"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?