Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:
The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.   

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:



Dunno, reading Karnal above would give me the opposite impression, no? Perhaps the dishonesty lies with in you.

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:


From wiki

1983 High Court Appeal

All these judgements were subsequently overturned by the Scientologist's appeal to the High Court of Australia in 1983, in Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner Of Pay-roll Tax. The court ruled that the government of Victoria could not deny the Church the right to operate in Victoria under the legal status of "religion" for purposes of payroll taxes. All three judges in the case found that the Church of the New Faith (Church of Scientology) was a religion. Justices Mason and Brennan said:

Charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers.

but that:

The question to which the evidence was directed was not whether the beliefs, practices and observances of the persons in ultimate command of the organization constituted a religion but whether those of the general group of adherents constituted a religion. The question which the parties resolved to litigate must be taken to be whether the beliefs, practices and observances which the general group of adherents accept is a religion.

Justice Murphy said:

Conclusion. The applicant has easily discharged the onus of showing that it is religious. The conclusion that it is a religious institution entitled to the tax exemption is irresistible.

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:


That’s a bit unfair, DL. I’ve put both sides up. I’m a researcher. I’m just trying to promote debate.

If you’d like to.mock or criticize the data here, you’re perfectly free to do so.

And I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to do so.

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:32pm:


Ah.

Quote:


Sounds like and over-reaction to me.

Quote:


This is not cunning Karnal. This is stupid.

Quote:


It appears that Karnal is desperately trying to find a way to stand up for Gandalf, who recently claimed that the vast majority of Australians want to ban the criticism or mockery of religion. According to Karnal, it just depends on how you word the question.

Quote:
 

Someone does, but they are not owning up to their opinion.

Quote:


The same applies to Islam. Just because Muhammed merely used it to get people to help him rape and pillage his way across the middle east does not mean Muslims do not consider it to be a religion.

Why are you so desperate to defend Gandalf on this, and find a way to mock any principled stance in support of freedom? Would you really discard these principles in favour of not offending the hypersensitive?

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:28pm:


True. Scientology was subsequently "legalised" in the 1980s. It was also given full rights as a religion.

Most recently, the church was found to violate minimum wage laws. Should people be free to volunteer their labour to an organization that makes millions from it? Also, should people be free to submit to a belief system that has been proven to be false and deceptive?

I’m curious.