What is religious freedom, and why does it need protection in Australia? - Page 4 - 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.
#14986295
ness31 wrote:Paddy 14 went AWOL :lol:

I agree with PoD also about religious schools not receiving funding from the state.

Regarding gay students getting expelled, never heard of it happening.


No I didn't - I was in class. I don't know if any gay students have been expelled, but I wouldn't think legislation making that possible is very fair - would you?
#14986316
Paddy14 wrote:No I didn't - I was in class. I don't know if any gay students have been expelled, but I wouldn't think legislation making that possible is very fair - would you?


Every scenario is different. You have some gay kids who just get on with it and you have some who want to make a point. Do you seriously think private religious schools have not educated gay students in the past? Of course they have! Dare I say they were some of the best and brightest. But their parents would have instilled in them a certain amount of respect for protocol.
#14986480
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already debated this with Eran, Phred, and Solarcross when he was going by taxizen.

And where we left off was them failing to explain why animals do not own their food but humans do.


Thats because they didn't use my argument, which prempts this critique in the syllogism. I've addressed this remark of yours in the thread, addressed to you, feel free to interact with my answer there.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.


Glad we agree.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said Christians were a denomination.

You were the one who brought up denominations.


You did by not differentiating them as the wiki article does in several places, no such distinctions were made for the non-religious in that same article, thus your rejoinder that "the non-religious in australia have subgroups (denominations) too," lacks support from your own source.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Harm and negative impact are synonymous for the purposes of the argument.


No, I never agreed to such terms.

Thus, your argument is based on a unproven assumption and point of contention.
#14986489
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thats because they didn't use my argument, which prempts this critique in the syllogism. I've addressed this remark of yours in the thread, addressed to you, feel free to interact with my answer there.


Since you ignored my request for you to show how it relates to this thread, I am assuming you concede that the religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws is based solely on a fallacy of tradition and the institutional power of churches in Australian society.

Glad we agree.


You seem to be abandoning your argument about how all the teachers are clergy.

You did by not differentiating them as the wiki article does in several places, no such distinctions were made for the non-religious in that same article, thus your rejoinder that "the non-religious in australia have subgroups (denominations) too," lacks support from your own source.


The question as to whether or not that information is in that exact article is completely irrelevant to the thread, and it does not change the fact that Christians comprise more than 50% of the population.

No, I never agreed to such terms.

Thus, your argument is based on a unproven assumption and point of contention.


If you want to make an argument that they are different and show how it relates to the fact that teachers can get fired and students can get expelled, feel free.
#14986496
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be abandoning your argument about how all the teachers are clergy.


I never made that argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you ignored my request for you to show how it relates to this thread, I am assuming you concede that the religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws is based solely on a fallacy of tradition and the institutional power of churches in Australian society.


So I take you will refuse my challenge yet again?

For the sixth time?

I have addressed that the argument is relevant because it demonstrates a logical right to discrimination; your argument has been posted and refuted in the appropriate thread. Your decision to yet again run away from it, is noted.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The question as to whether or not that information is in that exact article is completely irrelevant to the thread, and it does not change the fact that Christians comprise more than 50% of the population.


Sure, but many of these denominations are pro gay marriage. The ones that aren't is whats relevant, and they are a minority, being oppressed by a majority. Which you support.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to make an argument that they are different and show how it relates to the fact that teachers can get fired and students can get expelled, feel free.


harm
/härm/Submit
noun
noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else"
synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, suffering, distress, anguish, trauma, torment, grief; More
antonyms: benefit
material damage.
"it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine"
actual or potential ill effect or danger.
"I can't see any harm in it"
synonyms: evil, badness, wrong, mischief, wrongdoing, immorality, ill, wickedness, vice, iniquity, sin, sinfulness, nefariousness
"I can't see any harm in it"
antonyms: good


The burden of proof is on you actually.
#14986501
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I never made that argument.


Well, whatever argument you were making about “educating baptized members of God's people can be regarded as a ministerial obligation under the purview of the church by many denominations”.

So I take you will refuse my challenge yet again?

For the sixth time?

I have addressed that the argument is relevant because it demonstrates a logical right to discrimination; your argument has been posted and refuted in the appropriate thread. Your decision to yet again run away from it, is noted.


How does it demonstrate a logical right to discrimination?

Sure, but many of these denominations are pro gay marriage. The ones that aren't is whats relevant, and they are a minority, being oppressed by a majority. Which you support.


The majority of Australians are supportive of gay marriage regardless of their religion.

This includes Christians. Who are not a minority.

The burden of proof is on you actually.


My argument is that getting fired or expelled is an example of harm or negative impact.
#14986506
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, whatever argument you were making about “educating baptized members of God's people can be regarded as a ministerial obligation under the purview of the church by many denominations”.


So are you claiming that catholic schools are not regarded by themselves as being under the authority of the catholic church?

Pants-of-dog wrote:How does it demonstrate a logical right to discrimination?


An absolute right to one's own property implies that others do not have a right to it; thus, discrimination is inferrable as likewise being a right necessarily. This is clear in the syllogism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The majority of Australians are supportive of gay marriage regardless of their religion.

This includes Christians. Who are not a minority.


Irrelevant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My argument is that getting fired or expelled is an example of harm or negative impact.


Contrary to definition of harm, thus why the burden of proof is on you to provide an argument demonstrating your claimed connection.
#14986510
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So are you claiming that catholic schools are not regarded by themselves as being under the authority of the catholic church?


Is that your argument?

An absolute right to one's own property implies that others do not have a right to it; thus, discrimination is inferrable as likewise being a right necessarily. This is clear in the syllogism.


Oh. Since absolute rights do not exist, I am going to move on.

Irrelevant.


You should really tie this back to the issue of religious exemptions for anti-discrimination laws in Australia.

Contrary to definition of harm, thus why the burden of proof is on you to provide an argument demonstrating your claimed connection.


How is getting fired or expelled contrary to the definition of harm?
#14986514
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is that your argument?


Not an answer. I asked a question, answer it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh. Since absolute rights do not exist, I am going to move on.


They do, I demonstrated it in my proof that I challenged you to debate six times, and have refuted your most recent objections on there. Your cowardice is noted.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is getting fired or expelled contrary to the definition of harm?


Go reread it and you tell me.
#14986515
ness31 wrote:Every scenario is different. You have some gay kids who just get on with it and you have some who want to make a point. Do you seriously think private religious schools have not educated gay students in the past? Of course they have! Dare I say they were some of the best and brightest. But their parents would have instilled in them a certain amount of respect for protocol.


You are right that people make too much fuss about being gay, or not. I go to a private all-boys school which is, I think, C of E, but religion is never mentioned except when discussing comparative religion, we are not expected to go to chapel etc. and I have no idea which boys are gay or not (nor do I care). It is also probably the most expensive school in Australia (annual fees and other charges can be over $A60,000 for full boarders - I am a day boarder). But AFIK, my school still gets loads of funding from the government. That's probably not very fair either, but I doubt our Headmaster, who is pretty cool, would ever expel a boy for being gay, or sack a gay teacher just for being gay. My only worry is about legislation which would make it legal for others to do that.
#14986520
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Not an answer. I asked a question, answer it.


No. If you have an argument, make it.

They do, I demonstrated it in my proof that I challenged you to debate six times, and have refuted your most recent objections on there. Your cowardice is noted.


Okay, if you cannot explain how it grants this right, then I will assume you are dropping this argument as well.

Go reread it and you tell me.


If you cannot explain it, I assume you are conceding this argument as well.
#14986524
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. If you have an argument, make it.


So no argument then. Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, if you cannot explain how it grants this right, then I will assume you are dropping this argument as well.


Your assumption is baseless, as I have linked the argument and already responded to some of your objections. Your refusal to engage is your own decision and will be taken as cowardice, for the sixth time, no less. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot explain it, I assume you are conceding this argument as well.


Since you have refused to reread my post, I assume that you have lost the requisite competency to comprehend my arguments.
#14986531
1. Discrimination due to deeply held religious beliefs is just as bad as secular discrimination. Belief in a supernatural being does not lessen its impact.

2. The only reason this is still allowed is because of society’s fallacious belief that certain religious traditions should be allowed to exclude themselves from respecting the rights of others.

3. The Christian churches in Australia historically had a large amount of power for the last few centuries, especially when compared to LGBTQ people. This historical power has created a present day where Christian churches still hold a fair bit of power, and LGBTQ people have less power in society than thier heterosexual counterparts - let alone the churches.

4. This power imbalance is part of the reason why Christians are still legally allowed to discriminate, and the fact that the majority of Australians are Christian is also significant but not an important point.

5. This discrimination could result in harm, or negative impact, on LGBTQ teachers and students, in the form of being fired or expelled.
#15009833
ness31 wrote:I understand your unease. I suggest you write to your local MP to discuss your concerns :)


Thanks for that - but do you think the conservative government is going to take any more notice of a high school student than the people on this board? :eh:
#15010635
ness31 wrote:Conservative or not, there is a system of representative democracy in place so I simply suggested you use the system as it was designed. What have you got to lose?


Fair enough - it was a good suggestion. I just know that no one takes any notice of me in RL, so I can't see the government being any different. ;)

Sure we'd survive, we just very likely wouldn't p[…]

1. Never shake a man’s hand sitting down. N/A. […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-lead[…]

Election 2020

I believe that some day, people are going to look[…]