The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Should freedom of religion be part of an Australian human rights act?

Should freedom of religion be part of an Australian human rights act?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
It looks as if Australia will get a human rights act. See for example:

http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

Should such an act include a specific right to practise a religion?

If your answer is "yes" please explain why a belief system deservers special protection merely because it is labelled a "religion".

What special privileges should be granted to religions that are not covered by rights to free assembly, free speech and a general right to believe whatever you want?

The recommendations of the "National Human Rights Consultation report", the so-called "Brennan report" has this to say about religion:

Recommendation 24:

The Committee recommends that the following non-derogable civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act, without limitation:
...
...

--"Freedom from coercion or restraint in relation to religion and belief. No person will be subject to coercion that would impair his or her freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice."

(How is this different from the right of a person to adopt a political belief of his or her choice?)

Recommendation 25:

The Committee recommends that the following additional civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act:

...
...

--freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs

(How is this different from the right to manifest one's political beliefs?)

See:

http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/nhrcc.nsf/Page/Report_NationalHumanRightsConsultationReportDownloads
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 19 October 2009 6:57:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
your link links to a buzz piece...its links link to their..'study''..lets go to the actual document
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

<<Article 2.
Everyone>>>>lol..excluding athiestrs//lol

<<is entitled to all the rights
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,

without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, *religion, political..or *other opinion.. national or social origin, property, birth or other status....>>

<<Article 18.
Everyone has the right...to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;>>>

lol except athiests

<<this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief*,
and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief* in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

you lot are soi full of the poor me
reading each others selectoive spin
you end up only decieving yourselves

closed minds/..the blind blinding the blinder
athiesm the belief of non believing/disbelieving...yet protected

we will defend..even..your right to disbelieve..besides as a member of un...we automaticlly adopted the rights...applicable to all un members..but not it seems their courts...

your links link to some decption/spin.. basic lies

you cant rebut lies with spin..if you dont read the source texts yourself...stoop trusting liars...but then again its your right

believe if you have it
disbelief if you got no belief
but confirm the fact's..FOR YOURSELVES

de-niale is more than a river
believing is disbelieving...see the joke

many of mans scince beliefs...
now..and in times past are proven fraud

going over 25mph...produces o starvation...
evolution of species validating evolution of genus...
is but two..of the scientific frauds

so many more

we could fill this post with the science frauds...
that simplton believers trusted the assurances of the high priests of science on...

often...incorreectly as it turned out
Posted by one under god, Monday, 19 October 2009 11:25:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven
Absolutely! Within the boundaries of State law of course.

Religion just shouldn't have a favoured position or hands on the levers of state power.

Oh, and yes, 'deliver us from zealots' and those uninvited people who knock on my door, to save my soul ( if I had one it's too late, I think). If I were religious, I'd assume my place in God's creation was resident stress ball when he/she is dirty on everyone else or needs some nasty amusement. Therefore their efforts are but an annoyance and interruption to their God's purpose. Shame on them disagreeing with their God. :-)
Posted by examinator, Monday, 19 October 2009 2:35:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Religion just shouldn't have a favoured position or hands on the levers of state power. >>

Power like this for example:

"A Texas man who faces execution after jurors at his trial consulted the Bible when deliberating his fate should have his death sentence commuted, Amnesty International said on Friday.

Khristian Oliver, 32, is set to be killed on 5 November after jurors used Biblical passages supporting the death penalty to help them decide whether he should live or die.

Amnesty International is calling on the Texas authorities to commute Khristian Oliver's death sentence. The organization considers that the jurors' use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality.

A US federal appeals court acknowledged last year that the jurors' use of the Bible amounted to an "external influence" prohibited under the US Constitution, but nonetheless upheld the death sentence."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Otherwise I concur, freedom of religion should be a part of human rights. However, would like also like to see freedom FROM religion, in that religions only qualify for tax exemption for charitable work.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 19 October 2009 2:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good grief.

IF you don't it legal unleashes people like yourself to vilify people BECAUSE of their beliefs. Ignorant and intolerant people like yourself don't need the freedom to openly victimize those who believe is something other than what you do.

"(How is this different from the right of a person to adopt a political belief of his or her choice?)"

Isn't your reason for being to separate religion from state?. Non-stop troll you are.
Posted by StG, Monday, 19 October 2009 3:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator,

With respect you are missing the point. Why, in a secular state, does religion deserve to be privileged above other belief systems and ideologies?

A human rights act should guarantee all of us the right to:

--Peaceable assembly,

--Freedom of expression through speech and other means of communication

--Freedom to believe whatever we like.

Why are these rights insufficient to guarantee freedom of religion?

Why does religion merit SPECIAL MENTION?

StG

I'll put it even more bluntly for your benefit. If religion is to be mentioned at all I would like to see an explicit right to say things which adherents may find hurtful.

I am not a "troll" at all. My agenda is absolutely transparent. I do not want to see blasphemy laws brought in through the back door in the guise of prohibitions against the vilification of religions.

In fairness, the Brennan report does NOT call for "anti-vilification" laws. However those who seek to defend such laws are the true "trolls".

Incidentally, there is another problem.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A RELIGION?

If I establish the "Church" of Nazism (cf "Church" of Scientology) are my rights to express my religious beliefs protected?

Is it going to be left to the courts to determine what is a "real" religion as is happening in Germany with the "Church" of Scientology?

Do we want to open that Pandora's box?

Wouldn't if be better to have rights applicable to all without bringing religion into it?

Fractelle,

I wholeheartedly agree. I see no reason why religious organisations merit special tax treatment.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 19 October 2009 4:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,

You and Antonios (? with the 9/11 stuff) should get together and share tin foil hat designs.
Posted by StG, Monday, 19 October 2009 5:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven
Fair point, as far as I'm concerned none.
However, in deference to those of that persuasion they *need* to have their right spelled out.
I also understood that Federal law had to spell out the limits of its authority as in the constitution.

If a church had the same status and requirements of that of a company or corporation then they would be governed by the same criteria. i.e. the applicable laws. e.g if someone wanted wanted to start an paedophiles appreciation company, club or church the result would be the same No! It would be against the law.

With the same limited benefits of a company many 'wing nut' churches would be open to scrutiny, tax liability, code of conduct etc would probably go away.

Tax exemption should be for *whole* community charitable works.

No Steven no! This does not, nor should it give you/anybody the right to say what you want about another religion. Come on, I thought you had got past that dried and pulverised puree of mouldy chestnut.

There IS no moral right to get stuck into/vilify someone/religion you don't like.

I note you had nothing to say on the issues of press manipulation it seem clear to every one your sense of free speech is limited to religious etc
Posted by examinator, Monday, 19 October 2009 6:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course it shouldn't.

All of the vital tenents to allow freedom of religion (as already stated) can be filled in by freedom of expression and assembly.
These laws do not impede any other rights.

A specific mention of religion may well entitle people to override obligations to uphold other rights as per their religious teachings.

An obvious example- the right of doctors to deny patients a treatment or reference because the patient is asking for something 'unholy' in their eyes (like an abortion). This is completely unacceptable.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 19 October 2009 7:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So we remove the right of the doctor to practise what in his judgment is good medicine. His rights have been overridden by the right of another. Is this what human rights law is about. This will bring a field day for lawyers endeavouring to make judgements on the right of the individual to live by his/ her conscience.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 19 October 2009 7:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I came across the following website that may be
of interest:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Human_Rights/religion/index.html

Religion and human rights in Australia.
The report recommends the enactment of a federal
Religious Freedom Act covering all aspects...
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 19 October 2009 8:33:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Steven makes a good general point here, but of course I disagree with his desire to offend people by right. Having said that, he should be free to do so if he's willing to wear the grief that it will cause him, because of course he is likely to attract retaliation for his deliberate offence. One would hope that it is proportional to the degree of vilification that he wants to deploy.

Fractelle also makes a good point that it would be nice if any such legislation included the right to freedom from religion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 19 October 2009 8:52:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
evolution is a fraud
thats why its taught to children
that much quoted court case /religion v[not evolution...but the right to present the god theory WITH the THEORY of evolution

it didnt judge creation fraud..it decided that religion couldnt be taught in science class///thats when the athiest hads their big win...a theory is taught as fact...kids get one fersion..i know cause i was raised in science...till i realised it totally fraud

there is no ambiogensis...first life...and there is not one scrap of proof of one genus evolving into other genus...not one...kids get taught you will know it all.....later...but by then there are so many other specialitoies..no one sees the whole picture

we got expert's in say micro/bacteria/virus...here at this forum..forrest is a eucalypotus expert...but see its so specialised...withing the genus....any evolution they see is within the same taxonomy...not one of you have reported an evolution...OUT OF GENUS...many species..but all within genus

at least tell the kids all the options..i was lied to but i know it...you lot been lied to but cant concieve why...your so specialised..your seeing only what...you do ...but your missing so much because your not seeing gods hand

i can breed two resesives to gether..and get the egsact imatch i seek...beyond mendelic rtatio's...when the odds are 16/2...and i get it in one...i know i got a little help
Posted by one under god, Monday, 19 October 2009 10:41:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Huzza, <"...an obvious example- the right of doctors to deny patients a treatment or reference because the patient is asking for something 'unholy' in their eyes (like an abortion). This is completely unacceptable."

While I believe in a woman's right to choose whether to carry a baby or not, I also respect the right of a Doctor not to agree to perform an abortion if she/he does not want to.

As long as the Doctor refers the woman on to another Doctor who does perform abortions, or to some pregnancy counselling centres/ family planning clinics who may help the woman.

I agree that we do not need a specific right to practice our own religion, but that we all have the same rights and expectations of behaviour for all people with any religion or with no beliefs at all.

Being given the 'right' to practice some bizarre religion
which allows, for example, cannibalism, would not be acceptable in
Australia
What would the definition of religion be?
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 19 October 2009 11:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Fractelle also makes a good point that it would be nice if any such legislation included the right to freedom from religion. >>

Thanks CJ. While writing my comment I had in mind that failure of the Atheist Foundations attempt to promote rational thinking and the simple idea that is OK not to believe in any religion.

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/371/

"ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA INC

MEDIA RELEASE

BUS SLOGAN REJECTED!

‘APN Outdoor’, the company responsible for Public Metropolitan Transport Advertising, says no to atheism."

Yet, religion still gets the green light for any propaganda they wish to advertise, such as the recent Jesus Campaign.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26126675-7582,00.html

"THEY argue about pretty much everything else but every Christian church in Australia accepts that Jesus is central to their faith. Without him, they've got nothing.

With this in mind, 15 of the umpteen Christian denominations, including even some brave Catholics, will this week join forces (and funds) to create a $1.5 million advertising campaign that focuses on Jesus, and not the individual churches.

The campaign is being billed as the largest and most expensive marketing exercise for Jesus in Australia and it features a television commercial, to be launched tomorrow.

Besides the "big ones" (Anglicans and the Catholics), the Baptists, the Uniting Church and the Salvation Army are on board.

The campaign will be called "Jesus -- all about life".

$1.5 million to preach to the converted. How many condoms would that buy?
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 8:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
from...THE MATRIX..AND..THE U.S.CONSTITUTION

During my..twelve years..service..as a Judge,..I always..insisted on the truth..and placed justice..above..law and order!

research/paper..;..people..tend to lose interest..when articles of this nature..become..too technical..

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/0 ... tution.pdf.

teqnicly i should be in synche with you lot

<<<The seizure of/the Americas..by..the Kings/explorers..was not as it has been..depicted..in our/history books,..presented to us..by our government,..in our government controlled..public/private/schools.

Native_Americans ..the Indians)..were murdered,..their villages burned,.many were/enslaved,..infected by diseases..brought from England ..and their lands/..taken by force..and the/threat of force,..by these...'early explorers!

The Indians..were labeled savages...by these/immigrant/explorers..from England,..but..the true savages..were our English/ancestors!

One thing../the Founding Fathers..did not know,..was that all of the Kings lands..and all future/acquisitions...$!"..such as the AMERICAS,..had been given and pledged by King John to Pope/Innocent III...*^%$*>>...and the Holy Roman Church,..by the Treaty of 1213.

After that fact/was proven..to the Founding Fathers..;..King George and/representatives..from the Vatican..;..decided to use/the Constitutional draft..created by the Founding Fathers,..to further their plan to control the/Colonists!

Control attained..by bringing the Colonists to their knees..in debt!

Did you know..that 98% of the Law Schools..in America/England..do not include/..Constitutional Law..as a part of their law curriculum?

....Constitutional Law does not apply to..or affect the enforcement of statutes,..codes oradministrative regulations,..which have replaced constitutional law,..the common law,..public/law and penal law....and which have been..designed to..control....you;..

..English soldiers..refused to take up arms against the Colonists because..they were/English citizens/..and relatives.

Mr...Mayer/Amschel.Bauer,..founder of the Rothschild../Banking Empire;..by this time,....owned the King!

Mr. Bauer..had extended unlimited credit..to the King/..and contracts with him,..which permitted..the Rothschild Tax Collectors to represent..and/collect the_Kings_Tax...from...the_Kings_/subjects.servants/pewons/ignorant faithless[or lunatics and savages..as a later/king..wrote/in capt philips..sealed orders.

When his show../surge..of force..in the Colony’s../failed;..Mr.Bauer suggested..that King George/..finance the Colonists..in their War efforts../against him,..and bring the Colonists..to their knees in debt!...

using german solgers commanded by brit officers..paid at 50 p per day...mr b..charged the king 100 each per day..

.clever stuff/..from the future pope..of the_church_of_england/religious/franchise.../the board of the crown corperation franchise.../owning....controling....from one square mile in london/city...and not of..the queeen

but...it dont change a thing...re god

neither god..nor satan ...made them..do it...
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:38:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie- I believe it becomes a slippery slope when doctors- who are providing vital services, are free to pick and choose what they want to do and retain their position- especially with so few doctors in the country (especially as they're being paid a substantial fee by patients or by the taxpayer). To set a standard for a vital service to deny help to the public is not a good idea.

It would be a lot like a soldier who doesn't want to commit an act of violence- but refuses to resign his position to someone else.

I think to be fair, doctors should sign a contract saying that they are not willing to perform ALL of their job- and instead agree to be liable to be replaced by a doctor that takes his/her responsibilities to assist people a little more seriously.

Providing a referal is good so long as the doctor is NOT paid for essentially wasting the patient's time, and resides in a large city full of other doctors who are theoretically willing to do the full job- but smaller towns it may have an exceptionally negative impact.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:40:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
when a bill of right violates anyone with a conscience that is not seared then it is not worth the paper it is written on. It seems to me that the bill of rights frees many agnostics, atheist and others from a moral conscience. They have created their own little pathetic rule book devoid of to much value (except the handpicked areas they took from the bible) God has allowed mankind to create these silly little rules dressed up in compassion but fortunately their is enough fortitude among believers to reject this second rate attempt by humanist to redefine good and evil. Will believers bow to such second rate garbage. They will only have themselves to blame if they do. Thankfully I have grown up in a country of free speech. It is to late to stop me and hopefully many others now.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 4:09:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EXAMINATOR wrote:

"There IS no moral right to get stuck into/vilify someone/religion you don't like."

Half right. There is no moral right to vilify someone.

But attack a religion? Why not?

I mean how does this work Examinator? I can dis socialism, capitalism, fascism, nazism, Marxism, any damn "ism" or ideology or belief system I like unless that belief system is labelled a religion? Then it is somehow off limits?

So I can dis Marxism but if someone starts a "Church of Marx" I have to back off?

Please explain your logic Examinator? Why do ideologies and belief systems that are labelled "religion" get immunity?

I can also disparage people who are members of the Liberal Party, the Greens, the ALP or the US Republican Party for their political beliefs; but I can't disparage people for their religious beliefs?

Why on Earth not? Why can I "get stuck" into John Howard, Kevin Rudd or George Bush but not into some bishop, imam or rabbi?

Please explain your reasoning because I do not understand it.

CJ MORGAN WROTE (in another thread)

"I've thought for quite some time now that the God described in the Christian Bible is a Righteous Tool."

Not exactly respectful of Christianity. How come it's OK for you to attack religion but when I do it it's somehow morally reprehensible?

Please explain.

You write:

"...he [meaning me] should be free to do so [attack religions] if he's willing to wear the grief that it will cause him, because of course he is likely to attract retaliation for his deliberate offence."

Adherents of a religion that I attack have the right to attack my attack. That's part of their right to free speech. If that's what you mean by "retaliation" I have no quarrel with it.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 7:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Steven- religious vilification laws have no place in a supposedly free society- to put religions above criticism is pretty nutty- we might as well be honest and call it a blasphemy law.

Unless the person is inciting hatred (say endorsing, inciting or encouraging a person to commit an illegal act or offense against someone based on such criteria- or doing so in the workplace, THEN they are stepping out of line.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STEVENLMEYER WROTE: << How come it's OK for you to attack religion but when I do it it's somehow morally reprehensible? >>

Steven, please don't quote me out of context and also put words in my mouth.

I was making fun of a religious tool, and I'm quite happy to wear the consequences.

If you want to engage in some personal war against Islam, I think you should be free to do so - as long as you don't whinge about the consequences to you.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL CJ MORGAN

Not that hoary old chestnut!

Can't you be a little more original than to claim you were quoted "out of context"? :-D

I must correct you on one point. While I make no secret of my disdain for Islam – along with other religions – my ire is not directed against Islam per se. It is directed against those who seek to appease Islam; who make excuses for outrageous behaviour from Muslim clerics and spokespeople.

Get that?

It's not the Muslims.

It's the kafir apologists for Islam that make me angry.

I have made this plain on a number of occasions.

I think the difference between me and the kafir apologists for Islam is that I am not a racist. If you try to peddle holy codswallop to me I'll call you on it regardless of your skin colour or ethnicity.

And BTW CJ MORGAN it is you who brought up Islam on this thread. I was writing about religion generally.

FRACTELLE

I agree with everything you wrote in your last post.

KING HAZZA

Precisely my point. Once you enshrine "respect" for religion into an act of Parliament you have a de facto blasphemy law.

As Fractelle has pointed out, we already have a sort of privatised blasphemy code operating.

It is incumbent upon all who value freedom to show maximum DISRESPECT for all religion. This can be hard. As I can attest, there IS a price to pay
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:33:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STEVENLMEYER, you are truly HAVING A LEND OF YOURSELF if you don't think that those of us who are familiar with your Islamophobia and disingenuously cumbersome 'BAIT AND SWITCH' tactics aren't on to you.

Unfortunately, as in this case, you occasionally make a good point that you subsequently STUFF UP when you start aserting your RIGHT TO OFFEND people. You may claim to be against all religions, but it's only ever Islam that you denigrate seriously.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Freedom of speech should include any honest and logical challenge to an idea or world view [religious or otherwise] even if it offends the holder of such a view because that is the way society improves and develops. However if the criticism is aimed at the person to demean or threaten them that could be challenged at law under a human right.

Of course that then is determining motive and intention and it would take a totally impartial judge or jury to evaluate motive or intention. This would bring the whole adjusting forgiving society to a scarry pensive holt as people wonder about criticism someone is making of their ideas and beliefs - are they aimed at me?.

I am not afraid of critics as it has helped me to rethink ideas and concepts. I have been an engineer designer and can accept ideas and improvements on my designs. However I am offended if I am told I am stupid by someone with malicious intent. But I would not take it to court. If our hurt pride is is a case to be brought before a Judge then our society has gone completly mad.

You see I follow one who was vilified and put to death for his ideas and unlawful religious actions [healig the sick and harvesting grain on the sabbath], one who could forgive his enemies and bless them as they crucified him. So to be his disciple I should do the same!
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 6:20:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo << I have been an engineer designer >>

Were the engineers happy with the results? Did you provide them with built-in slide-rules, set-squares and flannel shirts?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Philo you are free to believe that a patriarchal deity impregnated a human female, then sacrificed the resulting progeny in one of the cruellest deaths for all the sins of the human race (which BTW makes no sense), just as others are free to behave compassionately and decently without believing in any of the above mentioned.

That you take it upon yourself to regularly lecture others on these threads is presumptuous and often offensive because of the position of superiority you allocate yourself for believing your particular religion, while denigrating other religions and the non-religious.

As for your abilities to design engineers (hee hee), if you are claiming that this gives you some ability to apply an objective method of reasoning, you have yet to display such (after how many years?): your understanding of evolution for example?
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:54:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,
Obviously you do not believe in others right for freedom of critical judgment, yet you presume your right to criticise. under your world view there is total conflict without resolution. You cannot have it both ways. In you view it can only be you way. I'll ignore the rest of your post as it does not address the subject.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 1:01:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,
Obviously you do not believe in others right for freedom of critical judgment, yet you presume your right to criticise. under your world view there is total conflict without resolution. You cannot have it both ways. In you view it can only be your way. I'll ignore the rest of your post as it does not address the subject.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 1:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Little STEVIE!

GO TO THE NAUGHTY CORNER.

And while there write out 10 times.

"I must learn to read what is written and not make up things when playing with the grown ups!" In your best crayon too! >:-|
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 3:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Lets get real, rights are always 'limited rights' or else under the right for the pursuit of happiness, right to assemble et at one could include anything from paedophilia to terrorism. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.

Society is a compromise. We give up some right for some societal benefit. It strikes me as inane to win some theoretical absolute right at the cost to practical day to day benefits.

Therefore the next question is where do we draw the line? Little Stevie want's to start 'Armageddon the next crusade'. To him the world is monochromatic and binary.

One wonders what would be the point of ripping into another's religion?
Will it make us safer? will it go away? realistically what would we gain? The mutant Muttaburrasaurus in the corner is what will it cost?
I think the answers are clear.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 6:34:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It should be the right of everyone to have the religion of their choice & KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES. It is nobody's right to shove their religion into others' face. I'm sure God doesn't want all that fuss. It just wants us all to be reasonably decent. So many church-goers don't comply with God's rules during the week so what makes them think a hypocritical showing of face on sunday morning makes it all ok. I know I'd rather have a decent atheist as a friend instead of a religious ripp-off merchant.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 10:43:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,
Again double standards here! You critise others and push your point of view here, yet you want to deny others the same right you give yourself to openly criticise others point of view. Obviously a hypocrite, with selective tastes in friends! If you are true to your opinion why not adhere to your point of view - Why are you posting here. Keep it to youself and stop making judgments on others! This would apply to your proposed standard. However you do not practise what you preach.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear CJ MORGAN, there you go again with your favourite cuss word.

Islamophobe.

But what on Earth does Islamophobe mean old son?

Does it mean a disdain for Islam? If so I plead guilty. My contempt for Islam must be the worst kept secret on OLO. I find nothing charming in a belief system that reveres a lunatic prepared to sacrifice his own son as a "burnt offering". Even by the standards of 4,000 years ago or whatever that's gross.

And, yes, my choice of example was deliberate and with full knowledge of the implications.

Examinator,

Obviously "little stevie" is getting a bit senile. For the sake of my aging brain could you please point out where you've answered my question? Why do belief systems that are labelled "religion" deserve any special protection? Why can I dis Marxism but not Islam? Why get I "get stuck" into George Bush but not an imam, priest or rabbi who peddles baloney?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:23:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And on a note- since when is an individual only focusing on one religion in particular, grounds for preventing them from being able to criticize?
How many religions would one have to criticize on a regular basis to be entitled to the right to critizise? Or do they have to ambiguously state "Religion" when criticizing?

Most people only focus on Christianity or Islam- as these tend to be the only religions that have much impact on our society(s) in some way (be it in legislature, lobbying or terrorism).
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:10:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since CJ MORGAN did import Islam into this thread I thought I would reinforce my point about appeasement of Islam by posting a link to a current column in Britain's Independent newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/brendan-oneill-censorship-is-being-justified-by-imaginary-muslim-outrage-1806778.html

Note that the Independent is about as anti-American and anti-Israel as they come. This is not Murdock's Herald Sun.

The column is headed:

CENSORSHIP IS BEING JUSTIFIED BY IMAGINARY MUSLIM OUTRAGE

(I am not sure how "imaginary" is the outrage)

It describes how a scholarly work on the "Muhammad Cartoons" imbroglio has been censored:

Quote:

"This month, editors at Yale University Press decided to strip all illustrations – including the cartoons – from Jytte Klausen's book. They reportedly gave Klausen, a Danish native and professor of political science at Brandeis University in Boston, an ultimatum: no illustrations or no book."

More quotes:

"…Following the Danish cartoons controversy, the Hull Truck Theatre Company rewrote a play called Up on the Roof and changed a Muslim character to a Rastafarian."

(No need to appease Rastafarians then?)

"…the Barbican cut sections of its production of Tamburlaine the Great for fear of offending Muslims and the Royal Court Theatre in London cancelled an adaptation of Aristophanes' Lysistrata which was set in a Muslim heaven."

As I keep saying, it's not the Muslims, it's the kafir apologists and appeasers of Islam that are the danger.

And once the notion of having to "respect" religion is embedded in our thoughts we're back to blasphemy laws whether legislated or informal.

The article describes what I can only call craven dhimmitude.

King Hazza

Part of political correctness is it's OK to attack Islam if you attack every other religion. While I have no love for other religions I refuse to fall into that trap. It is not Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism that is being appeased. Nor, it seems, are Rastafarians. It is Islam that is being appeased.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Told you so.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:04:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, Philo, ah well what's the point ? Non religious people do not wreck vulnerable minds.
that's my point
Posted by individual, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual

I think that Steven Weinberg put it best.

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."

If you want an example consider this:

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

"The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

"A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue."

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Do you think the good priests, bishops and cardinals telling these outrageous porkies would be doing so if their minds were not afflicted by religious dogma?

How many people do you think have died as a consequence of such blatant misinformation?

Can we really appease people like this?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer,
The problem with condoms not being used is not the Churches responsibility as they are available. The Church teaches pure sexual relationship with one partner and is the Church stand and that does not spread HIV in a community. Most pomiscuous males refuse to wear condoms as it reduces their pleasure and they do not adhere to the Church teachings.

The same sexual diseases happen in every society where pomiscuous multiple indiscriminate sexual partners engage, especially anal.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 23 October 2009 4:43:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Philo,

I'm afraid this will not do.

As the linked article makes clear, Catholic clergy taught that condoms are permeable to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

See also here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

and here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024161.200-catholic-church-claims-condoms-do-not-stop-hiv.html

This is plain wrong.

What is more the Vatican persisted in spreading this sort of misinformation even after they were informed of their error. So far as I am aware there was never a retraction; never a "sorry, we made a mistake".

In other words, the Church, as an institution lied.

Whether people refrained from using condoms because of the falsehoods spread by the Catholic Church is another question. However, it is not germane to my point.

The question I ask is this. Would Catholic clergy (and some lay people) have knowingly spread this falsehood if their minds had not been corrupted by Catholic dogma? I think not. To my mind this is a perfect illustration of Weinberg's dictum that religion makes good people do bad things.

However, in case you think I'm just a "Catholic-o-phobe" consider this British honour killing case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6884530.ece

Would Mehmet Goren have killed his daughter had his mind not been corrupted by Islam?

Quotes:

"The trial heard today that punishments in cases where the honour of the family was believed to be at stake were sometimes discussed in advance by a council of relatives."

"Giving evidence for the prosecution, Professor Ertürk added: “If the family or the father of the girl who is alleged to have brought shame on the family did not do enough to punish the girl then he would be considered as guilty.”

“Honour-based violence does not normally occur on the spur of the moment but is an escalation of the tension when the woman is seen to openly challenge acceptable modes of behaviour,” she said."

Muslims and their kafir apologists will assert that honour killing is not part of Islam. I will believe them to the extent I would believe the Pope if he claimed that lying about condoms was not part of Catholicism.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:56:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy