Australian Politics Forum

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49368
At my desk.

Re: Freeedom
Reply #30 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:47pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

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

Karnal wrote on 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 ithe organisation

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.

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.

That's why Islam is legal Karnal. We have freedom of religion.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #31 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:50pm

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

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?

You’ve used the word "desperate" on two occasions to describe the research methods of the survey. This is interesting. I’d like to explore this further, but I don’t want it to interfere with the discussion.

Please feel free to open a new post to express your concerns. I’ll include your views in the methodology chapter.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49368 At my desk.	Re: Freeedom Reply #32 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:54pm You left out stupid Karnal. That's twice also.
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 #33 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:01pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

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?

No I don't think employers should be able to violate minimum wage laws for employees.

And yes, people can volunteer to provide thier labour that provides millions in value. Charities rely on it. Who am I to say someone cannot work for free for medicines sans frontiers or the RSPCA? Or a church?

And yes I think people should be free to submit ( you guys are big on submission ain't ya?) to belief systems.

But you seem to be in a mood to ban freedoms of belief, so how do you go about proving a belief system is false and deceptive? Take islam for example... Cool

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: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #34 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:03pm

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

You left out stupid Karnal. That's twice also.

Thanks, FD. I only read the adjective "stupid" once.

Your views here are important, but I’ll thank you to save the research reflections for later. I’m all for a robust, hermeneutic discussion, but it needs to follow the process and not influence the findings.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #35 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:17pm

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

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?

No I don't think employers should be able to violate minimum wage laws for employees.

And yes, people can volunteer to provide thier labour that provides millions in value. Charities rely on it. Who am I to say someone cannot work for free for medicines sans frontiers or the RSPCA? Or a church?

And yes I think people should be free to submit ( you guys are big on submission ain't ya?) to belief systems.

But you seem to be in a mood to ban freedoms of belief, so how do you go about proving a belief system is false and deceptive? Take islam for example... Cool

Good point. Scientology was banned after a very thorough parliamentary inquiry. The report was tabled by governments around the world. It was used by the CIA and FBI, who were also interested in Scientology.

You prove a belief system is deceptive by showing that those who created it believed something else and intentionally lied.

As an example, tobacco company executives in the 1990s argued that they believed smoking was harmless.

This was proven false when research they conducted showed smoking caused cancer and evidence was provided that the executives had tried to destroy the reports.

Back to top

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #36 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:32pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

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?

No I don't think employers should be able to violate minimum wage laws for employees.

And yes, people can volunteer to provide thier labour that provides millions in value. Charities rely on it. Who am I to say someone cannot work for free for medicines sans frontiers or the RSPCA? Or a church?

And yes I think people should be free to submit ( you guys are big on submission ain't ya?) to belief systems.

But you seem to be in a mood to ban freedoms of belief, so how do you go about proving a belief system is false and deceptive? Take islam for example... Cool

Good point. Scientology was banned after a very thorough parliamentary inquiry. The report was tabled by governments around the world. It was used by the CIA and FBI, who were also interested in Scientology.

You prove a belief system is deceptive by showing that those who created it believed something else and intentionally lied.

As an example, tobacco company executives in the 1990s argued that they believed smoking was harmless.

This was proven false when research they conducted showed smoking caused cancer and evidence was provided that the executives had tried to destroy the reports.

I am not convinced a tobacco company is a system of belief or anything to do with freedom of religion so a suspicious person might suspect you of comparing apples with oranges. Actually baseballs with oranges.

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

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38838
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #37 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:59pm

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.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the expression 'facilitate.' I reckon that means Government stays out of the way ~ facilitates ~ allows.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #38 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 11:06pm

The tobacco executives were expressing their beliefs DL,, but I take your point. I’m referring to the question of evidence rather than the question of what constitutes systems of belief.

I haven’t read the Victorian report into Scientology, but it contains similar examples, many taken from the actual words of L. Ron Hubbard.

It also investigated cases of assault, suicide, kidnapping, medical neglect, and a host of other issues.

The High Court’s judgement was based on different criteria. I haven’t read it either, but it seems to be based more on the question of Freeeedom.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:20am by Karnal »

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #39 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 11:10pm

Aussie wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 10:59pm:

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.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the expression 'facilitate.' I reckon that means Government stays out of the way ~ facilitates ~ allows.

Very true, Aussie. Indeed it does.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: Freeedom
Reply #40 - Nov 15^th, 2014 at 11:41pm

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

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

Karnal wrote on 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 ithe organisation

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.

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.

That's why Islam is legal Karnal. We have freedom of religion.

Good response, FD. Would you like to elaborate on this point?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42277

Re: Freeedom
Reply #41 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:02am

freediver wrote on 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.

Sure, that would OK, FD. However, if you were to spit in the eye of the Muslim and insult them, how would that sit with you?

How about calling for the deaths of all Muslims or stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them? You going to accept that, perhaps even cheer it on?

Quote:

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.

So, it's OK to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion on the personal level or walking down the street in public but when it comes to employment, it's not on?

You don't see any contradiction there? 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

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42277

Re: Freeedom
Reply #42 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:04am

Setanta wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:22pm:

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

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.

The whole debate has been framed dishonestly. Not surprisingly.

Karnal and Brian would have you think the freedom to laugh at and critisise ideas or religion is governmental endorsed, nay encouraged persecution. And I think it is obvious which religion they would prefer not to be criticised or laughed at. Maybe they would like critisism of Islam to be a criminal offence. No freedom there but persecution going the way they would prefer.

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

I find it interesting how DL appears to know what other posters are thinking all the time. He seems to suffer from clairvoyance or some similar ailment. 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

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #43 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:16am

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:02am:

freediver wrote on 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.

Sure, that would OK, FD. However, if you were to spit in the eye of the Muslim and insult them, how would that sit with you?

How about calling for the deaths of all Muslims or stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them? You going to accept that, perhaps even cheer it on?

Quote:

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.

So, it's OK to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion on the personal level or walking down the street in public but when it comes to employment, it's not on?

You don't see any contradiction there? Roll Eyes

Strawman alert. Critising and mocking a religion is not assault. It is freedom to contest ideas. When it crosses over to assault or discrimination in employment it is wrong. So forget your strawman, but indeed, let's contest your ideas and especialy about assault.

For example, you endorse a country's right to behead people because of religion or not believing in a specified God, nothing you can do you say. Thats a bit of discrimination don't you reckon? But you can say nothing. Poor brian.

You need to gather some consistency and coherency in your blather. And a bit of courage as well.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:49am by Datalife »

"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: 96377	Re: Freeedom Reply #44 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:23am Thanks for your thoughts, DL, but let’s refrain from telling each other how to think or respond, okay? It might skew the findings.
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 »