The Age carried a story yesterday (Sunday) about a Gay support group unhappy about their request for accomodation at a Brethren run youth camp based on their sexual orientation.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-support-group-gets-straight-no-from-brethren-20080906-4b57.html

The problem with this is .. well there are many.

One.. the establishment is owned by the Brethren Trust of Australia.
This not the E.B. but the O.B. group.

Thus, it qualifies for the exemption from discrimination laws under the Equal Opportunity Act. (Which are currently being reviewed!)

PROBLEMS.

1/ Any religious group which regards certain practices as abominable, sick, disgusting, sinful must NEVER be forced to open their doors to those who practice these things. Now.. this might equally apply to a Muslim owned Camp group where the Sonship of Christ is regarded as the 'Ultimate Crime' against God. I.e.. I would understand if Christians wanting to run a 'Focus on Christ' getaway were refused the use.

2/ For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding.
I would regard such a situation as absolutely intolerable.

3/ HUMAN RIGHTS.. So.. again we are confronted with the problem of where one groups 'orientation' seeks to discriminate against anothers.
This of course could be argued both ways. Why should a 'Christian' group be able to discrminate against homosexuals and not the reverse?
The role of 'law' is pivotal here. If the U.N. convention on discrimination is upheld.. what about the 'U.N. Convention on Human Rights -religious freedom?

JOURNALISTIC INFAMY. The Age is guilty of the lowest level of 'scumbaggery' and sleaze by the way they have sought to connect the Open Brethren with the 'INFAMOUS EXCLUSIVE' Brethren..
Firstly the use of the word "Infamous" is slanderous...and the subsequent connection with the O.B. is scurrilous.

Any thoughts

Am I to assume that if the aforementioned thought is actually "brain exploding", and since you have already obviously had said thought....that you are now a scientologist?

These posts are a bit like that canned alphabet spaghetti - little bits of something like pasta which may have resembled something intelligible at some point, but by the time it's sitting in front of you ready to be consumed, it's a mash of limp, lost appendages floating in a gelatinous mass of unidentifiable and probably toxic slush.

would you like fries with that?

Take it like a man, Boaz.

I think that the infamous Brethren should not only be sued for homophobic discrimination, but also for misleading advertising. Their "Phillip Island Adventure Resort" is one of those dodgy businesses that avoids paying taxes because of its ownership by a religious organisation, but one certainly wouldn't know that from its name.

If they want to claim exemption from anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds, they should be forced to re-name it something like "Phillip Island Homophobic Brethren Camp", and its clientele should be restricted to those unfortunates who follow their loopy brand of Christianity. They can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, the gay support group ending up meeting at a camp run by a more reputable Christian group, the YMCA.

Porkycarp: << For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding. >>

I presume that Porky never stays in mainstream hotels and motels, because he'd never know if some of those evil homosexuals had stayed there before him. Besides which, don't the Brethos wash their bed linen?

As for "JOURNALISTIC INFAMY", here is what the article says that offends poor Porky so:

<< The Christian Brethren church is historically linked to the infamous Exclusive Brethren, but broke away in the mid-1800s.

The Christian Brethren is now contemplating a name change because of the "negative connotations" of the Brethren "brand". But it remains a very conservative, evangelical church. >>

This seems to be a simple and fair statement of fact, but as he has shown repeatedly here at OLO, Porky has a very poor apprehension of truth. Further, he stated recently here that he wished that the "Open" Brethren of which he is a member were more like their infamous "Exclusive" Brethren cousins.

Methinks Brother Porky doth protesteth too much.

I'm glad it's not just me who can't make head nor tail of this.

Boaz, what is your point?

Yes, we know you don't like homosexuals. You have made that very clear on a number of occasions.

But it would appear that there is very little chance of his action succeeding -

"the law is stacked against the young people: religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to 'genuine religious beliefs or principles'".

I'll refrain from asking the obvious "what does "genuine" mean in this context, but what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Is this another version of your "Swedish Pastor was jailed for preaching in his own church" fiasco?

You know, the one where the Swedish Pastor wasn't jailed?

You must spend your entire life dredging up this stuff and fretting about it.

Get over it.

Incidentally, if there is anything at all that is immoral in this story, it is that the "resort is exempt from paying taxes because it is run by a church."

What bloody cheek! As honest taxpaying citizens, no wonder the gay support group is up in arms.

http://www.greghunt.org/Pages/article.aspx?ID=799
"Groups as diverse as the Bass Valley Land Care Group, Phillip Island Adventure Resort and Cowes Primary School will each receive up to $50,000 to harvest rainwater, install water-saving devices or recycle waste water."

They are also reported as being excused from tax liabilities. Should gays be excused from contributing tax's towards this resort?

http://cyc.org.au/piar - The home page for the camp site mentioned in the articles.

If you are taking money from the taxpayer and ebing excused from a tax obligation then it's not a private issue for the owners. If they pay back all public monies recieved (with compounded interest) along with tax's which would be paid by other operators then fine let them keep their property as a private resort.

Whilst their hands are in the public purse then stop the discrimination.

R0bert

Polycarp

<<Any religious group which regards certain practices as abominable, sick, disgusting, sinful must NEVER be forced to open their doors to those who practice these things.>>

I thought Jesus liked to hang out with sinners and tried to teach his disciples to do the same. Polly, wasn't your Jesus "the friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34)?

Wasn't it up to Jesus and not the Pharisees to forgive 'sinners'?

<<For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding. I would regard such a situation as absolutely intolerable.>>

Wasn't it Jesus who sought out the company of sinners, preferring them to the self-righteous?

<<The role of 'law' is pivotal here. If the U.N. convention on discrimination is upheld.. what about the 'U.N. Convention on Human Rights -religious freedom?>> But aren't you the same BOAZ who denied the very existence of Human Rights not so long ago? Have you now found the road to Damascus?

<<Firstly the use of the word "Infamous" is slanderous...and the subsequent connection with the O.B. is scurrilous. Any thoughts>>

Yes...about the pot calling the kettle black.

Though Jesus had former prostitutes and worshippers of Juno [homosexual] among his friends and converts, the reason that they now followed Jesus was because they denounced their abnormal sexual perversions. The NT identifies that these practises were former before they became converts.

Hey, back up a little bit here!! Worshippers of Juno were homosexuals?
We're talking Juno the Roman Goddess of childbirth and fidelity in marriage,yeah? The very same goddess that every Roman prayed to for a happy marriage? THAT Juno translates into the patron saint of homosexuals?

Oh please, please point me to where, in the inerrant NT, this transformation took place?

Unbelievable.

Prejudice and discrimination dressed up and disguised as moral outrage.

Where is the moral outrage for tax-free business dealings and for those other business owners who have to compete for the same tourist dollars in a non-competitive market?

I agree with Romany and Pelican - this thread is
unbelievable. The moral outrage is as shallow
as the term "Christian" that's applied here.

Christ was not about exclusion or
selectivity.

Christ would have welcomed a group of young people
from country areas who as The Age article
states, "suffered terrible, sometimes violent
abuse, and high rates of suicide..."
He would have granted them the week-end camp to give
them the much needed break by the beach, where they
could seek support, get counseling, and
discuss how to deal with issues in their home towns.

And these so called "Christians" are exempt from paying
taxes because they're a religious organisation?

This needs to be investigated because this organisation
obviously doesn't behave as one.

They don't seem to practice Christ's basic teachings.

Christianity is about love..a plan of life where we love God and we love people. As a Christian I find it reprehensible that it is used as a cloak for homophobia or in fact vilification of any people considered in any way different or dare I say "sinful". Whether homosexuality is a crime or a sin or even ok is not the point. The point is that people who profess Christianity have an obligation to love ALL... not hate.

On the other hand, surely any private organisation has the right to retrict the use of their facilities to members of their own organisation, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, or even personal belief. Free enterprise represents the capacity to make choices... To demand that a private organisation be required by law to open its doors to all is a restriction to free enterprise. Often in these cases, blacklisting is a more effective form of retribution...where the effect on the hip pocket nerve forces other choices to be made.

On a different tangent though, one might well question the motives of a group of people demanding a facility be opened for their use when they know the owners of that facility do not support their life philosophies.

I would wonder why a group of people would want to patronise any organisation that vilifies them.

I think we may have a record here. Brother Porky seems to have deserted his own thread after only one post.

Admittedly it was a spectacularly silly one, even by his standards.

of course the bretheren will clean the sheets of all "bodily extrusions" from these folk, but the problem does not end there

Pillow Bighters can make a huge mess of pillows and one wonders how fair that is to next user

>Brother Porky seems to have deserted his own thread after only one post<

He's a busy man CJ. What with converting people, being outraged, picking through other people's religious texts in search of nasty bits, attending anti-other people rallies, chatting over lattes with his new best friend Col, exuding hostility, sifting through YouTube, manufacturing vast quantities of bile, bleaching his robes and scuffing his sandals. You can't expect him to be the slave of his own threads as well.

no CJ.. not deserted.. just hard working on some designs.. 'focused' you might say...

Back to Business!

Sofisu makes a good point....

The point is that people who profess Christianity have an obligation to love ALL... not hate.

BUT.. many will miss the important aspect of this mentioned by Philo..

YES..Jesus was a friend of tax collextors and sinners..but look at how they reacted to him.. they repented!

Zacchaeus "Lord.. anyone I have defrauded I restore 4 fold" ..he was a tax collector.

Woman caught in adultery "Go..and sin no more"

Sorry..the meek and mild Jesus who just 'winks' at all sin and doesn't really care about it is a figment of the imagination of sinners, certainly not the Jesus of the new Testament.

Now..down to tin tacs.

THE POINT.. for Pericles benefit is that this is just another example of the ongoing vilification of Christians by the left/gay lobby in an attempt at 'revenge' for perceived historical marginalization

The distance between todays 'but the law is against them (the gays)' and tomorrows "Exemptions to the Equal opportunity act are under review" and the next days "Hate laws" such as ATTEMPTED to criminalize and incarcerate Pastor Ake Green.... is not as much as many people think.

MORE POINTS.

If the story had said "Christian Brethren refused admission to a gay support group because of the practice being utterly condemned in the Bible" I would not have argued.

TAX EXEMPT status. They are a non profit group so there is no tax on 'camp income' but the Camps employees PAY TAX they are not exempt. Fees are as far as I know..so if Tax was added.. then all of us who wished to use it such as Rotary or Lions etc.. would be all paying more. If you want to pay more tax for your school child to go on a camp there ..hey don't wait just work it out and send it to the goverment.

It's about time...that those who keep on like a broken record about

"Christians are supposed to love everyone"

then..when we make a point about what our own foundation documents and our founder says... suddenly "Oh.Oh.. you hate gays.. you hate Muslims, you you..... you hate drinkers..you hate hate hate..froth.. bubble.. froth dribble"

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH AND ROT!

This is nothing other than the miserable life challenged rock crawling political left seeking to malign those who disagree with them.

I suppose when this bully tried to extort money and intimidate a young child at our friday night youth group (in 1970s) I HATED him just because I grabbed him, explained that his behavior is not acceptable (let alone unlawful) and then physically ejected him from the premises...(Hi Trevor :) that I HATED him... duh x 100

The lamentable intellectual shallowness of the Christophobic secular pharisees out there is mind boggling.

If I said "You all hate Jesus and you want to kill Christians" just because you criticize CYC youth camps for being tax exempt.. wellllll do I need to say more? it is absurd and ludicrious.

But wait....that IS how the Christophobics actually operate..and given that some of them perport to have high education, then it is highly suggestive that their motives are malicious and hateful and very unethical. (Pericles.. I hope you had a tea towel on your keyboard there :)..because I KNOW..what ur thinking)

Yep, he DID have that thought. BANG! .....and it's all over the bed linen.

CARP_Poly has raised an important issue here. It’s a pity it was just a stalking horse for bagging homosexuals.

But he is awfully confused as to who the victims of discrimination are in this case. Presumably due to a very muddled way of thinking, (especially displayed in that last little outburst) by the incoherent and erratic capitals, and unnecessary ellipsis’s that inconsistently vary in length.

Religions have had a ‘free ride’ in societies for far too long and the fact that an organisation of any sort, can enjoy big tax breaks, and then discriminate against hard-working tax payers is an absolute disgrace!

The only activity religious organisations should be able to do tax-free or with tax-exemptions is charity work, and I’d be interested to know how much of the tax-exempt earnings of this resort goes to charity? Not that it would justify their discriminatory practices in any way.

The laws obviously need to change here. We live in the 21st century and we’re now civilised enough to realise that religion is (and always has been) far too big for it’s boots. It’s time this Dark-age belief system was put in it’s place – safely tucked away in the corner where it belongs.

Personally, I’d rather sleep in a bed that had been slept in by a gay couple, than a bed that had been slept in by a Christian couple, who so self-righteously think that I’m going to suffer eternal damnation, because I don’t believe that a God had his son tortured because a pair of naked adolescents were persuaded by a talking snake to eat an apple.

As for these Brethrens though, I remember from my Church-going days, that even amongst the wider mainstream Christian community, these ultraconservative radicals were considered bit weird – not just the Exclusives.

"abominable, sick, disgusting" = hate.

If you had simply chosen to use "sinful, distasteful", then accusing you of hatemongering would be much harder.

I would support the church not allowing a gay group to use its facilities only if it was the standard practice of this church to not to provide accomodation for any outsiders.

As far as I'm concerned, the church has got to rid itself of hypocracy and change its attitude to gays. There are lots of gays in the church but they are forced to keep quiet about it, in the same way I have to keep quiet about my nudist activities. The church is accepting of other sinners, so why not gays? The former AOG pastor who was responsible for starting Youth Alive is an openly gay Christian. Anthony Venn-Brown has written a book, I think it's called "A Life of Unlearning". I'm interested in knowing where to obtain a copy.

Polycarp, you probably have slept in a bed used for homosexual acts. You don't know whose slept in your bed when you are in a hotel room.

Porky's right about one thing - his brain appears to have exploded...

...all over his keyboard and into the Internet and on to OLO.

Cripes. Not pretty.

Just read this article.

Very interesting.

Polycarp, in answer to your initial comments:

1 & 2: What you or your children or the Christian Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren think of gay people is pretty irrelevant. You do not have the right NOT to be offended. I don't much like Christians who cast the first stone, or bigots in general, but they exist and I tolerate them.

The question is whether the Christian Brethren should be allowed to turn away a group of people because of a bigotry toward them. Ultimately, VCAT will decide, but it is apparently legal for a church to discriminate.

But are they operating as a church or as a business? Do they profit from hiring out their resort? If they are going to act like any other business, then they should pay tax like any other business, and be accountable like any other business. To me, the camp website reads like it is a for-profit business.

To me, this situation begs the question: WHY ARE CHURCHES STILL TAX-EXEMPT? If churches have a charitable arm, the can corral off that part of themselves and register it as a charity, but the church itself should contribute to general taxation in this country, particularly if they are running businesses.

After all, why should I, through my taxes, support a group that is far richer than I am, and that I believe to have less scruples and a more shallow commitment to living an ethical life than I do?

3. I am confused by your point here. Can you restate it? My view is that the human rights issue is pretty simple: the Christian Brethren are free to practice their religion, but they are NOT free to override Australian law. They can publicly say, "We hate gays", but they cannot officially refuse them services that the law allows them.

Pure sophistry, Boaz.

>>THE POINT.. for Pericles benefit is that this is just another example of the ongoing vilification of Christians by the left/gay lobby in an attempt at 'revenge' for perceived historical marginalization. The distance between todays 'but the law is against them (the gays)' and tomorrows "Exemptions to the Equal opportunity act are under review" and the next days "Hate laws" such as ATTEMPTED to criminalize and incarcerate Pastor Ake Green.... is not as much as many people think.<<

Your position generally fits the description, in that one definition of sophistry is "the practice of using arguments which seem clever but are actually false and misleading"

Marked down on the "seem clever" content, I'm afraid.

And you missed out on most of the main game. Looking deeper, sophistry is actually about "subtle, superficially plausible, but actually specious or fallacious reasoning, as was sometimes used by the sophists"

Although you did get marks for the specious and fallacious content, as you would expect.

Where to start?

"just another... vilification of Christians..." etc. ad naus.

Errrr, Boaz, there's no "vilification of Christians" here.

It's a discrimination lawsuit. A legal issue. A group of people who share a common interest, being prevented from booking in at a place that is using government money - i.e. their taxes - to make profits for its owner.

On a side note, I'm willing to bet the case never sees the light of day in court. Too much at stake to let the sun shine on their nifty little business, I suspect. I smell a "settlement".

Which would be a shame.

"'revenge' for perceived historical marginalization"

Interesting that you include the word "perceived"... but "revenge", Boaz? That's simply paranoia.

And your attempt to wriggle out of the Swedish Pastor fiasco is noted, but rejected. You are, as I and others pointed out, using the same example as evidence for two totally opposite arguments.

Not clever.

None of the finer points of sophistry here, Boaz, just the false and misleading bits, alongside the specious and fallacious reasoning.

4/10. Must try harder.

cont...

4. The article does not link the Christian Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren but says they parted ways in the 80s. I think "infamous" is an fair enough description for the EB — they are famous for donating to election campaigns despite having rules against involving themselves in the political system, and they are famous for breaking up families. Famous for all the wrong reasons = infamous.

Like it or not, Polycarp, the laws of this country broadly reflect what reasonable people believe at this point in history. It's wrong to murder, it's wrong to steal, it's wrong to refuse some people what others receive simply because of their sexuality. Of course, not all reasonable people agree, and you are free to rail against this law, as you have.

Did you read the article to the end? Seventeen-year-old student Jake Quilligan's house was broken into, everything trashed and doused in accelerant, "fag" spray-painted on the wall. I'm not saying a Christian did it, although one might have, but imagine the violation, the pain, the rejection! At seventeen. On top of finding out that one group thinks you're so disgusting that they cannot bear to have you walk on their bit of earth. It's heartbreaking. It takes all my strength not to find this sentence — "the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding" — as nauseating as you find gay sex. Particularly in that it suggests you would bequeath your hatred to your child.

The Brethren's actions demonstrate how far Christianity has strayed from the actual teachings of Christ. It's a deplorable situation, and it shows Christians — or at least this lot — cannot play a meaningful role in fashioning a truly good and free and ethical society.

Polycarp, I suggest you consider reading your book again and waiting until you're sin-free yourself before letting that brain explode. Or, even better, let God do the judging.

Dear Veronika,

"Let God do the judging."

Says it all.

And, I suspect that these so called
"Christians" wouldn't know where to
look, to find Him.

The dollar signs
are blocking their vision.

Porkfeller

At the outset you put your finger on the issue:

<<For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding.
I would regard such a situation as absolutely intolerable.>>

Right on, David. This tells me more about you than homosexuals.

But your concept is worth more than the 4/10 awarded by Pericles. It's so brilliant, I've adapted it.

Could you please post on OLO all the hotels/motels/guest houses/camp sites/ etc that you have slept in over the past ten years. I won't feel safe until I know which beds to avoid.

Veronika, they are probably "non profit" by the legal definitions.
The real profits are returned by way of discounted access to facilities for David and his kin, by improved facilities, aquisition of additional facilities and by providing jobs to the faithful.

David says "If you want to pay more tax for your school child to go on a camp there ..hey don't wait just work it out and send it to the goverment.".

By that logic every business that supplies services to schools (along with other customers) should be tax exempt (and possibly rates exempt). The tax exemption if it is as it appears gives them an unfair advantage in the market place over other operators who may operate on a more ethical and compassionate basis.

R0bert

Hmm... quite a few worthy points there.. nothing like a good ol stouche to get the juices going.. ya know ur alive :)

Ok.. STEEL MAN.. you had a point worthy of discussion.

You agree that they should be able to discriminate if they only cater for their 'own' flock... fair point. I disagree on the following grounds.

Secular people are not tagged with any specific.. 'sin' ..they are sinners just like the rest of us. But IF...the local 'swingers' club wanted access.. they have a 'labele.. ie.. "promiscuous and adulterous sexual liasions."
So..by that 'tag' they are a non starter. The fact that CYC camps is open for Corporate, School and Community organizations is in fact evidence of their NON Judgemental outlook. Gays and swingers judge themSELVES by their name.

SPIKEY.. the difference in 'hotels/motels' is that it's pot luck.. you simply don't know... with a camp which has taken in homosexuals you KNOW. But even if nothing had been done, the problem is not the specific acts done at the camp..it is the moral position adopted BOASTFULLY (Gay pride marches) by this group..and the insidious attempts to brain wash children by introducing deviate sexual orientation as 'normal' in various educational/media outlets.

FOXY.. God indeed DOES do the judging... on the final day.. in the mean time, we have responsibilities not to promote or facilitate specific sin by groups labelled by that sin itself.

VERONIKA.. Michael Bachelard the author of that article deliberately mentioned criminal activity which has ZERO relevance to the story, and then said "not saying the Brethren had anything to do with this" HAH!X 100 in your dreams pal.. you (Bachelard) knew EXACTLY what you were doing.. 'pandering to the commercial interests of FAIRFAX!

VERONIKA.. I need to say more about your comments.

QUOTE
The Brethren's actions demonstrate how far Christianity has strayed from the actual teachings of Christ.
UNQOUTE.

In order for that to be valid.. you have to show 2 things.

1/ That Jesus never condemned immorality.
2/ That Homosexual behavior was not regarded as 'immoral' during Jesus time (and in the history of Israel)

I know that you cannot do this, so I have to ask (while scratching my noggin) 'Where' did she get this idea that Jesus taught that gay sex is ok?

Having studied the book rather thoroughly..I can assure you I know it well enough to back up what I said above.

The Christian faith (even the Liberal versions) is based on the Bible which includes also the epistles of Paul, Peter and others.

PERICLES.. "settlement"? good grief Pericles.. what you don't know mate.
1/ Did Catch the Fire 'settle' ? NO!
2/ Try getting a booking at CYC adventure camp.. it's almost impossible even for US... we tried.. its' too popular booked out annually for years.

As it comes under the Trust..and given that the VCAT thing is spurious.. invalid.. useless and just a cheap publicity stunt... there is no reason at all to settle.. the Law allows religious groups to discrminate and rightly so. The End. on that score.

MonoCarp

<<the difference in 'hotels/motels' is that it's pot luck.. you simply don't know... with a camp which has taken in homosexuals you KNOW. But even if nothing had been done, the problem is not the specific acts done at the camp..it is the moral position adopted BOASTFULLY (Gay pride marches) by this group..and the insidious attempts to brain wash children by introducing deviate sexual orientation as 'normal' in various educational/media outlets.>>

Don't they change the sheets at your Xian camp, David?

So, if I understand you correctly, Polycarp, the one and only reason you disapprove of homosexuals is because of your faith.

Have you ever considered that Jesus (if he existed) might have been wrong about some things?
If you believe that Jesus was never wrong, then you should also advocate that parents should kill their disobedient children and bosses should beat their 'servants', because isn't that what Jesus said, too?

Come on, think about it. Jesus was quite progressive for his time. If Jesus would live here and now his personality wouldn't have changed from a kind progressive to a miserable, borish, conservative wowser, who would refuse accommodation to a group of homosexuals.

He'd probably support same-sex marriage and vote for the Greens.

Jesus even chose not to write his teachings down. Perhaps Jesus never WANTED his words to be written down because he knew that written down words would freeze people into a time that is not theirs and prevent them from moving along with the zeitgeist.

That's a very interesting angle, Celivia. In fact, it's possible that Jesus was gay - I mean, he is reputed to have spent a lot of time with a small group of men, and his closest female friend was a prostitute. Lots of working girls are also 'fag hags', I hear.

In fact, it's far more likely that Jesus was gay than far-fetched stuff like walking on water, rising from the dead etc.

As his mum said, "He's not the Messiah, he's just a naughty boy".

Possibly a very naughty boy.

CJ,
Yep, quite possible that Jesus was gay. Anything is more likely than the so-called 'miracles'.

Although, the turning of water into wine sounds very much like Jesus, doesn't it? He obviously liked a good party and liked people to have fun.

And what's more fun than having sex with a fag if you're a fag?
(Especially at a nice holiday camp.)
It beats having to pretend that you're heterosexual when you're not.
It beats having to live a lie.

Talk about beating- do you reckon that Jesus could've been into bdsm?
Perhaps he meant his advice to 'beat your disobedient servant' in a good way.

"nothing like a good ol stouche to get the juices going.. ya know ur alive :)"

Now there's a mental picture I could have lived without. Would it have been quite so graphic if stoush hadn't been misspelled to rhyme with douche? Does it count as a Freudian slip?

Celivia and CJ

Thank you for providing some much need irreverence on yet another piece of sophistry created by Pollybooze.

I think you may have hit upon the truth about Jesus - evidence for being a heterosexual, zero. Evidence for being gay; there were 12 men who could confirm that.

There have been some concerns about the bed linen.

"NOTE: Guests must bring their own bedding, ie. sheets, sleeping bag, blankets, pillow case etc. Pillows supplied, doonas available " http://cyc.org.au/piar/school/accommodation/

With 4 or 5 to a room the parties could get interesting (or very dull)

Maybe David could take his own pillow when he goes to stay.

R0bert

Dear Polycarp,

In reply to my last post you wrote:
"God indeed DOES do the judging...on the
final day...in the meantime, we have
responsibilities not to promote or
facillitate specific sin by groups
labelled by that sin itself."

God doesn't have to do the judging in
your case Polycarp. He knows you for
what you are:

"There are eunuchs born that way from
their mother's womb..." Mat 19:12

As for taking the responsibility not to
promote or facillitate specific sin by
groups labelled by that sin itself ---
well, you and the cult you represent
are not about to change as far as I can see
from all of your threads and posts.

You will continue to preach, "abominable, sick,
disgusting, sinful," = hate, under the guise
of "Christian" values.

Even though what you preach is in sharp contrast
with the basic teachings of Christ - who was inclusive
of all individuals.

Indeed, chainsmoker - I noticed the "stouche" too, and also wondered about its Freudian aspects. However, I really didn't want to go there...

R0bert - I guess Porky could take his own mattress protector, like they make for incontinent elderly people?

Celivia - I guess it's also possible that Jesus was into BDSM, and further that the crucifixion was a sex act gone wrong. Still far more likely than the so-called 'miracles', I reckon.

Thanks Fractelle - sometimes it's all too easy to take some of these discussions too seriously. Have a great day!

My word, Fractelle!

Oh it's very possible that the crucifixion went a little bit wrong, CJ, after all that never-ending wine supply at the party.
I suppose Jesus gained a lot in his life time- no pain no gain.

Look at this site, too funny. You can do a little bit of playing there with Jesus.
http://www.jesusdressup.com/bdsm.html

Polycarp could protect his brain from exploding by buying his own (brandnew) Campervan.

I just wonder how far Polycarp would go. Say, for example he needed a kidney transplant, would he make the choice to die rather than accept a kidney from a homosexual?

The frankincense and mhyrr are starting to make sense. Three ordinary men might have given him a footy and a toy tractor, but the wise men knew better.

And how about all those paintings of a Jesus the size of a 16 year old still prancing around in his mother's lap? Mummy's boy?

A gay, socialist man of Middle Eastern appearance. How postmodern. Maybe he does have contemporary relevance after all.

Love that website, Celivia! With respect to the gay Jesus theme, apparently it's a bit of a trope in some circles:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusinlove/1473970290/

http://www.jesusinlove.org/

<< Gay Jesus Play Blasted by Bishop

Andrew Taylor and Kristie Lau
January 20, 2008

A PLAY that depicts Jesus as a gay man who is seduced by Judas and conducts a gay marriage for two apostles has been condemned by religious leaders as it prepares to open in Sydney. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-jesus-play-blasted-by-bishop/2008/01/19/1200620272704.html

Or even better:

<< Was Jesus Gay?

A search for the Messiah;s True Sexuality Leads to a Snare of Lusty Theories.

By Hank Hyena

"Behold how he loved him!" (John 11:36)

"It's fabulous," exulted Brian, my bearded gay friend. "I get to be Jesus at the Easter Fetish performance party. First I'm laid out on a pink marble slab, with only a wisp of loincloth about me. Then -- hallelujah! Resurrection!"

"You're too short," I muttered. "I'd be better." (The best part I ever got in six Catholic pageants was Bartholomew, the geeky apostle.)

"Oh stop," Brian continued. "Listen -- slowly, I rise, for my very favorite part: 12 handsome men -- the apostles -- march in and kiss me all over my body."

[continues] >>

http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html

chainsmoker: << A gay, socialist man of Middle Eastern appearance. >>

David Malouf is the Messiah!

Ok folks.. my 'too many posts' limit is over and I'm ba-ack. (some might say like the horror movie :)

or..as Skyhooks rendered it:

Watch a horror movie right there on my TV
Horror movie right there on my TV
Horror movie right there on my TV
Shockin' me right out of my brain
Shockin' me right out of my brain

It's bound to get ya in, get ya under your skin
Hit you right on the chin, oh yeah
It's bound to be a thriller, it's bound to be a chiller
It's bound to be a killer, oh yeah

But as we all know..it was the '6:30 news'.....

The most telling aspect of the last few frenzied posts by desperate people :) are that while you break the law.. yes.. break the law..

(Look up victorian consolidated legislation... "religious vilification")

No one is going to hunt you down.. and stick a knife in your chest

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thefileroom.org/images/theo-van-gogh_web.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1069&h=293&w=300&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&usg=__OsRTLBKxsWTnl8tdbYP3AojKusQ=&tbnid=2VoNnNoS2BDXxM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtheo%2Bvan%2Bgogh%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

But you should remember.. the man who did that to Theo, would probably also do it if Jesus was insulted. The play was condemned by Muslims also.

Speculation about Jesus sexuality should be based on the available evidence. It's fine to discuss it.. (as the evidence does not point to any such gay conclusion) but to use it as a means of mocking Jesus? aah.. holding Christianity up to public contempt? Thats not only illegal, its a sign of an empty argument.

My point on this thread is that you cannot force people to go against their deeply held religious principles because to do so is... "discrimination"....against them. (do I hear some polygamists and FGM practitioners in the distance?)

So.. 'remove all discrimination' conventions are ridiculous. They always discriminate.

Dear Polycarp,

The Brethren Trust of Australia who owns
the resort in question are the ones
guilty of discrimination.

They are making distinctions between the
young individuals in question that
disadvantages them.

By banning these young people from the
resort the Brethren treated this
group of youngsters less favourably than
others in a comparable situation because
of the youngsters sexual orientation.
And that, is definitely discrimination!

An organisation's motive for discriminating is
irrelevant!

As Robert Nguyen Cramer wrote, "The religious
zealots do not have a fact to stand on.
Their savior has been quoted as being accepting
of people regardless of difference in ethnicity,
political views, culture or lifestyle. It is apparent
that the only choice these zealots have is to accept
homosexuality as a norm and let people live to love and
cherish each other. Gay or straight, we are all human
and do have one thing in common: The feeling of loving
another person unconditionally. That is what God wants
after all, is it not?"

The speculation on Jesus homosexuality is promoted by deviants who know nothing of His righteousness and holiness. Instead of repenting from their own deviant lifestyles they think it funny in mocking the only One who can clean their filthy hearts and sick minds. It was no different to when Jesus walked the earth.

Dear runner,

Check out the following website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_readings_of_Jesus_and_John

Dear Foxy

Men have been twisting Scriptures to their own destruction for centuries. The interpretation of Jesus and John is a clear illustration of this. The suggestion that Jesus was 'gay' is as ridiculous as His so called sexual relationship with Mary. It might ease the sinful conscience but will result in eternal death for those gullible enough to want to believe in such tripe. No truer words were written than that of John when He wrote 'This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure.'

I am surprised you choose to believe lies written by men rather than God's Word.

"addicted to denial and illusion,"

Now who does that sound like?

Dear runner,

I was merely trying to bring to your attention
the fact that this topic has been under
discussion by academics for decades.

The website that I referred you to was to show
you that it's merely one of many sources
on the subject.

It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

I think you may have missed the point yet again, Boaz.

>>Speculation about Jesus sexuality should be based on the available evidence. It's fine to discuss it.. (as the evidence does not point to any such gay conclusion) but to use it as a means of mocking Jesus? aah..<<

The way I read it, it is you who are being gently mocked here.

I doubt, for example, that it matters a fig to these researchers whether or not Jesus was homosexual.

But it so clearly matters to you.

In protesting "illegality", you are only making an exhibition of yourself.

Quite so, Pericles. I can't speak for anybody else, but my speculation about Jesus' sexuality was certainly far more about lampooning homophobic fundies than about mocking their hero.

Obviously, the point is that wondering whether Jesus was gay has no negative connotations, unless of course one regards homosexuality as a negative quality. My position is, of course, that homophobia is the problem rather than homosexuality per se.

And of course, the stuff about Jesus and his "beloved" John is quite fascinating in itself.

One aspect of Porky's silly homophobic rant that I haven't commented on is his certainty that the gay support group members who were rejected by the Brethos would have been having sex while at their meeting. Why does he assume this?

Is it because those randy gays do nothing other than bonk, or is it because Porky knows more about what usually happens at the "adventure resort" than the rest of us do?

I mean, it's hard to imagine Porky taking his kids to Phillip Island for a weekend love-in among the faithful, but stranger things have happened with these cults...

What matter is Jesus' sexual orientation? He preached love and acceptance of all people, something that completely escapes the thoughts and actions of the religious fundy.

As Pericles and CJ have pointed out it is Polly who is being mocked here. Not Jesus. His sexual orientation is moot.

Also as my esteemed fellow posters have highlighted, Polly's claim:
"Speculation about Jesus sexuality should be based on the available evidence..."

Whatever happened to faith, Polly? You retreat with alacrity into that line of defence at the mere whisper of evolution.

Apply 'available evidence' to all of your religious text, Polly.

Here is a start:

Homosexual behaviour is normal throughout all of the creatures on this world:

".... many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. “Animals don’t do sexual identity. They just do sex,” says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England...."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species

Runner,

Like you, I also take offence to some of the comments made about Jesus on this forum. Unfortunately the people who says these things are provoked to do so by much of the Homophobic comments that come from Christians.

Spot on, CJ, Fractelle and Pericles, it’s the homophobes that are being mocked because they’re just so mockable!
IMO, speculating about Jesus’ sexuality is as much vilification as it is to speculate about his hair colour.
Only in the twisted, devious minds of homophobes could that be seen as religious vilification.

CJ ”… is it because Porky knows more about what usually happens at the "adventure resort" than the rest of us do?”
Excellent question, and hilarious, too. One person’s adventure can be another person’s trauma.

Is Polycarp going to stop loving Jesus if it turns out that he was gay?

Polycarp,
How many posts have you written about Islam and Mohammed that could be regarded as religious vilification by Muslims?

Christians like Foxy and Steel Mann stop me from totally disrespecting the religious. They think that the happiness and lives of people are more important than a few lines of text in the Bible.

You, Polycarp, ignore some bits from the Bible too, you are just cherry picking the parts that you agree with. That’s why I asked why you don’t advocate the killing of disobedient kids or the beating of employees by their employers.

Do Christians like Polycarp, Runner, Philo, Gibo (was he banned or something?) represent Christianity in a way that Jesus would approve of?

WWJD?
If Jesus had managed that Brethren camp, do you really believe that he would have denied access to homosexual groups or couples?

Polycarp and Runner,
I’m curious to find out whether you’d refuse an organ donated by a homosexual if that organ would be the only chance you had to save your life?

Jesus was a thoroughly decent bloke by all accounts. Generous, kind, gentle, thoughtful, sympathetic, fair and plenty of other positive descriptive terms. These are the characteristics I admire in him, and supposedly the ones we're supposed to use as guidance in our own lives. None of them have anything to do with his sexuality.

The suggestion that he may have been gay is beside the point for people who are more interested in his character than what he did with his boy bits. For all we know, Love your fellow man was meant to be taken literally. If not, it's a pretty reasonable way to think about other people of all kinds.

If Jesus was gay it's only ever going to bother those who discriminate on the basis of something that's really none of their business.

CJ - David Malouf, yeah, I can imagine that. I doubt the idea would appeal to him, but then Jesus reportedly wasn't too happy about it either.

Celivia you ask?

'I’m curious to find out whether you’d refuse an organ donated by a homosexual if that organ would be the only chance you had to save your life?'

More to the point Celivia if I was to be a organ donor I would have no problem donating to a person caught in the sin of homosexuality. It seems to me that most of the hate in these posts come from those who are pro the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. Despite your insinuations I hold no hate in my heart for those practicing homosexuality. I am able to separate the person from the immorality as I do with fornicators or adulterers etc

I don't personally know if I would accept an organ donation from anyone however unless faced with the situation I could not give a definite answer.

Well said, chainsmoker.

Thanks for your honest answer to one of my questions, runner.
I could continue to question your answer more but I think I'll let you off the hook for now.
What is your answer, Polycarp?

Now, another question I had is, do you think that Jesus would have refused accommodation at his camp to a gay support group?

And a last question remaining unanswered is, why do you cherry pick the bits from the bible that condemn homosexuality but not other bits such as beating servants and killing children?

“…the hate in these posts come from those who are pro the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.”
Hate is not the same as disagreement. I just strongly disagree with the fundies especially when they try to control or interfere with the lives and freedoms of others, such in this case, homosexuals. There is no acceptable reason why homosexual people should not have the same rights as any other person, including marriage.

What you fail to understand is that defending the homosexual lifestyle is not the same as promoting it, it is about promoting the acceptance of it.
A certain percentage of the population –of any species- and in any culture is homosexual.
Accept it and live and let live. The sexuality of other people is none of your business.

Homosexuality will not cease to exist when a group of fundies vilify homosexuality or try to control their life styles.

Beautifully put, Celivia.

>>What you fail to understand is that defending the homosexual lifestyle is not the same as promoting it, it is about promoting the acceptance of it.<<

This is also the case with the mozzie-bashers.

The evangelist Christians on this forum seem to believe that my defending the right of someone to a peaceful existence as a Muslim, free of the persistent battering from Christian fundamentalists and fearmongers, is the same as sharing their beliefs.

Not sharing someone else's totally legal and harmless life choices is one thing. Actively discriminating against them is, however, offensive.

Which of course leads to the obvious question: does the camp allow Muslim groups to book there?

If so, how is this defensible in comparison to their attitude towards gays?

If not, how is it defensible at all?

Celivia

'Now, another question I had is, do you think that Jesus would have refused accommodation at his camp to a gay support group?'

Put it this way Celivia. The Scriptures clearly state 'Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.'

I think that Jesus would be inviting the homosexual along with all others to turn from their sin and gain entrance into a far more lasting place than a camp. I really don't understand why they would want to go someone where they are not welcome. I guarantee I would not be welcome at a 'gay club'.

And a last question remaining unanswered is, why do you cherry pick the bits from the bible that condemn homosexuality but not other bits such as beating servants and killing children?

Are do you Celivia just naive or deliberately misrepresenting the Only One who can save you from your sin?

Dear Celivia
I hardly think that a donated organ would ever come with a label "from a gay person" :)

I'd accept anything which would save my life for the sake of my children and loved ones..The issue about homosexuality which is condemned in the Bible is.. 'behavior' i.e. the practice of it.

I notice a lot of 'retreating' of the mockers :) now trying to claim they are mocking the evangelists..... *looks sideways*....

One question was if Mozzies could regard anything I've written as religious vilification? Sure.. lots of it.. the point is not what they would 'regard' as vilification but what the legal definition of it is.. and.. the exemptions and exceptions.

Having read the trial transcript of the 2 Dannies case..I can assure you my language and presentation are within the law.

I can equally assure certain 'mockers' that their comments are ABSOLUTELY illegal and actionable.. no matter their protestations of "Oh but we were only mocking you"....

I suggest you read the transcript and find the part where Judge Higgins mentioned "Oh.. and I heard laughter in the audience when he said that.. thus they were ridiculing".....

Mock me all you like :) you should be aware that it has no impact by now. Just keep your brains turned on in the process.. I get encouraged when I see evidence of people looking at how the Lord acted and spoke. I hope though, that one day most of you will read ALL that He did and said.. and not just trot out the convenient "He embraced/included all" mantra which sounds good but is patently false.

His message was REPENT..and BELIEVE.. and he came as the object of that belief so people could become his disciples "Learn of me"
He came as the solution for SIN... let's not try to turn him into a 'good buddy' of our own imagination.

David, "now trying to claim they are mocking the evangelists"

It was blatently obvious the main intent was to mock your rediculous "my head would explode" attitude.

The point also seems to have been made quite well that different things can be read into "foundation documents" if you have a mind to do so. The issue is not about the evidence, it's what assumptions you bring to your reading of those documents. The bible does not comment one way or the other about Jesus sexual orientation.

Would it be as offensive if Jesus was gay but chose not to engage in sexual activity? Is there sin in that?

R0bert

"I hope though, that one day most of you will read ALL that He did and said.. and not just trot out the convenient "He embraced/included all" mantra which sounds good but is patently false."

If it's patently false I'd rather stick with the bloke of my childhood scripture classes who promoted peace and love, thanks all the same. I like my fantasies better than yours. From where I stand the Gentle Jesus version is worthy of all the adulation he's had over the centuries. There's nothing exceptional about the vengeful, discriminatory version, Nasty Jesus. Given what we know of human nature, he's not particularly noteworthy.

There's something fundamentalists seeking to covert the godless fail to understand. The only exceptional thing to be claimed about Nasty Jesus is the supposed connection with god, which doesn't stand scrutiny for a lot of people. Gentle Jesus was exceptional regardless of his parentage, and probably in spite of it, which is something us godless can admire.

For godless Gentle Jesus fans like myself, god botherers using Jesus as ammunition against others speaks volumes about particular brands of god bothering, but nothing else.

Dear Polycarp,

You can espouse Bible quotes as
much as you like. They don't add any credibility
to your arguments. Your views are as shallow as your
understanding of Christ's teachings. You pick and choose
what you think will give you credence. And as posters
continually point out - you keep tripping over your
own limited knowledge and biased perceptions.

Christ was inclusive of all individuals.

It's a shame that you aren't.

Oh listen up all you mocking swine of OLO. How little you appreciate the pearls he castes every day before you.

Masterly Biblical scholar and commentator, special expert on all things Islamic, virtuoso authority on all matters ethical. There's nothing he can't turn his fecund mind to. Homosexuality, Islam, pornography, Islam, child abuse, Islam, multiculturalism, Islam, kirpans, Islam, Camp Brethren, Islam.

And now I announce before you all. The newest legal guru: Dr BOAZ who - pro bono - offers the following definitive legal opinion: "I can equally assure certain 'mockers' that their comments are ABSOLUTELY illegal and actionable." Now you KNOW.

No need of WORLDLY judges and Tribunals when our man David is on the case. One sentence from him and all all doubts fall to the floor quicker than the brain can digest.

Ah it takes me back to the golden days of the polymath, Renaissance man. Dr Boaz, we're so GRATEFUL to have your SPECIAL talents for all things attestational, evidentiary and non-falsifiable.

Dear Spikey,

Thank You.

You've summed up the feelings of
many of us on the Forum.

I told people to put warning labels on religion. Please note! Don't put any nonreligious parts in christians. It may cause one to nail its self to a cross or explode.

Its obvious that we atheists have more love in our hearts than other religious folk.
Thank you David for hours of fun and entertainment. I am glade one-one takes you too seriously.

All the best to you and your family.

EVO

Yeah, well said by all. It's interesting and heartening that there is near consensus rejection of Porky's hateful agenda here, no matter how hard he wriggles.

Like Foxy, I think that Spikey's hit the nail on the head, not to mention chainsmoker's positive aspects of the 'Gentle Jesus', with whom I have no quarrel. R0bert's also spot on about so-called 'foundation documents'.

Cue gratuitous biblical quotation, Mozzie-whack or Porkycrap vanishing act...

Yeah well said, Spikey.

I re-read the article.
“religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles"
I wonder how the Brethren are going to prove that their beliefs or principles are genuine. They can’t even prove that their God is genuine, let alone their belief in Him.

Pericles,
“Not sharing someone else's totally legal and harmless life choices is one thing. Actively discriminating against them is, however, offensive.”
Definitely, but they will deliberately fail to understand that.

Runner,
Whatthe? The Scripture statement you quoted groups homosexuals together in one sentence with abusers and thieves. Why would you want to repeat such filth?

“Are you Celivia just naive or deliberately misrepresenting the Only One who can save you from your sin?”

And,
“I guarantee I would not be welcome at a 'gay club'.”
Dunno, Runner, I think the gay club would be happy to invite you as an entertainer if you offered.
It doesn’t matter, runner, whether I asked the question because I misrepresent the Only One or because I am naïve, just answer it.

Polycarp,
“The issue about homosexuality which is condemned in the Bible is.. 'behavior'”
So is the bible suggesting that some people have to deny their sexuality and need for a happy relationship while others don’t?

Don’t forget that YOU are a sinner, too. You divorced and remarried and in Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
”Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
So you, as a sinner, approves of discrimination against other sinners, even though Jesus said things like, “Stop judging, so that you shall not be judged.”
Learn of him, Polycarp!

Continued

Polycarp,
It’s easy to tell others how to behave or what to believe; it is far more difficult to leave other people alone and concentrate on your own sins and flaws, and on your own behaviour.

Pericles wonders whether Muslims would be allowed to book at the camp. That would be very interesting to find out.
I wonder if remarried couples or divorcee support groups are allowed to book there. A sin is a sin.
Someone’s brain might explode if they happen to sleep in the same bed as adulterers have been rolling around in.

“I notice a lot of 'retreating' of the mockers”
Not retreating, but explaining to you, since you and runner were the only ones who didn’t “get” the fundies were the mocking target.

RObert,
“It was blatently obvious the main intent was to mock your rediculous "my head would explode" attitude.”
Thanks, that’s exactly right, perhaps the fundies will get it now.

Err point of order Celivia.. been married to one women for 29 yrs :)

Never been divorced.. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Spikey... not a bad effort there mate.. I guess that is how people react to the confident assertion of the law, based in a careful reading of a case trial.

Anyway.. bless you for at least attacking 'me' and not the Lord Himself.

Foxy says:

you keep tripping over your
own limited knowledge and biased perceptions.

Christ was inclusive of all individuals.

Dear Foxy, you shouldn't say such things when they aren't true.
Jesus did not 'include' "all" individuals. He denounced some.. in no uncertain terms. Those with the most knowledge... the most light... he denounced most severely. But it was righteous judgement.

Pharisees asked Jesus about him being the Messiah "proooove it/tell us plainly" they said.

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish;

Which part of "you are not my sheep" is "inclusive of all individuals"

The fact is... homosexual behavior is sinful.. just like adultery (including the mental kind) and theft (even the mental kind)
and Murder (including the mental kind)

The difference is.. these days people wear the 'gay' badge openly..not many of us wear one which says "I want to kill [fill in the name]"

Bit IF...they did... the would quicly wear out their welcome.

I should have learned by now that it is pointless flogging a dead horse, but somehow I'm addicted to it where Boaz is concerned.

Your primary skill on this forum, Boaz, is not your ability to present your case with clarity.

Nor is it the intelligent articulation of a defensible intellectual stance.

Come to that, nor is it spelling, grammar, logic, tolerance or humour, but it is quite easy to overlook those.

Your greatest achievement is without doubt to avoid answering direct questions.

You simply duck the ones that you don't like, as if the questions did not exist. Once, you may recall, you even changed your signature to avoid answering.

All that is a preamble that I hope will shame you into at least completing one such task. A forlorn hope, but here goes.

Does the camp allow Muslim groups to book there?

If so, how is this defensible in comparison to their attitude towards gays?

If not, how is it defensible at all, given that it is a commercial operation?

While you are in the spirit of treading this unfamiliar path of actually answering a question, there are a few others that you have ignored too, that you might like to follow up on.

Have a great day.

Dear Polycarp,

I'll keep it simple.

The only purity that mattered to Christ
was purity of heart.

"It is not what goes into the mouth that
defiles a person, but it is what comes out
of the mouth that defiles..." (Mat 15:10, 18-20).

Christ was talking about evil intentions,
false witness, slander, these are what defile
a person. Evil thoughts.

Christ was not impressed with externals.
He looked into the heart.

"The only thing that counts is faith
working through love." (Galations 5:6).

Christ objected to false religious showings
such as praying in front of everybody,
putting a lot of money into the collection
so others will notice, exhibitions of piety,
soliciting in his name but not practising
his teachings...

"People honour me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me." (Mark 7:6).

It is immoral behaviour that is condemned,
be it practiced by
heterosexuals or homosexuals alike.

And by your behaviour, you shall be judged.

Take care.

HOOORAY :) Foxy is fighting the good fight..and in so doing she suddenly realizes that the Lord IS interested in purity of heart...

and that those without it... were.. rejected. Such as the Pharisees.

The inclusion/welcome of the woman in adultery was postscripted with SIN NO MORE..... I hope you notice that. If she went back to the bed of her adulterous lover.. do you think Jesus would 'commend' her behavior?

Now at least we are getting somewhere. Foxy.. I gather your point would be that homosexuals can be pure of heart... right? I have to put a position statement there which will show where I stand.

A person who "believes" they are homosexual.. would be pure in heart if they said "I know I have these feelings..but because I know they are wrong/sinful..I will not act on them" and they would seek to repent of the mental side of that also. There are many single women on the mission field.. who I'll guarantee have 'lustful' thoughts about blokes.. I met a few. But they don't 'act' on those thoughts no matter how strong the thoughts are.

PERICLES..I'm sorry..I didn't notice your question.
Absolutely NO..such a camp would not accomodate Muslims. Not a chance. But let me qualify. If...they were part of a school group..which was not 'Muslim' they would be allowed in I'm sure..
In the same way that a homosexual student within a school group would be able to go there. As long as the primary purpose and identity of that group was NOT "Muslim" nor "Homosexual" in nature.

Clear enough?

By the way.. your constand ad hominems are a waste of time.
-You can't spell
-Your grammar sucks
-You can't argue
etc..

Look in a mirror old son.

Of course you didn't, Boaz.

>>PERICLES..I'm sorry..I didn't notice your question.<<

Even now you missed half of it.

"...how is it defensible at all, given that it is a commercial operation?"

The camp is a taxpayer-subsidized business that discriminates against a law-abiding section of the community. Once again I ask, on what basis do you consider this to be defensible behaviour?

But it gets weirder.

>>If...they were part of a school group..which was not 'Muslim' they would be allowed in I'm sure... in the same way that a homosexual student within a school group would be able to go there<<

That doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it Boaz? Do you remember saying...

>>For me personally, (and for any serious Christian I believe), the thought that I, or my children could be forced to sleep in a bed used for homosexual acts is brain exploding.<<?

So you no longer mind sleeping in that bed...

"...As long as the primary purpose and identity of that group was NOT "Muslim" nor "Homosexual" in nature."

To be absolutely clear on this, you are proposing that this camp could be occupied week in, week out, by a succession of gay groups and Muslim groups, on the sole proviso that they didn't identify themselves as such.

Would that be correct, Boaz?

Just to recap, there are two questions here:

1. On what basis do you consider the discrimination against Muslims by a taxpayer-subsidised business, to be defensible behaviour?

2. Is it correct to say that you don't actually object to gays and Muslims, so long as they keep it a secret?

>>By the way.. your constand ad hominems are a waste of time. <<

Not for me, Boaz. They stop me from letting your constant holier-than-thou arrogance get to me. Keeps me sane.

Interesting set of questions Pericles.

There are many nuances you are missing though.. hence your questions.

How can it be 'commericial' ? if it was there would be 'profit'...and unless you can show that there is..... then I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
It certainly is "viable".. and if profit were the motive, then I guess they could make some, but it would be structured very differently.

My guess is.. at the moment the income is just repaying debt, and adding to facilities. I don't see how this is taxpayer subsidized?
Can you be more specific as to 'how' it is "subsidized"?
The only tax not being paid is 'company tax'. All employees pay normal income tax.

I absolutely do not recognize the 'law abiding' in relation to your "therefore don't discriminate" because you know as well as I do that the law allows genuine religous conviction as an exemption.
You also know that todays law was brought about by very strong and very anti 'traditional values/Church' lobbying and activism and it is still going on. The 'rainbow coalition' tries to take the communion at Catholic Churches and as far as I know they are not allowed by the Church.

Your hypothetical is too far out there Pericles. Such a thing would not happen. It would be evident in the correspondence prior to the booking being confirmed. It would not surprise me if they have a set of 'guidelines' which indicate their position..but I don't know.

Question 1 Relies on a questionable idea (taxpayer subsidy)But discrimination against anyone is legitimate if based on genuine religious conviction.

Question 2 God's love is available to all.. forgiveness depends on repentance.(Including yours) If an individual homosexual person was seeking help.. he is most welcome to join the fellowship there.

Dear Polycarp,

Again, you missed the point.

Christ and other New Testament leaders taught
by word and example not to be self-righteous
or discriminate against those you consider
to be "sinners." Mat 9:10-13. Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
For in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the measure you use,
it will be measured to you..." Mat. 7:1-2.

Finally, you cannot afford to let your
feelings or fears about homosexuality blind you to
Christ's commandment to "Love your neighbour
as yourself." Mat 22:36-39.

It is false to honour Christ with your lips
only, when your heart is far from His teachings.

"The only thing that counts is faith working
through love." Galations 5:6.

Love your neighbour, leave the judging to God.

Bravo Foxy!

But I'll bet it won't make a scrap of difference to the insensitive BOAZ.

Polycarp,
You said: “.. been married to one women for 29 yrs :)”
Hmmm. If I were mistaken I’d apologise but I find it difficult to believe that you, as a fundy, got married for the 1st time at 30.
Fundies generally marry very young- they’re either desperate to have sex without sinning or as a result of an unplanned pregnancy or to hide their homosexuality.
For the latter I have deep sympathy, as well as for their partners.
These homosexuals are a result of many years of brainwashing by their homophobic, fundy parents.
I sincerely hope that none of you homophobes is home schooling/has home schooled their children.

“The fact is... homosexual behavior is sinful.. just like adultery (including the mental kind) and theft (even the mental kind) and Murder (including the mental kind) “

And

“The difference is.. these days people wear the 'gay' badge openly..not many of us wear one which says "I want to kill [fill in the name]"”
It’s absurd that you believe that your belief that homosexual behaviour is sinful is ‘a fact’.
Once more, homosexuality and murder are named in one breath.
Why are homosexuals as ‘sinful’ as murderers?
A homosexual commits no crime; a murderer does. Homosexuals are merely attracted to a person of the same sex, desire consensual sex or a relationship with another so they can both feel happy no different emotionally than people enjoying heterosexual sex or relationships.

Is bigotry a sin, too?

Pericles,
“…somehow I'm addicted to it where Boaz is concerned.”
I hope that Polycarp is giving you your fix!

“All religious organisations that satisfy the legal definition of religion in Australia are tax-exempt. The Australian Taxation Office makes these determinations when organisations apply. The definition of religion in Australia was decided in the 1983 High Court Scientology case, in which the court defined religion as any belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle and canons of conduct that give effect to that belief. An organisation must have a building, be paying a stipend to a minister with a congregation, perform rituals and be open to the public.

Second, in Australia, under our charity law the dominant purpose of a religious organisation's activities must be the "advancement of religion". It does not matter if the religious organisation is running a commercial business, so long as the dominant purpose of the activity is religious.”

“Second, in Australia, under our charity law the dominant purpose of a religious organisation's activities must be the "advancement of religion". It does not matter if the religious organisation is running a commercial business, so long as the dominant purpose of the activity is religious.
This opens the door for any religious organisation to tithe its members, parlay the donations into a considerable sum, then invest it in a commercial business or investment whose profits will be tax-exempt. All things being equal, with tax-exempt status, a business can grow quickly. There is no requirement for any of these profits to be applied to the relief of poverty or any of the many other charitable causes because the advancement of religion, that 17th-century idea, is deemed to be charitable in itself. It does not matter what kind of religion it is, so long as it has a supernatural belief. ”

Read the whole article here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24144988-7583,00.htm

Ohhhh .......myyyy........... goodness.. this is too precious.

OPEN BRETHREN DISCIMINATE AGAINST GAYS! -CHALLENGED BY GAYS AT VCAT (shock horror)
All those who want the poor old bretho's to submit to the discrimination law and accept GAY campers.... (as a gay group that is) and are trying to rip us to shreds for our position that we must be allowed to discriminate against “groups” which are clearly promoting values which we find abhorrent based on our genuine religious beliefs; might find the following errr at least a bit challenging..

GAYS GRANTED RIGHT BY VCAT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST STRAIGHT AND FEMALES”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/straightout-ban-at-gay-venues-sparks-uproar/2007/05/28/1180205160437.html

VCAT judgement.

“If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to “swamp” the numbers of gay male patrons. This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create.”

COMMENT

Well..how many times have I argued exactly that? Uncontrolled migration, Weapons at school, Islamic prayers LOUD in RMIT on State land, Islamic calls to prayer on PA systems. .. etc.

I just can't wait....to see the mental gymnastics our 'cutting crew' of Brethrenophobes will goto to get out of this one :)

If it shows nothing else.. it shows the utter stupidity of trying to impose 'non discrimination' on a society which values the freedom of association and the right to choose who, when and where it mixes with or accomodates....for reasons of “maintaining the atmosphere it wishes to create”

Now..this also applies on the social level and the national level. If a small group withIN a society is recognized as having a right to establish an 'atmosphere' of its liking..then surely this same principle must apply to a democratic society as a whole?

Personally, I draw the line at issues of 'race'..and reject the idea that 'skin color' is a legitimate aspect of 'atmosphere' which should, in my view, be about 'moral values' rather than race or color.

It's nice when VCAT is on our side (and the side of reason and common sense) for a change.

Excellent points, Celivia which I’d like to expand on, as follows:

The Australian constitution clearly defines us as a secular society: Section 116 provides that "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion or for imposing any religious observation …"
Yet the spirit of that section is breached by the Commonwealth Government and all state governments in many tax provisions. Many religious organisations run commercial activities – at our (the taxpayers) expense. And now the same profitable concerns can discriminate against taxpayers who wish to utilise the services offered.

And Polly asks when discrimination laws discriminate?

Well, for example, why should non-believers be made to pay for the churches of believers. Or how about the taxes paid by working Christians be used for the benefit of, oh, say, Muslims? Or Jews? Or Scientologists?

Yes, many cults such as Scientology have surprisingly received official recognition as "religions".

This question of whether scientology is a religion was considered by the High Court of Australia more than 20 years ago in Church of the New Faith versus Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vict.) 1983 154 CLR 120. To the astonishment of many observers, the court held that it was a genuine religion.

Religious bodies benefit from tax concessions at all levels of government and yet they can discriminate against Australians simply because of their sexual orientation.

Maybe gays and lesbians should declare themselves to be a religion and take advantage of the Religion Rort.

I’d like to see that.

It can’t be that difficult to separate commercial operations from the charities run by religions. Look at the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it runs the Sanitarium Health Food Company, which makes many popular food products. I guess it doesn’t matter if homosexuals purchase breakfast food.

Once again Polly has been crying “wolf” and once again he is shown to be a most biased little Christian.

David, interesting link. I do think that the issues are very different. If the pub was regularly hired out for all sorts of groups and a group was excluded speciafically because they were hetrosexual then it would relate.

What they are addressing here is more like having a bunch of "brethophobes" turn up during one of your rituals inside your hall and making their views of your faith clear to all involved. I'd support your right to include or exclude who you like from your worship services (as long as they are not threatened for not being part of your faith).

I did find the following comment disturbing
"There are a lot of gay people that are uncomfortable in a mixed environment, and that is just something that people forget,"

I left to wonder if the feelings of straight people uncomfortable in a mixed environment should be given the same concern at other venues.

If it's OK to be uncomfortable about straight sexuality and that discomfort needing to be catered to then is it OK for racists to want to exclude someone because they are uncomfortable with mixed race gatherings. The list goes on.

R0bert

Good on you Robert... Mostly... I can always rely on your to have at least a modicom of reasonableness :) UN-like certain other individals who are so bigoted they want to slur Christians at ANY cost..and will sacrifice common sense.. reasonableness and balanced understanding on the alter of "I wanna prove you wrong no matter what".

Hence the virtual ignoring of the discrimination gays wish to apply to their own establishments and the focus on the 'Tax Benefits' of religious organizations.

The shallowness and amoral nature of such posts is clearly demonstrated in one simple fact.. Believers are not SHAREHOLDERS and there is no DIVIDEND from any of the so called 'profit' from these so called 'commercial' operations.

It also ignores (in the case of CYC camp.. that the only benefit is to the community (within the scope of acceptable users..which does not presumably include homosexual or Islamic or.. I'd hazard a guess to Hindu groups where the PURPOSE of the use is to promote the faith or morality concerned.

We can remain neutral on secular groups but it does get a bit icky when we try to tie this down to a comprehensive list of 'ok' and 'not ok' and then define in detail the reasons. It could be argued that even secular groups should not be welcome because they promote evolution? I think no matter which way they cut such cakes there will always be a basis for finding 'hyprocrisy' in it.
You now know why a 'Christian Camp' ministry/operation is probably the LAST place you would find me:)

Is it not equally 'anti God' to promote 'evolution/unbelief' as it is 'Homosexuality'? I spose we see it like this "Unbelief" is something God addresses in the gospel.. but 'specific sin badged organizations' are a disciplinary matter... gets awful messy to my mind

You can always rely on some OLO regulars to take your breath away with blatant hypocrisy.

<<... to have at least a modicom of reasonableness :) UN-like certain other individals who are so bigoted they want to slur Christians at ANY cost..and will sacrifice common sense.. reasonableness and balanced understanding on the alter of "I wanna prove you wrong no matter what".>>

Substitute 'Muslims' for 'Christians' in the above BABBLE and there are no prizes for guessing the ubiquitous writer.

The amazing thing is he seems to have not one jot of an appreciation of his HYPOCRISY. Was he born that way or have the BRETHREN brainwashed him in his dotage?

What's a modicom? Is it something like an intercom

I'm finally beginning to realize
that clearly God has done a
wonderful job as far as most of
the posters on this Forum are concerned.

Ok, Polycarp is still a work in progress,
but at least he now walks around on two
legs like people and he has stopped the
grunting.

Polycarp,
I’m not out to slur Christians just for being Christians, otherwise I’d be after Foxy et al as well.
I’ve no need to slur tolerant Christians who live and let live.

I’d disagree with intolerant atheists, too.
It’s hard to understand why people are intolerant of another’s sexuality- what does it matter to THEM whether someone else has a same-sex or opposite-sex partner?
About you article,
Because of other people’s intolerance, homosexuals desire a safe place where they can show physical attraction to the same sex, since the average public pubs don’t provide a non-threatening environment for them.

Heterosexuals don’t feel threatened by others in pubs where they are free to meet with the opposite sex, dance closely and kiss in public, but homosexuals ARE feeling threatened.
Heterosexuals can be verbally abusive or violent when homosexuals behaving freely, especially if a homosexual mistakes a heterosexual for a homosexual and expresses attraction towards him.
I know a homosexual who went out to a pub in pink trousers to meet friends and got bashed so severely that he needed emergency surgery, ending up with a steel plate in his skull.

Pubs don’t get the tax benefits that religion institutions get, and as Fractelle said, “why should non-believers be made to pay for the churches of believers”. Christians don’t have to dig out taxes for gay bars, but you expect homosexuals to pay taxes for Christian facilities while they are banned from using them.

Continued.

RObert,
I think that needs to be interpreted in context.
Until the day that homosexual people can feel as safe as heterosexual people in their community or wherever they go out, it’s ok for them to want to be just amongst themselves, it’s ok for them to have a place where they can freely express their sexuality without feeling threatened. All they want to do is the same things as heterosexuals do, except with the same sex. Dance, hug, kiss in public, hold hands, etc.

There are women-only gyms where women are able to exercise without being self-conscious, or having to cope with perving men or with men who make sexual comments.

Re races, we have racial discrimination laws in Australia. All races in Australia have equal rights by law. We have anti-racial vilification laws.
But we don’t have anti-homosexual vilification laws.
Homosexuals do not have equal rights in Australia; no matter what their race is, if they're homosexual they can be vilified.
We simply have homophobic laws.

Dear Celivia

actually we do have anti homosexual vilification laws. I'ts part of the racial discimination act I think.. but it's also in the equal opportunity act.

Now..here is an insight you might reflect on:

"It’s hard to understand why people are intolerant of another’s sexuality- what does it matter to THEM"

If you have a look at the flack I'm getting in the 'Some dog owners' thread.. it should be abundantly clear that it matters a heck of a LOT to 'other's how an aggressive dog is treated. It seems some of these individuals feel they know more about the circumstances than the person experiencing it.. me. And.. so..they are just trying to find angles about why I..the one mauled.. was wrong to kick a dog which was mauling me (for the umpteenth time)

On sexuality.. here's the thing. It doesn't 'matter' terribly much how people think about sexual things UNTIL... they wish to bring that onto property owned by us.. and dedicated to the purpose of promoting the Gospel of Christ and the values of the Bible. THEN...it matters to 'us'.

It also matters to 'us' when this movement seeks to alter our educational and media content in such a way as to.

1/ Promote behavior which is condemned in the Bible.
2/ Socially marginalize Christians because of that belief.
3/ Criminalize Christians for that belief.

So it matters one heck of a LOT... to us. It especially matters when people seek to use our property for the promotion of that agenda.

TAX PAYER FUNDED CHURCHES.. can any one enlighten me about how Churches are funded by the tax payer? Give actual evidence.
In our case, we pay for them ourselves- 100%

Umm.. World Youth Day? not a church but in any case I disagree with state funding for such a thing.

I would not even want help from outside.

Polycarp on demanding preferential treatment because of his faith:

"On sexuality.. here's the thing. It doesn't 'matter' terribly much how people think about sexual things UNTIL... they wish to bring that onto property owned by us.. and dedicated to the purpose of promoting the Gospel of Christ and the values of the Bible. THEN...it matters to 'us'."

Blatant discrimination like this 'matters' to the bulk of humanity, you hypocrite.

1. The Phillip Island Adventure Resort is not a private club or private property of any type. It is a business open to ALL.

2. Who is this ‘us’ you refer to? It is not the average Christian. It is the marginal, fundamentalist, intolerant bigot such as yourself.

3. Try substituting the word ‘Muslim’ for the word ‘homosexual’.

The “Christian Youth Camps said it "desires all guests to experience Christian life and values, and it was the aims of the Way Out group in promoting a lifestyle to young people contrary to those values that was in question".

Based on that excuse it should exclude any people whose beliefs differ .

And MY taxes pay for this blatant discrimination. I object to that – as is my right in a democracy. Australia is still a democracy, Polly, and until it is a Christian theocracy I, and all other Australians, have a right to question the practices of an exclusionary group like the Christian Brethren church.

Finally, people can CHOOSE to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist. We do not choose our sexual orientation that is something decided by nature – or if you prefer, by GOD.

Dear Fractelle,

You've summed it up beautifully.

As Robert Nguyen Cramer tells us:

"Studies from the APA (American Psychological Association)
in July 2004 stated clearly that homosexuality is neither
a mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the
way a minority of our population expresses human love
and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental
health of gay men and lesbians; these show that their
judgement, stability, and social and vocational
adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function
every bit as well as heterosexuals. Nor is homosexuality
a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that
the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the
life cycle, possibly even before birth.

It is found in about ten percent of the population, a
figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures,
irrespective of the different moral values and
standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some
imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population
does not appear to change with new moral codes or
social mores."

As I've stated previously, the religious zealots like
Polycarp do not have a fact to stand on.

They can't grasp that:

"Outside show is a poor substitute for inner worth!"

Fractelle: "And MY taxes pay for this blatant discrimination. I object to that – as is my right in a democracy."

Absobloodylutely.

The fact is that, while there are non-prejudiced religious people like Foxy, there is still a clear biblical defence to the Christian bigotry against gay people. The Qu'ran and the Torah aren't too fussed on bottom-love either. (Does anyone else notice how *Islamic* Polycarp seems? Such a warrior! I swear he was born into the wrong religion.) While there is preferential treatment for religions in this country (tax exemptions, religious vilification laws, invitations to talk on Lateline etc), there is preferential treatment for bigotry — the same bigotry that is explicitly proscribed in Australian law.

If religions have charities, fine. They incorporate the charity and apply for a tax exemptions. One of my charities has a religious basis (World Vision) but I'm happy to part with the dosh because I approve of what they do.

One thing I've been reminded off since visiting this forum is how *not good* some Christians are, despite having so much instruction on how to be good. So why are we propping them up?

Next time you drive past St Pats in Melbourne of St Marys in Sydney, or Polycarp's church or the Church of Scientology or your local Mosque, just remember: the people who own those piles don't pay tax. In fact, your taxes allow them to own lovely inner-city property and scare children and gay people with their medieval balderdash about sin and hell.

It's sheer lunacy. Time to start lobbying, I reckon.

Excellent posts, Fractelle, Veronika and Foxy.

Heeeheee Veronika, ‘homosexuality’ sure is one hot topic that would help converge different religions.

Fractelle said,
” We do not choose our sexual orientation…”
Spot on, sexual orientation is innate unlike dogma, which is learned.
If something is learned it usually can be unlearned.
It’s possible to treat phobias because they’re not innate.
There’s still hope for bigots.
Psychiatrists can even cure arachnophobia- it’s easier and more effective than training all Australian spiders to behave like happy honey bees, or eradicating all spiders from the country.

Until a new Pied Piper is born -one who can lure homos away from our communities- we have to face the reality that homosexuals are part of a normal, healthy society and therefore they should be able to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

Fractelle,
I even think it shouldn’t matter whether homosexuality is innate or a choice because people should be free to choose their sexuality and express it.

Polycarp,
As Fractelle said, that camp is not a private club and receives tax exemptions so it should be open to the general public.
If it doesn’t fit in with your bible then either rip out a few pages or ignore what it says about homosexuality just like you ignore the bits where Jesus says to kill disobedient children and beat servants.

Yes you’re correct that there are anti-discrimination laws that make it unlawful to discriminate against homosexuals, but they’re not sufficient because in federal law they don’t cover all areas.
Also, as you know, exceptions to anti-discrimination laws make life hell for homos since these make it possible for some employers, private education, religious bodies to discriminate against homosexuals and same-sex couples.
That means that Australian laws support homophobia.
There would be outrage if the same limitations applied to a certain race or ethnicity- that would be like going back to the times when black and white people couldn’t marry. The zeitgeist moved on and will move on again in time despite religious ‘values’.

Polly

Up to your usual standard of research I see:

<<actually we do have anti homosexual vilification laws. I'ts part of the racial discimination act I think..>>

Duh! Two minutes googling would show even you that that's a nonsense.

<<TAX PAYER FUNDED CHURCHES.. can any one enlighten me about how Churches are funded by the tax payer? Give actual evidence.>>

This might take five minutes research. Start with the Church of Scientology's desperate (and successful) High Court appeal to be listed as a church because it would win significant tax exemption on its properties.

Then go to recent media discussion about the fears among churches that the current tax review will blow the whistle on their privileges.

The Australian July 28, 2008

"Charities and other non-government organisations could lose billions of dollars' worth of tax perks as the Rudd Government's taxation review prepares to examine whether the concessions offered to the $80 billion non-profit sector are justified...
Most of the country's religious groups, which make up about $25billion of the sector, run commercial enterprises. Among them is the Seventh Day Adventists' cereal giant Sanitarium, which generates more than $300 million a year.

"Many of the operations have little to do with charitable work but are exempt from various taxes including corporate tax and capital gains tax. The Catholic Church has long opposed reforms such as the creation of a national charities commission to regulate the sector, or charging tax on commercial enterprises.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086963-2702,00.html

Remember too taxpayer's money goes straight to churches for all manner of 'services' . Thankfully, Hillsong (much loved by Costello and Howard) $414 000 grant for crime prevention was withdrawn after allegations that the organisation had deceived and manipulated an Aboriginal community to get the money.
http://www.democrats.org.au/speeches/?speech_id=1861&display=1

Matheson recently pointed out that the Tax Assessment Act, “gives total exemption to fringe benefits given to religious practitioners”. “...As there is no cap to this, some churches use remuneration packages that consist of nil salary and 100 per cent fringe benefits”, which in effect can create “an unwarranted entitlement to social security benefits”.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7592&page=0

Celivia, my concerns with that comment may be about the phrasing. I hope I've addressed the safety and active harrassment side of this elsewhere. It's the excluding someone because you are not comfortable with their type of people that bothers me. Most bigots feel that they have reason to dislike or be uncomfortable with those they are prejudiced against. A gay not being comfortable with straights seems no more valid a basis for discrimination than a straight not being comfortable with gays.

The racist may have been harrased at some stage by someone of a different skin colour. I don't think those are valid reasons for excluding others who have not themselves taken part in wrong doing. A lot of straights may find open expressions of gay sexuality very distastful, something that while they accept anothers right to make their own choices thay would rather not see. Is that a valid reason for excluding gays from gatherings where hetrosexuality is the norm?

Re the female gyms, homophobic male hetrosexuals may not be too keen on sharing open urinals or working out in front of homosexual males but I'd not accept that as a reason for straight only gyms. Discriminating on the basis of gender, race sexuality etc is a slippery slope. If it's right in one instance then it's difficult to argue that it's not right in other places. It's not a cut and dried issue but judgements about what is acceptable discrimination tend to then be based on emotion rather than fact.

I don't feel like I have all the answers on this but I do think we should draw the line between preventing active harrasment and someone not just not liking what someone else is.

R0bert

Hey, what is this nonsense about gays being comfortable with straights ?

Why are there virtually no heterosexuals In the theatre or arts in general and none at the ABC, SBS either ?

Secret discrimination against heterosexual people by gays is widespread.

poetic (licence?)

<<Why are there virtually no heterosexuals In the theatre or arts in general and none at the ABC, SBS either ?>>

I don't suppose you'd care to refer us to the evidence for this astonishing generalisation?

You talk about "Secret discrimination against heterosexual people by gays". It can't be too secret if everyone in the theatre, the arts in general, the ABC and SBS is in on it.

Now after you've breached this massive secret, I suppose you'll be revealing the massive discrimination against heterosexuals in the police force, the military, the AFL and - of course - the media.

After all, it's got to be a massive media conspiracy to keep this all a secret for so long.

Hi RObert,
Good points and I understand what you’re saying about the phrasing.
I ‘m struggling with this too, I’m a little ambivalent about some situations involving anti-discrimination and exceptions etc.
My opinion about some of these arguments is therefore not set in stone but still developing.

Overall, I don’t really have a problem with private clubs or organisations excluding people, as long their private club is not funded with taxpayers’ money.
Like, if I want to organise a party at my home or hired hall I can invite whoever I like, and if people come uninvited I can ask them to leave, and if they refuse to leave I could get them removed by the police.

There have always been private clubs, like gentlemen clubs for men-only, nudist camps, women’s gym, so I don’t understand the sudden problem with opening a gay-only bar.
I think it’s ok for certain groups to want to be just amongst themselves as long as these are privately funded.

Re the public toilet- if they/re public we couldn’t exclude homosexuals. If we’d build private toilets we could give access to heterosexuals and have them pay to use them.

There are insurance companies that cater for a certain group, such as 50+. We can either accept that or call it age discrimination.
Thing is, there are still enough other insurance companies that younger people can use so they’re not disadvantaged if a 50+ insurance company is offering this policy, while the 50+ers are advantaged because they don’t have to pay high rates to cater for the young and the reckless.

I tend to look at every situation separately, to balance out which group would be more disadvantaged or advantaged by the exclusion of another group.

Continued

For example, by opening a gay bar where no heterosexuals would be welcome, who’d be more disadvantaged/advantaged?
Would the heterosexuals be advantaged MORE if the homosexuals would be refused a gay bar than the homosexuals would be disadvantaged if they were refused a gay bar?
Does this sound confusing, or do you understand what I mean?
I think that it would depend on the area to decide who would be more disadvantaged in the above situations.

If there would be many other bars open to heterosexuals in that same area, and none to gays, then heterosexuals wouldn’t be disadvantaged if they couldn’t have access to that one gay bar.
But, if the homosexuals in that area had no bar where they could be amongst themselves unthreatened by verbal or physical violence, then they would be more disadvantaged than the heterosexual crowd.
I suppose the Brethren could privately open their Brethren bar and serve holy water, with no access to homosexuals or atheists if they desire –but then forget about tax exempts!

But if anything is funded by taxpayers then it’s for the public and should be open to all.

This is probably the fairest way I can think of atm, until I come across a better solution.
It also doesn’t encourage acceptance of homosexuals by heterosexual communities if the federal government continues to deny homos the same rights as hetero’s.

Dear Team....

"the people who own those piles don't pay tax." HUH ?

how do you work that out? If a Church building is constructed with funds from donations, how in the heck is this 'tax free'?

No one that I've seen so far has actually spelt out the 'tax free' aspect..they have just asserted it.

1/ The employees all pay tax.
2/ The GST if paid is no biggy because it is claimable on input tax paid.
3/ Company Tax is not paid.. though our own fellowship is an 'Inc' body.. for reasons of protection from law suits. Technically we are an incorporated body but we don't make any money.. we just all give that it might continue.. if the truth be known, there are some generous members who give VERY generously to certain projects. But..its 'gifts'... Generally we run deficit budgets.. and the shortfall for the Pastors pay is often made up by extra individual giving.
4/ Adventure Resort.. is under the Brethren Trust.. and the reason for this, is to protect ourselves and the community from any dominant, greedy or scurrulous individual who might try to claim leadership and then..OWNership of a church property.

5/ There are many 'not for profit' secular organizations and charities are allowed to have a POLITICAL purpose as long as that political aspect is 'ancilliary' to their primary charitable purpose.

COMPANY TAX is the only tax which is not paid by Adventure Resort, and I don't see how that equates to tax payer funding?
There are no shareholders... no dividends... so..why is it a problem?
If it makes an operating "profit" when it's loans are repaid.. I suspect the money would go into:

-Improvements to facilities.
-Support of humanitarian and mission related activities overseas.

I don't see any problem.

CELIVIA.. you said it a-gain "Funded by Taxpayers"......

err.. how so ? details details.. please.

Poly said,
“There are many 'not for profit' secular organizations and charities are allowed to have a POLITICAL purpose as long as that political aspect is 'ancilliary' to their primary charitable purpose.”
“COMPANY TAX is the only tax which is not paid by Adventure Resort, and I don't see how that equates to tax payer funding? “
It’s paid for by tax payers in terms of lost revenue from taxation.

http://blogs.theage.com.au/business/executivestyle/managementline/archives/brw2906p042-046.pdf
“…religious groups are virtually unaccountable. Unlike most other not-for-profit groups, religious groups do not have to file income tax returns and, contrary to the practice in most other countries, they do not have to pay tax on commercial businesses or pay capital gains tax on the sale of assets.
Despite getting all these tax exemptions, paid for by Australians in terms of lost revenue from taxation, groups such as the Church of Scientology, Christian City, Hillsong, Christian Outreach Centre and some of the Catholic operators, including the Sisters of Charity, refuse to reveal their revenue.”

Polly

The Christian Brethren Holiday Resort is not a charity. Like many affiliated organisations it is part of a legalised tax rort running into millions of tax free dollars - that don't wind up helping anyone except the religious organisations.

Consider (if that is possible):

"According to Australia’s Business Review Weekly, the 10 largest religious groups in Australia had a staggering $A23.3 billion of revenue in 2005. The Sydney-based Hillsong Community Church (a Pentecostal Christian church affiliated with the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God) is reported to earn, Wallace writes, a cool tax-free $A50 million a year....

...For churches and other religious groups, all non-business income is exempt from tax so long as it is not for the pecuniary profit of any individual. Similarly, any business income is exempt so long as the trust, society or institution involved carries out its charitable purposes in New Zealand and no one with any control over the business is able to direct or divert monies derived from that business to their own advantage.

Should the state, on behalf of believers and non-believers alike, support religious proselytisation?

Wallace says no. “Supernatural charities can have their belief systems and proselytise to their hearts’ content. What they should not have is unqualified tax-exempt income to promote these beliefs at the expense of that nominally secular democracy comprising an increasing number of citizens who have no interest in the ideational culture of religions.”"

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3534/features/10411/the_god_dividend.html

Give it a rest, Polly, your religion discriminates against anyone it deems "unacceptable" - so much for tolerance.

As I understand it, they get away with it because in English law (much of which we've inherited) the promotion of religion itself is regarded as a form of charity. I agree that we need to rid ourselves of this anachronistic nonsense.

Businesses conducted by religious organisations should be subject to the same taxation and legal constraints as any other businesses.

-Adventure Resort
-Apex
-Rotary
-Lions

Are all "altruistic community organizations"

Also... The Tax Act Determination TD 93/190

1. Subparagraph 23(g)(v) provides that the income of a society, association or club that is established for community service purposes (not being political purposes or lobbying purposes), and that is not carried on for the purposes of profit or gain to its individual members, shall be exempt from income tax.

2. The purpose of enacting subparagraph 23(g)(v) was to create a category of exemption for community bodies whose activities are not accepted as being charitable for the purposes of subparagraph 23(e), but which, nevertheless, conduct activities of benefit to the community. In other words, some organisations that do not qualify for exemption under subparagraph 23(e) may, nevertheless, be exempt under subparagraph 23(g)(v).

I still don't see how Adventure Resort is any different from a Lions raffle.. or any other fundraising activity for a community purporse.

There is no 'profit' as such. No individual person benefits "financially" from such groups.
Are Open Brethren Churches "community minded"?
Why not ask the local primary school? Children who have been emotionally shredded through broken homes are helped.. mentored and supported by various individuals who, at their own expense and time.. spend an hour a week with these kids.

2 groups from our own fellowship are heading to Africa this month at their own expense, to build class rooms/dormitories for aids orphans, one going is a policeman..and his (non Christian) boss is also going with him.

They take either unpaid or annual leave for these trips.
Seems to me like there are some mean spirited ones among the critics who just want to have a 'Christian bash'?

Gays don't want hetero's or lesbians in their bar.. and we don't want openly badged gay organizations at our adventure camp. 6 of one, half doz of another?

Polycarp Sunday, 14 September 2008:

<<TAX PAYER FUNDED CHURCHES.. can any one enlighten me about how Churches are funded by the tax payer? Give actual evidence. In our case, we pay for them ourselves- 100%.>>

Polycarp, Sunday 21 September 2008:

<<The Tax Act Determination TD 93/190>>

You see Poly, even you can find the evidence to contradict your own position if you look hard enough.

Maybe if you thought first and then did some research before shooting your mouth off, you'd make a fool of yourself less often!

Porky: << Seems to me like there are some mean spirited ones among the critics who just want to have a 'Christian bash'? >>

Seems to me that there are some mean spirited homophobes among the Christians who just want to have a 'poofter bash'.

The preferential tax treatment these cults get may not last too long - tax exemptions for the whole not-for-profit sector are about to undergo a major National review. Hopefully, openly discriminatory outfits like Porky's Brethren will lose their preferential status.

Polly's carp:

1. No INDIVIDUAL benefits from religious tax exemption - that's correct - just that the entire organisation holds huge profits and valuable properties that NEVER EVER flows on to benefit the charitable sections.

2. Adventure Resorts
-Apex
-Rotary
-Lions

Are all "altruistic community organizations"

Question, Polly, have any of the above refused access/services to people based on their sexual orientation?

If they have, then they also forfeit tax exempt status.

The point of tax exemption is to facilitate charities, not provide organisations with huge financial gains at MY and other tax payers expense AND (further salt in wound) discriminate against people based on a load of tripe written 2000 years ago.

"Hopefully, openly discriminatory outfits like Porky's Brethren will lose their preferential status."
Well said, CJ.

Homophobes threaten human rights.

Homophobes need psychiatric treatment because homophobia is an irrational aversion to homosexuality.

"Some mental health practitioners are seeking to study whether pathological bias, such as severe racism or homophobia, constitutes a mental illness."
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/12/racism-homophobia-are-mental-illness/

Don't expect me to applaud when this homophobic lot go on missions to ride their hobby horses around the world.

Polycarp: "Gays don't want hetero's or lesbians in their bar."
Re-read my previous post. Gay bars are not tax-exempt.

If your adventure camp accepts tax exempt status then you should not discriminate against a group of tax payers.

And you still haven't provided me with an answer as to why you cherry-pick the homophobic bits from the bible but ignore others.
For example, why do you ignore the parts where Jesus says that parents should kill disobedient children and that bosses should beat their servants?
Why do you single out homosexuality from the text and ignore other texts?