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...]