Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98

Thread: Religious Freedom review

  1. #21
    Loki's Avatar
    Loki is offline You get what everyone gets....you get a lifetime Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Up the creek
    Posts
    11,177

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Indeed, they are covered in your "provided that". I just don't think that "provided that" does any sort of justice to issues that may, in practice, be in direct opposition to the intent of our system of laws (however depauperate they may or may not be). The systemic differences may just be too great.

    I.e I'm not sure that individual consent of participants is relevant to whether such a system is appropriate or able to fit under an overarching secular system. Interested in other takes on the topic.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick


  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Loki said View Post

    ...

    I.e I'm not sure that individual consent of participants is relevant to whether such a system is appropriate or able to fit under an overarching secular system. Interested in other takes on the topic.
    Why not? People do all sorts of things by private consent without it having explicit recognition or permission within a legal framework (our having this discussion is but one example). There are boundaries of behaviour, of course, but they are just that: boundaries and specifications of impermissibility. So long as one does not cross those boundaries one can act as one likes (from a legal perspective).

    Maybe you don't like Islam and think there should be positive laws to restrict its practice, but that's another discussion altogether.
    WAS2018

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    According to a reliable source, Sharia law has the saving grace of enabling one to cut the dicks off kiddy-fuckers, so it can't be all bad. [Or chemical castration for the "bleeding heart/softies"].
    Puppy-prediction: Molestation of minors by the religious will not stop, not with the band-aid approaches that only may be adopted. The jackboot of religion on the neck of the populace is eternal, until religion is extinct.

    That said, any law or public policy based on a delusion that dictates ethics is worthless. Stochastic mutations in beliefs and canon, will insure the evolution of good and evil to excess.

    Only laws and public policy based on science should prevail, since science will always show people as varied but equal. Custom and religion must comply with that, or not exist at all.

    This includes of course,non-religious delusion. The Flat Earthers, the anti-vaxxers and the rest, because these false beliefs that some people find are cute, can directly or indirectly lead to harm.

    What at issue really, is the maturity of the human race. To discard fairy-tales and get on with the business of adult life and happiness for all.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  4. Like button madmick liked this post
  5. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Central coast, NSW
    Posts
    1,947

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post
    According to a reliable source, Sharia law has the saving grace of enabling one to cut the dicks off kiddy-fuckers.
    Can I see this source? I can't find any info on child sexual abuse under shariah on the net.
    “It's not my responsibility to be beautiful. I'm not alive for that purpose. My existence is not about how desirable you find me.” ― Warsan shire
    “Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Ideas, books, and beliefs don’t, and aren’t.” ― Ali A Rizvi

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote knowledge is power said View Post
    Can I see this source? I can't find any info on child sexual abuse under shariah on the net.
    No but I have been told that I am deeply religious and a fan of anything Sharia Laws!

    Of course, such sources are mistaken. This is puppy law!

    Allahu Akbar!

    Someone took offence when I suggested, jokingly, that the penises of child molesters should be removed. So of course now I am a monster of extreme religiousity and delusionisms!
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Hills District of Sydney
    Posts
    899

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post
    Warning! I just did a submission to the website and received no acknowledgement. It just went to another page.
    Mine went through ok, they must have fixed it. Did you do it in the Chrome browser?

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote SEG said View Post
    Mine went through ok, they must have fixed it. Did you do it in the Chrome browser?
    Yups.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,129

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    For those not aware of the fact, Nicholas Aroney, on the religious freedom panel, really loves God and is an elder in the Presbyterian Church. His co-authored essay defending the introduction of sharia into secular societies is worth a read. http://www.lawandreligion.com/sites/...oney-Ahdar.pdf

    Here's a piece about the history of oath taking from the ABCs religion and ethics site.
    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...23/4358054.htm

    He concludes this long winded dirge

    There has, undoubtedly, been a secularisation in our practice of oaths and affirmations. But we have to be careful about what we mean by secularisation. The solemn affirmation as a substitute for the oath was originally invented for religious reasons - to avoid injury to the religious consciences of Anabaptists, Quakers and Moravians.
    Even today, a clear majority of our officeholders still opt for the religious oath. Since the late 1970s, a fairly consistent figure of around 70% of senators and 75% of members of the House of Representatives have chosen to take oaths rather than solemn affirmations. And even in that most secular of states - the Soviet Union - a secular oath was still found to be indispensable. The chilling thing is that, as fearful as the judgement of God might be, the horrors that Solzhenitsyn recounted in his Gulag Archipelago were enough of a hell upon earth as it is.


    The oath of office places a limit on public power. It binds our governors to the responsibilities of office and reminds them that they are "as much judged as judging." The oath suggests that if we are to have faith in public office, we will also need to keep faith in public office.
    Here's an interview from the Australian Presbyterian Magazine. http://ap.org.au/images/2008AP/AP1008.pdf


    In that article we get a glimpse into his thinking in regard to sharia.

    ...scripture teaches us that Godliness is profitable in this life as well as the next.It's possible to have a too restrictive view of the blessings that come through the gospel. If we believe that God the creator wants us to enjoy everything He has made then we are in danger of denying His goodness if we don't appreciate some of the benefits we receive because we think of them as secular rather than spiritual. Actually, when the bible speaks about blessings it suggests that they extend to all of life.
    (I would quote more extensively from this article but the formating is weird). It's worth a quick look-over if you can stomach it.


    His interview on the ACL website is not responding but here is the link in case it's just me having a tech issue.


    http://www.acl.org.au/wp-content/upl...las-Aroney.pdf


    Pretty sure this panel will do it's best to secure as many religious 'freedoms' as it possibly can especially if Aroney has any serious influence over the other members.
    Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  10. Thank button SEG thanked this post
  11. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,393

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote pipbarber said View Post
    For those not aware of the fact, Nicholas Aroney, on the religious freedom panel, really loves God and is an elder in the Presbyterian Church. His co-authored essay defending the introduction of sharia into secular societies is worth a read. http://www.lawandreligion.com/sites/...oney-Ahdar.pdf

    Here's a piece about the history of oath taking from the ABCs religion and ethics site.
    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...23/4358054.htm

    He concludes this long winded dirge

    There has, undoubtedly, been a secularisation in our practice of oaths and affirmations. But we have to be careful about what we mean by secularisation. The solemn affirmation as a substitute for the oath was originally invented for religious reasons - to avoid injury to the religious consciences of Anabaptists, Quakers and Moravians.
    Even today, a clear majority of our officeholders still opt for the religious oath. Since the late 1970s, a fairly consistent figure of around 70% of senators and 75% of members of the House of Representatives have chosen to take oaths rather than solemn affirmations. And even in that most secular of states - the Soviet Union - a secular oath was still found to be indispensable. The chilling thing is that, as fearful as the judgement of God might be, the horrors that Solzhenitsyn recounted in his Gulag Archipelago were enough of a hell upon earth as it is.


    The oath of office places a limit on public power. It binds our governors to the responsibilities of office and reminds them that they are "as much judged as judging." The oath suggests that if we are to have faith in public office, we will also need to keep faith in public office.
    Here's an interview from the Australian Presbyterian Magazine. http://ap.org.au/images/2008AP/AP1008.pdf


    In that article we get a glimpse into his thinking in regard to sharia.

    ...scripture teaches us that Godliness is profitable in this life as well as the next.It's possible to have a too restrictive view of the blessings that come through the gospel. If we believe that God the creator wants us to enjoy everything He has made then we are in danger of denying His goodness if we don't appreciate some of the benefits we receive because we think of them as secular rather than spiritual. Actually, when the bible speaks about blessings it suggests that they extend to all of life.
    (I would quote more extensively from this article but the formating is weird). It's worth a quick look-over if you can stomach it.


    His interview on the ACL website is not responding but here is the link in case it's just me having a tech issue.


    http://www.acl.org.au/wp-content/upl...las-Aroney.pdf


    Pretty sure this panel will do it's best to secure as many religious 'freedoms' as it possibly can especially if Aroney has any serious influence over the other members.
    Re the Aroney transcript: go HERE and grab it via the linky. Vile Lyle don't allow no direct downloadin'!

    LATER: Nope, a 0 byte file. Fail is great in this one.
    Last edited by The Irreverent Mr Black; 21st December 2017 at 12:54 PM.
    EJB

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


  12. Thank button pipbarber thanked this post
  13. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,569

    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.
    Sorry haven't read the whole thread, I may be repeating what others have said.

    I disagree with it, as I do canon and jewish law being allowed here. I know with Jewish law if both sides agree to be held by it, a lot of civil matters can be heard in this separate religious/legal system.

    For example a divorce settlement can be done through the religious court. Of course women tend to be the ones screwed over in this situation and some may say it is voluntary, but is it really when you have been brainwashed/raised in an insular community from birth and know you will be shunned by you family and friends if you don't agree to stay in the system?

    Instead of allowing another one I think we should be actively working to get rid of the current ones/exemptions and not adding more.

    Though if the others are staying/protected then we have to be consistent and allow Sharia also.
    Last edited by joele; 21st December 2017 at 01:08 PM.
    "Faith: not wanting to know what is true" - Nietzsche

    “Religion the protector of the well fed and consoler of the hungry.” - Mikhail Bakunin

  14. Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black, Voltairine thanked 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
  •