Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Call to action

Call to action Call out to atheist activism on polls, news articles, petitions or other injustice. Let everyone know we have a voice.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 18th December 2017, 09:41 PM
Loki's Avatar
Loki Loki is offline
You get what everyone gets....you get a lifetime
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 11,086
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

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 18th December 2017, 10:01 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,511
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.
__________________
If you need to wonder what would drive somebody to instruct lawyers, you may already be close to trouble.
- the Hircine Reverend
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 19th December 2017, 09:54 AM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,685
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.
Reply With Quote
Like madmick liked this post
  #24  
Old 19th December 2017, 07:43 PM
knowledge is power's Avatar
knowledge is power knowledge is power is offline
Proceed at own risk
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Still in bluddy Sydney
Posts: 1,833
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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 19th December 2017, 08:06 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,685
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20th December 2017, 08:49 PM
SEG's Avatar
SEG SEG is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Hills District of Sydney
Posts: 538
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?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21st December 2017, 10:19 AM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,685
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 21st December 2017, 12:32 PM
pipbarber's Avatar
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,076
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.
Reply With Quote
Thank SEG thanked this post
  #29  
Old 21st December 2017, 12:45 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Oo-er, Cobber!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 5,277
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.
__________________

Truth will be spoken to Power.
Power will respond by narrowing its eyes,
and making a mouth like a cat's anus.


Last edited by The Irreverent Mr Black; 21st December 2017 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thank pipbarber thanked this post
  #30  
Old 21st December 2017, 01:05 PM
joele's Avatar
joele joele is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,481
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.
__________________
"Faith: not wanting to know what is true" - Nietzsche

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

Last edited by joele; 21st December 2017 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black, Voltairine thanked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.