Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Should government facilitate the mockery of spirituality?

Yes    
  6 (40.0%)
No    
  9 (60.0%)




Total votes: 15
« Created by: Mattyfisk on: Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:14pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Freeedom (Read 10912 times)
Datalife
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #45 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:25am
 
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?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:47am by Datalife »  

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007
 
IP Logged
 
Datalife
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #46 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:30am
 
Mattyfisk 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.   Grin Grin
Back to top
 

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #47 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 1:58am
 
Datalife wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:30am:
Mattyfisk 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.   Grin Grin


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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 16th, 2014 at 2:07am by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #48 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 7:56am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 11:41pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 9:47pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 9:39pm:
Datalife wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:28pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 8:14pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:41pm:
Mattyfisk 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #49 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 8:15am
 
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):

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 2nd, 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:

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 14th, 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 14th, 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?


Grin Grin 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  Grin Grin
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #50 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 10:15am
 
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 4th, 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 9th, 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 24th, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #51 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 11:26am
 
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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #52 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:00pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #53 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:45pm
 
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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #54 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:53pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #55 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 1:02pm
 
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 top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Freeedom
Reply #56 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 1:13pm
 
Back to not being able to have an opinion eh Karnal?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4th, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #57 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 1:26pm
 
... and now for something completely irreverent.......

...



...


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

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #58 - Nov 16th, 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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Freeedom
Reply #59 - Nov 16th, 2014 at 1:42pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 16th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print