Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 09:38
Last edited 04/11/2021 - 09:39

The three issues that will face opposition within the Liberal party room are the inclusion of a “Folau clause” that would give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief; conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment; and the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”.

But Wertheim said it was larger faiths including Christian churches which “want to preference members of their own faith in staffing” while Jewish institutions were “far too small to have that luxury”.

It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die, allow doctors to refuse to treat people and would like to officially discriminate when hiring staff. The Religious Freedom bill that is being pushed through by Australian Christian Lobby and more. After all, the Hillsong supporter PM Scott Morrison, says he got the calling from god.

In case you thought that Scott Morrison and the LNP are doing nothing in government. Here it is. There's not much one can do about this. I feel bad for the people affected, including women and young girls who face a future where their doctor can refuse the morning pill just because, religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/religious-grou…

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2021/apr/26…

Education & Work

Comments

  • SnowDragon on 04/11/2021 - 09:48
    +176

    Just because you have a religion, doesn't mean you get be an a-hole.

    • klonky on 04/11/2021 - 09:55
      +30

      To be fair, most of the a-hole things people have done to each other is because of religion. They just want the 'good times' back.

        • ESEMCE on 04/11/2021 - 10:47
          +30

          Plenty of examples of religious zealotry in modern times, no matter the religion.
          There's also plenty of modern examples of people just being nutbags without the religion.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 04/11/2021 - 18:22
            +7

            @ESEMCE: 100 % of Islamic terrorism is religiously motivated.

            • Dilemma on 05/11/2021 - 08:49
              +64

              @Scrooge McDuck: 100% of [insert religion of choice] terrorism is religiously motivated… 🤷‍♂️

              • SlickMick on 05/11/2021 - 09:58
                +2

                @Dilemma: Lol such a clearly logical statement, but somebody downvoted it! I fixed that.

              • Lord Fart Bucket on 05/11/2021 - 11:06
                +3

                @Dilemma:

                100% of [insert religion of choice] terrorism is religiously motivated… 🤷‍♂️

                Eco?

              • Hangryuman on 06/11/2021 - 13:04

                @Dilemma: 'My God Told Me To Kill You' …

                • cameldownunder on 06/11/2021 - 17:06
                  +1

                  @Hangryuman: It's the book that tells them, and the book is written by ……. Huuuumans.

              • dickiee on 06/11/2021 - 14:17
                -1

                @Dilemma: 100% of [insert religion of choice] terrorism is religiously motivated… 🤷‍♂️

                Or used to brainwash people to commit acts of terrorism….

            • plastererJazz on 05/11/2021 - 18:51

              @Scrooge McDuck: It was more power/money-driven, people in charge use region in the wrong way to misguide people to conduct awful acts.

            • frostman on 07/11/2021 - 23:25
              +8

              @Scrooge McDuck:

              100 % of Islamic terrorism is religiously motivated.

              You must be one of these middle-aged people that sit and watch 60-Minutes and cry along with Tara Brown at the "real" stories presented.

              Fanaticism is the root of social problems, not religion.
              It's just that people that are prone to Fanaticism are drawn to religion; Amish, Black Panther Movement, Opus Dei, IS, etc

              Atheists and Agnostics (which likely includes yourself) continuously blame the world's problems on religion, it's like an affirmation of their choices that somehow needs to be presented repeatedly in public.

              Greed, Power and Money are what's driving the world's problems today, Russia's annexation of Crimea, its involvement in Syria, is not because Putin is sitting there with a Bible in his lap and ordering all this. The same is said about US in Afghan, US in Vietnam, Australia in Turkey, US in Japan, Germany in Poland, Iraq in Kuwait, i'll leave the rest to you to go research before you post more drivel.

              • Bjingo on 08/11/2021 - 19:23

                @frostman:

                Atheists and Agnostics (which likely includes yourself) continuously blame the world's problems on religion, it's like an affirmation of their choices that somehow needs to be presented repeatedly in public.

                For context I consider myself Agnostic and I do not think I could call myself that if I blamed religion for the worlds problems that would make me Atheist. Putting religion as the cause of issues is to say the belief in a higher power is wrong, which is contradictory to the agnostic ideology that that we cannot say for certainty if there is, or is not a God.

                I can say with certainty that Religious institutions have caused world problems, but that is not due to their religion, but in fact…… exactly what you said; Greed, Power and Money.

                • frostman on 08/11/2021 - 21:17

                  @Bjingo: You're one of a kind - and fully agree with all your comment

                  I've been surfing various forums for a while now, and the vitriol posted by that Scrooge is very common theme.

        • dizzle on 04/11/2021 - 11:03
          +26

          It doesn't have to be that long ago (and continues to exist):

          • Bosnia: Over 8000 unarmed Muslims were killed by the Serbian military forces. Total death toll over 100,000
          • For more than 2 decades the Sudanese government has waged war against the Christians in the state. Estimated 300,000 dead.
          • Israel and Palestine
          • Hindu and Muslim conflicts in India

          Certainly not all the causes in these are religious, but it's been a handy excuse for the survivors to continue their struggles

          or done by some group of minorities that doesnt represent the respective teachings?

          I find when they cover up for priests doing bad things, or not denouncing members of their faith committing terrorist acts (Christian, Muslim or otherwise), it then becomes representative of their teachings.

          • Seraphin7 on 04/11/2021 - 11:54
            +15

            @dizzle: Religious zealots flew planes into buildings in New York and Washington, blew up buses and trains in London, short up a concert in Paris, bombed a bar Bali, and so on, and so on.

            Unfortunately many zealots are still roaming the planet.

          • ozhunter on 04/11/2021 - 16:09
            -7

            @dizzle:

            I find when they cover up for priests doing bad things, or not denouncing members of their faith committing terrorist acts (Christian, Muslim or otherwise), it then becomes representative of their teachings.

            What if they are an atheist?

            • dizzle on 04/11/2021 - 16:34
              +47

              @ozhunter: I'm an atheist, and I'm happy to denounce any atheists that commit acts of terrorism.
              If an atheist that worked for me was accused of peadophilia, I'd be happy to help the authorities. I wouldn't transfer them to another department/country to hide their indiscretions.

              The same can't be said for many religeous institutions.

                • sheamas88 on 04/11/2021 - 19:02
                  +31

                  @ozhunter:

                  it's normal to protect one of your own

                  nothing normal about protecting pedophiles

                • dizzle on 04/11/2021 - 19:12
                  +9

                  @ozhunter: And that was part of my original point,

                  I find when they cover up for priests doing bad things, or not denouncing members of their faith committing terrorist acts (Christian, Muslim or otherwise), it then becomes representative of their teachings.

                  If a football club doesn't denounce (and take steps to correct) the players caught raping women, then not only does it show the club accepts that behaviour, but that it represents thier values. Just like the bad things done by a religeous minority, becomes representative of thier teachings. To get past that the religion/political party/ or football club have to take visible steps to correct the issue.

                  Protecting one of your own because they are one of your own is unnacceptable.

                  • ozhunter on 06/11/2021 - 17:07
                    +1

                    @dizzle:

                    Just like the bad things done by a religeous minority, becomes representative of thier teachings.

                    It can if it relates to the teachings. If a Christian robs a bank, is that because of his religion. How about when they do good things? Would you credit the religion for that?

                    • dizzle on 06/11/2021 - 18:35
                      +6

                      @ozhunter:

                      If a Christian Priest robs a bank, is that because of his religion.

                      No, but if the church hides that priest from the consequences and deny that the bank was robbed while having a history of doing so, then yes.

                      How about when they do good things? Would you credit the religion for that?

                      Sure, but you can't buy your way out of some misdeeds just by donating to the poor.
                      Just like if a CEO that has a history of sexual harrassment, and the company buys off the victims. A fundraising BBQ for children in need isn't going to help the companys reputation if the CEO isn't held accountable and policies established to prevent it happening again.

                • ChatCPT on 06/11/2021 - 17:04

                  @ozhunter: Beware this freak

              • CommuterPolluter on 07/11/2021 - 00:34

                @dizzle: Which religious institution would do that in 2021?

          • meong on 05/11/2021 - 15:32
            +1

            @dizzle: Many Islamic priests denounce the Islamic terrorist attacks that happened around the world yet because a small percentage of Islamic group (such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda) claims to be behind the attacks, it had not stopped many media labels the attack to be Islamic as if it was a representative of Islamic teachings…

            • cameldownunder on 06/11/2021 - 17:08
              -3

              @meong: Sure, they denounce them in front of western Cameras, and then congratulate the terrorist via own network

          • Tleyx on 07/11/2021 - 21:18

            @dizzle: You missed the Han Athiests vs Ughyer Muslims

        • GrueHunter on 05/11/2021 - 19:32
          +3

          Sunni v Shiite violence in the Levant was a thousand years ago?

          Catholic v Protestant violence in Ireland was a thousand years ago?

          Islamic v Hindu violence in Bangladesh was a thousand years ago?

        • newbo on 05/11/2021 - 21:58
          +2

          This is happening 1000 years ago and now. By governments, not minorities.

      • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 10:00
        +24

        Religion is just an excuse. Arseholes are arseholes. People who are hateful towards others are just hateful people. Plenty of religious people out there who don't discriminate against others. People like Folau, for example, choose to be that way because they have personal prejudices. You can tell because none of them follow 100% of their religious texts, they pick and choose what suits them and use religion as a cover.

        • bio on 05/11/2021 - 13:36
          +7

          True, but religion gives those arseholes an easy excuse (call it jihad, crusade, radical zionism or whatever).

          • TimboAus1234 on 05/11/2021 - 20:40

            @bio: and do you think if there wasn't religion people would not think of some other reason to do whatever they want??

            • bio on 05/11/2021 - 22:19

              @TimboAus1234: Well, they would. They thought of religion didn't they?

        • dizzle on 05/11/2021 - 13:49

          So was he born that way, or was it a result of being raised by similar minded people in a church that encourages that style of thinking?

        • sarahlump on 05/11/2021 - 16:15

          religious people arent supposed to have savings accounts that acrue interest, wanna bet folau has that? religion is happy to harbour these people because ultimately its better than nothing.

      • TimboAus1234 on 05/11/2021 - 20:38

        The problem is not so much religion rather than that's just how large collective groups in humanity work if religion wasn't there it would just be some other reason to do awful things to each other. We don't need religion to do that, and to be fair alot of good things have come out of religion aswell.

      • trapper on 06/11/2021 - 14:38
        +1

        Not actually true though.

        Far more than 100 million people killed either by war or their own governments in the 20th century and almost none of that was because of religion.

      • Member 0230 on 09/11/2021 - 13:53
        +4

        most of the a-hole things people have done to each other is because of religion

        Just to be factual and very specific — history reveals that if murder is considered one of the most serious "a-hole" things people have done to each other, then the numbers show that the very worst events have nothing to do with religion, but in fact by areligious regimes (i.e., those with unambiguously communistic/atheistic philosophies), most of them committed in just the last 150 years:

        70+ million in Communist China
        60+ million in the Soviet Gulag State
        21 million non-battle killings by Nazis*
        2 million by Khmer Rouge

        *counts the millions of European Jews in the Holocaust but also "Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, Frenchmen, Balts, Czechs, and others"

        • SlavOz on 09/11/2021 - 14:10

          Progressives don't consider Stalinisn or Marxism as murder. They're just small hiccups in an otherwise perfect system.

        • eman resu on 30/11/2021 - 16:07

          The Holocaust was not done by Atheists. It was carried out by Christians.

          • Member 0230 on 30/11/2021 - 18:16

            @eman resu: You could be right that the primary prosecutor of the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, was not an Atheist.

            However, to say the Holocaust was "carried out by Christians" I think deserves more comment.

            If this were true - and I give no concession that it is - but just suppose for a moment it is - then their actions — the mass torture and killings of millions of Jews, and also Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the sterilisation of up to 400,000 "unfit¹²" — are completely inconsistent with the Christian message I'm familiar with, e.g., What is the Gospel?.

            In a Q&A debate, world-famous atheist Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell may have butted heads but both agreed the following about the main driver of the Holocaust:

            1. Hitler represented the "personification of social Darwinism" (Pell)
            2. Some of what Hitler tried to achieve arose "out of Darwinian natural selection" (Dawkins)

            What Pell referred to as "social Darwinism" was actually called "Kinder-Euthanasie" by the Nazis — child euthanasia. Because chronologically, the first organised killings by the Nazis were of children, (1) To prevent individuals with genetic defects passing them on to future generations, and (2) to reduce the burden of the "unnütze Esser"(useless eaters) on the healthy and strong. Mentally and physically disabled children and youth were systematically killed in 30+ killing stations.

            All this to say — some may not be atheists, but it doesn't sound particularly Christian either. I'm not aware of any local Christian church preaching or encouraging anything consistent with this incredible barbarism. Any so-called "Christian" who may have participated in perpetrating the Holocaust may simply be putting on that label, not knowing or certainly not behaving in a way consistent with its beliefs.

            ¹The USA was a world leader in enforced sterilisations, starting in 1907

            ²Hitler's program of population purification started with the forced sterilisation of the so-called "unfit" — described as those with epilepsy, blindness, the "feeble-minded", up to 400,000.

            • eman resu on 01/12/2021 - 00:16

              @Member 0230: Hitler himself may have not been a practising Christian, but the people under him, the Army, his loyal followers, politicians, police, and nazi party members, the corporations and the Churches were all either involved, complicit or silent when the Jews were being round up and burned to death. It may not have been close to the Christianity you were familiar with, but it is not an isolated even in Christian history. Christianity has been used to carry out many atrocities, with the Crusades, the Stolen Generations, Slavery in the US, Apartheid in South Africa (just to name a few).

              As for what the people at the time knew or being labelled as Christians, I dont know. I was not there. But what I do know is that you cannot judge a religion by the actions of one or a few. But you can certainly judge it by the actions of the majority and at the time of Nazi Germany the majority of the people were Christian and they supportive or silent when it came to what was being done in their name.

              • Member 0230 on 01/12/2021 - 12:57

                @eman resu: @eman resu

                Hitler himself may have not been a practising Christian, but the people under him, the Army, his loyal followers, politicians, police, and nazi party members, the corporations and the Churches were all either involved, complicit or silent when the Jews were being round up and burned to death.

                Sadly, I believe you are at least partially correct — there were a large majority who at the very least adopted the label "Christian" (whether or not they actually hold to its core values much less live it out) but at the same time it's critical to point out that the behaviour is inconsistent with Christianity, including inaction.

                You've probably heard of this famous "First they came" quote from Martin Niemöller - former Imperial German Navy U-boat commander, turned pastor, initially enthusiastic welcomer of the Third Reich, then on personally meeting Adolf Hitler became a staunch public opponent - which I feel is especially relevant here:

                "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

                Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

                Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

                Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

                But what is less known is what he said later in his book Über die deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung (published in English as Of Guilt and Hope) in January 1946:

                "Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: 'Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we can not get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.'"

                Nazis - which as history shows were far from acting in a way consistent with what most understand to be Christianity - actively tried to use Christianity to their own purposes against the perceived Jewish threat.

                Back to your original statement though of "The Holocaust was not done by Atheists. It was carried out by Christians."

                Perhaps a more historically accurate statement is "The Holocaust was not done only by Atheists. It was also in part by their inaction allowed to happen by many (but certainly far from "all") who called themselves Christians." Because it's important to remember that the primary philosophical driver of the Holocaust, as Pell and Dawkins both agree on, is eugenics, wholly based on an evolutionary philosophy: the survival of the fittest, a popular concept at the time as evident in the leading biology textbook A Civic Biology — the section "The Races of Man" is blatantly pro-white supremacist, while "The Remedy" speaks of killing off the "low and degenerate race(s)"

                The distinctions above are important because there is clear and abundant evidence that the architects of The Final Solution were unequivocally anti-Christian, as listed below.

                @eman resu

                But you can certainly judge it by the actions of the majority and at the time of Nazi Germany the majority of the people were Christian and they supportive or silent when it came to what was being done in their name.

                You could.

                But such a position is at the very least overly simplistic and totally missing truly critical pieces of information.

                At worst, it's really a common form of intellectual laziness (which, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of).

                Some of the more pertinent of these include:

                "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself."

                • When Protestant churches united to make an official denunciation of Nazi policies, 700 pastors were arrested.

                • In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny the author notes that "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." (Interestingly, in stark contrast, William Wilberforce fought with conviction for 50 years against slavery based on biblical morality, recognising slaves were fellow humans and not lesser beings. And to support some of your argument, William's actions were consistent with Christianity, unlike many of his peers who also professed to be Christians but supported slavery.)

                —

                The truth is, and as you can clearly see from my responses, I genuinely wish to continue discussing this with you, but at the same time and equally truthfully I simply don't have the capacity to engage at this level — it requires a bit of research that I love to do, but simply don't have time for.

                In my search for reference material, I came upon Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Antireligious Bigotry. To be clear I haven't read the book but only a summary of it, but if you're open-minded and wanting to explore the general topic further, this book may be worth sourcing because in its historical research it covers things like the abolition of slavery, the foundation of science (and the Flat Earth fallacy), and Christianity in Hitler's time.

                I really appreciate you raising this worthwhile topic though — I've personally certainly learned a lot.

              • Member 0230 on 01/12/2021 - 13:17

                @eman resu: As a separate reply to:

                Christianity has been used to carry out many atrocities, with the Crusades, the Stolen Generations, Slavery in the US, Apartheid in South Africa (just to name a few).

                "Christianity" has indeed been used to carry out many atrocities, but again it's worth pointing out that most (all? — I have no capacity to research) of these were done in a way that is inconsistent with what teachings of Jesus I'm familiar with in the Bible.

                Since you bring it up, it's also worth noting again that totalitarian (non-Christian / anti-Christian) governments are responsible for 100 times the number of deaths in just one century vs Christian ones in over five:

                *counts the millions of European Jews in the Holocaust(encyclopedia.ushmm.org) but also "Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, Frenchmen, Balts, Czechs, and others"

                Can religions (or any other worldview as demonstrated in history) be used to harm people? The answer is undoubtedly Yes, but it depends on the religion / worldview.

                Again I have not read this work only a summary What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza, but it comes highly recommended by leading sceptic Michael Shermer, who writes in the book jacket:

                "As an unbeliever I passionately disagree with Dinesh D’Souza on some of his positions. But he is a first-rate scholar whom I feel absolutely compelled to read. His thorough research and elegant prose have elevated him into the top ranks of those who champion liberty and individual responsibility. Now he adds Christianity to his formula for a good society, and although non-Christians and non-theists may disagree with some of his arguments, we ignore him at our peril. D’Souza’s book takes the debate to a new level. Read it."

  • CrowReally on 04/11/2021 - 09:57
    +23

    A rule that will do more harm than good.

    If they're foolish enough to pass it, I can't wait for otherwise-and-former-atheists to have religious visions that "Christian Porter is an actual rapist and as a supreme deity I compel you to notify the world as such". Ahhhhhhh, such religious freeeeedom!

    • Morkai on 08/11/2021 - 08:25
      +1

      No no no no, I'm sure their intent is only that the Hillsong members are allow to spout off bigotry and hate with no repercussions. Everyone else still has to bite their tongue.

      /s

      • Intoxicoligist on 09/11/2021 - 09:54

        Knowing how well the government does their jobs I'm sure they will make sure there are no loopholes that could be abused or taken out of context……..

        /s

        Time to become a card carrying member of the Satanic Temple and enjoy my religious freedoms.

  • pharkurnell on 04/11/2021 - 09:57
    +27

    Get rid of all religions

    • SF3 on 04/11/2021 - 12:28
      +5

      Get rid of all religions, that’s looking to divide and segregate, than unite and appreciate each other’s differences.

      We don’t need laws that further segregate people… are they going to start have a believer’s toilet vs non-believer toilet soon…

      • pharkurnell on 04/11/2021 - 14:42

        that’s looking to divide and segregate

        No its not, if everyone had the same fictional character we'd all be one. Instead of shit loads that are all battling each other for … well nothing.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/11/2021 - 20:45
          +5

          While I think religion vanishing overnight would be an overall net positive, if you look at the authoritarian regimes that tried it, I'd hardly consider those a more desirable alternative. Better to let religion slowly die out naturally, as it has been for some time.

          As for the law, not forcing people to bake the cake, or employ people with lifestyles and beliefs incompatible with their own, I do not have a problem with that.

          • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 10:07
            +5

            @[Deactivated]: Good point, all the athiests can stop serving or hiring religious people because they don't agree with their beliefs.

            • [Deactivated] on 05/11/2021 - 11:12

              @Miss B: I have no problem with that either. Working with someone that was excessively religious to the point that it impacted the work place would be an unnecessary burden on atheists.

              I also support the right of anyone to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Not being forced to bake the cake goes both ways. Likewise for employees, you can quit if you don't like it, or be fired if you refuse your employer's instruction.

              I would make the exception for doctors in life saving situations. You take the Hippocratic oath.

              • Miss B on 05/11/2021 - 11:25

                @[Deactivated]:

                I have no problem with that either. Working with someone that was excessively religious to the point that it impacted the work place would be an unnecessary burden on atheists.

                Anyone who's religious at all, even if they never mention it or their beliefs. Let's not put unnecessary qualifiers.

                I also support the right of anyone to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

                Like their age or the colour of their skin?

                • [Deactivated] on 05/11/2021 - 11:29

                  @Miss B: Yes, I have no problem with discrimination. If women want a women's only gym, or anyone an age restricted event, or a religion/lack of religion workplace or event, I have no problem with any of that.

                  If a business wants to only cater to a certain demographic, or exclude one, regardless of what that demographic is, I have no problem with that.

                  Now if any employee, an individual, wants to do that, then I support that choice too, however I do not expect an employer to continue to pay them if they refuse to carry out their duties.

                  Again, and I know you didn't take exception to this part, but I will repeat it, I make an exception to that for doctors in life saving situations. There could also be similar exceptions where an oath of office is required. If the role requires an oath, you fulfill that oath, or you are not fit for that role. Police being another that comes to mind.

          • belongsinforums on 05/11/2021 - 18:07

            @[Deactivated]: china was pretty successful at removing religion. most chinese dont believe that their every move is watched and controlled by supreme beings. theyre fairly level headed. unfortunately, superstition is still rife there

            • [Deactivated] on 05/11/2021 - 18:17
              +3

              @belongsinforums: The irony being the Chinese know their every move is being monitored and controlled by corporeal beings using very real technology.

              That said, even the CCP did not eliminate religion entirely, they just don't allow any non state sanctioned religion. Not all religions involve the supernatural either, but they would be equally clamped down on in China.

              Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Falun Gong being some examples of those currently under China's heel, whether they have supernatural beliefs or not.

      • MrBear on 05/11/2021 - 09:06
        +6

        All religions are essentially businesses and as such should be treated the same. They should pay tax and adhere to normal business practices, OH&S compliance and discrimination laws.

      • GrueHunter on 05/11/2021 - 19:35
        -2

        Religious people: that's segregation!
        Also religious people: can't we just put all the gays into special camps with special showers?

      • frewer on 06/11/2021 - 13:39

        We don’t need laws that further segregate people

        Can you please tell Vic's MP that ?

      • Pittyh on 09/11/2021 - 14:40

        Nah, just get rid of em all.

        "Educate people with science, and eventually they'll realise that worshipping faries is not the right way to go." - Me

    • frostman on 08/11/2021 - 08:32
      -1

      get rid of all religions

      Yeah because I'll sure feel safe roaming a world with 8 billion people guided and limited by their own moral compass…

      • dizzle on 08/11/2021 - 12:16
        +2

        Yeah, because non-religious people currently have a problem with thier moral compass. Just because someone doesn't believe the 10 commandments were passed down by God doesn't mean they're going to go out and murder someone.

      • pharkurnell on 08/11/2021 - 14:52
        +2

        Yea I feel safe walking the world with religious nutters everywhere guided by their own fictional character… stabbings, bombings, shootings all in the name of the grey ghost…

  • trex on 04/11/2021 - 10:01
    +6

    What if one creates a new religion and claim discrimination?

    • orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 10:06
      +2

      You have to get enough people on the census to vote for it plus avoid ABS discrimination with religions.

      • CrowReally on 04/11/2021 - 11:52
        +4

        Yeah, my mate told me if we all wrote Jedi on the census form it becomes an actual religion and there's nothing the Pope can do about it it's amazing

        Religions HATE This One Weird Trick (click here for more)

        • [Deactivated] on 04/11/2021 - 20:40

          Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. JEDI is an SJW cult. Yes, really. Religion status achieved.

        • orangetrain on 04/11/2021 - 21:27
          +2

          Not sure if you're joking but that's one of the religions that ABS will mark you as unspecified religious.Shows that we can't trust the ABS, but everyone says we should.

        • C Scott on 06/11/2021 - 15:47
          +1

          Jedi is officially recognised in the Uk as a religion as enough people got fed up of the religious propaganda in the media around 2011 or 2001 my memory fails me.

          It is also recognised as a Religious tax loophole in America and i think theres effort in Turkey to Recognise it.

    • SlavOz on 05/11/2021 - 18:51
      -2

      What if one creates a new sexuality so they can be protected by laws that protect against sexual orientation?

      I identify as a Bosswifeosediac. My sexual orientation is that I'm attracted to the wife of bosses and managers. If I sleep with them, they shouldn't be able to fire me, it's just my sexual orientation!!

      • GrueHunter on 05/11/2021 - 19:36
        +4

        Nobody is sleeping with you, SlavMuppet.

  • brendanm on 04/11/2021 - 10:10
    +59

    We need less religion based laws, not more. Should scrap religious tax exemptions.

    • pharkurnell on 04/11/2021 - 10:26
      -3

      Why do we need any religion ?

      • brendanm on 04/11/2021 - 10:42
        +9

        We don't, however it is people's choice as to whether or not they believe in something, and is not up to me, or anyone else, to decide. However, that something should have no effect on the rest of the population. As it is, religion does affect people of different religions, and the non-religious, and that's not right.

        • pharkurnell on 04/11/2021 - 10:59
          +1

          As it is, religion does affect people of different religions, and the non-religious, and that's not right.

          Agree infinity %

    • Almost Banned on 04/11/2021 - 12:14
      +1

      How many 'religion based laws' do you think we have?
      Could you name some?

      • Drakesy on 04/11/2021 - 13:34
        +9

        https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-f…

        Also euthanasia
        Also abortion

        • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:31
          +5

          Firstly, your link does not go to 'religion based laws' - it goes to laws that interfere with freedom of religion.
          Secondly, if you define 'religion based laws' as any law that enshrines any issue of moral significance, you ought to add a few:
          1 The Criminal Code
          2. The Marriage Act
          3. Child Protection legislation.
          In fact, since our society is broadly based on a Christian morality pretty much every law is 'religion based' in your expansive definition.

      • Bjingo on 04/11/2021 - 14:06
        +20

        The Sex Discrimination Act 1984
        The the Age Discrimination act 2004
        The Disability Discrimination Act 1992
        The Racial Discrimination Act 1975

        All provide specific exceptions to Religious bodies.
        I think the condition of discrimination is that it is;

        In accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed.
        or
        in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

        Not to mention they get a complete FBT exemption, and GST exemptions.

        That means they can provide their employees with free cars, houses, spending allowances, they can give loans and waive them and many other things without incurring any tax.

        The employees still have income tax but is there even really a need for income when you can just run everything as a fringe benefit.

        So there are some religion based laws.

        • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 12:46
          -3

          Actually there are several actual 'religion based laws', but none of those are.
          Incorporating mention of religion, or even creating rights based on religion, does not a religion based law make.
          However, you will find such things as: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l…
          and its equivalent in other jurisdictions.
          Given this issue came up on the basis that we should have fewer 'religion based laws' - is it yours, Drakesy's and Brendanm's position that we should get rid of the examples you mention?

          • Bjingo on 05/11/2021 - 14:05
            +2

            @Almost Banned: I feel a portion of them are fine to remove, but certain parts like allowing them to hire specific genders for gender specific roles is fine, that is not something I think a law should force them to change. If that is to be changed it needs to be changed internally not through force. However I think the ability to discriminate against students on the grounds of sex is deplorable, and truthfully does not reflect the values I was taught in whatsoever.

            My basic opinion on these sort of matters, you're free to do what you want up until what you want impacts another persons fundamental human rights. Regarding who is impacting who I always look at it as who is choosing to make a decision.

            So for example if someone's right to freedom of opinion and expression impacts someones right to not be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation. then person one needs to make compromise.

            Essentially if you have the choice in expressing your fights/freedoms you need to compromise to those that do not have the choice.

            So if a teenager realises they are homosexual while attending a religious school by no means should they be ostracised or penalised because of this. They can't help it, it is essentially punishing them for being human. Which is why I have issues with some of the items in the aforementioned acts

            • ozhunter on 05/11/2021 - 14:56

              @Bjingo:

              However I think the ability to discriminate against students on the grounds of sex is deplorable, and truthfully does not reflect the values I was taught in whatsoever.

              Like what bathroom they can use or what team they can join?

              • Bjingo on 05/11/2021 - 15:54
                +1

                @ozhunter: I was more referring to expelling them for being homosexual.

                For gender identity it is tough as it is an ongoing issue, a lot of people don't really understand it and people tend to reject what they don't understand. This bathroom case is one of those weird cases that's hard to decide on because at the end of the day its someone using the bathroom they feel comfortable and secure using and that makes someone uncomfortable. These situations require discussion, consideration and compromise on behalf of both parties. Honestly though I think the students would probably not care at all. The issue would be the parents and school who don't understand the issue.

                The team one is easy they should just have a mixed team anyway mixed teams are fun and good for character development.

                Gender identity issues are difficult because you have everyone telling you your whole live this is how men act and feel and this is how women act and feel. Then you get someone who biologically is a woman but their actions and mentality match how a man acts. So they internalise this dilemma leading to them closer identifying to being a man because thats how they act and feel. But then they are told they aren't a man because they have the girl bits. It is conforming to societal expectation but not they way society wants them to, rather than changing the way they act and feel to match their gender, they just have their gender match their feelings and actions.

                • ozhunter on 05/11/2021 - 16:44
                  -3

                  @Bjingo:

                  I was more referring to expelling them for being homosexual.

                  I agree they shouldn'l, but the school shouldn't have to change the way it approaches homosexuality.

                  This bathroom case is one of those weird cases that's hard to decide on because at the end of the day its someone using the bathroom they feel comfortable and secure using and that makes someone uncomfortable.

                  Very easy case imo. Boys use one bathroom, girls use another.

                  The team one is easy they should just have a mixed team anyway mixed teams are fun and good for character development.

                  Or they could just join the team of that they are the same sex.

                  Gender identity issues are difficult.

                  Not at all. You're either a male or female. The way you act or feel doesn't change that.

                  In case it isn't obvious, religious(or at least the Christian school I went to) have different views on sex and gender identity.

                  • Bjingo on 05/11/2021 - 17:59

                    @ozhunter:

                    You're either a male or female. The way you act or feel doesn't change that.

                    I get that biologically someone is almost always one of the two.

                    Personally I see this issue as an issue with societal expectation based on sex. There should not be an expectation for people to act a particular way due to biology, the human brain is so much more complex than that. What I think we need to normalise is people acting the way they feel most comfortable.

                    If it was normalised for men to wear traditionally feminine clothing and act feminine the people that currently feel polarised about their identity could slot right in without feeling the need to have a different gender as compared to their biological one and vice versa. Plus, it would be a big win for individualism because it means no one is constrained to act as society expects them to, they are free to embrace their own identity.

                    A masculine woman and a feminine man should just be a normal thing.
                    If a guy wants to wear a dress no one should think twice about it, its just his choice in garments.

                    But that is just my two cents and I'm aware its pretty out there.

            • Almost Banned on 05/11/2021 - 15:18

              @Bjingo: I think that is a rational and reasonable response.
              Of course there is widespread discrimination against students on the basis of sex - or else we wouldn't have any single sex schools.
              But I think (based on your closing point) that this isn't what you really mean.
              Honestly I don't care if anyone has SSA, and I doubt any school would. But that position likely changes when the student acts on those feelings, and/or publicly attacks the school's founding ethos. I don't think any school should have to educate a student who is determined to undermine that institution or the institution on which the school is based by publicly refusing to act in accordance with its mission. I also think that students who do not wish to abide by the ethos of the school would probably be better off elsewhere. As I suspect (I actually have no idea what is in an agreement between a private school and parents as I never went to one and didn't send my kids to one) this is a basic part of the contractual relationship between school and student (or at least their parent), not abiding by this this would be a fundamental breach of that contract.

              • Bjingo on 05/11/2021 - 16:33

                @Almost Banned:

                Honestly I don't care if anyone has SSA, and I doubt any school would. But that position likely changes when the student acts on those feelings, and/or publicly attacks the school's founding ethos.

                Regarding attacking the ethos, that makes sense being disrespectful or doing others a disservice should addressed.

                That makes it so weird as I cant imagine their Ethos would include anything saying one of Gods children was made wrong, "yep this ones expressing their feelings of 'SSA', sorry God, you messed this one up try again."

                One of my favorite parts of religion was always the values things like
                people deserving respect for the simple reason they are people
                and
                The principle of solidarity, love thy Neighbor

                but they fact they want the option to discriminate based on any reason seems completely opposed to these values honestly.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join