Here we go again. The first ad from the #LoveisLove crowd http://youtu.be/8r8d63cQANc on the Religious Discrimination Bill. Apparently my right to freely associate and speak my mind is to be trumped by their "right" to unconditional love and approval.

Time for the adults to speak up in this debate. People have a right to disapprove of you and your lifestyle, no matter how hurt you might be about it.

The only people wanting to divide the community are the LGBTIQ+ lobby with their disrespectful "phobic" labels and demands that everyone see the world the way they do.

People have a right to their own moral views, and they have a right to exercise those in community, if they want. If they can't hire staff as teachers, say, who refuse to teach those views, then how do they transmit them? And wouldn't they be producing an institution that is schizophrenic and dysfunctional if they couldn't select staff who agreed with their ethos?

Next we'll be telling political parties that they have to hire anyone who applies, irrespective of whether they agree with the aims of the party or not.

If people feel they can give me a "free character assessment", then I should be able to do that back to them, no matter their sexual orientation or gender dysphoria.

Has anybody noticed how our fundamental social practices now mirror wider global patterns and that the idea of free speech is constrained by interracial and intercultural relationships that are constantly monitored by elites? A big Aussie 'Ni Hao!' to ya all.

Dear Graham,

«and they have a right to exercise those in community»

But there lies the problem: the moment you mention (as something that truly exists, rather than within a joke or as an imagination) the word "community", then you have accepted communist propaganda. If there indeed is a community, which you freely accepted to be part of, then that community has every right to limit what is done or said within it, on its own premises.

What should be made clear to all, is that the state is NOT a community, because it never asked for, not received the consent of the people who live within its claimed territory to be a part thereof. Had that been the case, then I would see no reason to object to the community's demands, for example, that everyone within it should unconditionally love and approve everyone else.

Meanwhile, until this underlying issue is resolved, of which the topic of this thread is only a tiny tip of the iceberg, there should be a clear distinction between private space and public (or communal) space.

In one's private space (and in one's friend's space, if they approve), one should be able to speak their mind freely, employ only whoever they want and discriminate as much as they like (even in the negative sense of that word, because according to dictionary, discrimination is actually a very good thing: "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another" / "the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste"). In public/communal space, however, that is on public premises (including virtual premises), it is legitimate for the public that owns the premises to set its rules and limitations, including on free speech, so anyone who freely accepted to belong in that "community" has no basis to complain.

Thankfully, OLO is a private space, yours, in which you permitted us to express our views freely with extremely minimal limitations.

I must agree, as long as that freedom is mine too.
Doubt the E-tube mentioned in the end has much power, but aware the bill has opponents
Warned it would not be easy in a thread I posted, then in someone else's thread
We will be talking about much of next year
But freedom of speech is for all sides all views even if we do not like them

If lawyers had their way they would be the only ones allowed to express a view. At a price that is!

People who do not discriminate are zombies. We discriminate all day every day between things we like and things we don't like; people we like and people we don't like. Irrespective of any laws that politicians want to create I, for instance, will always be against homosexuality, Islam, multiculturalism and certain people whom I do not believe are suitable people to live among us. And, the moaners and groaners who appear on the Youtube clip, are most certainly discriminating against other people by by alluding that they have no right to an opinion of their deviant behaviour. Not satisfied with being able to do what they want, they now want affirmation that their behaviour is right and proper, when the science so popular to them in other matters clearly says that it is not right, proper or natural.

Well every thread expands, even travels in different directions
Surely however we can stay on track here?.
Recommend the first dog on the moon this week's cartoon for one extreme of the issue.
Remain to convinced this new bill when it comes before Parliament, even after it passes, will be no easy thing
But just as firm, while convinced some, on all sides, will miss use it, it if we need it, must not stop free speech
I would not want the job of writing this bill

What this clip produced by these activists is saying is that there is a miniscule possibility that a tiny minority of people might hear something that offends them and they might not have the ability to vastly overreact and ruin the offender's career.

That they routinely go out of their way to offend and shock others seems to escape them.

Shadow Minister I suspect, much like the first dog on the moon cartoon [Guardian Australia this day] use as you say the extreme to highlight their view.
Should such take place I am confident it would be rectified in the courts.
However many will miss use this legislation no matter what it contains
I would not want the job of putting it together.

I cant discriminate against you, because of your religion.
But you can discriminate against me, because of your religion.

Pull the other one.
This is the religious right to discriminate bill.
Surely soon to be followed by jim crow laws, apartheid and locking the disabled in gulags.
Since discrimination is so fine and dandy these days.

I feel sick from the inherent hatred and divisiveness of this bill and suggest you lot have a good think about the words of your mate about "do unto others etc".

I believe there is a legitimate moral right to offend people whose behaviour you disapprove. You do it to your children in their training, they get offended but it corrects their behaviour. It should be similar to uncultured adults, it happens in most social settings, work, school, church. We can be corrected or offended; if we are morally right the offense does not affect us.

Mikk

Would you like a lend of a hankie?
You feel sick from what, being disabled from kicking the guts out of Christians?
There are still openings where your view of bullying is believed: Qantas for example.
When put to the test, proved a failure though.

It's actually religious people in need of protection from your lot, viz a viz Falou for a classic example.

Dan

"I believe there is a legitimate moral right to offend people whose behaviour you disapprove. You do it to your children in their training, they get offended but it corrects their behaviour."

Hey Josephus,
What happens when the parents are in the wrong in their training?
That then makes the childs behavior correct in dysfunction.

Kids learn 2 social behaiviors growing up.
1. Respect your Parents (Unconditional respect)
2. Tit for Tat (Mutual Respect)

Respect is a two way street.
If parents ignore or disrespect their kids their childs needs, eventually that overriding 'Respect your Parents' contract will by voided, and the child will give way to their second learned or default social behaviour 'Tit for tat'; which is the social behavior they learn when dealing with their peers.

Their attitude with their parents will worsen as they get older and learn about respecting others;
- Because part of that learning about 'respecting others' is that they should also expect to be treated respectfully in return.

If they don't feel they are treated fairly their behaviour will give way to 'Tit for Tat'

"If you don't listen to me, I won't listen to you."
"If you don't 'respect' me, then I won't 'respect' you.
Apart from a stubburn attitude and bad behavior, you can also expect aloofness.
These are natural reaction to situations that are completely beyond the child's control and left unaddressed will lead to more serious dyfunction as the child gets older.

You need to think about it from a child's perspective.

The Child's Job

IT IS the child's job to learn to be respectful of others, and expect to be treated the same way by others.
When parents treat kids unfairly they risk breaking the 'Respect your parents' contract and forcing kids into 'Tit for Tat' behavior and dysfunction.
This bad behavior and dysfunction left unresolved can spiral out control into adolescence and adulthood.

IT IS the childs job to express themselves the best they can INCLUDING when they feel they are being treated unfairly;
Under 'Tit for Tat' the social behaviour they learn with when dealing with peers, IT IS their job to learn to defend themselves when others treat them unfairly.
Parent's even reinforce this themselves by saying 'You need to learn to stand up for yourself'
But IT IS NOT a child's job to be able to fully articulate exactly whats going wrong in the adults world.

The Adults Job

If IT IS the adults job to ensure the physical and emotional wellbeing of the child, then by default it's also their job to subtly dig, probe and question the child in whatever way is necessary in order to figure out 'the bigger picture', in other words, find out what's wrong so the issue can be addressed and resolved.
If the cause of the issue is left unaddressed or unresolved then it should only be expected that the dysfunctional behaviour will continue.

In a bigger picture the parent must try to understand the bad behaivior is effectively the child expressing themselves the best they can in an adult world that they have little or no control of.

These situations can't be ignored without an ongoing negative or detrimental effect whilst left unresolved.
The parent MUST move to find out what's wrong and address the cause, to ensure the child's emotional well-being.
This IS NOT negotiable.

Moral to the Story;

If a kid isn't being treated fairly and parents themselves break the 'Respect your Parents' contract;

Then IT IS the KIDS JOB to act out and be dysfunctional.

Dear GrahamY,

Look mate, I get how cut up the conservatives are about gay marriage but is this really the way to respond, with a crappy piece of un-Australian legislation.

The religious lot in this country have basically won. Government funded chaplains in all our schools, about a third of our kids now in government funded private religious schools and a happy clappy PM who talks in tongues, yet here you all are bleating about how persecuted you are. What rubbish.

You haven't challenged a single part of the video have you. If what it asserts is true then the bill is disgraceful. This is going to further drive division in the community. If some religious fruit cake behind the counter at Vicroads wants to make snide remarks about a single mum, or a woman in a head dress, or an obviously trans person her right to do so should not be protected.

If a religious school or hospital wants to fund themselves then I have no objection to them conducting religious discrimination. I may well think it stinks to high heaven in a country like ours but I will wear it. However if they are taking my tax dollars while doing it then they can get stuffed.

I take a more natural line.
And that is; If I want to say something, I will say it.
If I intended to insult or upset the person I am talking to/about, then I have succeeded in my goal.
If I did not set out to insult or upset the person, then I would expect a challenge or rebuttal from that person.
To which I would clarify and all ends well.
I find it an egregious invasion of my right to speak freely or "freedom of speech".
It is severe censorship when one is stopped from speaking their mind.
There is also one very large and very serious point that is not mentioned in all this, and that is; If one is not allowed to speak their mind, honestly and freely without any external forces or laws stopping them, the message and in fact the conversation and it's intended message will not be true and in fact it will render the conversation irrelevant.
This is the reason why Political Correctness is a very bad and corrosive language.
If you say something which discriminates, big deal, there are a lot of things I can say, but OLO is still undecided as to what is acceptable and what is not, so I will simply choose to say that if you are so sensitive to criticism, GROW UP, GROW SOME other things and stop being such a woos, or neuter, or whatever else, and learn to stand up for yourself, and not hide behind PC.

SR, your argument is as solid as tissue paper.
You do not get to choose who does what with taxpayers money, the govt does.
I could give you a boat load of things the govt is throwing/wasting money at.
As for challenging the video, sure why not, it's another pathetic attempt at validation, which will NEVER happen, no matter what they say to try to force us to believe the opposite.
Why can't people like you just accept the fact that people like me exist, and we don't like certain people.
We have the right to say it, and yes even in a public place or forum, you have the right to disagree, but not the right to stop me from saying what I feel I have to or need to say.
It really is about time you and those of your mindset, just accept that we discriminate all the time, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
It is not acceptable for a few to dictate to the many.
So do not attempt to justify an injustice like PC.
Discrimination is not an injustice but a natural part of life and human interactions

Remember in defense of freedom of speech we who do not believe must have the right to our views being protected too.
Again I would not want the job of writing this bill.
Yesterday we heard 52 percent of us are Christians [may be true may not be].
We have been told 30 percent in the census, says they have no religion.
Consider the remaining 18 percent the many faiths, and remember they too must be protected.

SR, I do not like your characterising of Christians and would oppose your views. If I am offended by them I might question my behaviours and correct it. However If I believe I am morally right, it just glosses over as not affecting my self view.

Children who have been wrongly raised will have to confront society and its expectations. Being offended is part of social impact to question behaviour. To introduce laws to curb offense may protect the weak but makes the Government the controller of ideas. It is better the public to debate values of behaviour than supress discussion. The only behaviour that should be curtailed is irrational violence or threat. The 10 commandments is still our best value system for a successful society.

It will be useful for someone to look at the effect of similar laws
in the UK. If you say something that a moslem takes offense at you can
have the British Police thought squad on your doorstep.
There are a small number in gaol on Hate Law infringements.
Goes back a while, perhaps they are taking a more relaxed stance.

Yes, and for that reason Bazz I am opposed to blasphemy laws or any laws which make it illegal to criticise a religion. We have them already in this country in various state and territory legislations. There is a subsisting blasphemy law from the founding of Australia as well, but it probably isn't still operative, and would only protect the Church of England.

If you are interested in my considered position on the issue, and some of the problems we have here, you might like to read this http://aip.asn.au/2018/03/submission-to-ruddock-panel-on-religious-freedom/. We also list the various states that already forbid "hate speech" against people because of their religion. That is something that the federal government doesn't deal with at all.

Dear Josephus,

You still haven't addressed the central tenant of the issue raised in the video.

My example was;

"If some religious fruit cake behind the counter at Vicroads wants to make snide remarks about a single mum, or a woman in a head dress, or an obviously trans person her right to do so should not be protected."

Some how we have gone from a rugby player putting something on his personal social media page to allowing religious nutters free rein to have a crack at anyone they encounter in their workplace.

As raised in the video the issue of a personal care worker ascribing a disability of a client to to the devil, to the person's face, is to be protected?

This is fruit loops territory and it will of course be hugely divisive.

This isn't Australia. Wake up people.

Addressing this matter was an election commitment made by the NLP. The government will eventually get around to presenting a Bill to Parliament. There will be the usual argy bargy between the government and the opposition, followed by the unseemly nonsense in the senate. The Bill will or will not get through.

A majority of people did vote for a return of the previous government, and promises/commitments/rewards for those votes were clearly spelt out during the campaign. Presumably, those who didn't want what the LNP offered placed their votes elsewhere. And they lost.

So, settle down and wait and see. We are not Americans. We accept the democratic vote of the majority. Videos on YouTube; anti-freedom posters, and odds and sods plebs are not going to make a jot of difference to the outcome

SR, I don't know if you actually mean what you say, as if you are being purposely anti, or antagonistic or provocative, perhaps to engender angst and controversy, but always in the negative and never in any form of compliance.
ttbn makes a sound and logical case/comment which gives rise to thought and not attacks of negativity.
I cannot understand how someone would condone or promote the silencing of another person or group, based on their personal opinion.
Is one man better or more relevant or important or even superior than another, that they have the right to demand that others not speak their mind free of of fear or favour.
Don't fall for the old trick of the "thin edge of the wedge".
No SR, don't stop people from saying whatever they want, let nature do it's thing, and hopefully those who are apparently afraid of being insulted, apparently like yourself, may just end up growing a back bone and some stones to be able to become a person who may also lose his fear of shadows

SR understand but firmly think the court would fix that, if not?
Once again saw GYs post agree with that and take the same stand.
Have no doubt even some posting here will want the bill to be one-sided or unbalanced but if it is it will bring the roof down.
They exist, that is those who think only about their faith but the bill must, to work, cover all and every faith.
Some most of us clearly do not like

- It's all a bit of a minefield.
I told you all ages ago that there wouldn't be any winners out of this Israel Folau thing.

If he has the right to say what he said then other religions will be allowed to say a whole lot of other things.
If he doesn't have a right to say what he said then employers have the right to dictate what people can and can't post online.
- There's no winner here -

Israel Folau won because it was never stipulated in his contract that he refrain from the making the comments he did.
- He never signed the separate extra section they tried to force him to sign after he'd already signed the original contract.

AC, just tagging on the back of your comment about Folau, did I hear someone say that Folau's case firmly goes back to the old chestnut that women should NOT be in top management positions.
This being said, it is just another nail in their coffin.
As for the ABC, I have no idea what the hell is going on there, by hiring I've a but-nose.
You know it must be wonderful to have friends in high places.
As it turns out the higher the office, the less you actually do.
I have had to endure some of the most horrendous people and their commentary form the ABC, with every mothers son of them giving personal opinions.
And then some come out with instructions on telling us how to behave in general.
Who do these morons think they are?
They have to be reminded that they are mere presenters, and as such are nothing, nobody, value-less.
The ABC should rein these presenters in and give THEM a lecture on what their job is and not what THEY think it is.
This is another conflict of free speech and discrimination.
They are discriminating against the audience by making unsolicited and certainly in most cases, unwarranted suggestions or remarks.
It's unfortunate that people are such lemons, because if they were a little more cynical and aware they would not believe everything they hear, see or read.

AC agree the Israel thing was a draw he got some cash [rumor two-point two million] the head of that game, will in time find herself out of work

The Falau case was settled out of court so it has not confiremed the
law either. It is assumed he won as him and his wife had very big
smiles when they came out.
This whole free speech business is fraught with unintended results.
Just read up on the UK's experience with it.
The UK is no longer a country governed by law and sharia law has an
increasing influence on judicial judgements.

1/.You should have the right to say what you like to whomever you like. If they say something stupid then you have the right to tell them so.

2/. The theists object to this because every time they open their mouths they put there foot into it and cannot help but say something foolish and they are trying to gag our right of telling them they are stupid.

3/. Do we want to become as bad as many countries where criticism is met with gaol or execution?

I maintain that we all have the right to free speech and to speak our minds, if there is to be legislation to protect anything it should be legislation to protect such freedom; also it should protect the right of anyone who is grossly insulted to respond to the insulter with a bunch of fives or the equivalent.

I note the atheist loves the idea to call Christians 'stupid'. It is pity he does not have a more intelligent response. If that is his level of freedom of speech Christians have nothing to worry about.

George Bernard Shaw: 'Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it".

See Josephus my point is proven.

Steele is correct, this attempt by the religious nutters to score a victory after being KO'ed on the gay marriage issue is pathetic. Such legislation has little to do with free speech, and more to do with the right of a hateful section of society to openly vent their spleen on those they detest.

As for the ad linked in the opening post by GY, its rather innocuous when compared to the rantings and ravings of some religious nutters at times. I don't have a problem with most of what the religious say and do behind closed doors, there are exceptions of course, their merry band of kiddie fiddlers like Archy Pell, and there are a lot of them, can go to "hell", as far as I'm concerned!

Think as I have said constantly, this bill is a minefield.
It almost for sure, will explode in some faces.
Paul may, in the end, be right, but because it is, after all, that minefield no easy task to draw up.
I maintain the view we must be free to hold any opinion.
And too that mostly formal religion is fading from our lives
52 percent of us say [Australian statistics] they are Christian, not in Church this week to come we are not.
And if people did not just tick the faith they are born in to?

Hi Belly, how about a law that only allows baptism/christening etc for those who can make a conscience decision to "join the faith" as an adult. Then the 2% of Christians in society would be well satisfied. The adult rate of christening, or conversion, is very low. My grandmother who was staunch to begin with, converted from Anglican to marry a Catholic as an adult, can't recall too many in the family doing that.

Paul1405,
You got my vote on that ! Great idea but I'm afraid it'll drown in the Gene pool !

To have a functioning society of ideas and associations there must be boundaries and laws to surround those values for justice in relationships. People are by nature competitive and cruel, especially verbally cruel. We need a sense of justice based in care for the other. We see the intent of cruelty and abuse expressed especially in social media.

The development of societies that upheld the ten commandments were the most advanced, free and presented ideas and products to improve the well being of all society. Societies have moved away from intrinsic values to tribal values and law and order has broken down.

It would be interesting to see the value system posters on Online adhere too. Jesus put it in two phrases, I rephrase; worship and love of the highest values, and care and respect of others, even an enemy.

My rendition of the Judaeo-Christian values.

1. Admire there is behaviour higher and more just; greater than present human attitudes.
2. Uphold there is only one value system to follow.
3. We should not devalue those values.
4. We should not be, or hold slaves but have relaxed meditation time.
5. Respect the elderly and care for one's parents.
6. Do not plan intend or carry out murder [the taking of another's life].
7. Do not plan, intend or carry out sex with another's partner.
8. Do not speak falsely, or intentionally hurtful of another.
9. Do not defraud, or steal rights or property from another.
10. Do not covet with intent to rob another's possessions or employees.[reduce his wealth or income]

Some pretty revealing posts, particularly from Steele. He appears to think that we should have laws stopping people from being rude to other people (although I suspect he thinks it is only some "other people" and you can be as rude as you like to people he disagrees with).

And that after being told Gay Marriage wouldn't affect our rights of freedom of belief and freedom of religion, apparently now it does. On this basis no one should trust anything the intolerance lobby says. It's all for their benefit, not anyone else's.

The fascists are out in strength. And that is not an insult it is a statement about the authoritarian point of view they support. And some of these people are Double Speak Jedi Mind Masters. You need to watch them closely and be careful not to be taken in by slogans like "Love is love" because what they really mean is either "Love is hate" or "Self love is the greatest love of all".

Paul, you are confusing.
You bag the religious but you praise the queers.
You rubbish those who, at least, have the courage to admit they believe in something on the good side of the spectrum.
Meaning religion is a discipline, which even if you don't go to church, you are a good person with good morals and beliefs.
It is up to each christian to adhere or not to the teachings of Christianity.
A few sick priests doth not maketh the norm, or mean every priest is sick.
On the other hand you promote, even admire, (it seems) queers.
Paul you can't be trusted to make any serious comments or contribution if you can't see the huge inconsistency and fallacy in your argument.
Which is better a bad christian or a good queer?
When comparing morals and ethics, and a million other societal factors, which is the one following a more acceptable and ideological path and lifestyle?
No Paul, YOU may have your reasons for choosing queers over the religious, and that's OK, it is your right, but it is also incumbent upon me or any good christian to point out the error of your ways.
Don't forget, it is freedom of speech that allows us to speak free and frank without fear or favour as we are doing.
Yes my, and others comments, will offend and upset, does this mean I should be compliant and only add comments that strengthen the other persons view of the discussion, even though they are proven to, or known to be wrong?

Dear GrahamY,

Smoke and mirrors old chap, but nothing addressing the issue raised by the video.

Is a disability carer allowed to tell a disabled person that their disability is from the devil and claim freedom from censure by his or her employer because it is a firmly held religious belief?

Can the person at the local motor registration branch continually berate single mums for having had children out of wedlock and not ever be allowed to be pulled up for it?

Will a religious school which is nearly fully funded by taxpayers be able to ban all those who do not full profess the applicable faith from attending as students or from teaching. Will they be able to expel students for turning away from the faith during year 12 studies in the name of religious freedom?

This is the kind of f$$$ed up society you might want for this country but I most certainly do not. I consider it an affront to all decent Australians.

How on earth is that making me a fascist and not you?

SR specialises in being rude to other people. The more sensible posters among you should remember that 'Silence is the best response to a fool'. Don't respond to him and he will slither away.

He, and a couple of others not quite as bad as he is, are not intelligent enough to realise that the freedom of speech they oppose so strongly allows them to continue calling people 'religious nutters'

ALTRAV,

No point in arguing with Paul; he is doing double duty now that his mate Foxy has folded. Be patient. Extremism eventually takes its toll on the extremist, particularly when they don't have a audience. Think of a blowie buzzing frantically around inside an empty bottle.

Alright, now lets get serious.

Honestly on a scale of 1 to 10 Christians running around saying 'God hates Fags' rates about a 1 on the religious offense scale.

Muslims promoting clitorectomy, general subjagation of women and killing of anyone they deem an infidels is at the other end of the scale.

Christianity is most passive religion of the 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I don't support any move towards Sharia Law or an Islamic theocracy.
I don't support any move towards Noahide Law or a Jewish theocracy.

Freedom of religion and the the right to freedom from religious discrimination:
Why can't I discriminate against aspects of religion I don't agree with?

In a representative democracy we have the duty to criticise our government and replace them.
I don't see how it could ever be fair that we be denied the right to criticise other things?

This is Australia not North Korea.

Personally, I'm just going to keep on saying whatever I feel like.
Some of my topics are contentious but I don't seek to incite hatred any more then make use of my right to have an opinion.

With a Christian PM and a Zionist Treasurer it should be no surprise to whom the bill will be written to benefit.

The biggest question is why do people who have nothing to do with religion, hold in utter contempt even, worry about those religious organisations being able to refuse abortions; refuse to marry homosexuals and not employ atheists, etc?

Perhaps they are not as confident in their 'difference' as they claim to be? Do they not think that there are not oodles of non-religious organisations out there to give them what they want? If they think that religion is a load of rubbish, why do they worry about it? Christianity, at least, doesn't go looking for people to reject. Christianity is not compulsory. If these people don't believe the message they can ignore it. Anyone in this country can live life fully without coming into contact with religion.

How defined are the proposed defamation and hate laws at this stage.
Perhaps Graham will have to institute a legal examination of every post.
Might be worthwhile to find out what happens in the UK for sites such as this.
Have they had posters arrested ?
There does seem to be an offense called Islamaphobia.
It seems to be activated for any adverse reference to Islam.
There does not seem to be an offense of Christaphobia.

Perhaps Graham has already researched these matters, if so Graham are
you able to reveal it at this time ?
I can see that the legislation may require an aimed protest campaign.

Typical Steele. More misrepresentation, or just careless allegations without regard for the truth. The legislation does not allow people in the course of their employment to use religion as an excuse to abuse people. Abuse is the operative word. But it shouldn't stop someone wearing a turban to work, for example, or a cross, unless there were a safety issue. So you made all of that up.

What it should allow is for religious organisations to be able to choose who they hire on the basis of faith, or agreement to abide by faith. You got that part more or less right. But then fantasy cuts in as there is nothing in the legislation allowing for the expulsion of students because they don't meet some test of faith, although I would believe that a faith school should be able to accept based on adherence to faith. On the last I speak as a protestant who went to a Catholic school and I would have accepted their right not to accept me because of religious preference. I understand that I was a theological challenge in the class room, but I suspect they saw that as some sort of a teaching opportunity. I was never dealt with less equally than the other students.

Steelredux the stones aimed at you, by some who truly deserve just that, highlights right here
Here in this place, some opinions are unwanted
Paul as you see here, this bill, if drafted poorly, will be a problem more likely to harm that fix
Freedom of speech remains worth fighting for, even if some, find steelredux a bit rude.
Nothing like future miss-use of this bill will produce believe it.

SR, in response to your last comment, it's easy; they're all merely saying what THEY believe, and of course their right to say it.
As for their questioning another's right to say or question them, about anything, they also have the right to do that.
I believe these people know they are guilty of the implications of the questions and comments made to/at them, and because of that they are reminded of how they are not normal and they don't like it.
Well SR, too friggin bad, they have bullied, threatened and gone way out of their way, to force the rest of the world and even the laws, to get their own selfish way.
They know they are not what they contend to be, ie; living a lie, and this is the thing they do not want to be reminded of, it highlights the fact that they ARE different and not in a socially accepted way.
In answer to your questions/points;
The disability carer and the disabled, the answer is yes of course, it is their belief, and the disabled person can respond however they want.
AS for the guy at the local motor registry telling off a single mom for whatever he feels the need to, yes he can.
I think something is missing here as the two are unrelated.
Ah yes, the old catholic school thing again.
The funding is for the students, not the school, any moron knows this.
Anyway, if it is a particular school with a particular lean or agenda, religious or otherwise, they MUST follow their terms of reference or "mission statement" and yes if they want to reject anyone that does not follow those terms and conditions, teachers or students, then you must be missing some grey matter if you can't see the distinction.
As for this being an affront to decent Australians, it's OK, their aren't many of those anyway.
So SR, like it or not, we must be allowed to speak our minds, and let's just hear what people think and not what YOU would like them to think, OK?

.

Dear Graham,

.

In my opinion, conflicts are inevitable in the domain of individual rights and it is futile for the legislator to even attempt to anticipate them.

Australia is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations which we ratified in 1980.

Article 18 clearly defines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and Article 19 equally clearly defines the right to freedom of expression.

It is impossible to imagine the circumstances of all the conflicts that may arise among these and other rights of the 25 million individuals in Australia in their vast diversity. The courts are there for that.

We should leave it at that. Tampering with our existing legislation based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only upset the apple cart. The spirit of the law is clear. It is up to the courts to apply it as equitably as possible, given the specific circumstances of each conflict.

Need I add that I, personally, am particularly attached to the individual rights of both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

.

Dear GrahamY,

Thank you for finally addressing, at least in part, the issues raised in the video.

You say “Abuse is the operative word.” and indeed it is.

Wearing a headscarf may well trigger some people and offend them. But that really isn't what this is about.

So does it become abuse when the woman behind the counter at the motor registration branch informs every single mother that in her opinion single mother are leading sinful lives? Or the disability support worker telling each of their clients that in his opinion their disability is from the devil?

I believe it would most certainly be abusive, you seem instead to regard it as purely exercising their soon to be mandated religious freedom.

How will the legislation protect those disabled people or those single mothers from having to face overt religious judgments foisted upon them as they are going about their lives? If the disabled person seeks a different support person but the manager of the service also holds similar beliefs or says they are powerless to act without activating religious discrimination rules, what then?

Show me if you can the protections within the proposed legislation which would stop this from happening. My reading of it doesn't flag any.

The watermelon lefties hate this legislation so much, because it will halt their march through the education system.

It will stop them taking over the education in religious schools as they have taken over control of the public school sector. I know quite a few non catholic families who are sending their kids to catholic schools to;

1/ Escape the lefty/homosexual brain washing that is now standard in public schools.

2/ Have a school that actually controls bullying.

3/ A school which actually wants to help kids be the best they can be.

3/ Try to instill in kids some respect for themselves & our country.

4/ Turn out kids ready for the real world.

"I (GY) would believe that a faith school should be able to accept based on adherence to faith." Graham, and how is that adherence to faith determined for five year old's? Children are there to be indoctrinated, nothing more than that. How many children attending religious schools adhere freely to the faith in any distinguishable way more so than those attending state schools?

I just love this thread!
I agree with its author too.
BUT, yes oh yes but, see our sites WORST OFFENDERS leap on steelredux, *for having a different opinion*
Even GY.
How will the bill avoid that type of outcome?
And is freedom of speech not for steelredux? but ok for a few, why?
Truly why?
Are us lefties [balenced thinkers] free to be endlessly insulted by some who have differing opinions?.
BET just BET some are swearing under their breath at me right now
Is this site a free speech or a free to insult SOME site?

I support freedom of criticism

I support all forms of freedom, for everyone.
Anything else is discrimination.
What's good for one is good for all, and vice-versa.
I don't like being told what to do and when to do it, and all that without being told why.
It's so simple but the butheads of the world refuse to see reason.
Abuse, swearing, yelling, all these verbal acts are merely that, VERBAL!
What is the matter with you lot? Have you all lost your sense of relativity, rationality, and even sense of humour.
Most of these pathetic claims and demands are fanciful and petulant and should be treated with the indifference they deserve.
What kind of wimps have people become, that they can't stand being told.
No stuff your anti-discrimination act and all that, let's get on with our lives without having to wonder if we're talking to some unreasonable and super silly, sensitive idiot.
And as for the video, it and the people in it, belong in the bin!

Dear belly,

Don't sweat it mate. I certainly don't feel put upon in the least. I don't read all the posters because some aren't worth the effort but there hasn't been anything past being touted as a fascist which is pretty tame.

Anyway all good here.

All ok SR but worth rereading the barbed posts, and trying to make sense out of some demanding free speech
Ten insulting people for using it funny stuff

"I support all forms of freedom, for everyone." A rather sweeping statement there ALTRAV. Are you not the same ALTRAV who some time back said on the Forum paedophile acts were nothing to be to concerned about, just a way of turning boys into men, or some such nonsense. Correct me if I am wrong.

Paul, I can say categorically, I say a lot of things some consider crass and over the top, but I can guarantee all, that, that statement does not sound like me.
I will accept writing something similar, but definitely not what you wrote.
I wish I could remember so I could confirm it.
I'm sure someone will search back and find it.
Paul, it is intended as a sweeping statement, so as to explain that we are all on a level playing field.
This bill and it's purpose will not work as it is impossible to police and prosecute such a broad interpretation of what constitutes discrimination whether in speech or not.
The only way for any legislation to work is, if everyone stopped communicating with each other.
The written word is the worst culprit for getting someone in trouble under the freedom of speech laws.
Because there is no means of applying inflections in the written word, many times the same phrase can be interpreted several ways, from bad to good.
That's why I don't like texting, or even emails.
Whenever i receive one, if I can, I phone them back.
Much quicker and much more efficient, and the discussion was understood without any confusion or misunderstanding.
This whole thing of discrimination and controlling speech is a very bad idea and will serve no real or good purpose, only bad would come of it.
Look all we are talking about is the sensitivities of a very small number of people.
And as I have always said, we cannot have a situation where the minority dictates to the majority.
It would benefit everyone if we left well enough alone and those who are so piss weak as to be offended by anything offensive, whether it is or not, just grow up and grow a few more parts of the anatomy and we will all live happily ever after.

Hey Josephus,

What makes you think that Judaism and Christianity are in any way aligned?

Christianity established itself as a religion in its own right rather than a breakaway Jewish sect back in the Roman-Jewish War 66 - 73 AD

"My rendition of the Judaeo-Christian values.

1. Admire there is behaviour higher and more just; greater than present human attitudes.
2. Uphold there is only one value system to follow.
3. We should not devalue those values.
4. We should not be, or hold slaves but have relaxed meditation time.
5. Respect the elderly and care for one's parents.
6. Do not plan intend or carry out murder [the taking of another's life].
7. Do not plan, intend or carry out sex with another's partner.
8. Do not speak falsely, or intentionally hurtful of another.
9. Do not defraud, or steal rights or property from another.
10. Do not covet with intent to rob another's possessions or employees.[reduce his wealth or income]"

2 - Which is it Judaism or Christianity?
4 - Jews believe that after Moshiach returns and heralds the Messianic Age that they will rule over all non-Jews.
6 - Plenty of evidence of Jews murdering Palestinians;
Do you not know Jews are commanded to make a holy war with and utterly destroy the Amalekites?
There will be no 2 state solution.
It's against Jewish religious law to make peace.
9 / 10 - Do not steal property or possessions from another? Settlements hello

Belly
"I just love this thread!
I agree with its author too.
BUT, yes oh yes but, see our sites WORST OFFENDERS leap on steelredux, *for having a different opinion*
Even GY".

Belly the 2 worst offenders on here, who particularly try at every post to get up others nose, are SR & Paul. I know a lefty will never admit to this fact, probably not even see it, but fact it is. Horrible people who obviously hate Australia & Australians.

AC, some time ago I came across an article which was about the world rabbi's getting together for a conference or something like that.
I was privy to the speech as it was included in the article.
Basically I was shocked to read this garbage document which unashamedly explained how they were going to rule the world, and gave accounts of what was done and what will be done in the way of wars and atrocities and even genocide.
It went on to explain, in detail, how they were going to achieve, what he called "the end of the white race", who apparently are the enemy of the Jews.
I could not believe what I was reading, it went on to explain how they would cause conflict between certain races and especially end up with the white people breeding with blacks and others of colour, with the ultimate goal of the extermination of the white race.
Then they would conclude their goal and move to take control and rule over the non-white population.
Thereby taking their rightful place in ruling the world.
And everyone shall be beholding to them, the Jews.
Now I'm not kidding, this was in print and was a true account and is on the record, I did not bother to take any note of it as I merely scoffed and cursed these elite Jews yet again.
I would like to know if someone can find this event or anything or any mention about it.
I know you guys are at least curious, if only to prove me wrong.
But that's OK, I'd like to revisit it and I don't care if I got it wrong, memory and all that.
I think, like me you won't believe it, it's just too fanciful to be real.

Hassy, do I get up your nose? Good! For one who once wanted to nuk 200 million defenceless men, women and children in Pakistan, remember saying that on the Forum? No. Also you said the navy should open fire with 50mm rounds at unarmed refugee boats, also with defenceless men, women and children on board, remember saying that? Possibly not. You can deny those things if you like. What a coward, and what a pathetic excuse for a human being you are! If I didn't get up your nose I would feel ashamed!
Sailing around as Captain Bilgewater, helping to destroy the Great Barrier Reef, is another of your outstanding achievements, is it not!

But I still love you!

RUBBISH HASBEEN
But I understand, the two extremely rude posters have posted in this thread'
And seem to have a license to freely insult everyone who does not share their and this sites tilt to the right.
Look again at the title of this thread
Think if only briefly, about it.
Then read the posts that WARN the coming legislation will be a dog's breakfast.
We can not even talk about it here without those two insulting views they do not agree with
And old mate you dive into that pond too, the thread has given evidence we are probably not yet ready for such legislation, we, all of us, need to grow up.
Paul if you can find that INFAMOUS IF TRUE comment please post a link

Are us lefties [balenced thinkers]
Belly,
Very funny, at least you got a great sense of humour !

AC, Judaeo-Christian values are a modified values by Christian virtues, and is not secular Israeli. This is important to understand as extremist Israeli's also persecute Christians.

When it comes to free speech, if someone says false things about a person with the intent to damage the reputation of another they are as guilty as a murderer, because they spoke with malice with the intent to damage. That is why we have defamation laws. Note the character assassinations that occur every day, with intent to damage. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against another".

Anti-Semitism is like a gene, passed down from one generation to the next, in people who have never even met a Jew.

Individual, what do I say about your one line bucket?
You tip such things on me and others often
Not well thought out maybe the best you can do, but what is the point in educating you
Like the path the thread has taken
Came in totally agreeing with its theme free speech is worth protecting
As we get into it some very clearly define free speech only as their views and opinions
Got to love the humor in that

AC, I could kiss you.
You have made me the happiest I have been in a long time.
Your comments and links have not only vindicated me, but strengthened my resolve.
If or WHEN I eventually get kicked off this PC promoting medium, for the lack of finding something better, I will leave as one who has witnessed the existence of another who questions things and does not automatically and lazily accept what is put in front of them.
AC, I differ from you, in that knowing there is a wrong or injustice, especially if I am affected, I will get angry and I will rebut accordingly.
I believe the problem is complacency, which is easy to be, because you don't have to do anything.
And that's why we are in trouble.
Never mind this con job called GW or CC, there is a much more sinister thing going on, and the people I have been complaining about even here on OLO are at the front and centre of it.
Even though I have seen most of what you link, I do not bookmark, I am happy to have read it then remember it, it's too bad that OLOéns demand proof or links, but you have done the hard yards and deserve all the credit and much appreciation for it.
Like Loudmouth, another who has done the hard yards with 15,000 pages to prove it.
So AC, I feel I can now speak with a lot more conviction knowing that what I say IS true and even though I can't link, I don't care, I know it's true, let the detractors go away ignorant and no wiser, it's their loss.
Again.
Great information.
THANK YOU.

Josephus, you're wrong.
If someone wants to "assassinate" you verbally, they can and in fact, MUST, or THEY are being discriminated against, for not allowing them to speak freely.
How their words affect you is irrelevant.
As I have said before, if he intended to insult you, he must be allowed to.
You then have the right of rebuttal, which can come in any form you like, verbal or physical.
That's the beauty of life, you can choose to stand your ground or turn and leave.
The response, if it is needed, is your choice, and no-one should stop you from doing/saying what you want, especially some pathetic law enabled by some pathetic people.

It now appears ALTRAV, has no moral values or standards, He is lawless and evidently lives by that standard. So in the future we shall know his word is not to be trusted as fact, just his emotions spilling out. I am sure he would not accept false accusations in his children; then again perhaps he has taught them such! He has no standard to evaluate fact from falsehood. He is capable of murder according to his own words, if he hates an opponent!

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock?

You write;

"Horrible people who obviously hate Australia & Australians."

Really, this from a bloke who pissed off to sail around the South Pacific because he didn't like the lie of the land here at the time.

What a bloody fairweather friend you turned out to be. You deserted this country rather than stay in a place which didn't properly reflect your ideology.

I have a deep commitment to trying to right the issues facing us as a nation, you preferred to scurry off.

Yes you are a horrible individual but hey, it takes all types.

How typical from SR.

So wrong old man. I went sailing for 2 reasons.

One to follow my dream, &
two because I knew I wouldn't meet any gutless wonders, like some on here I could name, out there in the big frightening ocean.

I was right too. I didn't meet a single lefty out there. They were all at home swinging off the taxpayers coat tails one way or another.

Paul you would have to shrink down to the size of a flea, some brain size, to get up my nose.

And a very merry Christmas to all of you regardless.

Dear Hasbeen,

You have repeatedly said you headed off because of Whitlam. Are you now saying that was untrue?

I have a deep commitment to trying to right the issues facing us as a nation,
SteeleRedux,
Then why are so Left ?

What a dreamer SR, & they must be nightmares.

I would never let a peanut like Whitlam make me do anything.

The thread has a point, but we prove it is not true
We can not even live together with any civility here
No chance exists the legislation will be other than a minefield
Yet the thread, if we truly look at all posts, here and in the forum, shouts the whole idea is a joke
I am no better than most
But look at individuals *far from lonely view* steelredux, all who disagree with him/them, is leftist
Good grief we can not even hold different political views without such stuff
We never will here at least
Can it truly be? that every ALP voter? every not Conservative thinker? is a wardrobe lefty?
Unworthy of anything other than contempt?
Time, like the sea roles on endlessly, in time, as it always has,the Fake news brand, an insult to the truth, will fade away
Conservatives ownership [in part funded by Labor/the not rights faults] will find another form of government in power
That we can only hope, will not be powered by truly fake, fake news fake views and a some times demented view anything other than Conservative is a bit evil.

all who disagree with him/them, is leftist
Belly,
Actually no. It doesn't have to be disagreeable, just simply wrong what makes a Leftist !

Hey ALTRAV,

I'm not disagreeing with your reasons for wanting to speak your mind, I'm really not that different.
I should explain what I meant when I said "I just don't want you venting anger too much".

It was to do with 'The Bigger Picture'
My concern isn't your own thoughts and opinions on the content, it's how it may look to others that won't take the time to look as you and I have.
I was worried that if you took all that info in at once, that you might be inclined to rant and rave (as one does) and that to others, it may look as though you've been 'instantly radicalised'.

- And if they think you've been radicalised without themselves looking at the content, then it might give them cause to think the said content matter does 'incite hatred'.
If they can be lead to believe it 'incites hatred' well then it's really only a very small step for them to start thinking to themselves that 'maybe the content should be censored'.

I try to separate the people from the idea I'm opposed to.
People still use the word 'NAZI' to denigrate but I think its generally understood that people don't use the word 'NAZI' out of an unrelenting hatred for German people.
Likewise, it should not be assumed that my motivation is hatred for Jewish people rather than opposition to an idea that says they have a 'legitimate right to rule over others' as 'Gods Chosen people'.

Anti-Semitic

If you've watched the videos, then you'll know by now that when Jews accuse others of anti-semitism, they're actually trying to impose a religious theocracy upon others, i.e Noahide Laws.

One of the laws state that one cannot criticise the religious authority, and by opposing, questioning or criticising 'their right to exist (including stealing land) in Palestine', their religious wars or Messianic religious beliefs I'm breaking Noahide Law.

AC I would like to assure that I have not been 'instantly radicalised '.
Far from it, I would like the others to know that I have been aware of your posting and links for many years, plus I am too old to be radicalised at this stage.
If I have an opinion by now, it's pretty safe to say that I've had more than enough years to either accept or discard any opinions or information I have come across.
No my reaction is pure elation from not only having this information put out there for all to see, but also because I have been vindicated for having known and accepted this information for so long, and during that time been attacked, chastised, abused and so on, by those who are so clueless as to feel they should object out of sympathy for those who conspire to orchestrate their demise.
I will say it again.
Any mention of any particular race or creed in a disparaging way is merely an economical means of writing, and IN NO WAY implies the whole of the races, creeds mentioned, in fact it refers to the radical and evil ones who are causing all this murder and mayhem.
The fact the Torah and the Koran call for the extermination of certain individuals and of certain beliefs, is a matter of fact and record, so please do not assume that I am advocating these atrocities just because I believe them to be true.

Pay attention! test coming
So we agree? every faith has the right to its views, including Islam?
Scientology? exclusive brethren?
Be nice!
Well no, some of us will clearly say no, and in doing that *express their opinion* surely nothing wrong with that?
Seasons greetings, from my Bible Wamping group!

Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. There is no way around it. You can be anti-Semitic; you can be anti-anything; you can discriminate against whom or what you like. Just don't deny it or try hide it with bullshite. I'm anti-Islam, and proud of it. I'm anti-SSM and proud of it. I'm anti multiculturalism and proud of it. Honesty is nothing line afraid of.

Now there is the voice of reason.
ttbn speaks clearly and without padding.
I don't know why something bad or wrong has to be tolerated for fear of being attacked by some people too scared to tell it like it is.
I'm sorry that I can't speak freely in the local language I grew up in because a limp wristed pion of a moderator thinks that speaking Australian is somehow bad.
I don't know what country they grew up in but here we say what we mean and mean what we say.
And absolutely shred the very word and idea of PC.

democrats are anti democracy and proud of it
democrats are liars and proud of it
democrats love fake news and are proud of it
democrats love life and praying while racing off to planned parenthood
democrats love open borders and support terrorist
democrats hate the American constitution and pretend to love it.
democrats is full of toxic feminist and are proud of it

Runner, I'm sorry but your response to ttbn is a great big, slap in the face, fail.
You see what you have missed, and I applaud ttbn for his courage in doing so, is that what he said was about himself, and his position.
What you have said is sh!t because it is you giving an opinion about things that you firstly know nothing about and secondly a repeat or personal opinion of what you have been told, or read, so not first hand/person.
In other words your response to ttbn is, moot, irrelevant, er I won't go on, I think you've got it, you know what I mean.

Dear individual,

You ask;

"Then why are so Left ?"

Not left at all, pretty well straight up the center.

Not left at all, pretty well straight up the center.
SteeleRedux,
Don't give up your day job because you're not yet cutting it as a comedian !

And, yes, the Democrats are perfectly entitled to do all those things, no matter what I, runner or anyone else thinks.

I've argued before about the need to look at all the smaller arguments that hold merit in order to find all the faults and flaws as a process that you must do in order to write good policy.

- Basically you can't write a good policy without foolproofing it -

If I stood back for just a minute and looked at the bigger picture on this whole 'religious discrimination bill' I have to draw the conclusion that were approaching the whole issue all wrong.

- All we've done is open a can of worms;
- And we don't have an adequate system or process in place to deal with all these bloody worms we've now set free.
- The worms are on the loose, they're taking over dammit!!

The elephant in the room is that we have to actually have a look at the religions themselves.
We can't assume they're all equal.
We have to first wise up to the pro's and con's of each religion.

We have a right to freedom of religion;
We also have this inferred right where one cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion;
But already right, there's exceptions to that second rule.
There's a narrative that it's perfectly legitimate to attack religions in some circumstances.
It's fine for gays to attack religions as an example if gays feel discriminated against by the religions.

(What principle applies here btw?
J.S Mills Harm Principle - Everyone has a right to live however they choose so long as it does not have a negative or detrimental effect on others.

I.E. The religious have a right to their religion so long as it doesn't have a negative or detrimental effect on others)

So ultimately, in my mind the only real way forward, is if we start making a proper piecemeal out of these religions and look at ALL the parts which conflict;
ALL the parts of ALL the religions which stand to have a negative and detrimental effect on others.

If we do that, then we avoid all this 'anti-semitic' bullcrap in the first place ttbn.

Given the threads sire direction as we enter 2020 some things are true for some of us
Pedophilia is ok, the record of the Catholic Church, worldwide is ok.
Hitler was nothing to be concerned about.
Churches not paying tax, like the super-rich internationals avoiding it completely, is ok
Just maybe we could let reality shine, some things are not ok just because of free speech
It is fine to both be a dedicated total Christian but hate every much as bad as SATAN [Runner thinks so]

[Cont.]
Does it not stand to reason that if we actually look at the religions themselves,

If we look at ALL the parts which conflict;
If we look at ALL the parts of ALL the religions which stand to have a negative and detrimental effect on others;

Then, my so-called 'anti-semitic' related questions / concerns / comments become JUST AS LEGITIMATE
- As gays saying they are discriminated by religions.

- No More, No Less -

You know when I say that we're going about this process all wrong, it occurs to me the sad truth is that as humans beings we've actually become a whole lot dumber in the last 2500 years.

- It's True -

If I try to figure out when and where it was that human beings actually developed an ability to argue things based on merit, I end up somewhere back here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

"Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: dialektike; related to dialogue), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments."

- So, I end up back at a place BEFORE any of these Abrahamic religions existed; or in the case of Judaism, BEFORE what it is now.

We've actually become dumber;

- We were smarter then, than now -

Hey Belly,

"Just maybe we could let reality shine, some things are not ok just because of free speech"

I had to eat my words the other day when I said I supported 'freedom of criticism'.
Just after I posted that comment I found this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7769233/Australian-farmers-receive-sick-letters-telling-use-bullet-themselves.html

Well, I don't think I can support a 'right' to criticise farmers in that way over ones personal beliefs.
- Though I most certainly do support my right to criticse them after the fact, that's for sure.

Armchair Critic,
Those notes would have been composed by Lefties who are totally dependent on Taxpayers' handouts to mill around Art Schools etc.

The most important aspect of conversations is respect and care for the listener; the respect that they are listening, and care that they understand your message. The listener might be an avowed enemy of your message, but if you speak with respect it might get through especially when they realise you are not the enemy. Debate the ideas not demean the person. we should be able to criticise the ideas or behaviours, providing it is done with respect and good intent. The same way as we correct and direct our children to be honourable citizens.

Dear individual,

Hold on one minute mate, your far right viewpoint may well colour your perspective when judging someone's political leaning but I will tell you I'm hardly on the left to a lot of people I engage with. Most would definitely consider me centrist.

This forum is pretty well hard right for the most part. Supporting action on things like climate change and same sex marriage are majority positions in this country not fringe. Climate change denial is most certainly fringe. You are most certainly fringe too.

your far right viewpoint may well colour your perspective
SteeleRedux,
I guarantee you that that is not the case at all, what colours my viewpoint is my experience from my perspective !
You only call it far right because your idealism dictates so. Pragmatism is Right, Idealism is Left ! Or, to put it another way, those on the Right are generally in the revenue producing sector whereas those on the Left are in the revenue using sector. Not even a hard-core Leftist would deny that !

Dear individual,

Having run my own businesses most of my working life I have certainly been involved with many others doing the same. I can not think of one of them who would deny climate change not vote against SSM.

As most of the highest paid jobs usually involve having a university degree, and they are predominately left leaning, this also cruels your statement.

The fact that the Gina Reinharts of this world are hard right is not surprising as they are direct beneficiaries of hyper-capitalism. That in no way reflects the majority.

One of the reasons I still haunt this forum is I get to cross swords with people like you with whom I don't engage with normally. Again mate, you definitely are fringe.

SR, a quick correction.
You say MOST people in this country, or "majority positions".
I gather you mean, a MAJORITY of the people.
That is not quite right.
Because the survey had a predetermined agenda and not ALL the people voted, we ended up with a non-survey, which indicated that only the majority of those who got off their arses voted,YES.
In truth it was a NO result, so please do not mis-quote as it is mis-leading and because of this people make the wrong decisions based on wrong information.

individual,

"One of the reasons I still haunt this forum is I get to cross swords with people like you ..... ".

There you go. You have the opportunity to rid us of this idiot by ignoring him.

Seeing all the hatred and intolerance in this thread, between those who consider themselves "religious" and those who do not, where so many respondents are happy to outlaw and persecute the other camp, the question arises:

Why do you, guys, still wish to live in one country where the same laws apply to all? Why should those lucky to muster 51% of votes be oppressing those who could only muster 49%? Why should some who hold certain values ought to dictate the life of others who hold different values and live 1000's of kilometers away?

If you say that defence is the problem, then a defence-pact like NATO could solve that issue, and if the problem is economic, then something like the European-Union and the EURO-zone could handle that. Let us divide Australia into smaller independent states where every one can live decently and happily according to their own religious or otherwise values!

I have never felt that the differences of opinion expressed on OLO have anything to do with hate.

"Why do you, guys, still wish to live in one country where the same laws apply to all?"

Laws override opinions,and those laws ensure our rights to hold opinions. Do you know of any country where people all have the same opinions? Why would anyone want to live elsewhere just because of differing opinions? There is no such place.

When, in Australia, have almost half the population who didn't vote for a government been 'oppressed' by any government with a slight majority? Or a large majority. We have an opposition, a senate rarely dominated by the government, as well as independents - plus a judiciary in the form of the High Court.

"Let us divide Australia into smaller independent states where every one can live decently and happily according to their own religious or otherwise values!"

Now, that really takes my breath away. It's difficult to believe that anyone could even think that, let alone articulate it.

Yuyutsu,
Haven't you noticed that it's the minority groups throwing spanners into the works, not the majority ?

That in no way reflects the majority.
SteeleRedux,
IT IS the majority of people in business, people like yourself who exploit the commercial welfare that is negative gearing !

Dear Ttbn,

Opinions are only opinions when held by the weak.
When held by the strong, they become laws.

Your breath was taken away when I suggested to divide Australia, but my breath was taken away and I was dumbfounded when Paul wrote: "Hi Belly, how about a law that only allows baptism/christening etc for those who can make a conscience decision to "join the faith" as an adult."
(such laws indeed existed in the U.S.S.R)

So you have people around here who would, if they could, instead of allowing you to educate your own children with the values you so cherish, take them away to be indoctrinated in ways that are so foreign to you.

Why would you like to remain as one "nation" with such people with whom you have so little in common?

Now if instead it were Paul who was writing your exact last post, then I would have asked him why he would like to remain as one "nation" with such people who would, if they could, prohibit by law homosexuality and gender-change.

The only reason why neither of these practices is currently prohibited by law is that for the moment, neither Paul nor yourself have a majority in parliament - but this could change anytime, so why should anyone have to live in constant fear of that happening?

While I would not be personally affected by a prohibition of neither baptism/Christening nor homosexuality/gender-change, if I had a child/grandchild then as a Hindu I would want to have him/her invested with a sacred thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanayana). Since Paul would not allow it, by law if he could, then why are we to be bound together in a single state like back-to-back chicken?

"So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”" [Genesis 13:8-9]

ttbn, Yuyutsu, you both make valid arguments.
The idea of smaller states giving rise to more freedom of choice based on the laws of that new state.
The limiting factor is that you can never have enough states to satisfy everyone.
Because there are too many different people, BUT it is possible with a LITTLE compromise, unlike now, where one has to make HUGE sacrifices and compromises to accommodate the laws and rules made for a different people with different beliefs.
The reason why it is a good idea, however, is the USA.
It has, I believe, 52 States.
I have always preached that if one state does not suite your lifestyle, there are many others that will.
This current system is untenable and discriminates beyond belief.
This system of govt was designed to make it easy for the govt and it's departments, such as the judiciary, law enforcement and so on.
I much rather a system where our elected officers (the ministers) had an open line of communication to his constituents, and every bill gets sent to every constituent for us to examine and decide on.
The answer of which is tallied up just like the vote, and this way at least it is a system, for the people, by the people, giving us back our right to govern and control our own destiny and future.
As it is now, it's almost like we send little sony Jim off to Canberra with a wish list, but when he gets there he throws out the list and does exactly what he wants, and all in our name.
ttbn, I am one such person that would have gladly moved to another state to realise my wishes, but because we have this 51% rules system and mentality, I have been oppressed ALL my adult life, and because of this it has made me very cynical and suspicious of everything and everyone, as you can verify by my record on OLO.
This form of centralised govt is good for the system, but absolutely bad for the people.
It just doesn't work!

Dear Individual,

«Haven't you noticed that it's the minority groups throwing spanners into the works, not the majority ?»

In this particular case, yes I have, but while the specific issues at hand have no personal impact for me, in many other matters it is the mainstream major parties and the laws they make which hurt me most.

Yuyutsu, please know while we differ often and I sometimes fail , to understand you, I think you are a kind and nice person.
But gee unless I got you wrong I think you said the nastiness here is between believers and not believers.
Bloke some of the biggest haters are from both camps.
But overall too many CLAIM to be true followers of a God.
But produce pure hate nearly every post.
Now as you have heard me say if humanity invented a single God, one promising/threatening you WILL be born again, within the race/faith you harmed in this life, we could wipe out much hate.
Haters hate, re-read the posts, think on it, old age for some PICKLES THE BRAIN, brings about pure hate their own younger self would despise them for.
Sadder still some have ALWAYS had hate as their default position.
The threads good intentions remains truly the best result of the new legislation
SOME posters here prove it can never ever work
Hate, surely even the worst haters understand it is a worthless feeling?

Belly,
there's a huge difference between Hate & drawing attention to inadequate skill & mismanagement !
What is generous to the taker is mismanagement to the provider & vice versa
Hate usually radiates from those who had easy for too long. Then, when they're asked to pull their weight they become snakey !

Yuyutsu,

You ask, "Why would you like to remain as one "nation" with such people with whom you have so little in common?"

Well, let's stick with the people on OLO I have little in common with. There is not one person, no matter how much they irritate me, or how much I dislike what they say, that I am not happy to co-exist with in our country. Real life is not like social media. Social media is an amusement; life is a serious business in which we all have to get along. There are what?, about a dozen posters here, who waffle on about things they never mention in real life relationships, unless they are complete nutters - in which case they would be avoided like the plague.

We wouldn't recognise each other in real life as the same people who post here because such hot house language is not used in face to face social interaction. I don't go around quizzing people about what they think of SSM, religion, their sexuality, or who they vote for. In turn, nobody has ever interrogated me on such things. Only people with no social graces at all cannot find areas of mutual agreement with other people. And, if you know that certain areas are touchy with some people, avoid them. If you can't find more common areas than touchy ones with other people, your life isn't worth living

Dear Belly,

«But gee unless I got you wrong I think you said the nastiness here is between believers and not believers.»

I try to be as accurate as I can. What I said was: «between those who consider themselves "religious" and those who do not»

In most cases, those who consider themselves religious are also believers in God - but I can see some exceptions to this rule, for example Buddhists.
Then vice-versa, there are those who do not consider themselves religious, but still believe in God, for example certain criminals who count themselves as beyond the pale to be associated with God.

But yes, if we limit ourselves to this forum alone, then the correlation between believing in God and considering oneself as religious, seems complete.

«But overall too many CLAIM to be true followers of a God.
But produce pure hate nearly every post.»

Exactly, which is why I placed "religious" in quotes.

«Now as you have heard me say if humanity invented a single God»

What humanity invented (and keeps inventing) are IDEAS ABOUT God.
Humanity invented the electric light-bulb, which means that previously it did not exist and subsequently it did - but could you say the same about God? What kind of God has a beginning? Ideas come and go, but God is not the ideas that people have about Him/Her/It.

«one promising/threatening you WILL be born again, within the race/faith you harmed in this life, we could wipe out much hate.»

Unfortunately, hatred overcomes logic and common sense, so those blinded by hatred would fail to draw the necessary conclusions and act by them.

«SOME posters here prove it [(the new legislation)] can never ever work»

I agree with them. Love cannot be legislated!

«Hate, surely even the worst haters understand it is a worthless feeling?»

They do not. Hate blinds them.

Yuyutsu/Individual, both have points I agree with, please try to remember my born again days was total love total belief in a better world to come
Ended after total betrayal, of everything I had wished for believed in and trusted.
Hate is no answer, to anything, a long night no sleep or very little found replays of the John Howard defeat, the year Joe, not Bob Hawke, beat him'
Found again, a failure in one state, to face reality, to understand some times the firmer a view is held the further from reality it gets
Some dislike every view so much, they ignore a perfection is never an option.
And that middle ground is often the only real change people will take
Love, total love is perfection.
But liking enough to hear and see other views is maybe achievable, some times

Western society is a civil society where diversity of ideas and debate is able to arrive at better outcomes. That is why we have a Government and an opposition, so that proposals are thought out to improve a situation. We need parliaments with civil ideas not social ideologies.

Hi Josephus,

"We need parliaments with civil ideas not social ideologies.".

Human beings have been trying to impose their social ideologies on others ever since mankind has gathered together in numbers. Religion has been a leading mechanism in imposing social ideologies. Combine religion with the state and then you have the most powerful way to control society. Simply given the authority of god, and god cannot be wrong, then you indeed control society completely, and can do as you will.
Those screaming from the pulpit are not claiming to be speaking for themselves, but rather to be speaking with the authority of the infallible god they say they represent. Take that authority into the political arena, which religions have done for centuries and its complete authority.

It is quite clear that the people bleating about 'haters' mean anyone who doesn't agree with their own peculiar take on life.

There's no denying, exploitation is a human trait that has been perfected over time.
Greed, borne of stupidity, is the impetus !

Paul1405, I suggest you post the Governments controlled by religious preachers you dislike, also include Governments you believe are not controlled by ideologies. That way we might get an understanding of your ideal Government.

Funny how you never hear the keep-the-church-and-state-separate brigade saying anything about preachers in the likes of the the Lefty Uniting and Anglican churches deliberately introducing Left wing politics- refugees/climate change/homosexuality etc. to the pulpit.

But, of course, we all know that there is nothing more hypocritical and amoral than a Lefty.

"we all know that there is nothing more hypocritical and amoral than a Lefty."

ttbn I didn't know George Pell was a Lefty, I'm inclined to believe the paedophile Pell would be seated at the same conservative table as you. The religious you refer to as lefties are people with a social conscience, something a selfish individual like many on the forum lack.

Josephus, our forebears experienced the joys of a religious dominated state, with burning at the stake, torture, slavery, all kinds of despicable punishments. Given half a chance the religious fruitcakes of today would reimpose the same. Take a look at countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran where religion dominates. Fanatical Christians have mostly lost their clout to brutalise society as they did in the past. Although conservative Christian Churches still exert a great deal of influence over the state in countries like the USA.

Paul, are you talking about the Roman Empire [Roman Imperialism] religion; when you mention all these atrocities?

Paul, you are generalising again.
It is disingenuous of you to generalise when you know that what these criticisms refer to are the FEW of a particular group who are mentally ill, and therefore are not the norm, but the abnormal.
Fanatics have been allowed to rise and prosper because of people who are too gutless to stand up and resist such bad influences from creeping into our society and daily lives, such as PC.
We have allowed the weak and insipid amongst us to take control because we were too scared to be singled out as bullies, or racists, or bigots, and the list goes on.
Instead of standing up for "right", the correct, the just, the people have been turned by virtue signalling/shaming and the rest is a painful history.
It is this virtue shaming/signalling that is one of the causes of our problems.
As much as some don't want to hear it, SSM and so many other mistakes are as a direct result of indifference and laziness.
Had EVERYONE been forced to get off their arse, switch off the footy and go and make their feelings known, we would not have this stupid, offensive and immoral bill, now.
And I fear that unless people don't wake up, man up and stop kowtowing to these sick and annoying minorities, we are heading for a complete social collapse, with morals and ethics of, well, politicians.

Paul, mate, talking to a fence post no matter the subject may not advance opinion.
Not sure they exist, good opinion, in parts of the right but can hope

Belly, if it were not for the right, there would nothing for the left to complain about.
So be greatful that we have a right, and that it is prepared to gamble on the left, doing what they are hired and agreed to do, only to find later that they, show their true colours and break their word.
When someone from the right risks all to establish a company, it is for the purpose of profiting from that business.
He does not hide that fact, everyone knows and accepts it, risk and all.
The left, by contrast, agree to work for the compaany, they know what is expected of them, they accept the amount of pay, but then for absolutely no apparent reason, maybe greed, who knows, they decide they want more money or wages.
As if the company just tells the buyers of their goods they want more for the goods, and the buyers will just do as they're told.
Madness, immaturity, petulance, and above all selfishness.
This is all part of the problem, then we remove free speech, and lose control of the company under some vague agenda called discrimination.
Nobody said that (at least as a generality) that SOME women could not do SOME things that men do.
I think what they mean is they shouldn't.
I have watched over the years, the women failures in top positions, and they are failing on a regular basis.
Just one of the latest that come to mind is that maggot in charge of rugby over the Folau debacle.
And another one bites the dust.
Or should, if the bloody PC brigade don't come in and start trying to defend her, just so they can scream, 'discrimination'!

Dear Josephus,

«Western society is a civil society where diversity of ideas and debate is able to arrive at better outcomes. That is why we have a Government and an opposition, so that proposals are thought out to improve a situation.»

For a moment I turned my head - is Foxy back?

Foxy was a champion at quoting official propaganda slogans as if they represented reality itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw

---

Dear Paul,

«Combine religion with the state and then you have the most powerful way to control society.»

Water and oil do not combine, nor religion and state. Rather, what history has sadly seen time and again, was hypocrites who pretended to be religious joining with the state to eat our flesh and try to corrupt our souls. Yes, these two, pretenders and states, do combine very well.

Yuyutsu, glad to see you explaining Foxy and her dogma as you say was her way.
I think she plagiarized more than her share of quotes.
Apart from that the rest were links and still others quotes or articles.
And she was soooooo repetitive, as I told her many times, to the point of ad nauseam, both, her repetition and my reminding her.

Where do I start, Josephus the danger from bigoted religion is just as prevalent today as it was say 500 years ago. The Islamic state is a prime example of what happens when the extremes of religion combines with the extremes of the state, disaster. Now, I know you are going to tell me, oh! that's the bad Muslims doing that, and not us good Christians. Granted, but what I am saying is, all religious fanatics regardless of their particular badge are capable, given the opportunity of combining with the state, of carrying out atrocities in the name of god against society. You and others may not agree.
You may also say, Christianity has gone through a period of reformation and the evils of religious extremism have been done away with. I'm not so sure of that, just the opportunity had been done away with by applying what one poster said, division of church and state, most important I believe.

ALTRAV, regardless of what you might think and say, legalising SSM has not caused the sky to fall in. I can't take what you say seriously, after some time back in another discussion saying, paedophilia was nothing more than some kind of (perverted) way of turning boys into men. Do you still hold with that? My haply married gay friends would like to know as well. Like the religious bigot you seem to think if society doesn't follow your moral code then the end is certain, not so.

Yuyutsu, forgive me for confusing the virtues of religion with the evilness of Church organisations, who claim to represent god on earth and the virtues of religion. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of religious people are not fanatical extremists wanting to control society. I simply point out that the potential for extremism from some sections of religion still exists. Do you agree with that, and not just in Islam, which is self evident, but in Christianity and others as well.

Paul,when reason fails as in your case, the only option is either verbal or physical abuse.
As you are not within reach, just assume I will abuse you verbally except your guardian angels are watching and so we will just have to imagine.
You have been abusing me and calling me all kinds of things, so logic would suggest I am allowed to rebut in kind, but you obviously have issues so I'll be the bigger man.
BTW stop it with that pedophile rubbish, I said no such thing.
Your comment about it says more about you and that it appears it is foremost on your mind, it never enters mine, or you have me mixed up with someone else.
Please find the quote and repeat EXACTLY what I wrote, not your version.
Then I will take you seriously and explain what it was about.

Paul, anyone interested, the title of this thread needs yet another look.
Too the honest first number who agree with its path.
Then read the posts
Some from those who agree, damning anyone with any different view.
Not a single chance, in this world at least, has our first view it is worth supporting, going to change some.

Dear Paul,

«I simply point out that the potential for extremism from some sections of religion still exists. Do you agree with that, and not just in Islam, which is self evident, but in Christianity and others as well.»

A preliminary question before any attempt to answer whether the potential for extremism¹ can exist within religion, is whether religion itself exists to begin with. This is a question of faith: whatever the answer, it cannot be proven.

If religion does not exist, as most modern atheist believe, reasoning that "since there is no God there can be no way to come closer to God", then extremism within religion cannot exist either. Hence let us assume from now on that religion does exist.

Mind you, an atheist can still be religious, at times even more than a church-person, only that this fact would not occur to him/her. It similarly may not occur to a zealous church-person that they actually are not religious. They may think they are, but if their attitude and behaviour does not lead them towards God, then they are not truly religious.

Though it is evident that violent fanaticism occurs in Islam, it is not evident that this version of "Islam" to which we are exposed, is indeed a religion. It may well be that certain churches at certain times are not religious either!

The third commandment is: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". A Jew or Christian who preaches violence in the name of God, breaks this commandment, so how can they be called "religious"?

That violence and religion cannot coexist is a clear tenet of Hinduism, hence since you addressed your question to me, my final answer is in the negative, even if the implication is that, at least at certain times and places, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not religions.

__________
¹ I presume that we are discussing here only violent extremism, of the kind that hurts others and attempts to control them. Other forms of extremism that involve oneself alone can have their rightful place in religion.

Yuyutsu your posts often state definites, and they rarely exist
Morrison has brought his faith FIRMLY into government, by donating in the government's name, to Hillsong.
Truly not troubling me but yes asking why.
Now the extremes right here in this thread, point to a truth
The bill, well-intended, will be miss-used
I could highlight some faiths we probably should not, [strange in such a thread but still true]
Say Scientology, surely many here do not think of it as a true faith?
But it has form, for suing its enemies, so? best not talk about them, [think on that]
Exclusive Brethren, [the same story, walk away] even from its open siding with one side of politics.
GY gave us a subject we, most of us, still see as truth, worth our support.
Others opened the door [be honest!] showing us just how hard it will be for ANY DRAUGHT BILL, to not be a trap leading to warfare.

Dear Belly,

Faith is often an important tool of religion.

But faith can also exist outside religion, so having faith is not a proof of religiosity - nor is having an organization that calls itself "a religion", loud and/or imposing as it might be.

As I said many times, no bill can protect religion because no secular legislative, executive or judicial body is capable of recognising religion (and non-religion) even when it stares at their face. Fortunately, in due course, God Himself will protect religion.

Yuyutsu, yes agree.
Shock some, but I from time to time, enjoy taking the Mickey out of Conservative politicians.
Too, [will surprise no one, red neck low IQ ones too].
Barnaby Joyce, I yield the floor!
No one could insult you like your own words own Christmas message just did.
BLOKE! claim you had been drunk at the time.
Or insanity, best give up any leadership dreams, you could not win a raffle after that if you bought every ticket
The man said only God can fix climate change!
Right now, true, farmers are telling you a very different story, listen to them,

ALTRAV, since you deny saying anything of the kind, and since this site has no real search facility, with your over 2,000 posts, I'll withdraw the accusation, although it was qualified in the form of a question rather than an accusation. Fair enough?

"You have been abusing me and calling me all kinds of things" come come ALTRAV, I have refereed to you as 'Ill Duce' now and then, nothing more, rather tame stuff I suggest, but I didn't take into account your thin skin did I?

Merry Christmas.

Paul, I have been called a lot worse than 'Ill Duce', so you can call me whatever you like, it is your right to do so.
Never mind the moderators, I give you permission to do so.
As for calling you names, I do as a response or rebuttal to something you may have said about me.
Don't worry you haven't said anything I would even notice.
If I come across too strong at times, it is because I do not suffer fools easily, and some of the things said on OLO require corrections, before they are accepted as fact.
I think you may have me mistaken for someone else.
I cannot recall you saying anything about me that required any response to you from me.
I'd say, you might have it wrong, but anyway carry on, I have no beef with you,, that I know of.

Paul, I remain impressed with your combative freind,s much-improved posting style.
Be honest on my return, every post was a bit manic.
I only see his posts in passing, that batter the door down onslaught, saw me pledge to not read it.
But from time to time, when such as you become involved I do read a post.
Yes, impressive improvement.
But the poster I gave up on may have said just about anything.
Both, however, in just your words to each other, confirm the bill will be a mess, and it should not be, never ever should be.
But each of us has as default, a position we will not let die.

Hi Comrade Belly, are you referring to the liberal use of the word "maggot" by our forum friend? Yes, in the past he was noted for the overuse of that abusive descriptive. But 2020, will see him mellow in his ways, and possibly desert the dark side and come out into the light with us of the decent folk. We can only hope.

ALTRAV, I sincerely hope much love and kindness comes your way in 2020.

Paul, thank you very much for your kind words.
It is appreciated.
I can happily assure all that I am blessed with and surrounded by a loving family and friends.
I strain with interacting with the general public though, as I find them hard to comprehend as a rule.
I came to an understanding many years ago and that is what forms the basis of my perspective on people and their interactions and life in general today.
So if I come across different from the norm, I submit my exposure to people and their idiosyncrasies as my reason.
But fear not, if I am challenged or criticized, I don't mind, but it gives me the right of rebuttal, and that's where I can shine, depending on the intensity of the attack.
But, all that aside, again, thank you for your kind words and thoughts.

Paul avoiding is more than not reading, let me say this.
See on entering our old folk's rest home we see lots of elderly people.
We are two of them, well me at least, something shrinks in some or never existed.
Foxys exil highlights that.
Once, mid many more posting here, we would have seen even other females who posted here, openly call for support for? her.
That shrinking thing, if it is heart brain,ability to understand there are no definites, ever, lets a sad unhinged, person be? sad abusive unhinged.
Just not sharing our politics lets them and those who support them! see only their way is even worth talking about
Slowly but surely, like ants being stamped on, we, the other side of politics, are being told we are worthless.
And an increasingly smaller group gathers on every thread telling them selves their hatred of us and the truth is normal.

their hatred of us..
Belly,
why use such stupid phrases ?? Trying to draw attention to nonsense is not hatred, get it ?
Trying to make people see the folly of their thinking is not hatred, get it ?
Trying to get people to see that others are working for them for less is not hatred, get it ?
Trying to make people see that they really should pull at least some of their weight is not hatred, get it ?
Trying to get at least some harmony going is not hatred !
Trying to sabotage the above IS hatred !

Indy you seem to enforce my view to get on here I only need to think like you.
I would be right as rain, as long as I think only as you tell me to.
Thanks but no thanks.
At the very root of this discussion has to be religious freedom, the right to believe think act say what you want to
Even, think about it, is you are a Muslim!
A Jew, a Scientologist, a follower of the KKK a host of things we, most, will never agree with.
If not tell me what the thread is about.
Who is it ok to discriminate against

Belly, I'd like to take this one.
You ask; "who is it OK to discriminate against"?
Well as it turns out, the answer is very simple and very obvious.
EVERYONE and ANYONE!
It is a personal choice, that should not be challenged or likewise any attempt to change it or, God forbid, legislate against it.
For the benefit of the the soft cocks, the neuters, the snags, the jelly brained, and generally those afraid of their own shadows, you form a very, very small minority in society, so I for one don't want to see another grand stuff up like the egregious SSM thing, again.
What kind of sick individuals promote the idea of allowing the few to dictate to the many.
Especially when the whole premise is chronically and overwhelmingly wrong!
It's just not that hard to figure out.
Those few who complain about, well, EVERYTHING, should not be allowed to have their way at the expense of the greater majority.
And again, I say to those 'do gooders', you can't please everyone every time.
Especially when discrimination is just another natural part of life.
So just get used to it, or better still, ignore it.

shhh, I read it, gee I took the time to read it!
Taking your advice, not a word I could ever agree with.
The niceties in life often, tell us to ignore even lie, rather than say it like it is.
Some times it is best we do just that
Enjoy your family, life, new year

Belly, in the interest of open disclosure, and just plain curiosity, I take it, and expected, that you and many others would find my response displeasing, at the very least.
Seeing as how I am incapable of padding things, or even acknowledge that PC is a 'thing', I would like to know, from anyone actually, which comments are in question and why.
You see I don't understand, subjectivity, or emotional submissions, nor anything that is not based on common sense and reason.
My reasoning is always pragmatic and straight to the point, without superfluous and personal opinions.
So I would like to know which comments are unreasonable or without merit or justification.

Belly, I am not being precocious or petulant by asking for explanations on my points.
I am being honest/serious.
You see, I am surprised by the title and furthermore by the author.
I believe he is an OLO adjudicator.
If so, the question comes as an even bigger surprise to me as OLO has pinged me and others for, quite honestly, insignificant, and minor comments, compared to others and especially the ones I was responding too.
So knowing this, one of the reasons I would like to know the answers to my questions, is because it will highlight the differences between people and their opinions on the same topics, and the author of this topic seems to agree.
ie; We are ALL entitled to speak our minds, irrespective of where we are.
This also includes the risk of discrimination, even if un-intended.

Who is it ok to discriminate against
Belly,
Those who discriminate !

Only with real freedom are people allowed to discriminate. In that freedom a person can say one person is better then another, one act is better then another, or even on a larger scale, that certian people are better/worse, and certian behaviors are worth standing against and fighting against. Or even to be allowed to challenge those perspectives and hold different standards. To make a case for this point, think of an employer hiring for an open position. The employer gets several people to consider for the job, some with a questionable history either bouncing between jobs frequently or have a criminal history in their background check, or failed their drug tests. The basis of an employer to discriminate against these candidates without any other considerations is the same case for anyone to discriminate for whatever reason to judge one person over another.

It's not a case of whether the discrimination is justified, but whether it's allowed. On that note no one should suggest to have no standards thereby removing discrimination, because we should have standards we hold ourselves and those around us to. However, freedom to discriminate is itself a handicap on another person's freedom of equal Liberty. And the acts of discrimination sometimes go over the top in harming other. It's because of the harms that there are policies against racism, sexism, and many other things. So that someone of a different race isn't oppressed, or so that women aren't abused and sexually assaulted. The right to freely be able to discriminate as you see fit has gone down the ragged road of what's still allowed to be discriminated against, and what is held on a pedestal to not be allowed to be challenged even when it's in the wrong.

(Continued)

(Continued)

In other words the issue of discrimination and freedom (including free speech, as well as free from discrimination itself), has become an issue of extremes and PC agendas. Where instead of calling out when something is wrong, or show your stance against it by not accepting those who are part of the problem; instead people go to extremes and make rules that you can't speak out or act out against certain groups. A woman who is abusive therefore is more protected then a man that is abusive; though they both do wrong and the punishment should be equal. A homosexual is more privileged because they are less allowed to be spoken against or acted against on the basis of their sexuality. Same with a disabled person, or with any number of people.

The protection against certain groups have become a PC agenda that any minority group wants to get aboard, and is causing issues with the ability to freely hold standards as individuals or as a society. The only real way to get around this is to at least be able to have free speech. To be allowed to speak against anything with no rules or strings attached is the best defense against extremes between being allowed to discriminate, and being protected against discrimination.

Hi ALTRAV,

"Especially when discrimination is just another natural part of life.
So just get used to it, or better still, ignore it."

But what about if discrimination becomes persecution, and persecution become retribution. Can you ignore that, or is it to late.

Left handed people are the cause of all our problems!
At first a few agree, later more agree, eventually the majority agree.

Left handed people, the cause of all our problems, should be locked up and reeducated for their own good!
At first a few agree, later more agree, eventually the majority agree.

Left handed people, the cause of all our problems who are beyond reeducation, should be disposed of for the good of the majority!
The majority agrees.

ALTRAV, it does happen.

Paul, I think I get it.
I can understand the reasoning behind your example/message.
As much as it would seem far fetched, I must agree in that people are what they are, and because of this anything is possible, as frightening as your example may be.
I would like to think that if that is the way of the people, then so be it.
Many people can be swayed by so few people, (Hitler, comes to mind) and if such people are mal-contents, with an evil streak, then we have a problem.
I suppose I am coming from a much closer and smaller circle of example; myself.
It is because I don't want to be censured or questioned by another, thereby relinquishing my freedom and giving it to another or them taking it away from me, if I don't consent, that I am more about, rather than having considered the bigger picture.
I suppose my response to your example is more one of fatalism.
Or to say, if what you say is correct then so be it.
I would like to think, and I do have a certain amount of optimism, that given the chance, we can say and do (to a certain degree) what we want in the hope that society, with all it's faults and flaws, will still recognise what is bad and not go down that path.
I realise it is dependent on the psyche and maturity of the people in question.
So I suppose I can only speak for myself, when I say, I do not want my freedoms curtailed or questioned in any way.