David

"Did you see mentioned in the accompanying blurb anything about Freedom ‘from’ Religion?"

The recommendations from HREOC’s 1998 Report are to be evaluated in this latest discussion, and Recommendation 2.3 (Under APPENDIX 1) states that the Religious Freedom Act should include the "freedom not to hold a particular religion or belief".

I agree with your concerns though that the religious is being emphasised at the expense of the secular, but you'd hardly expect any less in a discussion paper entitled 'Religion and Belief', would you?

Of the content for consideration, numbers 2,3 and 5 in particular (on religion and the state and the interface of religious, political and cultural aspirations) lend themselves to some strong submissions from groups such as yours I would think, and individuals too of course.

Bronwyn,

“…but you'd hardly expect any less in a discussion paper entitled 'Religion and Belief', would you? ”

Well, I would expect, in a fair society that the title should be ‘Religion, Belief and non Belief’, and not relegate non belief to one small sentence in a sub section.

And speaking of sub sections, religion still considers it has an inherent right to indoctrinate children with the religion of parents. There is no protection for children here at all, if fact the right to indoctrinate is a point promoted.

“R2.3 the right of parents and guardians to organise family life in accordance with their religion or beliefs.”

Even the wording seems intent on deception. Does “organise family life”, very sloppy terminology, include indoctrination of rampant fundamentalism or placing the fear of hell in a child or limiting a child’s world view to one particular set of beliefs? It means all those things will be protected.

Is that fair on children? Is that fair on the society that the child will grow into, and then vote according to a particular set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are?

And yes, Bronwyn, you are very correct in that Sections 2 3 and 5 need attention by secular groups and individuals. I believe most secular people concentrate them on. I also think, religious folk should forget their special privileged status and concentrate on them as well and in a manner where no one is discriminated against. But most wont. That says a lot about religion, doesn’t it.

David

AFA
David,
I have great difficulty logically with special interest groups and from your last post AFA as anything more than a self serving background noise.

Organizations by definition express both an aggregated perspective of its members and therefore not necessarily reflect reality of the public at large.
Often to make its point the organization focuses on the extreme (few) to frighten the majority.

Your comment “…includes indoctrination of rampant fundamentalism or placing the fear of hell in a child or limiting a child’s world view to one particular set of beliefs?”
Is one such hyperbolic example.
The reality is that very few people fall into this category.
Under what reasoning are you going to impose your view of how children should be raised? To me this is either gross arrogance or naivety on your part. Reality dictates that almost every thing that a child sees in the home environment will influence be it watching mum drive while on the mobile phone, dad’s drinking to mum and dad going to prayers. The implication is you and your organization’s perspective being imposed on peoples rights. I would suggest that you are confusing personal rights with public policy.

I support the policy of keeping religion out of government/courts and state schools including ‘intelligent design ‘(sic) out of the curriculum. However beyond that AFA is simply another dimension of the problem.

On going organization’s primary purpose is to survive (the good of the group syndrome). This means the management team’s interpretation rather than the group as a whole or the issue. The longer the leadership individuals remain in power the more the organization reflects their idiosyncratic perspective.

An example of this is organization first is your first post. It has no direct relevance to the topic but was clearly like your avatar name intent on public profile/converts. In reality titles and organization names are irrelevant to the truth of what is being said therefore your message is probably a personal/organizational power play.
I fail to see that the answer to extremism is the other end of the continuum

CLEAR REASON why GARY BOUMA is NOT... repeat NOT QUALIFIED to have any input on the HREOC project "Freedom of Religion" (in my opinion)

I'm going to stick my neck out here.. but it needs to be done.

QUOTE. (Gary Bouma OLO)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2932

<<Studies of effective mission indicate that uncivil, disrespectful approaches do not work and have, not surprisingly, a negative effect.
.... Neither Jesus nor the Prophet Mohammed behaved in such a way.>>
UNQUOTE.

There are only TWO possiblities which explain Bouma's last sentence:

"Neither Jesus nor the prophet Mohammad behaved in such a way"

with reference to:

"uncivil, disrespectful approaches" (to 'Mission')

1/ IS HE A DELIBERATE LIAR?
or
2/ IS HE IGNORANT and UNINFORMED?

EVIDENCE.

He asserts that Mohammad never operated in an "uncivil, or disrespectful approach" (in spreading Islam/Mission)

That is absolute, total unadulterated utter RUBBISH! (besides being blatantly untrue)

http://alislaah3.tripod.com/alislaah/id17.html (islamic source)

CITY OF TA'IF ARABIA. This city had remained in Mohammad's memory as when he was a militarily weak man with a message..he proclaimed Islam to the town...they rewarded him with stoning and mocking.

After he became militarily STRONG... he paid them a visit with an ARMY in 630... and besieged the city. His goal was that they embrace Islam.

Now..unLESS Mr Bouma considers "beseiging a city and destroying it's livelihood so they become Muslim" - an act of 'tolerant and gentle persuasion, dripping with respect and civility' then he lied, or simply does not know of this event which every OTHER scholar in this field worth the letters after his/her name DOES know about.

BOUMA also appears to be ignorant of the assassinations orchestrated by Mohammad in his quest to make Islam dominant..(Kaab Bin Al Ashraf)

So.. if Bouma lied he is clearly unqualified in my view.
If Bouma is uninformed of important Islamic history..he is also unqualified. Thus.. which ever way..he is not qualified I feel.

JESUS. It's worth noting also, that some of our Lords approaches could be given 'fail' by Bouma. "You are whitewashed Tombs/ WOE to you , scribes pharisees

Given Bouma's qualifications and experience, I'm more inclined to give credence to his views about religious history than those of Porkycrap - who is possibly OLO's most prolific purveyor of religious vilification. Certainly, Porky's "uncivil, disrespectful approach" to Islam and Muslims has an overwhelmingly negative effect on my attitude to fundamentalist Christianity.

Porky seems upset that a prominent Christian who opposes religious vilification should have some influence in the HREOC inquiry.

Porky shouldn't worry too much - if the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is a model for any HREOC recommendations, he and his hateful cohorts will still be able to vilify Muslims and anyone else they wish on the basis of their beliefs. After all, Porky is subject to the Victorian legislation now, and anybody who could be bothered could go after him under its auspices.

That they don't is both an indication of the law's impotence and the fact that people like Porkycrap are obvious nutters upon whom such efforts would be a waste of time, money and effort.

examinator,

The AFA bus rejection case is an offshoot of ‘Freedom of Speech Alert’, the title of this thread. The HREOC findings will go a long way in either allowing or disallowing us to advertise on buses. I could have started a new thread but the coincidence of the content of the Media Release and this thread, was too good to pass up. I thought it a pertinent adjunct and a way to keep those interested in the bus saga informed. If you think I have overstepped the mark, then all I can say, is tough titties.

I used the extreme examples and left it to the imagination, for those with one, to work out the not so extreme, but also not acceptable, others.

Atheism does not advocate imposing anything but a comprehensive worldview on children, especially not one that is ideologically based. Rather we advocate that secular schools, governments and their satellites keep religion out of the equation.

You might think it OK for parents to indoctrinate children with a specific religion, as many religious people do also, but Atheists do not. This is very hard to control and the best method is by secular government example which should get out of the religion game altogether.

Funny how religions are always crying out to protect the children from this that and the other, and they are the worst offender of abuse of children’s minds.

To what exactly am I trying to convert people? Let me answer that, as you appear to be confused. ‘Convert’ is a stupid word to use in relation to speaking of Atheism. One becomes an Atheist by ones own volition, not by religious-like indoctrination. What Atheists are attempting to convince people of, is that the use of reason instead of cultural dogma, could be a big help to them in increasing their enjoyment of life as well as fortifying democracy and making the world a safer place.

One big bonus of people accepting Atheism is the recognition that religions, with their false and unprovable claims are the problem and not the solution.

David