In 2004 many Christians objected to the National Gallery of Victoria's display of "Piss Christ".

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

Many Muslims object to any depiction of Muhammad – especially in cartoon form.

In 2007 a Muslim woman police recruit in London refused to shake the hand of Sir Ian Blair, Commisioner of Police, on the ground that it was against her religion to do so.

See:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382478-details/I+cannot+shake+your+hand,+sir.+I%27m+a+Muslim+and+you%27re+a+man/article.do

Thornley Heath leisure centre in Croydon, London, has gender-segregated Muslim-only swimming sessions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421414/You-swim-wear-Muslim-dress.html

Both Muslims and Christians have objected to their children being taught evolution at school.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1193049191450&pagename=Zone-English-Family%2FFYELayout

The world's most influential Sunni scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, even issued a fatwa against Pokemon because, so he said, it promoted Darwinian evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

See also:

http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/collapse_in_europe/index.html

Sikh "militants" forced The Birmingham Repertory Theatre to abandon a play

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=39911

Despite the objections of the Christian churches blasphemy laws have largely disappeared in Western countries. Now the UN has passed a "defamation of religion" resolution. Are laws against defamation of religion blasphemy laws by another name:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm

A Muslim worker refuses to sell a bible to a customer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508263/Muslim-M-S-worker-refused-sell-unclean-Bible-book-grandmother-customer-claims.html

I could go on:

Some Christian nurses and doctors refuse to participate in abortions. Some Catholic doctors even refuse to tell rape victims about the option of "morning after" pill.

Islam only permits abortion under certain circumstances. Some Muslim doctors and nurses refuse to participate in abortions except when the requirements of shariah are met.

OK, let's not pretend we can get away with no accommodation.

How far should a secular multi-cultural society go to accommodate religious sensibilities?

Steven you have been brave in starting this thread I think speech is never free when it comes to this subject.
And do I get any rights?
Without reserve I blame religion for most of the worlds problems.
Want no special treatment for any of them.
Hope one day we can let go of the straw and live without fairy tales to hold on to.
My answer is no further than we have gone, back in fact, my beliefs seem not to matter to religions, only fair, theirs do not matter to me.
But impact far too much on my life.

Dear Steven,

How far should a secular multi-cultural society go to
accommodate religious sensibilities?

Only up to a certain point. Religious laws are not recognised
and have no legal status in Australia. However,
if you go to a mosque, and they ask you to take off your shoes
- you would, out of respect, do so. If you're asked to cover your head - you would do so. After-all that's the least one does -
out of courtesy. Respect other's customs. So equally
people living in our culture - should respect our traditions.

People are entitled to their own religious, political,
or social beliefs in their own private lives -
But they should not force these
beliefs onto others and contravene the rules, laws,
and customs of the society in which they are living.

For example - an Arab who was used to riding a camel
through the desert would not be able to do the same
on the main street of a Western City (without a special
permit - for a special event).

I guess what I'm trying to say Steven is - people can
practise customs and rituals as long as they are not
in conflict with the laws of the country in which they
happen to be living.

Foxy,

Let's test what you wrote using specific cases.

Do you think there should be gender segregated Muslim only times at public swimming pools?

Do you think doctors and nurses working in public hospitals should be exempted from assisting with abortions if it offends their religious sensibilities?

Should Christian or Muslim parents be able to demand a biology curriculum that excludes evolution for their school-age children?

Should Holocaust denial be illegal?

Supposing the route of a gay pride march passes through a predominantly Christian or Muslim area. Should the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?

Should the National Gallery of Victoria have excluded "piss Christ" from their exhibition?

Should publication of Muhammad cartoons be prohibited?

Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?

Should a Muslim female police trainee be permitted to avoid shaking hands with a man?

Should a Muslim policewoman be permitted to wear a veil while on duty?

Should there be laws that ban remarks that followers of a religion find hurtful? (Blasphemy laws)

Belly,

I agree. If it were possible I would make no concessions to religious sensibilities?

Dear Steven,

The answer is no to all of the questions
you asked me. But that's only my humble
opinion.

As I wrote earlier - in my opinion - people are entitled to
their own religious beliefs - but they
are not entitled to insist that society
caters to their beliefs in the public domain -
such as public hospitals, public service, public schools,
national galleries, police force, et cetera.
Although, as with everything in a deomcratic
society - they can lobby and apply political
pressure - as is often done by the various
groups of our multi-cultural society.

I agree with Foxy except these ones:

“Do you think doctors and nurses working in public hospitals should be exempted from assisting with abortions if it offends their religious sensibilities?”

Yes.

“Should Christian or Muslim parents be able to demand a biology curriculum that excludes evolution for their school-age children?”

Yes.

“Supposing the route of a gay pride march passes through a predominantly Christian or Muslim area. Should the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?”

They should be outlawed completely.

“Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?”

Yes.

“Should a Muslim female police trainee be permitted to avoid shaking hands with a man?”

Yes. Inshala, she has come so far already why push it.

quote steven<<..gender segregated..only times at public swimming pools?>>..why not

<<public hospitals should be exempted from assisting with abortions if it offends their religious sensibilities?>>..of course

<<demand a biology curriculum that excludes evolution>>no...that being said im an evcolution deneyer...but kids should be taight both sides...and left to chose

<<Should Holocaust denial be illegal?>>...it pretty much allready is...but which holocaust denial...the 6 million jews/gypsies/homosexuals and mental deficients of ww2?..or read the bible..there have been thousands..[the longest lasting in recent times is the palistein one,..though the bolchovics murdering the 25 million xtians went on a while]

<<the route of a gay pride/march..the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?>>..not from main roads...but side streets/or past churches/mosques..of course..confrontation must be avoided

<<"piss Christ"?>>of course its a deliberate provocation

<<Muhammad cartoons be prohibited?>>.depends on what the point of the joke is...if designed to provoke/insult anyone..its offensive...m,uch like the chasers scene on make a wish

<<policemen be permitted to grow beards?..neatly trimmed...not obscuring their face...of course

<<female police trainee>>..no...touching any police is demed an assult
any other femail..its their free choice not to be manhandled

<<Muslim policewoman>>>..all cops follow the same rules...they must never hide thier face or id numbers..[ever]



<<Should there be laws..that ban remarks that followers of a religion find hurtful?..(Blasphemy laws)>>>let the court decide...if any remark offends report the offence...its not rocket science,if insulting to race its racial bias/racist designed to provoke race or sex or belief...its criminal offense

Foxy,

For once we seem to be in total agreement – in principle. I do have a pragmatic quibble.

Forcing a doctor to perform a procedure he abhors is probably not doing his patient much good. PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF THE PATIENTS I would be inclined to excuse doctors and nurses from performing or assisting with abortions if it offended their sensibilities.

Other than that we agree Foxy.

However a question. In a previous thread I discussed the case of Australia's most notorious Holocaust denier, Frederick Tobin. The Federal Court gagged him.

See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2738

Back then you seemed to think that Holocaust deniers like Toben should be silenced. Have you changed your mind?

OUG

I am specifically referring to the Holocaust that resulted in the death of 6 million Jews during World War 2. I am well aware there have been other Holocausts.

Do you think denial of that particular Holocaust SHOULD be illegal? I am not asking you what is but what you think should be.

I have made my own position clear on many occasions. Anything except actual incitement to violence, narrowly defined, should be permitted.

steven you will recall recently buchanwald was in the news..recently..[our pope visited it apparently..papa obama...lol...anyhow there was some numbers quoted..on..one news/program..[though all of them covered it extensivly...lol]

anyhow there was lamenting about how 45,000 died there...including 13,000 jews...so thats slighly under one third..were jewish...im not sure if your hollocaust numbers include the non jews..[if so why not]..

but since the age of 18 i been grieving for the jews that were murded...but the more i find out..about the issue...the more confused i get

for a start there were capoes..in each prison block..[who picked out who died...often these were jews[the capoes]..beuckenwald was one of the most notorious of thousands of work camps

[but as previously said only a bit over 13 thousand jews died there...leaving 32 thousand goys..[non jews that died there..thaT NEVER RATE's A MENTION...

now ever german/city has its hollow-cost museum...so that the world is never allowed to forget...but what arnt they allowed to remember?..or even know of?

israel killing the palisteinians in their ghetto's.. or them getting bombed by the israel/rightwingers..stealiung ever more settlement land?..bombing palisteins with yanki cluster bombs..part of a multi trillion gift/aid..from usa..to israels murder of the indigenant population of the holy land..[judeans fled from thousands of years ago]

how is the life giver/god served by any death?

many black jews were actually driven out of the holy lands..when the bolchovic/northern/ jews took palistein/israel over

anyhow here is what i wrote at the last topic

Billionaire media mogul..[AND BILDERBERGER]..Rupert/Murdoch gave a strange response when asked about plans for mainstream news websites to charge for content,..declaring,“The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rupert-murdoch-internet-will-soon-be-over.html

Cyberbullying Bill
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cyberbullying-bill-not-about-protecting-kids-it-is-about-shutting-down-the-opposition.html

Rep.Linda Sánchez,is behind the so-called Megan Meier..Cyberbullying Prevention Act,...an effort to impose draconian regulations on the internet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/david-rothschild-climate-change-ad.html
another bilderberger..lol
their plan is to shut down the web

The End of Free/Speech?..Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-end-of-free-speech-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel.html

October/16,2004,President Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill,the Global Anti-Semitism/Review/Act....This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism...world wide.

Why not just ask "what level of intolerance is permissible within a society that claims to be secular and how is that intolerance defined?"

Pied Piper,

Stevenlmeyer asked:
“Supposing the route of a gay pride march passes through a predominantly Christian or Muslim area. Should the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?”

And you responded:
“They should be outlawed completely”

Must say, I would not have picked you to have such an opinion–what is your rationale?

“How far should a secular multi-cultural society go to accommodate religious sensibilities?”

I think that is the wrong question to ask.

What really needs to be questioned is:

How far should religious sensibilities go to accommodate the secular multi-cultural society in which the exist?

The notions of exclusivity, entitlement and exemption, which permeates the teachings and beliefs of many religious sects and denominations has to defer to the civil and social rights of the majority who do not hold such views. This is particularly true of non-Christian values imported by a tiny ,minority of newer arrivals into, what would be called a predominantly notional (if not actual), Christian based society.

Israel..Prevents Medical Mission/to Gaza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-UWAc2cII4&feature=player_embedded

Sen...Patrick Leahy's hate crimes bill,..was passed 63 to 28. Clearly,..the Senate majority had spoken...Once cloture is invoked there is usually little more that can be done to resist.
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/17/comparing-zionists-to-nazis-to-be-criminalized/

There was no floor debate
http://rense.com/general86/pike.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030073.html

Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030102.html

National Security Advisor..James.L..Jones..admits that the CFR runs the Government...Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday...As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States,..I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/141268/ludicrous:_matt_taibbi_accused_of_being_anti-semitic_for_goldman_sachs_article

World may back Iran op as part of deal
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443824234&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A deal taking shape between Israel and Western leaders will facilitate international support for an Israeli strike on...in exchange for concessions in peace negotiations..LOL..with the Palestinians and Arab neighbors,..The Times MISS-reported Thursday.
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/07/abunimah-despite-all-the-pressure-obama-seems-to-be-licensing-illegal-colonization.html#more

Israel’s Biggest Theft of all Time
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/israels-biggest-theft-of-all-time/
Just like the American government..spreads war around the world with the tax money..they coerce out of me,..Israel spreads war,..death, poverty,..inhumanity,..and famine within throwing distance of it’s own inhabitants

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/64536
Israel’s actions from the beginning have directly contradicted the image it projects to the West...The founding of a country that was to be..“a light among nations”...lol..required the forcible expulsion of most of its original inhabitants...

The..“Middle East’s only democracy”..became the brutal oppressor of three million Palestinians.

Experts are refuting..an Israeli researcher’s claim..that Palestinians are..“ethnically Jewish”..as a fundamentally flawed theory..that contradicts both science and history,..while Palestinians slammed it..as part of a larger scheme to erase their identity...“The claim that there are Jewish genes is ridiculous and unscientific''
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/jewifying-palestinians/

The nationhood..that was to endow the Jewish people with..“normality”..gave them instead a garrison state..in which military strength is the dominant value.
http://politicaltheatrics.com/2009/07/17/dancing-on-graves-hebraizing-palestine/

Israel will implode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljLEPjaF3S0
Israel's oppressive Iron fist..occupation..will cause its own demise
http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=17815

http://www.paltelegraph.com/hot-topic/1215-could-israel-be-making-these-du-weapons-and-what-are-the-implications

Former US officials..claim CIA was to hire assassination teams..modeled after the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad's targeted killing specialist squads.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100785&sectionid=3510203
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1700

Fatah Secretary-General..Farouk Kaddumi revealed that Palestinian Authority(PA)leader Mahmoud Abbas..and former Gaza strong man Muhammed Dahlan..conspired to murder Yasser Arafat ..in connivance with Israel..and the Central Intelligence Agency..(CIA
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/who-murdered-arafat/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/jakarta-hotel-bombs-the-military-the-cia.html

Vilified,Courageous Cynthia McKinney inside Gaza
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=132623

OUG

For some reason an Australian court has decreed that denying the Jewish Holocaust that occurred between 1941 and 1945 is not permitted in Australia. See:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2573443.htm

To the best of my knowledge no Australian court has ever made a similar finding about any other Holocaust. Therefore, IN THE CONTEXT OF MY QUESTION, other Holocausts are not relevant.

Note please that I did NOT say other Holocausts were irrelevant. It is only in the context of my question that they are irrelevant because the court decision did not cover other Holocausts.

As I have made abundantly clear on many occasions, I think the court's ruling constitutes an egregious attack on free speech. Holocaust denial should NOT be outlawed. See the thread I started on 1 May 2009.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2738

All I am asking is whether you agree with the Australian court's decision. It is a limited question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". There is no need to bring in the Pope's visit to Buchenwald.

Whether or not you choose to mourn the Jews the Nazis murdered is your affair. To paraphrase Rhett Butler in the movie version of Gone with the Wind, "Frankly, OUG, I don’t give a damn".

I also think it is beyond my powers to lift your largely self-inflicted "confusion" on the topic; so I won’t even attempt it.

Actually, I think that Col's nailed it.

With respect to the specifics of Steven's examples:

* Public swimming pools - no
* Doctors, nurses and abortions in public hospitals - no
* Exclusion of evolution from biology curricula (in public schools) - no
* Holocaust denial illegal - no
* Alternative route for gay pride march - no (and I'm also a bit surprised by TPP's response on this)
* Banning of "Piss Christ" and Mohammed cartoons - no
* Muslim (or any other) policemen and beards - yes. In Qld and various other constabularies beards are permitted now anyway.
* Muslim female police trainees avoiding shaking hands - no
* Veiled Muslim policewomen - no
* Blasphemy laws - no

I think that they key to encouraging harmony in a diverse society is to remove the sense of entitlement that followers of any religion may have that those who don't subscribe to their beliefs should have to accommodate the social practices that emanate from them.

That said, we should all strive to live and let live as far as practicable. Religious types have every right to control the behaviour of people within their churches, mosques etc, but should have no special influence on the behaviour of the rest of us outside their religious precincts.

steven australia is not israel...

high courts CANNOT DECREE ANYTHING...>>>...GET IT...they interprite law...they dont MAKE LAW..

in israel they can feed lies and call it good..[but here is australia we have rule of law..[we are not a police state]...there is a difference

yes in your opinion..the other holocausts are irrelivant..because they were all goys...

and many holocausts were conducted by those judean tribes..that now have cogetated into one tribe/under the star of david..[not the lampstand]..

...in mosus times there were twelve...for some obscure reason...now we have an isral state...when it in the past israel..[wars with god]..was one out of 12 tribes...what of the other tribes...

there is something strange going down..when we are forbotten..by high ccourts to ask question...where simply asking questions..becomes the crime

my jew sympathies were raised by the COMPULSORY reading of anne frank...a work of litrature..that may not even have been written by a child...

but that question cannot be asked either...free thinking means fredom of thought..if were not free to think/talk...then what sort of fear state has been brought..to this prison planet

CJ wrote:

<<... key to encouraging harmony in a diverse society is to remove the sense of entitlement that followers of any religion may have that those who don't subscribe to their beliefs should have to accommodate the social practices that emanate from them. >>

And a good start would be to remove tax exemptions.

Religion is a very personal belief which has been able to impact itself on the public sphere for eons: from politics (K Rudd seeking beatification for McKillop) to education (chaplains in schools) and to the malevolent; murders of the innocent from Ireland to New York. No two Christians interpret the New Testament in exactly the same way, so why should their religion be forced upon a nation?

I agree with Col insofar as it is beyond time religion (whether it is Christian, Muslim or Voodoo) accommodated itself to fit the mores of the general populace, rather than the other way round.

In private, I respect the beliefs of my friends and acquaintances, by such behaviour as removing my shoes when visiting their homes or covering my hair if entering a mosque or temple.

I would like to see a world where, if a natural disaster occurred we all would work together to help one another rather than have some total idiot declare something like: "The Victorian bushfires were a result of legalising abortion" - statements like this help no-one and are as primitive as believing in Thor tossing thunderbolts during storms.

I'm with Col, CJ and Fractelle.

Accommodating sensibilities should not go so far as to contravene legislation nor seek to change accepted practices founded on a valid premise within a democratic country.

OUG,

And the relevance of your last two posts to the topic of "How far should a secular multi-cultural society go to accommodate religious sensibilities?" is…….?

For what it's worth I agree that you should not have been compelled to read the Diary of Anne Frank. I've never read it myself. But the relevance of this and similar snippets from your biography to the topic of this thread is…..?

COL ROUGE,

I tend to agree with you.

CJ MORGAN

This is one of those bizarre occasions where you and I are in agreement. However you seem to be contradicting yourself. Previously, in response to the question of banning Holocaust denial, you wrote:

"I couldn't give a stuff about offending and/or insulting - my problem is with racist twats like Toben who think they can publish material that humiliates and/or intimidates. They can't in Australia, and I'm comfortable with that."

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2738&page=0

FRACTELLE

Agreed but did anyone actually link the recent bushfires with the legalisation of abortion? It sounds grotesque.

PELICAN,

I guess most of us are in agreement.

The Pied Piper
My friend, my good friend we speak for Australia, we speak for the 21st century!
1. "“Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?”?
We do not have religious police, cristian or muslim etc, I will fight NEVER to have religious police.
The question should be if we agree with the existance of religious police NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
2. “Should Christian or Muslim parents be able to demand a biology curriculum that excludes evolution for their school-age children?”
NO We will not allow religious to block our children to learn the truth, we will not allow uneducated, or dark minds to block their children to learn the evolution.
3. “Do you think doctors and nurses working in public hospitals should be exempted from assisting with abortions if it offends their religious sensibilities?” No! Doctor's and nurse's duty is to support their patients and no one ask them for their religious,( this is a private issuee).
4. “Supposing the route of a gay pride march passes through a predominantly Christian or Muslim area. Should the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?” No we do not abandon our democratic rights, civil rights for any religion!
5. “Should a Muslim female police trainee be permitted to avoid shaking hands with a man?” No discriminations against women, no discrimination against muslim women, NO RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES!
Religious is a personal issue, keep it far of the state or public life.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Steven

I do not make such statements lightly. Living in the area struck by fires last February I know people whose homes were destroyed and others whose lives were lost during a period where for 2 weeks I was without telephone or internet connection and on constant alert of ember attack. I am sure you can imagine how disgusted I was on hearing the following:

"PASTOR Danny Nalliah was not surprised by the bushfires due to a dream he had last October relating to consequences of the abortion laws passed in Victoria. He said these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb. CTFM has called on all Australian Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians to repent and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ for his mercy and protection over Australia once again."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25037315-20261,00.html

The bushfires did not discriminate between Christians and non-Christians, nor those who controlled their fertility or not.

Antonios, let me explain how I saw these questions.

[1. "“Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?”?
We do not have religious police, Christian or Muslim etc, I will fight NEVER to have religious police.
The question should be if we agree with the existence of religious police ]

A beard would not disrupt their work. I see it doing no harm to allow this.

[2. “Should Christian or Muslim parents be able to demand a biology curriculum that excludes evolution for their school-age children?”
NO We will not allow religious to block our children to learn the truth, we will not allow uneducated, or dark minds to block their children to learn the evolution.]

Oh see I know my kids used to come home with notes asking me if I wanted them to go to bible class or sex education – again no harm done.

[3. “Do you think doctors and nurses working in public hospitals should be exempted from assisting with abortions if it offends their religious sensibilities?” No! Doctor's and nurse's duty is to support their patients and no one ask them for their religious,( this is a private issue).]

Whether for religious or personal reasons they should be allowed to choose their areas of work.

[4. “Supposing the route of a gay pride march passes through a predominantly Christian or Muslim area. Should the residents be able to insist that the march takes an alternative route?” No we do not abandon our democratic rights, civil rights for any religion!]

Those marches aren’t about “rights” they are about sex. I find them err… Yucky.[smile]

[5. “Should a Muslim female police trainee be permitted to avoid shaking hands with a man?” No discriminations against women, no discrimination against muslim women, NO RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES!
Religious is a personal issue, keep it far of the state or public life.]

What about a cop with a hand phobia? I don’t see this as a big deal. Religious or not people have quirks and if they do no harm, they do no harm.

"“They should be outlawed completely”"

Horus:"Must say, I would not have picked you to have such an opinion–what is your rationale?"

Hiya Horus, I find them to be completely about sex and not about love, partnership, or the rights of people who are gay or lesbian.

The first one I ever saw (on TV when young) made me think how embarrassing for all the nice same sex couples in the world that do not want what happens in their bedrooms bought in to the public eye in such a crude display.

I may have a prudish streak Horus. Oh see now you’ve got me trying to work out why I feel like that. Does my reasoning make sense to you?

Dear Steven,

We've agreed on many things in the past -
I'm not at all surprised that we seem to
agree again. I'm see-sawing on the Doctor-Nurses
issue (somewhat) - you've raised a valid point.

However, I feel that a doctor or a nurse
should be prepared to do whatever is necessary
- even in a case where they
may be called upon to perform an abortion -( to save
a mother's life) - in a public hospital. If their
religious beliefs will interfere with their ability
to do the job - they should stipulate that quite clearly
to the hospital prior to being hired. As an Administrator
I would have serious doubts about hiring a professional
who told me they couldn't perform some aspects of their
job due to their religious beliefs. Public hospitals
need doctors and nurses - who are able to respond - not
matter what they're asked to do - in order to save lives.

As for Holocaust denial - Steven - it was actually your
influence that made me re-think that issue.

People like Frederick Tobin and others like him -
are entitled to think whatever they want privately -
(they can't change historical facts
with their bigoted points of view).
However, they are not entitled to 'hate speech,' and
vilification through the media
- which was my objection
to a lot of what Tobin was doing. He had crossed the line
from private thoughts and went on a publicized
'crusade,' of hatred -
that was breaking the law - as I saw it.

The Pied Piper
1. My friend the importand is not the beard but the religious police. No one care for the beards, in most west countries there is no problem about it, THE PROBLEM IS WITH RELIGIOUS (Muslim) POLICE. The question was a trap!
2. The evolusion is the base against the religious darkness, it leave the "gods" withought their cloths! (very poor english!
3. "Whether for religious or personal reasons they should be allowed to choose their areas of work" To choose the areas of work is very different to help a patient for the abortion or not. From the moment he/she is there, in this area they have to support the patients.
4. "Those marches aren’t about “rights” they are about sex. I find them err… Yucky.[smile]"
What do you say hon... these marches is about SEX RIGHTS! We will not tell them how or what sex they prefer. We respect their rights for a different kind of sex (from what you or me like) and we protect them from any kind of humiliation or discrimination. It is not good to humiliate and hurt them! We should show more understanding and acceptance to diversity, to different. If we start like that some others do not like muslims, some others do not like Greeks or New-Zealanders and we enter in an endless conflict. It is better to respect the basic rights. OK my friend?
5. What about a cop with a hand phobia?
If my friend they have a problem, as hand phobia then I think it is better to choose an other job, how they will put the handcuff?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

stevenlmeyer: << This is one of those bizarre occasions where you and I are in agreement. However you seem to be contradicting yourself. >>

No contradiction, Steven. I agree that twats like Toben should be able to say what they like in Australia, short of actual incitiement to violence. However, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that they can't at the moment - it's not high on my list of injustices that need to be fixed as a matter of priority.

Actually, we probably agree about more than we disagree, now that you mention it ;)

Steven. No to everything.

Some Christian nurses and doctors refuse to participate in abortions.

Nurses & Doctors can ask for someone else to perform the task. That would not be a problem. otherwise no.

Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?

Yes. If the "Police Dress Regulations" permit it, otherwise, no.

Should a Muslim female police trainee be permitted to avoid shaking hands with a man?

Definately not. If the Muslim Police woman is called upon to detain a man, how is she going to perform her job. Also there is a little known Commonwealth Law that forbids any member of the emergency services, Police, Religious personel (priests, nuns, lay preachers, etc), medical workers etc from complaining or making a complaint about things like nudity, dead bodies, etc. I have been shown the particular tract but I wouldn't know where to find it now.

Should a Muslim policewoman be permitted to wear a veil while on duty?

Definatley not. Also, See "Police Dress Regulations."

It would be very nice indeed if this secular multicultural society accommodated its majority Christian members and its Judges were willing to abide their Oath of Office. Every secular atheist Judge, in the Federal Court and High Court is required to take an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. Ha Ha Ha . What a joke that is. The Oath they must take reads thus: I AB do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second , Her Heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD.

The Queen to whom they owe allegiance has entered a covenant with Almighty God, and as Her delegates they are likewise bound. Her Covenant reads: Will you to the utmost of your power maintaine the laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? This Covenant was confirmed in a solemn ceremony at Westminster Abbey, in 1952.

The Statute is the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp), and it makes Christianity the State Religion of Australia. So that the Gospel of Matthew7:7 had meaning, and courts were places where the people could go and pray to the Queen’s delegate, as delegate of Almighty God for justice, at Federation in 1900, there were no Judges per se, but there were Justices. Since Matthew 7:7 says Ask and you will receive, for everyone who asks receives, and that is the Gospell, a Justice had to go to a higher authority, a jury representing Jesus Christ, and get permission from the Holy Spirit to refuse justice on a prayer in court. That was the common law: The common law common to all Christians. England survived as a republican Monarchy because Almighty God blessed it, for keeping the Gospels.

The black hearted Judges of Australia never abide their Oath. If they did, they would refuse to let blasphemy enter their courts. It is blasphemy, the only unforgivable sin in Christendom, to refuse to give the Holy Spirit a chance to bless worshippers of Almighty God. Lets get multicultural

Since 1275, as evidenced by a Statute published in Victoria, the English people were given the right to free election. The Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic) on Page 7, says: and because elections ought to be free, the King commandeth upon great forfeiture , that no man by force of arms, not by malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election. The Good Old Oxford Dictionary defines Election: Choosing. Noah Webster defines it as power to choose or select, choice, liberty to choose. Every Christian should be able to choose jury trial. Every Christian should be able to choose to go to court.

Now that Statute was definitely in place in 1828, its still in place today, so where is the great forfeiture provided for failure to grant this legal right. It should be in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) s 43, and the great forfeiture that should be forfeited is a fine of $33,000 for any Judge who refuses to allow a Christian to follow his religion and ask for and receive a jury trial, and for the corporation in which such Judges sit, the penalty is fixed at $165,000. That would fix homelessness, by giving every homeless person the right to convert to Christianity, and ask the State to provide him with a home.

If as a Christian he asked for a home, the State must supply, but if he is not a Christian, his religion may not cover that eventuality. The boarded up homes at Redfern would have to be thrown open to people for affordable housing, and Kevin Rudd can keep his promise to end homelessness.

He should direct his Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute every Judge, who refuses a Christian a jury. Of course if a person is Jewish, or Muslim, he or she has the choice to be that, but jury trial is a Christian right lifted directly out of Holy Scriptures. Every Judge and Magistrate in Australia is liable to contribute to the homeless, and the Director of Public Prosecutions should collect and distribute the money

No to pretty much all of them, 'cept I don't really have an issue with cops being allowed to grow beards.

Peter, I've personally met many people who interpret Australian legislation the way they want it. One guy was convinced that local Councils had no legal right to interfere with anything he did on his property at all. Another one had developed multiple conspiracy theories in relation to how England had oppressed Australia throughout our entire legislative history (amusingly, apparently they're still doing it).

We have a system that more-or-less works, though I think an inquisitorial system would be better than an adverarial legal one.

As for your quest for god-faring legislation, on behalf of all the non-Christians, and moderate christians who think that religous government has been proven an incredibly dumbass idea, allow me to point out that despite referencing and placing your slant on the development of Australian government, it still resembles nothing but more irrelevant axe-grinding that misses the point of, well, everything.

I'll be surprised and impressed if you find somebody who thinks otherwise.

In relation to the main point of the thread, I'd agree with CJ and steven's point on Toben. The man's repugnant, but they're the people we need to be careful about, because the temptation to silence them is the greatest.

The Pied Piper
“Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?”
I am very sorry! You have right but not ONLY for Muslim policemen, for all policemen! I thought that the question was for the special Muslim Police for the protection of Muslim ethos. I am against the religious police and I do not care for the beards if they allowed to all policemen. Sorry friend MY MISTAKE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Steven,
Like most here, no to the questions you asked Foxy. In relation to the question about beards and muslim policemen. If the standard dress code of any service permits beards (subject to length, triming, neatness, etc.) Yes, but No if against dress code.

You did not ask about turbans, to which i also say no

Your other question is far more difficult.

Steven and others
As always I find 'absolutist' Q&A tend disregard issues of equity and objectivity resulting in predictably unsatisfactory results.

IMHO The common “no” to female Muslim swimming pools sessions. Consider what if the majority or near majority of population in the area serviced by the pool were Muslims. Given they pay their taxes, vote and that a pool is a discretionary activity what's wrong with suiting their needs too.

Given in an area of 230000 residents the council just GAVE $180k and public land to a commercial footy club (the club has 3000 registered members and players...each match draws less than 400 supporters) why then should the majority of non footy interested fund this activity to satisfy what is a cultural(?) expression?

Clearly if the Muslims are a small minority their claims on pool sessions would be reduced.

As for police personnel dress and culture etc. the police are secular (non biased)critical non discretionary govt. supplied service. therefore the answer is clearly NO. Not only because of dress code/safety issues but also for safety, neutrality issues and it's the job period.

Doctors and nurses in Public hospitals the above issues apply. Additionally staff/resources are limited and essential services can't reasonably tolerate Religious cultural preferences of staff. Private hospitals are subject to their own decisions in un-govt funded areas.

The “Jewish” so called 'Holocaust' deniers should be permitted to speak providing what they are advocating doesn't demonstrably interfere with someone else's rights or community harmony....i.e. Polycarp type abuse and rabble rousing.
The flip side is that the Jewish spokespersons should also be limited in the level of misinformation, abuse they proffer to justify 'Israel's' local issues.

Finally, ALL religious preferences should be EQUALLY acceptable providing they are with in state and federal law.
Clearly female circumcision is not acceptable for children or decided by parents.

State school Curriculums should be non religious but informative. Private school are the same as hospitals.

What is wrong with some people who cannot see where we have gone wrong. We have simply replaced one State Religion with another, and the one we have replaced it with is in a staggering mess. It used to be Christianity and we have a Constitution that captures that Religion, as our birthright. Somehow we have allowed people to replace Christianity with some sort of a State Religion with no other basis than it is invented by lawyers.

We used to have a Christian based legal system, that delivered prosperity and certainty to all comers, that had about seven hundred years of precedents to which a person could be referred, and in 1970, we were conned by the Liberal Party into letting lawyers write a New Testament and call it Rules of Court. These Rules repudiate every basic rule of Christianity. There are now a set for every State and the Commonwealth has four sets, one each for the Family Court, one set for the Federal Court, one set for the Federal Magistrates Court and another set for the High Court.

When the system was Christian based, there was a presumption that people would tell the truth. Most people faced with a Justice and jury are reluctant to lie on oath. No such inhibition exists when evidence is given by affidavit. In fact when affidavits are used the presumption is that the evidence is manufactured. Is it better to have multiculturalism and no functioning legal system, or a functional legal system, that expects people to keep their word and act ethically.

The total breakdown of corporate morality, has gone hand in hand with the destruction of the legal system. The lack of enforceability of Commonwealth Law, and even the utter and total contempt with which the High Court rulings are treated by all lawyers, is a direct result of all the Rules of Court.

At one time the Holy Bible was the basis of all Rules of Court, and any Rule or law inconsistent with its provisions was challenged and removed. This was good government, something sadly lacking today

I take the view that intepretation of religious teachings should not be considered by the law as more important than other values systems someone might hold. The answer to each of the the questions then falls back to the requirements placed on everybody in those positions.

There may be a case for ensuring that the requirements in publiclly funded positions are not artificial (will a policeman having a beard intefere with them doing their job, if not then there is no place for rule about beard's.

In the case of a willingness to perform abortions (or other procedures which might go against individal values systems) the issue should be addressed at the start of an employment contract. If the employer is willing to employ someone who won't do certain procedures then that's their choice. The downside to that is an unfair proportion of less palatible procedures may fall on others. Some might be willing to perform the procedure but not so keen to find they are doing all of them and few of other procedures which they may prefer.

R0bert

“I am very sorry! You have right but not ONLY for Muslim policemen, for all policemen! I thought that the question was for the special Muslim Police for the protection of Muslim ethos. I am against the religious police and I do not care for the beards if they allowed to all policemen. Sorry friend MY MISTAKE!”

You’re alright my friend, my thinking was a beard wasn’t a big deal – I was probably thinking “off topic” and instead of approaching it on religious grounds - I was just thinking about it from a human point of view about choices people should be allowed to make.

Same with nurses, if I think without bringing in the question of religion then I believe that if they don’t like taking babies out of women then no one should make them.

My brain doesn’t work this way, I don’t think I can understand this topic from a political point of view or what is wrong with letting adults make a decision to grow a beard or not let their children go to a class about evolution.

I cannot see why someone refusing a handshake should even need to be explained, they should not have to state a religious reason or any other for this choice should they?

This is one of those topics where I really feel I am missing some basic concept about the debate… Ignorance is certainly not blissful to me.

Posters to this thread should go now to the one called its our fault.
Read Foxys post, a commited Christian Catholic I think, no one says it better.
We the whole world, can not move forward if we let even more reildgions interferer with humanity's progress.
Read also the horrible emerging story in this morning press about yet more child sexual tragic events at the hands of Christians in Ireland.
While we talk of whiskers we surely know its much more important than that.
Can each of us, just for a second think deeply on our beliefs?
Those commited to a Christian church, those from any other too.
Think how easy we you I every one discard all other reildgions, say they follow the wrong God, even that they are not going to heaven.
Now understand THEY the other side think just that about us.
Your God who ever he/she be is said to be the one, to have made us all.
Why then the difference Why the hatred bigotry even need to kill for some followers of another God.

Belly: “Why then the difference Why the hatred bigotry even need to kill for some followers of another God.”

Maybe we need to Belly – maybe humans need something to rage against or we just don’t feel complete. May be one of those things deep in the DNA. We weren’t ever until recently top of the food chain, hate was probably a good healthy sustainable emotion that kept us warm and motivated.

I think having the hate was about fear and to overcome fear we had to think something bigger was out there was going to protect us and it made us braver.

So for the poor atheists out there I guess we need look sideways instead of up?

Realistically – if what Peter says it right then the why of it doesn’t matter, it may be necessary to fix the courts. And (if I get what Steven is contributing) we’re stuck with God/s and the religions and cults so society needs to follow the dominant one in any given country because of all the hate/fear and inability to see maybe the other side could be right? For peace we need to be bigots?

So yeah wish I could get my head round this thought that someone can’t do something because another’s belief says they shouldn’t, and if belief was withdrawn from the equation it wouldn’t be a big deal.

I think the best idea would be to get rid of the notion of "A GOD" of any discription, then... just think of it. No bigitory, no hate, no war. Ahh...Peace at last.

Not so long ago, we all had to stand for the National Song "God Save Our Queen".

We got rid of that.

Now religious people in the Third World are using religion to wage war against the West, and religious people are fighting each other in Northern Ireland.

Religion has no part in public life. It divides people, increases costs, disrupts culture, corrupts public policy and misdirects resources. Religion should be practiced privately where each individual can engage in their own incantations without feeling pressured by priests, nuns, and radicals.

We need to have a broad based campaign to correct distortions in our education, health, and welfare systems due to religious sensibilities. Where religion affects provision of services, people otherwise entitled may miss out.

This is pure injustice and cannot be tolerated.

Democratic Freedom means the right of belief in what ever you like. To some it means belief in the spiritual dimentions of reality; to others it means belief in the right to indulge in basic human drives for selfish pleasure or macarbe reasons. That is why we have law and order as some have no conscience. Conscience is the boundary of a functioning society. Some have no socially responsible conscience and no image of a loving God upon which to base their behaviour.

Having no God is not the answer it only exacibates the problem, as conscience lets us know where we fail

Having no God is not the answer it only exacibates the problem.

So Philo, are you saying that it's better to have a possible make believe Phantom, aka, God, then just Laws set by the Government (the people)? Are you saying you are in favour of rule by fear?

Jayb,
In the community in which I live violence and macarbe behaviour is committed by the godless and undisciplined behaviour of those without a view of God or social conscience. Crime is not committed by the devoted believers in the presence of an Amighty Creator upon whose image and holy dignity they are made. There is no fear in love but there is in policing the law breakers - the fear and adrenalin rush of being caught.

"To some it means belief in the spiritual dimentions of reality; to others it means belief in the right to indulge in basic human drives for selfish pleasure or macarbe reasons." and all to often they are the "some" and the "others" are one in the same.

R0bert

So Philo what you are saying is that Pedaphile Priests, Brutal Nuns, Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists bombers, Fundamental Hassimite(?) Jews, White Southern Baptist Fundamentalists , etc, are all wonderful peace loving Law abiding believers in "GOD" PHutttttffffft! I just spilt my coffee.

Oh & if you live in that sort of neighbourhood. My sugestion, move. My neighbourhood isn't like yours & I'd say there isn't a "GOD" believer amoungst them. Strange...? There doesn't seem to be any crime in my area. But then again I only been here for 6 years. I'd better go look again. According to you my neighbourhood must be a seathing hellish pit of crime. I'll look again....... Hmmm... No. Can't find any. Maybe the're doing it behind closed doors. I'll just have to look in the windows late at night to make sure. They must be making bombs or having..... "SEX" Ahhh......, or beating their Wives/children etc, ;-) in secret. Two word for you my friend. Delta Hotel.

jayb it think its important to speak the truth...and the truth is those you mention earlier in your post have naught to do with god..[god is the living loving grace/mercy/logic of life]...not the vile or imperfect

ANYONE can claim to be doing gods will..while doing their own,..its sad you link..love to the vile...dont reject god via liars claiming god's authority...those who lie..regardless of who they accord their lies to..will lie about everything/anything

jesus said by their deeds/works will we know..them...by your words i know your not one of 'them'...

im not saying become one of us...[for we each chose to come to god[good]..one by one...im saying in seeking the good you find god...your closer than you would think....

dont reject god/good.. because of those..who by their deeds reveal them selves..far from the perfect/good living loving grace;..god...none are perfect but god

This thread has attracted the usual homophobes and religious underachievers.

Why do we think we have a secular society?

Archaic and demonstrably wrong Abrahamic religious teachings saturate society. We have parliamentary prayers, many swear on the Bible before giving evidence in courts, and aren't the religions greedy self-serving organisations?

Many demand that their cultural practices be respected whilst displaying a total ignorance for other MORE IMPORTANT cultural aspects of other people.

An example of this is the climbing of Uluru! The Chaser showed this absurdity brilliantly when they pretended that they wanted to climb the PM's church for the view, after he had said climbing Uluru against the owners wishes, is fine. Double standards?

YEP Rudd, you looked like a sour-faced dill! So much for multi-culturalism based on mutual respect! How unChristian!

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/latestepisode/chaser_09_03_07/

If people want to believe in a God, that allegedly murdered innocent children in Noah's flood, and agreed to mad Moses laws then more fool them.

But in the 21st century there is no need for religions that teach untruths as fact. The flood didn't happen and if you believe your God killed innocents in a pretend flood or instructs people to kill others then shouldn't you seek psychological help?

God is so awesome that he can't even heal people with disabilities even with all the prayers for healing.

It's time we took GOD out of everything...sure believe in him if you wish....BUT stop deluding yourselves.

Finally, I have no problem with moderate Muslims per se but one thing does bother me. Muslims want all the freedoms of our society, and yet if we go to a Muslim country we are allowed no such freedoms. Why the double standard? Why aren't the so-called moderate Muslims crying out against these double standards?

How many of you so called religious people have climbed Uluru or would do it if you went there?

I have very little time for religious sensibilities when we trample on the culture of the original inhabitants of Australia! Do religions teach respect? Rudd can't demonstrate it - can you?

Under one God. I gather that you are saying that as a Christian, "Christians" have a monopoly on "Goodness." Everyone else, of course, is a Godless liar/fornacaterer/murerer/Drug addict/thief, etc, etc.

Oh, that came from a very respected travelling preacher. (Southern Baptist) Mind you his entire ministery was, "Kings Cross", in the 60's to the 90's. Hmmm... I wonder if that coloured his perception of ordinary people.

Er, it was you who said that it was important to speak the truth.

Joshua, aka Jesus, said, "by their deeds/works will we know.. them... by your words i know your not one of 'them'..."

By the way it was Emporer Constantine that declared Jesus to be," a God." The granting of "Godships" was the right of Roman Emporers. Jesus was not a "God" before the Nicene Conferance. Oh! here I go again. the Nicene Conferance contained religious leaders from all religions in the Roman Empire. It's aim was to establish a Common Religion through the Roman Empire & to abolish all others. Eusebius, Roman cronicler. History of the Christian Church & other Roman writings.

Isn't it strange that when a good Christian is caught out, the Bakers, etc,etc,etc, on infinitem..., of course, they "never were", Christians. Disownership...? It's called religious brainwashing.

Unfortunatualy some people need to have "fear" (as in, you're all doomed. I tell you. Dooooomed!) in their lives in order to be good. For most of us it just comes naturally. ;-)

Let me Guess, Secular is now Sectarian- Multi Culturalism is Orwellian, and actually means The Third World Reich – and the return of Witchdoctorats, and the Barbarians – To New Age religious dictates of Lawyernesses, Useless Idiots and Global Warming - To Socialism and the Lobotomised class Morons because of it; Jostle for power and control.
If you thought you can invent the metaphysics and re-engineer it to suit your own egocentric and depraved idiocies, then what you create is the new Frankenstein Monster , in a world of the Fiction ;- as interpretations , are construed to be engineered reality.
If you have lost your ability to appreciate what it was that existed and how it became so, then Secular sectarians destroy themselves.
I think it could be said ; Looted out of existence , to when the Barbarians want their pound of blood.

All? WTF? Could not understand a single word. Stay off the sauce when you're posting.

Gosh , Jayb , I am surprised, rattle the rocks between your ears, and just maybe, a single neuron will operate, , If one exists ;- but I doubt it . Just bovine excrement , fumigating ; You have to concede that; if only, we could put brains into a statue, but we cannot make it think; - mother nature, be as it is, can only make you decompose , and has , I have to end it there Graham may become upset ; but at least in a public domain I will state that;- you are Fowl pathetic pipsqueak.
And stink; and you reek, and poking holes in the Ozone layer. You Oxygen thief.
You green house gas accelerator, and intellectual dud.
But thank you for proving the point of the antipathy of brain-dead. You have graduated with masters and PhD.
Gold medal winner. Mr Flatulence, But No - you are platinum Jayb. Insects are more polite, and far more intelligent than you. And vomit has more appeal, and has more personality, and its constitution has more gumption than you.
A parasite Of Swine flu, and Media and Government broadcast proportions.
I am being polite Jayb.

OOOO ye h you understand.

All,
Last post rather over the top. However a good point in your previous post "Let me Guess, Secular is now Sectarian". Absolutely true in Jayb's case as he/she has become another cultural identity in our multicultural society. Secular has taken on another identity to mean opposed to the spiritual aspects of life. It by its strong vocal opponents of spiritual reality have become another cult in our multicultural society who want their will imposed above all others and it to be enforced by law.

At one time in my lifetime all religions included secular aspects to living within their broad world view to mean aspects of life that related to natural survival i.e. work, play etc. On this thread it has come to means an Atheistic world view as demonstrated by Jayb opposed to the spiritual.

Opinionated2:"...religious underachievers."

Love that phrase, I'm stealing it in future to describe myself.

Hey what if, given free will was bestowed, any God wanted us to grow up and evolve in to beings that no longer depended on Gods?

Like any good parent wanting their children to become independant, believe in themselves and cut the apron strings.

jayb<<Under one God.I gather that you are saying that as a Christian, "Christians" have a monopoly on "Goodness." Everyone else, of course,..is a Godless liar/fornacaterer/murerer/Drug addict/thief, etc, etc.>>no dear darling jay..dont put words into my mouth

im not of any particular religiously held belief..[i dont put one messengers words before any other...i love em all...may peace be upon them all]

see they each have their teachings..ans while it is true that to each nation was sent its own messenger...each nation yet got its unique teaching...meant to preserve the teaching..till in time we unite the good fruits of all the teachings and unite under the one god

we know from swedenborg..[for egsample]that each has two angels...[one of the darkside/one of the light...witness 'all'.s response..to reveal that in a moment of weakness.he allowed his dark angel free expression,this is clear by the agressive word choice he chose to reply your unreasond comments with

just as your allowing your dark side expression in the words you used...that i chose to quote...but so are we all..capable of supreem good[or ill]..

depending on which of our two protectors we chose to listen to...im ignoring the rantings of my darkside..to write you these kind words...and wether we chose to believe..[or chose to reject]..the revealations of swedenborg...thats simply the way it is

of course all the messengers had right and wrong teachings[its up toi us eacxh to sort the wheat[good]...from the good angel...from the tares bad angel

the fruit of the tree reveals the tree is good or not..by knowing the difference[good from not good...we sort the sheep from the goats..[the wheat from the tares]...by your other fruits[posts] i see basiclly your tree leans to the good...even if your roots are in the earthy muck...but so are we ALL

That is their nature Philo, all encumbered synthetic falsehoods, and fabrications, and as you state in your life experiences , the principle was to live within the decency of life as we were taught- to survive – search for true knowledge and respect of others ;

Some just need to be reminded how insignificant and stupid they are, and if there is nobody left to tell them, it mutates into crypto Marxian syntheses that becomes a finite threat to the whole existence, and the delicate fabric of society; It is almost a Past hence Philo; It has already occurred ;-

I don’t apologise for responding to absolute rudeness, and maybe they will be a bit more considerate next time; - to discuss issues , and not engage in a simpletons denial and Assert Guilt tripping as a default response because their cognitive ability is restricted to that of an Automaton.

WoW! Thanks All. It's nice to know I'm appreciated & worthy of so much praise. I surly don't know what I've done to deserve it, but thanks anyway.
I bet you're feeling it today. The only cure for a hangover is to drink copious amounts of water & pee a lot. Stay in bed. Best of luck.

Under one god. Swenenborg? Has anyone pointed out to you that he was a "failed" Philopher & Inventor.

Most people lean towards their Better Angels. Just because people are not, God fearing, White Anglo-Saxon, Right Wing, Southern Baptists from Idaho doesn't mean that their roots are in the muck. I believe that people can chose to believe in any religion, or not, God, or not, & still be good.

It's the "Dogma" that comes with a particular belief system, regardless of what that system is, that determens how we treat other people. Some peoples Dogma Systems make demands on other peoples Dogma systems that are unreasonable. Some Dogma System are unworkable within another Dogma System. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect one Systems Dogma to accommodate all of another Systems Dogma within the parent or adopted Dogma System. (a bit unweildly but you get the point)

If I go to Middle East. I cannot drink alchol, teach the Bible, Go mixed swimming, hold hands with my wife in public. No ifs or buts, it would be jail & a public whipping. They make no alowances for other religious sensibilities. In the Western World we are being forced to bend over backward to accommodate other Dogmas, but only so as not to interfear with the other Dogmas. Sometimes the West is caught between a rock & a hard place.

Is it reasonable for a people to leave a repressive Dogma Society for a Society with a nonrepressive Dogma then demand that their adopted society adopt their repressive Dogma. The very on they escaped from for a better life?

Continued.

Continued.

I watched a wonderfully uplifting movie last night. "Bend it Like Beckham." It work on so many levels. One level is this very topic.

"ALL"

"search for true knowledge." Of course that "true knowledge" would only be in line with YOUR Dogma.

"and respect of others;" Ah ha! the basic tenet of a true Demacratic Society. You don't have to believe in a God to have that.

"simpletons denial." What of? GOD? A figment of imagination created & asserted by a certain types of people to CONTROL others into following their Dogma.

"and Assert Guilt tripping." What the high priests of all religion use to CONTROL others.

How ever all this has nothing to do with the original question.

"How far should a secular multi-cultural society go to accommodate religious sensibilities?"

Can we get back to the question & ignore the red herrings put up by "ALL" & "under one God?"

I just have to laugh Jayb , you are funny , Do you actually know what dogma is Jayb ?

Do you know what anything is Jayb?

Pied Piper,

Why didn't you refer to yourself also as a homophobe?

You said this "I find them to be completely about sex and not about love, partnership, or the rights of people who are gay or lesbian."

Where do you find them and please release the details of the survey you undertook to deliver such an amazingly ill-informed statement!

IF the alleged GOD wanted humans to grow up and cut the apron strings as you ask...then he/she/it failed at that too.

The average believer of the Abrahamic religions actually believe their God murdered the firstborn of Egypt (the passover) Exodus 12:29, or drowned almost everyone in Noah's flood Genesis 7:24 OR allowed Moses to ordered the mass murder & ethnic cleansing in Numbers 31:17-18.

These crazy religions have their institutions teach this rubbish as fact.

What does that say about these religions?

What does it say about the members of these religions?

Will God say to their preachers and members "Are you all nuts, What disgusting minds could allow you to believe such things of me? How could you believe that I, your loving GOD, could do such things, or allow such things?"

If anyone believes or teachers these fabrications then aren't they the ultimate blasphemers?

Why are the religious amongst us so forceful in their comments on others, when they sit in their religious organisations and believe such tripe?

BUT worse - Why do those who are religious and know this stuff is garbage still attend the institutions that continue to teach this as fact?

Seems to me the greatest failures to a loving GOD (if one exists) are the preachers and the followers of Abrahamic religions.

If a religious person allows their loving GOD to be misrepresented by these falsehoods aren't they pitifully weak individuals?

Why are religious people such cowards and scared to confront the falsehoods taught about their God?

How can anyone, with even half a brain, believe this rubbish from the old dusty religious teachings of ancient man?

This morning, while reading the on line news, maybe it was in goggle news, an American story shocked me.
It should shock us all.
It said an 8 year old girl, raped in the USA by youths from her own race and religion, had been disowned by her family.
For shaming them.
No family, any color any creed could shame themselves more than these people did by that single action.
No I do not hate them, you should not either, they know no better , educated to follow a fantasy, a God, without a heart , they too are victims.
Sorrow and disgust? yes but hate, no.
One day man will be brave enough to ask is it time we stood firm against all religion?
In my heart I think that time is near , war murder deaths in the name of Gods now one day we will free ourselves from our childhood fantasy's and be one .
Christians should not be smug, history tells of just as bad acts, and modern history is full of child rape, even parents who refused to believe children or stop it happening.
Some parents have let children die rather than break questionable rules invented by questionable reildgions.

jb quote<<Steven. No to everything.

Monday,20 July>>
interesting you missed the addendumd..steven slipped in when he revised foxeys replies...

quote<<..Should Holocaust denial be illegal?..Saturday,18 July..>>...thus is it fair to presume you are claiming the right to rebut the hollow-cost?

or did you simply not read the topic fully...and just cast out the blanket rebuttal of any or all religious stuff..unthinkingly

see..i can presume that you are something you are not...but you in reality might well be...thus..i would admit my error...but can you?

you see later you accused me of being an xtian...or as you said it<<..Under one God...I gather that you are saying that as a Christian,..."Christians"..have a monopoly on "Goodness..."Everyone else,of course,..is a Godless liar/fornacaterer/murerer/Drug addict/thief,etc,etc.>>..well i corrected your misstake

but would use these..two simple errors...to point out the minute possability of other flaws in your thinking...

you allready miss-judged god...by the errors of a few misguided religious/zealots doing vile in his name...

and i would simply add..the caution..dont be judging the very god...who you..just might have judged in error..or in haste..as mindlessly and as carelessly..as the two hasty quotations i reluctantly post in this topic

dont judge the artist by his works...just as im trying to take care not to judge you..for your simple human errors.failings...only god[good]..is perfect...as for the rest of us..we do the best..as we are able...cheers eh jay

Sorry oug. one at a time.

quote<<..Should Holocaust denial be illegal?..Saturday,18 July..>>...thus is it fair to presume you are claiming the right to rebut the hollow-cost?

I do believe that with the UN charter of Free Speach. A holacost denier should have the right to deny it ever happened. Everyone else knows it did. What the World should acknowlege is that 13 million others, 6 million Gypsies, 5 million Russians, 2 million mentally ill & disabled, died in additian to the 6 million Jews.

you accused me of being an xtian...or as you said it<<..Under one God...I gather that you are saying that as a Christian,..."Christians"..have a monopoly on "Goodness..."Everyone else,of course,..is a Godless liar/fornacaterer/murerer/Drug addict/thief,etc,etc.>>..well i corrected your misstake.

Sorry I was only quoting the preacher. It's not my belief.

Sorry oug. Maybe you're not a Christian. I wrongly assumed & I should know better. One should never to persume to assume. With a title like "oug," it was an honest mistake. UOG Hmmm maybe you are Cau Dai. The're under one God.(look up Cau Dai) An assimilation of Catholic, Buddist, & Islam. Their Symbol for GOD is the "All Seeing Eye of God"

you allready miss-judged god...by the errors of a few misguided religious/zealots doing vile in his name...

I just pointed out that these people are the "Worlds Best Practise Christians," until they are caught out, then, "of course they never were christians." Strange that.

and i would simply add..the caution..dont be judging the very god...who you..just might have judged in error..or in haste..as mindlessly and as carelessly..as the two hasty quotations i reluctantly post in this topic

You are right again. I shouldn't have judged. GOD. Something that is not real cannot be judged. I'm just saying that some of the people that are acclaimed to be the "Worlds Best Christians" are in reality not good people at all. Well, they are until something goes wrong then they were never even Christians. ;-)

ANYWAY WHAT'S THIS ALL GOT TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL QUESTION?

“Why didn't you refer to yourself also as a homophobe?”

Cause I’m not one.

“You said this "I find them to be completely about sex and not about love, partnership, or the rights of people who are gay or lesbian. Where do you find them and please release the details of the survey you undertook to deliver such an amazingly ill-informed statement!”

I have seen gay parades. Is that the “them” you refer to? They are about sex or the right to have lots and with anyone you like.

“IF the alleged GOD wanted humans to grow up and cut the apron strings as you ask...then he/she/it failed at that too.”

Not if that was his/her/its plan, I hardly purposed a time span.

“These crazy religions have their institutions teach this rubbish as fact.”

I didn’t think there were any facts.

“What does that say about these religions?”

That they’re the same as all the other ones?

"What does it say about the members of these religions?"

That they are the same as all the other ones?

“If anyone believes or teachers these fabrications then aren't they the ultimate blasphemers?”

Are you still talking to me?

“Why are the religious amongst us so forceful in their comments on others, when they sit in their religious organisations and believe such tripe?”

You’re not aye, you just started ranting...

“…”

“How can anyone, with even half a brain, believe this rubbish from the old dusty religious teachings of ancient man?”

Beyond me O' baby.

Wow Pie-eyed Piper,

If you are judging the love that a homosexual has for their partner, based on your attendance at a gay parade, - does that also mean you would judge all heterosexual relationships based on a visit to King's Cross?

Wakey! Wakey! That is absurd!

I thought, in your post, you sounded like another homophobic, bigotted Christian, whose obviously flawed Bible overrules their logic and supresses rational thoughts.

If you aren't I apologise.

But back to the topic...

I have spoken to people who have Muslims in their families and the reason they say they don't speak out is because they are somewhat scared of some of their fellow Muslims. So I'm not sure what a moderate Muslim (if there is such a thing) really thinks. If you want Islamic law in non-Islamic countries then please go home!

But, to a lesser extent, Christians are scared to speak out also. Not for the same reasons but because they are scared of being excommunicated or the pitfires of hell threatened by their allegedly loving GOD.

A loving GOD who builds a hell...sort of a contradiction really. He did create all things didn't he?

The problem with society is that religions have entwined themselves in all things and they then become difficult to unentwine.

The parliamentary prayer is farcical, prayers of healing demonstrably don't work, and Politicians approaching the Pope to create an Australian Saint are fool hardy.

Doesn't praying to someone other than God when Jesus expressly states Matthew 6:9 This, then, is how you should pray" goes against Jesus' teachings!

Could a moderate Muslim answer me these....Why aren't they arguing for our freedoms in their countries?...why aren't they embracing our culture?...Why can't a woman wear what she chooses?..Why do women have to dress modestly?

Could a Christian answer me these...Why do you attend a Church which teaches falsehood as fact? Are fibbing or misleading people acceptable Christian traits? Why do you attend organisations that have covered up horrid crimes? Why did Paul oppress a woman's journey in faith in 1Timoth 2:11-12?

>> I have seen gay parades. Is that the “them” you refer to? They are about sex or the right to have lots and with anyone you like. <<

It is a subject not unknown to comedy:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

“Wow Pie-eyed Piper,”

Wow yourself O. I think I wrote it wrong or you read it wrong. I did not think the gay parades represented same sex couples, in fact I thought it would embarrass many of them.

“I thought, in your post, you sounded like another homophobic, bigotted Christian, whose obviously flawed Bible overrules their logic and supresses rational thoughts. If you aren't I apologise.

Accepted. But that was a hell of thing to manage from someone who has no problem with gays and is of the ranks of the “religious underachievers” aka me.

“If you want Islamic law in non-Islamic countries then please go home!”

Likewise Hindus, all cults and the right to practice any religion you want? In Saudi I was allowed to be Christian, they’re all good with that.

“But, to a lesser extent, Christians are scared to speak out also. Not for the same reasons but because they are scared of being excommunicated or the pitfires of hell threatened by their allegedly loving GOD.”

That’s just Catholics isn’t it?

“Doesn't praying to someone other than God when Jesus expressly states Matthew 6:9 This, then, is how you should pray" goes against Jesus' teachings!”

I didn’t understand that.

"Could a moderate Muslim answer me these....Why aren't they arguing for our freedoms in their countries?...why aren't they embracing our culture?...Why can't a woman wear what she chooses?..Why do women have to dress modestly?"

They’re outnumbered? They don’t want that freedom (well we perceive it as a freedom they might not). We really need to find one and drag them back here to tell us aye.

“Could a Christian answer me these...Why do you attend a Church which teaches falsehood as fact?”

C’mon O, you know they believe these things to be true. Faith and all that.

“Are fibbing or misleading people acceptable Christian traits? Why do you attend organisations that have covered up horrid crimes? Why did Paul oppress a woman's journey in faith in 1Timoth 2:11-12?”

No idea what that was about..?

Sancho – yep I saw something very similar.[smile]

“Doesn't praying to someone other than God when Jesus expressly states Matthew 6:9 This, then, is how you should pray" goes against Jesus' teachings!”

Hmm... The way I see it is that if there is only "one God" then ALL religions must pray to the same GOD. Regardles of what The GOD is called. Now GOD is God in English, Deo is GOD in Italian, Allah is GOD in Arabic, There is a Trinity of Gods in Hindu that are One GOD, Buddism doesen't have a GOD as such. Yes, they pray to The Budda for enlightenment. They have their own littiany of animist Gods that are indemic to each region, but mostly the old Chinese animist Gods. Budda taught the very same things that Jesus did. Exactly. Though Budda died some 600 years before Jesus. That's why there is a story about Jesus visiting India during his missing 18 years. Jesuses garment was one piece. So is a Buddist Monks. Strange that. Did Jesus fold Buddas teachings into the Jewish religion. Then Paul modified it again to suit the Greco/Roman world of the time. Then, Constantine combined all the Roman empire into that the new Jesus worshipping religion.

So it doesn't matter what GOD you pray to, you are all still praying to the same GOD. (If, of course, there really is a GOD.) What the various religions fight over is the "Dogma."

I still don't get what "ALL" was on about. Does anyone? He certainly doesn't like me. I'll just see if I'm excited by that. Du, do, du, do.... Hmm... No.

A little history. Emporer Constantius 1, some years as Consol of Gaul/Britan, Married a Welch woman, Helena, decendant of the Apostle John, brother of Jesus. The one that Jesus told to look after his mother.
Emporer Constantine the Great, born at Narissus, Serbia Married a Christian woman. Ordered the Roman Empire to Adopt Christianity at the Council of Nicaea, now Iznik, Turkey.