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.