Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 173

Thread: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    9,062

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    Surely this "Religious Freedom Bill" undertaking is backlash to the contemporary rise of articulate, outspoken atheism, secularism.

    We've only got ourselves to blame. But where are we now and in the hour of our need?
    'The biggest threat to security, to life in all its forms, is the system that drives the climate disaster.'
    In Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our Planetary Future, 2018.

  2. Like button The Irreverent Mr Black liked this post
    Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  3. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mt Backabuggari Pepper Research Institute
    Posts
    21,512

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    Quote Strato said View Post
    Surely this "Religious Freedom Bill" undertaking is backlash to the contemporary rise of articulate, outspoken atheism, secularism.

    We've only got ourselves to blame. But where are we now and in the hour of our need?
    Planning undefined, exciting innovations for the organisation, to be implemented at a time far distant from now.

    The means of production are George Martin's - BeatleMarxism

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    20,326

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    A freedom, necessarily, must include a "freedom from". Allowing -say- 8 billion different religions is still not religious freedom if you can't reject ALL of them. These freedoms are ONLY freedoms of thoughts, not behaviours. Because behaviours have consequences.
    Public policy therefore, must only include the consideration of demonstrable facts, warranted by sound epistemology. This in turn dictates strict secularism. Because gods, spirits, disembodied souls etc are not demonstrated, they cannot be used for public policy action, such as "banning abortion because god" and other sick waffle like that.
    Not that strict secularism does NOT, repeat NOT consist of persecuting religious minorities, such as what happens in the PRC. So China is NOT strictly secularist.
    So in terms of law, public policy or executive power, a government MAY NOT use religious arguments for or against something. Everything has to be argued in secular terms, because citing gods etc, is presenting "facts not in evidence".
    In other words, human laws must only be made for humans or real things, not un-demonstrated gods and other drivers or causes.
    Same for "intelligent design" "arguments". Unless the creator-god is demonstrated FIRST, it can't be used as an argument for the "apparent design" of living things.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  5. Like button The Irreverent Mr Black liked this post
    Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
    Agree button The Irreverent Mr Black agreed with this post
  6. #74

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    We all know that religious freedom bills are just an excuse to discriminates against other-believers and non-believers, a clearer example cannot be found;

    https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...a8b59dc681a991

    A Florida Satanist was forced to change her shirt praising Beelzebub on a recent flight.

    Swati Runi Goyal, 49, was flying from Key West to Las Vegas the day before Halloween wearing a black shirt with the text “HAIL SATAN” in all-caps, Buzzfeed News first reported.
    The shirt also included the text “Est. 666” and an upside-down cross, a picture shows.

    Ms Goyal was seated with her husband on the flight when an American Airlines crew member told her to remove the offensive shirt or get off the plane — delaying the flight until she swapped into an extra shirt her husband was wearing.
    A member of the Church of Satan, a recognised religion in the US, was forced to change her religiously identifying clothes before being allowed to fly, and was then abused by christians when she tried to defend religious freedom by making a statement.

    “I’m really trying to make some good deeds come out of this. This is really about religious discrimination,” she said. “Because they treated me this way, I can only imagine how they’re treating other religious groups like Muslims.”
    So she was defending religious freedom and this happens?

    Ms Goyal has protected her social media accounts after receiving backlash from conservatives “who are not happy,” she said.
    So, not happy she was defending religious freedom? Or not happy she was the "wrong" religion? Or not happy that she thought she deserved the same freedoms as them. Whichever way you read it it appears the various religious freedom bills going around the world are nothing but a license to discriminate against others, but then we all knew that already rights? It's only followers of religions that don't get it!
    From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"

  7. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mt Backabuggari Pepper Research Institute
    Posts
    21,512

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    Scummo adds features to his Frankenstein Monster:

    As flagged, the new bill will allow religious bodies — such as hospitals and aged care providers — to continue to hire people on the basis of their religion.

    The other changes include defining the word "vilify" as inciting "hatred or violence" and exemptions to allow religious camps and conference centres to take faith into account when deciding to provide accommodation.


    The Coalition has also changed health practitioner laws, which narrows the health professions to medicine, midwifery, nursing, pharmacy and psychology.



    Click on the image below to view the article:
    ABC.NET.AU
    Controversial religious discrimination bill updated in a bid to gain support
    The Federal Government overhauls its proposed religious freedom laws to win over faith leaders and equality advocates.

    The means of production are George Martin's - BeatleMarxism

  8. Angry button DanDare angered by this post
  9. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shell Cove, NSW
    Posts
    13,125

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    I was surprised to see this statement in the article above

    Public comment on the bill is open until the end of January, ...
    given that I thought that submissions closed on the 2nd October.

    A little Googling indicates that that was for the First Exposure Drafts and that submissions for the Second Exposure Drafts opened today!

    Perhaps someone might like to ask the AFA if they're going to make a submission this time? Here's what happened last time:



    However, using the AFA's Contact Us form may not be the best way to ask that question, as I have concerns as to whether it's working.

    I've not yet received a reply to an email I sent to members of the AFA Executive on the 15th November (despite sending a reminder on the 2nd December) asking if there was a problem with the AFA's Contact Us form (as I'd not received any response to questions/comments submited via it on the 25th October, 9th November, and the 11th November).

    So, perhaps an email to president@atheistfoundation.org.au and/or secretary@atheistfoundation.org.au is more likely to get an answer?
    Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
    - Confucius (551-479 BCE)

  10. Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
    Agree button The Irreverent Mr Black agreed with this post
  11. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mt Backabuggari Pepper Research Institute
    Posts
    21,512

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    Why does the AFA exist? To remind us of the futility of believing.

    The means of production are George Martin's - BeatleMarxism

  12. Like button two dogs, Hambone, Darwinsbulldog liked this post
    Thank button two dogs thanked this post
  13. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Shell Cove, NSW
    Posts
    13,125

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    Quote two dogs said View Post
    ...
    Perhaps someone might like to ask the AFA if they're going to make a submission this time? Here's what happened last time:
    ...
    I'll see if my friend David Sheather would like to ask the question, again.
    Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
    - Confucius (551-479 BCE)

  14. Like button The Irreverent Mr Black liked this post
  15. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mt Backabuggari Pepper Research Institute
    Posts
    21,512

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    One of the best (IMO) descriptions of the nitty-gritty and changes to the Scummo and Porter Enable Pro-Religious Discrimination Bill Mk II.

    Click on the image below to view the article:
    LAWANDRELIGIONAUSTRALIA.BLOG
    Second draft of Religious Discrimination Package released
    The Commonwealth Government has released a second version of its draft legislation dealing with religious discrimination issues, for further comment before it is formally introduced into the Federa…


    Of particular interest to me is this:
    the change to the definition of “statement of belief”, which in cl 5(1) now refers (for present purposes) to a statement that:
    (i) is of a religious belief held by a person (the first person); and
    (ii) is made, in good faith, by written or spoken words by the first person; and
    (iii) is of a belief that a person of the same religion as the first person could reasonably consider to be in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that religion…
    This picks up the technique noted above in clause 11, where the content of a religious doctrine is determined by what a co-religionist would reasonably consider to be in accordance with the religion. It is not perfect, but does at least shift the locus of authority away from the secular court. There is an important clarification of this point in the ENRDB2 at [237]-[239] which is worth quoting in full (these comments are made about the provisions in cl 11, but are equally applicable to the definition of “statement of belief”):
    [237] This provision imports an objective reasonableness test. This will ensure that courts are not required to determine whether particular conduct is in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion, but rather whether members of that same religion would reasonably consider that to be so.


    Mud, pig and coconuts to the fore... some odd religions may sprout!

    The means of production are George Martin's - BeatleMarxism

  16. #80

    Default Re: The Religious Freedom Bill Thread

    So you only need two nutbags (co-religionist) and you're sorted.
    Each can corroborate the other. Sorted!
    Why build up big congregations where the message can be diluted and misinterpreted?

    I notice that "street preaching" could something that will be protected*...
    This will ensure that persons are still protected from discrimination under this Bill even if their religious activity contravenes council by-laws. This may include, for example, religious activities, such as street preaching, which are made unlawful by the operation of local government regulations. This subclause recognises that a person’s ability to make a complaint of discrimination under this Bill should not be limited by the operation of delegated legislation which does not have the same levels of oversight and scrutiny as legislation made by the Commonwealth, or a state and territory government.
    Would this protection apply to a secular/rationalist/humanist/atheist speaker? Obviously not designed to.

  17. Like button two dogs liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •