Steven,

You and Antonios (? with the 9/11 stuff) should get together and share tin foil hat designs.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.