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). :-|