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!