Ban the Catholic Church

[Jiska]

Given the systematic abuse of children throughout the Church and the coverups they have been involved in, I believe it's time we considered banning the Catholic Church from Australia altogether, or at least ban all Catholic Priests.

There has been plenty of discussion lately on banning the burqa because some Muslim women may forced to wear them, it would be in the best public interest to therefore ban them altogther. I suggest that the Catholic Church is probably ahead of the burka in terms of destroying lives and leaving children forever mentally scarred. There are certainly more documented and proven cases of such abuses.

I understand it's not fair to single out an entire organisation and ban them just because of the actions of a small minority of their followers, but if we're going to ban the burqua (not because it's related to Islam but because there have been isolated cases of abuse related to them) then we need to extend the net further and be fair and equitable in our dealings with issues of abuse.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Given that OVER A QUARTER of our population identifies themselves as Catholic, this is an issue which should be uniting the rest of us against them.

Sure, there is no doubt that some of them are ok, but their silence in regards to the truly evil deeds done by members of their cult automatically makes them complicit in said crimes.

I propose that we begin a campaign of hate-filled graffitti on their places of worship, and gradually ramp it up to hate filled rants on the internet, then ripping of those confronting head pieces that monks and nuns wear...

and then...THEN

we will start beating the crap out of them.

ALL OF THEM!!

 

[Todman]

A better idea is to make them pay tax.

 

[mottrain]

Religion really should go * itself.

 

[Slax]

Given that they allow Sects like the Exclusive Bretheren and Scientologists to be called a religion can't see them banning the Catholic church.

But agree totally with Todman just make all religious organisation pay tax. If they want to have a charitable arm like the salvos, etc, then set up a registered charity that is audited as such.

 

[DardySingh360]

Is this a pisstake?

You're seriously advocating banning the largest religion in this country because some priests have assaulted children and others have covered it up?

This isn't ******* North Korea, freedom of belief is one of the key fundamentals of a democratic society.

If you cannot see that then you're an imbecile.

 

[Noobz0r]

Is this a pisstake?

You're seriously advocating banning the largest religion in this country because some priests have assaulted children and others have covered it up?

This isn't ******* North Korea, freedom of belief is one of the key fundamentals of a democratic society.

If you cannot see that then you're an imbecile.

I just taught a class of year 8's this concept, and they understood it

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Is this a pisstake?

You're seriously advocating banning the largest religion in this country because some priests have assaulted children and others have covered it up?

This isn't ******* North Korea, freedom of belief is one of the key fundamentals of a democratic society.

If you cannot see that then you're an imbecile.

It's an outrage!!

 

[Elroo]

Is this a pisstake?

You're seriously advocating banning the largest religion in this country because some priests have assaulted children and others have covered it up?

This isn't ******* North Korea, freedom of belief is one of the key fundamentals of a democratic society.

If you cannot see that then you're an imbecile.

Remove the tax free status of all religions and make them pay tax on their income and land taxes/rates on their properties.

 

[DardySingh360]

Remove the tax free status of all religions and make them pay tax on their income and land taxes/rates on their properties.

Yes. By all means, but that's a long way from banning them.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Section 116 of the big C document:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth


Please show me your proposed new wording, and I'll consider whether or not to vote for it.

 

[KGBeast]

Cool. Get rid of the catholics and the muslims. Who's next?

 

[Chief]

Section 116 of the big C document:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth


Please show me your proposed new wording, and I'll consider whether or not to vote for it.

Define religion? Is the Church just a child abuse ring with cover operations?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Define religion? Is the Church just a child abuse ring with cover operations?

That's like the old proverbial "what's an elephant?" Everyone knows what an elephant is, but it's hard to nail down a definition in precise words.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Cool. Get rid of the catholics and the muslims. Who's next?

Essendon.

 

[Chief]

That's like the old proverbial "what's an elephant?" Everyone knows what an elephant is, but it's hard to nail down a definition in precise words.

There'd be a legal definition of "religion". SHouldn't be too hard to find but CBA right now.

 

[DardySingh360]

LOL at all the leftie Islamist apologists looking to hang s**t on Christianity at any given chance.

Why is it when there's an Islamic terror attack it's got nothing to do with Islam and it's just one bad egg in a religion of peace, but when a Christian priest abuses a child paedophilia is rife in the religion and everyone who follows it should be punished by not being allowed to practice their beliefs?

Ahh, double standards.

 

[Admiral Byng]

There'd be a legal definition of "religion". SHouldn't be too hard to find but CBA right now.

Well, my challenge was to the OP to re-write Section 116. Presumably the same legal definition of words still applies however it is re-written.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

LOL at all the leftie Islamist apologists looking to hang s**t on Christianity at any given chance.

Why is it when there's an Islamic terror attack it's got nothing to do with Islam and it's just one bad egg in a religion of peace, but when a Christian priest abuses a child paedophilia is rife in the religion and everyone who follows it should be punished by not being allowed to practice their beliefs?

Ahh, double standards.

It really is a shocking state of affairs...

 

[LennyStarkiller]

LOL at all the leftie Islamist apologists looking to hang s**t on Christianity at any given chance.

Why is it when there's an Islamic terror attack it's got nothing to do with Islam and it's just one bad egg in a religion of peace, but when a Christian priest abuses a child paedophilia is rife in the religion and everyone who follows it should be punished by not being allowed to practice their beliefs?

Ahh, double standards.

This is going to end well....

 

[Play by Numbers]

OP uses satire to point out double standards, crazies take him literally and claim double standards.

Yes we all realise the constitution protects religious freedom, I imagine that is exactly what the OP is angling at, by provocatively suggesting we ban Catholic priests. The idea is, if you make an argument for curbing religious freedom using collective blame, or assumed wrongdoing (forced to wear burqas, refuse to condemn terrorism), then this should be universally applicable. It of course is an absurd position, which highlights the absurdity of the original arguments.

 

[Play by Numbers]

This is going to end well....

Dardies internal battles with political derangement, are less provocative and more humorous, given they are his baseline.

Loons gonna loon.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

OP uses satire to point out double standards, crazies take him literally and claim double standards.

Yes we all realise the constitution protects religious freedom, I imagine that is exactly what the OP is angling at, by provocatively suggesting we ban Catholic priests. The idea is, if you make an argument for curbing religious freedom using collective blame, or assumed wrongdoing (forced to wear burqas, refuse to condemn terrorism), then this should be universally applicable. It of course is an absurd position, which highlights the absurdity of the original arguments.

Their reactions were priceless though

Ahhhhh satire

are you ok DardySingh360 ?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Their reactions were priceless though

Ahhhhh satire

are you ok DardySingh360 ?

Was tempted not to post. mottrain et al hadn't had a chance to flip a lid. Then I realised they will probably go full sooz aneway.

 

[madmug]

Given that they allow Sects like the Exclusive Bretheren and Scientologists to be called a religion can't see them banning the Catholic church.

But agree totally with Todman just make all religious organisation pay tax. If they want to have a charitable arm like the salvos, etc, then set up a registered charity that is audited as such.

They have too much political pull for that. (eg K.Rudd, A,'T'. Abbott). If G. Pell can protect the church from proper accountability for the destruction of young lives, what hope of taxing the bastards?