Scott Morrison wants to change the law to ban
religious schools expelling gay students.

Labor supports this decision and the Greens want
this ban to also include the firing of gay teachers.

What do posters of the forum think of this?

Dear Foxy,

I was flummoxed to learn that gay students could be expel for coming out in the first place. It seems this was down to the Labour party when they were in power. Glad to see Morrison is now committing to fix it after trying to buck pass it initially.

This is pretty simple, if a religious school or hospital or charity group is using government funds to operate then they must not have the power to sack or refuse to employ because of gender or sexuality.

I believe this is the case in the UK and it should be the case here full stop.

If a person does not subscribe to the beliefs of an institution the institution should be able to expel them.

Would the RSPCA be wrong in sacking an employee who engaged in the practice of dog fighting?

Dear Steele,

Thank You for your thoughts on this issue.

To me, it's somewhat unclear as to what the government
intends to do.

Mr Morrison has insisted that the Coalition's aim is to
improve the federal laws introduced by Labor, not to
extend them. Mr Morrison stated that:

"We're going to protect religious freedom and we're not
going to allow discrimination against children..."

However it appears that a religious review led by former
Liberal MP Philip Ruddock was completed five months ago
but the government has refused to release it publicly
until it's been considered by Cabinet.

The Review was commissioned by former PM Malcolm Turnbull
in the wake of the same-sex-marriage debate amid concerns
about the conservative wing of the party about the
ramifications of changing the Marriage Act.

Mr Morrison also added that "The Ruddock Review found no
evidence of religious schools banning or expelling
students because of sexuality."

Therefore having read all this - it is unclear what the
government intends to do with the recommendations from
the Ruddock Review. Apparently very few MPs have read the
review. And what happens next - I guess we'll have to wait
and see.

Perhaps all this is just a political ploy, or
another storm in a teacup?

Do religious schools really discriminate?
I'm not sure.

Is Mise,

When religious schools take public money to run
schools in the UK they have to play by secular rules.
The choice is outright: faith or funds.

The same should apply here in this country.

So what happens if a gay person applies for a job at one of these religious schools and is denied a job for any reason?

Let's say that person was a terrible teacher and the job is given to a second applicant.
Is the first applicant then in a position to sue that religious school for denying them a job on the basis of their sexuality?
- Until gay people are employed at all religious schools?

So my question to you idiots is how do Islamic schools treat gay students and gay people that apply for employment in their businesses?
Because if you can't force them to show tolerance, educate gay students without discrimination and employ gays you're not going to be able to peddle this fastasyland across the board.

Now I have to stand back and look at the bigger picure.
You people should know I always look at the pro's and con's and then the bigger picture.

Why the hell would gay teachers want to be employed at a religious school?
- To deliberately rock the applecart?
- Like poofters and Christian bakeries, that kind of thing?
Why would a gay students even want to go to a religious school if they weren't being forced to do so by their own stuck-up parents?
Isn't that in itself some kind of discrimination against the kid?

And why is a so-called Christian backing this measure?
Politicians are politicians first (liars) and religious second.
Scott Morrison's religion is the UN and the Sustainable Development Goals.

When I see Islam employ gay people for their mosques and schools then and only then will I entertain this discriminitory bs, because until then, this measure introduced unfairly is discrimination and victimisation of everyone else.

- Not that I'm even interested in forcing religious institutions to do so.

Hey SteeleRedux,
"This is pretty simple, if a religious school or hospital or charity group is using government funds to operate then they must not have the power to sack or refuse to employ because of gender or sexuality."

It's not that simple at all.
If you give 'x' amount to a student at a public school, then why should you not give that same 'x' amount to a student at a private school?
If private schools didn't have at least equal funding then less students would be able to go to them.

Do you want to deny those kids an opportunity for a better education?
(Though all kids should be entitled to a good quality education)

You're using the funding issue to impose UN curriculum upon the school; those parents don't own the UN anything, they probably pay the taxes that school the rest of the nations kids.

Another can of works portraying itself as a great idea.
Don't any of you people ever read the bloody fine print?

Armchair Critic,

The government at present is looking into the issue
of rights and law. It has every right to consider the
Ruddock Review and its recommendations
very carefully and think about
that complex inter-section of rights and law.
We'll have to wait and see what the Cabinet decisions
will be. Hopefully they will look at the bigger picture.

Foxy,

"When religious schools take public money to run
schools in the UK they have to play by secular rules.
The choice is outright: faith or funds.

The same should apply here in this country"

When institutions take public money to run (partly or in whole) their institutions then they have to play by the same rules as all others; wouldn't that be fair?

Obviously the God deniers will exempt the gw fraud/religion from their rules

Is Mise,

As you know - what they should do and what they do
are not always the same thing - especially in politics.

Dear runner,

Come on young fella, every now and then you might try not vomiting on the page and at least expand a little more. Do you believe kids should be expelled from any school receiving government funds because they have come out as gay?

If yes what is your reasoning?

Foxy,

"When institutions take public money to run (partly or in whole) their institutions then they have to play by the same rules as all others; wouldn't that be fair?"

Don't you think that that would be fair?

Is Mise,

Yes that would be fair - however, as I stated earlier
not all institutions comply. As the following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/so-called-religious-freedom-is-a-front-to-justify-lgbt-discrimination-20181012-p5099s.html

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

The link also points out that if the Review is about
religious liberty and not discrimination against
gay people, if it is about religion, then presumably
other religious doctrines about divorce, adultry,
premarital sex, would also be grounds to exclude staff
or students. However the Review does not say that.

Foxy,

"The focus on student or staff’s sexuality and gender identity also reflects what critics of the review have argued since day one: this review was not about religious liberty but rather discrimination against LGBT people. If it were about religion, then presumably other religious doctrines about divorce, adultery or premarital sex would also be grounds to exclude staff or students. From what has been reported in the media so far (as the review is still not public), that is not the case"

This is the case and some schools have sacked staff for those very reasons.

Has a junior sodomite ever been expelled from a Christian school? Would the parents of such a sodomite send them to a Christian school? Have any of these kids revealed themselves as sodomites at a Christian school? You don't know, do you? Administrators of Christian schools have reacted by saying that they are not aware of any of this nonsense arising. This is just more unnecessary and divisive crap to keep people at each others throats

Is Mise,

Exactly.

It is about discrimination - and hopefully the government
will consider the Report very carefully and as I stated
earlier - will think about that complex inter-section
of rights and law.

Well done greens! flabbergasted that any Church dare call for this.
After the Royal Commision they have no moral right to call for anything.
let us ban child molesters from Churches being near kids first

Sodomite, descriptive word for some Catholic Priests, is any one talking of banning them?

Anti-Discrimination is not an absolute good. Some think in binary and can only count to 10.

Belly,

"Sodomite, descriptive word for some Catholic Priests, is any one talking of banning them?"

Yes, any school should be able to ban them as teachers, counsellors, whatever, based on their sexual orientation and if a school can fire a teacher based on their sexual orientation then they should be able to fire a student on the same grounds.

Or do you think that homosexual priests, who may practice sodomy, should be allowed to be in a position where they can influence children?

practice of dog fighting?
Is Mise,
Would the Greens oppose Cock fighting ?

'Do you believe kids should be expelled from any school receiving government funds because they have come out as gay?'

Might just be an idea Steelie to let kids be kids. Depending what perversion they have witnessed and watched might just determine whether they see themselves as 'gay' that day. Christian schools would not be Christian if they model or promote a perverted form of marriage or lifestyle whether it be adultery, fornication or homosexuality. Just plain common sense. We know the god deniers and haters want to only have their immoral lifestyles promoted and modelled. No wonder we have more drug use, more suicide. more mental health issues, failing grades, more irrationality as a result of godless secular dogma. Personally I would prefer the failed secular model be defunded. Pity I am in the minority.

Individual,

"Would the Greens oppose Cock fighting?"

Would depend, I suppose, on the orientation of the Cock.

Dear Foxy,

Ideally, the way it should be:

The word "school" should not appear in legislation.
Those parents who want their children to study, should make their own arrangements, either by teaching them in person, by using private teachers or by using private bodies that employ teachers. Whatever is openly and honestly agreed between parents and teacher(s), so it shall be.

Regarding homosexuality, hopefully, teachers, with parent-support, will expect their pupils to refrain from sexual activities, thus it matters not whom the pupil happens to be sexually attracted to.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Somewhat less than the above ideal:

All schools are private. The state gives parents education-vouchers which they can spend on any reasonable form of education for their children.

To participate in this scheme and be eligible for taking vouchers, schools must clearly state in advance, then follow, their sexual policies.

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What we can realistically hope for in this generation:

Following Ruddock's recommendation, all schools should declare their sexual policies in advance, then follow their declarations.

Hopefully, no school will have such a stupid policy to expel pupils or teachers due to their sexual preferences (so long as they do not perform sexual activities in or around school). This said, the vast majority of schools, including religious schools, would never expel pupils or teachers on sexual grounds anyway.

Sanity still has value!
This mornings Sydney press has a poll, just over 20 percent support schools rights to rule based on this issue.
Fell like dancing!
Sooo good to know the waffling /anti section of humanity is not in the real world as biased as it is here

Nobody seems to recognise that there has never been a problem and there is no indication that there will be one. This is just another way for the Reds to stir the pot and create another division in society as they did with SSM.

It seems to me that this "gay" business has become one of choice rather than genetic.

Dear Belly,

«This mornings Sydney press has a poll, just over 20 percent support schools rights to rule based on this issue.»

I am sure that if we search and dig enough, we can find some cherished pastimes and habits of yours which only 20 percent or less of the population approves of. Ban them?

---

Dear Individual,

«It seems to me that this "gay" business has become one of choice rather than genetic.»

Those scientists and other experts who claim that homosexuality is genetic are probably right (though I think that social and developmental factors contribute as well), but being "gay" is certainly a political, rather than genetic, inclination.

Many years ago when I was in school and homosexuality was still illegal, there was a boy who declared himself to be homosexual: his parents were communist! He had the most beautiful girl in class as girlfriend, but to shock us he still declared himself as "homo" (that was before they robbed the word "gay" of its proper dictionary use).

Dear Yuyutsu,

It really is an utterly bleak, dystopian world you seek isn't it.

However the 'freedom' you want is already there. A bunch of homophobic parents can gather as a collective and form a school which sets its own rules around the expulsion of Aussie kids who openly affirm a non-majority sexuality. All the rest of us are saying is that we don't want our taxes funding this kind of bigotry.

I remember just a few months back Morrison explaining the reason he sent his own kids to a Christian School.
He opposed safe schools.
Now he's forced to introduce it because of globalist Turnbull sellout antics.

- Sells his own religion out on a bad week, what a shill!
I guess we all know he can bend over and pull his cheeks apart now.

And I told you all Turnbull is the 'smiling assassin' and Morrison is a 'Well meaning douchebag with his head up his butt'...

How come nobody ever trusts my judgement?
I'm right far more often than not.

Good Morning Everyone,

Thank You so much for all your contributions.

I doubt if too much is going to happen regarding this
issue at the moment. The Wentworth By-Election is on
this Saturday, 20th October 2018, and I doubt if
anybody from the Coalition is going to be speaking on
this topic at present. They would not want to risk
losing their one vote majority by losing Wentworth - which
I believe has a vast amount of gays in its community.

Also the Ruddock Review has to go before Cabinet so it is
going to be some time before this matter is discussed.
We shall have to wait and see what happens in the future
regarding this issue.

Interesting times ahead.

Dear SteeleRedux,

«However the 'freedom' you want is already there.»

I have no need for this kind of freedom (of expelling pupils on the grounds of their sexual orientation), but if I believe in freedom then I cannot pick and choose.

That said, the freedom to form a special school as you described, stupid as it may be, is only available to wealthy parents: poor parents are still forced to send their children to public school where they are indoctrinated with the value-system of the government of the day.

Religious freedoms are currently in danger all over the world as well as in Australia.

«All the rest of us are saying is that we don't want our taxes funding this kind of bigotry.»

Neither do I, but I also don't want my taxes to fund the compulsory incarceration and indoctrination of children in state-run schools.

«It really is an utterly bleak, dystopian world you seek isn't it.»

Which part of what I wrote makes you think so?

Yuyutsu thanks! look we do not even live in the same paddock the chances we will ever agree are zero, so thanks
I am not gay,but voted yes, my point?
Some of us understand bigotry, the best of us want an end to it, these pages are full of it.
not every one, not all, but a few lost soles want us to think bigotry is normal.
That poll underlined it is not near true.
It is not my choice, why lie? to be in the company of same sex people, in my work years it was part of my job,voting yes did not change that.
Just watched a Doco, the Scottsboro boys, reminded me why I dislike bigots

Dear Belly,

What makes you think that I like bigots?

---

Regarding the SSM vote, sorry, but the way the question was worded prevented any logical person from voting 'Yes':

“Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

How can a door that is already open be possibly opened?
Even before the plebiscite, nothing prevented same-sex couples from marrying, then how can legislation possibly change that?

Belly,

"... but a few lost soles want us to think bigotry is normal"

You don't really mean that do you?

Lost soles don't think.

Hey Foxy,
You agreed that fairness is important.
I think it's not only unethical to try to impose discrimination idealism and virtue signalling unfairly, but done in such an unfair manner is akin to a direct attack on one particular religion, Christianity, and that, is an attack on the family an attack on good ethics and an attack on our morals and fabric of decency in our society.

You said you believe in fairness.

Tell me is a gay infidel permitted to enter a mosque or are they discriminated against and not permitted?

If a gay man were to groom and have anal sex with a Christian Pastors legal age son, would that Church Pastor be permitted to ban the gay man from attending church, or would that be discrimination?

You can't stop discrimination.
Even the gays themselves want to go and discriminate against those who don't agree with them.

This whole thing to me seems like the concept of 'imposing my beliefs upon you' so that one is not permitted to act according to their own beliefs and/or conscience and must follow the rules;

Rules meant to make us all the same
Like good little slaves and powerless to other people's globalist agenda.

If the options are to EITHER admit gay etc. students, OR to throw them off of tall buildings, I would certainly support their right to enrol in any schools they like. I would sternly punish any school authority who threw gays off the top of tall buildings. Or beheaded any student for some supposed insult to the prophet. Like touching someone else's food bowl or water bowl. [But that brings us unavoidably to the plight of that poor Christian woman in Pakistan, and I should understand that Muslim rights over-rule women's rights. Sorry]

I also support the freedom of expression, i.e. no harassing, no threatening, no megaphoning, in all schools. And in public too. Like universities should be doing. How can you find out the truth if you don't let anybody but your own 'kind' speak ? Yes, your own 'kind' may be virtuous like you, good, pure, righteous people, but still ....

Oops, I forgot - such 'kind' aren't interested in exhaustively uncovering the truth: they have a point of view, a narrative, a prejudice, and that's that. Any alternative view is Satanic. Nobody shall criticise or analyse theirs, ever.

What the hell is this world coming too - right and left corrupting debate and and search for truth, each smug in its own pig-ignorance. Please, please find me a desert island somewhere.

Joe

I've just come across an article by satirist and comedian
Ben Pobjie on this subject.

Enjoy:

http://tendaily.com.au/views/a181011qbj/praise-be-the-ban-of-gay-students-from-religious-schools-20181012

Yuyutsu as I said we will not agree,well not often Foxy,s post has it right the Rudock report should be tabled after Saturday.
Big swing on against Liberals but in truth if they lost that seat it would be extraordinary, unlikely.
Watched question time, both sides do a brilliant job of looking stupid.
ScoMo wounded by this mornings polls shouted his same old position over and again
Timely thread and just a reminder the voters usually get it right and firmly reject the thought of bias based on sexual choice

Dear Belly,

Why have you addressed this story about the Liberal party and the coming by-elections particularly to me? What have I got to do with it?

And what is it exactly that we fail to agree on?
Is it that you think that I support bigots and nothing would convince you otherwise?
Or is it that you still believe that the plebiscite question was correctly worded and made logical sense?

Ruddock's recommendation regarding school policies and homosexual pupils seems balanced to me, so I support it - I don't care about the small-politics on when it will be tabled.

It's just occurred to me that the Religious Review
that will be presented to Cabinet - should also
look at a broader picture. Not just abolishing
religious schools from expelling gay students,
they should look at gay teachers being protected as
well. Also what about religious institutions such
as hospitals, residual and community aged care
centres run by religious organisations? Do they
have the legal right to discriminate against gay
people?

Cabinet should look at the bigger picture of
discrimination by religious groups in our communities.
Especially ones that receive government funding or
tax excemptions of any kind from the public purse.

After all we are a secular state - and religious laws
are not supposed to be legally recognised in this
country. This will be a real test of the government
And the Opposition.

According to the Attorney General's Department - not to be
humiliated, demeaned, or treated unfairly is supposed to be an absolute right within our legal system.

Oh you forget to include Christian doctors being forced to murder the unborn Foxy. I thought we might of learned a thing or to from the homosexual priests that were employed ny the Catholic church. Just a thought!

Foxy,

Do you think that it would be unfair for a religious school to discriminate against a priest-teacher who had a conviction for paedophilia?

Or a homosexual priest-teacher who had publicly advocated the lowering of the age of consent for male teenagers?

Should the Labor party be forced to end its discrimination against its MPs who cross the floor on a matter of conscience?

Dear Foxy,

«It's just occurred to me that the Religious Review that will be presented to Cabinet - should also look at a broader picture.»

Yes, religious freedoms are being trampled over in Australia, not just in the area of schooling.

«Not just abolishing religious schools from expelling gay students»

This is not what Ruddock recommended!
The recommendation is that if schools want to do this, then they must notify the parents and teachers about this policy in advance.

«Especially ones that receive government funding or tax excemptions»

ESPECIALLY? So what are your sinister plans regarding others who do not want your money and do not rob the taxpayer? Mind you, the biggest robbers are the state-schools.

«After all we are a secular state»

Do you enjoy rubbing salt on our wounds?

It is YOUR state, they are YOUR thugs who impose YOUR rules upon us, who can do so only because they own all the guns.

Asking me to identify with your regime and call it "mine" or "we" or "our", is similar to defecating on my door-step, then ringing my door-bell to ask for toilet paper: all you will get from me is sand paper!

«religious laws are not supposed to be legally recognised in this country»

Who ever asked you to recognise anything?
All we, religious people, are asking, is that you stop persecuting us!
Leave us alone!

«not to be humiliated, demeaned, or treated unfairly is supposed to be an absolute right within our legal system.»

Go tell that fable to police, go tell it to airport "security" and custom officers who harass, humiliate and demean ordinary travellers...

Is Mise,

What you are suggesting is illegal, and against the
law. And people who break the law will be punished
accordingly. But why do you attach these things to
gay children and gay teachers?

runner,

I don't know of any doctor who murders unborn children.
But there are many Christians who have killed and
attacked doctors and staff, and patients in clinics.
You need to chill out with your finger-pointing.
It's sick!

Yuyutsu,

I'm not asking anything of you - not even for
civility.

I am merely trying to broaden this discussion.

It is a topic worth discussing - with all of its
broad range.

If you find it distressing I would suggest that you
are under no obligation to take part in it.

Also kindly do not put words into my mouth or speak on
my behalf.

Yuyutsu,

BTW: I also am religious. However, I follow
my religion and its teachings. And to prejudge
people and discriminate against them is
against what my religion teaches.

Your religion must be different to mine.

Dear Foxy,

«I am merely trying to broaden this discussion.

It is a topic worth discussing - with all of its broad range.»

And I concurred.

«Also kindly do not put words into my mouth or speak on my behalf.»

Have you not used the word "we" in "After all we are a secular state"?

This was speaking on MY behalf, because "we" includes myself and I am NOT a state (secular or otherwise), nor is any group I belong to voluntarily.

«I also am religious»

Does your religion allow you to oppress others?
Does your religion allow you to impose secular states and their laws on others?
Does your religion allow you to steal people's money then use it to incarcerate and indoctrinate children?

My religion clearly states that such behaviours are morally wrong and lead away from God.

And BTW, I do not discriminate against homosexual people, why should I?

Is Mise,

A priest-teacher who had a conviction for pedophilia
would presumably have been dealt with by either the
authorities or his church.

Any teacher gay or not - would have to be careful
with what he was advocating if he wanted to keep his
job. He would have to maintain the values of the
school.

As for the Labor Party's policies concerning MPs
crossing the floor? I'm not familiar with their
policies. It's up to the party to make the decisions
regarding this matter. The same goes for the Coalition.

Yuyutsu,

We've argued the subject of laws that all of us are
required to abide by - living in this country - whether
we like it or not. I don't want to go over this topic
again with you. I was not imposing anything on you
simply stating facts. Our state is a secular state.
And there are laws that we are all required to abide by.

If you have a problem with that - you have to find a
way of solving it for yourself. I can't help you.

Foxy,

I said,

"Do you think that it would be unfair for a religious school to discriminate against a priest-teacher who had a conviction for paedophilia?"

It is not illegal to have a conviction for paedophilia, in fact, it is very legal.

So answer the question.

"Or a homosexual priest-teacher who had publicly advocated the lowering of the age of consent for male teenagers?"

It is not illegal to advocate the lowering of the age of consent,

So answer the question.

"Should the Labor party be forced to end its discrimination against its MPs who cross the floor on a matter of conscience?"

Nothing illegal about that at all.

So answer the question.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You claim;

“And BTW, I do not discriminate against homosexual people, why should I?”

But you will fight for the freedom to do so if you, or others, choose.

Thus at best you become an enabler, only a step away from the perpetrator.

I think that considering the noise the gay brigade made about ssm, they should now accept that normal people demand gay kids in gay schools only.
That way, this behaviour can't be pushed onto normal kids so they can get on with normal lives.

'
I don't know of any doctor who murders unborn children.
But there are many Christians who have killed and
attacked doctors and staff, and patients in clinics.'

can't believe you are so ignorant Foxy. Then again Ms Ford showed just how low and lying women can be even with a little girls voice.

Is Mise,

I've answered all of your questions on page 9.

You must have posted prior to seeing my answers.

runner,

There's a difference between lies and facts.
But possibly you may not know that.
As for women lying? Men are guilty of that as well.
We have some prime examples that make the news on a
daily basis.

What's legal got to do with moral ? If people need something to be legal to feel moral about it then you can be assured it is immoral & hypocritical.

Foxy,

You didn't answer the questions at all, you skirted around them.

Dear Foxy,

«I don't want to go over this topic again with you. I was not imposing anything on you simply stating facts. Our state is a secular state.»

Had you just claimed, "Australia is a secular state", then I would just sigh as that is indeed a sad fact and there is nothing I can do about it; and yes, we already discussed the issue.

But no, you keep implicating me time and again, then expect me to acquiesce?

By claiming: "OUR state is {whatever}" you include myself in that evil scheme, accusing the helpless victims along with the perpetrators and this is not on! Since it is you, not me, who identify with the state and want it to exist, it is you who should take the responsibility and not attempt to share it with innocent others.

«And there are laws that we are all required to abide by»

Many violent groups say the same and indeed require us to abide by different sets of their crazy laws. None of those groups are moral and there is nothing to be proud about belonging to any of them. It just so happens that at present, in Australia, the ones with the guns are the state-guys, otherwise we might have been forced to follow Shariah or communist laws instead.

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

«Thus at best you become an enabler, only a step away from the perpetrator»

By supporting the state to persecute the religious, you become an enabler, only a step away from the perpetrator.

We are discussing a theoretical issue because I am yet to see anyone in real life who discriminates against homosexuals, but even if such a person existed, calling me an "enabler" is overstating my powers. I am helpless against the state just as you are - and none of us can predict from which direction its next blow is going to come.

P.S. It would be nice if everyone was homosexual because then we wouldn't have to squeeze with increasing population numbers.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“I think that considering the noise the gay brigade made about ssm, they should now accept that normal people demand gay kids in gay schools only.”

What the heck are you on about you bigoted clown? Normal people? You wouldn't know the meaning of the word. I know quite a lot of religious people and I can tell you right now there would not be a single bloody one of them who would advocate your nonsense.

So you want to shift them all off to their own institution so that others don't have to associate with them? And what do you think the result would be? A whole bunch more bodies on the rocks at the heads for instance?

Sometimes I really do think a decent slice of your generation are a waste of space now. Life is suppose to be about broadening your understanding of people and their diversity, of being able to walk in the shoes of others, of shedding unsustainable positions, But some of you are having none of it are you. Well wallow away in your prejudices my friend but don't be surprised at how others easily recognise the poison they bring to you personally.

If one man can only find love in another mans anus, dismisses the female vagina as being of no interest to him, then no, he's not normal.
No matter how much a gay might want or claim to be normal, so as to not feel abnormal, they're not.

Normal is when men and women have sex that potentially results in creating a new life.
Abnormal is when you end up getting poo on yourself.

"So you want to shift them all off to their own institution so that others don't have to associate with them?"

- In a private school where parents paid for and expected a religiously moral education free from political indoctrination, damn right I do.
As for public schools, I'm not sure.

Denial of service based upon the religious views of the institution isn't unreasonable.
It's not discrimination in the same way bullying and victimisation is.
If you don't like it find another school or go to a public one.

Tell me which homosexual is about to kill themselves if they are not permitted to a religious school?
I'll even answer it; a mentally challenged one.
It's more likely its the rich parents of some gay kid who demands their kid is entitled to an expensive private school education, and doesn't give a crap about the schools religion, just its reputation and doesn't want to drive another 4ks down the road.

"Sometimes I really do think a decent slice of your generation are a waste of space now. Life is suppose to be about broadening your understanding of people and their diversity, of being able to walk in the shoes of others, of shedding unsustainable positions, But some of you are having none of it are you."

My position isn't unsustainable, yours is.
I don't seek to force others to adhere to my beliefs.
Your side does.

Ttbn might have the right assessment on this new law. It might be nothing more then a ploy to cause division instead of any issue they are actually seeing done by religous schools.

As for the issue of homosexuality among the students or the teachers. If it is a religious school, (therefore a private one), then the first concern is, what is the religion and what does the religion say concerning homosexuality. Based on that there might some better understanding for their position without having to force them to change their position through the law.

For instance, within Christianity there are two other concerns regarding sins besides to not do them. One is the principle of redemption, that all people sin but they can be saved and can turn from their sins. The second principle is on how to choose an elder which I'd argue can be applied to teachers as well. That they need to be upright and not sinful. If homosexuality is considered a sin to a religious school, then I would think they have a right to hire or fire based on what they deem is right by their beliefs.

That said, this issue should be applied to more then just homosexuality if it is applied, but also to adultery, as well as criminal background checks like being a murderer, or a pedophile.

With both the justification of redemption and choosing leaders that won't teach or cause more sin; these would support being able to fire (or not hire) homosexuals within a Christian religious school, while still allowing students to stay. The letting the kids stay would be on their decision though. Not on the laws force. That is a Christian perspective that can be applied to a Christian school. If there is any justification in other religious schools that's something that can be considered there.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second issue is to take into account the individual teachers and students. Looking at how easy or hard it is to find a teaching job should be part of the decision of whether or not their behavior is bad enough to fire them and uproot their life. Since both homosexuality and adultery are sexual sins they should be a good measure of whether either are allowed. If a teacher is discovered to be an adulterer, is that grounds to fire them? If they are then that should also be the standard for homosexuality. If adultery isn't grounds for firing, then neither should be homosexuality. (Unless they are teaching that either adultery or homosexuality is ok to the students).

The same logic can be applied to a student before uprooting them to expel them, like a school can do for disruptive and violent students. If the behavior bad enough to kick them out?

This would again be a decision that is left up to the schools instead of being forced to legally abide by what they don't agree with.
______________________________________

Lastly, a third concern is on how well a school is teaching the student body they are responsible for. If a religious school teaches and produces terrorists at an alarming rate, then the government has to place their influence to shut them down. Regardless if they are religious or not. Same goes for if the school neglects to teach the students fundamentals to be literate in reading, writing, and math. If at least the basics are not being taught, or aren't being learned, then the government can step in again to tell them to step it up or be shut down. Outside of that, if the school is teaching the students well, and is not helping create a violent generation; then the government should not get involved to discipline the school. It's doing it's job as much as any public school is.

The Greens want to exposes the bigotry and hypocrisy of the religious which has always been evident in church run schools. Its long overdue that these money grabbers that openly discriminate against students and staff on ground of sexual orientation or marital status be pulled into line. The reality is the community will no longer accept bigoted discrimination by religious schools, when it is through taxpayer funding that they are able to operate in the education sphere.
The homophobic bigots, and we have several on the forum, need to realise their war of discrimination against the minority that does not conform to their blinkered morality is lost, and they need to pull their heads in once and for all.

Can we at least say the vote on same sex was won by the yes vote, convincingly?
Then can we include the Royal Commision in to child sex abuse findings? that Churches hid complaints?
That the third highest Roman Catholic is before the courts
Then are we in trying to challenge a dreadful Christian Right insult to some Australians challenging the idea that majority rule, not minorities in part blind to another sides dreadful crimes
The greens led in this case,but know Labor and some Liberals agree, thanks for the thread

So, no examples of perverts being excluded from private schools - just a lot of braying that they shouldn't be, and Christian schools simply have to throw out 2,000 years of beliefs and values because the Reds say so. No mention of the same rules applying to other religions: just the Christian religion. Morrison won't have the guts to tell the Muslims that they must give up their beliefs about homos, and the opposition would not support him if he did. SSM was the thin edge of the wedge, and the Christian-hating commos - Labor and the Greens - are having a field day. Just imagine what they will be like when they get into power next year and don't have to rely on the Liberal party to initiate their policies for them!

Sore loser ttbn. When are you going to realise the jig is up. The days are gone when you and the closet deviants of the rabid right could kick the crap out of minorities and get away with it. The day of social justice has dawned, and you and the rest of the crusty old die hard's have to get used to it. You no longer rule the roost, social justice has triumphed over bigotry and homophobia etc. This leaves you and the rest of the forums hard line right wing out in the cold.

//So, no examples of perverts being excluded from private schools// Nah the Catholics simply moved their hoards of perverts to other schools, to bugger children with the churches blessing.

I notice that Paul tells those of us who don't agree with him need to 'pull our heads in once and for all'. At least, unlike most of his vicious mates, he doesnt try to hide the fact the he does not support freedom of speech, belief and thought.

Paul,

Thank you for those diatribes, now would you kindly remark on the following?

If a person does not subscribe to the beliefs of an institution the institution should be able to expel them.

As in, for instance, should the Catholic Church be able to expel a member who becomes a Freemason, or joins the Communist Party or a homosexual priest who molests small boys?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Same goes for if the school neglects to teach the students fundamentals to be literate in reading, writing, and math. If at least the basics are not being taught, or aren't being learned, then the government can step in again to tell them to step it up or be shut down.»

Well this is what worries me about the move to have government step in and order private schools around, rather than this stupid fuss around homosexuality and the non-existent schools that ban it.

Suppose you have a private school which teaches reading, writing and math, but not in English, nor using the Latin script or the decimal system. Suppose the school's aim in doing so is to shield children from the corrupting influence of modern Western society, so children grow up leading an upright and simple life, read scriptures in their original language and avoid the temptations of commercialism and consumerism.

Some ideas are wholesome, others less so - but I wouldn't let government be the judge who decides which is which: all government currently cares for in its "education" program is to produce Australia's future "work-force" of consumer-good and technology addicts that will slavishly increase the GDP and provide it with more taxes.

This is why I support the freedom of schools to accept or reject any teacher or student as they will, for whatever reason, wise or stupid, provided that the parents know what the school is about and are informed in advance about its policies.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You wrote,

“If one man can only find love in another mans anus, dismisses the female vagina as being of no interest to him, then no, he's not normal.”

You are one hell of a strange bird old fella.

Why do you think you will find love in a vagina? Most normal people love the person rater than objectify specific body parts.

It appears you are not one of them.

I get the feeling that too much is being made.
Of course any school - should have the right to
expel students for inappropriate behaviour.
The same goes for their teachers. I don't
understand this obsession that some people seem to have
about gay people - and attributing all sorts of perversions
to them - as if straight people are exempt from any sort
of deviant behaviour.

The issue in question here is - the legal rights of
what religious schools should be entitled to do regarding their
students and teachers.

All Australians are free to follow any religion they choose
so long as its practices do not break any Australian law.

Australians are also free not to follow a religion.
Australia has a secular government and no official or state
religion. Governments under our laws are supposed to treat
all citizens as equal regardless of their religion and
religious laws are not supposed to have a legal status in
Australia.

This is what is emphasised in the booklet given to new citizens
when they take the "Citizenship Test."

We are told that - all Australians are entitled to the
protection of these laws and that all Australians are equal
under the law.

This means that nobody should be treated differently from
anybody else because of their race, ethnicity, country of
origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, marital status,
or disability or because of their political or religious
beliefs. Government agencies and independent courts must
treat everyone fairly.

We now come to what religious schools should be entitled to
do - according to the laws of the land. And this is something
that the government is going to have to decide for us - because
the laws that we are all expected to abide by are the laws
enacted by Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience.
But there is not a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian
law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the
democratically elected legislature.

yep the Grand Mufti says homosexuals have a mental disorder but of course all the god haters focus on the Christian schools. What a surprise.

Issy, absolutely if every member of the Christian institution was holding the same belief, but there is no conflict between homosexuality etc and Christian teaching. In fact there is no reason to exclude gays from being Christians, as many Christians support homosexuality, some even go as far as claiming Christ was a homosexual. Its not something work related, sacking is simply based of the belief of one or two individuals, say the principle and parish priest. In a case I was very familiar with over 25 years ago, two extremely competent and long term heterosexual teachers were sacked (refused to resign) from my sons Catholic School because they were in a relationship, and living together, even though their own marriages had irretrievably broken down. The irony is they were sacked on the insistence of the parish priest, who was later found to be a paedophile, not sacked, but "retired" early and given a car, money, and a church unit to live in....hypocrisy!

Should an employer whose political philosophy is opposed to socialism, have the right to sack a competent and dutiful employee because they discover that employee is a member of the Labor Party? No of course not.

PAUL 1405 you carry wounds well, let us face it they are inflicted because you are a green.
Subject or truth has no part to play, get the green is the only rule.
Honestly this thread should have all good people agreeing.
Teachers who are gay, children to, are not infectious, they do not spread illness.
You will not convince some, truth is no defense when unfocused rants are involved

Paul,

"Issy, absolutely if every member of the Christian institution was holding the same belief, but there is no conflict between homosexuality etc and Christian teaching"

That is disingenuous, to say the least, see Paul (not in the mirror) Romans1.

How do you feel about members of the Greens who openly advocate clear felling of native forests; keep them in the fold?

Yes Belly, some hate Greens, and some hate Labor, it should not concern us, we give as good as we get. Good luck in Wentworth on Saturday, if 'coreflutes' on telegraph poles decided elections then Labor would win this one hands down. Don't know how Kerryn Phelps is fairing, but I will give a Labor mate a call tonight, he gets the good oil on these things at times.

To answer your question Issy, NO... I would not support that opinion, but unless a member brings the party into disrepute or acts illegally, there are no grounds for expulsion. Domestic violence is both a criminal and moral issue. Should a church school sack an employee who has an AVO taken against them, simply on moral grounds?

Would you vote for a party that does a preference deal with Pauline's Northern Nazi's? I would not, but some will.

Paul,

For a Green to openly advocate clear felling of native forests would bring the party into disrepute.

Dear Foxy,

According to your last post:

You are a member and supporter of a rogue gang which calls itself "Australia".
Your gang claims a right to impose its laws on each and every inhabitant of this continent and surrounding islands.
Your gang unconditionally allows everyone to not follow any religion, but makes following a religion conditional.
Your gang treats everyone the same way even while they have different needs (like a doctor who gives the same pills to all his patients...).

Bad enough so far, but then comes the punch-line to turn the knife in our flesh:

«The source of our law is {blablabla}»

Now, by the use of the word "our", you claim that it is not just the avowed members of your gang who are responsible for the above crimes, but implicate in that dark scheme myself and each and every one of us who happens to live on this continent as well.

This is false and you have been exposed!

---

Dear Paul,

«Should an employer whose political philosophy is opposed to socialism, have the right to sack a competent and dutiful employee because they discover that employee is a member of the Labor Party?»

S/he should not have a right to do so, but s/he should not be denied the freedom do so.
(Rights are man-given while freedoms are natural/God-given)

Most likely s/he is a fool who will lose a good employee, but who are we to tell her/him what to do with her/his own money?

Yuyutsu, you speak of rights and freedoms but neglect social obligations. To live in a cohesive and ordered society, we all have certain obligations to act and do things as recompense for the life the society gives us. Like a doctor has an obligation to tend a sick person, not a free choice or right not to, but an obligation.
Many simply believe money is what determines all, but its not always down to money. If I should own all the food in the world, would I have a freedom, or a right to deny food to all other, simply based on the fact I own all food. The answer is no, as I have a social obligation to share, and others have a right to sustenance regardless of ownership.

Yuyutsu,

I have no control over your beliefs nor any
wish to argue with them. I find them rather
strange. We have covered this
territory many times before -. What I have stated
is not something that Me, We, or "my gang" have tried
or are trying to impose on to you, or anybody else.
What was being discussed was this country's
democratic legislature that governs our civil society.
Hence the plural terms of "our" and so forth being used.
I had assumed that this affected you as well, seeing
as you live in this country. I was not aware that you
regarded yourself as being above the law. Now I know
better.

If you feel that you are being forced into something
that you don't want - you can move to another country
that's more compatible with your life-style or alternatively
contact your Member of Parliament and take your complaints
up with them.

As for your statement that I have now been "exposed."
Really? I wasn't aware that I was hiding anything.

Paul it is rather sad however while we have some very bright posters we seem a little over loaded on the right hand side.
Saving grace is they mostly fire blanks and have more self woundings than the US Military has in ten years

To Paul1405.

I'm sorry if what I've written sounds bigoted to you. But in order to believe and trust the bible, the standards it holds are worth trying to live up to. That said, I think my approach is a practical approach to the issue of homosexuality in a religous organization. If the organization is something that looks after a community or a population, (like a school or a church), then a similar standard that is given for elders and deacons from the bible can be applied. For other jobs and stations of life, know that no one is perfect and let them work with you. A lesser standard for everyone else because of a lesser responsibility to lead or to teach.

That said I gave a condition regarding school standards. If they are against homosexuality (when it's discovered), but are ok and tolerant of adultery (when it's discovered), then that shows that they aren't really trying to live up to the standard of following the biblical standards. If on the other hand they are strict on both sexual sins (when they are discovered) then it's a good sign that the school is actually trying to be Christian and live up to the teachings.

By your arguments it sounds more like that Christian schools should forget about being Christian and to integrate their beliefs into regular school studies. Don't expect much support in that, except from those who already agree with you and are bigoted against religion being in society. We're talking about religous schools here. Homosexual teachers can find work in the public schools if there is an issue with meeting a religous school's standards.

To Yuyutsu. You're right that it would be the government who decides what curriculums are mandated. I thought that math, reading, and writing would be a good basic foundation to help the next generation be successful in the world. If they know the basics they can probably get a job and provide for themselves. That said this is a low key standard of studies. More likely there will also be sciences, history, humanities, health, sex ed, physical education that are part of the package that the government says is required. From the a school probably will have extra classes that aren't required. A workshop class, art class, music class, and options for a foreign language class. To get by in the world after they are out of school though I still say reading, writing, and math are the basics that should always stay.

If schools were funded on performance as an incentive many of the State schools would be in big trouble. Instead we will continue to encourage low grade teaching and take attention away from under achievers. State schools not happy to get twice the funding of private schools they would everyone brought down to their levels.

runner,

You were home-schooled?

no Foxy my son who is now a doctor was.

//Normal is when men and women have sex that potentially results in creating a new life.//

If you say so, AC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

But I'm with Martin Luther on this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA

And also... blowjobs? Do you really mean to tell me that every straight man that likes blowjobs (i.e. every straight man) is secretly queer, because that's not how babies are made? O..... kay.

I'm pretty sure that the guys who are worrying about whether or not the potential to create new life exists when a hot chick offers to suck them off are definitely outliers on the spectrum of heterosexuality, if not actually queer.

Societal or cultural norms determine what is
acceptable, so they vary - and laws protecting
vulnerable persons determine legal vs illegal
sexual behaviour.

Cultural norms have changed considerably since
the 19th century yet we still find determining
sexual normalcy as being fraught with
passionate disagreement.

Sexuality - or sexual attraction is complex.
We have heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals,
and others who see sexual attraction as fluid
and find labels like "straight", "gay" or "bi"
too rigid and fixed. Preferring to self-identify
as "queer."

We can argue about this endlessly - however
a decision will be made by our government concerning
what religious schools will be entitled to do
regarding their students and staff.

I'm sure that the Cabinet will consider views from all
sides and will make their decision fair and equitable
for all concerned. At least I'm optimistic about that.

Dear Foxy,

«What was being discussed was this country's democratic legislature that governs our civil society.»

This was an attempt to divert the discussion: "democracy" is a technical term describing the internal mechanisms of governance within your gang: nobody is denying this fact, but it provides no solace for the gang's victims.

«I had assumed that this affected you as well, seeing as you live in this country.»

Of course it does, because your gang has all the guns, not through my choice.

«I was not aware that you regarded yourself as being above the law. Now I know better.»

What a funny way to describe the situation:

Other gangs have their different sets of laws, some for example expect everyone to fast on Ramadan or to dust every day a sculpture of "Dear Leader". Does it mean that because I do not feel obliged to follow those laws, I regard myself to be above the laws of Sudan or North Korea?

Rather, I live side-by-side with your laws: they disturb me and I try to survive and live my life anyway.

When I became an Australian citizen, I agreed to observe your gang's laws (for otherwise I would not be allowed to stay in this continent), but I never agreed (or been required to agree) to like these laws, to agree with them, to believe in them, to respect them, to not fight against them or to consider them moral or legitimate.

«If you feel that you are being forced into something that you don't want - you can move to another country»

Nah, I am too old for that and other countries are all controlled by other evil gangs that are generally even worse than the Australian one. Earlier in my life I already escaped one of those gangs that was worse, now I will stay put unless something really drastic happens here (such as a Chinese invasion or criminalising Hindu observances).

"Religious moral values", can anyone actually define what is the meaning of that statement? The moral values of those that profess to be religious seem to be as varied and diverse as there are religions. Among the Christians I know their morals vary considerably. I was "shocked" recently when discussing the SSM issue with my niece, a stanch Mormon, that she actually supported the rights of gay people to marry on moral grounds. Her reasoning was complex, but a belief that there was nothing specifically in the bible that prevented it justified it in her opinion. Her brother in NZ, also stanch was of a different opinion.
Would it be acceptable for a Catholic school to sack a protestant teacher on the grounds that they do not conform to Catholic values and beliefs?

Paul you ask a valid question, how can any one being informed by the recent Royal Commission not just of rapist Catholic priests but of cover ups think gays are the problem?
How can they ignore people knew!
And covered it up!
Suffer the little children who come unto me was not the right wording.
But it became the FACT.
Christianity like every single religion that ever existed, was our moral compass, asking better of us.
Setting out lines for a good caring life.
How did it become a tool of the very wrong very right?
American right Christianity, mimicked here, has made faith a parody of everything Christ was said to have told us.

Yuyutsu,

When you became an Australian citizen you took
The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation
which read as follows:

"From this time forward (under God) I pledge my loyalty
to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will
uphold and obey."

You pledged loyalty first - loyalty to Australia. You pledged
to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect
the rights and liberty of others and to respect the rule of
law.

If you have any problems with what you've done or you regret
doing it - you could talk to a Member of Parliament about
your concerns. However - looking for arguments on a public
discussion forum and trying to shift the blame onto others
for your own actions won't achieve anything.

Now back to the topic ..

Hi Foxy, Yuyutsu seems to have given an undertaking that he's at odds with.
"I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Under his breath he might have said "I say the following without meaning a word of it. Just to get the benefits citizenship gives me".
I don't know how his GANG thinks. After all we have all the guns, and maybe someone held one to his head to make him pledge an oath under duress. But I think not!

Dear Foxy and Paul,

You cite the current citizenship-oath and indeed, today I wouldn't have been able to become an Australian citizen.
However, at the time I became an Australian citizen the oath was different and did not include these clauses.

---

Dear Paul,

«To live in a cohesive and ordered society, we all have certain obligations»

How about:

"To live in a cohesive and ordered society, we must all go to church on Sunday".
"To-live-in-a-cohesive-and-ordered-society, we must all pray 5 times a day towards Mecca".
"To-live-in-a-cohesive-and-ordered-society, we must all support Trump and build a big wall on the border to stop Mexican criminals".
"To-live-in-a-cohesive-and-ordered-society, we must all attend confession, obey the priest and never tell anyone what he did to us".
"To-live-in-a-cohesive-and-ordered-society, we must eliminate the Jews".
...

Do you still wish to live in a cohesive and ordered society?

«we all have certain obligations to act and do things as recompense for the life the society gives us.»

Actually, it is your parents who gave you life (who might even perhaps been anti-social criminals or outlawed terrorists), so how about:

"Your mother and I worked so hard to bring you here, so you are obliged to finish your soup, attend primary school, high school and university and become a doctor/lawyer to make us proud" (never mind that the soup is stale and you are not the academic type of person) or "... to marry this man that we tell you who comes from a good compatible family" (never mind that he is ugly, 30 years older than you and you are lesbian).

Do you still believe that you can and should recompense those who gave you life?

In the U.S.S.R they used to say: "Stalin is our father, Russia is our mother, we pray to be orphans", but should you happen to like Stalin, how about "Trump is our father, America is our mother..."?

No sir, people may blackmail you and demand all kinds of things, but there exist no moral obligations to do anything without freely-given consent.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«Many simply believe money is what determines all, but its not always down to money.»

Obviously not, but when you worked hard for this money they told you that you could buy whatever [reasonably] you like with it (actually, that's exactly what you tell your employee), but once you have this money they turn around saying: "No, you cannot spend it on chocolate, but must instead buy the services of this man which you despise for hiding from you the fact that they are a Labor-member".

Previously you had no obligations and could just use this money to fill your house with chocolate, but somehow because you decided otherwise and started a small business instead, you are now obliged to work side-by-side for the rest of your life with someone you hate?

Or suppose you bring along your 4-year-old child to your work-place and the child just shrieks on seeing that worker, keeps crying and won't let go of your leg. You have no explanation (who understands the mind of a 4-year-old?), but you plan on taking your child regularly along so it's either your child or that worker. Are you obliged to prefer the worker?

«If I should own all the food in the world, would I have a freedom, or a right to deny food to all other, simply based on the fact I own all food»

Well there were two brothers, Cain and Abel: both shared the land and all its resources equally. Now Cain took many women and procreated profusely for 900 years while Abel, a responsible conservationist, took only one wife and produced just one daughter. Able warned Cain about the consequences and offered him organic contraceptives, but Cain wouldn't listen ("the bulls do it, so can I!"), so in autumn 999 years later, Cain's 1000 children consumed all their remaining cattle and sheep while Abel's daughter was left with all the food in the world: 5 bags of rice, just enough to survive the winter and sow next-year's crop.

Is Abel's daughter obliged to share her rice thus starve along with Cain's children?

Dear Paul,

The topic under discussion here is whether religious
schools should have the right to ban gay students
(and teachers). The cabinet will be discussing the
Ruddock Review's recommendations -
and making a decision on this issue. We don't yet know
what the recommendations of the Review are - or what the
cabinet is going to decide. We'll have to wait and see
when things become clearer.

As for Yuyutsu's attempts at trying to divert this
discussion. He's tried this before - many times.
He could start his own thread on the subject instead
of trying to divert mine.

Dear Foxy,

Regarding the connection to this topic, while replying to Is Mise, Paul initiated the following question:

«Should an employer whose political philosophy is opposed to socialism, have the right to sack a competent and dutiful employee because they discover that employee is a member of the Labor Party? No of course not.»

If we all agreed that the answer to that question was indeed 'no', then that would support the argument that religious schools too may not sack an employee who is discovered to be homosexual - which is directly on the topic.

It is therefore appropriate for me to reject/refute that claim and to do so on this very thread:
As I hold that everyone should be able to sack their employee (subject to their contract and the penalties therein) regardless of their reason (good, bad or none whatsoever) or whether such a move is wise or foolish, so should religious schools.

I hold that while sacking a teacher because they are homosexual is foolish, no state has a right to forbid us to be fools. What could be more relevant to the topic at hand than this?

Mind you, I agree that a school that foolishly sacks a teacher for being homosexual should lose its government funding, so I therefore asked you about it on page 8:

"ESPECIALLY? So what are your sinister plans regarding others who do not want your money and do not rob the taxpayer?"

What could be more directly on the topic than that? Yet I never received a reply!

If you still disagree that my posts here are on the topic, then you are welcome to flag them and ask Graham Young to delete them.

Paul,

"Would it be acceptable for a Catholic school to sack a protestant teacher on the grounds that they do not conform to Catholic values and beliefs?"

That's a loaded question; why did they hire a Protestant in the first place?
Presumably, because the teacher subscribed to Catholic moral values and undertook not to push his/her own religious views where they differed from Catholicism.

Yuyutsu,

I am not going to argue with your logic. Nor do I
need you to tell me as to what I am "welcome" to do,
regarding your posts. If I wanted to contact the
Moderator I would have done so.

As far as your reference to ...what my "sinister"
plans were regarding others, and your reference to robbing
the taxpayer, and why you did not get a reply, all I can
politely suggest is for you to take an "intelligent" guess.

Dear Foxy,

Well kindly tell me what is your position regarding the ability of such religious schools that do not collect or ask for even a cent from government, to reject pupils and/or teachers on grounds of their sexual orientation.

Yuyutsu,

I am not aware of any school that does not get some
form of government funding (state or federal). I used
to think that private and independent schools were
almost fully funded by tuition fees paid by students'
parents - it seems that's no longer the case.
Therefore, in order to answer your question - I would
have to consider the context and circumstances on a
case by case basis. One size does not fit all.

cont'd ...

I have made it clear though, that any school
whether public or private - should have the
right to expel a student or sack a teacher
for any inappropriate behaviour. However, there's
a big difference between behaviour and a person's
sexual orientation. We can't make unreasonable
generalisations or stereotype - ahead of time.

Dear Foxy,

«I am not aware of any school that does not get some form of government funding (state or federal).»

At present neither do I, but I once knew such an informal school where the children were formally registered for home-schooling, yet in practice the parents organised themselves as a school and used a caravan on one of the families' property as classroom. Most classes were run on a roster by parents, but external teachers were hired for a few specialised subjects (on a cash per lesson basis). They had no name, secretary, letterhead or a bank account, yet the school was attended daily for a few years.

Now let us move slightly away from reality and talk hypothetically: suppose the parents belonged to a sect that believed, according to their interpretation of scriptures, that homosexuality is contagious and anyone who touches a homosexual goes to hell for eternity. Let us also suppose that one of their reasons for creating this school was to shield their children from homosexuals and the resulting hell.

I agree with you that there's a big difference between behaviour and a person's sexual orientation, still these hypothetical parents disagree.
Stupid? OK, but that's what they believe with full sincerity!

Now suppose they discovered that one of the children or one of the teachers they hired was homosexual, and since no parent wants their child to spend eternity in hell and alienated from God, the homosexual person was told "don't come on Monday".

Would you support a law that criminalises this behaviour?

Do you realise that the parents in question would rather go to the gallows than expose their children to eternal hell (but more likely they would simply go underground and as last resort, lovingly slay their children and suicide)?

Have you a right to use secular law and the brute power of police to try to impose your "correct" understanding of scripture on others?

I wouldn't oppose, however, such balanced legislation which states that schools that behave this way cannot obtain public funds: that's fair enough.

Pointless trying to remind some that in all truth great harm has been done by Churches and religious schools, and that few of the same sex haters stood up to be counted on that issue.
With both sides now saying discrimination will not now be made legal we see a few in politics and out side wanting the view, minority that it is, imposed on us all

Hi Issy, its not a loaded question. When employed by the previous principle it was agreed that the Protestant teacher would not be required to attend the monthly mass with his year 6 class in the parish church next door. He could remain behind at school and mark homework etc. That arrangement worked fine until the new principle felt it wan't appropriate for a class teacher not to attend mass with his students etc etc. There was a blow up and he resigned.
BTW when I was at high school, even in those days, I recall a Geography lay teacher who was a practising member of the Church of Christ. I had a few lunch time religious debates with him. Gee the bloke was worse than the Brothers. Catholic schools do employ many non Catholics, and most have a minority of non Catholic students. At enrolment there is an order of entry, with Catholics given first priority, but they will make up the numbers with non Catholics. Most of the day to day operation of the school is down to the often non clergical principles. The Catholic Education Board, or what ever they call themselves, are fairly arms length on school operational matters.

cont

cont

You'll like this one; My favourite moko, now in his last year of primary school (yes grandparents do have favourites, one of the reasons we moved to Brisbane, grandchildren) is going to a very good Catholic collage in Brisbane next year, Catholic from his fathers Cook Island/Tahitihan side. He's been 'head huntered', not for his religious ability, but for his rugby ability. Mum and dad have been given a very good discount on the fees, so why not, should save them about $10k/year. Its a miracle, the boy is absolutely blessed with rugby ability. After all they say its the game played in heaven. I tell him we will need you on day for the 'Wallabies', he says "No way, I want to play for the 'All Blacks'". The kids an Australian citizen of Kiwi parents! My wife's family have a long history of top class rugby players, several relatives having played internationally over the years, both for the 'All Blacks', and Maori teams. Nephew, Quade Cooper has played for Australia, in recent times. One other played league in the 'Roosters' winning grand final team, and for the NZ league team that beat Australia the other day.

Yuyutsu,

I don't understand why you keep on about something
that has already been explained earlier. The facts
in this country have not changed - and they are
that :

All Australians are free to follow any religion they
choose, so long as its practices do not break any
Australian law. And that goes for the sect that you
mentioned.

Asking me all sorts of "what if" hypothetical questions
will not change these facts.

Of course they are free to follow their own rules -
but if they are caught breaking the law - they will
be held to account by the judicial system. Which
includes as you dramatically mentioned - the killing of their
children. That would constitute the crime of murder.

However, the government has not as yet made any decisions
concerning the recommendations of the Ruddock Review.
It has not gone before the Cabinet. So we don't as yet
really know what the Cabinet will decide regarding
religious schools being able to ban or expel
gay students or teachers.

Dear Foxy,

«All Australians are free to follow any religion they choose, so long as...»

In other words, you agree that religious freedom in Australia is conditional!

Yes, the right to not follow any religion is unconditional - what a lucky country, compared with Saudi Arabia where in addition... Everyone is free to follow any religion they choose, so long as they acknowledge Muhammad as the final and greatest prophet and follow his instructions without any criticism.

Yes, I agree that the conditions in Australia are less stringent then in Saudi Arabia, but still there is no way you could claim freedom of religion!

«if they are caught breaking the law - they will be held to account by the judicial system.»

At present they wouldn't be breaking any laws. To the best of what we know, even Ruddock did not recommend that they should be breaking any future legislation, so long as they informed all parents and teachers well in advance about their policies.

«That would constitute the crime of murder.»

Interesting, I didn't know that dead people can be charged in Australia!

«However, the government has not as yet made any decisions concerning the recommendations of the Ruddock Review.»

Exactly, so here we are discussing what their decisions ought to be - perhaps (can you believe it?) they are even reading our comments!

Yuyutsu,

We shall have to wait and see whether our government
decides that religious people and their institutions
need a different set of laws - that the rules in
their communities are different and therefore the
laws of the country should not apply to them.

Can't wait.

Dear Foxy,

I understand that we all are waiting eagerly for the verdict. For some perhaps, this verdict could be a matter of life or death, while others are merely curious and do not expect the verdict to have any significant impact on their personal life.

The question is, should we meanwhile just wait like sitting ducks, or are we also allowed to debate among ourselves the contents and moral implications of the proposed changes and consequently what the verdict ought to be, even while in practice we are totally helpless and our views and needs count for nothing in the eyes of politicians.

You started this thread, asking "What do posters of the forum think of this?": are you still interested in a debate, or just impatiently cannot wait for this thread to close down?

Yuyutsu,

I love nothing more than reasoned, intelligent
discussions.

When I feel that a discussion has run its
course - I always thank the contributors.
I don't feel that this is yet the case.
Thank You for your concern.

Hi Foxy,

At the core of this argument is to what extent should those that exercise power/authority over subservient's be able to use that power/authority to dictate to that person on matters which are not relevant to the circumstances which created their power/authority in the first place.
The notion that religious beliefs should give one a special exemption from what would be generally unacceptable behaviour is a total nonsense.

Good evening Paul,

People's beliefs are changing and no longer
automatically defer to traditional religious
positions. Fewer people live their lives in
accordance with these religious teachings. Some
religious groups are struggling to adjust to and
feel comfortable in their new, less influential
place in a changed world.

Dear Paul,

«At the core of this argument is to what extent should those that exercise power/authority over subservient's be able to use that power/authority to dictate to that person on matters which are not relevant to the circumstances which created their power/authority in the first place.»

Excellent, so this raises two questions:

1) Is "subservient" an attitude, or an objective condition?

While some in society might have a genuine attitude of subservience to those in power, many of us do not, yet still comply (at least most of the time) due to realistic and rational consideration of the consequences should we not. For the purpose of your statement, are those counted in the "subservient" camp?

2) Is anything in the world today still relevant to the circumstances which created the existing powers/authorities in the first place?

«The notion that religious beliefs should give one a special exemption from what would be generally unacceptable behaviour is a total nonsense.»

Historically there were dark times in Europe where presumably-religious authorities were on the controlling end of the stick, but times have changed and now religious people are more and more on the receiving end of the stick. Minority religions (such as Jews) were already used to being at the receiving end of the stick, but for most Christians this is a new experience. No wonder that there are sections of the population that wish to exact revenge on Christians, however this is a different generation and contemporary Christians are not the culprits.

Had this legendary and elusive "social contract" existed, and had it been fully disclosed so religious people understood its implications, then surely they wouldn't have joined it!

Funny that this "social contract" is alleged to have been created in another era, when Christians were still drunk with power.

[continued...]

[...continued]

I have already made my position known:

1) Religion and mundane power are incompatible.
2) Religious people live for seeking and serving God, rather than for creating or improving societies.
3) I believe in the Golden Rule: If you would hate your own purpose for living to be devastated by others, then you should not devastate other people's life purpose.
4) One needs to be at least a prophet to be able to distinguish which actions are religious and which are not.
5) Since we are not aware of any prophets enrolled in the public service or elected, we can reasonably assume that secular authorities do not possess the above ability.
6) Therefore attempting to provide religious exemptions from the law is not really helpful.
7) Instead, the best remedy is to exempt from the law anyone who so chooses (this would remove both obligations and privileges).
8) In order to protect the religious from devastation and oneself from trampling on the Golden Rule, short of exempting everyone who so chooses from the law, secular authorities must tread as lightly and carefully as possible, enforcing only the very minimal and absolutely necessary decrees that are truly necessary for saving lives, even if this gives the benefit of the doubt to those who do not seem to be religious.

I cannot see a connection between religion and the rejection of homosexuals, but hey, I do not claim to be a prophet (and I don't think that you have any such claims either).

With both my kids at private church run schools, involvement in the PTAs, and a network of collegues with kids at other private schools I have not heard of a single pupil or teacher being fired for their sexual preferences, neither have I seen anything in the newspapers, so I don't think that this a real issue.

Private schools generally perform far better than public schools not just because they have the best facilities, but also because they have the ability to fire incompetent teachers and to expel disruptive students, and maintaining the ability to remove teachers that are not competent or are disruptive or children that are disruptive is core to their ability to provide exceptional teaching.

At our factories it is obligatory to maintain facilities for disabled persons and wheelchairs even though the type of work could never be done by anyone that cannot walk. Making broad sweeping legislation that costs everyone just in case there is a one in a million case is simply stupid.

I will have to agree with Shadow on this. However private schools do have better facilities than the average state school. What sets them apart is their ability to get shot of particularly disruptive students. As for teachers, I can't say I have come across many particularly bad teachers at private schools that my own children attended, although they differed with me on that score about some, given to saying "Dad, the blokes a complete dick!" or some such thing. I did encounter some bad teachers in my own school days at Catholic school. In those days it was a fault of the Catholic system that unqualified, and unsuitable clergy were in teaching positions.

My older brother, now retired, 50 years a state high school teacher, would say; :On parent/teacher night the only parents you see are the ones you don't want to see." True.

"At our factories..." Sometimes its not just about money, good to see Bunnings employs handicapped people to put stock away, sometimes in the company of their carers. It may not be cost effective, but it sure does something for their self esteem, even if it does add two cent to the price of a packet of screws!

Shadow Minister may be right, yes without the public outrage some silly bill may have been introduced.
Yes and yes the report was if fully released, going to bring on a storm.
Its author is well known for religious zeal and a very right one too.
However it will not take place now, the very right within this government, will continue to feed on its own entrails, but nothing will come of it.
Other than more evidence some, within this government, are putting their personal biases before the party's health.

//maintaining the ability to remove teachers that are not competent or are disruptive or children that are disruptive is core to their ability to provide exceptional teaching.//

In my experience, the really exceptional teachers are the ones that are able to manage the most difficult and disruptive students. I used to know a bloke that worked in a school for kids so difficult that they couldn't even fit into a public high school.... basically the last stop before juvie hall. And somehow Dave managed to put up with the little terrors. Best damn teacher I ever met, RIP mate.

My children also attended private schools right
from the very beginning. The schools were among
the most prestigeous in Melbourne. Yes, the
facilities were wonderful - but the attitudes
and teaching was not. Bullying was rampant.
Teachers were more concerned with sporting trophies
and publicity for the schools than with teaching.
Our children began to develop some very worrying
attitudes and we finally took them out of that
school system.

They ended up graduating from university and today are happy
in their chosen professions.

I guess it all depends on the values and ethos of the
schools and more importantly - on the teachers that they hire.
As well as the funding that the schools receive.
In some schools teachers are expected to reach unattainable
goals with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times
they accomplish this impossible task.

Every teacher deserves effective tools and skills - many
teaching problems will be solved in the next few decades.
There will be new learning environments and new means of
instruction. One function will always remain with the teacher,
to create the emotional climate for learning. And that is
something that schools need to look for when hiring teachers.
They need to provide effective tools for the teachers and
look at their qualifications, experience and the skills
they possess.

cont'd ...

A recent nationwide Fairfax Ispos poll found 74% of
Australians oppose laws allowing religious schools
to discriminate against students or teachers on the
grounds of sexuality, gender identity or relationship
status.

Our government needs to start listening to the electorate
on this issue.

The following link explains further:

http://theconversation.com/why-legislation-should-ban-schools-from-discriminating-against-lgbtiq-students-and0teachers-104940

The Coalition & Labor should back a bill to ban the Greens.

DearShadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Making broad sweeping legislation that costs everyone just in case there is a one in a million case is simply stupid.”

I kind of think you might be contradicting yourself here.

No special favours for the odd wheelchair user?

The anti-discrimination legislation is already in place but loopholes allow exemptions for religious schools, very few who ever use them. Just close them and we are sweet.

Dear Steelie,

I'm so glad that you brought up the allowances that
are now in place for the disabled. Thank God for that.

When I had my fall - and was operated on my legs -
I used to have great difficulty in walking and even
sitting on regular toilet seats (they were too low
for me). I was so grateful for disabled parking and
for disabled toilets.

Legislation made quite a difference.

Dear SteeleRedux,

If the real issue was "discrimination", then religious schools could save themselves with a simple non-discriminatory solution: just have a policy of not allowing to talk about sex in school, so any teacher or pupil who mentions sex or related issues, is straight out! Since gays cannot stop talking and fussing about sex, they will be the first to be expelled (others may follow, which is not a bad idea).

I cannot tell whether or not you would personally be satisfied with this solution and leave it at that, but I estimate that most of those who scream here "discrimination, discrimination" would not be happy, because what they really want is to oppress the religious and "discrimination" just happens to be their easy whip.

Yuyutsu,

Sweeping generations are not very productive.

Dear Foxy,

Did you mean generations upon generations of sweepers?

For granddad to be a sweeper as well his son and grandson, they must have been productive, how else? I also think that during their lifetime they must have moved tons upon tons of dust and leaves...

Yes, there are some who are genuinely obsessed with prohibiting others to discriminate, but I don't believe this to be the majority of those who push for anti-discrimination laws (without exemptions). The majority, I believe, do so because they find an opportunity to hurt religious people. Had religion not been involved, they would have become bored and had a beer instead or watched the footy.

Yuyutsu,

Apologies for my typo. I meant to
say - "sweeping generalisations are not very productive."

Although it could involve several generations as you
pointed out, - especially
of conservative, religious people (they need not necessarily be
sweepers), because
prejudiced thought always involves the use of a stereotype
- a rigid mental image that summarizes whatever is
believed to be typical about a group. In this case the focus
is on - gays.

These people tend to think in terms of general categories, if
only to enable these people to make sense of the world
by simplifying its complexity.

These people have a psychological make-up that is - a
distinctive set of traits, including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity,( that seem typical of many
prejudiced people).

These people see the world in very rigid and stereotyped terms.
They are disturbed by any ambiguity in sexual or religious
matters.

And as they did during the same-sex marriage debate - these
same people are now trying to say that their religious freedoms
need protecting. Even though their freedoms are not currently
under threat.

//Yes, there are some who are genuinely obsessed with prohibiting others to discriminate, but I don't believe this to be the majority of those who push for anti-discrimination laws (without exemptions). The majority, I believe, do so because they find an opportunity to hurt religious people.//

Well, except for all the ones that are religious themselves. Now, which ones are they again?

Oh yes, that's right, according to you it's all of them:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8481#267629

Paul,

The example I gave was of a meat processing plant in which a wheelchair could never be used and meet the hygiene requirements. So $10 000s are spent on a facility that can never be used.

SR,

The private schools are also not beset by the idiotic identity politics that many of the public schools are. If this is the only thing the religious protection laws achieve then they are worth it.

It's rather disturbing when people use "identity
politics" (and political correctness) as terms of
abuse.

The people doing the attacking usually feel they are
somehow beyond identity, they define themselves as the
majority or the norm.

As if their identity is beyond question.

As we know from the Murdoch Press attacks always assume the
norm is - white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, heterosexual.

Yeah, right - private schools are not beset with these
kind of problems. They know who they are.

After reading all (or most) of the comments, one thing stands out, this topic has been taken over by the extreme left.
There are some centre rights putting up a gallant fight but unfortunately the left has kidnapped this one.
I don't get this agenda of being nice rather than being honest and being truthfull.
I don't care that I am tarred with the brush of all that is bad.
Being honest, that means honest to yourself first, then you are the better person.
If you speak to appease others and make yourself feel good then you are being dishonest.
Because you are lying.
You must first get permission from yourself before you engage with another.
This is not happening here.
I read but there are so many flaws and contradictions, some comments are even emotionally driven.
I don't care for this latest round of rubbish.
It is everyones right to discriminate, even if what they believe in and say is considered so by someone else.
We are ALL different, we believe in whatever we believe in, sure most beliefs are pure fantasy, and that includes religion, but if that is one's belief....?
I hate, chili, alcohol (all of them), sports (all of them) crash helmets, and the list goes on.
These were man made laws, and as far as I know, religious law overrules man made laws.
For example.
A Singh can get an exemption from wearing a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle.
This is just one example, of exemptions to common law and God's law.
God's law 'shall prevail'.
In fact these words and sentiment are in our constitution.
It goes something like;'If a state makes a law which conflicts with the Commonwealth law, the latter shall prevail'.
So it would seem obvious to me, and I know all the queers and their followers will have their knickers in knot over this 'fact', but it merely shows how the original SSM thing was just another petulant childs demand and should have been 'smacked down' from the start.

My husband has just come into my study and confirmed -
that Dr Kerryn Phelps has won the seat of Wentworth.
She was told that if she won "it would be a miracle."
Well, it looks like not only is history being made
but that - miracles do happen!

I predicted her win quite some time ago.

I also wrote earlier that a recent nationwide Fairfax
Ispos poll found that 74% of Australians oppose laws
allowing religious schools to discriminate against
students or teachers on the grounds of sexuality, gender
identity or relationship status.

Our government needs to start listening to the electorate.
The Wentworth win is proof of that.

Good to see a person who represents gender diversity getting elected to federal parliament, from all places, a "safe" conservative electorate like Wentworth. And Malcolm will be smiling as well.

Foxy, this is not a miracle, it's a disgrace.
It shows how much people make decisions based on emotion and not on merit.
Who was this divine messenger that appeared, one night, in your head, and gave you this epiphany?
We'll just let that one through to the keeper, as it has no material fact or value in this topic.
At best she got the 'sympathy' vote.
Again, idiots voting emotionally, instead of logic, merit and material facts.
I have already given the answer to the question on this topic.
Laws are man-made.
Religious laws are of a higher authority, therefore it is not in question that ;
Religion MUST always 'prevail'.
Now this IS an indisputable fact.

Dear Foxy,

I congratulate Kerryn Phelps for her victory: any MP who is not affiliated with the two major dinosaurs is welcome and the more destabilised parliament and government, the merrier!

«a recent nationwide Fairfax Ispos poll found that 74% of Australians oppose laws allowing religious schools to discriminate against students or teachers on the grounds of sexuality»

Polls can be very misleading and superficial. Most people do not read the questions carefully and the evidence for it is that they did not read the plebiscite question carefully - had they so done, they would have seen that it was logically impossible to answer 'Yes'.

Like yourself, I also oppose discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Like yourself, I also oppose special laws that allow religious schools to do things that others are not allowed.

Surprised?

Well my observations are subtle, I take great care to DISCRIMINATE between similar-but-not-same cases and give them justice when due. Sadly most people have no time for such deep considerations and instead follow the mob in sweeping generalisations.

For example, I earlier explained the difference between sexuality and sexual orientation (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19987#353240): I find discrimination based on sexuality to be proper, as opposed to discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, which is not.

While I do not support special favourable laws targeting religious schools, I strongly oppose laws that prohibit discrimination to begin within the private space.

Yes, unlike ALTRAV, I DISCRIMINATE between public and private space and consider it OK to make laws regarding behaviour in public spaces, but not in one's private space. The above poll failed to differentiate between these cases. When it comes to deciding whether private schools are in private-space or public-space, I consider the receipt of public money an important criterion.

Finally, I support the inclusion of homosexuals, but oppose the inclusion of gays.

«I love nothing more than reasoned, intelligent discussions.»

Yes, they are greatly missed. Now that Wentworth is over, perhaps we can begin!

Dear ALTRAV,

Certainly, religion WILL prevail.

But patience is a virtue.

There is much yet to be done, but we must also remember that in terms of religious freedom, Australia has it better than most other countries.

God's people were tested many times and will be tested time and again, including by ignorant man-made laws, until all our impurities are removed by God's grace. Amen.

Yuyutsu; AMEN!

Foxy,

Classifying people according to race or gender and discriminating on this basis is racism or sexism, and what our parents fought against.

Identity politics is exactly what the Klan is about, and what the new left whingers are about. So in my view it is a blight on humanity.

I firmly believe that all Australians are equal under
the law. This means that nobody should be treated
differently from anybody else because of their race,
ethnicity or country of origin, because of their age,
gender, marital status or disability, or because of their
political or religious beliefs.

Most religious principles are respected in Australia,
as long as they don'g go against the laws - for example
you can't get married if you're a minor even though some
religions allow it - and so on.

I believe that schools should be able to expel student
and sack teachers for inappropriate behaviour - but
not for anything else. Religious schools are not entitled
to say - because we decide we're different than we need a
different set of laws. That the rules in our religious
community are different and therefore the law shouldn't
apply to us. It doesn't work that way - not in this country.

I have stated throughout this discussion that all Australians
are free to follow any religion they choose, so long as its
practices do not break any Australian law. Australians are
also free not to follow a religion.

Australia has a secular government and no official or state
religion. Governments are supposed to treat all citizens
as equals regardless of religion and religious laws have no
legal status in Australia. As it currently stands I
don't know of any religious school that does discriminate
against gay people - students or teachers so I suspect
that all this fuss is a storm in a teacup by the same sort
of fanatics who were against same sex marriage. The
government has not yet decided what it will do about
the rights of religious schools. We have yet to wait and see.

As for Dr Kerryn Phelps? She's always been a highly respected
medical practitioner in Wentworth. She's a former President of
the Australian Medical Association. Her behaviour has always
been above reproach and exemplenary. And apparently she had some
excellent policies to offer the voters in her electorate.
That's why they voted for her.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for correcting your statement from "we" to "Australia".

Though better, I will keep pointing the inaccuracies in your statements:

«all Australians are equal under the law.»

Fortunately not: aboriginals have native-title rights and Jews are allowed not to vote on the Sabbath (compulsory voting is a great evil for many other reasons, but at least we have this).

«Most religious principles are respected in Australia,»

You still say this after seeing all the disrespect even in this very thread?

No matter what you do and what you believe, there will always be others who disrespect you. If you try to please everyone, you will become miserable but still unsuccessful.

«you can't get married if you're a minor»

You can and some do. Can you legislate against love?
(besides, in some cases courts are able to legalise certain underage marriages)
It is all too common grammatical mistake to claim that if something is illegal than you "can't" do it - you can!

«Religious schools are not entitled to say - because we decide we're different...»

Really? Have you ever heard about freedom of speech?

«the rules in our religious community are different...»

Thankfully the rules in each and every school are different, already! (uniform, etc.)

«all Australians are free to follow any religion they choose, so long as...»

This equals NOT FREE.

Have a nice day!

I would like to Thank everyone who contributed to
this discussion. For me it has now run its course.
I look forward to the next one.

Yuyutsu, thank you. You've hit a home run with that last post.
You've clarified the issue and corrected the 'hard heads', better than I could ever have.
I was fuming after reading another of Foxy's fairy tale stories, but came back to earth with a smile after reading yours.
It is comforting to see truth's based on common sense, and not stories of fantasies from some children's 'bed time' story book.
I can only hope, for their sake, that they come back to the real world some day, and sooner than later!
So, good for you.
BAZINGA!

ALTRAV,

So happy that you've found a kindred spirit
you can relate to - and on my discussion
as well. I am pleased.

Dear Foxy,

Yes I share some views with ALTRAV, but not all.
I also share some views with you, but not all.

I am not interested in a cult to follow me blindly: I rather have everyone hate me but a least understand my ideas.

If you think that ALTRAV and I share the same views, then that makes me very disappointed, because either I failed to convey my thoughts clearly enough for other members to understand, or you have just not read my posts (or at least not through to the end).

Can you tell me which is the case?
Alternately, are you able to briefly summarise the differences between ALTRAV's views and mine, so I can be reassured that you read and understand my posts?

Yuyutsu,

I don't see the point in continuing this discussion
any further. You don't owe any further explanations.
I have read your posts and you have
expressed your views quite clearly. My reference to
ALTRAV was because he apparently saw you as a
kindred spirit.

Thank You for your contributions to this discussion.

Yuyutsu, don't worry I'm not into cults either.
My comments of agreement and subsequent praise were not made to 'suck up', but merely display of satisfaction/appreciation for your views on that topic, as there are too few mature and noteworthy comments out there.
I realise we are individuals and as such we have our individual views, so don't worry I will still disagree or agree with you, as the case may be.

This threads got 150 comments.
Good to know I was proven completely right back on comment 6.
That's why I don't bother arguing sometimes...

-It's usually only a matter of time before evidence proves me correct on my opinions.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8488#268093

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20002
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/grand-mufti-challenges-gay-teachers-rights-to-work-in-islamic-schools/news-story/106fa1e353f71557b678fc7726c5a6a7

Sometimes I really dont understand how an idiot like me seems to have more sense than most of you lot combined.

AC, the bigoted with their homophobic attitudes are to be found in all stratum's of society. They are not confined to educators, and Christian educators in particular, but to all sections of the community, council workers as well as educators, the legal and medical professions also, along with politicians as well, it's a very big list.
The religious want to claim an exemption from laws that target their homophobic bigotry based on a perceived affinity with god, as relayed to them through their holy books. They want this exemption to apply in their centres of learning, this is not confined to Christians, other religions such as Islam are just as bigoted and intolerant as the rest. I'm not surprised that sheikh what's his name is pushing the same line, he is in the same boat as the Christian bigots on this one. Islamic schools should be treated the same as all other religious and independent schools, without exemption!

Paul1405, religion is the one thing that is sacrosanct to those who follow a particular faith or believe in God.
Because Australia abides by the convention of Christianity as it's base religion, so it is that we hold religious laws up before common laws.
Even though there are those of us who question the whole concept of religion, we must respect those who believe in it.
Because religion is entrenched in our culture and even our legal system, 'so help you God', we must give precedence to religious laws over common laws.
The 'precedents' have already been set long ago and are all around us.
To give one example; if you are of a particular religion, you don't have to wear a 'crash' helmet when riding any two wheeled vehicle.
Now if there was any law that should not give exemptions that one surely is at the top of the list.
Unlike sidelining some queers so as not to hurt their already twisted feelings, the wearing of a crash helmet IS directly affecting your physical life and not some intangible rubbish, like your feelings?
Really?
It's a stupid and moronic idea to question an immature act of emotion over a long standing, well entrenched religious belief.
And so it is that religion MUST always prevail.

ALTRAV, we are talking about the year 2018 not 1918. Religious adherence is a matter of choice, it is not an obligation. What we are all expected to do is abide by the law as determined to be so by parliament and our Constitution.

If a Catholic priest was to claim innocence of paedophilia charges based on some religious pretext, being his fervent belief that he had done nothing wrong accord to gods law. Would you accept that? Some Christian faiths accept polygamy as a mans right under religious law, should that take precedence over common law?

//we must give precedence to religious laws over common laws// no we do not, and must not. They might in Iran, but not in Australia.

Paul, I thought I made the case for religion over common law clear.
Your already beaten by the example I gave you, which is very clear and un-ambigiuous.
You completely ignored that in your attempt to deflect.
OK I'll clear up your totally petulant example for you; if a priest is guilty of playing with little boy's, where in the Bible does it say it's OK?
I should, at this point call you something demeaning for being a smart-arse, but I won't.
I will however point out that the priest should be charged under common law, but you already knew that, so why waste our time?
You are showing your petulant side by making such ridiculous comments.
Again I say you did not challenge the one example I gave which was a very clear confirmation of my point.
Paul, you MUST be prepared to 'take' if your going to 'give'.
Anyway, to re-confirm the point, religion MUST have exemptions as it is not beholding to common laws, examples of this are all around us, so to question or deny this fact is to deny that there are differences in society.

Hi Paul,

People can believe whatever they like.

However they can't do what they like if it hurts
others. That's why we have laws.

ALTRAV, I took your example as more of the religion nonsensical interpretation of scripture "Thou shalt not wear a bicycle helmet" I missed that one. Just religious clap trap not worth commenting on.

"Thou shalt not kill" now that seems rather clear and unequivocal, yet there are those Christians that justify killing on the grounds that the interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" allows for justified killing.

I have no problem with the religious and their practices if they are of no harm to others, and are confined to within their churches. If they don't want to accept homosexuals into their faith so be it. Its when the religious want to branch out into the secular sphere like education (schooling of children) which is a responsibility of society through state involvement, then they have to accept and adhere to the laws that the state set out. The acceptance of anti discrimination laws are part of that adherence. If religions can't accept the will of society as regards discrimination in education, then they need to get out of education all together.

I must have responded to the wrong point on the wrong topic from another discussion.
I'm sorry, I thought I was responding to a question about a physical act over a religious belief.
The act of a pedophile priest, in no way compares to the act of not wearing a 'crash' helmet; because one can get an exemption, under the road traffic act, to allow him to legally not wear a helmet 'whilst in control of a vehicle that requires one to be worn', by law.
I imagine Foxy is attempting to argue that by giving exemptions to religious institutions, it will some how lead to people being offended or 'hurt'.
It is absolutely absurd that anyone would stoop so low as to expect someone to know what a strangers psychological profile is.
Foxy, you cannot be so out of touch with reality.
It's just like that maggot Lisa Wilkinson, berating all Aussie men for being rapists, and then if that wasn't bad enough she gets all 'holier than thou', by making an announcement aimed at parents and mothers of boys in particular, by stating that, 'instead of telling women to not walk in the dark alone, how about you tell your boys to stop raping women/girls'...................................................er, OK?
So, I've made my point here.
People, say what you feel or needs to be said, it just may be that what you have to say will offend or upset whoever.
That is not up to you.
Here's one I picked up along the way, and there are thousands more.
How do you tell someone who you know desperately needs to keep their job, that their fired.
OK Foxy, over to you, but anyone cam answer, it's not restricted.

Paul, the problem is not discrimination, that is just part of a standard humans make-up. We all discriminate on a daily basis, and it is important that we not interfere with the building blocks of our physique because that's the beginning of the stuff that mental institutions are made for.
Are you suggesting that a valid comparison was made to highlight the flaw in your argument and your best response is to dismiss it as 'religious clap trap'?
The example IS valid and was in response to a comment which ultimately called for reasons why religious institutions should get exemptions from certain laws.
My response was to confirm that they already do, and that the helmet example was only one such exemption.
It IS relevant because it means that GOD's law over-rides common law.
Mate I don't make this stuff up, for crying out loud, just read it and accept it, it won't kill you, or are we now seeing an example of Foxy's softly softly, submission just posted, that I shouldn't say something if it's going to offend you or anyone else?
Well you can all relax in the knowledge that I didn't make it up, it's already out there and has been for as long as.
So, YES, exemption do and have existed for as long as laws have, there you have it, all people have to do is accept it.

ALTRAV, I fail to see the relationship between wearing a helmet for safety reasons, and religious observance. But since that would only result in the non-wearers melon being squashed in an accident, I suppose I will have to live with that. Just as I live with bikies who don't wear a helmet because its not cool, and it also causes them migraines so their medical certificate tells the coppers.

If the religious were content to keep their nonsense beliefs to themselves I would be okay with that. But they choose to come out of their holes and try and convert me to their way of thinking. Its irksome they try that BS from time to time, but I can live with that as well. Not content to stick to themselves, or just be a pain in the arse, these fools then claim that if you don't join in and follow them you will burn in hell for eternity, now that is going too far!

Paul, you've nearly got it.
The basis for the helmet v religion comments is to demonstrate that we are already engaged in the practice of religion overruling common law.
To explain further; the law says you must wear a safety helmet on a bike.
Religion says you must not remove your headwear (Turban) in public, so such a person gets an exemption from wearing a crash helmet, as prescribed by law.
This is just one example, and there are many, where religion has overruled common law.
So the idea that we must not give exemptions to religious groups because of their beliefs or faith, is just another pathetic attempt at the queers getting their own way, just because they say so.
Paul, it's quite funny but I was going to write your last paragraph in it's entirety, back to you, only where you reference, religion I was going to put, queers or poofters instead.
Apart from the last line, it's uncanny, but it actually makes perfect sense as a response to your own comment on that particular passage.

Dear Paul,

Our laws do not allow people to do what they like
if they hurt others. And when we hide discrimination under
the guise of 'religious freedom'
we make a mockery of human rights.

Foxy, daaarling, please, stop, I can't take any more of this bickering.
That's why I say, don't try to hide it, speak your mind and everything will be out in the open for all to see.
No more hiding behind these walls of shame called PC and discrimination and on and on it goes, so boring.
Why do you want to live in a world of fantasy and why can't you see the long term harm all this 'don't hurt or upset someone' crap is doing.
Why do you think the suicide rate, well every rate, is up?
Because people like you have been pandering to these wall flowers so much that when a fly lands on them they go into a coma.
For Christs sake, stop, step back and look at what your doing, you may think you're right, because YOU think you're right, not because you are.
I'm not suggesting I'm right, but I can say categorically, YOU'RE WRONG!

It is not feasible to make legal exemptions for religion because ordinary humans are not able to discern and tell which actions are religious and which are not. The "laws of God" cannot be written in simple and finite formulas, but rather have infinite exceptions and sub-exceptions and sub-sub-exceptions - for each and every situation is different. One could say "just follow the Holy Spirit", but how can one possibly commit the nebulous details to writing?

Therefore, in order to protect the freedom of religion as much as humanly possible, we must limit the restrictions of the law over individuals to the bare minimum, only as absolutely required to prevent others from harm. Legislators might still make mistakes, for example when the "others" in question would not truly or always be harmed by a proscribed act - but at least they should try.

Those who currently want exemptions for other-than-religious reasons will then enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Yuyutsu,

People in this country are free to follow whatever
religion they want as long as their beliefs do
not hurt others or break our laws.

When we hide discrimination under the guise of
'religious freedom' we make a mockery of human rights.

ALTRAV,

'Political Correctness' is a label that some people often
use to distract from their ignorance and bigotry.
BTW - your opinion is not my reality.
And of course you have a right to your opinion.
And I have a right to ignore it.

Cheers.

Yuyutsu, fair enough.
I would immediately suggest that, just as common law has it's experts, govt, courts etc., so too does the church.
It may not be possible for the layman or even a lawyer or govt to debate or understand religion, but the church does.
And it does it impeccably.
If as you contend, 'ordinary humans are not able to discern and tell which actions are religious and which are not', Then thankfully the matter is handed onto the religious experts for clarity, and put in a form easily understood by mere mortals.

We have a separation of church and state in this
country.

Our laws are those enacted by the Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. We do not have a
separate stream of law derived from religious sources
that competes with or supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society. The source of our law is
the democratically elected legislature not the church.

Foxy,

Then how is it that we have penalty rates for working on a Sunday and Seventh Day Adventists can choose not to work on a Saturday?

Then there are the Jews:
"VICTORIA'S Jewish community has set up a special court to resolve disputes involving its members.
Specially trained rabbis will handle civil and commercial issues using a combination of Jewish and Australian law.

The court, known as a Beth Din, has previously only dealt with matters relating to divorce and the conversion to Judaism.

Rabbinical Council of Victoria president Rabbi Meir Shlomo Kluwgant said the court would offer parties arbitration and mediation to resolve disputes so they wouldn't need to go through the normal legal system".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/rabbis-to-settle-jewish-disputes-in-special-court/news-story/08dda8afcd8c3b27eb7a45c518c65d01

Foxy, I think we all know that, but we are discussing the exemption of certain laws based on religious grounds.
We are not looking to supplant a religious law in place of a common law.
As I said, and because it has been so for as long as I can remember, we do have exemptions based on religion, and have done for a very long time.
So what is being discussed/proposed is already enacted so we need not discuss this further, other than to see if the govt gives specific exemptions to the church and in what context.

Foxy,

I forgot to mention Customary Law as it pertains to Indigenous Australians,

"In the Northern Territory, some statutes and courts make explicit reference to customary law where such is useful in identifying relationships or social expectations. These changes have not been without controversy, especially in cases where customary law is either imprecise, or infringes upon human rights."

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

Is Mise,

Rather weak arguments old chap.

When you choose to work is up to you and your employer
to work out - there's no law that says when you have
to work.

As for laws regarding the Indigenous People?
Courts deal with these matters on a case by case bases -
not all courts comply - and our laws are generally ones
that do take precedence. Hence the large percentages of
Indigenous People that are incarcerated in our jails,
commit suicide or are mistreated.

ALTRAV,

We shall have to wait and see what the current government
decides to do regarding lifting the ban for religious
schools to be able to expel gay students and sack gay
teachers. We have different opinions on this issue -
however it will ultimately be a decision that will be made
in Parliament. That is the way the governing of our civil
society works.

Dear Foxy,

«People in this country are free to follow whatever religion they want as long as their beliefs do not hurt others or break our laws.»

As I already pointed out, "free to follow X as long as Y" equals "NOT FREE to follow X".

Nevertheless, your point about not hurting others is moot because following religion cannot hurt others.

(yes, I expect many to jump in and provide "counter-examples", but I contend that whatever they may come up with, though it might superficially look religious, can be proven not to be truly religious)

«When we hide discrimination under the guise of 'religious freedom' we make a mockery of human rights.»

Discrimination is a wonderful and essential capacity. Humans are able to discriminate between good and evil, but even amoebas can discriminate to some extent - they could not survive otherwise!

But I presume that the correct word you actually meant, was 'prejudice'.

Well, prejudice is not a religious thing to do, nor am I aware of any religious people who want to prejudice against others on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Yes, I believe that such fools (whether they call themselves "religious" or otherwise) who want to prejudice that way must not be prohibited by law, yet it would be reasonable to stop funding them with tax-payer money.

---

Dear ALTRAV,

«but the church does. And it does it impeccably.»

I beg to differ. We have too many historical examples when churches have taught irreligion as "religion". What more, churches differ too much in their views, including between different dioceses within the same denomination.

«Then thankfully the matter is handed onto the religious experts for clarity»

Nothing less than a prophet would qualify and sadly, we don't have that many of them living today.

Foxy,

Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental human right within limits. The legislation being discussed is not primarily aimed at discriminating against gay students or teachers, rather allowing religious institutions to govern according to their teachings, and to ensure that teachers and students adhere to their code of conduct.

The extreme version could extend to firing unruly gay activist teachers or students, but considering that I can't find a single incident of this occurring in Aus, this looks more like a straw man than a real concern.

A very real risk to these institutions is that they will become targets for activists who will try and undermine them and be impossible to discipline if these protections are removed.

One only has to remember the referral of the Tasmanian Catholic Church to the AHRC for discussing their point of view on SSM.

Shadow Minister,

Religion should be kept out of public policies -
separation of church and state.

Foxy,

I agree, the state should keep its nose out of the affairs of the private religious schools.

Shadow Minister,

Religion as we know exists all around us.
People are free to practice their faith as long as
the faith does not hurt others. Also their
faith has no bearing on government policies.

Foxy,

And similarly, where the practice of one's faith does not hurt anyone, then there is no reason for changing government policies in such a way as to affect the practice of one's faith.

Shadow Minister,

Governments have laws for a reason. The political
and cultural institutions that govern our country
are absolutely critical to maintain harmony and
tolerance. Within an institutional framework that
preserves tolerance and protects order we can
celebrate and enjoy diversity in religion and
culture. We have laws to ensure that standards are
maintained throughout the country. No school is
nor should be above our law. Nor should it be able to
do what it pleases. As stated previously their faith
has no bearing on government policies - nor should it.

Dear Foxy,

«Religion as we know exists all around us.»

I am so glad to hear this from you: religion is indeed all-pervading and the prime motivator of everything, whether we pursue it consciously or otherwise.

Therefore even government policies are ultimately directed by religion, even while the politicians are generally unaware of this and when in their case, the light of religion has to pass through so many layers of mental and emotional dirt that it comes out twisted and hardly recognisable.

Though religion is everywhere, we usually call "religious" those persons who are consciously trying to follow the path to God. For us who do, God comes first, ahead of all personal and selfish desires, but also ahead of society, its norms and standards. No harm can ever come by following the path to God and no disharmony could possibly ensue from looking up and following the perfect and greatest conductor of all things.

And so it is, I say, that if the laws were fashioned around the 'ten commandments' and not of human conception, we would be looking at a vastly different and more affable world, and not the torture and turmoil we are having to endure instead.

Foxy,

And governments have exemptions to laws for a reason too.

Is the government going to enforce gender equality in selecting Catholic priests, force boys schools to admit girls, force the Muslims to hire gay atheist female imams etc or should there be exemptions.

Similarly should catholic private schools be banned from accepting mostly catholic students, should they install muslim prayer rooms.

The list of stupid consequences is endless.

Shadow Minister,

We can discuss this endlessly. However, I
have neither the time nor the inclination to
continue at present.

Yuyutsu,

You should know my personal beliefs by now.
We've discussed religion many times on this forum.
However, what this discussion is about - is what
decisions the government will make regarding
religious schools - and that we don't yet know.

ALTRAV,

If we could learn to divert our energy and resources
to the real problems that face us, including poverty,
disease, overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and
the devastation of our natural environment we just
may enhance the life of this bright and lovely planet
on which billions of us share our adventure.

Dear Foxy,

«what this discussion is about - is what decisions the government will make regarding religious schools - and that we don't yet know.»

I was not aware that this is a gambling site (or else I wouldn't be here): gamblers wait passively, hoping for this or that horse, or this or that team to win. Here, I naively thought, we express our views on how things ought to be, rather than just wait and see how they turn out.

If your intention for this discussion was only to place bets on the legislation outcome, then why haven't you stated so from the beginning?

Foxy,

You said,

"Our laws are those enacted by the Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. We do not have a
separate stream of law derived from religious sources
that competes with or supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society."

then you said,

"As for laws regarding the Indigenous People?
Courts deal with these matters on a case by case bases -
not all courts comply - and our laws are generally ones
that do take precedence"

If you believe that our laws GENERALLY take precedence, but not at all times, then you are contradicting yourself and the laws of some Indigenous people can take precedence over Australian law in some circumstances.

Yuyutsu,

The title of this discussion should have given you
a clue. However, I did explain in my opening post
that I was interested in what posters thought
about the pending government decision - whose
outcomes we don't yet know as it has not been discussed
in Cabinet and is based on the recommendations of the
Ruddock Review - which we also don't know what that
contains.

I think that we've discussed things rather well here -
all things considered. However as I said - what the final
outcome will be - we don't yet know. All this may have
been a storm in a teacup as has been pointed out.

If you feel that you've entered this discussion by mistake
and under a false impression of some kind - then with all
due respect - I suggest that you leave immediately and not
waste any more time here. And in the future I would also
suggest that you ask all the relevant questions prior to
enter any discussion - so that you would not be mislead.
I did not intend to mislead anyone.

Dear Foxy,

Your reply still leaves me confused: sorry for not having asked it on the first page, but can you please tell me whether your intention was to discuss here what religious schools ought to be allowed or disallowed to do, or to only discuss the party-politics around it (which I personally could not care less about)?

Thank you in advance.

Yuyutsu,

Of course my intention was to discuss the rights of
religious schools in our secular state. I thought
that was fairly clear.

Is MIse,

I did say that regarding Indigenous People - common
law cases are dealt with on a case by case basis.
The outcomes still remain in the hands of our courts
and our judicial system.

Dear Foxy,

«Of course my intention was to discuss the rights of religious schools in our secular state»

Then why did you scold me, saying: "However, what this discussion is about - is what decisions the government will make regarding religious schools - and that we don't yet know.", when I discussed what these very rights ought to be?

What I get from your comment is that you only want to discuss what the government will eventually decide, rather than what it ought to decide.

Yuyutsu,

What I was trying to point out and perhaps I did not
express myself clearly was that no matter what we
discuss on what the government should or should not
do, the ultimate decision will be that of the government.
Hopefully the government will listen to the
the voters. Of course there's no guarantee that all of us
will be pleased with the results - as happened with
same sex marriage. In this case however - we don't get a
chance to have a say - as we did the last time. This will
be a government decision.

Foxy,

"The outcomes still remain in the hands of our courts
and our judicial system."

But that outcome can favour Traditional Law and then Traditional Law applies, so there is more than one law in Australia; I note that you had nowt to say regarding Jews and Jewish Religious Law.

Shadow Minister,

"The list of stupid consequences is endless"

Including the aim of the whole exercise, making all religions marry same-sex couples.

Is Mise,

I also did not comment on Muslim, Catholic, or any other
religious group. The beauty of our democratic system is
that any group - can lobby for what they want changed - they
can even run for office to further try to influence changes.

According to the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report
on Aboriginal Customary Law -

Since 1992 - common law has admitted the existence of
Indigenous customary laws but to date the use of Indigenous
customary law in matters such as sentencing, including through
in circle courts, remains sparse, patchy and inadequate.

Formal recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in the Constitution will pave the way for negotiations
and a sustained dialogue between the civilisations,
including for significant levels of self-determination.

Foxy,

"Since 1992 - common law has admitted the existence of
Indigenous customary laws but to date the use of Indigenous
customary law in matters such as sentencing, including through
in circle courts, remains sparse, patchy and inadequate."

Particularly spearing an offender.

Well there you are, two separate laws for different groups within Australia, nor one law for all, at all.

Issy, is that why there are twice as many black fella in jail than white fella, they get sentenced twice?

Paul,

The proportion of people jailed is close to the proportion of crimes committed. (or getting caught)

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

//If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.//

Or get a good lawyer. They're often what make the difference between a non-custodial sentence and doing time.

I'm going to take a different angle on this topic, and that is, if it was any other political party making the call or the submission, I might have taken it seriously, but as it's the greens, I consider the topic irrelevant.
Only an irrelevant entity could come up with such a stupid and headline grabbing suggestion.
If an institution, any institution has certain mission statements or governing rules, and these rules have been accepted by the govt and they are historic, and they form the basis of the institutions very being, then like it or not, suddenly demanding they change their whole platform or mission statement, on the whim of some selfish, ignorant, entitled, nobodies, is not to be taken seriously and should therefore be ignored,as I have always said about a bunch of irrelevant losers, like the greens.
Anyone without political credentials or who's platform is based on a topic which has no political relevance, is no more relevant than a lobby group or protestors and merely a group with a single policy agenda, and are most certainly not a political party.
So it is that they are second tier and as such are not qualified to be in parliament.
A bunch of dreamers making some vain attempt at appearing relevant does not give them political status.
Before you can claim to be a political party you have to be a party who can demonstrate a list of issues which can help the people now in a direct way.
The environment is an ideology too far away.
It is a fantasy, anything the greens could lay claim to would not take effect till long after we are dead and cannot be tested or proven on it's veracity.
So we are asked to believe a bunch of politically inept, social mis-fits and trust them because, they so so?
I don't think so.
No, had ANY other political party authored the topic, I might have taken it seriously, but you see any other party isn't as stupid, irrelevant and arrogant as the greens.

Is Mise,

Religious exemptions do exist within our legal system.
If you were to Google the Attorney General's Department
on this topic - it would explain to you exactly what
that means. Briefly, the facts are that -
freedom of religion in Australia is allowed
in practice to varying degrees through the Constitution
and our legislation at the Federal, State, and Territory
levels. However, Australia is a secular country with
legislated separation of church and state and with no
state religion.

I suggest that you also check up on Indigenous Customary Law
and how that applies.

Roxy,

"Since 1992 - common law has admitted the existence of
Indigenous customary laws but to date the use of Indigenous
customary law in matters such as sentencing, including through
in circle courts, remains sparse, patchy and inadequate."

That statement clearly shews that Customary Laws exist and are applied, ergo there exist two systems of law in Australia.

Do you have trouble with English?

ALTRAV, of course the Greens would get up your nose. You always oppose any kind of progressive thinking, social justice is not in your vocabulary. Simply content to stick with your mindless conservatism, and resist all change. Pray tell me, who in your opinion is qualified politically? Bernardi, Hanson, maybe the Mad Katter is a favourite of yours.

Paul1405, NONE OF THEM!
BTW, WTF is progressive about these scumbags.
Your blinded by BS, this country IS the MOST REGRESSIVE in the developed world.
You really can't see how we have gone backwards in time.
What's wrong with you?
Tried to buy a house lately, put fuel in your car, paid domestic bills like power, water, shire rates, it's easier to say, everything!
Remember how many pay packets it took to buy a car?
What about how many years income it took to buy a house?
So YES Paul, you can dream and kid yourself as much as you and your followers want, I won't.
I see things for what they are, no emotion just plain clarity of observation.
You are being belligerent, (look it up) and purposely negative and antagonistic in a childish attempt at making a point.
My point is that NO-ONE is qualified or experienced to 'RUN A COUNTRY' and that's why they're doing such a sh!t job.
We don't get any people or groups, physically attacking these con-men, because if they did get attacked on a regular basis, they would hopefully not seek to become a polly.
Then we can push for a party free bunch of independents who actually represented their constituents and THEIR wishes and not along bloody 'party lines'.
Each member would vote according to what we want them to vote, let's not forget, they are OUR representatives in Canberra.
It would be a much better and more equitable and balanced outcome than we have ever had.
Oh BTW Paul, if you think the greens are progressive, you have made my point better than I ever could have.
Thanks.

ALTRAV, its easy to sit on the fence and throw stones (I think). Your understanding of politics is zero. The absurd ideal that say 150 totally independent thinking people could be elected to parliament and would cast their vote based purely on the wishes of their constituents is impossible. Who are their constituents anyway? Those that voted for them, or everyone they supposedly represent, and what do the constituents want on a particularly divisive issue, you don't know. Since the days of the Roman Senate, politics has been the art of the possible. Individuals soon form alliances, horse trading becomes the norm,"I'll support what you want, if .you'll support what I want". Then there is the informal alliances, and groups. before you know it you have these informal alliances and groups of the like minded forming themselves into formal political parties.

You are certainly biased politically, attacking the Greens because their politics don't gel with yours. You are an arch conservative, who claims he is a free thinker, what a load of BS.

Wake up sunshine, you are dreaming.

BTW, don't tell me to look up the meaning of words, you have the pompous audacity to instruct me, I believe you to be an uneducated clown, based on the naive nonsense you post on OLO. But I don't care what you do, or think, or believe, its all just opinion.

Is Mise,

No - the laws of this country are still decided on and made
by our legislative system - but don't take my word for it -
contact the Attorney-General's
Department in Canberra - you can Google the address and
phone number.

And your repeating your opinion does not make it so.
Get the facts to back it up.

Dear Paul,

Horse Trading is probably the best outcome in democracy because it mitigates the tyranny of majorities: this way everyone can get what is most dearly important to them.

For example, you really care for the barrier-reef and I really care about religious freedom, say about being able to have cows freely roaming in my temple.

In my view, the barrier-reef is dispensable: never been there, never will and I wouldn't lose any sleep if it bleaches out, so my vote would be to ignore it.
In your view, cows should not be allowed in buildings with humans, being a "health-and-safety" hazard. You too wouldn't lose any sleep if I were not allowed to perform certain religious rites, so your vote would be to disallow cows in temples.

Now if we are allowed to be truly represented in parliament, then our two representatives can reach an agreement: you can have your barrier-reef and I could observe my religious rites. I only sacrifice a small amount of tax-money and you only sacrifice a small slice of your ambition to modernise the world. None of us is significantly hurt and both of us are happy!

Horse Trading is an official policy of the Flux party:
"Swap away your votes on issues you don't care about, for a credit you can use on issues you do. Our software makes this easy." - http://voteflux.org/about/how

Foxy,

"No - the laws of this country are still decided on and made
by our legislative system "

Customary Laws are not decided by our legislative system, they already exist and are applied in relation to some Indigenous people.
They are not applied to the non-Indigenous, so, clearly, there are two sets of laws operating in this country; and no matter how you try to twist it, it is a fact.

Paul 1405, your blustering and carrying on does you no credit.
I on the other hand have tried to expand YOUR range of thinking from actually believing that a bunch of tree huggers could ever conceivably put together more than one salient point or bill of any real value.
My suggestion at least allows people a chance to get their wishes heard.
It is very possible to implement my form of government.
I don't expect you to understand anything progressive if you follow the fantasy called the greens.
At least with my attitude, we try to make it better.
Your attitude, nothing changes, because you think manure like the greens is a progressive party.
Right!

Is Mise,

Historically customary law has not been recognised as
part of the canon law of Australian law. It is not
codified, nor can it be. If you want more information -
Google "Customary Law in Australia."

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

Ask yourself this question,
"Is Customary Law ever applied/used/conveniently recognized by Australian Courts?

If it is, then there are indeed two Laws in Australia and they are not applied to all citizens but only to one group, based on race, so not only is the practice contrary to your view of One Australian Law, but also racist.

Foxy, I'm sorry but Isi has clearly won this round.
Yuyutsu, your mention of the FLUX system comes at a fortuitous time.
I've never heard of this Flux system of government, but ironically and very pleased to say that it seems to be the very format I have been pushing for years.
I know that they can still form alliances in a Flux govt, but in my govt, we the people, would have closer collaborative interaction with our representatives in parliament.
Those people who are typically not interested in overseeing the pollies, would just stay out of it as they do now.
Those of us who demand efficient and effective governance will play an active role of guidance and assistance in ensuring the govt does what WE want and not what THEY want.
I too believe in being given the opportunity to see the bills and voting on them so OUR representative will get an exact number of his constituents and the direction he votes on according to OUR wishes.
I am a much happier person now that I have found there is a system of govt based on my ideals.
Yuyutsu, one of the most informative posts in a long time, thank you for that.

//If it is, then there are indeed two Laws in Australia//

Well, yeah. I happen to be have some degree of acquaintance with one Fr. Peter Blayney, parish priest of St. Patrick's, Guildford and former Judicial Vicar of the Regional Tribunal of Sydney. He has a doctorate in canon law - so not only does Australia recognise more two systems of law, they recognise degrees in canon law.

//and they are not applied to all citizens but only to one group//

Yep, the Tribunal is only for Catholics.

But I guess it's alright when it's the left-footers doing it rather than those smelly black people, eh Is Mise?

Toni, I'm not following your example as I don't know anything about these other 'laws' everyone is talking about.
Are you saying that there are other laws, eg; religious laws, that over-ride common law?
Too may big and unfamiliar words are being used so I guess I'm looking for a more simplified use of words, so I and some others can keep up.
Trying to follow this discussion/topic with interest, so please, continue.

Wow, //I've (ALTRAV) never heard of this Flux system of government, but ironically and very pleased to say that it seems to be the very format I have been pushing for years.//

The nonsense put forward by the non producing parasites from that money grabbing rubbish Bitcoin.

ALTRAV likes this nonsense, with his idea that decision making should be removed from the hands of the democratically elected and concentrated into the hands of a powerful non elected, non representative political elite.

ALTRAV; //Those people who are typically not interested in overseeing the pollies, would just stay out of it as they do now.// Which is not true. they have a vote every so often to choose a representative government through the democratic process. Anything up to 90% of people would be excluded. Previously said he didn't want women involved, make that 95%.

Where is the real political power concentrated? //Those of us (the political elite) who demand efficient and effective governance will play an active role of guidance and assistance (you're doing more than that, its total control) in ensuring the govt does what WE want and not what THEY want.// Governance would be in the hands of a non elected political clique. If its ALTRAV types, they will be a conservative hard right male dictatorial elite.

// and the direction he (the parliamentary male only representative) votes on according to OUR (the non elected few from the elite political clique) wishes. Now there is the rub, the decision making has been taken away from the elected and placed into the hands of a few non elected. The elected become rubber stamps.

This sounds very much like a mix of National Socialism, and totalitarian Communism. Imagine the political power that the non elected, non accountable, elite group of ALTRAV's would hold over society. There would be no need for elections, the parliamentary representative could just be appointed by the clique, after all he is only going to vote according to their dictates

Dear Paul,

«The nonsense put forward by the non producing parasites from that money grabbing rubbish Bitcoin.»

Thank you for alerting me, it stinks.

Apparently, this is the den from where the founders of Flux emerged, who foolishly admire technology in general and the bitcoin in particular.

Yet what is important is the concept, which is to let ordinary people vote semi-directly over policies and includes their/our ability to horse-trade: technology is only the means and I would be just as happy if the software was central and produced by the Australian Greens.

Paul. WTF are you on?
I think you've just added about a dozen topics to my post.
I have no idea what your saying.
All I'm saying is that this FLUX form of govt is more like MY ideal of what govt should be about.
I much rather the pollies refer back to us with the bills, and we (the people) get to vote on the issues.
THEY, simply tally up OUR votes and HE votes accordingly.
Now WTF is so hard about that, that you have to have a dummy spit over?
My way, those who WANT to vote for day-to-day laws, CAN and will have their wishes heard.
The OTHERS, who don't give a toss, who only vote because they are forced to, can get stuffed and go back and watch the 'footy' with their carton of beer, for all the good they are anyway.
So yes, if you actually cared about your life and what is going on around you, you might actually give a stuff, and this FLUX method gets your vote into the chamber, unlike now, your vote is worthless and just gives the scumbags and their mates ALL the power.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say so, I do, and I'll attempt to clarify.
Paul, the current system is sh!t and you know it.
The FLUX system, or at least my system allows the people to vote on every issue that they want to vote on, and to suite them.
Majority still wins but at least it will be a TRUE majority and none of this 'party line' crap.

Toni,

"But I guess it's alright when it's the left-footers doing it rather than those smelly black people, eh Is Mise?"

Not applicable as Canon Law is neither condoned nor applied by the Australian Courts, but if you think that your observation adds to the case against their being only one law in Australia, then welcome aboard.

Just as an aside, none of my Aboriginal friends are smelly; have you got your nose a bit too close to your armpit, by chance?

//Not applicable as Canon Law is neither condoned nor applied by the Australian Courts//

If a law is applied and condoned by the Australian Courts, it's part of Australian law.

I don't know if you were attempting to argue against your own initial position, but great job, QED.

Dear Toni,

«I don't know if you were attempting to argue against your own initial position, but great job, QED.»

You are dangerously obsessed with facts: the regime's ideology has been and still remains, that there is one law for all, no matter what you find to the contrary: they have all the guns, so they call the shots and if you disagree then they will shoot you in the head because your brain is the only organ which they don't need for transplants to party-members.

The point of the legal exemptions afforded the religious schools is not intended or used to fire teachers or expel pupils based on gender identity, rather to protect them from some of the more stupid brain farts of the far left such as the safe schools indoctrination or...

"Mr Wilson says the removal of the exemption to section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act could expose schools to an allegation of “direct discrimination” simply for upholding gender as being determined by biology or promoting to students a biblical view of ­sexuality.

“Prime Minister, you will know that gender distinction, and the ­binary nature of gender, is a foundational precept of the belief and teaching of Christian faith,” Mr Wilson says. “Currently, an exemption exists for our Christian and church-connected schools to keep distinctions such as: insisting on distinct uniforms for boys and girls, providing separate male and female toilets for comfort and privacy, building separate accommodation quarters (for boarding schools) and having distinct boys and girls sporting teams.

“The removal of the exemption clause in the act will make it ­possible for a claim of ‘direct ­discrimination’ against such schools … Why is it that the ­government wants to undermine the integrity of our much-loved and valued schools where currently more than 300,000 students across the nation are flourishing?”

Shadow Minister,

Your comments about the "left-wing," bias presumes that
you are the fountain of knowledge to which we should
all aspire. Today - we are a collectively more
educated and informed society and simple sloganeering
with left and right bias no longer holds sway.
Members like Tony Abbott and others - it seems are slow to
learn this lesson. Political protagonists are more
likely to identify themselves as conservative or
progressive rather than right or left.
Besides - no decision has yet been made by the government
on the Ruddock Review. Perhaps we should wait and see.

Shadow, is that the general opinion of that bunch of conservative lunatics, laughingly called a Coalition government in Canberra. Are you still a supporter, or like the vast majority have you also given up on the useless fools?

Foxy is correct, stop being an anachronistic hang over from the cold war with your right left nonsense, modern thinking has it as progressives versus conservatives. Progressive thinking is that these religious bigots need to be brought into line with the rest of the community, no exceptions.

Paul, again shooting your mouth off with flawed and biased self glory as if you and your followers know what your talking about.
Remember, every time you say something, it only confirms you are further out of touch than originally thought.
You totally ignore the sacred words;
'It is better to be thought of a fool, than to open your mouth and have it confirmed'.
Once more you display your arrogance and ignorance by daring to make a sweeping statement about something you know NOTHING about and even less to do with.
When you speak of words like bigot, progressive and conservative, I'll bet you think your contributing to this forum, well guess what?
Your contributions are just emotional ramblings of a jumped up, know it all loser, that is so blinded with rage it has infected your mind and will not allow you to look at the 'whole' picture, only what you want to see.
And shut up with the anti right, left, sermon, you are a boron and have not a clue of what you speak.
Who are these 'modern thinkers' you so enthusiastically promote?
Because you have tried to raise the subject as if they actually exist, let alone as the new standard, you have destroyed what little cred you had and in doing so have relegated this progressive and conservative crap to the rubbish bin from whence it came.
Who the hell do you think you are, to attempt to pass judgement on something you have NO idea about.
What religion are you?
No?
Nothing?
Well then shut up, until you believe in something bigger and better than yourself, you are a nobody trying to shirt front everyone and everything in an effort to retain some of that long lost pride and self worth.
Is that enough 'right' for you, you left loony.

Foxy,

Terminology such as left and right wing are still common parlance probably because the terms progressive and conservative are so poorly used. For example Margret Thatcher's revolutionary re-positioning of world's economics was more progressive than any left whinge government in history, while many of those that laughingly call themselves progressive are more intolerant and oppressive than anyone else.

Paul,

Coming from a far left whinge lunatic fringe party who most people laugh at, you have used the left/right terminology as much as anyone else.

Unsurprisingly, you want to stamp out any deviations from your new "progressive" orthodoxy.

ALTRAV, you are the personification of ignorance, taken in by the superstition of religion, nothing I can do about that. You totally ignore the slightest possibility that you could ever bring yourself to support modern progressive thinking, on any subject, or the fact you are wrong on most subjects. Australians generally support a mix of progressive and conservative ideas when it comes to politics, oh no not you. ALTRAV the totally conservative retrograde, who still lives with the belief that the "reds are under the beds", and all that cold war ideological nonsense. You go beyond conservatism to extremism at times, choosing to be one of those rare breeds who clings to the unreal world of fantasy. Just take you attitude to women, according to you they should not even be allowed to hold political office, who else in Australia would think like that, other than the lunatic fringe dwellers. Then there is your bigoted attitude towards Aboriginals, gays and any other "not like you" minority. What about your fanciful notion that democracy should be turfed out in favour of some political system that would have the lunatic un-elected fringe dwellers, which would include you of course, the guru of everything that is fair and reasonable, dictating to the elected all male representatives what laws can be enacted, such pomposity on your part. Other than draconian laws targeting undesirable minorities, not many, given your extremists ways of thinking. You are laughable, and thankfully will never get the opperunity to enact your brand of extremism!

Shadow, the only ones being laughed at is this incompetent train wreck of a government in Canberra you supposedly support, even you no longer say you support it, I wonder why! One can only imagine the damage these retards led by ScumMo and co are doing to Australia. We will find out eventually when they are turfed out on their ear, and a decent, competent, Shorten Labor government assumes control, and opens the closet door to reveal the putrid mess left behind by the band of Nohopers.

Dear Paul,

You can'r fight crazy with crazy.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add - Thanks for trying.

What are you left whingers going to do when the Coalition is re-elected?

Is Mise,

Nah - unlike America - "dumbocracy"
hasn't hit this country yet and hopefully never will.

Paul,

A decent competent Shorten Labor government is an oxymoron. Whereas the greens are simply morons.

Shorten robbed the workers of his union and will have no problem screwing over the voters if he gets into power.

The coalition maybe in disarray at the moment, but even now are performing better than the fetid Labor government ever did, especially when coupled with the lunatic fringe gangrenes

The Coalition is polling at around 46 to 54 on
current indications. On any measure that's an
incipient electoral wipe out. The government
has no idea what it is governing for, or what
it wants to achieve in the next six months.
There will be many more hare-brained schemes,
wacky Senate votes and policies-by-announcement in
months to come.