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
  #1  
Old 14th December 2017, 06:15 PM
Coryate's Avatar
Coryate Coryate is offline
AFA Member
 
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
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning, davo liked this post
  #2  
Old 14th December 2017, 06:28 PM
bruce1937's Avatar
bruce1937 bruce1937 is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kilmore
Posts: 2,763
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.
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning, Darwinsbulldog liked this post
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #3  
Old 14th December 2017, 09:24 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,824
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15th December 2017, 08:31 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Observer, with unmet expectations.
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 5,777
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.
__________________

Everything before the "but" is bullshit. - Black's Grandad.

Reply With Quote
Thank Soup Dragon, madmick thanked this post
  #5  
Old 15th December 2017, 08:35 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Observer, with unmet expectations.
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 5,777
Default Re: Religious Freedom review

Guardian - Aargh!

Quote:
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.
__________________

Everything before the "but" is bullshit. - Black's Grandad.

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15th December 2017, 11:28 AM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,519
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.
__________________
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
Like Blue Lightning, Goldenmane liked this post
Laugh at Blue Lightning laughed at this post
  #7  
Old 15th December 2017, 11:33 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Observer, with unmet expectations.
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 5,777
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?
__________________

Everything before the "but" is bullshit. - Black's Grandad.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15th December 2017, 12:20 PM
pipbarber's Avatar
pipbarber pipbarber is offline
AFA Member
 
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.

Quote:
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?


Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Like bruce1937, knowledge is power liked this post
  #9  
Old 15th December 2017, 01:04 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,824
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.
Reply With Quote
Like wearestardust liked this post
  #10  
Old 15th December 2017, 03:38 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,519
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.
__________________
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
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 12:46 PM.


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.