Australian Politics Forum

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96250 Gender:	Freeedom Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:14pm Cast your vote, leftards. I’d love to know what you think.
Back to top	IP Logged

Setanta Gold Member Offline \/ Peace man! Posts: 16619 Northern NSW Gender:	Re: Freeedom Reply #1 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:27pm The govt shouldn't stop me from doing it. Is that facilitating?
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96250 Gender:	Re: Freeedom Reply #2 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent? Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution? I’m curious.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85015
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #3 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:37pm

FREEEEEE-DOOOOOOOOM!

Freedom of religious belief and observance is one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. No government can outlaw a religious belief - that does not mean that those who subscribe to a religious belief that contravenes GENUINE law - e.g. under-age marriage, forced marriage, genital mutilation.. and all the other stuff.. is not subject to sanction of Law.

What is NOT on the table is any 'right' of any anointed government to create a religious belief as illegal when it and its adherents do not contravene GENUINE law.

As long as n observer of a religious belief abides by the laws of man as based on reason, that person should not be sanctioned.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49266
At my desk.

Re: Freeedom
Reply #4 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. Nor should they prevent people from judging others based on their chosen faith.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16619
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #5 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:46pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

They don't promote it and they shouldn't, there should be no persecution. Neither should they interfere in free exchange of ideas between citizens, even if that means some get hurt feelings.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42198

Re: Freeedom
Reply #6 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. Nor should they prevent people from judging others based on their chosen faith.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

How old are you, out of a matter of interest?

I take it you're too young to remember the sectarian divide in Australia between the Catholics and the Protestants? Where the Protestants would discriminate actively against the Catholics? Deny them advancement, jobs, education, etc.?

Ah, happy times, right? Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 85015 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: Freeedom Reply #7 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:48pm People may believe what they like - it is their ACTIONS that should rightly be held to scrutiny... Footnote:- I come from a Protestant Father and Catholic mother - I know full well about the discrimination that is based on religious belief.
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #8 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:50pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

Promote?

Religion or any ideas should not be exempt from critisism, satire, mockery.

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49266
At my desk.

Re: Freeedom
Reply #9 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:51pm

Quote:

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

Sure. If you don't want to date a Muslim because you think Islam is vile, that is perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

I take it you're too young to remember the sectarian divide in Australia between the Catholics and the Protestants? Where the Protestants would discriminate actively against the Catholics? Deny them advancement, jobs, education, etc.?

I have no issue with our workplace discrimination laws.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #10 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:53pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. Nor should they prevent people from judging others based on their chosen faith.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

How old are you, out of a matter of interest?

I take it you're too young to remember the sectarian divide in Australia between the Catholics and the Protestants? Where the Protestants would discriminate actively against the Catholics? Deny them advancement, jobs, education, etc.?

Ah, happy times, right? Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD. Roll Eyes

What do you mean by discriminate brian? Are you talking seperate park benches or not being able to laugh or critisise an idea?

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96250 Gender:	Re: Freeedom Reply #11 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:02pm I hope you’ve voted, FD. So far, 75% of Australians support the government banning mockery of religion. And I’m the 25% against. No one has the right to not be offended, eh?
Back to top	IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16619
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #12 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:11pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

I hope you’ve voted, FD. So far, 75% of Australians support the government banning mockery of religion.

And I’m the 25% against.

No one has the right to not be offended, eh?

I don't think the poll is worded correctly. I still can't decide which to vote.

Instead of facilitate, if you used allow, then I could vote.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #13 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:14pm

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. .

True, but the government does have a role in protecting its citizens.

Back in the 1960s, the Victorian government ordered an enquiry into Scientology. It found it to be a toxic cult, and Victoria and New South Wales basically banned the organization. This in turn led to the UK throwing out L.Ron. Hubbard and a number of governments around the world coming down heavily on Scientology.

Should people have the freedom to join toxic cults? Who should decide this? If laws aren’t passed on these sorts of freedoms - and we could include things like gambling - who should pick up the pieces?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #14 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:16pm

Setanta wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

I hope you’ve voted, FD. So far, 75% of Australians support the government banning mockery of religion.

And I’m the 25% against.

No one has the right to not be offended, eh?

I don't think the poll is worded correctly. I still can't decide which to vote.

Ah. Polls can be quite cunning that way, no?

As FD says, sometimes a question is just a question.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should government facilitate the mockery of spirituality?
Yes 6 (40.0%) No 9 (60.0%) Total votes: 15 « Created by: Karnal on: Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:14pm »