

The only way it can be decided is for people who are concerned about this as a social issue.. to make it a POLITICAL issue and persue the democratic patheway to victory at the policy level.

True?

Treading on thin ice here, Boaz.

>>WIFE BEATING... now.. most of know that this practice is not only permitted by one major religion... Australian values are "No wife beating"<<

Does this "one major religion" also advise how fathers should beat their daughters?

Because we all know that you do, don't you? You told us all about it, in earnest detail.

Tell me, what is the moral difference that you see between beating a wife and beating a daughter?

Both acts are those of a man who sees the other as some form of possession, to be dealt with as he sees fit.

Just because your religion doesn't have what you call an instruction book doesn't make your actions any less culpable.

After all, it is their deeds that define people, not some abstract rulebook that you can choose to ignore when you feel like it, then beat your chest in mock humility saying , well, we're none of us perfect, are we.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Boaz.

And whatever other name he chooses to adopt whenever he feels like it.

Polycarp old chap :-)

I said who's the arbiter? You said "we the people"... democracy?
Then you substitute this for religious based values arguing ‘which is the only religion….? (Straw man argument?)... Wrong on two counts!

There are several hundred indigenous religions in Melanesia alone that in their “pure form” are patriarchal in this way. Unless your religious views are so arrogant that you don’t recognize them a ‘real’ religions. (Many are 20-40 millennia old).

Confused logic perhaps?
It‘s only in relatively recent days that we in Australia have taken sexual equality serious. It’s still only a half serious WIP, there are many ways to subjugate others. Bias, bigotry, intolerance, religious none of which are Democratic by definition etc.

It would be a hopelessly bigoted individual who tried to equate Christianity (religion) with Democracy or sexual equality (orientation included). Name the last Catholic/Orthodox, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope or C of E Archbishop (2/3+ of Christians) or major denomination that has a Female head. Did I mention Judaism too? Most modern religions are institutionally patriarchal. Any societal equalization of the Sexes has been at auspices of the Secular Community.
Even modern Muslims respect women. Religious books regardless of religion give poor prismatic viewus of reality, only extremists follow them literally. Think of it like this Salt (belief) is essential to life but too much is fatal (Extremism).

Finally on what Universal (objective basis do Eurocentric Christians base our decisions that their values (pure or other wise are )better than anyone else’s?
Your argument (agenda) boils down to “ Now hear this! MY values are better than every one who’s not Christian ‘cos I believe so ” (perversion of Cartesian logic?) . Value purity ? ( Subjective Arrogant nonsense).

Evidence would suggest that once set we all NEED our Motherhood Life coda. I would also argue that other cultures when left alone are at least as content Western Christians all that changes is complexity. Is it worth it? Eye of the beholder. Solution.. Acceptance (tolerance)of others views less paranoid xenophobia.

Examinator :-

Dear Examinator... it's quite a fertile field isn't it :) this matter of democracy, values, religion and how they all fit together!

R u in Melbourne? you must join Col Rouge and myself on our next get together.. we've had 2 now.. yesterday we enjoyed a 'now it's ur turn for your life story' over a cuppa latte and capuccino. We have fun discussing all the various posters here :) oops.. am I a gossip?
At least over a cuppa we are not limited to post limits and word counts.

We're going to meet up again and have a 'wives included' yum cha.

Regarding the points you raised.

Actually I didn't argue "which is the only religion".
I argued 'values' and pointed out one religion which has values very different from and unnacceptable to, Australian.

Every time I mention 'wife beating' Pericles is like a pit bull on a chihwawa and leaps on me drooling out the words "Yippeeee...I'veee got im.. again" but he should know that his 'but you beat your daughter' argument is getting rather in need of a retread :)

"We the people" = "any/all" people of whatever religious or secular background who share given values and are prepared to stand up for them at the ballot box.

It also comprises those who, while minorities are politically astute enought to recognize 'political opportunity' in marginal seats for advancing values they hold dear. This applies equally to Christians, Buddhists, Sikh's and Muslims.

MULTI-culturalism.. great success in Germany.. this is a fantastic advertisement for more and more of it...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YnHFm9bndY0&feature=email

yes yes.. let's bring in more migrants from the same countries as these guilded innocent youths come from......

David, "For Christians? hmm if one's church is strict on it.. you can join a different brand.. no great hurdle."

So you are quite confident that a gay christain can easily find another christain church where they won't face pressure not to be gay?

You are quite confident that a christian nudist would not face condemnation and or pressure from other christains?

R0bert

That's an extraordinary position to adopt, Boaz.

>>Every time I mention 'wife beating' Pericles is like a pit bull on a chihwawa and leaps on me drooling out the words "Yippeeee...I'veee got im.. again" but he should know that his 'but you beat your daughter' argument is getting rather in need of a retread<<

I'd remind you that it was you who introduced the topic of beating your daughter, not I.

It was also you who introduced the topic of wife-beating on this thread, a few posts ago.

You suggest that my "argument" is in need of a retread, but in fact I have no argument.

You are free to choose the path that your conscience maps out for you, taking into account your moral values. And the law, of course.

But the fact that you choose, on the one hand, to embrace the concept of beating your daughter, and on the other to condemn beating a wife, is evidence that dual standards are in action here.

Which I feel that someone ought to keep pointing out to you, since you are totally unable to see it yourself.

Rather than seeing me react to this as "a pit bull on a chihuahua", consider me more as a sorrowful parent, pointing out to a child the nature of the anomalous positions.

It is normal to first ask the child whether they see anything wrong with their action, and if they don't, to follow up with a more open question, designed to cause them to think a little about the circumstances of the decision they made.

Since you clearly see nothing amiss with your irreconcilable positions, I'll ask again.

"...what is the moral difference that you see between beating a wife and beating a daughter?"

I'm anxious to hear a simple and straightforward response to this eminently simple and straightforward question, Boaz.

But I have learned over the years that you find these remarkably difficult, so I won't hold my breath.

Referring to the original post, that's a stupid idea. You cannot force people to marry someone they don't want to marry. You cannot tell people what criteria they are allowed to consider in marrying someone.

There is a fair bit in the newspaper this week about a catholic parish church which has been told to shape up or ship out. Amongst the serious allegations which has been raised about the church is that they may have married divorced catholics (who have not had previous marriages annulled).

Maybe the christain church has not put this conflict with australian law behind it after all.

R0bert

Perilous...

the moral difference is clear and unambiguous.

An adult woman has matured and has a good sense of danger.

A child.. does not. The issue at the centre of that incident as I've told you many times (I thought) was that she was endangering her very life by behavior which was so utterly dangerous that to my mind a radical reminder of just that was in order. It is a judgement a parent must make based on (as the magistrates say) the totality of the circumstances and this includes the personality of the child along with recent events in the location concerned and a host of other things.

That "I" am the one who brought it up should tell you that reminding me of it serves no purpose.

FREEDIVER.. no one is talking about forcing you dill.. cripes.. I'm talking about:

-Removing barriers.
-Encouraging, facilitating.
-Placing funding into things which unite... rather than divide.

It's all about social environment. Ur not one of those who say "You hate us" just because we disagree with you.. ru ? :)

Boaz, as a reminder, I asked you:

"...what is the moral difference that you see between beating a wife and beating a daughter?"

This not, unfortunately, an answer:

>>An adult woman has matured and has a good sense of danger. A child.. does not.<<

While this is literally true, it does not establish any moral standing for your action. It is pure evasion.

Your moral pitch is still missing, I'm afraid. Because right now your argument stands as follows:

"I have the moral right to beat my daughter because she is immature, and has no sense of danger."

You contrast this with:

"I don't have the moral right to beat my wife, because she is mature and has a sense of danger"

This is, I'm afraid, missing the point entirely.

Don't forget, we are talking about violence here. So it is in fact more rational to put this forward as a reason to beat an adult woman, as opposed to a child.

A child does not have the physical ability to defend herself, and being immature, nor would she have the strength of will to do so against an authority figure.

Your wife, on the other hand - being, as you say, a mature adult - can make up her own mind whether to accept your beating, or to tell you where you can stick it.

Tell me, if you had one, would you also beat your dog?

David has also completely failed to address the question of churches pressuring people engaged in legal activities other than divorcees remarrying.

The most obvious is homosexual activity. The basis for his original post included the comment "QUESTIONS/ISSUES. Should the law.. Australian law, make it unlawful for a religious group (this would apply to Christians equally) to use ..." (I've ommitted the specific example because it really is irrelevant to the general principle).

Clearly a homosexual christian cannot easily swap churches to find one within their overall faith tradition but which is tollerant of homosexuality. They may be able to swap denominations but evne then the options are very limited. If their family are part of an intollerant denomination they are likely to face the very same pressure that David criticises muslims and jews for.

Todays article on the local catholic parish facing pressure over expressions of tollerance is at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24247528-3102,00.html

"In addition to concerns over unorthodox masses and baptisms, one parish priest, who did not wish to be named, yesterday said he was aware that some divorced Catholics had been allowed to remarry at St Mary's without having their first marriage annulled.

Yesterday, Archbishop Bathersby confirmed there had been rumours that the church had adjusted the sacrament of marriage.

In a letter to the church last Friday, Archbishop Bathersby said marriage ceremonies at St Mary's sometimes completely overlooked the Church's normal requirement for validity and took place without "the slightest respect for Canon Law"."

R0bert

Pericles: << Tell me, if you had one, would you also beat your dog? >>

Didn't you know that the Bible says that "Smite is Right" pretty well consistently? Indeed, it's only a few years ago that women were removed from the category of those whom a good God-fearing Christian man might righteously smite!

R0bert's post reminds me that Boazy sidestepped my earlier comment about abuse by the Exclusive Brethren of those who, for example, divorce their spouse and/or renounce their faith, by claiming that he's not a member of the "Exclusive" Brethren (which I should apparently have known despite the fact that he's posting under another name now, apparently).

However, I notice that he's made a couple of posts about the Exclusive Brethren today, so I presume that it's reasonable to ask him this:

Boazy, would you suppport government prohibition of the Exclusive Brethren practice of formal ostracism of former members, particularly of the kind which prevents contact between parents and their children?

Just a renminder for David that there are unanswered questions quite relevant to the topic?

Once again from me.

David is it appropriate for christains to apply pressure to homosexual christains not to engage in what is a legal activity in this country?

Just in case you have trouble dealing with the content of two different posts at once I'll cut an past CJ's question here as well.

"Would you suppport government prohibition of the Exclusive Brethren practice of formal ostracism of former members, particularly of the kind which prevents contact between parents and their children?"

R0bert

I hope you're not holding your breath, R0bert.

Boazy's obviously done his familiar disappearing act on this one ;)

CJ, I'm well used to the disappearing act and have ensured that breathing continues. Still it's worth putting up a reminder occasionally.

R0bert

Hi Robert...

"homosexual Christians" is close to an oxymoron.

There are 'Christians' and non. If one is in Christ, one is a new creation, the old has passed away, and the new has come.
Born again.....anew... new wineskins.

The presense of the Holy Spirit in one's life makes a difference.

"When the comforter comes, He will lead you into all truth"

1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Understand this...and apply it...and the answer is self evident.

David, once again you have not answered the question's.

You opened the thread attacking other faiths for putting their beliefs above Australian Law. Clearly there are people who believe it's possible to be homosexual and christain even if you don't.

I suspect that there are still christains around who considered that christains could not divorce and remarry, similar attitude to your attitude regarding homosexuality and christianity.

Perhaps another rewrite of your opening question is in order.

QUESTIONS/ISSUES. Should the law.. Australian law, make it unlawful for a religious group (this would apply to Christians equally) to use beliefs about homosexuality in this way?

R0bert

What a weak and pathetic cop-out from Brother Boazycrap!

Clearly, Christian churches like the one he belongs to would be exempt from the legal intervention that he would like to see in non-Christian religions. Sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy.

I can't say that I'm at all surprised.

What kind of a mischievious thread is this?

Regarding religion: In the Jewish faith AND the Christian faith of whichever flavour, divorce is NOT allowed. In Islam divorce is allowed for both men and women and the divorcee in a subsequent marriage is not discriminated against. This is a big area where these three Abrahamic religions differ.

If a person chooses to live a life according to their religious beliefs, than surely you accept what your particular holy book has to say on the matter.

How ridiculous for Boazy to blithley suggest that a divorced person just changes brand of Christianity if you want to remarry in a church.

Not only are you offensive in your opinions of Muslims, but also deeply offensive towards Catholics and Anglicans to name but 2 big Christian streams.

Not all secular laws are seen as acceptable by Christians either. Thankfully we live in a secular society, not a religious society of any kind. So your church's opinions on a number of 'immoral acts' do not infringe on my rights as an autonomous adult to engage in them. Even if the church decides to then ex-communicate me or ban me. Very, very little difference in this regard between any religious creed with a particular doctrine. The Muslim faith is not unique in this.

There are a few laws in our secular nation that still need changing. Marriage, Abortion legislation and Voluntary euthanasia come to mind as biggies where Christian morality continue to enforce their morality on non-Christians.

While acknowledging that she was endangering her life by staying with him, the Catholic Church kicked my mother out when she divorced her first husband.

She compounded her sin by marrying my father in a civil i.e. secularly lawful, ceremony. However the legitimacy of her union was not acknowledged by her previous brothers and sisters in Christ (who are an entirely different mob from Boazy's brothers and sisters in Christ).

This, as I'm sure you can see, DB, turned me into a real bastard.