(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.