Some religious groups claim that their religion compels them to discriminate against homosexuals and others that their sacred books designate as sinners. They also wish to hire those who subscribe to their religion for activities that have nothing to do with religion. Their hospitals will not perform medical procedures which conflict with their religious beliefs. The government of Australia does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or religious belief. The laws of Australia conflict with the dictates of some religions.

There is a simple solution. Religious groups have subsidies for such activities as operating employment services and tax exemption for real estate and other property. If religious organizations wish to discriminate on grounds that are not legitimate by the laws of Australia let them forgo subsidies and tax exemptions and in return let them discriminate as they will

Bad idea on two points. Without Christian hospitals and schools - and charities - government alternatives would be floundering.

Also, the idea of withdrawing funds because some people don't like Christians expressing their beliefs is abominable.

Even the Albanese government would draw the line on that, if only from a practical, common sense motive.

Not sure about the opposition though, whose leader took time out from NOT opposing Net Zero madness to vilify orthodox Christian beliefs last week, describing Christian teaching on homosexuality and abortion as ‘an abomination’.

«Some religious groups...»

To be accurate, some groups who claim to constitute a religion.

«...claim that their religion compels them to discriminate against homosexuals»

Which groups exactly?
The most likely reason for claiming so is that they failed to read and/or understand their own scriptures.

«and others that their sacred books designate as sinners»

Ah, gossipers!

Do Australian laws prohibit the discrimination against gossipers?

«They also wish to hire those who subscribe to their religion for activities that have nothing to do with religion. Their hospitals will not perform medical procedures which conflict with their religious beliefs»

They, along with everyone else, religious or otherwise, should be free to do all that. Nobody should ever be forced to hire someone they don't want, no matter why; and nobody should ever be forced to perform medical procedures they do not want to perform, no matter why.

«If religious organizations wish to discriminate on grounds that are not legitimate by the laws of Australia let them forgo subsidies and tax exemptions»

Sure, I would support that, however nobody should receive government-subsidies and tax exemptions in the first place!

Those who discriminate against homosexuals should not be punished by the state - nevertheless, they will eventually have to spend time in hell, suffering equivalently to the suffering they inflicted on others who happen to be homosexual. Also for giving religion a bad reputation!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't see how one can give religion a good reputation.

If Homosexuality were natural why hasn't the human body evolved accordingly ?

David,
Have a life saving operation in one of their excellent facilities.

Dear David F.,

«I don't see how one can give religion a good reputation.»

Okay, Okay, but you do not need to shout out telling everyone that you are blind :-)

...

Actually you are not blind, you only have a blind spot, a kind of astigmatism that causes you to see "religion" where there is none (e.g. in persecuting homosexuals and witches, scaring children, killing opponents, arresting scientists, etc.) and on the other hand notice only decency, charity, selflessness, righteous behaviour, inner peace, poise and contentment where there is more to it, where religion is in the background and bring these forth.

...

But yes, religion does have a poor reputation among the lazy, among those who like to gain all comforts, wealth and pleasures without making an effort, who like to make shortcuts without caring for the consequences on others, who only want to eat, drink and be merry, then stay the whole Sunday in bed.

...Honour thy father and thy mother
...Thou shalt not kill
...Thou shalt not commit adultery
...Thou shalt not steal
...Thou shalt not bear false witness
...Thou shalt not covet

I can understand why these are unpopular...

Indy,
>If Homosexuality were natural why hasn't the human body evolved accordingly ?
Firstly, what makes you think it hasn't?
Secondly, what would you regard as evolving accordingly?
Thirdly, what relevance is it whether it's natural or not?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You cited the meaningful commandments advising behaving well in the ten commandments. You left out:

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.

Commandments about God are nonsense. I see no harm in making an idol. Sabbath observance laws are discriminatory since different religions observe different sabbaths. You did what bible bashers do - pick out the good parts and ignore the bad parts. There are many bad parts. In Joshua God orders the Israelites to commit genocide. In that book God is Hitler.

Are homosexuals being discriminated against? I believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and totally at odds with anatomy. Nothing to do with religion. However, I have never discriminated against homosexuals themselves, and never would. The discrimination here is against Christianity and Christians expressing their beliefs, and against anyone who has exercised his or her freedom to think differently from sanctimonious virtue-signallers who probably don't even know a homosexual person or persons.

If a homosexual person is banned or rejected from anything purely for his or her sexuality, that's discrimination. At that moment all the discrimination is against people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and thought. In the Essendon case, a man was victimised, not for anything he said, but what someone in his church said about Christian teachings which, no matter what anyone else thinks, he was perfectly entitled to say, and it is his job as a pastor to say it. You don’t like it? Don't get involved. Mind your own business and stick to your own opinions.

Dear David F.,

I excluded the first 4 commandments simply because they were not relevant to my example of what makes religion unpopular among lazy people, etc.

I can however see how the first 4 commandments can be unpopular among modern scientific people like yourself.

«Commandments about God are nonsense.»

They can be used as techniques to train and purify the mind (but please bear in mind that like any technique, they are suitable for some and not for others), that is their useful purpose, I don't think the Bible ever attempted to make sense as that wasn't its intention.

«I see no harm in making an idol.»

As a Hindu we do this all the time, we use idols to REPRESENT God, to help [some of] us focus on God, but for some reason or another (be it a religious reason or otherwise, that would require more research) this particular technique was deemed unsuitable for Jews.

«Sabbath observance laws are discriminatory since different religions observe different sabbaths.»

So what's wrong with that? Different methods/techniques can be useful for different people.

«You did what bible bashers do - pick out the good parts and ignore the bad parts. There are many bad parts. In Joshua God orders the Israelites to commit genocide. In that book God is Hitler.»

I was pointing to commandments that can be incorporated as part of one's religion. Not everything in the Bible is religious. While I defend religion, I'm not trying to defend the Bible. You seem to commit the error of believing the Bible' claim that the genocide orders were indeed God's and not, say, Joshua's!

The Bible is the national book of the Jews, a mix of topics of which religion is only one.
It could be written better, more organised, by adding headers/indexes saying:

"The section below is part of our mythology"
"below is part of our national history"
"The section below contains moral lore"
"Below comes civil law"
"Below is a collection of wisdom"
"Below come genealogical and real-estate listings"
and yes, also:
"The section below contains religious instructions for Jews"

People posing as heroes for homos are patronising busybodies.

Dear Yuyutsu,

No form of human organization continues to exist if it does not have elements which are appealing. I knew a man who had fond memories of the good times he had as a member of the Hitler Youth. That doesn't mean that Nazism was good. It doesn't mean that religion is good because you can find some injunctions for reasonable behaviour in it. You stated that religion is unpopular among lazy people. I know of no evidence that supports your statement - that will show that people who believe in religion are more or less lazy than who don't. To me religion is a form of superstition which apparently fills a need. I don't know whether we ever be so advanced that some will not feel that need. Superstition fills a need.

As far as the law in Australia is concerned - it's
not as straightforward as it may at first appear
and regarding the Andrew Thorburn case - lawyers
may have to fight it out if Thorburn does choose to
take things to court.

Thorburn's resignation was not a result of views that
he himself had expressed publicly. This is in contrast
with Rugby Australia's sacking of Israel Folau for
expressing homophobic views on social media - which the
athlete said were his religious beliefs.

There is a difference between holding those views and
then expressing them.

Thorburn's resignation was caused by a conflict of interest.
He was planning to occupy 2 positions which were inherently
in contrast and made it impossible for him to perform both
at the same time.

They did not attack him for being Christian.

Dear David F.,

You seem to think of religion as a belief, but belief is only one possible religious method among many and many religious people do not even use that particular method.

For a lazy person, belief is the easiest because it does not require them to get out of bed. Tell them however to get up early every morning to put on Tefillin and pray for an hour, or spend 4 hours in synagogue every Saturday morning, tell them to watch what they eat and say the proper blessings before or after - that is challenging, that makes religion unpopular far more than having to believe.

Tell a miser to give charity, tell a socialite not to gossip, tell a youth to be celibate, tell a glutton to avoid their favourite dish, tell a tourist not to travel on the Sabbath, or a hacker to stop playing computer games for that day - these are the main things that make religion unpopular, unappealing. For you, it seems, belief is the part of religion which most puts you off, but you are in a minority!

The "good news" is that you can be religious without having to believe in anything, superstitious or otherwise. If you are able to strive to be a good person and the best version of yourself even without the crutches of belief, to be kind, unselfish and peaceful, to love and serve all others as thyself, then you are probably more religious than the Pope, Rabbis and believers.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Since we have different definitions of religion we are not talking about the same thing. Further discussion when we are talking about the thing seems pointless.

Hi david f,

Certain business (pubs, nightclubs and service stations) are allowed to discriminate against law abiding citizens on the basis of dress standards.

Not sure this helps the discussion, but it was a point I just thought of.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Matthew Arnold wrote “On Dover Beach” which was published in 1867. It concerned the conflict of science and religion. In it are the following lines.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

With Victorian optimism he thought the Sea of Faith would retreat before the reality of a scientific view of the world. I think his optimism was unjustified. However, it is a beautiful poem, and one can enjoy it whatever the feeling one has about science and religion.

How can government dictate who we hire?

When I was hiring people their level of qualification was probably about 35/40% of what guided my choice. Sure many jobs had a minimum requirement, but with this met, my opinion of how well they would fit into the organisation, promote the company objectives, references verbally from previous employers if any, & importantly how I felt about working with them, outweighed level of qualification by a considerable margin.

This was decided by me, & importantly their immediate superior to be at an interview. Different times, but I found it interesting that we would get 50+ applications for an office job, & less than 10 for a stores or assembly job.

One thing very disappointing was to realise over time that school reports & references for juniors looking for a job were totally worthless for evaluation.

I have heard people on televised forums express these same ideas:
Your religion is a personal thing.
Keep it with you in private life.
But don't take it with you in to public life.
There it can clash with the laws of the land.
And those laws must always prevail.
Your religion is NOT an excuse to break any law.
The law always comes first.

And separate to this....
Homosexuality IS normal for those whose sexuality does not match their physical shape.
That variance comes about due to random errors in coding during conception?
When they reach adulthood, they become fully aware that their shape and sexuality are at odds?

In the natural world, sexual attraction is needed to initiate copulation leading to reproduction.
Without it we would not be here to argue the point.
I think it must be difficult to be attracted to a woman, and not have the right shape to deal with it.
But they do the best they can, and good luck to them.

Dear David F.,

«Since we have different definitions of religion we are not talking about the same thing. Further discussion when we are talking about the thing seems pointless.»

My definition of religion is precise, it is neat, it is elegant, it is inclusive, it is clear-cut, it is independent of human ideas and feelings, it is about substance rather than name-calling - thus is made of the same materials as scientific definitions.

Please tell me what your definition of religion is, but from what I heard thus far, I suspect that it is arbitrary, whimsical, inaccurate, cuts corners, leaves lots of grey/undefined areas, and populist, catering to human emotions.

Suppose for example that Kim Jong Un decides to declare himself 'G-O-D'. Kim is already worshiped by the North-Koreans, but he is worshiped as the Great Beloved Leader, or as Big Brother, etc., not as a god, but suppose he does: his behaviour would still be the same, the concentration camps, the nukes, the missiles, the hunger, the corruption, none of that would change, but would you then, by your chosen definition, start calling the North-Koreans religious?

- Nothing would have changed by my definition.

Also, is Buddhism a religion by your definition, given that 'G-O-D' is not mentioned?

I await your answer.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your post was insulting. You praised your definition of religion thusly:

My definition of religion is precise, it is neat, it is elegant, it is inclusive, it is clear-cut, it is independent of human ideas and feelings, it is about substance rather than name-calling - thus is made of the same materials as scientific definitions.

Then you didn’t state your definition.

Then you attacked me thusly:

… from what I heard thus far, I suspect that it is arbitrary, whimsical, inaccurate, cuts corners, leaves lots of grey/undefined areas, and populist, catering to human emotions.

It seems as though you are less interested in my definition than in attacking me. You just did a bit of name-calling.

You have decided that a religion must have something to do about God when you ask:

“Also, is Buddhism a religion by your definition, given that 'G-O-D' is not mentioned?”

I already gave a definition. I repeat it.

Religion is a form of superstition which apparently fills a need.

I have avoided insulting you or being rude. I would appreciate it if you would behave likewise.

Dear David F.,

I am sorry if my last post seems insulting: it was not my intention to insult you. Being critical of former definitions of religion that you presented on OLO over the years does not mean being critical of you as a person.

I assumed that you already heard my definition of religion many times before, thus that there was no need to repeat.

My definition of 'religion' is "whatever [actions and choices] bring one closer to God".

Now if you consequently and rightly ask what I mean by 'God', then my answer is that God cannot be defined directly/positively, but can still be defined negatively as follows:

1) God is not ___{anything}___ [fill the space with whatever object you like} ; and
2) There is nothing but God.

And if you ask me what it means to 'come closer to God', that I answered a few days ago in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22180#387357

Now I admit that I expected to hear more-or-less your usual definition of 'religion' which has to do with belief in God or gods. I was quite surprised by your unexpected response that: "Religion is a form of superstition which apparently fills a need".

So suppose someone believes that the moon is made of cheese (because they feel they need more cheese than this planet can provide), then apparently you would consider them to be religious. Very interesting, but if I didn't get it right then perhaps you should provide a better definition for what you mean by 'superstition'.

I feel no need to speak for or against superstition since as far as I can see it has no direct relation to religion, not unless you surprise me again with such an overwhelmingly unusual definition of 'superstition' that also explains why of all things you attribute most of the evil in the world to that particular exotic practice.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think God is a construction of the human mind with no more reality than a unicorn or other fantasy. Getting closer to God is like getting closer to a unicorn.

I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.

Dear David,

Whatever you happen to think of God, this discussion is about religion, not about God.

That God does not exist does not imply that religion does not exist - I believe it does.

Think of it like the number i, the square-root of -1: we all know that no number squared produces -1, but that concept of 'i' is useful in many scientific and engineering fields and its use helps us to solve many mathematical theorems that we otherwise cannot.

.

Dear david f., Dear ttbn,

.

According to the latest census, the number of Australians who selected “no religion” has risen to 38.9% - up from 30.1% in 2016. It won’t be long before those with “no religion” exceed the total Christian population (43.9%) of taxpayers.

That being the case, it would seem unreasonable to continue to subsidies religious organisations with the taxpayers’ money of those with “no religion”.

Subsidies and tax exemptions of religious institutions should be financed exclusively by those taxpayers affiliated with a religion.

No doubt, the tax contributions of the “no religion” taxpayers should be phased out over a period of three or four years to allow time for the religious affiliated population to adjust to the new tax arrangements.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Firstly, the number of Australians who selected "no religion" in the census has nothing to do with the actual number of those without religion (which I claim to be 0%). I for one did not answer that question. The people who selected "no religion" could have done so because they do not belong to an so-called-"religious" organisation - then what? they have their personal religion just the same.

In any case, even if that number was 99%, 100% even, there is no moral justification for robbing the tax-payer and giving their hard-earned money to others, including to institutionalised "religion".

Thirdly, what relevance is it whether it's natural or not?
Aidan,
If it were natural it wouldn't be a topic !
As to your other questions, they're not answerable without some freak of questionable sexuality making a big fuss about it & wasting good OLO time & space !

It is true we all have a set of personal principles which we use as a guide for decision making.
Sometimes these principles are based on the teachings of an organised religion.
Frequently not.
But keep in mind that although we can think as we like about our life's principles, we cannot always apply them as we like.
We have laws.
And it should be clear to all that when a personal view clashes with the law, the law comes first.
A personal view, be it religious or otherwise, must take second place.
My impression is that some persons think that their personal view allows them to ignore the law.
They think their own ideas are more important.
They are quite wrong.
For completeness here, I should add that when a law is unreasonable or unworkable, and a significant percentage of the population says so forcefully, then that law should be examined, and withdrawn or at least modified.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

We are not automata, and laws are not always just. Sometimes we must violate the law to follow our conscience.

Henry Thoreau violated the law in refusing to pay his taxes as he thought it wrong for the government to use his money in support of the Mexican War for which the motivation was to extend slavery. He wrote an essay on civil disobedience in defense of his action.

https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html contains his essay.

Gandhi refused to pay the salt tax, and led a movement that protested against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

People in Syracuse, NY where I was born violated the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War in refusing to return an escaped slave to his master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Rescue

Sometimes, a person of conscience pays the supreme penalty in violating a law. Franz Jaegerstatter refused to serve in the Nazi army during WW2 and was beheaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Solitary_Witness tells his story.

Justice demands that laws that promote injustice must be challenged and violated if necessary

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I second David F.

«We have laws.»

No - THEY have laws, they who call themselves "the state", they never asked us whether or not we want to be part of or have anything to do with their gang and just because they send their hounds after us, and even if we obey them out of fear, that does not make them any more right than us.

.

Dear David,

.

Many thanks for that interesting list of conscientious objectors.

There is one more I should like to add. In fact, it is the one who impressed me the most apart, perhaps, from Gandhi who also impressed me quite a lot, though, in a sense, Gandhi’s action was perhaps less extraordinary in that it was coming from a political activist.

The “greatest” conscientious objector, in my mind, was Cassius Clay alias Muhammad Ali.

Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) there had always been a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that many of the so-called conscientious objectors were deep down inside weak cowards who were simply afraid but would never admit it – even to themselves.

Whereas there was nothing in Cassius Clay’s attitude or performance in the ring that suggested he was a coward. He even made it quite clear that he was willing to go to war if it was to defend his religious faith. He explained :

« “My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America, and shoot them for what? They never called me niger, they never lynched me, they didn’t put any dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father. … Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them, poor people? Just take me to jail ».

I guess he really was “the greatest” – and not just in the ring !

.

Well said, Banjo.

There is no 'them' and 'us'.
We are all here together.
We are the same.
We can pool our effort, as does a team, or we can go in different directions.
Team work produces better outcomes.
That is the best way to go.
Team effort has produced comfort and advantages which would amaze those from long ago?
I would rather live in the present day than be alive way back in history.
I wish that those who are busily creating division in Australia, would stop and reconsider.

Of course, some of our instincts are a bit out of place in a modern world.
And some people are born with tendencies to behave in a harmful and even dangerous way.
So we have the unenviable task of locating them and separating them from the rest.
In spite of all that, we can live a good life with great opportunity.
Any idea that there is a contest between 'us' and those in control, is stretching the truth.
Of course, those in control can lose touch with the people now and then.
They need to be reminded occasionally just who the boss is.
It is team-people for sure.
At least in a democracy.
Giving them a sharp reminder of this can benefit us all.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

A team has common goals.
A team is in agreement of what constitutes success (or victory, if competing with other teams).
A team is entered into voluntarily, and can be renounced too when no longer appropriate.
Members are proud to be in their team.

I know very well what belonging in a team means - take for example the orchestras and choirs I am playing or have been playing/singing with in the past: I am very happy and proud to be a member, we aim to play/sing the best music we can, success means making our audience happy while making as few mistakes as possible. This is not even a democracy - we don't even get to choose our music, the conductor does, as well as thousands of musical and logistical details and we happily comply. We play/sing together, performing our roles with precise timings, not just what we feel at the time, or to try impressing the audience with our individual abilities.

It would be ridiculous to say the same of all the people who happen to live in this (or any other) continent. Our goals vary most significantly, with little or nothing in common. What may be counted a success for one could be a disaster for another. We have not asked to belong with the others, but just happen to park our bodies in relative proximity, that's all.

This is not to say that we should not be kind to our neighbours, of course we should, but our relationship with them is not that of team-mates.

There is a difference between others who have harmful and/or dangerous tendencies and others who simply want to live their lives peacefully their own way, pursuing their own goals which could be quite different to yours.

The rule should be: live and let live!

Those in "control" do not respect this rule.

As for democracy, well and good but it's just a detail pertaining to a team's internal organisation: first it needs to be a team and then you need to be in it of your free will.

We all belong to the human race.
That is our team.
Together, we have accomplished amazing things.
That is team work.
We have well advanced communication, transport, medical...the list could go on and on.
We even have our 'wrist radio'. ^_^
We are the Australian Branch of the team.
That is how I see it.
One thing I don't agree with is that we have free will about joining the team.
In practical terms, we don't.
Nobody asked us if we wanted to be born.
By the time we had a functioning brain, were were here.
And we can either join with others to get things done, or strike out on our own.
But that wouldn't get us far.
We need others to survive.
There is safety in numbers for a start.
So we are, of practical necessity, all part of a large team.
We are here, we are part of that team, and we can contribute or not.
When we don't contribute, we will almost certainly continue to draw on resources provided by others.
Be it accommodation, clothing, food, or whatever.
After a while, the others won't be so happy about someone who uses without contributing.
To make up for his laziness, they all need to work just that little bit harder.
The others might then become decidedly frosty towards such a person.
The reality is we just need to knuckle down, and get on with a productive life.
Most of us do.