Play Nice Religious Protections in the law

[Bennett.]

Yes I really respect abject falsities and inconsistenties,I watched your entire vid,I gave up ‘caring’,is what I meant!
I’m not interested in context,I’m interested in whether it provides evidence of reality.
With the limited knowledge they had,it wasn’t a bad effort,but we grew up and know how earthquakes work,how mountains are formed etc.

Not interested in context I’m sure until you are taken out of it yourself.
You’re a phoney.

 

[Snake_Baker]

How do you separate the religious from mere philosophy?

Many religions share sayings and expectations of their followers.

I get it about covering your neighbours ass, but do we throw out “though shalt not kill”?

The law provides justifications for killing other people anyway.

There's no denying in western societies Christianity has been a significant shaper of the ethical landscape, but the humanist movement has arisen in its place and the religions are slowly but surely becoming redundant. Despite this, the significant human rights have not eroded.

Nietzsche warned against this very thing despite being a critic of organised religion. Predicted horrible things to come of that attitude and was right. Have we advanced as a society that much in a couple hundred years since then?

Peterson said we're morally half asleep with fingers on the buttons of nuclear bombs. He's right.

The crazy kraut had a lot of trippy things to say, but they must be framed in their historical context. Marx is another brilliant philosopher whose thoughts have been limited by time.

My position is that the redundancy of religion is inevitable, so let the cards fall where they may.

In the absence of religion (collectivism) I see a more fertile environment arising for individual rights (Ubermensch)

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

As such, if a small baker doesn’t want to make cakes for gay marriage, fair enough

I realise that this might make them highly visible targets for protests, but I believe that if a bakery or other place of business wants to advocate a position of exclusion then it needs to advertise this so that consumers can make a more informed choice.

I think there IS room for a myriad of different viewpoints in society. Education is the key to understanding, though.

 

[King Brown]

I realise that this might make them highly visible targets for protests, but I believe that if a bakery or other place of business wants to advocate a position of exclusion then it needs to advertise this so that consumers can make a more informed choice.

I agree.

I just don't think businesses or religious groups should have special exemption to discriminate.

The real problem with discrimination is when the people who are being discriminated against can't escape it, especially when it is perpetrated by the state. This is the most infuriating thing about people who are anti-discrimination, all the examples from history they cite as bad were perpetrated or endorsed by the state.

 

[chelseacarlton]

How do you separate the religious from mere philosophy?

Many religions share sayings and expectations of their followers.

I get it about covering your neighbours ass, but do we throw out “though shalt not kill”?

The law provides justifications for killing other people anyway.

Lol dude!
It still kinda works

 

[chelseacarlton]

Not interested in context I’m sure until you are taken out of it yourself.
You’re a phoney.

A phoney non deity believer would make me a believer wouldn’t it?
Sheesh man,you’re all over the place Ben!

 

[AM]

There are Commonwealth Acts that offer degrees of protection for the religiously inclined and there are charters of rights in some State jurisdictions too. In addition to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However it's S116 of The Australian Constitution that provides the broadest protection. As Prof Saunders, the founding Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the Uni of Melbourne has written:

"Relatively few cases have arisen under this section."Religion" has been defined broadly, to include any faith or belief at least where it involves a supernatural being and is connected to a ritual or practice. The Court has rarely found that the limits of Commonwealth power have been exceeded under this section."

Just btw - for the Trumpies - despite what you might argue he does not qualify as a "supernatural being" so worship of him doesn't count.

 

[Snake_Baker]

There are Commonwealth Acts that offer degrees of protection for the religiously inclined and there are charters of rights in some State jurisdictions too. In addition to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However it's S116 of The Australian Constitution that provides the broadest protection. As Prof Saunders, the founding Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the Uni of Melbourne, has written:

"Relatively few cases have arisen under this section."Religion" has been defined broadly, to include any faith or belief at least where it involves a supernatural being and is connected to a ritual or practice. The Court has rarely found that the limits of Commonwealth power have been exceeded under this section."

Just btw - for the Trumpies - despite what you might argue he does not qualify as a "supernatural being" so worship of him doesn't count.

The constitution supports religious freedom of choice. OP is about policy.

I don't know whether that includes any guarantee of political policy, outside the individuals right to practice.

 

[AM]

The constitution supports religious freedom of choice. OP is about policy.

I don't know whether that includes any guarantee of political policy, outside the individuals right to practice.

Suggest you re-read the questions in paras 3 and 4 of the OP.

 

[ShanDog]

The crazy kraut had a lot of trippy things to say, but they must be framed in their historical context. Marx is another brilliant philosopher whose thoughts have been limited by time.

My position is that the redundancy of religion is inevitable, so let the cards fall where they may.

In the absence of religion (collectivism) I see a more fertile environment arising for individual rights (Ubermensch)

Best case scenario, that happens. Nothing about society today fills me with any hope that occurs. Nihilism was and is the danger. I also disagree neither you categorising religion with collectivism in this context. Those libertarian views and the rights the West hold up as of transcendent value were born of the lessons in religious texts. If we throw those texts out, the meaning will soon after. This is what Nietzsche meant, and its been argued as what happened in the 20th century, culminating in anywhere up to 200 million dead.

Do away with the religions, sure. But there needs to be some sort of structural replacement.

 

[Pie eyed]

How do religious schools not ease the financial pressures on the government? Parents are paying nearly 10k a year to these schools. Where does that money go?

The Government pays more to religious school per school than government schools, grants them money and they milk the tax system.
They tout this bullshit line to make money, not to provide services.
Religious schools exist solely to indoctrinate, to convert and profit.

 

[Chief]

Lol dude!
It still kinda works

Autocorrect

 

[Chief]

The Government pays more to religious school per school than government schools, grants them money and they milk the tax system.
They tout this bullshit line to make money, not to provide services.
Religious schools exist solely to indoctrinate, to convert and profit.

You have people within the organisations who are dedicated to teaching and inspiring their students. They are also horrified at the crimes and excesses of their churches. But they can be dedicated educators in a public school system.

 

[Big_Luch]

The Government pays more to religious school per school than government schools, grants them money and they milk the tax system.
They tout this bullshit line to make money, not to provide services.
Religious schools exist solely to indoctrinate, to convert and profit.

I've tried looking for some data which shows what you say, however it is a little more complex as there are differences between private and private catholic schools and which schools are taking the p155. (I'd agree with you regarding some/all of these grammar schools).

Regardless if the current system relieves any burden on the public system then I am not sure how you can complain?

On your indoctrinate comment, I went to a Catholic high school and i'd struggle to find 5 out of 150+ students that give a rats toss about the Church. Beyond going to Church for weddings, funerals and maybe XMAS nobody is converting or anything.

 

[WeetBixKid]

"Protection" is a misnomer. They're generally not asking for the government to step in, they're asking to be left alone. The more they're left to pursue whatever their own conception of morality & a good life is (aside from extreme practices, ala the already FGM mentioned) the better imo

 

[Lethality]

It's odd because both parties swore they would have religious protection . . . I'm not a religious person but I think individuals should have a right to discriminate. The fact that some religions need protection whenever we take a step forward in society doesn't say much for those religions though.

 

[Snake_Baker]

"Protection" is a misnomer. They're generally not asking for the government to step in, they're asking to be left alone. The more they're left to pursue whatever their own conception of morality & a good life is (aside from extreme practices, ala the already FGM mentioned) the better imo

Corey Bernardi?

 

[11sjw]

This has bounced around recently. A reasonable comment.

 

[King Brown]

This has bounced around recently. A reasonable comment.

Not sure on the validity of this, but if true it demonstrates that gay marriage was never about equal rights, but a broadside against political enemies in the culture war.

 

[Gough]

Not sure on the validity of this, but if true it demonstrates that gay marriage was never about equal rights, but a broadside against political enemies in the culture war.

Well if it was a broadside in the culture war the conservatives got pounded like Port Adelaide in 2007. They might as well have not turned up.

 

[ShanDog]

And to some, unfortunately, that's all that matters.

 

[Pie eyed]

You have people within the organisations who are dedicated to teaching and inspiring their students. They are also horrified at the crimes and excesses of their churches. But they can be dedicated educators in a public school system.

I agree. I was talking about the schools not their employees. Like any money making concern, religious schools have employees.
The religious school system is a money making institution.
I have little qualm with them, though many former members of staff have a lot to answer for along the lines of the RC into Systemic child sexual abuse.

 

[Proud SJW]

The law should allow people to partake in whatever religious observances they want provided they do no harm to others.

But what constitutes "harm"?

I've had a conversation with a girl who liked being touched on her arse at nightclubs as a signal a guy is interested in her. She said it makes things simple - she either slaps it away or she doesn't.
Other women are now destroying careers because men do that without being specifically told it's... well, "wrong"... sometimes.
So who decides what "harm" is? The individual who has recently had a visit from a lawyer? Someone looking to get in on a metoo hashtag?

It's fine to make broad sweeping statements of philosophy, but at some point, someone is going to take issue with it. Or you, in many cases.

To me, it's fairly simple. Either you allow discrimination on religious grounds, or you don't. It would make prosecuting discrimination cases a whole lot easier, and law far easier to practice. The alternative would be the Hammurabi-style case by case law we are constantly trying to circumvent.

 

[Proud SJW]

Well if it was a broadside in the culture war the conservatives got pounded like Port Adelaide in 2007. They might as well have not turned up.

Well, more like the 2016 grand final in terms of score results, but let's not get in the way of some outstanding rhetoric ey

 

[Seeds]

I hope issues like this finally wake people up to the fact that you cant seperate religion from politics.