What is religious freedom, and why does it need protection in Australia? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14986062
AFIK, Australians are free to practice any religious belief, as long as it doesn't harm or affect others. My family is C of E, but only my mum is a church-goer. I used to get dragged along, but now that I'm older, I refuse to go, and AFIK, my dad never goes. All that sounds like a recipe for family conflict but we all get along fine on that subject. We all respect each other's beliefs (or lack of belief) on the subject.

So why does our Prime Minister feel that religion needs protection at law, and that he has to introduce legislation to enable religious schools to exclude gay kids and gay teachers? Like what has anyone's sexuality have to do with religious beliefs, and what right has anyone to impose those beliefs on the rest of society?

I don't want to offend any religious people here, but surely religious beliefs are a personal thing, and there is no evidence that even such a thing as God exists. If we believe in God, that's our right, but surely we don't have the right to impose that belief on the rest of society (who may not share our beliefs)? If I still believed in Father Christmas, should I have the right to kick any of my fellow students out of school cos they no longer shared my belief in that myth?

I just wonder what people here (who know a lot more than I do,) think about this. :hmm:
#14986069
Paddy14 wrote:So why does our Prime Minister feel that religion needs protection at law, and that he has to introduce legislation to enable religious schools to exclude gay kids and gay teachers? Like what has anyone's sexuality have to do with religious beliefs, and what right has anyone to impose those beliefs on the rest of society?


As a religious person, let me explain somethings you might not understand about orthodox and biblical Christianity. Orthodox and biblical Christianity confesses that homosexuality as a practice is an abominable sin and many believe it should be criminalized because of God's law on the matter as a state in Holy Writ. Most of these would argue that practicing homosexuality is a definite proof that one is not a Christian, as to live in open rebellion without any repentance would be evidence of an unregenerated soul.

Thus, at a religious school, teachers are expected to atleast follow the "basic" ways of Christian living; which include things like not being homosexual or trans, etc; however, this will often also include not being an adulterer etc. Many Christian denominations won't allow people who were previously divorced to teach in official capacity either based on certain texts as well, so its not just homosexuals, not by a long shot.

Thus, for the State to tell religious schools that THEY MUST hire homosexual teachers to teach at a confessedly Christian school is no different in the minds of these Christians than if the government told public schools that THEY MUST hire Christians who believe that public schooling is wrong. It not only does not make sense, but its clearly evidence of tyrannical government.

Your claim is that Christians are imposing their views on others, but I don't see how your example demonstrates that at all. I see Christians wanting to start schools for other Christians that follow Christian views and some Australians who don't think they should be left alone to practice their values, but instead must impose their views of sexuality on the Christians by MAKING them hire people that are not compatible with their beliefs or the mission of their school.

Paddy14 wrote:I don't want to offend any religious people here, but surely religious beliefs are a personal thing, and there is no evidence that even such a thing as God exists. If we believe in God, that's our right, but surely we don't have the right to impose that belief on the rest of society (who may not share our beliefs)? If I still believed in Father Christmas, should I have the right to kick any of my fellow students out of school cos they no longer shared my belief in that myth?


Yes, this is a very condescending notion, most Christians not only believe that God exists, but many believe that His existence is demonstrable. I am one such person.

The issue here is not that the state "allows people to believe in silly things," but that people believe certain things to be absolutely true contrary to one another and that if we were forced to impose these views on one another as the "only truth" it would lead to violence; hence, the liberal democracies of the world are supposed to take a "neutral stance," and allow people to practice their religion as they please without interference as a means of creating social peace and harmony.

If your SCHOOL is only for people who believe in father christmas and practice his commandments, then you should not BE REQUIRED to hire people contrary to your own charter. That would be retarded, but also a clear fact of governemnt overreach.

So, though I think government in general is the problem here, I do not and would not oppose what your PM is attempting to do, which is to protect religious communities who exclude homosexuals for religious reasons from being forced to do things contrary to their beliefs.
#14986072
Australia isn’t a theocracy, so those with strong religious beliefs cannot impose them on those that don’t share said beliefs. The non religious are protected.

It seems though that not everyone wants to afford the same protections to the religious. I was at a dinner the other night where a shitty youngster took offense to the idea that he and his gay partner should not be allowed to marry in a church. He looked at me like I was a backward hick :hmm:

Now to me, the way forward is obvious. Don’t try to force religious institutions who cannot condone homosexuality into allowing same sex couples to be married under their roof. It isn’t bigotry, it’s just common sense. Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation
#14986077
ness31 wrote:Now to me, the way forward is obvious. Don’t try to force religious institutions who cannot condone homosexuality into allowing same sex couples to be married under their roof. It isn’t bigotry, it’s just common sense. Grow the fuck up.



This should be obvious, but the problem is that the LGBT community is not a libertarian group that merely believes that homosexuality should be tolerated and permitted throughout society (like it originally claimed), for if that were the case, most of their work in the west is done and they have clearly won the day; rather, their goals now are not only to be tolerated, but be universally approved-of. Those who cannot accept and approve of homosexuality must now be punished for their thought-crime, its not enough that they agree to tolerate homosexuality, they must heartily endorse it.

That is the issue, religious people have already (several hundred years ago) agreed to not impose their religion at the state level and instead tolerate a status of being one tolerated belief among many (what liberal democracy allegedly achieved), and how have the secularists repaid the religious for their compromise? By insinuating that their existence will no longer be tolerated and that irreligious values must now be imposed and approved-of universally. :hmm:

That is the problem, most of these identity groups appealed to the religious conservatives for them to "have a heart" and "let us live as we please," and the Christians relented (this is the story of the west, time-and-again, over the last 100 years), but now, once these identity groups have political power, its now the Christians begging; "please just let us live the way we want to." and now the identity groups be like: "fuck you!! you will conform to our values you bigots!!! Submit or die!!"
#14986086
Paddy14 wrote:Like what has anyone's sexuality have to do with religious beliefs

This one is obvious. Many religions see homosexuality as something that is wrong. That's it's relation to religious belief. YOU didn't know this?

I'm on the opposite side of @Victoribus Spolia in terms of religious belief. I am agnostic. I don't believe Jesus is my lord and savior and all that. In fact, I was banned at a young age from my local church (setting off m100's and bottle rockets in the middle of mass).

If we look at your own post, I see you making the argument that protecting religion should be done! Here's what I mean...

Paddy14 wrote:what right has anyone to impose those beliefs on the rest of society?

Protecting religion, isn't imposing beliefs on the rest of society. No one is going to make you go to church or believe in God. Nothing is actually being imposed on the rest of society.

Paddy14 wrote:enable religious schools to exclude gay kids and gay teachers

This is what is meant by protecting religion. If you tells schools they can't exclude gay kids, and gay teachers, aren't you imposing your beliefs on them? Why is it ok for your beliefs to be imposed in them?

Freedom cuts both ways.
#14986089
Rancid wrote:This reminds me of all the babies that want to shutdown speech that offends them, but then turn around and claim they are for free speech. That is inconsistent.Likewise, I think you are being inconsistent here.



Agreed, which is why Fascism is becoming a thing on the right, because the right feels likes its been betrayed by the left over an unspoken agreement back in the 1960s that if the right would only tolerate the left, then all could live and let live; however, now that the left is the dominant political ideology; the right is being censored and pursued, so now many on the right want revenge; they want to take over government again and oppress minorities, the left, etc like they were able to do 300 years ago and they won't even listen to the libertarian-right anymore because they feel that it was the libertarians that duped them to compromise with the duplicitous left to begin with.

Its a very scary situation in all honesty because until the left starts tolerating the views and values of the right as something to be allowed in society, the right will continue to galvanize and seek political revenge via authoritarianism. Politics is becoming a zero-sum game; where whoever wins control of the state gets to impose their views on everyone else. That's the problem.

At this point, barring government collapse (which I am praying for); we will eventually see contrary political structures on a global scale oscillating between the visions of a cat-loving pink-haired Maoist on one side and a basement-dwelling 4chan Mussolini on the other, all such regimes being implemented with all the power and ferocity that the modern nuclear states of the west can afford them.

The future looks grim indeed.
#14986092
Victoribus Spolia wrote:

Agreed, which is why Fascism is becoming a thing on the right, because the right feels likes its been betrayed by the left over an unspoken agreement back in the 1960s that if the right would only tolerate the left, then all could live and let live; however, now that the left is the dominant political ideology; the right is being censored and pursued, so now many on the right want revenge; they want to take over government again and oppress minorities, the left, etc like they were able to do 300 years ago and they won't even listen to the libertarian-right anymore because they feel that it was the libertarians that duped them to compromise with the duplicitous left to begin with.

Its a very scary situation in all honesty because until the left starts tolerating the views and values of the right as something to be allowed in society, the right will continue to galvanize and seek political revenge via authoritarianism. Politics is becoming a zero-sum game; where whoever wins control of the state gets to impose their views on everyone else. That's the problem.

At this point, barring government collapse (which I am praying for); we will eventually see contrary political structures on a global scale oscillating between the visions of a cat-loving pink-haired Maoist on one side and a basement-dwelling 4chan Mussolini on the other, all such regimes being implemented with all the power and ferocity that the modern nuclear states of the west can afford them.

The future looks grim indeed.


I agree. The extreme right is a manifestation of frustration on the right. It's important for the left to realize that ridiculing, ostracizing, and attacking them isn't going to help. Inf act, I think it can be argued, the rise of the alt-right is because the left is acting inconsistent with the beliefs they claim to value and uphold.

Instead, you basically have to be reasonable and try to understand the other side to come to some compromises or agreements. This isn't being done.

Call me crazy @Paddy14, but if you believe in freedom, you should allow the school to exclude gays. The other option is to admit you are not really a champion of freedom, and thus would like to control the school. That's ok too, so long as you're honest.
#14986096
Rancid wrote:I can be argued, the rise of the alt-right is because the left is acting inconsistent with the beliefs they claim to value and uphold.


Indeed, I myself got swept up into the fervor of this New Right until I came to my liberty-loving senses.

Rancid wrote:I agree. The extreme right is a manifestation of frustration on the right. It's important for the left to realize that ridiculing, ostracizing, and attacking them isn't going to help. Instead, you basically have to be reasonable and try to understand the other side to come to some compromises or agreements. This isn't being done.


It doesn't even have to be a compromise per se, it just has to be an acceptance by people on the left that official toleration for their practices is sufficient and everyone agreeing with said practices is not to be required. Likewise, people on the right need be encouraged to give liberty a change again. I don't think either of these things will happen, it will take a bloody-ass war again to make people remember that leaving each other the fuck alone is the best way to prevent violent reactions.
#14986105
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It doesn't even have to be a compromise per se, it just has to be an acceptance by people on the left that official toleration for their practices is sufficient and everyone agreeing with said practices is not to be required. Likewise, people on the right need be encouraged to give liberty a change again. I don't think either of these things will happen, it will take a bloody-ass war again to make people remember that leaving each other the fuck alone is the best way to prevent violent reactions.


Yes yes yes.

I would also say that I think so called liberals aren't really liberals, but that's for another thread.
#14986108
Rancid wrote:I would also say that I think so called liberals aren't really liberals, but that's for another thread.


Of course, I would definitely agree with that.

You remind me a bit of Dave Rubin as far your views and approach to things,@Rancid, have you heard of him?

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

https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport
#14986110
@Victoribus Spolia,

I was thinking about this further. I think this is why what I called "standard" American liberals are rubbed wrong by me. I have a habit of point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs and actions. When I do it on pofo, I start to get pigeon holed as some sort of "standard" America conservative. Then they attack the caricature of an American conservative, thinking that they are debating me, when they actually aren't.

A very very very clear example of that is in the right thought leader thread, where I simply offer some mostly objective analysis of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon.
#14986111
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You remind me a bit of Dave Rubin as far your views and approach to things,@Rancid, have you heard of him?


A little. I saw a short like 5min clip of him and Jordan Peterson when I was doing my analysis homework on Jordan Peterson. :lol:

I didn't hear enough of him to judge him. Perhaps I should give him a try.

You know, even though I get lumped as a conservative on pofo often. I feel like I'm actually more liberal than most liberals here. :lol:
#14986116
Rancid wrote:@Victoribus Spolia,

I was thinking about this further. I think this is why what I called "standard" American liberals are rubbed wrong by me. I have a habit of point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs and actions. When I do it on pofo, I start to get pigeon holed as some sort of "standard" America conservative. Then they attack the caricature of an American conservative, thinking that they are debating me, when they actually aren't.

A very very very clear example of that is in the right thought leader thread, where I simply offer some mostly objective analysis of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon.


This is why I said in the above post that you remind me a bit of Dave Rubin, who argues that he didn't leave liberalism, liberalism left him. He used to be with the Young Turks until he thought they dishonestly labeled Sam Harris as a racist because of his critiques of Islam, even though Harris as a militant atheist critiques all religion.

He felt this was unfair and wrong on the part of the TYT because Harris was neither conservative or racist for critiquing religion, as he had been praised for doing when it came to Christianity.

Rubin started the Rubin Report with the intention of investigating and interviewing people from all ends of the spectrum, with his own agenda being mainly the need for free speech.

I saw the whole thing about JP between you and skinster and others and I agree that it was BS, but what did you expect?

Think about it, such individuals think about everything in politics and life like our friend @Paddy14 here thinks about religious people. There can be no lack of conformity (lack of approval) for the social program and system they believe in; this being the case, sympathy towards such individuals is likewise intolerable, even if those individuals are reasonable in other most areas.

As an example, imagine a DNC candidate who supported everything that was popular in the Democrat party today (EVERYTHING); with the exception that he/she personally and vocally believed that homosexuality was a sin. Would they last in the DNC?

I think we both know the answer to that.

If you want toleration for diverse opinions, you won't find it on the left-wing of the spectrum.
#14986120
If Xina schools are receiving funding from the state, then they should be expected to follow whatever rules come with said funding.

And if one of those rules is that you cannot expel LGBTQ students or fire LGBTQ teachers, then the school can either accept these stdents and teachers as they are, or give up their funding.

Catholic schools in Australia receive government funding.
#14986123
Pants-of-dog wrote:If Xina schools are receiving funding from the state, then they should be expected to follow whatever rules come with said funding.And if one of those rules is that you cannot expel LGBTQ students or fire LGBTQ teachers, then the school can either accept these stdents and teachers as they are, or give up their funding.Catholic schools in Australia receive government funding.


I agree that they should give up government funding if that's the case; unless of course Islamic schools that also teach homosexuality as wrong still received theirs. It should be on equal footing. If they are going to make it so all schools that disagree with government policy should not receive state-funding, it should be universally the case; however, if the Australian government wants to allow a universal exception to this for the religious schools it has decided to fund, I don't understand the "problem" with this either from the perspective of those arguing on behalf of the state's prerogative.

To be honest, I think its a bit strange for secular states to fund religious schools in the first place anyway and I oppose all such schemes, bar none.
#14986125
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
This is why I said in the above post that you remind me a bit of Dave Rubin, who argues that he didn't leave liberalism, liberalism left him. He used to be with the Young Turks until he thought they dishonestly labeled Sam Harris as a racist because of his critiques of Islam, even though Harris as a militant atheist critiques all religion.

He felt this was unfair and wrong on the part of the TYT because Harris was neither conservative or racist for critiquing religion, as he had been praised for doing when it came to Christianity.

Rubin started the Rubin Report with the intention of investigating and interviewing people from all ends of the spectrum, with his own agenda being mainly the need for free speech.

I saw the whole thing about JP between you and skinster and others and I agree that it was BS, but what did you expect?

Think about it, such individuals think about everything in politics and life like our friend @Paddy14 here thinks about religious people. There can be no lack of conformity (lack of approval) for the social program and system they believe in; this being the case, sympathy towards such individuals is likewise intolerable, even if those individuals are reasonable in other most areas.

As an example, imagine a DNC candidate who supported everything that was popular in the Democrat party today (EVERYTHING); with the exception that he/she personally and vocally believed that homosexuality was a sin. Would they last in the DNC?

I think we both know the answer to that.

If you want toleration for diverse opinions, you won't find it on the left-wing of the spectrum.


Maybe i will check out this David Rubin guy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If Xina schools are receiving funding from the state, then they should be expected to follow whatever rules come with said funding.

And if one of those rules is that you cannot expel LGBTQ students or fire LGBTQ teachers, then the school can either accept these stdents and teachers as they are, or give up their funding.

Catholic schools in Australia receive government funding.


If this is true, that the school receives public money. Then I agree 100% that they need to abide by the general rules the governments tend to layout, which is "you can't discriminate against sex, race, age, etc. etc."

If the school does not receive public money, then I think more latitude should be given to them to exclude a group of people that they fundamentally believe are bad people per their religion.

None the less, it is a sticky and nasty situation. It's very difficult, because you have to balance so many different people's idea of freedom. For example, obviously I have nothing against gay people, and I don't think they should be excluded from a religious school. However, (assuming the school is 100% privately funded), I don't think it's our place to tell the school they can't exclude gay people. In this case anyway.
#14986129
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
I agree that they should give up government funding if that's the case; unless of course Islamic schools that also teach homosexuality as wrong still received theirs. It should be on equal footing. If they are going to make it so all schools that disagree with government policy should not receive state-funding, it should be universally the case; however, if the Australian government wants to allow a universal exception to this for the religious schools it has decided to fund, I don't understand the "problem" with this either from the perspective of those arguing on behalf of the state's prerogative.

To be honest, I think its a bit strange for secular states to fund religious schools in the first place anyway and I oppose all such schemes, bar none.


I agree. I'm getting kind of tired saying that I agree with you though. :lol:

Ultimately, I'm looking for consistency and a decent amount of honesty. If we say we are for fairness and freedom, then we need to be for fairness and freedom. If we say we are against these, well.... that's ok too if that's what we really want. :lol: However, I will always point out when we try to straddle both lines.
#14986134
Rancid wrote:I agree. I'm getting kind of tired saying that I agree with you though.


Yes, come to the dark side of the force. It will give you true power. :excited:

Rancid wrote:Ultimately, I'm looking for consistency and a decent amount of honesty. If we say we are for fairness and freedom, then we need to be for fairness and freedom. If we say we are against these, well.... that's ok too if that's what we really want. However, I will always point out when we try to straddle both lines.


Agreed, which makes me wonder why the left ever used these terms back in the 60s.....in retrospect its looking a lot more like it was done for the pragmatic purpose of duping the other side and not out of genuine conviction.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea why there should be any religious exemption for rights anyway. It is not as if homophobia and racism magically become less abhorrent simply because the oppressor believes in magical beings.


@Rancid, observe the above quote from Pants, this is exactly the shit we've been talking about.

Here we fucking go again. :roll:
EU-BREXIT

If Brexit... With 110 pages of legalese to trawl[…]

I believe foxdemon was just trying to point out t[…]

Better to incentivise the switch to suppliers tha[…]

Ukrainegate

So you need to destroy the country to save it. […]