Religion Folau

[Kwality]

You chopped my opinion up after saying you respected it and left the best part out. Here it is again. "They want the positive right to express religious opinions even where they breach employment codes of conduct on top of the right as a protected attribute to discriminate against LGBT kids in schools, the easy targets.

Take no notice of the 2016 census figures, it was a debacle.

Isnt the issue here the employment code of contract, if/when the code is introduced, if/when its modified, is the employee required to abide by the modified document into which they had NO input.

More practically, why would you send LGBT kids to a religious school if you dont agree with what they are exposed to, almost as silly as following a religious type on social media.

 

[Kwality]

The point is that it's not a christain country anymore.

So it applies to any religion, scientology ?
We could have had a referendum at the same time as same sex marriage.

 

[Kurve]

Isnt the issue here the employment code of contract, if/when the code is introduced, if/when its modified, is the employee required to abide by the modified document into which they had NO input.

More practically, why would you send LGBT kids to a religious school if you dont agree with what they are exposed to, almost as silly as following a religious type on social media.

I'll quote Fr Frank Brennan, he was on the Religious Freedom Review Panel. Folau traded his freedom of religious expression away and he signed the contract.

"I’m one who strongly advocates freedom of expression and the capacity of employers to interfere with that freedom of expression I think as a society a lot of us say no we don’t think you should be able to do that. But equally with freedom of contract those who want to trade it away, so be it."

Politics with Michelle Grattan: Father Frank Brennan on Israel Folau and religious freedom

Member of the government's Religious Freedom Review, Frank Brennan, discusses the way forward on the "wicked problem" of ensuring religious freedoms in Australia.

theconversation.com

From kindergarten to high school, kids change. 'Oh, Billy is wearing pinks socks around the house. Should I take him out of school?" Just leave the poor kid alone right and let him be happy in his socks.

 

[Opine]

You chopped my opinion up after saying you respected it and left the best part out. Here it is again. "They want the positive right to express religious opinions even where they breach employment codes of conduct on top of the right as a protected attribute to discriminate against LGBT kids in schools, the easy targets.

Take no notice of the 2016 census figures, it was a debacle.

I chose to focus on a very narrow aspect of your post because it provided an opportunity to highlight what I believe to be a pertinent point on the broader issue of protection of freedom of religion generally; on that basis I'm most appreciate of your original post for providing that platform.

The rest of your post seems to want to venture into a factual scenario that appears to resemble the matter soon to be decided by a court; you should wait for that finding.

 

[Kwality]

I'll quote Fr Frank Brennan, he was on the Religious Freedom Review Panel. Folau traded his freedom of religious expression away and he signed the contract.

"I’m one who strongly advocates freedom of expression and the capacity of employers to interfere with that freedom of expression I think as a society a lot of us say no we don’t think you should be able to do that. But equally with freedom of contract those who want to trade it away, so be it."

Politics with Michelle Grattan: Father Frank Brennan on Israel Folau and religious freedom

Member of the government's Religious Freedom Review, Frank Brennan, discusses the way forward on the "wicked problem" of ensuring religious freedoms in Australia.

theconversation.com

From kindergarten to high school, kids change. 'Oh, Billy is wearing pinks socks around the house. Should I take him out of school?" Just leave the poor kid alone right and let him be happy in his socks.

Read that.
Specific to the Folau case, whether or not Folau traded away his religious expression is (to me) the crux of the Court case. If he has, why would the case not get tossed out?

 

[Kurve]

Read that.
Specific to the Folau case, whether or not Folau traded away his religious expression is (to me) the crux of the Court case. If he has, why would the case not get tossed out?

They're only at the mediation stage, in discussion trying to settle before it goes any further.

 

[Evolved1]

Undue influence? ummm ok.

If fundamentalist Christians spent their time and energy policing themselves rather than seeking to impose their morality over this nation, nobody would give a s**t. Die a slow painful death for god if you see that as a dignified end, but leave the rational folk alone.

I would personally appreciate the opportunity to vote against Christian marital rights. Allowing Christians to legally marry is in oppostion to my faith and values.

 

[Evolved1]

I have no motivation to apologise for, or demonise Christianity, nor allow my prejudices to filter my perspective. That both “bad” and “good” can come from the same source, or that something integral to one stage of development must be abandoned to reach the next, is not incongruent to me; it is normal, even expected.

Take the free market economy, fiat monetary system and representative democracy as an example; it’s been a factor in unlocking all kinds of human potential, both “good” and “bad”, but it is not the final destination. At some point (I expect) humanity will happen upon something better and who knows, perhaps someone will do similar to you down the track and point to throw offs like pollution, corruption, wage gaps, child labour etc and claim no positive impact.

The Old Testament verses I won’t bother addressing, as I was talking about Gospel teachings.

The Gospel verse you quote from Jesus does not at all support your point. This was a simile, comparing the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven, to the workings of Kings and servants on earth, not tacit approval of slavery. Slavery and servitude is pre-Christian. In the Roman Empire it’s was as normal as a 9-5 job is today and was the ultimate lifelong fate of many Christian’s. Finding metaphors and references to slavery in any texts from these times, and then putting them forward as tacit approval of slavery, is just poor critical thinking or bias.

The fact remains that Christian groups like the Quakers, who led the abolition of slavery, did so on the basis of Gosepl teachings. That’s those the same teachings inspired Dr. Martin Luther King contributions to civil rights. If you have trouble accepting historical fact because of a belief you hold, then not much can be discussed rationally.

The religious text that Jesus followed was the tanakh, a book that is unashamedly pro-slavery. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, so there is no reason to believe he opposed slavery.

There's really no point repeating the same points ad nauseum so I'll leave you be on that high horse of yours.

 

[Kwality]

If fundamentalist Christians spent their time and energy policing themselves rather than seeking to impose their morality over this nation, nobody would give a s**t. Die a slow painful death for god if you see that as a dignified end, but leave the rational folk alone.

I would personally appreciate the opportunity to vote against Christian marital rights. Allowing Christians to legally marry is in oppostion to my faith and values.

Do not know one person who cares whether anyone has religious views, but they sure as hell wont have anything pushed down their throats, for or against.

 

[Evolved1]

This is what I don't understand. They already have special rights to discriminate, WTF else do they want? How much more protection does it need?

Religion of all stripes has got in behind the ACL, scratch around you'll find it.

The end goal of fundamentalist followers of the Abrahamic faiths is a theocracy, and they'll continue playing politics until they get it. Anything less denies god his rightful place on the throne to govern this nation and the world.

 

[Evolved1]

Do not know one person who cares whether anyone has religious views. but they sure as hell wont have anything pushed down their throats, for or against.

38.4% of Australians voted against gay marriage equality. How many of those who voted 'no' did so because they were pushing their religious 'values' down the throats of others?

 

[Opine]

If fundamentalist Christians spent their time and energy policing themselves rather than seeking to impose their morality over this nation, nobody would give a s**t. Die a slow painful death for god if you see that as a dignified end, but leave the rational folk alone.

I would personally appreciate the opportunity to vote against Christian marital rights. Allowing Christians to legally marry is in oppostion to my faith and values.

Am I supposed to feel unduly influenced after reading your post?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

How many Christians go to church? They are dropping like flies, would be less than 7% of the population that go to church regularly. They only call themselves christian because their parents got them baptised. Since the royal commission into church paedophilia cover ups, attendance has dropped dramatically and so it should. The ones that are still left seem to be the antithesis of Jesus , they vote for racist parties, hate immigrants and don't care for social justice.

Attending church doesn't make you any more or less a Christian, just as going to a game of footy or watching it on tv doesn't make me any less a footy fan.

 

[Evolved1]

Yes, your position appears to be consistently on the side of atheistic , or non-theistic belief.
In anycase, it's clear that your advocating for removal of freedom to publicly express a theistic belief.

Importantly, the originating source of the protection in your "WTF do they want" comment is arguably Article 18 of the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the phrases religion and belief, in that Article, as incorporating theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. That logically translates into a protection of the right to hold and express anti-theistic or atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to hold and express theistic belief; such as those which you're seemingly in preference of driving underground into the private realm.

If you're ok with limiting the expression of theistic beliefs, then you should also expect that the same limitations would apply to opposing beliefs. Otherwise, all you are really advocating for is the right of one ideology over another; and that is not what the protections seek to do.

Non theistic belief?

There is no atheistic ideology.

 

[Evolved1]

Am I supposed to feel unduly influenced after reading your post?

It wasn't my intention for you to feel unduly influenced in any way whatsoever.

That's my non-theistic belief anyway.

 

[Opine]

Non theistic belief?

There is no atheistic ideology.

That may or may not be so. But it is the adopted legal definition, and it underpins related rights and obligations that you are likely going to be bound by; along with the rest of us. So we move on.

 

[Opine]

Non theistic belief?

There is no atheistic ideology.

Apologies, I didn't mean to broadly brush over all your points.
Could you please explain this point?

 

[Kwality]

The end goal of fundamentalist followers of the Abrahamic faiths is a theocracy, and they'll continue playing politics until they get it. Anything less denies god his rightful place on the throne to govern this nation and the world.

Maybe its just me but, what are you talking about, just how it relates to the Folau issue would do me.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Bigots against christians, we get.it.

You stated no meeting happened last year,I just showed you the proof. Issy was fully aware that he was treading a fine line.
So that make me a bigot. Hahaha

Hiding behind your hate???
Issy chose to vilify homosexuals , how can you try justify this??

 

[Kurve]

Attending church doesn't make you any more or less a Christian, just as going to a game of footy or watching it on tv doesn't make me any less a footy fan.

 

[Kwality]

The relationship tolerance/ mocking ...?

 

[Kurve]

The relationship tolerance/ mocking ...?

Must be my weird sense of humour.

 

[Monkey King]

The religious text that Jesus followed was the tanakh, a book that is unashamedly pro-slavery. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, so there is no reason to believe he opposed slavery.

There's really no point repeating the same points ad nauseum so I'll leave you be on that high horse of yours.

Who said Jesus opposed slavery? It would not be incongruent for Jesus to be a slave owner and his teachings still influence others centuries later to fight for abolition. One doesn’t cancel out the other. Fallacious reasoning.

Anyway, there is no evidence Jesus supported slavery. There is no evidence Jesus opposed slavery. He owned no slaves and his teachings were of equality, so we can say that he did not promote nor engage in such things; just as we can say his teachings were the stated inspiration of abolitionists and civil rights activists.

Happy to stop at your ironic last sentence. You sit in judgement of Folau and his religion, make unsupported accusations and ignore historical fact. If my pleas for you think more objectively put me on a high horse, then yeee hawww!

 

[Kwality]

Must be my weird sense of humour.

I didnt think it was consistent with your earlier posts, humour is not easy in the written word, humour

 

[Kurve]

Houston and Izzy are bickering on twitter.