Cast your vote, leftards. I’d love to know what you think.

The govt shouldn't stop me from doing it. Is that facilitating?

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.

FREEEEEE-DOOOOOOOOM!

Freedom of religious belief and observance is one of the cornerstones of Western democracy.  No government can outlaw a religious belief - that does not mean that those who subscribe to a religious belief that contravenes GENUINE law - e.g. under-age marriage, forced marriage, genital mutilation.. and all the other stuff.. is not subject to sanction of Law.

What is NOT on the table is any 'right' of any anointed government to create a religious belief as illegal when it and its adherents do not contravene GENUINE law.

As long as n observer of a religious belief abides by the laws of man as based on reason, that person should not be sanctioned.

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.

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.

They don't promote it and they shouldn't, there should be no persecution. Neither should they interfere in free exchange of ideas between citizens, even if that means some get hurt feelings.

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

How old are you, out of a matter of interest?

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.?

Ah, happy times, right?   Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD.    ::)

People may believe what they like - it is their ACTIONS that should rightly be held to scrutiny...

Footnote:-  I come from a Protestant Father and Catholic mother - I know full well about the discrimination that is based on religious belief.

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.

Promote? 

Religion or any ideas should not be exempt from critisism, satire, mockery. 

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.


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.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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. Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD? How old are you, out of a matter of interest? 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.? Ah, happy times, right?   Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD.    ::)

What do you mean by discriminate brian?  Are you talking seperate park benches or not being able to laugh or critisise  an idea?

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?

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.

Instead of facilitate, if you used allow, then I could vote.

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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 the organization. This in turn led to the UK throwing out L.Ron. Hubbard and a number of governments around the world coming down heavily on Scientology.

Should people have the freedom to join toxic cults? Who should decide this? If laws aren’t passed on these sorts of freedoms - and we could include things like gambling - who should pick up the pieces?

Setanta wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

Ah. Polls can be quite cunning that way, no?

As FD says, sometimes a question is just a question.

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?

The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.   

Setanta wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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. 

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

Setanta wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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? The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.

I’m new to this research thing. I hope I haven’t skewed the data.

It’s still proof though - of something. Feel free to vote, DL.

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:24pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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? The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.    I’m new to this research thing. I hope I haven’t skewed the data. It’s still proof though - of something. Feel free to vote, DL.

I don't vote on forum polls.  They are generally idiotic, easily manipulated, subject to corruption, socks, and pointless. 

Hope that helps.   :)

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

Setanta wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

That’s a bit unfair, DL. I’ve put both sides up. I’m a researcher. I’m just trying to promote debate.

If you’d like to.mock or criticize the data here, you’re perfectly free to do so.

And I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to do so.

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:33pm:

Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:18pm: Setanta wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.  That’s a bit unfair, DL. I’ve put both sides up. I’m a researcher. I’m just trying to promote debate. If you’d like to.mock or criticize the data here, you’re perfectly free to do so. And I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to do so.

Lol, data from a forum poll.   ::)

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:24pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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? The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.    I’m new to this research thing. I hope I haven’t skewed the data. It’s still proof though - of something. Feel free to vote, DL. I don't vote on forum polls.  They are generally idiotic, easily manipulated, subject to corruption,

Ah.

Datalife wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:33pm: Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:18pm: Setanta wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.  That’s a bit unfair, DL. I’ve put both sides up. I’m a researcher. I’m just trying to promote debate. If you’d like to.mock or criticize the data here, you’re perfectly free to do so. And I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to do so. Lol, data from a forum poll.   ::)

Now now, we’re fleshing out the issues in a forum, DL.

That’s a focus group.

Quote:

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 the organization. This in turn led to the UK throwing out L.Ron. Hubbard and a number of governments around the world coming down heavily on Scientology.

Sounds like and over-reaction to me.


Quote:

Ah. Polls can be quite cunning that way, no?

This is not cunning Karnal. This is stupid.


Quote:

The issue you have identified in this post is different to the issue identified in the poll.

It appears that Karnal is desperately trying to find a way to stand up for Gandalf, who recently claimed that the vast majority of Australians want to ban the criticism or mockery of religion. According to Karnal, it just depends on how you word the question.


Quote:

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.

 

Someone does, but they are not owning up to their opinion.


Quote:

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.

The same applies to Islam. Just because Muhammed merely used it to get people to help him rape and pillage his way across the middle east does not mean Muslims do not consider it to be a religion.

If you don’t want to exercise your demokratic right to vote in a scientific survey, FD, no one will try to force you. We’re all friends here.

But you cannot deny the statistics: 75% of Australians want the government to do something about the religious mockers who threaten our Freeeedom.

The evidence from the focus group points to an intolerance of governments intervening in religious matters, but clearly shows Australians believe their fellow citizens should have the right to follow their own religious beliefs, without fear of persecution.

As the convenor, I’m sure you’ll agree: it would be improper for me to express a view either way, and thus skew the findings.

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?

What about George Carlin?
Should his comedy routine have been banned?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RT6rL2UroE

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

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:14pm: freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

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

Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:28pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:14pm: freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

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.

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

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... 8-)

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.

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

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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... 8-)

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.

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

Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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... 8-) 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.

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

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.

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

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.

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

Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 9:39pm: Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:28pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:14pm: freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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?

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.[/quote]

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?   ::)

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

Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:18pm: Setanta wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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.   ::) ::)

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

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 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.[/quote]

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?   ::)[/quote]

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.

Thanks for your thoughts, DL, but let’s refrain from telling each other how to think or respond, okay?

It might skew the findings.

I on the other hand support someone's right to mock religion and to subject it to satire without fear of being beheaded.  Brian cannot bring himself to condemn those who behead others for blasphemy or for simply not believing. He prefers to stay silent.  He explicitly said he cannot protest.

I think it is wrong and will say so.  Brian will remain mute thus providing tacit support. 

Who supports freedom?

Karnal wrote on 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.

Findings.   ;D ;D

Datalife wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:30am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 16th, 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. Findings.   ;D ;D

Thanks for asking, DL. So far, a randomly selected sample of 11 respondents have voted on the government facilitating the mockery of spirituality.

Over 63% have voted against the proposal, showing a trend towards the majority of Australians favouring a ban on the criticism and mockery of religion.

The results are still not in, so I don’t want to prejudge the findings. I think we can safely say, however, that Australians do not favour their government supporting ridicule, mockery, teasing or bullying over an individual’s religious beliefs. So far, the numbers show us this.

Qualitative research supports this view, but we are still measuring participants’ responses to the questions. So far, the discussion has gone well.

Please feel free to respond yourself, but I ask you not to lead the other respondents or surplant your own ideas onto other members of the group. We want the views of all participants, not one or two type As. I want this to be a wide-ranging, extensive study, with as many unbiased points of view as possible. The study needs to hold up to scrutiny and stand the test of time.

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 9:47pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 9:39pm: Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:28pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:14pm: freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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?

Just because Muhammed merely used it to get people to help him rape and pillage his way across the middle east does not mean Muslims do not consider it to be a religion.

Some background, for those who can't figure out what Karnal is on about.

Gandalf declares that the vast majority of Australians want to ban criticism and mockery of religion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822

Karnal complains about me trying to "rail" him into the debate (ie asking him his opinion):


Karnal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Instead, you want to rail in Brian, me, and Gud knows who else to play your dumb games. You simply can’t accept that someone has a view you may not like. Now.

Then of course, he won't go away. Eventually, despite knowing the Gandalf's claim is idiotic, he dreams up a way to defend it:


Karnal wrote on Nov 14^th, 2014 at 9:44pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 14th, 2014 at 9:35pm: Do you think the vast majority of Australians want the government to ban criticism or mockery of religion? Do you think the survey Gandalf posted shows this to be the case? I have no idea. I imagine it would depend on how the question was asked. How could you ban it? It’s a ridiculous idea. Still, we may not believe with what the majority of Australians have to say, but we’ll fight to the death for their right to say it, no?

Gandalf tries to turn a dodgy online poll that does not even ask about banning mockery or criticism of religion into proof that this is what the vast majority of Australians want, as well as explaining away his inability to find a single person who believes what he claims the vast majority of Australians believe.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 14^th, 2014 at 10:45am:

freediver wrote on Nov 14th, 2014 at 10:40am: Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your statements and the results of the poll I put up in the other thread? ;D ;D No FD - I totally can *NOT* explain why a scientifically conducted poll at a respected university using a representative sample of thousands of people would be different to FD asking 5 people on ozpolitic. Its a complete mystery  ;D ;D

This is the culmination of a lengthy effort by Gandalf to pretend that there is no difference between the Muslim and non-Muslim community on the issue of freedom of speech, and that Islam is not against freedom of speech. This has required him to build an elaborate fantasy version of both the Muslim and non-Muslim community.

Karnal actually appears to disagree with Gandalf on this, but is still compelled to come out to bat for him.


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

I know what you will counter with - that the antidote against the threats from both is to embrace freedom even more wholeheartedly; that a sort of "free market" political and intellectual environment will sort us all out for the better. I cannot agree with such an idealism, and I am particularly intolerant of it when it is being lectured by someone who is from the dominant, privileged strata of our society. Someone who will never experience real discrimination or prejudice, demanding that the most vulnerable stand up and embrace the idea that they should be mocked and ridiculed for their cultural and ethnic background. Mainstream Australia is with me on this, and you FD, are on the fringe. Mainstream Australians demonstrably share the muslim communities misgivings about the idea that bigotry and intolerance should be openly acknowledged as a "right" in our society. And you simply cannot isolate the concept of "the right to draw a mere cartoon" from this context. The cartoons were made for offense - they literally had no other purpose, and like it or not, most people have a problem with that. For them the question is not so much "should people have the right to draw them?", its "should they draw them?" (a subtle but important difference), coupled with "why do they draw them?" Which is why consistent majorities across all the western countries - including Australia - were adamant that the cartoons should not have been published. Thats not muslims saying this, this is the whole of society. And you can't simply fob it off by saying "oh thats only because they know how the mussies will react" - since it would ignore some other things we know about our society's attitudes - like the fact that most people think there should be laws in place to protect against mere offense. That would put mainstream Australian society in the "spineless apologist" camp according to you - yet somehow you continue with the fairy tale that its only a muslim "problem" - and that the rest of society is on the same page as you - when clearly they are not.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 6:39pm: You claimed that the Muslim community is holding hands with, and on the same page as, the rest of our community on the issue of freedom of speech. And you haven't been able to demonstrate otherwise. Note also, the key word mainstream. freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2014 at 6:39pm: The right to depict and mock Muhammed is entirely relevant to that, as is the refusal of the Muslim community to have any debate on the issue or to speak out in defense of that right. If you still think this is irrelevant And what you continue to refuse to acknowledge, or understand, is that virtually no one is speaking out in defense of that right. Asked about the Muhammad cartoons, and the overwhelming sentiment amongst the mainstream was a deep disgust at them, and a belief that they should not have been published in the first place. Thats what the surveys said across the western world. A grudging acceptance of people's right to make the cartoons (only when asked) came a very poor second to this sentiment.

So, a survey in which Australians overwhelmingly defended the right to publish offensive cartoons, turns into Australians agreeing with the Muslims, merely by declaring which are the important answers.


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 24^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2014 at 6:51pm: All it would require is you quoting an Australian Muslim leader supporting the right to depict and mock Muhammed. You won't find one - the idea is absurd. Religious leaders are universally fuddy-duddy on this point. You've been provided with quotes by christian leaders calling for insults to christianity to be outlawed. You won't find any christian leaders supporting the right to mock Jesus or christianity. What you cannot deny though is the broad community of Australian muslims being on the same page as the rest of the community vis-a-vis our values and our freedoms. Your non-argument about muslim leaders merely proves that establishment muslim leaders are the same as any other establishment religious leaders - ie they want their religion to be beyond criticism. freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2014 at 6:51pm: If this truly is the best example you can find of a Muslim supporting freedom of speech, you prove my case for me. No, muslims speak out in support of freedom of speech all the time. Most recently against calls for Hizbt Tareer to be banned. That people are hypocritical about what this means doesn't change the fact that it is a defense of freedom of speech.

Gandalf actually gave two examples of Muslims standing up for freedom of speech. In addition to speaking out in defense of terrorists, he cited examples of Muslims criticising violence.

Sorry, FD, this is a discussion on the focus questions. We can’t have any other discussions broadcast or other findings published. I’m sure you’ll agree. We don’t want to skew the discussion and taint the findings.

You made a quick.point on Muhammed, a spiritual/religious prophet. I’m interested in this idea. Would you like to.flesh your point out a bit?

Muhammed slaughtered a lot of people, including unarmed POWs and women who mocked him. He used the fear he created to help build his empire. He collected about a dozen wives along the way, and many sex slaves on top of that, including the widow of a Jew he tortured to get at his Jew gold.

The abhorrent behaviour you see from the "tiny minority" today reflect Muhammed's methods. Muslims choose many ways to destroy freedom of speech, from the head hacking lunatics who make authors, artists and actors fear for their lives, to the OIC trying to force the UN to ban criticism of Islam, up to the most progressive Muslims like Gandalf who still feel compelled by their religion to justify taking away our most basic freedoms.

Thanks, FD. This Gandalf - does he hate Freeedom too?

What do others think? Should the Muslims be free to practice their religion as FD argues?

I wouldn't say he is a fan of it.

Karnal, I get the impression you are trying to stand up for freedom of religion, but you cannot bring yourself to utter the word, perhaps because you put so much effort into mocking others that do. Or maybe you just want to pick and choose.

I’m seeking the views of the majority of Australians here, FD. I must remain neutral. Anything I express in this discussion is unbiased feedback for research purposes. My statements are purely reflections of the respondents’ views, and not my own.

I do not want to skew the findings. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

Now, you said this Gandalf is no fan of Freeedom. What do you think of it? 

Back to not being able to have an opinion eh Karnal?


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

I know what you will counter with - that the antidote against the threats from both is to embrace freedom even more wholeheartedly; that a sort of "free market" political and intellectual environment will sort us all out for the better. I cannot agree with such an idealism, and I am particularly intolerant of it when it is being lectured by someone who is from the dominant, privileged strata of our society.

... and now for something completely irreverent.......

http://www.christiannewswire.com/images/1262755410.jpg


http://www.stus.com/sv/images/030723.gif

I mean - when you can't take the piste out of religious tomfoolery and silly ideas... where is the fun in life?

FD, you’re quoting someone else - this "Gandalf". I’ve told you, we can’t have that here. The research must reflect the views of the participants.

And no, I don’t have a view. I’m trying to clarify participants’ views for the study.

What do others think of FD’s comments about Freeedom?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

... and now for something completely irreverent....... http://www.christiannewswire.com/images/1262755410.jpg http://www.stus.com/sv/images/030723.gif I mean - when you can't take the piste out of religious tomfoolery and silly ideas... where is the fun in life?

Good point, TKEG. Would you extend such a liberty to different places and times? Say, Indian independance with its subsequent religious riots and killings? Or pre-1970s Australia, where the cultural code forbid religious discussion in public places so as not to inflame the Catholic/Protestant social divide? Or Singapore, a delicately balanced multicultural city-state with criminal censorship laws banning racial and religious mockery?

I’m keen to hear what you think.

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

FD, you’re quoting someone else - this "Gandalf". I’ve told you, we can’t have that here. The research must reflect the views of the participants. And no, I don’t have a view. I’m trying to clarify participants’ views for the study. What do others think of FD’s comments about Freeedom?

Can he put them (his comments) concisely in one easy to read sentence?

I think the question isn't necessarily what I would prefer in those places and times - the simple fact is that the actions (as before) of others to differing views would work against any open joking at the expense of religion.  At the same time - I recall many from my young days being quite irreverent about various religious ideas and themes...

I think the issue here is the thing about mocking Islam and it costing your head.. that sort of nonsense reverts to what I said - the action of the participants in that religion.  when some take such things literally - examples are also the Seventh Day Acventist thing of 'not taking blood' etc (I think it's them), and feeling that a literal and fundamental reading of what the story says is enough - that's where we have problems.

I don't believe that the majority of Muslims actually think they have some right to behead those who mock Islam - though some few even extend that to the assumption that not totally embracing Islam means mocking it (how stupid).

What it comes down to is a favourite theme of mine - social control - in which any and every avenue is explored to control the masses and keep them subservient to some often unspecified and undefined form of control.  Such attempts are mostly without foundation and thus are clearly the province of the insane, and therefore - to me - there needs to be a clear measure of how to determine when a leadership is insane and how to deal with that.

Footnote:-  I always speak off the top of my head - doesn't mean I always get it exactly right...

Another point - already raised - is how you go about defining 'mockery'.

Now if a group in Singapore went around preaching that all Suylagati religious observers were monkeys and so forth - that would be a legitimate definition of mocking them and their religion.

When it comes to oddball 'definitions' that only suit one side - the one most interested in pursuing that issue - there is a problem developing, in that the definition is not one accepted by anyone else.  Nor should anyone else be forced to accept it.

A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc.

We - The Indians - have no issue with alleged gay or women's or religious rights - everyone is allegedly covered by the same Rights and has allegedly the same legal and other rights that are protected - in some cases over-protected - by law and even sometimes Law.

These 'right's issues are foisted upon us and we are then brought to battle over them when we have no interest in them and are already cast as the villains of the piece.

That itself is abuse pure and simple - in more ways than one.

See my comparison with the North American Indians?  And why it is a clear comparison?

Nobody here wanted to engage in the Fem Wars (hence my book series Fem War II) - we were all dragged into them because someone else wanted it that way, cast as the villains of the piece, and punished through robbery and abuse and even direct violence and imprisonment just for being here and trying to get a fair shot at life.

Singapore would be a much better place if they more fully embraced freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as 1970s Australia did. If we gave up on freedom every time we were faced with intolerance, it would still be legal to shoot anyone who disrespected you.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

.... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. ....

Well said!

I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion.

That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare?

If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed?

Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous.

The freedoms and rights extended to my ancestors do not apply to me, as I am now a citizen of another country.

Bearing that in mind, my loyalties are not torn when called upon to defend either country and its society and mores. I, an Australian, now owes his current existence to British imperialism and the brutality of colonialism.

I, and many others, are aware of that fact. Some, it would appear, tend to ignore it.

It would appear that freedom, like beauty, is merely in the eye of the beholder.

Good. Thanks, FD. What do others think about less pluralist societies following FD’s Australian Freeedom model? Remember, 1970s Australia saw the introduction of the Racial Vilification Act.

I’d be keen to hear from some of the quieter members of the discussion.

A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 2:24pm: .... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. .... Well said! I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion. That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare? If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed? Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous.

Good point, LE. What do others think about this view, particularly in light of the recent independence ballot in Scottland and other self determination measures in Northern Ireland?

Should US and Australian indigenous groups receive a similar say in their governance?

Feel free to respond.

Are you seriously trying to claim they don't already? Really!

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags.

Thanks, H. Are you arguing such Freeeedoms should not be tolerated, based on the criteria of certain groups’ body odour?

I’m interested.

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

Are you seriously trying to claim they don't already? Really!

I’m not sure, H. Have Aboriginal Australians had an independence ballot?

What do others think?

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:48pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:39pm: A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags. Thanks, H. Are you arguing such Freeeedoms should not be tolerated, based on the criteria of certain groups body odour? I’m interested.

They wouldn't like it if whitey burnt their toilet paper flag.

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:48pm: Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:39pm: A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags. Thanks, H. Are you arguing such Freeeedoms should not be tolerated, based on the criteria of certain groups body odour? I’m interested. They wouldn't like it if whitey burnt their toilet paper flag.

Are you saying they use toilet paper? I’m confused.

Anyone else?

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:50pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:48pm: Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:39pm: A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags. Thanks, H. Are you arguing such Freeeedoms should not be tolerated, based on the criteria of certain groups body odour? I’m interested. They wouldn't like it if whitey burnt their toilet paper flag. Are you saying they use toilet paper? I’m confused. Anyone else?

Probably not. Anybody else?

Don’t forget to vote in the survey if you haven’t already. So far, the answers are compelling.

As a direct descendant of the Ancient High Kings of Ireland - I want me cut.... traditional landowners restored.....

Jeez LE - comparison of the settlement of Oz and the United States is a very big issue - there is a lot more stuff around about the US than here...  umm..... lemme think on it a while... gotta go lay some carpet with the woman I don't lay with no more...

That's not an ox - ye moron - it's a Loader bull!

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:32pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 2:24pm: .... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. .... Well said! I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion. That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare? If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed? Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous. Good point, LE. What do others think about this view, particularly in light of the recent independence ballot in Scottland and other self determination measures in Northern Ireland? Should US and Australian indigenous groups receive a similar say in their governance? Feel free to respond.

Possession/dispossession happen in different legal worlds that collide and one will have to be the dominant one. You cannot have two different legal systems - Aboriginal and European - coexists and be applied randomly.

Europeans did not accept the Aboriginal legal system as applicable to them and forced the Aborigines to accept European law when dealing with anything involving Europeans and their property.

Aborigines can agitate for independence under European law - except what they want to return to did not and does not exist in European law. So they will have to be a nation with defined territory, like the Scots. But they are not one nation and they have no defined territory as a nation that is recognised in any jurisdiction.

This is not a million miles from the Palestinian dilemma - they are not a nation either.

Peoples used to be swept away by history without trace. Nowadays it's always a legal case.  But the law, like culture, is not universal. So laws, like cultures, clash irreconcilably until they recognise a higher law and culture as universal and so able to arbitrate between the competing claims.

Alas, universality is a European idea too (a Christian one, in particular).i

The difference is that the US Indians are mainly covered by treaties - the current and very long-lasting argument is over past abrogations of treaties which cast the Native Americans as the villains, thus leading to the successive abrogation of treaty after treaty.

At meeting with government etc agencies, Indian chiefs repeated over and over that they did not wish to enter a new treaty that cost them more land etc, and were happy with the existing one.  What usually happened then was that some act or acts were undertaken by US government or others to bring about a situation where the often defenceless Indians, men women and children, were attacked as 'renegades' - and often slaughtered indiscriminately so as to secure their land and gold and so forth without paying for it.

There are past antecedents of such things with the Scottish Highlands - the Massacre of Glencoe being one such... and any number of other similar situations, such as the displacement of the Irish from Ulster (my family's ancient seat of government was at Tara)  which cost an estimated million Irish lives.

The Maoris on the other hand fought so steadfastly that the British pakehas were forced to sign a Treaty to which they are still held, showing that military strength and often success at arms was the great leveler there.

In most cases, the American Indians were relatively poorly armed and had little to no chance against military might that included cannon and such, and the Australian Aborigines - as well as being essentially a friendly group to early settlers - were far worse off in terms of arms etc.

In both cases, the actions of a few would be laid against the whole group and often horrendous punishment meted out, always in the name of either exterminating or moving on the tribes.

My family has very strong connections with the development of the New England area, and at this time there are two distinct Aboriginal tribal groups there through force of circumstances - one driven up from the Western Plains of Sydney basin (Penrith etc and back a ways) and the other from the Moreton Bay area.  They are significantly different in many ways... but the fact remains that they were both groups driven off ancestral land and into clashing with other groups as well as Whites.... and they have no 'reservations' no matter how poor in soil and sustenance unless you count their reservations at the Long Bay Hilton and its offshoots.....

Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation.  Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time.

White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius.   However,  with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation.  Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time. White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius.   However,  with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation.

And who will provide succor to the first wave of Aborigines - remnants of whom survived in Tasmania thanks to the rising seas - who were wiped out by the second wave, with no recourse to The Hague or the UN?


Who will compensate the people who were overrun by the Mongols? Who will compensate all the victims of human sacrifice by the Incas and Aztecs? Who will plead the cases of all the Europeans and their descendants, who were kidnapped by Muslim raiders and sold into slavery?

Will the African-Americans seek compensation from today's Arab nations whose predecessors were kidnapped and traded by Arab slave traders to Europeans?

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation.  Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time. White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius.   However,  with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation. And who will provide succor to the first wave of Aborigines - remnants of whom survived in Tasmania thanks to the rising seas - who were wiped out by the second wave, with no recourse to The Hague or the UN?

If you can find someone who is a survivor, please present them, Soren.  As there is more than sufficient evidence that such predecessor wave(s) of migrants interbred with, rather in the style than it's now been shown that Neanderthals interbred with Denisovans, I am unsure why you claim they wiped them out.   Oh, and the Tasmanian peoples were not their last descendents, they were genetically the same as the mainland Aborigines.

All you're doing is perpetuating the tired old racist myths about the Indigenes, Soren.


Quote:

Who will compensate the people who were overrun by the Mongols? Who will compensate all the victims of human sacrifice by the Incas and Aztecs? Who will plead the cases of all the Europeans and their descendants, who were kidnapped by Muslim raiders and sold into slavery? Will the African-Americans seek compensation from today's Arab nations whose predecessors were kidnapped and traded by Arab slave traders to Europeans?

They were then, today is today, we are, I am sure you would claim, morally superior to the Mongols or the Arab slavers (who it must be pointed out were well supplied with their merchandise by African slavers) or any of the other similes you try and draw.   We dispossessed without declaration of war or even recognition of their prior claim, the Indigenes.   It isn't as if the English didn't recognise such prior claims elsewhere in the world, the English were quite happy to make treaties with Indigenous peoples, yet they chose here, to try and do a bit of legal sleight of hand to justify their theft of other's lands.   Now, we, as a society have to try and attempt reconciliation with peoples who we attempted to wipe out but failed to.  They aren't going away, so it's time you and others of your ilk (and afterall, you're only a johnny-come-lately by your own admission), need to face it.  ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:44pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 3:32pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 2:24pm: .... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. .... Well said! I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion. That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare? If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed? Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous. Good point, LE. What do others think about this view, particularly in light of the recent independence ballot in Scottland and other self determination measures in Northern Ireland? Should US and Australian indigenous groups receive a similar say in their governance? Feel free to respond. Possession/dispossession happen in different legal worlds that collide and one will have to be the dominant one. You cannot have two different legal systems - Aboriginal and European - coexists and be applied randomly. Europeans did not accept the Aboriginal legal system as applicable to them and forced the Aborigines to accept European law when dealing with anything involving Europeans and their property. Aborigines can agitate for independence under European law - except what they want to return to did not and does not exist in European law. So they will have to be a nation with defined territory, like the Scots. But they are not one nation and they have no defined territory as a nation that is recognised in any jurisdiction. This is not a million miles from the Palestinian dilemma - they are not a nation either. Peoples used to be swept away by history without trace. Nowadays it's always a legal case.  But the law, like culture, is not universal. So laws, like cultures, clash irreconcilably until they recognise a higher law and culture as universal and so able to arbitrate between the competing claims. Alas, universality is a European idea too (a Christian one, in particular).

Thanks for your contribution, S. Excellent thoughts.

What do others think? Does anyone agree that Palestine is not a nation?

No - Palestine is not a nation - it was a sort of national identity back in WWI - the Light AHorse etc campaigned in Palestine.. which included modern day Israel, parts of Lebanon and Syria and so forth...

Hang on a mo'.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Only wikipedia, but hell....

Now - you can argue that Israel is a 'created nation' as opposed to a nation based on ethnic or tribal etc occupation over an extended period... but remember that the Israelites/Hebrews were there before the Palestinians, and thus there is some sort of claim.

Certainly Jews and Arabs lived side by side there...... and often inter-married and shared cultural ideas and such.

The argument is about territory or land - and Palestine  as it was has been broken up into various bits... and thus is no more.

Palestinianism is more of a group or ethnic issue than one of actual nationhood - and never forget that it is primarily the Arab countries who have kept the Palestinians locked into a relatively small area, and the only hope for the likes of Yasar Arafat was that by exerting pressure - a genuine nation of Palestine would be created, much as was modern-day Israel.

There is an old story of the Israeli Prime Minister, at a meeting with Yasar Arafat, telling a story of the Hebrews arriving at the Promised Land:-

When the Hebrews arrived and found these lovely flowing steams - they tore off their filthy clothing and jumped in - and while they were swimming about, the Palestinians stole their clothing!

Arafat leaped up and said - "That is a LIE!  There were no Palestinians there!"

The Israeli PM nodded and Arafat stormed out of the meeting.....

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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. Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD? How old are you, out of a matter of interest? 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.? Ah, happy times, right?   Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD.    ::)

 
Surely you jest? Catholics did exactly the same & still do to this day. You must be a biased tyke.  ::)

Gnads wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:47pm: freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 15th, 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. Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD? How old are you, out of a matter of interest? 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.? Ah, happy times, right?   Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD.    ::)   Surely you jest? Catholics did exactly the same & still do to this day. You must be a biased tyke.  ::)

Two wrongs don't make a right.   Around the British Empire, it was the Protestants who held the whip hand and liberally applied it, from the UK itself, through the Dominions to the colonies.  If you were a Catholic, you were treated as a second-class citizen.  In Australia, it lasted until the start of the 1960s and then started to melt away in the light of progressive attitudes and legislation.  It lasted in Northern Ireland until the 1990s.

well old mate when I was first job hunting in the early 70's there were certain businesses & sections of businesses in my town that were the domain of Catholics & you had little chance of a statrt there if you weren't a tyke.

e.g. the SGIO, Commonwealth Bank & QLD Govt. Railways Administration Office - all large employers. The same biases applied to other businesses as well, especially Pubs.

The very idea of banning mockery or criticism of ANY group is fundamentally un-Australian.  We have a long and admirable history of being open in our critical assessments of govts groups and yes, religion. The concept itself is anathema, but to imagine how a govt would implement it is to shudder at the thought.  Mockery and criticism can go too far  - and we have laws to handle that. But these things, alongside a right to do so are what keeps any group - or religion - from becoming the kinds of institutions that are a law to themselves. Religions can and do add great value to our society, but they also have the potential to do a lot of harm.  It is only by having the right to freely and openly criticise that we limit this risk.  And yes, even unfair criticism has its place because sometimes unfair criticism reveals the ACTUAL truth, albeit by accident.

I would reject any concept of banning mockery and criticism of religion.  it is therefore pleasing that no party or govt is actually planning to do anything even remotely like it.

Apparently according to some denizens of some religions you are mocking that religion unless you totally accept it and its tenets.

That is the nadir of stupidity and arrogance - as well as violent in that they also advocate violence and death to those who 'mock' it in that way.

I trust they do not see that it would be fair to treat them and all of theirs in the same way for not adhering to another religion.

Such adherents should applaud collateral damage from bombings of IS.... only fair, playing the game by the rules.

Beware what you seek - you may actually get it.....