mhaze,

I can't be held responsible for your interpretation
of the facts. But if you think it's "cool" to name call
people and it makes you feel superior - and your
self esteem needs propping up - that's fair enough.
Just remember to be perfect yourself - which for most people
is not so easy. Also, if you don't like my choices in
discussion topics, well as I've told some other objectors -
you guys are under no obligation to contribute.

Foxy,

I'm more than happy to take part in the discussion. My contribution is to bring the facts to the table. The fact is that religion, contra what you claim, are not generally seeking a situation "where they're protected from criticism or scrutiny."

You just think that because, ultimately you are, as has been amply shown, opposed to organised churches.
Organised religion (and here I excluding Mohammedanism)isn't seeking special privilege. They aren't seeking anything other than being left alone by the anti-Christian activists that invest or woke institutions these days.

Its a shame you don't see that.

I think Foxy's probably going to argue;
(and forgive me for speaking on your behalf Foxy if I'm wrong)
- That these Church run institutions (schools) still receive public money.

And because they receive public money, they can't discriminate based on religion;
Think - issues regarding gays etc.
They have to tow the secular line.
- And she'd have a fair point.

All I can say is that maybe some kind of rule changes or compromise has to be made, I don't know.

- But there are fair arguments on either side.

Dear AC,

Thank You for understanding.
You deserve a hug.

As Jesu8it priest Fr. Frank Brennan has made quite
clear - "religious freedom requires better protection
at a commonwealth level" for religious institutions.
He points out that "since the same-sex plebiscite
the challenge has been (for religious institutions)
balancing the right for religious educators - with the
right to non-discrimination for teachers and students."

Fr Brennan was a member of the "Religious Freedom Review,"
chaired by Philip Ruddock. Which was seeking pragmatic
solutions.

Foxy,

If protection against being offended is extended to gender and race issues, why is religion any different?

Note that I don't believe that causing offence should be criminalised.

Shadow Minister,

I tried to explain this in an earlier post.

One's religion does not fall into the same category
as one's sexual orientation, biological sex, or race
because people don't choose their race, sexual
orientation or biological sex. However they choose to
adhere to and believe in particular religious narratives.

There's no such thing as freedom from religious offense.
If you live in the West, you should accept that
your religious views are not sacrosant to those who do not
share your faith - so although you have every right to
practice your religious convictions (as long as they don't
harm others) the rest of us have every right to criticise
these beliefs.

This is a tricky thing to balance as we're seeing.
Hence the controversy