-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
what should come first.
- Thread starter the claw
- Start date
Actually you are asking the wrong question Claw.
Our laws have been designed to accommodate freedom of religion and religious tolerance. As such, many of the situations people complain about are not about being soft on religion, but its the way the law has been drafted, is being interpreted and enforced.
For all those against religious tolerance, have a look at countries where Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and the like are a state religion. In these countries the law is designed solely around the requirements of the state religion, and people with different issues are at best inconvenienced (i.e. try getting a beer in Salt Lake City) or at worst persecuted (sadly too many examples to recount - we know them all).
Our laws have been designed to accommodate freedom of religion and religious tolerance. As such, many of the situations people complain about are not about being soft on religion, but its the way the law has been drafted, is being interpreted and enforced.
For all those against religious tolerance, have a look at countries where Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and the like are a state religion. In these countries the law is designed solely around the requirements of the state religion, and people with different issues are at best inconvenienced (i.e. try getting a beer in Salt Lake City) or at worst persecuted (sadly too many examples to recount - we know them all).
evo said:
Those who think if you come to "our" country your way of living to that of "our" way. Like the twit in QLD who wanted the burqa banned from public places because he found it offensive. Or those who have made complaints about the muslim call to prayer being made at mosques, but have no issue with church bells.
the claw said:
Initially, one would agree.
On second thought, there are many times when laws are drafted or amended and unintented outcomes occur, such as the unintended oppression or vilification of an individual or minority group.
In these situations it is up to citizens to peacefully act to change the law.
Where that unintended oppression or vilification turns into violence against the oppressed then they have a moral & legal right to defend themselves.
Laws & Justice are two separate items. Most times they are inclusive.
rosy23 said:
What about pedophile priests? Were they ever convicted and jailed or did the church take over and 'handle' the issue themselves?
I'm not going to single out religion either. Any organisation that 'handles' claims of illegal activity by it's members outside of the normal legal system effectively takes precedence over our laws.
I don't know the answer to that 1eyed. If they weren't convicted and jailed through the legal system, assuming their behaviour was known about outside the church walls, I'd be disgusted. I'd be disgusted if the church did keep incidents covered up too, which I'm sure they would have done, but the legal system can't deal with what it's not aware of.
Laws of the land should always take precedence over religion.
People may be thinking about the stock standard religions out there such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...and whether these religions should have some sort of power to override laws of the land.
However with the way society has gone regarding anti-discrimination, freedom of practicing religion, equal opportunity, religious tolerance, etc.....then what happens if a religion is started that allows people to kill babies (for example)?
Should these people be able to claim a type of clemency because of their religious practices?
In this case, I would be horrified if the laws didn't take precedence over religion.
Also, if you are looking at religion having a type of power over the laws of the land....then you are more or less constricting the country to adopt ONE religion as the sole precedent...which would then be discrimatory against other religions who would then be deemed 'lesser' of the religion chosen to be the structure for society to abide by.
So...laws of the land should override religion.
People may be thinking about the stock standard religions out there such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...and whether these religions should have some sort of power to override laws of the land.
However with the way society has gone regarding anti-discrimination, freedom of practicing religion, equal opportunity, religious tolerance, etc.....then what happens if a religion is started that allows people to kill babies (for example)?
Should these people be able to claim a type of clemency because of their religious practices?
In this case, I would be horrified if the laws didn't take precedence over religion.
Also, if you are looking at religion having a type of power over the laws of the land....then you are more or less constricting the country to adopt ONE religion as the sole precedent...which would then be discrimatory against other religions who would then be deemed 'lesser' of the religion chosen to be the structure for society to abide by.
So...laws of the land should override religion.
Disco08 said:
My question would be....why should they be exempt?
The Catholic church (for example) would be one of the richest "businesses" in the world.
Next time you are in Melbourne....drive around and note the number of Catholic churches on prime land close to the CBD....note the Catholic schools and universities on prime land...and note other Catholic residences (homes for priests, etc) also on prime land.
They're doing o.k for themselves I reckon..
Liverpool said:
Isn't this already in place though? For Australia, all the equal rights (etc) stuff you referred to is enacted in law. If there is a problem, its with the nature of the law or its interpretation, not the fact someone gets to exploit it.
I don't know the details that well, but I would assume the only places that religion over-rides law are as per some of the Muslim countries, where they have made the "laws" of the Quoran paramount (similar to the rubbish Europe went through back in the day).
Liverpool said:
Its worse than this mate. Many of the CBD office towers are church owned (I used to work in 120 Collins, and they were one for instance). Everynow and then the HUN does a map of the CBD, showing all the church owned buildings, and its pretty surprising just how much they hold.
Don't stop there though, Sanitarium pay no tax because they are a church business. Their competitors however (Uncle Toby's and Kelloggs) do however. Personally I think its an absolute joke.
My solution is simple. Make churches required to pay tax, but at the same time allow donations for churches tax deductable. That way if someone decides to contribute to them, just like any normal charitable contribution they get their deduction. If however the church does not use that money for good works, but rather reinvests in it property or the like, they then have to pay tax on it (making sure they do not have an unfair competitive advantage over other commercial organizations).
Disco08 said:
I think you would find it hard to show where I have stated different rules for different religions, if that is what you are insinuating?
I wouldn't say I use 'scorn'.....but because I have used different religions as examples in expressing my opinions doesn't mean any religion is exempt from what I am putting on the table....including the Church of England (which I am not affiliated to anyway, for your information)
I hope I have cleared up any misunderstandings.
Disco08 said:
It shouldn't matter what religions I use in my examples and which ones I leave out....the crux of the matter is that I have not advocated different rules for different religions and therefore I haven't shown any inequality or discrimination at all.
