Soon the government will introduce legislation to protect the rights of religion
I think it should pass, with no opersition
Yes this non-believer thinks those rights must be protected
Please be respectful, no matter what you think this subject needs that
What are we to do with other faiths rights? is there a border in this Christian country we, and no one should cross
FGM, Sharia law multiple wives,forced marriages, surely we have every right to say no to these practises?
We must walk gently and be very careful on this matter

While Morrison's Religious Discrimination Bill would make it unlawful for people to be discriminated against for their religious beliefs, what about people who have no religious beliefs, but who hold the same beliefs on, say, same sex marriage? What about the atheist, agnostic, or totally irreligious person who speaks against it, not because of any dogma, but because he or she is simply disgusted by it and regards it as completely unnatural and harmful to children dragged into such relationships? Will their consciousnesses and dissent be respected, or will they have to shut up because they don't have a religion? Will they have protection to object to having their children taught about homosexuality in schools, nonsense about choosing gender, and so on? Or will they have to remain silent?

We don't need laws to protect religious beliefs - we need a revision of the freedoms of ALL people to be able to say what they want to say.

Rule of thumb.

If they break the law, regardless of religion or lack of religion, then they should be held accountable. One way or another a religous faith should not be a sanctuary for criminals. After that rule of thumb, let religion go. Let them teach and practice their religion. Unless there is harm being done, or it is ongoing off and on from one group or another, unless that is the case let them go and only have your counter voice and counter views be heard. Nothing more as punishments for holding a religion.

On that note, freedom of religion is great, but should it go further and have protection for the religions as well? Should vandalism from an active protest be ignored? Or protesters mobbing a person or group of faith and doing harm, is that something to is let go?

I'm shocked to hear a growing trend of Muslims growing violent and no action is done to fight this. But then I'm also shocked to hear secular protesters make a statement by pummeling a person trying to share their faith in public. Should freedom of religion also mean equal protections and equal punishments?

We need to level the playing field, such things as penalty rates for Sunday work should be abolished as such rates are basically because of the sanctity of Sunday as a day of religious worship.

Likewise, all holidays that are based on religion,=; in a secular society such as Australia there is no place for Religious Holy Days; Christmas, Good Friday and Easter should have no more special meaning than Muslim and Jewish and other religions' special days.

By all means, let people observe their special days, be they holy or not, but they should not be paid for them if they take them off.

Rights conflict. Rights to express one's views are subordinate to the law, to the rights of individuals in law. One cannot break the law in the name of free speech.

As long as one expresses one's views without any incitement or threat of violence, or vilification, or humiliation - those rights should be protected. But rights to PRACTICE what one believes are subject to the law. So under-age marriage, FGM, differential treatment of women (where are the feminists these days ?) etc. should remain illegal: human rights trump rights to practise what one believes. Anybody can spout crap from the Bible or the Koran as much as they like, as long as nobody's human rights are infringed upon in the slightest.

There isn't a right not to be offended. Free speech presupposes the right to offend. Otherwise what the hell is it worth ? Anybody can offend me all they like, if it's possible. Anybody can criticise my behaviour if they think it's reprehensible in some way. No worries. Holding any idea up to the light of criticism is how social thought and philosophy have moved forward throughout history. We need more of it, not less.

Simple expression of different opinions is not vilification. To differ with someone is not to 'hate' them, despite what four-year-olds and snowflakes think.

Like you, Belly and Ttbn, I'm a non-believer, and probably my views and opinions might offend believers by denying their most fundamental beliefs. But both they and I have the right to express our conflicting views. I hope there never will be a world where those rights are banned.

Joe

Well never entered my head that muckraking was to be part of this thread
Ise Mise weekends, some thing we did not always have, anchors our culture
People have set days they,and their kids, can be together play sport just live
That is the reason to protect penalty rates not faith
Not-now-soon, ok agree
Law is law, let us not let some change that under the guise of freedom in faith any faith
Too my right to no longer believe in any God must be protected

Why not simply make Religion to be kept inside the home ? Churches & other places of worship could be made into fantastic museums & cultural centers.
No money needed to build new ones.
Ban religion in public !

It's encouraging that both sides of politics
are willing to work together on the religious
discrimination bill proposed by the Prime Minister.

There's no question that our laws should ensure
that all people are protected from discrimination.

Hopefully the government will engage directly with
all community groups. They need to get the
balance right. Because if this legislation is not
crafted carefully it will hand a license to
discriminate to religious organisations.

That should be a grave concern.

Let me try and break it down to a few questions.

Does Freedom of Religion infer the right to advocate or commit unlawful, unethical or discriminatory acts based on the particular doctrine of that religious belief?

And if not, does that then mean freedom of religion is restricted?

Furthermore if a religion contains both malevolent and benevolent aspects should steps be taken to denounce those malevolent aspects?
- Or do we just accept them as a part of that religion? -

Now, before you respond;
I want you to consider the 21st Century religion 'Equality'.
Which means that whatever choice you make be mindful of this:

- What you do for one, you must do for the other -

For example you'd have to extend those rights to these kinds of religious believers:
http://www.learnreligions.com/how-luciferians-differ-from-satanists-95678

Don't assume all religions are the same, or all good or even restricted to the Abrahamic ones.

Disclaimer: I don't know the quality of this websites content as I just found it.
The homepage is here --> http://www.learnreligions.com/

Belly,

It is the height of hypocrisy to deny that there is a God and then demand days off work in his name.

It's time that Australia joined some of the more enlightened countries of the world and abolished the weekend.
Sunday is held as special because of its religious connotations and has no place in a secular society.

By all means, let people have a couple of days off each week but stagger them throughout industry/business/service so that the country keeps working 7 days a week.

Is Mise,

What about the Republicans who celebrate the
Queen's Birthday? What about the non-gamblers
on Melbourne Cup Day?

And so on.

Foxy,

"What about the Republicans who celebrate the
Queen's Birthday? What about the non-gamblers
on Melbourne Cup Day?

And so on."

Hypocrites all.

To Individual.

How are the places of worship harming anyone else? How is having a religion freely expressed in public harmful?

Banning a religion from being in the public should only be reserved for a religious group that is actually harmful. Otherwise what you're suggesting is that religions go underground, and meet in secret. People of a faith usually come together to teach, pray, and worship. Is there a public harm in these activities that they must be restricted away from the public. (If someone gets angry or offended, that's not the same as if they are actually harmed).

Again if there is actual harm from one religion or even just one group within that religion, then let the reactions and punishment fall on that group. Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists should not be punished for the actions of Muslim gangs being formed. Nor should innocent groups be punished for cruelty and to animals done by some satanist (or any other pass by the night belief calling itself a religion) that descides Halloween is the perfect time to mutliate a cat, a rabbit, or any other animal they can get their hands on.

If a religion is innocent of the harm another one causes, should the first religion (and all religions) be punished for something they did not do?

http://www.smh.com.au/education/at-some-sydney-schools-fewer-than-one-in-10-students-choose-scripture-20190705-p524kk.html
Ise Mise you damn your own words because you put zero thought in to them or others rghts
The link can not be ignored, it however in no way says anything other than everyone's rights in this area should be respected
However, we must be sure any new law is not used to target one side or the other
It is a minefield, please believe it
Can a Christian school sack a teacher who is not Christian? maybe
But can a Islamic School do the same
Will some fool, one day, claim FGM is religious right?
The whole idea needs thought, let us do this right
Now for the person intent on side tracking this debate, Saturday is not a Christian holiday, Friday is for some, seventh day adventists indeed have Saturday as their sabbath
the concept of weekends is no longer a religious one, it it family time together
NOTE over 20 percent told us last census they follow no faith, the however almost for sure have family fun on weekends

It is the height of hypocrisy to deny that there is a God and then demand days off work in his name.
Is Mise,
yep and, the religious are exploiting the control they influence people with in his name ! Hyporcrites also !

How are the places of worship harming anyone else? How is having a religion freely expressed in public harmful?
Not_Now.Soon,
Because it is an imposition of superstition in order to gain compliance !

Does ones persons right to 'not be offended by something'

- Outweigh -

Another persons right to 'express what they think and believe'?

Hey individual,

Some people don't care much for ANZAC Day either but they still take the freebie.

I believe that everyone should have the right to express what they know and what they think.

Problem when it comes to debates over religion is that people lose sight of the fact that religious views are used to bring about political, social or economic action to promote the interests of one group over other groups. So debates on religious freedom extend beyond the limits of epistemological arguments and are really exercises in political persuasion.

We have institutions outside of religion that control political activities that give rise to power and authority in our society. This is why the modern nation states abandoned monarchical authority and separated politics and religion in the wake of the Enlightenment.

Some people don't care much for ANZAC Day either but they still take the freebie.
Armchair critic,
ANZAC Day is prove of peoples' sacrifice for others. Is Christmas Day ?

Previously, the church had an overbearing influence on society, and so steps were taken to limit the power of religion on secular society.

Today, the pendulum has swung so far that the "oppressed" have now become the oppressors and the inquisition and its acolytes scan social media for any sign of subversive commentary with kangaroo courts excommunicating offenders from society and employment.

While the most egregious examples are those who have failed to modify their religious beliefs to conform to the new secular doctrines for whom this thread is about, there are many others falling victim to the star chambers of the activists for whom truth is no defense.

Some of the things Christians, and to those who only think they are, are demanding from this bill, need watching
Remember many faiths exist, would we want cults to benefit, even be protected by the new laws
Do most of us think Scientology is a religion
Do we want to protect it
The new laws must not protect wrong, ever

Well good luck indeed:

God knows that we badly need our freedom to follow our religion, whatever it may be, but how on earth can ordinary people in general and a secular government in particular, tell whether the particular behaviour of a particular person at a particular time is indeed religious or otherwise?!?

The only way to avoid preventing people from performing their duties to God, is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, allowing the maximum freedom to everyone under all circumstances to do as they please, just in case their behaviour is indeed religious.

Is the government serious about protecting religious freedoms? I will start to believe this once Sikhs are allowed to carry their kirpans (ritual daggers) on planes.

Yuyutsu,
I don't believe God wanted us to invent religion. He/she/it simply wants us to be decent, alas !

Dear Individual,

Being decent is a pre-requisite for religion, it is step one without which all our attempts to reach God would collapse in shambles.

But why stop at that?

Decency makes no sense on its own: why ought we to exert ourselves to be decent, fighting against our animal nature, if there are no lasting rewards and all is to end anyway once our body falls off?

Religion is evolving, still
By sheer accident saw Ray Martin researching his ancestry to day
It turns out his Irish ancestors [Catholic] had to pay money in the form of tithes, to support the Protestant Church
Some religions practised today did not exist at my birth
I doubt yuyutsu, any faith has the right to treat any other badly
But believe I know many followers, of any faith, do not share my view

I well remember Seventh Day Adventists refusing to work on Saturdays but being willing and eager to work Sundays because of the double- time payments.

Not one of them knocked it back because it was, to them, just an ordinary day,

if there are no lasting rewards and all is to end anyway once our body falls off?
Yuyutsu,
A rather religious workmate was worried about flying with a certain pilot. When I asked him why he told me he was worried about crashing. I found that odd because aren't religious people looking forward to meet their maker ?

Dear Individual,

«aren't religious people looking forward to meet their maker ?»

Sure, but why is it necessary for your body to die in the process if it can be avoided?

According to Hinduism, one can unite with God even while their body is well and alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jivanmukta

If you realise God while alive, then you can use your body and mind very effectively in His service, to do His will on earth as it is done in heaven, but if you lose your body too early, then you need to be reborn and study everything again, including your religion, while suffering again from the helplessness and maladies of childhood: not a bright prospect!

To Individual.

Replying to what harm religion is to be in the public, you said: "Because it is an imposition of superstition in order to gain compliance !"

It sounds like you don't agree with religions so you just don't want them to be taught. It almost sounds like a power struggle between imposing a belief of no god over the religions that believe in God, or believe in multiple gods.

As long as no one is being harmed though, religion should be allowed to be taught in public. In order to be free to explore these ideas and anyone being able to find the truth, others have to be able to express their religion freely. Even publicly.

The Freedom to practice and express a person's religion isn't harming a nonbeliever. In fact many religions have some teaching to help the needy and the poor. So even nonbelievers will gain a service from the religious population, without having to believe in it themselves.

Where it could become a danger is when a religious group demands people to believe or to be put to death, like many Islamic nations stance to kill someone who's turns away from Islam to another religion, and passively watches other religious people being killed because they aren't Islamic. That isn't freedom of religion. With freedom of religion a person has the right to not believe in a religion. I'm sure you support the freedom to not have a religion, why would you want to remove that right to those who have a religion in their lives? Are nonbelievers' rights more important then everyone else's? (Again this sounds like a power struggle more then it does about rights).

To Mr. Opinion

You said, "people lose sight of the fact that religious views are used to bring about political, social or economic action to promote the interests of one group over other groups." This really is about a power struggle more then it is about rights isn't it? Being free to express and practice a religion would affect all parts of a person's life. Including politics, jobs, and anything else. That comes with the territory of freedom. If a person believes in something then they will act on that belief. As long as there's no harm to another person, then shouldn't everyone have the freedom to practice their religion in their lives? Even the freedom to practice no religion?

To Armchair Critic.

No one has the right to not be offended. From children at school kids say hurtful things that can make other kids run home in tears. At older ages offensive, snide full comments almost become an art form for teenagers. (From what I've heard this quality of sideways back biting is more common among women being disrespectful to other women, regardless of age). As adults there's a whole circus of what is PC and what isn't that gets redefined at a moment's notice. If there's a right to not be offended it's a minefield that is outside the scope of religion. Nor can a right to not be offended be legally protected because anyone can get offended without warning.

To Belly.

I've heard stories of Scientology, and how it is harmful to those who are in it. I would stand against this religion because of what it does, and I would hope that everyone can recognize the differences between religions so that the harms in one religion aren't the reason to oppose another. As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) neither Hinduism nor Buddhism commit the level of fraud and blackmail that are common stories anomg ex-scientoligists. Should those religions be punished for something they are innocent from?

religion should be allowed to be taught in public.
Not_Now.Soon,
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree !

Not-now-soon that subject is one to be very very careful with
For no other reason than that cult/faith, is very rich very powerful and in my personal view not a true faith
It sues
The thread is meant to be about the upcoming legislation, its need, [we do need rules]
But too the pitfalls along the way, this is an emotional subject, but we must not let the very real dangers be ignored
Back to matters of being taken to court for your views
This Increasingly mad world sees that tool to silence truthful debate,will impact us all in the next few years
I differ with you on religion, it should be free to practice but no faith ever, should be involved in any government

Are nonbelievers' rights more important then everyone else's?
Not_Now.Soon,
I wouldn't call myself a non-believer, more of a not fully convinced ! Religion is not one of God's ways to make us believe in him/her/it. Religion is a man-made control mechanism in my view, nothing to do with God ! I'd imagine if there is indeed this almighty being/force then it'll be the religious who'll be left behind.
Doesn't believing in God mean to also treat our fellow human beings with respect ? Where is such respect when one watches the romp & pomp of religious ceremonies whilst the poor are looking on ? To me, religion & its followers are the height of hypocrisy !

I hope it is realised that the Religious Discrimination Bill, if Morrison is stupid enough to go ahead with it, will apply to all religions, not just Christianity. The people belly aching about what Folau said will hear some really nice things said by Muslims about homosexuality and all the other 'sins'. What else will Muslims be able to say, and do, in the name of religious freedom and Allah?

Hi TTbn,

I hope that Muslims will be given the complete freedom to espouse all of their doctrines, in the full view of all Australians: their views on women in particular, under-age marriage, polygamy, stoning, beheadings, FGM, the inferior rights of women to property and inheritance, etc. Hopefully the 'Left' will get over their Gee-wow worship of everything different, and realise (faint hope) that much of Islam is backward, reactionary (in a Marxist sense) and frankly vile.

But i do like the verse in the Koran (is it 5: 32 ?) which says that if an innocent person is killed, it is as if the whole of humanity has been killed. Did this verse apply in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, I wonder ? But then the book craps itself with the next verse, that anybody who insults the prophet, let his right hand and left foot by cut off. Real civilised.

Yes, let 100 flowers bloom, every beautiful and every rotten one of them: everybody, show us what you're on about.

But right to implement those beliefs ? That's a very different kettle of fish.

Joe

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«I've heard stories of Scientology, and how it is harmful to those who are in it.»

Religion brings its practitioners closer to God, so how could it possibly be harmful?

If harm was indeed done, as we both heard, then the implication is that, despite whatever they claim, Scientology is not a religion.

---

Dear Individual,

«Are nonbelievers' rights more important then everyone else's?»

Are we discussing the freedom to believe or the freedom to observe the practical aspects of one's religion?
The former is not under threat and does not require any legislation - the latter does.

You may not be a believer, but you could still be more religious than others who believe in God. It could well be that the romp & pomp of ceremonies is not for you, not part of your particular religion, but suppose your private religion consists of helping the poor, then a legislation to protect religious freedoms should also protect your freedom to help the poor.

The difficulty, however, is that we cannot expect the legislators and law-enforcement agencies to be able to distinguish which behaviours are religious and which are not. This is why I wrote earlier that we should all have maximum freedom in order to enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone has a religion, whether they recognise it or not, and whether or not it includes a set of beliefs, thus the protection of the freedom of religion is in the interest of everyone.

---

Dear Ttbn,

«What else will Muslims be able to say, and do, in the name of religious freedom and Allah?»

Possibly anything, but would those words and acts that are done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION indeed be religious?

If I correctly understand it, the proposed legislation is to protect religion, not to protect acts that are religious in name only!

The right not to believe should be protected
But every faith, now or in its history has not seen it that way
Could dig deeper in to that, but the thread is about getting the right balance in the coming bill
Not rehashing past or present sins of any faith
But understanding most faiths have falling numbers of followers should be said and protected too

To Belly.

I don't know the details of the new legislation, but I'm hoping the articles that reference the new bill are truthful, and that this bill would be able to be used as a shield in a fight against cooperations firing and using their leverage to demand people to shun or walk away from their religion. However in order to do that instead of making a law a weapon against the rights of others by using religion as an excuse, the law would need to be worded well, and well defined. I agree a balance in the legislation is a must. Hope it can happen.

As for the Scientology concern, I'm not afraid of them. On the other hand, I'm also not in a place to be able to fight them outside of warn others about them and tell them not to go near that religion. That said if what's being said against them by ex-believers is true then that is something worth standing against. There are dark spots in most religions and popular beliefs. But nothing gets changed if those issues aren't even brought up and addressed.

To Yuyutsu.

We aren't going to agree on what it means to have a religion, and I don't want to fight over redefining words. So I'll say it this way instead, by giving you an example. Around the world there are claims of sexual misconduct among Christian leaders. It doesn't matter whether they are Catholic or Orthodox clergy, or Protestant pastors and leaders. The point is that they used a position that is trusted and honored to hide behind when they committed the harms they did to others. I say this while also accepting Christianity as being from God. (Not all of Christian philosophies and doctrines, but that's up to Him to discern more then it's up to me). The harms that comes from within the church (including the leaders and the false doctrines) should be able to be addressed and corrected. Just as they were in the first chapters few of Revelation, the last book in the bible.

To Individual.

Same thing as with Yuyutsu applies to you. I don't want to play word wizard and redefine what it means to be a believer or a nonbeliever. So here's where I see it. Unbeliever or just unconvinced, you're more then willing to shut the door from public ministry by shutting down churches, (based on what you've said earlier on Sunday, 7 July 2019 6:28:27 PM, regarding banning religion in public). On that matter we can't just agree to disagree, because I know that the truth shouldn't be silenced. In order to not be silenced it needs to be able to be taught and challenged to see if it holds up as the truth after all. God is real, and silencing that knowledge from the public is a horrible thought.

To Ttbn.

Islam has been fighting a battle of increasing it's rights over others. So I understand your caution against Islam. However, I would rather fight that battle on it's own without sacrificing a Christian, or any other religious person from being able to live by their faith and seek what is true or not.

Yuyutsu,

What the proposed act will have in it is still a big secret know possibly only to Morrison, a man of many secrets when it comes to answering questions and saying what he really believes, if anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by religious in name only. If it's in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas or the Guru Granth Sahib, it is 'religious': Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

I don't know that any religion in Australia is in need of protection. Constitutionally, sec. 116 says only this about religion: it

"precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion."

I don't even know the government has any right to make new laws. I think that anyone should be able to say what they like about anyone, to anyone. It's what people do that can be a problem.

Dear Ttbn,

«I'm not sure what you mean by religious in name only. If it's in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas or the Guru Granth Sahib, it is 'religious': Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.»

Religion is the path which leads you to God.
There is a path for everyone, so anyone can come to God, no matter how far they are at present.
That which does not lead to God could be a "religion" only in name.

Scripture is there to help us find the path, but reading it is insufficient, because:
1) As we approach God from different circumstances, our individual paths vary, at least to a degree.
2) Our ego and out-of-control desires can easily make us interpret the scriptures wrongly.
3) Scripture is written in archaic languages and assume a particular cultural background which no longer exists.
4) Scripture is often cryptic and multi-layered.

Just as you would not attempt to climb the Everest on your own after only reading a book about it, to find your own religion, your own path to God, preferably the shortest and easiest path for you, you also need a living and proficient teacher to guide you, one who at least is closer to the destiny than yourself.

«I don't know that any religion in Australia is in need of protection.»

A few examples:

* A Jew can presently be dragged into court, say as a witness, on the Sabbath or on Jewish holidays. This breaks their 4th-commandment obligation to not drive/travel or activate electric/electronic devices on the Sabbath.

* Sikhs are not allowed to carry their kirpans on flights, despite their obligation to carry it at all times.

* Hindus are limited in their ability to bring cows into temples (on grounds of "health-and-safety" and "animal-rights").

* Christian confessions can no longer be carried out due to reporting obligations.

* The state could try to break consecrated vows (silence for example).

«I think that anyone should be able to say what they like about anyone, to anyone.»

Surely the freedom of religion means much more than freedom of speech!

Belly,

"I differ with you on religion, it should be free to practice but no faith ever, should be involved in any government"

Not even in the government of the Vatican?

What about Mount Athos?

"Although Mount Athos is legally part of the European Union like the rest of Greece, the Monastic State of the Holy Mountain and the Athonite institutions have a special jurisdiction which was reaffirmed during the admission of Greece to the European Community (precursor to the EU). This empowers the Monastic State's authorities to regulate the free movement of people and goods in its territory; in particular, only males are allowed to enter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

Ise Mise be careful what you wish for
Do you think Islam should have a hold on so many governments?
To the extent it runs some totally
Should they control every single aspect of life in those countries
At the start [we could have just continued posting in the existing thread] I spoke about caution needed and reminded the rights would be for every faith
My rights not to believe need protecting too
And I firmly, demand, no faith ever again controls or plays any formal role, in how we are governed
We must take in to consideration many, from all faiths, do not practice that faith and in increasing numbers no longer believe
As is their right

Yesterday one of the heads of Islam in this country, as expected, called for protection for his faith too
That faiths followers number about 3 percent of us, but yes should be protected
HOW do we avoid true problems
the Jewish faith is likely to number twice the Islamic one,they too want protection
This matter must be handled with great care
It also must never be used to ignore our laws

I think that the opponents of FoR are guilty of going to extremes. The rational man approach needs to be taken.

For example, a religious man that regularly attends church that refuses to make a cake with pro gay sex slogans on it is not trying to be offensive rather the reverse.

However, a notionally religious man with no record of religious devotions cannot claim religion for doing something offensive.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank you for this creative suggestion:

It is a good start, a good attempt, but how can we expect government and law-enforcement agencies to distinguish between the truly-religious and the notionally-religious?

To be able to do this, you need someone like a prophet with a divine sight into other people's hearts, but I don't believe that any prophets are currently employed, or available to be employed in the public service...

To ensure that no truly-religious person is prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake, the only available solution in our age is to give people the benefit of the doubt and allow everyone to freely choose their customers in their own private business. Choosing to refuse customers on the basis of race/gender/sexuality/etc, would anyway prove to be a very miserable and costly business strategy.

Y,

It is not original, it is the position the US supreme court took.

We have always had freedom of religion. You can be religious or not; there is no official religion; our head of state isn't the head of any religion. Quoting the Bible or any other religious tract is not illegal. Nothing Israel Folau said is illegal. The government doesn't care about what he said, and not should they. That instance is purely a matter between him and his employer. A mob of snow flakes and minorities carrying on like cut cats doesn't make the affair an official or legal issue for anyone other than Folau and Rugby Australia. It should be a non-event for everyone else.

Freedom of religion is alive and well in Australia. So is the rule of law which is more than adequate to keep our society civilised. We have too many laws already.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/incited-by-charismatic-monks-buddhist-militant-aggression-on-the-rise-20190710-p525x0.html
I get no joy out of the link yuyutsu will not either
I understand Shadow Ministers post
But truly fear, no other word will do, the rise in very radical movements within every faith
For those reasons I support the need for legislation'
But warn again it is no easy task
It must not discriminate, against, or for, any faith
Too is must not become part of any government's thinking about how to govern, we must confront the rise of hate is an enemy of every faith

I'm offended by the insidious hypocrites hiding behind religion !

'I'm offended by the insidious hypocrites hiding behind religion !'

good to see you joining the offense brigade Individual. Guaranteed to see yourself as a victim and justifying hating those who have a different view.

runner,
Well, you had to bring up hate, didn't ya ! Disagreement not crap-stirring enough for you ?
I don't hat & don't object to different views. I do however strongly object to perpetually having to fend off hypocrites & the damage they cause !

Belly,

"Ise Mise be careful what you wish for
Do you think Islam should have a hold on so many governments?"

I didn't wish for anything, that's just your normal misreading of posts.

But I do hope that in the new legislation a Hindu shopkeeper will have to stop paying his staff extra for working on a Holy Day that honours a religion that he does not believe in.

runner fair go mate! please understand in my days as a believer you very clearly, would not be considered one
In fact I truly think Christians like you do far more damage to that faith and anyone
Ise Mise, well you do try, try that is to insert your twisted views about industrial relations in to every thread
Just letting you know I give no weight to your view
HATE is an unwanted product of those who misuse their faith, miss read it, never ever understand it
We however must deal with it of see every faith slowly decline
Scomom under attack for his visit to hill song, not sure why see it in SMH

hate hate hate. Yep typical marxist rubbish by those who disagree with them. Of course the likes of antifa, unionist, homosexual lobby are so so full of love. Look at the hate directed towards Folua for simply telling the truth.

Stagger me! Belly is now an expert on who's Christian. We know he couldn't read the Bible, so where does his great knowledge come from?

Belly,

"Ise Mise, well you do try, try that is to insert your twisted views about industrial relations in to every thread"

It's not primarily about industrial relations, it's about freedom of religion.

Give me one good reason why a person who does not follow a particular religion or is an atheist should pay followers of another/any religion extra for working on one of their Holy Days?

It's not only unfair but religious discrimination.

In keeping with 'post-Christian' Australia, Essential Poll reveals that only 38% of Australians favour more protection for religion. I think that the result would come from sheer ignorance of the importance of Christianity to Western society, and the further ignorance in the misbelief that all religions are equal.

Of course, one of the loaded questions was 'should people be allowed to use religion to abuse others'. You would have to be pretty dumb to think that it was ever suggested that Christians wanted the right to abuse people.

Of course, there are a lot of pretty dumb people out there, including the ones who set questions for polls.

Well good intentions are not enough when the three stooges get together
TRY TO BE NICE, WHAT A GRUB!
Have read the Bible many times, every word
For me it was about love equality humanity, for runner it is about HATE
Ise Miserable, you know don't you? at some spot deep inside you know you are nuts
IF we lived as our God, any or all of them, called us to, this world would be heaven, truly
The thread is not about my understanding, firm belief, no God ever existed
I think it is a Warning, plea for great care, see if we get this bill wrong, it will be used by folk like you three, to do great harm.
And further degrade belief in God, any God, as he/she becomes a weapon for the truly lost, God is love not hate

Rave on Belly. You are only fooling yourself.

Again this thread asks question and warns about one of the very real problems we may make for ourselves
IF we do not get it right, already some are intent on using this thread to display a truly ignorant view on everything

Belly,

"... some are intent on using this thread to display a truly ignorant view on everything"

Glad to see that you think that confession is good for the soul.

ise miserable let's close the thread
It is clear you are a Garry, unable to talk sense on just about any subject you roll around in the mud you create
The subject will be in the spotlight soon, and we could have truly talked about it
OH not you, your lack of abilities is noted
SELF CONFIDENCE the most misplaced tool in your tool box old mate

the three stooges
Belly,
in golfing terms that'd make you a hole in one !

Belly,

You are an atheistic hypocrite, willing to accept extra money for working on a Holy Day that is dedicated to a religion's God that you deny exists.

Now let's be fair and all have a day off for the Jewish Holy Days.

"Jewish celebrations are not limited to life-cycle events. As do all religions, Judaism sets aside certain holidays and days of remembrance as holy days. These holy days are scheduled according to the Jewish calendar."
http://www.rossel.net/basic06.htm

Then there are the Muslim Holy Days.

"Although many Muslims follow the Western solar or Gregorian calendar for everyday purposes, all Muslims use the lunar Hijiri calendar to determine Islam’s holy days and holidays. The Hijiri year has 12 months of 29 or 30 days each (depending on the moon), and thus is 11 days shorter than the Gregorian year. This means that these dates are out of sync with Gregorian dates. The two calendars coincide only every 33 years. Muslim holy days can last from one day to as long as a full month"
http://classroom.synonym.com/what-are-the-holy-days-of-islam-12083777.html

Just think, with all those extra Holy Days the unbelievers could have a real bludge.

AT BEST Ise Mise you are a troll
Never saw a post from you that did not insult others
Like your first original thought I think head acres are rare for you
Try harder

Looking at all the comments on this thread, I would suggest that the PM drop any ideas he has of trying to legislate on this issue. Otherwise he will end up with more fights than Jimmy Sharmons tent at the local show. Falou and the ARU will sort themselves out given time.

Leave sleeping cats lie and concentrate on preventing those with alien cultural practices from coming here and disrupting our society.

Our political forebears have stuffed up our immigration system by being too open and the gate needs to be closed. There are plenty of other issues that require our attention before we start on the various demands of different religions.

A lot of sense there, Henry.

Belly,

Those who deny God yet profit from penalty rates on Holy Days are bludgers.

A principled atheist would refuse such money or donate it to charity.

Not near a sane comment
See Weekends are for family and cultural reasons, many more than our spite filled poster wants believe in no God
Many have other faiths, more from every group, want weekends
It is part of our very culture sports dozens of things we do together
If Christ existed he may wallop you for your constant miss use of him

It is rather the employee's religion which matters, not the employer's.

Penalty rates act as a temptation for people to stray from their religion and work on days/times when their religion forbids them from working.

Just as religious people should never be made to work on such days/times, employers too ought to have the freedom to refrain from offering their religious employees work on days/times when that would place these employees in sin.

yuyutsu please
Yes when penalty rates first came about many many more followers of God, any one of them existed
IF penalty rates are for Church goers not being able to why not Friday for Islam
What is the Jewish day of worship
At my birth 44 hour weeks was the norm, four hours on Saturday for many
A union now part of the CFMMEU marched for 40 hour week, 8 hours work 8 for sleep/rest and eight just for living
Any thought, or effort to force others to think it is about faith is constructed

Belly,

Christmas Day celebrates the birth of Christ, why would an atheist want extra pay for working on that day?

Seems like bludging on religion to me?

Did you give your penalty rates to charity?

Freedom of religion should also be about freedom from having to recognize religious practices of a religion to which one does not belong.

why would an atheist want extra pay for working on that day?
Is mise,
Why would a Christian ?

ise mise we live in different worlds, you just maybe live in one that does not exist
All around me, Churches in country villages, ones built on donated land, built by free labour
Are looking bright and like new
They now house restaurants, takeaways, even the products of winerys
Not your saint like invisible Church goers
Even once proud and strong Catholic Monasteries, three within reach, struggle to remain open
Fact is I am far from alone in my view the weekend has evolved to be nothing to do with Christianity
Mate your insistence black is in fact while, should warn you
Christianity is damaged by such as you, not helped
Now a truth you by inserting your anti worker stuff here show little respect or interest in, the very real need for a bill that while protecting does no harm to every faith

I can not get my head around ise mise, in truth his insistence weekends are the property of his faith, is weird
And not unlike some of the things that make most of us shuder from radical Islam
Sure the point of this thread [can it be I got it wrong] is not his bigoted view of wage earners rights?
Maybe I should call for a bill to protect non believers from bigoted believers?

Belly,

Just tell me why an atheist/Christian/Buddist/Islamic/Hindu/
whatever shop keeper/businessman should have to pay extra to his Christian staff (and all the unbelievers as well) who work on one of their Holy Days?

Freedom from religious discrimination is what we should also be looking at in Freedom of Religion.

Individual,

Christians shouldn't get any special rates for working on their Holy Days.

We need a level playing field.

Well, taking all things into consideration, I have concluded that freedom of speech in general - for the religious and irreligious alike - is in more urgent need protection than religion is, in Australia anyway.

ise mise we enter waters best avoided when you MANUFACTURE belief that penalty rates are an insult to the God you pretend to support
YOU in a post on this page, told me rights are not needed if that faith is not yours?
Are you fair dinkum? do you truely insist on your rather silly request that every one live by your rather bigoted view?
Wages Slaves are in my view a madness you seem to want
Is your view of God one that insists on class warfare that keeps workers poorly fed and housed?
As said God would wallop you if he existed

Just answer the questions, Belly, why do you believe that non-believers should pay their workers more on the workers' Holy Days?

Sundays are a prime example, they are only Holy Days because one of the Popes decided that they are and although the Bible insists that "...though keep holy the Sabbath Day."; the Sabbath is actually Saturday.

Why would you want people to be paid extra just because the Pope issued a decree??

We need a level playing field.
Is Mise,
The Public Servants would fight tooth & nail to prevent that !

Individual,

Spot on, vested interests to the fore!!

As Australia is seen as a secular society then true Freedom of Religion should include freedom from religion and a good place to start would be Parliament by doing away with the prayers and also removing any mention of God in the Constitution.

Is Mise,

I take it then that your idea on Help
from Above would be a sniper on the roof? :-)

Dear Belly,

«Yes when penalty rates first came about many many more followers of God»

I am not so sure: indeed more conformed to organised Christianity at the time, but were they actually following God? were they actually thinking about God while in church or were they instead thinking of the other people and following social conventions?

«IF penalty rates are for Church goers not being able to why not Friday for Islam»

Yes, them too.

As I understand it, Christians (other than 7th-day adventists) are required to attend Mass on Sundays, but there is no fixed time, so as there are many churches around that celebrate a Mass at different times, workers can attend Mass in the morning or in the afternoon, so long as they are not made to work all day. Muslims are not that flexible because a minimum quorum of 40 men is required for Friday prayers and there are fewer mosques, so it is not so easy to find alternate times for prayer. Either way, it makes sense to compensate religious workers who might have to exert themselves and travel far to find alternate services - but not if they do not go!

«What is the Jewish day of worship»

Jews worship every day, a minimum of 3 times a day, but they do not necessarily need a congregation for that.
The issue with Judaism is different, nothing to do with worship: according to the 4th commandment, Jews are not allowed to work on the Sabbath (and some Jewish holidays), which begins at sunset on Friday evenings and concludes when it is quite dark on Saturday nights (altogether about 25 hours). During that time they also cannot drive, travel or carry money/documents, so they need some extra time on Friday afternoons to get home and empty their pockets.

But surely you must already be aware of this issue from your work as a union representative.

A conscientious employer should be able to refuse not only penalty rates, but work altogether, to weak-minded Jews and 7th-day adventists who agree to work on the Sabbath.

Yuyutsu,

"As I understand it, Christians (other than 7th-day adventists) are required to attend Mass on Sundays,"

Generally, only Catholics attend Mass and as Mass is celebrated in most places on Saturday evening (and attendance counts as Sunday attendance).
Therefore there is even less need for any monetary compensation for working on a Sunday.

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-perception-of-a-problem-rather-than-a-real-problem-kingmaker-senator-questions-level-of-religious-discrimination-20190711-p526d8.html
Ise Mise swapping insults will change nothing
Sir you need to know, you truly do, your constant asking silly questions
Demanding I answer yet again, until my multiple answers suit your opinion?
Say more about you than me, BUT it reminds me you are not and never will be, other than a pain in the lower back
The link is an attempt to get back on subject
Not likely, see you side track many threads,with child like demands I think like you
LOOK at your posts,you chant endlessly are we there yet , hold your breath stamp your feet and seem intent on continuing to behave like a petulant child

yuyutsu mydays as a Christian saw full on belief and a wish for God's good deeds to be done by all
Believe it, I watched the fall of religion as it started
A long gone Preacher, once a TV elangalist, sent a woman he was related to on stage on crutches, she walked off without them, but never ever needed them in the first place
People loved God, his teachers too
Today find me a Church not tainted by that misplaced trust, find me a faith that truly helps the poor
Religion in my view comes with a cash register these days
My God would not have declared workers being paid more for their only product, time and effort, was worse than ever increasing profits for their boss

Belly,

"Demanding I answer yet again, until my multiple answers suit your opinion?"

What answers?

Belly,

Here's one faith "that truly helps the poor".

"The [Catholic] Church operates more than 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 other health clinics. Caritas, the umbrella organisation for Catholic aid agencies, estimates that spending by its affiliates totals between £2 billion and £4 billion, making it one of the biggest aid agencies in the world.

Even these numbers only tell half the tale. Caritas does not include development spending by a host of religious orders and other Catholic charities, while most of the 200,000 Catholic parishes around the world operate their own small-scale charitable projects which are never picked up in official figures. Establishing like-for-like comparisons is hard, but there can be little doubt that in pretty much every field of social action, from education to health to social care, the Church is the largest and most significant non-state organisation in the world.

A sceptic might point out that that influence can be both positive and negative. So, for example, it might be queried whether the Church’s work in education or health would be more effective if control was switched to the state. In some ways, this is the wrong question – in much of the developing world, if the Church was not involved, the services would not be provided at all. But there is a good deal of research which has attempted to compare the performance of Catholic provision of education or health with that of other providers and, in general, Catholic institutions come out rather well.
http://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/february-17th-2017/a-worldwide-force-for-good/

then there is Anglicare, the Salvation Army and not forgetting Vinnies which is a Catholic organization but independent of Church control.

All help the poor; and the not do poor by running OP Shops.

Unrelated to the thread ise mise
And ignoring the findings of the royal commission
And World wide findings
Too a reluctance to pay victims
For sure and certain some of the Catholic institutions have been seen as not safe for children
Thankfully in a very early post I said our law should always come first
And that any changes should not protect bad things

The freedom of religion legislation ScuMo wants to push through parliament is nothing more that a ploy to shore up the pro-Christian and nationalist extremists, firstly among the LNP politicians, secondly with cross benchers and senators, and thirdly with conservative voters. ScuMo is exactly like John Howard: constantly setting things up to win the next election. Getting re-elected is the only thing politicians are ever worried about.

Belly,

If my answer is unrelated to the thread then so was your question.

I answered your question, in common courtesy.

How about you do the same.

As you don't like the answer giving you an example of churches that help the poor perhaps you'd be so kind as to list a few atheistic institutions that do as much?

Mr opinion maybe you are in part right but the fact remains this subject needs thought
Too the reality all faiths, some more than others, are failing to prosper
As time passes and faith becomes more about politics we may see the end of some
Mean while the now no longer Churches around here have more fast food purchasers than they had followers, for decades

Belly'

"And ignoring the findings of the royal commission
And World wide findings
Too a reluctance to pay victims
For sure and certain some of the Catholic institutions have been seen as not safe for children"

and what has all that got to do with churches helping the poor?

You asked the question; don't you like the answers?

Dear Belly,

«Believe it, I watched the fall of religion as it started»

It was not the fall of religion - it was the fall of organised Christian churches.

You do not need an organisation to be religious. You do not even need organisations to be a Christian: Jesus Christ had no organisation, you can follow him directly, or make an effort to.

«My God would not have declared workers being paid more for their only product, time and effort, was worse than ever»

Ever? What about slavery? has it not been rampant and now nearly eliminated?

Please look at the broader scheme: God's universe does respond infallibly to good effort, but the reward is not necessarily financial and not necessarily immediate in this lifetime.

That said, workers can be no less greedy than their bosses: having less money does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't like to have money at least as much. Should they all get more? including those who would spend it unhealthily or to harm others? including those who would gamble it away? including those who put no real effort at work, including those who do their own thing during the time they are paid for to work, in effect a form of stealing? including those whose work is not really useful and necessary, doing nothing good for the world other than serving their boss's ego and pockets? including those whose work actually harms others?

Also consider an employer who used to treat his/her employees badly, or perhaps even a slave-master, who died and now has to spend their next lifetime(s) under similar conditions as their former employees/slaves, experiencing for themselves the pain that they caused to others: would you consider this unjust?

Nevertheless, God's good work can also be performed by people, including by His servant, Belly of the Union, who unexpectedly storms in to improve working conditions. Please consider it a privilege: you have probably been serving God no less than church-goers!

Jesus said: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Belly,

"Too the reality all faiths, some more than others, are failing to prosper

Funny that I did a bit of research on the net and got the opposite answer.

Where do you get your information, out of your prejudice box?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-14/how-the-catholic-church-ruled-with-despots-in-latin-america/11214044
It was never my intention that this thread put any God on trial
Never that one relidgion should be targeted and others praised
Ise Mise brought the good deeds of the Catholic Church in to the debate
I counter with the link, free to read site, read it then tell me SOME religion, as practiced by some followers are not truly in trouble
Please understand, I do, true Christians [the same may be said for most faiths] sets out rules that are the best plan to live by
BUT ignore at your peril some have hijacked God,claiming he/she is a supporter of one side of politics
Combined with the news in the link religion is shrinking as people ignore the very teachings of their faith

To Belly.

I believe you when you ask about this topic of faith. "What do we do about it" kind of question without trying to harm those in each religion. At least that's what I get from this topic.

However, there are two lines of logic that I see that are battling each other out on this topic. I think taking a side on either can be deceptive because it feeds it's own argument instead of seeing the merit of the other one (or seeing other potential paths of reasoning).

The two lines of logic that I see are:

1) fairness to all religions. (Treating them all the same).
2) supporting one philosophy or another (whether it is one of the religions or a lack of religion philosophy). This logic aims to point out how one view is right and the others are not; or conversely to point out how the others are not right and leave it there.

I could be wrong, but by your comments it seems you're taking the first line of logic to treat all religions equally as if they are the same. In that light to support freedom of religion equally.

I want to warn you that both of the logical arguments have a weakness in either not seeking the truth about any perspective (because they are all the same anyways), or to not support freedom and liberty in the expression of all religions (because differentiating between them means supports some over the others).

It's just a thought and an observation on this debate over religion. Know the weakness of the over all argument.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second thought is a practical approach to the issue of religious freedom. Let everyone be able to explore and express any religion (and lack of religion), but at the same time, when a person or an organization breaks the law or causes harm, then don't sit idly by out of support for freedom. If the laws stand firm for everyone, then all religions are equal in the face of the law. Just make sure the laws don't create a way for businesses or government offices to silence a person believing and practicing their religion by writing employee contracts restricting them outside of work. (Or firing them because of what they say on Facebook or Twitter).

" Jesus Christ had no organisation, you can follow him directly, or make an effort to."

He had a gang of 12, small but an organization just the same and at the Last Supper, He made sure that it would continue and grow.

Dear Belly,

«BUT ignore at your peril some have hijacked God,claiming he/she is a supporter of one side of politics»

Those who hijack God for the sake of politics are not religious, thus their actions are outside the scope of this discussion.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«1) fairness to all religions. (Treating them all the same).»

Nice talk, but how, when the number of religions equals the number of people?!

What's the point in treating the same just a few large and loud organisations who claim to have a monopoly on religion, while ignoring everyone else's private religions?

«Let everyone be able to explore and express any religion (and lack of religion), but at the same time, when a person or an organization breaks the law or causes harm, then don't sit idly by out of support for freedom.»

Breaking the law is one thing, causing harm is another - so please do not bunch them together.
When there is an actual threat of harm, people normally and without dispute defend themselves (other than the very best who instead turn their other cheek, their own cheek of course, not others').

«If the laws stand firm for everyone, then all religions are equal in the face of the law.»

Now if you are going about making laws in general and "equal laws" in particular, then you cannot be fair:

The law for example says, "No sharp metal objects on flights": Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists and most others are not affected, but Sikhs are devastated.

Or the law says, "Everyone must attend court on the day they are called to witness": Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and most others are not religiously affected, but Jews are devastated if that day is the Sabbath or a Jewish holiday when they are not allowed to travel.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

yuyutsu mate you continue to find things in my words I never wanted
The thread is about warning not to take some protections away while increasing others
Tried avoiding my view no God ever existed
Just want to amplify growing concerns the bill is about Christianity, maybe at the expense of other faiths

Dear Belly,

You would be privileged indeed if you had even a clue what Morrison plans for his "religious-freedom" bill. I could not find any information about content, they only talk about the politics around it.

To further obfuscate their intent, politicians mention all sorts of irrelevant issues such as "freedom of speech" or prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, both unnecessary and have very little to do with freedom of religion. It looks like this loud cry is going to end with a whimper, just like the minuscule reduction in the deeming rate for pensioners by only 0.25%.

yuyutsu yes I too share the view we may well be confronted by what Scomo puts in front of us
No doubt in my mind some want to protect one faith and too that some are determined to see that done
My thought that the thing needs care and balance remains
Too my view Christianity is in decline
Just maybe true reform can save it, separating it in America at least, from politics
And too in that country from massive cash grab maybe tax on it?
Still freedom to worship should remain a right always

Freedom to worship should remain a right as should freedom not to worship and no religion should be given special status.

How worship is carried out must always be subject to legal restraints by the State.

To Yuyutsu.

Religions are not all the same. They are not all true either. Without religious freedom people can't search for the truth on their own. But once they find a kernel of truth, they can't follow it unless they step away from all the wrong paths. This is the dynamic I was trying to point out earlier.

In order for there to be freedom of religion then all religions need to be treated fairly and equally. This is good for people to explore their views and to be able to challenge what they thought. However, the downside is that by saying all of it is equal, it takes the responsibility out of the religions for what they do right, or what they do wrong. (Because they are all the same). It can also be an obstacle for someone who searches for the truth to take a stand, because they are standing against religious freedom when they say the issues facing any religion specifically. Even to say other religions are wrong. (Atheism for instance says this of all religions that believe in God in one way or another).

On the other hand. When a person finds the truth, (or at least thinks they have), then they would pursue it over the other religions, or philosophies. This is good also because it means a person can go forward on a right path instead of stuck in the mud saying "all ideas are equal" and not actually investigate it further to see if it's right or how it can help them. The downside is that in order to be discriminating one idea or one religion as better then the others, means a weakened stance of freedom of religion as a whole.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You mentioned though that certain practices can be hindered by the law. Jews forced to court on a Jewish holiday, or on a sabbath; and Sikh wanting to travel on a plane can't carry a knife they are suppose to ware for justice at all times.

Are they equally free if they are restricted by the law to do something they don't want to do? If it's the laws of the land and they affect everyone, then yes that is fair for everyone as well. That said there are things that can make this easier. A Jewish person can travel the day before to the city they are called as a witness, and as long as they travel in the city on the sabbath, it seems that travel restrictions are restricted to walking only. It's an obstacle, but there are practical solutions. Or they can communicate to the court by a video conference to be a witness, if that is an option.

For the Sikh carrying a knife on a plane, allowing a weapon on a plane is a dangerous rule to allow. If a Sikh can't part from it for a while to be stored in their luggage, then perhaps going on a plane is something they shouldn't do. (Since the knife worn is there for defending oneself or someone else, I'm sure having no weapons allowed on a plane would count as keeping the danger away for everyone else also).

Following the laws of the land should be an equalizer for everyone, unless the law is unjust or asks something that has no practical solution for it, they should be obeyed. That said, not every harm is identified by the laws. Some people can't defend themselves. If that happens don't stand idly by in the name of freedom of anything while watching idly a crime or another abuse.

While reading a report about Donald Trump yesterday, in an American newspaper these figures came up
70 percent of evangelicals and 55 percent of Catholics now support Trump
Those figures are said to be lower than 2016
I charge American evangelicals with not being true Christians
In fact wonder how many Catholics are [at least in the Priesthood]
And further charge those miss using God, such as the above, with being the reason numbers of worshippers are falling
I agree totally, with the opinion above, every one must have the right to believe and practice what they want to
But again warn getting this bill wrong will increase the fall in numbers and could make things worse if not done right

We are a secular society so no religion should be favoured by the State as Christianity now is.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«all religions need to be treated fairly and equally.»

Definitely fairly, though I do not quite understand what you mean by "equally", given that different religions have very different needs. Suppose you want to treat all people equally by giving them an equally nice cake: most will enjoy it, but those with diabetes could die.

"Freedom of speech", for example, may be important to Christians who need to spread the good news, but not for the Druze who keep their religion secret.

The main difficulty in attempting to treat all religions fairly, if not equally, is to be able to recognise and distinguish religious behaviour from other behaviours. It is too easy to cheat and pretend to be religious - God sees to the heart, but people normally do not.

While we seem to disagree on this point, my observation is that there are no wrong religions, but there are non-religions, there are pretenders as well as those who delude themselves, and at times it is pretty difficult to tell the difference.

Regarding Jews, any form of travel is forbidden on the Sabbath, other than walking or being carried/pushed by other people. Carrying any objects other than one's clothing (even keys) outside one's home is also forbidden (some cities are excepted, but not in Australia) and so is the use of electrical devices, including metal detectors, electronic keys, elevators, microphones or video equipment. Even cutting toilet paper (should the need arise in court) is forbidden, and since cooking is also forbidden and the food in city-hotels/restaurants is not kosher (and must also be paid for, which is also not allowed), this means that Jews would also have to go hungry, thus you can begin to understand the anguish laws can bring on religious Jews.

With Sikhs, however, there is a solution, a bit cumbersome but possible with goodwill: their kirpan could be encased in a hard metal box, so it would be locked by airport authorities on departure and unlocked on arrival. They would then carry the box on the plane without being able to open it.

Yuyutsu.

You asked what does it mean to treat all religions equally. What it means is that the laws and standards that govern the country are the same for everyone regardless of religion. To be fair to each religion would mean to not make laws that are aimed as a burden for some religions. The example I have for breaking both fair and equal laws are the laws in many Islamic countries. Where the rules are that if you aren't Muslim then you aren't protected from the law. Or worse in some countries not being Muslim is enough to be stripped of your rights and actively harmed (as opposed to just not being protected). In western countries Islamic law is beconing a political tool to create a set of laws specific for Muslims that is outside of the nation's set of laws.

To be fair to a Jewish man (or woman), he can make his appeal to the court about when he can be a witness and ask the court to make amends for him. If the court will not budge on the matter then the cost of his actions to make preparations to follow the court summonings. Or to disobey are in that individual's hands to handle himself. On the other hand though, are courts open on Saturdays, or is this a purely hypothetical stand point not a practical one?

(Continued)

(Continued)

To be fair to a Sikhish person is a much more difficult issue. The safety of a plane is the reason for the security measures to not allow a knife to be carried. It has nothing to do with the Sikh religion, nor was it made specifically for them. Yet it is a burden for them. There is no real answer for this because if you allow a Sikh tradition to carry a knife on board, then there comes the issue of someone claiming a religous belief in order to bring a weapon on board a plane. This should not be allowed. Not because of the Sikh that hold to the idea of justice and self defense, but because of the terrorist that are willing to look for any weakness to spread their violence and death. (I don't know enough about the people Following Sikh beliefs to judge their words as truthful or not, so I'll give them the benifit of the doubt that this tradition is true to their beliefs as it's outlined by online sources).

Regarding the Draze, they don't have to spread their religious beliefs to gain the benefits of freedom of speech. Yuyutsu, do you know anyone, from any religion or perspective that doesn't want freedom to speak freely (even if it isn't about speaking about their religion it's about being able to speak freely about what they deem important). Personally I know of no one who doesn't value their own rights to speak freely. Even if they don't value other people the same right, they still think that they should be allowed to talk freely.

To Is Mise.

I thought Australia was a democratic society, not a secular one. The difference being that the laws would reflect the people who vote for them, not reflect a stance on religion that it means to be secular. What this means is that if a large enough population is Christian then that would also be reflected in the laws and traditions of the area. Having a separation of religion and state doesn't mean that that everything of a religious nature will be done away with. That would also include holidays and weekends. If the community favors those days off, then as a democracy, having those days off are a reflection of the people in it.

It turned out ok, feared we would defend some faiths and insult others
OH it did inform us workers are evil
Ignoring the fact they for the most part are the faithful
But it remain the truth, how this bill is formed will be very important
If it divides it is a failure if it unites well done
No easy task

"Australian state formally came into being in 1901 the Constitution was at pains to make clear we were a secular democracy. Section 116 says:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

In the process of drafting the Constitution churches argued for recognition of God and that all law ultimately derives from God, but these were rejected. A restrained reference to “Almighty God” was included in the preamble but not in the Constitution itself.

In light of this it is nothing more than mythology to suggest Australia was established as a Christian country. We have been intentionally secular ever since we began."
http://scottjhiggins.com/we-are-not-a-christian-country-never-have-been-never-will-be-never-want-to-be/

We are a secular nation and the PM allowing himself to be filmed having a sing-song at Hillsong goes against the intentions of the Constitution.

We find common ground ise mise but in truth hill song repells me for other than that
Why please someone tell me why servants of Christ [not in fact just in name] so very often are pedophils
And too why so many cover for them
In this case a nine year old was told by the head of the CASH FOR CHRIST Church, you are to blame [for an act by his father]
IF Christianity can stop the crime, stop the cover up, only then can it return to a place in our lives and claim leadership
I doubt such a Church will even try

"Why please someone tell me why servants of Christ [not in fact just in name] so very often are pedophils"

Because the churches and other organizations have been infiltrated by homosexual paedophiles abetted/encouraged by the leaders in paedophilia, mainly aetheists.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pedophilia

you CAN NOT be fairdinkum mate!
Yes pedophils are atracted to Churches boy scouts and cubs a host of places
But in the house of GOD any GOD?
Surely some one knew, someone knows?
Truth is one offending Priest said these words
*it is God's fault, he made us like this*

«You asked what does it mean to treat all religions equally. What it means is that the laws and standards that govern the country are the same for everyone regardless of religion.»

The legend goes that in the city of Sodom (the twin of Gomorrah), they had a "standard" bed: when a guest came to town, they would put him on the bed - if he was shorter than the bed then they pulled him to match its length and if he was longer then they cut his legs.

So one must decide, either fairness or equality: you cannot have both!

«To be fair to each religion would mean to not make laws that are aimed as a burden for some religions.»

Whether a truck deliberately runs over you or an elephant stomps over you unintentionally because you just happen to be in his path, the result for you is the same...

Avoiding laws that deliberately prohibit religious practices, is already established in the Australian constitution - I was hoping that Morrison wanted to take it a step further.

«To be fair to a Jewish man (or woman), he can make his appeal to the court about when he can be a witness and ask the court to make amends for him.»

Yes, and in most cases the court is compassionate, but they do not have to, it depends on the goodwill of the individual judge, perhaps on his/her mood.

«are courts open on Saturdays, or is this a purely hypothetical stand point not a practical one?»

Courts are not open on Saturdays other than for urgent matters such as seeing those who were just arrested. But they could be sitting late on Fridays, when in mid-winter, sunset is around 5pm (4:30 in Hobart). The Jewish holidays, however, are based on the lunar calendar and could occur on any day of the week. The rules applying to the major Jewish holidays are almost the same as the rules of the Sabbath.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«To be fair to a Sikhish person is a much more difficult issue. The safety of a plane is the reason for the security measures to not allow a knife to be carried.»

Safety will not be compromised if the Sikh dagger is carried inside an unopenable hard metal case, which only security personnel could open on arrival.

It could incur a bit of an expense to provide this service in airports, but it would be straight-forward to implement for domestic flights. On international flights more sophistication is needed. I can think of several methods:

1) a cooperation agreement with foreign security agencies; or
2) the Sikh person has to purchase (or pay a bond on) the case and the lock is released automatically after some time (say 24 hours); or
3) the lock can be released by the Sikh him/herself, but only by obtaining a code on the internet, which will only be provided after the plane landed safely; or
4) the Sikh person has to purchase the case, then take it to a locksmith at the destination.

(technical notes: the case would also broadcast periodic signals to alert security if it was not taken on board the appropriate flight. For multi-legged international flights, cases can be placed inside larger cases)

An alternate approach is to provide Sikh people with a welded metal box that can never be opened, containing a Sikh dagger, other than their own which would go in the luggage. They would then pay a bond and receive a refund at their destination when they hand in the box.

YUyutsu,

I know many Sikhs and have flown into Amritsar a number of times and the passengers were mostly Sikhs.
The Sikhs that I know have no problems flying they pack their religious symbols in cargo luggage and that's that.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Sorry I missed addressing you: my last double-post was addressed to you.

«Yuyutsu, do you know anyone, from any religion or perspective that doesn't want freedom to speak freely (even if it isn't about speaking about their religion it's about being able to speak freely about what they deem important).»

Oh everyone wants the freedom to speak freely, that's for sure, but does it have any religious benefit? Otherwise, while you could support or oppose ordinary desires, it would be unrelated to this thread about "Freedom of Religion".

If we look deep enough, nobody actually obtains any real benefit from anything but their religion. The difficult question, however, is what exactly does one's religion consists of - and while we can point at general outlines, the details differ from one person to another, and even for the same person, from one time to another.

Since feeble-minded humans (prophets aside) have a hard time distinguishing between the religious and the mundane, even the profane, I suggested that every freedom ought to be allowed in order to give us all the benefit of the doubt in case our actions are religious, but not in order to equally support all actions whatsoever.

There is this book, "The Sparrow" (by Mary Doria Russell) where radio broadcast is received from outer space and a Jesuit space expedition is sent to the source planet to convert the aliens. To cut things short, while they believed that the radio-music had a spiritual meaning, they (the sole survivor) discovered the hard way that it was a song in glorification of anal rape. Now should the aliens still be allowed to broadcast such "music"? Yet how dare we as mere mortal humans, presume to know what others' (including non-human aliens') religion is, what path best leads them to God?

Dear Is Mise,

«The Sikhs that I know have no problems flying they pack their religious symbols in cargo luggage»

SOME Sikhs have no problems, others don't fly. http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/33884/are-there-any-flights-which-permits-a-sikh-to-carry-a-kirpan

Some Jews also fail to observe the Sabbath, some Muslims fail to fast on Ramadan: this ought to be taken up between them and God, not between them and secular authorities.

Kirpans need not be more than 6cm long, so some airlines now do allow small kirpans:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/sikhs_can_carry.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/sikhs-can-now-wear-small-kirpans-on-flights-in-canada/story-SQEEHMK6IdpwP41C2Ic87N.html

There was also one case where an airline allowed a kirpan where the sheath was permanently welded and could not be opened.

On starting the thread I honestly feared it would bring out bigots, seems only a few
I refrain from naming them, or the worst one, but remind posters if based on nothing but our posts, this is a subject to be careful with
And we can hope, but truly not expect, it will be treated like that during the debate when it comes before parliament
In the end it seems Christianity has changed during my lifetime maybe all faiths have
It would be unthinkable in the 1940,s to see pedophils in the faith,cash more important than Christ [or so it seems]and one side of politics claiming God is on their side

Belly,

Why don't you name the bigots?

Mates of yours are they?

ise mise sorry to inform you but you are not a mate
We could be friends but never mates
IF the cap fits know it was made for you
Now I have mates who vote Liberal, National, One Nation , Greens and others one close one that follows Manly in the NRL
But sorry to say not you
Closed minds repel me, anyone who damns workers [CHRISTIAN WORKERS?] for penalty rates is not my mate
But unknown [almost for sure] to you your opinions do more harm than good to your God

Dear Belly,

Here's something to make you smile.
Talking about religion.

Many people will believe without question that there's an invisible
person in the sky who watches over them yet if you tell
them - "Don't touch that - it's wet paint," They'll
touch it to see if its still wet.

Funny that.

To Is Mise.

Democracy isn't about being secular or any religious bent. It's about the people. If there's a cross range of people with different ideologies, and beliefs, then that's going to show up in some way or another in society. If it's large enough a population, then it'll even show up in days off, or in policies and legislation. This is the way it is even if a religion it stems from is not officially endorsed. That's the only point I was trying to address in my last reply. I wasn't trying to suggest whether Australian government was Christian or secular. Only that democracy should always be a reflection of the people it is serving and representing. (Including religious people if they have a large enough population to have their say in the culture).

Yes indeed Foxy, still feeling ise mises remoteless from the Christianity I once knew
And strongly believing those type of faith followers are the reason numbers are in decline
This world needs unity but is being fed division no bright future in that

Belly,

You are an anti-Catholic bigot, every chance you get, plus the ones you manufacture, you are on about Catholic paedophiles yet you studiously ignore all the other groups that contain paedophiles, especially atheists.

RUOK? probably not judging by your posts and thoughts
Yes pedophils come from every walk of life, even non believers
Such people, no exceptions are the lowest form of filth
Always
Now yes other, maybe all, Churches are involved
World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries
Tell of these investigations, being horrified by them, does not make me a hater
You highlight your uninformed HATE here daily
In that post, clearly, we can see a symptom of the help Priests got, even from parents, when molesting kids
SOME in that Church forgot it is Christ, not the priest they worship
Unless true accountability not blind defense become the path the Catholic Church is doomed

Good one Belly, bigoted as they get.

Can we move away from the semi-fascist notions of 'collective guilt' - that if one of a group is guilty of some dreadful crime, then all of his/her ilk are equally guilty, and should be stigmatised as such.

Not all Muslims - in fact, very few - are plotting and planning terrorist acts. Not all Aboriginal people are lousy parents, drunks, violent wife-bashers and child-abusers. Not all Pommies are up themselves.

We have to find ways to reconcile, or at least allow to co-exist, various freedoms which may clash - freedom of expression along with freedom of religious beliefs, along with freedom to live as one wishes provided it doesn't require breaking the common law. Society will always be imperfect, so clashes between basic rights are inevitable.

Joe

Belly,

You said "World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Care to give a reference?

Loudmouth thank you!
Any other path,[than trying to live together] will never work
Not near everyone from any faith group nation is in any way a threat
Bigotry is wrong always
We and the world, are multiculturalism at work
Reversing that is impossible

Belly,

"Reversing that is impossible"

So is a reference apparently.

ise mise do people avoid you on the street
Are you called a grumpy old man
Any joy in you, even if it has to be wrung out
Seems your self confidence is badly misplaced still its the best you can do
Morning news it seems has ganged up on Israel, he we are now told is from a Church with 30 members and he and that Church claim Catholics and most others are going to hell

Belly,

Having trouble finding a reference to back up your bigoted outlook?

See Paul, he's a wizard on finding references.

Did you know that the people considered to be the worst paedophiles ever are mostly non-Catholics and atheists?

Here's a bad one:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/14/how-did-one-of-most-prolific-paedophiles-in-history-get-away-with-crimes

The above, in orange type, is a reference.

Sir you are a bigot
IF it comes, your next original thought, will be your first
Never the less you bring a grin to my day
30 years ago, wet and rainy day, in a roadside lunch shed
A man known as the Minister for main roads stated an argument, with every one in that shed
After putting printed evidence in front of him,proving he was wrong,
He ise mised us
Claiming I am wrong but I am right!

Belly,

Having still more trouble finding a reference to back up your statement,

"World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Now is that statement true or false?

Or are you just another anti-Catholic bigot who prattles on without checking anything?

Which world-wide investigations?
I'm waiting with bated breath.

Ise Mise fact is you are blind, truth needs air in your comments
CHILDLIKE you constantly question me and others but refuse to take the answers we give
No joy just pain, in saying the Roman Catholic Church , long thought by some to be the antiChrist has more published evidence about its pedophils than any other Church
Irland , no country more Catholic, has shown it no longer trusts, yes trusts your Church
In fact a blind man could see your Church needs to reform or die
Goggle, please, Catholic pedophils, it will take you a month to read but you will never again claim my words are lies
*antiChrist*? see the words from the pulpit of the Church of the subject of the long thread still active here

It was not the way I wanted the thread to go
The last 30 or so posts often denigrated faiths
My view is known, but still the thread is about
Fairness and balance in the coming legislation
I FEAR some, not near all, in this government, may use the bill to entrench division
I could write a thousand posts about wrongs I see, from wearing the Burka [in my view enslaving women]
To hillsong that money making enterprise
But if we let this bill become biased we risk further long term damage to faiths and the community

Dear Belly,

«The last 30 or so posts often denigrated faiths»

This includes four of my latest posts: Please explain in what way(s) you believe that I denigrated any faith.

yuyutsu nothing
And never claimed they did
Re read, focus on,insults to workers over penalty rates
Note me being branded bigot for re producing known truths about pedophilia in the Catholic Church
Within the thread deliberate targeting of anything I said by a bottom dweller included ignoring the very real dangers in protecting a Church even when it is guilty
Again great wisdom will be needed in drafting the coming bill

To Yuyutsu.

<<So one must decide, either fairness or equality: you cannot have both!>>

When it comes to the laws of the land in order to be fair or to be equal, the law needs to do both to do either. Same treatment regardless if you are rich or poor is fair, it is also equal. The same principle is applied regardless of your body type, your religion, or anything else. It's not about making people equal like the story of Sodom you know involving torture, but about treating them by the same standard equally. There are instances where equal treatment does not mean fair treatment, such as a standard applied to everyone that not everyone can afford (such as school supplies or dress code requirements); however over all usually fair treatment and equal treatment overlap.

<<Avoiding laws that deliberately prohibit religious practices, is already established in the Australian constitution - I was hoping that Morrison wanted to take it a step further.>>

You've talked about similar stuff in the past about having no rules, or removing the standards in schools, in airport security, and I think at least one other thing (though I can't remember it right now). It sounds like you have an issue with governments governing the people and having laws and standards made for any institution. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but right now the issue of laws prohibiting religious practices is ongoing on a larger theme of deconstructing the authority of the government (or of any governing body, and standards of rules as a whole). If I'm wrong let me know. If I'm right though then this harms your stance on religious rights. Because it seems to be about using religions (any religion) as a means to promote anarchy. I hope I'm wrong, but hope you can address that point anyways.

(Continued)

(Continued)

<<in most cases the court is compassionate, but they do not have to, it depends on the goodwill of the individual judge, perhaps on his/her mood.>>

I do not support the idea of restricting judges from doing their jobs effectively. Hope for a compassionate judge. Any further comment on this matter will have to wait until I hear back on on your stance on anarchy or the scope of anyone (judges, governments, school boards) to have a measure of rules to place everyone on. If on a whole you do not support rules being made for the people, then there's not much left to say on the matter, except that I support judges to do their job effectively.

I would listen more to the plight against Jews on sabbath and holidays if it is coming from a Jewish source. Until then I don't know how they feel about going to court outside of the general opinion of annoyance for having to do it like most everyone else has. As for the Sikhish person, I would again like to hear the matter from one of them about airport security. Nonetheless, any policy to restrict security measures is a policy that I don't support. It's not the Sikhish I'm worried about. It's the Muslim terrorists that look for weak spots in society to be able to drive the greatest amount of harm to their target. A locked box might work, but it defeats the point of wearing it if it can't be used to protect yourself or others. I doubt a devote Sikhish person will recognize the difference between locking their knife in a box, or not wearing it at all.

yuyutsu this would be a great world if every faith understood and practised the fact we are all human
If only faith was about living together as one no matter the faith
Sounds like a dream? it is never going to happen
That should confront us all

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Same treatment regardless if you are rich or poor is fair, it is also equal.»

It cannot be both: the rich pay higher taxes. Fair? Yes, Equal? No.
For the same offence, the rich pay a fine which barely hurts them while the poor cannot pay the fine so they go to jail (or do community work). Fair? No, Equal? Yes.

The two ideas always clash because humans are never equal. Our innermost nature is the same (that is, what we all truly are, is God), but our human manifestations are different: we have different needs and require different treatments. I am always on the side of fairness, compassion.

Regarding Anarchy, the Greek means "No ruling".
I do not oppose ruling outright, but rather believe that no ruling is proper without consent. To rule over another without their consent, is violence. If/when consent is given, then whatever agreement was freely made between the ruler(s) and the ruled (usually in the form of a constitution) is fine with me, be it some type of a democracy or monarchy or socialism, whatever, so long as it was agreed.

The purpose of rule, is to curb the destructive expressions of the morally-lower segments of society, thus provide a measure of order and stability. It is assumed, often propagandised, that the ruler(s) is/are better (morally) than the ruled, or at least equal. But what if this is not the case?

It should never happen that the morally-inferior rules over the morally-superior. If one is internally ruled by God, then one should not be ruled by man. One who knows what is right should never be ordered to do wrong. You wouldn't agree either, for example, if followers of Christ are ruled by followers of the devil.

In Australia, we are surrounded by a social belief in equality, as if nobody is morally-superior than others, but this is total nonsense. True, it can be difficult to ascertain who is morally-better, especially in the face of imposters:

[continued...]

[...continued]

one way to go about it is to have prophets that can tell the difference, the other way is to seek the people's permission to be ruled over. Neither is currently being followed.

«You've talked about similar stuff in the past about having no rules, or removing the standards in schools, in airport security»

Schools ought to have strong rules and high standards.
But these rules ought to be set by the parents (or suggested by the teachers and accepted by the parents), not by government.

Airport security is cruel for the many due to the destructiveness of some very few - and still it is not very effective.

One of the most secure airports in the world is Israel's Ben-Gurion airport, despite the fact that Israel has so many bitter enemies that would have wished to blow up Israeli planes. The reason is that Israel does not play or show off the "Equality" card, but prefers innovation, obscurity/covertness and common sense. As a result, you can fly from Israel with your own water/juice bottles, but not from Australia.

«It sounds like you have an issue with governments governing the people and having laws and standards made for any institution.»

Without consent, nor divine authority.

Even then, in Australia the valuing of equality and transparency burdens the many with unnecessary standards, for the sins of the few.

---

Dear Belly,

«yuyutsu this would be a great world if every faith understood and practised the fact we are all human»

I think they already do: no faith condemns rabbits as sinners or infidels.

The point is, that we are NOT humans - what is to be understood and practised is that our true nature is divine!

«If only faith was about living together as one no matter the faith»

How can you live "together" if you are one to begin with, live "as one" when we are already one? The key is to know the oneness beneath the apparent diversity, then respect both.

yuyutsu never going to understand you but know you want the best for humanity[even if you think we are not human]
IF we had one faith, if that faith preached we are all equal and practiced it I a non believer would want to be part of it
See part of the world troubles is we no longer, in numbers big enough have such a belief and it hurts us as we get further away from rules to live by

Dear Belly,

Deep beneath this mask (Greek "persona") of a human, we all are equal. This is because beneath our human mask, we are one and the same (which some of us call 'God'). Uncorrupted religions teach this.

«IF we had one faith, if that faith preached we are all equal and practiced it I a non believer would want to be part of it»

If what you mean by "we" is humans, then you probably have not thought the consequences through and would shudder if you did:

If we had just one faith and it preached and practised that humans are equal, then we would all be living in hell. It would be torture.

For example, some humans are short others are tall, but we all get equal clothing.
Some are heavy (fat), others light (thin), but we all get the same equal amount of calories.
Some can eat everything, others are allergic to certain foods, but we all get exactly equal meals.
Some are strong, others are weak, but we all are expected to carry the same weight.
Some are intelligent, others are dull, but we all are expected to perform equal intellectual tasks and read the exact same books.
While we have different tastes, we are all expected to have/marry the same partner in life, with the same number of children each, pets too.
In such a world, we all live in equal houses, with the same number, size and shape of rooms, equal in decoration and furniture, including equal beds regardless of our physique and medical needs.

And so on.

Human equality is anything but good.

Respect, yes. Respect comes from the knowledge that deep inside we are all one and the same.

To Yuyutsu.

The logic of only being ruled if given consent is a flawed logic. A murder will never give consent to follow the laws or to agree to the punishment for murder. The people who don't break the laws should have some protection from those that do. I understand your not liking all the laws given, that comes with the package. There are governing rules such as taxes that no one likes to pay, speed limits that really only help make speed traps and tickets for people driving on the highway. And even rules that help the rich and play an unfair set of laws made to favor some over others. In the cases that there is unjust laws, and injustice, the point is to change the laws to be just.

Laws are made to protect people. Those that don't consent to the laws don't get a free pass. The only one that is above the laws is God Himself. The Maker and the Redeemer. God is not everyone. Those that rule badly will have Him to answer to. Not in the next reincarnation, but after death (if not while still alive).

IF we had no oceans we may well have developed as one people, or maybe we would not even exist
But we did develop and in different ways, with different Gods
We, one day, will be one humanity but we have some more evolution to come first

To Belly.

I know many people here think religions are all man made, and that God, (all the different varieties from different religions) is just as much made up. So the point that God is real and the importance of finding out which religions (if any) are from Him are important. In my opinion having freedom of religion is a buffer from one religious organization or another holding too much power, potentially reducing the people's ability to search for God on their own.

However that said. There's another point I want to address. I don't think humanity evolves. Culture and technology changes, as we can see the differences in societies in different nations and throughout history. However people are still largely the same. The same stories written by Shakespeare several hundred years ago still show the same struggles we connect with and face today. I don't think humanity evolves socially. Every new generation has to figure out most of the same lessons their parents and grandparents did. Without the life lessons of most people's great great grand parents (due to them passing on and not able to direct the younger generations to avoid the same mistakes) every new generation is bound to re-explore the same ideas and same mistakes that happened just 3 or 4 generations ago. (Why else would socialism in all it's failed attempts have to be repeated by different governments only to face the same negative results.

I wish this was not the case. But as far as I can tell humanity doesn't evolve. The same good things and bad things are probably all there since the stone ages. In fact I would argue that primitive societies in the stone ages are just as good and bad as we are today. (Meaning they are just as sophisticated, and we are just as primitive).

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We are all ruled by God - those who know it and those who do not.
We are also all protected by God, so justice is assured in any case.

Then why are we not happy?
Why don't we just trust in God?
Why do we ask for feeble human protection when we already have the protection of the almighty?

This lack of trust is born of weakness, of sin, of forgetfulness, of fear. Except for a few who are fearless and pure in heart, we are generally found wanting.

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." [Jeremiah 2:13]

This sin of faithlessness on its own warrants vulnerability.

«The people who don't break the laws should have some protection from those that do.»

Laws or otherwise - good people should be protected from bad people.

But why must this protection come in the form of laws, especially of laws that are imposed indiscriminately on everyone?
(besides, do such laws really protect? have we no crime regardless?)

«A murder[er] will never give consent to follow the laws»

Then what good is there in imposing such laws which they do not accept anyway?

You want to prevent murder? then prevent the murder, do what it takes, if need be even kill the potential murderers before they get a chance to do harm - this is legitimate self-defence (yet still inferior to trusting and relying on God), but don't patronise people by telling them that you know better what they ought to do and not do; and never blame them for not doing something they never agreed to do in the first place. Let there be only ONE judge - up in heaven!

Vicious/dangerous dogs are not blamed, charged or prosecuted for breaking laws: they are euthanased instead.

[continued...]

[...continued]

You see the difference: in self-defence, the focus is on YOU, not on justice. You act because YOU want yourself and your family/friends to be safe, not because someone else is supposedly wrong and you try to fix them.

So you offer them a deal, to become members of your society and share its values. Those who wish to join come to have both obligations and privileges, including the protections you offer, and as for the others, as you correctly said, "Those that don't consent to the laws don't get a free pass", they would get no protection themselves. Yet there is nothing wrong or inferior in declining your offer, so telling someone that they "must" accept your deal is patronising.

Now perhaps you do not care about patronising murderers, but the main evil and foolishness here is that you base your society on the lowest of the low. The vast majority of people are good and honest, but in order to trap murderers with your laws, you in fact trap everyone, including the good, including the best of the best who refuse your standards not because they are short of them but perhaps because they are way above the standards of your society.

Yes there are some murderers and other criminals around, but is it them that you create your society for? Should they become the foundation of your society? Why not concentrate on the good and positive? Why not create a place where the good and love can grow? If the foundation of your society is fear, then indeed we live in a fearful society, not a happy one.

---

Dear Belly,

I agree with Not_Now.Soon's last post to you.

May I add that human society does not evolve for the same reason that schools do not evolve into universities: old pupils keep leaving and young ones keep coming!

Belly,

Rave on, but give a reference to your bigoted statement.

Add this to your collection and tell us all how many of them were Catholics.
http://topyaps.com/top-10-popular-pedophiles-in-history/

Ise Mise quite a few interesting comments here in the last two pages
Then there is yours
Let's be honest with each other, it is my deeply considered thought you serve the antiChrist
Remember my love of God was total, I saw, even see now, this world needs something to believe in live for, dream and hope for
My drift started after [we ham radio operators did such things] over hearing a analogue mobile phone conversation,
My Minister, and another, they spoke not of Christ but of the cash they gained
See you in targeting me, *highlight* some who claim to be Christian, are in fact both not and in the end turning folk away from the faith
OK you may have difficulty in expressing yourself, but the bigot here is you

To Yuyutsu.

What you're suggesting to do away with laws would also do away with police and courts that uphold the laws. What that means is vigilantism, and mob justice. Haven't we seen enough of that through social media hyping people up and putting justice in their own hands or creating a protest that turns violently?

Once again I support judges to do their jobs effectively. To add to that I also support police to do their jobs effectively. The laws are not a great burden to those who don't try to harm others.

As for society being written for the worst of people. That's pretty much what laws are there for. Those who are the worst, or are in the worst of situtions. Punishments and safeguards for the situations that need them. The rest of society's influences aren't bound by punishments and therefor don't need a law to dictate for them:
to find a job or a profession. To date, get married or otherwise be social. Or to make music, give to charity, find a hobby, develope a new skill, start and raise a family.. And so on and so on...

The point is that if the law doesn't tell you how to live on all of the positive aspects of life, then it doesn't get in the way of people experiencing those elements in life. The majority of society's influences are about living life, not about the legal system. Therefore the legal system is right in it's place to be there for the worst of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
I resent being called a bigot for reporting on events within the Catholic Church, take nothing back from my last post, in fact enforce it with links

http://theconversation.com/the-catholic-church-is-headed-for-another-sex-abuse-scandal-as-nunstoo-speak-up-111539
Turns out I could have posted thousands of links and still not covered it all
COVERED the operative word, mums dads police teachers all told victims to stop lying!
Those like them must hold themselves accountable for much of this crime against kids

Belly,

You said "World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

How about a reference backing that statement?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«What that means is vigilantism»

At present the worst vigilant is the state, by enforcing its laws on people who never consented to have anything with it.

I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, but this is just one option out of many and you/me/we do not need to adopt it.

You may arrange the conduct within your consensual group/society in any way you like, so if you prefer, it could even stay as it is. You like having laws? police? courts? then have them, no problem.

The only difference is that you do not legislate for, police or prosecute those who never consented to belong to your society.

So how will your society protect against dangerous others outside? this is up to you: if you do not like vigilantism, then feel free to legislate against it, then raise an army (not police!) that will fight them in an organised way to protect the lives and property of your people.

«Haven't we seen enough of that through social media hyping people up...?»

I cannot tell: I don't do social media, so I haven't seen any.
BTW, one advantage of a consensual society is that you can legitimately legislate against such harmful behaviour and make social-media illegal, whereas doing so at present would be immoral.

«The laws are not a great burden to those who don't try to harm others.»

This could be your experience (perhaps because you belong to a mainstream Australian religion and adhere to mainstream Western philosophy?), but it certainly is not mine. I personally find them stifling (listing how would quickly exhaust my OLO posting quota) and it makes me live in constant fear.

«The rest of society's influences aren't bound by punishments and therefor don't need a law to dictate for them:»

There is indeed no need, yet laws dictate many things even for good people, especially those who are different.

«The point is that if the law doesn't tell you how to live on all of the positive aspects of life»

But it does on some.

To Yuyutsu. You said:

<<I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, I'm aware that my attitude towards murderers keeps the door open to vigilantism, but this is just one option out of many and you/me/we do not need to adopt it.>>

The issue for vigilantism is bigger then a reaction for murder. It is for the reaction to any crime. Think about it this way. Right now the court systems around the world have the authority to proclaim and enforce punishments on those who do wrong. From a fine, to loss of a business, to jail time, to even removing a parent from their children if they abuse or neglect their kids.

Without the laws and the court, who is there for the person who was mugged, the person who was stolen from, the person who was vandalized, or for the child that isn't fed. For each of those situations the only person there is the person being harmed, and possibly if they are lucky another person giving outside help. But what options do they have? What they can do is to do harm back to those they can, and create a state of injustice through overreaction and unjust reactions. They can not fine or jail the other person. Or force them to pay back a penalty for the harm they've done. These lesser actions that might fit certain crimes will go away, and in it's place will be only the harshest of reactions. Making every crime a potential for vigilantism.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding mob justice, consider this situation. A group of like minded people get angry over one thing or another, and decide to take it up to the person they are angry with. To fit the stereotype (and make the point clearer) imagine the group seeking mob justice going to a private residence with pitchforks and torches, ready to inflict whatever they think is "deserved." This can range from employees being fired, to people in the "#metoo" movements. Without the courts and the police to draw the line for fair punishments and courts to hear the cases, it only invites worse situations.

Yuyustu you said:

<<This could be your experience [regarding the law not interfering with most of life's activities], but it certainly is not mine. I personally find them stifling, and it makes me live in constant fear.>>

This sounds like an exaggeration. If you have an example that makes you live in fear, I'll take it into consideration. If you can give an example, then it might be worth addressing that fear or that law.

There is a bigger issue then your personal reactions or mine. Those don't count compared to the infrastructure created in the absence of police, judges, and governments. What it comes down to is mass vigilantism. What that would look like is urban warfare. With today's technology and weapons, that means a very unstable society. So while I don't know what is stifling to you or puts you in a state of fear, I do know that a state of ongoing civil urban war is not one I will ever support. Even if that means people are stifled not giving consent so have to have hunting license if they want to hunt (whether they want to pay for it or not); have speed limits regardless if they consent to them or don't; having a law against fireworks being used in areas that could spark a brush fire; or any other law that is stifling to a person in one way or another.

To Belly and Is Mise.

Perhaps a third perspective can help?

Billy. One point that Is Mise keeps driving at is a source reference for the accusations. And to that point I relate to it. Christians in conversations are constantly held accountable to accusations that happened centuries ago, by someone else entirely, or are unjustified and just a vague feeling towards Christianity without a direct event.

Having a reference to back up the accusations can restrain the accusations to the situations that occurred, instead of having Catholicism or all Catholics on the stand to defend what they didn't do.

Is Mise. The driving point of Belly's against pedophilia is one of value against the Catholic Church. One of the big teachings from Jesus is to repent and turn from your sins. If there is any truth to the stories of the Catholic Church moving priests and bishops around so they don't have to face the law, then that is a huge issue. The organization as a whole needs to look at itself and consider how to reform itself to actively turn from this behavior. Doing nothing and hoping it will ho away won't work.

(That said, every organization that has pedophilia in it's ranks that get away with it needs to do the same. Atheist orginizations, schools, Hollywood, or anything else.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971
Ise Mise read the link, from the BBC
no joy,no smart cop that, in posting the link just pain
Horror too children, in the house of their God, assaulted by his servants
It took place in many Churches, many faiths, even hillsong
Maybe if you must deny Catholics complicity you can fall back on its numbers world wide'
It would be best to demand accountability to say never again, to fight for the survival of your Church, not to try to hide its crimes

Belly,

I'm not trying to hide the crimes of the Catholic Church, there is no doubt that it has been infiltrated by evil people and that its beliefe in forgiveness has led to the perpetuation of evils.

That said, can you give a reference to your statement,
"World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Now Not So Soon gives some good advice, heed it.

If you go back to the archives, I'm on record recommending the death sentence for paedophiles, Catholic, priest or whatever.

Ise Mise most of your post finds me in agreement but
Not-now-soon is not my mentor, his view as is yours, is not mine
Above I said the fact the Catholic Church is by far the biggest
AND in the most countries, may account for it being the WORST offender
Nothing can change that TRUTH
Again no intent to hurt you just this, truth over rules opinion every time

Belly,

"World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Can't find a reference?

Poor lad!!

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Without the laws and the court, who is there for the person who was mugged, the person who was stolen from, the person who was vandalized, or for the child that isn't fed.»

So easy to forget:

"
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.
One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.
For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.
"
[Psalms 27:1-6], see also [Psalms 146:7-9].

This is the BEST approach. Trust Him who saved His servant Daniel from the lions' den.

I too can forget this, then I shiver and tremble in fear of the state, whose prisons could do me far more harm than some mob with pitchforks and torches, because I'm concerned more for my soul than my body.

I pray for Cardinal Pell in his time of ordeal, whom I believe to be innocent of the charges. If this could happen to him, then can I be safe myself from such errors?
(fortunately Pell is under solitary confinement, sparing him some of prison's most horrible exposures to evil)
But yes, I should be trusting more in God: all Power comes from Him, including the state's!

[continued...]

[...continued]

Now suppose we are less than saintly and fall short of trusting God at all times, so you wish to discuss a second-best option, law-and-order:

The good news is that with a measure of consideration, you can still produce that limited security which humans can provide in a moral way, without violating others, especially good-natured benevolent others.

You do so by INVITING others to join you in a society which, among other things, aims for mutual protection.
Nothing precludes you from including the ability to make laws, police and courts in your society's constitution.

Some "bad guys" will decline: that's alright, there are other ways to deal with them.

But when some "good guys" also decline, this could be because your proposed constitution fails to sufficiently address potential abuses by the very mechanisms of your society itself. So what do you do? Improve your constitution, adding appropriate safeguards until it becomes satisfactory to all good people.

«Even if that means people are stifled not giving consent so have to have hunting license»

You possibly misunderstood me: consent is for the constitution of a society which one agrees to belong to, not to each and every particular law.

I might not agree with every law, but in the great scheme of things, if the constitution is not in conflict with my basic values (including my religious values), then I would go along anyway and find the burden worthwhile in comparison to the protections I can receive.

In Australia for example, I am forbidden to ride a bicycle.
Is it right and fair to make such laws? It is not and I needlessly suffer as a result.
Is it a sufficient reason to raise arms and revolt? No. The benefits of an orderly society still outweigh the pains.
But why not reduce such unnecessary pains wherever we can?

Ise Mise sorry I am a bit slow, yes true, age is the probable reason
Too many head knocks in the scrums
See I thought you to be a rational adult, clearly you are not either
You seem like that kid in the back seat chanting are we there yet about every ten seconds, and expecting another answer
A poll,taken on this subject in any paper, would confirm my view, not yours,of all the groups uncovered in the sexual assault of children investigations
First that comes to mind is the Roman Catholic Church
No joy no hate no focus on that Church just pain see even now I think such savage uncaring acts in any house of God is evil

Belly,

With all that information at your fingertips, why can't you give a reference to back up your statement?

Possibly because there isn't one.

Ise mise let the thread die, you know nothing I say can turn you away from your default position
That being endless childlike requests for answers you have been given
Ask ten people in the street, try it
This question, *when it comes to child sexual abuse in Church what Church first comes to mind*
If it is not at least 6 to 4 Catholic I am wrong
NITPICKING is not debate
The thread was to highlight the need to be very very careful in what is put before the house
I hoped at the start and still now, the legislation will be well put together for all our sakes
Let it die, find another way to nit pick me, have a great day, and if you can,make a quid

Belly,

"Ise mise let the thread die, you know nothing I say can turn you away from your default position
That being endless childlike requests for answers you have been given"

You have not once given a reference to back up your statement, endless childlike evasions.
No, that's wrong, endless adult-like evasions because "childlike" evokes the thought of innocence whereas your evasions simply back up the notion of bigotry.

You have my deepest sympathy seems your brain retired long ago
stay safe see you in another thread

Belly,

That's it then, you can't give a reference to back up your bigotry so you're going to run.

AGAIN that challenge please
Unlike yourself I can google and find thousands of links to support my view
You do know you butt your head against truth and reality
Will post yet another link soon

http://home.crin.org/issues/sexual-violence/child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
http://home.crin.org/issues/sexual-violence/child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
I offer two links thousands exist
Before mindlessly chanting at me consider reading both
Then tell me are these folk too bigots

Belly,

Just give me one link that supports your view that,

"World wide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

You, so far, have not given a link to that bigoted statement probably because you can't.
None of the links that you have given support it.

I see that you didn't leave the thread, what are you another Foxy?

Poor old man! google Catholic Church pedophilia
Or read the multiple links I have given you
But in the end your denial of truth makes you both bigoted and a protector of offenders

Belly,

Just give a link if you can, one would have thought that as you can find insults aplenty one little link would be easy, even for you.

While we're still here I'm a great believer in penalty rates where they are deserved, like overtime, working on what should be a rostered day off etc.

I remember with deep satisfaction being paid to go to sleep, that was as good as penalty rates get.

http://qz.com/1356796/how-the-catholic-church-concealed-priests-sexual-abuse-of-children/
On reading your continueing request for some thing an informed writer would already know about it came to me,I am behaving as badly as you
See I tried closeing the thread after it drifted off topic
You lay the bait, telling me to not answer is cowardice or lack of understanding, even lies about the subject
NO MATTER your level of education, it was misplaced
See you do this on many many threads
Are you aware it is child like
That in heedless pretending you are not aware [maybe based on numbers of followers numbers of countries it is in] your Church in even the everyday person, is seem as the worst offenders

Belly,

You said,

"Worldwide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Which world wide investigations?

"not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries."

So tell us which church was the second worst according to the world wide investigators?

Tell us who the investigators were?

We need some specifics.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/sean-omalley-pope-francis-catholic-church-sex-abuse/582658/
I still think the thread should be put to rest
That is has ben taken a long way from its intended path
Even that I am in conversation with some one who either does not understand or does not value truth
IF any thing is to be gained in this child like debate it is this
My opponent in the verbal tennis match HIGHLIGHTS the degree of denialism in this Church
Highlights why mums and dads flogged their children, for telling the truth
Too why some police refused to believe, or act on, statements of true events
My opponent stands,as do others, firmly in the middle of the much needed road to reform the Church must have or die

Belly,

Give a reference to your statement or just shut up.

http://globalnews.ca/news/4400710/scott-thompson-catholic-church/
Truth remains a refuee in your mind

Belly,

That link is totally irrelevant to your statement,
"Worldwide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

Which worldwide investigations?
Who were the investigators?
Can't you tell me which was the second worst?

I'm not denying that the Catholic Church has done immense wrong and, I'll say it again, paedophiles, priest, religious or lay should be subject to the death penalty and those that do cover-ups deserve the full penalty of the law.

However, on a percentage basis, the Boy Scout Movement is probably worse.

To Yuyutsu.

I don't know if you're still reading this topic or not, but I thought I'd finally give a response to your last comment.

I'm glad to see you quote from Psalms. And that is true that we should boldly have confidence in God instead of fear of the world. However where it relates to the government I trust words in Romans 13, Hebrews 13, and 1 Peter 2. One thing I don't know though is whether you quote the bible because you trust it, or only quote it in pieces as a means at convincing me or other Christians.

Romans 13:1-6
Every person should obey the government in power. No government would exist if it hadn’t been established by God. The governments which exist have been put in place by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists the government opposes what God has established. Those who resist will bring punishment on themselves.

3 People who do what is right don’t have to be afraid of the government. But people who do what is wrong should be afraid of it. Would you like to live without being afraid of the government? Do what is right, and it will praise you. 4 The government is God’s servant working for your good.

But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid. The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God’s servant, an avenger to execute God’s anger on anyone who does what is wrong. 5 Therefore, it is necessary for you to obey, not only because you’re afraid of God’s anger but also because of your own conscience.

6 That is also why you pay your taxes. People in the government are God’s servants while they do the work he has given them. 7 Pay everyone whatever you owe them. If you owe taxes, pay them. If you owe tolls, pay them. If you owe someone respect, respect that person. If you owe someone honor, honor that person.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Hebrews 13:17

Obey your leaders, and accept their authority. They take care of you because they are responsible for you. Obey them so that they may do this work joyfully and not complain about you. (Causing them to complain would not be to your advantage.)

1 Peter 2:13-17
13 Place yourselves under the authority of human governments to please the Lord. Obey the emperor. He holds the highest position of authority. 14 Also obey governors. They are people the emperor has sent to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing what is right. 16 Live as free people, but don’t hide behind your freedom when you do evil. Instead, use your freedom to serve God. 17 Honor everyone. Love your brothers and sisters in the faith. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We have discussed the authenticity of the bible several times before, so you would know that while I do not consider the bible as a whole as authority, I do find it full of gems.

I see on other threads here a childish argument regarding the authenticity or otherwise of biblical events. If possible, I do not wish to descend to that level: does the bible inspire you, day in and day out, to become a better person and seek God? if it does, then it is the best book in the world and I care not to what degree its content is factual or otherwise.

Scripture needs to be read with proper guidance, how more so when it is ancient and written in a different context, a different language and for different people, whom it presupposes to have certain knowledge which we do not.

It is too easy to misinterpret scripture and read into it one's own wishes, Hindu scripture too: they say that the Bhagavad-Gita has over 1500 different interpretations. I only read a few, but it is especially striking how Mahatma Gandhi's translation and interpretation (which he wrote in prison) is so different to the others in order to suit the text to his all-too-famous political and social agenda.

So rather than questioning the correctness and source-of-inspiration of the bible, I rather challenge whether you are reading it using an authentic translation and in the same context as it was written. Regarding translations, I can help when it comes to the Hebrew of the OT, but I am helpless with the NT as I do not know Greek.

«No government would exist if it hadn’t been established by God.»

Was the French Revolution and storming of the Bastille not established by God?
What about Moses' defying Pharaoh?

It is foolish to complain of the past, claiming retrospectively that China's communist rule and oppression of religion was not ordained by God. Yes, we have been punished for our sins, but how can we tell that our sins have not since expired and now we are pardoned?

To Yuyutsu.

When talking about what is from God and what isn't taking a source as an authentic or authority on God's message is a practical measure. Therefore when quoting psalms as reason to trust God; the same can be applied to quoting other books in the bible under the same authority. Otherwise all it is is picking and choosing what suits you, instead of seeking what God says, or even what is actually from God.

With this in mind trusting God and having no fear of the world can also be related to trusting God, and obeying Him. If it's the New Testament books that's the issue, (going on the line of thought that The Jewish books before Christianity are inspired by God) then consider the book of Daniel. In that book the Israelites were faced in exile from their home as punishment from God. The book, following Daniel mostly, showed a bit of that time in exile. But it does not show rebellion against the Babylonians.

If there was any time to justify a rebellion against the government, the three instances in the bible to do it would be in 1) Egypt (Moses didn't lead a rebellion, but warned the pharaoh to let the Israelites go); 2) Babylon (exiled in a godless country); and 3) under Roman rule when Jesus came. Neither Moses, Daniel, nor Jesus taught to rebel.

If under those harsh conditions it wasn't taught to fight against the wicked rulers, then I highly doubt any revolution in modern times is any more justified then the conditions the rulers placed on the people that lead to an uprising are considered justified.

On a side note revolutions do happen and are part of many nation's history, as well as shape their identity. What is over looked is the death toll in each of those revolutions. I do not think that much active murder in the name of war and Revolution can be justified easily.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Actually the book of Daniel is an exception, the only book in the OT not written completely in Hebrew: half of it is in Aramaic!

I have no "issue" with the NT, except that I cannot read the original text and detect translation errors.

«When talking about what is from God and what isn't»

Could there be anything that is NOT from God?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

So better ask:

What leads [me] TO God and what doesn't?

Expanding on that:

OK, all writings, good and bad, come from God, but which writings are good [for me to study and follow] and which are bad [for me]?

Further expanding:

While all inspiration comes from God, man was given the free will (also from God) allowing him to distort the content of their inspiration: which writings then were, and which where not, distorted by the author's own egoistic ignorance of God?

I quote passages from psalms because I appreciate these spiritual gems. While I think and hope that I can appreciate a spiritual gem wherever I see it, I am aware that for you it helps a lot if you can find it in the bible, so why not?

Yet even when a passage is correct, one should always be mindful of their audience, making sure that quoting it would be helpful. I would avoid for example publicly quoting a list of people who will go to hell; I wouldn't quote [Psalms 137:9]: "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.", even if it once had some therapeutic value for some exiled people; and I would not quote [Isaiah 64:8]: "But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand" to someone who had an abusive father.

[continued...]

[...continued]

Regarding rebellion, murder and war, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven" [Ecclesiastes 3:1].

Surely one should obey God. Surely there are times and places when those who listen to God are told to abstain and surrender to kings, but there are also other times when certain people are called for action.

The Israelites did end up rebelling against Pharaoh, so their baby-boys were no longer drowned in the Nile, but Pharaoh's whole army drowned in the Red Sea.

Interestingly, some are called to the opposite than others. While God approved of the Israelites singing and dancing in Exodus 15 over the drowning of the Egyptian army, the Talmud claims that the angels too were singing at the time, but God reprimanded them: "The creations of My hands drown in the sea - and you sing ?!" http://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.10a?lang=bi

Chapter 12 of 1 Kings, speaks of a successful rebellion of most of Israel against the foolish new king Rehoboam. The bible speaks quite positively of this rebellion and in fact, God sends His prophet to instruct Rehoboam to not try to quash that rebellion.

Later, the prophet Elijah was sent by God to murder 400 priests of the idol 'Baal', who at the time were part of the establishment.

The Maccabean revolt of the Jews against the oppressive Greek regime was not included in the canonical OT, but is considered a miracle. The Greeks outlawed circumcision and the study of the Torah, forced Jews to eat pork and desecrated their Jerusalem temple. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/antiochus-the-madman
When is enough enough? If your theory was correct, then we should all, and so would our grand-grandchildren, still be enslaved to corrupt and torturous Middle-agean European lineages of kings. Why, you might even agree with China that Taiwan is a "rebel district"? And what about all those who were killed, maimed and raped because they refused to convert to Islam when conquered by the Islamic State? Were they too disobeying God?

To Yuyutsu.

There are gems of mankind, but those are different from gems from God.

Some gems of mankind are good points and offer some sense of wisdom to consider, or they are beutiful and thought provoking, or just show some raw talent that is enjoyable. However what is from God is a different catagory completely. You seem to show the same distinction in some way when you say words that have been corrupted and distorted due to free will or misinterpretation. I'd just stick with saying it simply.

Some things are from God, and some things aren't.

The problem is that for the most part people aren't the best at intuitively knowing even what is true and what isn't. How much more can you say we would know by intuition what is from God and what isn't. It's with acknowledging this factor, that we can face a second problem. A self seeking bias to look for things that you already agree with only. Then mistaking those gems we find that we already agree with and call them as great wisdom (whether they are wise or not) or call those gems from God (whether they are from God or not).

As for my theory. It's not a theory. It's what's written in the bible. Romans 13:1-6, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 2:13-17. The context of each of these being under Roman rule and regular Jewish oppression. (Probably the same state of situation for all the nations the Romans had conquered). If under that context, the message had to be repeated, instead of saying when it's OK to rebel, then that is what's written. It's not my theory. It's just a hard lesson.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As I said before many nations have a revolution in their history that has become part of how that country self identifies itself. To rise up against an evil dictator, an oppressive King, or some other instance. The governments that this occurred in showed a great evil in not actually taking care of the people they were responsible for. Because of that they were fought against and over thrown. (Later in history the nation celebrates the successful overthrow of an oppressive leader, because that revolution is part of their cultural identity). However according to the verses in the bible, this is not following God's teachings.

Look at the example in Israel's exodus of Egypt again. The people of Israel weren't saved by a rebellion. Even with all the evil that the pharaoh was putting them under. There may have been a good chance under those conditions, that many fought back and were killed in the process, but there is no record of this. What is recorded is that God rescued the people of Israel. Not a rebellion that rescued them. Reread it if you want Yuyutsu. You may not believe it as it's written, but you've said you've studied Hebrew. Is what I've said the correct translation of those events as they are recorded?

(Continued)

(Continued(

Regarding the Maccabean revolt. That's the exception I have no answer for. I've heard from someone that the Events leading up to the Maccabean revolt were identified in the book of Daniel, along with the revolt as well. I don't know. Connecting prophesy and history is not my strong suit. It's not a subject matter I'm knowledgable in. So all I can say in that matter is I don't know.

As for today if many of the rebellions in history didn't occur. That's a what if situation that has no answer. Who knows how things would turn out if history was different. There's no way to tell. That doesn't mean you agree with the oppression endured. It means you trust God and are willing to endure it until He rescues you, or tells you to rise up and flee or fight. Like I said, it's a hard lesson. Who can say what would have happened if people followed the teachings in the bible and trusted God. It's a what if that has no answer. Because like all what if situations it didn't happen that way.

Belly,

You gone into hiding on this?

ise mise I wanted to leave the thread
Your smugness, your inability to think, your clearly child like views
Most of all the thread has turned into something others want to pursue so until you rattled your tin it was over for me
Convince yourself if it helps, that you won
Nothing changes my view you lost about ten posts into the thread and got progressively worse as it went on

Belly,

You never did find a reference, do you have one for sour grapes?

wry shake of my head, he is still here!
Trying to sell ice blocks to Eskimos
Or is it raw smelly fish outside Mackas
Pedophilia in Churches and other movements, eg scouting, always brings the Catholic Church to mind first
A truth most people know, they are seen in headlines more than*any other Church*

Belly,

You said,

"Worldwide investigations have highlighted not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries"

That is the statement that you can't back up, so it looks like a statement from an anti-Catholic bigot.

You could also tell us

Which world wide investigations?

"not one as bad as the Catholic Church, over centuries."

So tell us which church was the second worst according to the world wide investigators?

Tell us who the investigators were?

We need some references.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

OK, so you are using "what is from God and what isn't" as a loose expression.

«How much more can you say we would know by intuition what is from God and what isn't.»

God's light shines through a pure mind but fails to shine through a clouded mind, so the quality of one's intuition is commensurate with their purity of mind.

Therefore listen to the saints and sages whose mind is pure.

Regarding your theory, the idea as if God wants everyone at all times to obey their current ruler fails every ordinary test of logic, yet this is how you understand your scripture and I have great appreciation for devotees who for their love of God are willing to leave logic and common sense at the door. I see many greatly-differing English translations for [Psalms 116:6], but the correct one is: "God guards the gullible, I was dwindled and He saved me". May God bless you that you never have to face a reality of a badly oppressive regime, and if you do, then may others do the rebelling in your place.

[Continued...]

[...Continued]

A story:

A letter was unearthed, addressed from Sage Zarathustra to a devoted lady. It read: "I hear that you want to visit me: I will be delighted to have you, but don't forget to turn off the stove and the tap".

Some could not believe that the holy Sage would waste his time idly writing of petty mundane affairs, so they concluded that the letter must be symbolic: the stove must refer to the fire of sexual desire while the tap refers to the ever-blabbering mouth. They followed this sage advice and thus were happy and prospered, both in this world and thereafter in heaven.

Others took it more literally and concluded that having stoves and taps is a bad thing. They became hippies and carried placards in front of parliament-house: "Back to nature: no more stoves, no more taps!". Some of them however, became more extreme and decided that God wants them to cut the throats of any heretic who keeps a stove or a tap.

When asked why they do so, they just say: "THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA!".

Then another group was a bit more reserved. They re-read the letter and concluded that only women must turn off their stoves and taps when they leave their house, so men must not use stoves or taps when the lady of the house is out. Over the centuries they forgot this reasoning, but they still are unable to recall whence came their custom of locking up their women at home.

When asked why they do so, they just say: "THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA!".

Now indeed, the great sage Zarathustra never lied nor spoke idly: he and that devoted lady shared the information, which no other living soul knew - that on her previous visit to him, she forgot to turn off the stove and the tap before leaving her house, then when she returned home she found it flooded and full of smoke from the blackened pot on the stove. After paying her water and electricity bills, it took a long time until she could afford to visit Zarathustra again.

To Yuyutsu.

I'm sure you are aware of this great separation between your and my views. But I don't think it's actually been discussed as a point on it's own. But perhaps it should be. On the topic of freedom of religion (which we both agree with to varying degrees) you support freedom of religion because in your view all beliefs lead to God. To me I support freedom of religion because I think without that freedom to seek on your own, then the truth can't be found, and finding God is harmed for those who aren't allowed to question the teachings they are taught, or to seek out answers on their own (without being punished or oppressed by a government, a business, or a community).

On the topic of freedom of religion our views agree that there should be that freedom. But not for the same reason.

In my views, the truth should be able to confirm or correct a person. Even to the subject matter of seeking and finding God. This standard is something to set against my own views so that they can be cleaned up from things that are not true and not trustworthy. However in your views all things point to God, so nothing is corrected, nothing is challenged, and the truth doesn't actually matter.

Regarding your point when it comes to a time of following God or following the government I hope my choice is the same as Daniel and his companions in the book of Daniel to keep praying (after they outlawed it) and to not worship false gods and Idols (even after it was a decree from the king). Or my choice is the same as the midwives in Egypt that did not kill the boys being born to the Israelites. (After the Pharaoh demanded it). Or be like the Germans in Nazi Germany that hid Jews and those being sent to concentration camp instead of playing a part in the evil of that era.

(Continued)

(Continued)

It is easy to reason to rebel, fight back, and cause a rebellion when you see injustice. It is harder to trust in God through those injustices, and to disobey the government without coming to rebel against it.

If the time comes to fight against an evil in my home and government, I am not confident that I will obey God's standards to trust in Him instead of acting in another rebellion and civil war. But at least I can acknowledge what God's standards are. And to strive to trust Him more.

The French Revolution may have been caused and justified by oppression, but how did it end? A massive amount of death during the rebellion and after it as competing groups sought for power. How did it end? With Napoleon Bonaparte coming to power and all that followed in history with him at the wheel. How is the civil war in Syria coming? Is that not started under the same reasoning to fight against the oppressive regime?

It is better to follow God, without understanding the reasoning, then to follow our own reasoning and end worse off then before. God's teachings should direct us and correct us, just as the truth in any matter should do the same.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Why do you say that my view is that all beliefs lead to God?

I do believe that each and everyone of us will eventually reach God, but with a wrong view this road might take a very long time - perhaps trillions of years, perhaps even more.

The freedom to seek the truth, which is God, on your own and questioning one's teachings is very important and for many this is a religious practice. All I am saying is that ALL religious practices need to be protected, INCLUDING this practice of seeking the truth.

The difficulty is that actions which are religious for some, and/or at certain times, are irreligious for others and/or at other times. We do have some guidelines to tell which is which, but to tell for certain requires the gift of prophecy. For example, you see someone dropping a $10 note in the offering-basket. Do they do it for the love of God, or perhaps to impress their neighbour or spouse? perhaps they plan another sin and don't want God to be angry at them? God sees to the heart, but man usually doesn't.

I agree that many revolutions have gone sour (including the Iranian revolution). Revolting is not for everyone, you need wisdom to know when to rebel, against whom, by whom and how exactly to do it. But otherwise, the Berlin wall could still be there and we wouldn't have stories like http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/rahaf-alqunun-speaks-first-time-from-canada-asylum/10716182

It is definitely better to follow God, at all times, including when it goes against our own reasoning and understanding. Sometimes it is quite clear what God wants of us, but at other times it is not and we do need reasoning and understanding to tell which direction leads to God.

Many would wish for a magic formula that provides infallible answers on how to reach God, but we should heed the words of him who was considered wisest of men, Ecclesiastes: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". Learning is very important, but grace too is indispensable.