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.