This article is current.
http://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2021/06/18/family-creates-freedom-which-is-why-soviet-russia-tried-to-abolish-it/?fbclid=IwAR1yOKXtVYT3sBbfrhUgc8PtIP9nrK1CG35dqKl4mAob92GgCpv-eU2EnSs

Quote,"Very few people talk of freedom and its relationship to responsibility. Over the centuries, family has revealed itself to be this kind of freedom; one that takes dedication, commitment and self-sacrifice. Family takes responsibility and even a level of self-restraint to hold back your own pleasures for the sake of others. This is what it means to be a loving father and mother. Yet what the family unit receives in return is an even greater freedom.

Our culture today that celebrates ‘free love’, denies this wisdom. Freedom becomes enslavement to wanton lusts, selfish ambition and emotional gratifications. In this way, freedom can become its own form of tyranny. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, wrote:

“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils: for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

Freedom requires wisdom and is built on virtue. Folly, vice and madness without restraint is tyranny in disguise. True freedom is found in the family unit. Nowhere has this been displayed with greater potency than in the Soviet Union."

Josephus,
I couldn't agree more !

mhaze,

Religious institutions are seeking protection
from attack. There's plenty on the web egarding
these issues which prompted my choice of subject
for this discussion - as I explained in my opening
post.

Our own forum has articles on the subject
(Articles section).

1) Recent attacks on the Christian Foundations of
Australia by Augusto Zimmermann.

2) What happens if we lose religious freedom?
Here's what few people realise - by Akos Balogh.

And - here's just one link as an example:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-religious-discrimination-debate-is-not-about-christians/11472040

Bazz,

You have to realize that the Old and New Testaments and
the Quran are neither the only literature in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, nor do they constitute the sum
of these religions' teachings and protocols.

Samuel Osborne did an analysis and found that violence
is more common in the Bible than Quran. His text analysis
revealed. Here's the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-bible-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

Josephus,

I don't understand your attack of Muhammed.
So what if he committed sins. Didn't Jesus forgive sinners
if they repented? Besides wasn't Muhammad just the
messenger of God? In any case - I believe that the
Canberra Declaration is supposed to tolerate different
opinions and you're not supposed to be intolerant and
bigots against anybody - even Muhammad?

Oh Foxy, that is an old one !
Of course there are many stories of murder etc in the Bible.
The Koran and the Hadith and Sunna tell a lot more.
It is not so much of reports of history but the commands for the
believers to obey today.
ISIS justifies their actions on the Koran.
As do the ones that are gaoled on the thousands of cases in modern times.
Look what is happening in Nigeria and neighboring countries.

There is no other religion that is campaigning against Jews,
Christians and Zoroastrians. Where are all the Christians that used to
live in the Middle East.
There is just no comparison, Islam is the only religion that wants
you to convert or die. In some European countries they are already
seeing that starting. Even the police are afraid to enter ghettos.

Bazz,

Extremists and fundamentalists exist in every religion.
But continuing to make negative statements and singling
out just one is irrational. We've covered this territory
many times in the past and I really don't want to continue
this conversation with you because I realise that your
mind is made up. For me - there's enough hatred in the world
I have no desire to add to it.

If you want to continue to spread your rants against Islam
could you please start your own discussion. Thank You.

Foxy wrote:"Religious institutions are seeking protection
from attack. "

And then provides a series of articles or allusions to articles which specifically DON'T show religious institutions seeking protection from attack.

I sometimes wonder whether Foxy realises this and just tries to fudge it through or if subtlety is too subtle for her.

Take the link she offers. It's about the proposed "Religious Discrimination Bill". This is aimed at making "it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious beliefs or activity’.”

Nowhere does it say it'll be illegal to criticise religion, just illegal to discriminate based on religion. So you can't have signs saying "No Muslims Allowed" or force Jews to wear yellow stars.

I doubt Foxy understands it, but making it illegal to discriminate based on religious belief ISN'T the same as banning criticise if said religion.

So again, the entie thread is based on a misreading of the facts.