Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: Religious Freedom review

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Roaming around Australia
    Posts
    314

    Default Religious Freedom review

    Anyone going to send in a few comments?

    https://pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/r...freedom-review
    “The figures looked more or less human. And they were engaged in religion. You could tell by the knives (it's not murder if you do it for a god).”
    ― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

  2. Like button Blue Lightning, davo liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kilmore
    Posts
    2,911

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    There should certainly be input from the atheist community, as we are the ones most adversely affected by their privileged positions.
    The meaning of your life, is what you choose to make it.

  4. Like button Blue Lightning, Darwinsbulldog liked this post
    Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote bruce1937 said View Post
    There should certainly be input from the atheist community, as we are the ones most adversely affected by their privileged positions.
    Whether they will give a god-dam, is another question.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,393

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Guardian - Why extend the church's ‘freedom’ when it's abused what it already has?


    I'm not quoting part of this, so you may as well go read the lot.

    You will thank me.
    EJB

    I’m not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  7. Thank button Soup Dragon, madmick thanked this post
  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,393

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Guardian - Aargh!

    On Thursday the government released broad terms of reference for its religious freedom inquiry, headed by former attorney general Philip Ruddock, including the new appointment of University of Queensland constitutional law professor Nicholas Aroney to the five-person panel.

    Aroney is an expert on legal pluralism, law and religion who has warned that religious freedom has become a second-class right to anti-discrimination and argued that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within “strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law”.

    In public debate before marriage equality was legalised, Coalition conservatives including the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, and the defence personnel minister, Dan Tehan, warned against amendments with unintended consequences, such as creating religious enclaves shielded by law or opening a back door to sharia.

    In a 2012 essay titled The Accommodation of the Sharia within Western Legal Systems Aroney and co-author Rex Ahdar argued that: “From a western point of view, the practice of sharia is in part a religious liberty issue and, to that extent, its conscientious practice ought to be a right enjoyed by all committed Muslims, qualified only by strictly justifiable limitations imposed by the general law.”

    Aroney and Ahdar said that enforcement of sharia law by state authorities “needs to be approached very cautiously, noting the nature of Sharia as [an] ‘entire way of life’, its constitutional implications for the basic structures of the state, and the possibility of its use as a tool by extremist elements”.

    The authors explain that although sharia has dark connotations in the west of “floggings, stonings and amputations for crimes” the term simply denotes a body of legal rules and principles extracted from the Qur’an and the Sunna.
    A mite alarmist? Can't say.
    EJB

    I’m not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    I'm not sure I have an enormous problem with sharia law as a private arrangement provided that it does not conflict with secular law. Which effectively means, so long as it is optional and non-enforceable except by consent.


    I certainly have less problem with that sort of arrangement than I do with the proposition that certain Christians should be able to enforce their peculiar, minority-even-among-Christians, discriminatory opinions on others.


    And meanwhile I am chuckling at the horror that has already started to surface that religious freedom might involve more people than just Christian conservatives.
    WAS2018

  10. Like button Blue Lightning, Goldenmane liked this post
    Laugh button Blue Lightning laughed at this post
  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,393

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote wearestardust said View Post
    (Selective snip)
    I'm not sure I have an enormous problem with sharia law as a private arrangement provided that it does not conflict with secular law. Which effectively means, so long as it is optional and non-enforceable except by consent.
    Surely that's possible, maybe even in practice, now?
    EJB

    I’m not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  12. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,129

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote wearestardust said View Post
    I'm not sure I have an enormous problem with sharia law as a private arrangement provided that it does not conflict with secular law. Which effectively means, so long as it is optional and non-enforceable except by consent.
    What does ‘sharia law as a private arrangement mean’? I guess if we define sharia law as liberally as possible to mean ‘following the rules of Islam’ so not eating pig, no booze, pray 5 times a day etc... then why is there any need to legally recognise any of this, anyone can already do this, nothing is stopping them. At the other end of the spectrum is sharia law as practiced in Saudi. Big gap between the two but both are extremes, and all points within, are based on misogynistic myth and I’d strongly argue against any formal recognition of any religious law.

    I certainly have less problem with that sort of arrangement than I do with the proposition that certain Christians should be able to enforce their peculiar, minority-even-among-Christians, discriminatory opinions on others.
    Huh? How about muslims that are as liberal as you and I? If some form of sharia law was legally recognised would that not be identical to the discriminatory views of others being forced on them?


    And meanwhile I am chuckling at the horror that has already started to surface that religious freedom might involve more people than just Christian conservatives.
    Me too. It’s a valuable strategy, highlighting the ‘freedom’ other religions might pursue.

    Really think religious laws are fucked, all of them. We absolutely should not recognise them in a legal sense, whatever that would mean, beyond of course protecting people right to practice their religion, which they already have. No more freedoms beyond that, I say!
    Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  13. Like button bruce1937, knowledge is power liked this post
  14. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Well, as I am a deeply religious person with a fondness for Sharia thinking, namely cutting the dicks off kiddie-fuckers I declare my biases now!

    Fundamentally, laws and customs are society's software [operating system essentially], so having pluralistic laws will potentially lead to "software incompatibilities" .

    So in computing if you want to run incompatible software you have to have a compatibility layer. If you have a Linus box and you want to run windows software you use WINE, or VMWare or the like.

    But we already have this compatibility layer that is somewhat poorly implemented. It is called the secular state. [Well, really in Oz we are a soft theocracy, but never mind].

    Only secular laws and customs will allow the rights and practice of all religions AND freedom from worship/religion as well.

    As I see it, we first have to look at our Western laws which are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian moral and perspectives. So that has to go first. Because of incompatibilities with other religions, and for that matter, atheistic and secular values.

    The bonus is the puppy can now proceed with his dick-chopping, as only the law is holding him in check.

    Anyway, if we just look at some of the reforms already attempted which were made necessary by religious views, such as marriage equality [successful] or voluntary euthanasia [partly successful], it is a slow process doing things bit by bit. On the other hand, radical reforms [which are what I think are needed] would be politically impossible in the foreseeable future.

    The problem with the bit by bit stuff, is that it can conceivably lead to inconsistencies in the law.

    My 2 cents.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  15. Like button wearestardust liked this post
  16. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
    Surely that's possible, maybe even in practice, now?

    Yes and yes.
    WAS2018

Posting Permissions

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