The people supporting Israel Folau in his court battle with Rugby Australia

Some priests have place themselves above the law by refusing to name paedophile priests.

People supporting Israel Folau have also placed themselves above the law by wanting the religious freedom to discriminate, hate and abuse others rights.

They have the right to believe in but not enforce some beliefs which then places them in conflict with the law.

Tau.Neutrino

They have the right to believe…
[/quote said:

No. This is the root cause of the problem. Nobody has a right to believe in things that are not known or not knowable. Beliefs do not matter, If you really can’t get through life without some sort of belief system in things that re not real, then you have the responsibility to keep them to yourself and not let them spill over into treating other people badly.

“Respecting other people’s beliefs” is a faulty way of thinking.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino

They have the right to believe…
[/quote said:

No. This is the root cause of the problem. Nobody has a right to believe in things that are not known or not knowable. Beliefs do not matter, If you really can’t get through life without some sort of belief system in things that re not real, then you have the responsibility to keep them to yourself and not let them spill over into treating other people badly.

“Respecting other people’s beliefs” is a faulty way of thinking.

Its quite fair isn’t it, believe what you like but shut up about it, don’t impose it on others and certainly don’t expect respect if you condemn those that are different based on stories from made up gods.

No comment.

….ooops – I’ve badly stuffed up the quoting system

party_pants said:

….ooops – I’ve badly stuffed up the quoting system

Since MkII died I’ve been besieged by all manner of religious nutters people giving me the good news/advice.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The people supporting Israel Folau in his court battle with Rugby Australia

Some priests have place themselves above the law by refusing to name paedophile priests.

People supporting Israel Folau have also placed themselves above the law by wanting the religious freedom to discriminate, hate and abuse others rights.

They have the right to believe in but not enforce some beliefs which then places them in conflict with the law.

Either/orism strikes again.

People should have the right to both believe in and talk about anything that does not contravene the law.

Paedophilia is against the law, and refusing to disclose knowledge of unlawful acts is also against the law.

Quoting non-sensical stuff from the Bible is not against the law.

Treating both acts as though were equally bad doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t help anybody.

>Israel Folau

totally bullshit case imo, headed down the USA path australia is.

saying stuff likely to offend, and why, because you feel repressed?

of course everyone represses things, minds function on inhibitory mechanisms, otherwise it’d be madness, perhaps even hell.

totally bullshit, to the point it’d be embarrassing if a gave shit.

transition said:

>Israel Folau

totally bullshit case imo, headed down the USA path australia is.

saying stuff likely to offend, and why, because you feel repressed?

of course everyone represses things, minds function on inhibitory mechanisms, otherwise it’d be madness, perhaps even hell.

totally bullshit, to the point it’d be embarrassing if a gave shit.

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Israel Folau

totally bullshit case imo, headed down the USA path australia is.

saying stuff likely to offend, and why, because you feel repressed?

of course everyone represses things, minds function on inhibitory mechanisms, otherwise it’d be madness, perhaps even hell.

totally bullshit, to the point it’d be embarrassing if a gave shit.

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

fairly much my point

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Israel Folau

totally bullshit case imo, headed down the USA path australia is.

saying stuff likely to offend, and why, because you feel repressed?

of course everyone represses things, minds function on inhibitory mechanisms, otherwise it’d be madness, perhaps even hell.

totally bullshit, to the point it’d be embarrassing if a gave shit.

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

fairly much my point

Yes it should really be applied to religion as well in that you can have freedom but also give it in return and not spout off nonsense in public about a bias some book may or may not have actually quoted.

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Israel Folau

totally bullshit case imo, headed down the USA path australia is.

saying stuff likely to offend, and why, because you feel repressed?

of course everyone represses things, minds function on inhibitory mechanisms, otherwise it’d be madness, perhaps even hell.

totally bullshit, to the point it’d be embarrassing if a gave shit.

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

fairly much my point

That’s one reason why I like this forum. Filters can be less stringent here.

Religious people talk all sorts of bollocks some harmless but a lot not and it shouldn’t be excused as part of religious freedom.
Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as if someone called black people niggers, the later would get you in all sorts of deep water today as it should and you’d be unlikely to say it’s my religious freedom to do so

Cymek said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

fairly much my point

Yes it should really be applied to religion as well in that you can have freedom but also give it in return and not spout off nonsense in public about a bias some book may or may not have actually quoted.

yeah more it’s just sensitivity and manners you might learn by 11 yo

like reticence, reluctance, some time to evaluate what may not be appropriate, that may even be potentially misunderstood.

most people don’t say most of the shit that goes through their heads, that’s the norm

Tamb said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

People do have filters though, you can think stuff but not have to say it in public.

fairly much my point

That’s one reason why I like this forum. Filters can be less stringent here.

in a way the regulars here do know each other fairly well. There’s quite some respect with familiarity.

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

furious said:

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

Who said that ?

• Who said that ?

Presumably this is about Isreal Folau? In the same post where he said homosexuals will go to hell, he listed a few other sins, amongst them was liars. Where is the outrage on behalf of the liars? In fact, his grouping of “sins” probably covers 95% of the population…

furious said:

• Who said that ?

Presumably this is about Isreal Folau? In the same post where he said homosexuals will go to hell, he listed a few other sins, amongst them was liars. Where is the outrage on behalf of the liars? In fact, his grouping of “sins” probably covers 95% of the population…

OK, don’t liars get burnt pants
Lying is a survival instinct I mean if a women asks “Does this make my bum look big” do you lie and even then its hard as do they want or not want a large looking bottom and do you say what they want to hear even if it’s a lie.

Cymek said:

furious said:

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

Who said that ?

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

transition said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

Who said that ?

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

It’s much nicer for one religion to say certain groups are going to hell than for another to advocate beheading other groups

transition said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

Who said that ?

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

I think so yes, they haven’t even been thought out very well, like a tokenistic reward or punishment

I despair at how God ever became more than metaphor for wonders, unknowns, that sort of thing.

tragic really, otherwise a useful metaphor.

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

transition said:

I despair at how God ever became more than metaphor for wonders, unknowns, that sort of thing.

tragic really, otherwise a useful metaphor.

I can’t believe people would be satisfied with the answer of only god knows
I mean science is so interesting and exciting, both the search and gaining of knowledge, why be ignorant.

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

We all have the opportunity for lying. Fornication is much more difficult to accomplish.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

We all have the opportunity for lying. Fornication is much more difficult to accomplish.

You also lie to get the fornication

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

We all have the opportunity for lying. Fornication is much more difficult to accomplish.

You also lie to get the fornication

Nice double entendre.

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

transition said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

• Is saying stuff about gays going to hell as nasty as …

… someone saying liars going to hell?

Who said that ?

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

Weren’t you arguing a little while back that people should keep their opinions on that sort of thing to themselves?

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

Me too.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Lying is probably more a lifestyle choice than something you have little control over. so the outrage isn’t there for liars. bit like fornicators etc etc.

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

But same sex marriage is legal.

It’s strange the gayness is an issue when gay marriage is passed as law, you think that sort of nonsense is gone.
I’m not sure how it’s not considered a faux pas like someone mouthing off about skin colour.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The group “fornicators” includes the group “homosexuals”, as the terms are used in the document being discussed.

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

I just don’t split the term up into subcategories.

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

It is all a figment of imagination.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

It is all a figment of imagination.

It is but you could have beings technological so superior they quality as such.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

It is all a figment of imagination.

It is but you could have beings technological so superior they quality as such.

Yes but if they existed, they’d know about us.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

Once we know what caused it then it’s not godlike it’s just good science.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

Once we know what caused it then it’s not godlike it’s just good science.

A box of matches would once have been the work of some all powerful god.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

Once we know what caused it then it’s not godlike it’s just good science.

A box of matches would once have been the work of some all powerful god.

Just as a government dedicated to making the environment safe for all and denying all wastrels the chance to breathe air rather than fill the sea with plastic gadgets that are useless once they are taken out of the fancy looking box, would be the work of a yet unheard of god.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

It is all a figment of imagination.

It is but you could have beings technological so superior they quality as such.

Yes but if they existed, they’d know about us.

Possibly

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Disagree with the builders as a god bit.

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

Once we know what caused it then it’s not godlike it’s just good science.

That’s true, god probably is a supernatural term

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Compared to us though they might be, not all powerful though

Once we know what caused it then it’s not godlike it’s just good science.

That’s true, god probably is a supernatural term

GOD = gathering of demons.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well, in my grouping they are in different groups.

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

I just don’t split the term up into subcategories.

So you agree that all unmarried people who have sex are fornicators then.

I must have misunderstood you before.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

I just don’t split the term up into subcategories.

So you agree that all unmarried people who have sex are fornicators then.

I must have misunderstood you before.

well, i don’t call them that but that is the definition.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I just don’t split the term up into subcategories.

So you agree that all unmarried people who have sex are fornicators then.

I must have misunderstood you before.

well, i don’t call them that but that is the definition.

Whose definition?

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you agree that all unmarried people who have sex are fornicators then.

I must have misunderstood you before.

well, i don’t call them that but that is the definition.

Whose definition?

dictionaries.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well, i don’t call them that but that is the definition.

Whose definition?

dictionaries.

They can change. There is no restriction there.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Whose definition?

dictionaries.

They can change. There is no restriction there.

so? that is the current definition. don’t start this puerile shit.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dictionaries.

They can change. There is no restriction there.

so? that is the current definition. don’t start this puerile shit.

Not peurile. Inevitable.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

They can change. There is no restriction there.

so? that is the current definition. don’t start this puerile shit.

Not peurile. Inevitable.

with you it is…

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

They can change. There is no restriction there.

so? that is the current definition. don’t start this puerile shit.

Not peurile. Inevitable.

Hahah, can be both.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You had better come up with some new names for your groups then, since the normal definition of fornication is unmarried people having sex.

I just don’t split the term up into subcategories.

So you agree that all unmarried people who have sex are fornicators then.

I must have misunderstood you before.

most human relationships since man first existed have involved fornication (where it occurred), if you want to indulge the absurdity of imagining the idea retrospective with a moral spin.

otherwise fornication more loosely just means sex

anyway there are fornications going way back, back before the act even had a word-concept to describe it (some pointing grunts probably evolved), and there are fornications in progress (as I type), and there are also future fornications.

any religious disapproving angle on present fornication is going to require a substantial investment of imagination, I mean there’s a lot of it going on, it’d be quite a kinky endeavor imagining and responding to the scale of that. Frankly it’d be more of a serious worry if you were sure it wasn’t happening. Alarming in fact.

this leaves all the past and future fornications, again the scale of it is massive, or going to be massive of the latter. Not something I imagine, it’d be an orgy the scale of my modest computational organ loses interest quite rapidly. In fact i’m glad it’s mostly done in private, and none of my business.

this raises the question of if some public moralizing is in fact a type sex, a conversion.

that the pumped up moral faculties are a sort of erection.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

Who said that ?

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

Weren’t you arguing a little while back that people should keep their opinions on that sort of thing to themselves?

you’ll have to clarify for me to get your gist, not sure if you’re pointing to a contradiction or what

if I seem a little more assertive on the subject it’s because just recently it occurred to me there is some relationship between falling back on (+ promotion of) charities and philanthropy and the winding back of government services.

religion in this country has become (more) part of a political force to wind back what governments do, shifting more power to private wealth.

I don’t mind the subsidiary function thing (of government), but it’s got the point of being a subterranean conspiracy (speaking loosely).

hell, in the modern world, evident in Australia, is in everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money, it’s a soft fascism, no question can be usefully seen that way.

there are bastards out there that want to crush other forms of capital, and the ideology (devices) to do that are fairly much widely internalized now. In no small part courtesy the American film industry I might add.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

the only hell (of that sort) that exists is in the minds of people that want one, here on earth, to use to contrast (their) goodness.

which, analyzed, would have to be generated by a psychopathology.

there’s no evidence of God, or hell. None at all. A fucken invention, used in the social construction of reality.

if i’m wrong sue me.

Weren’t you arguing a little while back that people should keep their opinions on that sort of thing to themselves?

you’ll have to clarify for me to get your gist, not sure if you’re pointing to a contradiction or what

if I seem a little more assertive on the subject it’s because just recently it occurred to me there is some relationship between falling back on (+ promotion of) charities and philanthropy and the winding back of government services.

religion in this country has become (more) part of a political force to wind back what governments do, shifting more power to private wealth.

I don’t mind the subsidiary function thing (of government), but it’s got the point of being a subterranean conspiracy (speaking loosely).

hell, in the modern world, evident in Australia, is in everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money, it’s a soft fascism, no question can be usefully seen that way.

there are bastards out there that want to crush other forms of capital, and the ideology (devices) to do that are fairly much widely internalized now. In no small part courtesy the American film industry I might add.

My point is just that if you expect the right to say things as above, that I agree with but many people will find offensive, then you have to allow other people the right to say things that you find offensive. That doesn’t mean that there is no limit to what can be said in public, but the limit is a matter for the law, and should be fixed by the normal legal processes.

Rev, would you apply the same criteria to members of the armed services and police? There have been cases of people being disciplined for white supremacist social media activity.

“Any ADF member found to be associated with extremist ideologies can expect to be investigated and will potentially face adverse administrative action,” is their published policy.

I imagine in todays culture it’s an unsaid rule if you are in the public eye (bar politicians) you need to try and think before you post inflammatory comments on social media. It’s more about monetary loss from the disgruntled who take offence than the actual governing body caring about what’s said

the limit is a matter for the law, and should be fixed by the normal legal processes.

—

Soon to be amended by the happy-clappy Morriscum gubmint.

In the Folau case, it’s just about contract law, the Fair Work Act and whatever impact his $2m team can have on the case.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Weren’t you arguing a little while back that people should keep their opinions on that sort of thing to themselves?

you’ll have to clarify for me to get your gist, not sure if you’re pointing to a contradiction or what

if I seem a little more assertive on the subject it’s because just recently it occurred to me there is some relationship between falling back on (+ promotion of) charities and philanthropy and the winding back of government services.

religion in this country has become (more) part of a political force to wind back what governments do, shifting more power to private wealth.

I don’t mind the subsidiary function thing (of government), but it’s got the point of being a subterranean conspiracy (speaking loosely).

hell, in the modern world, evident in Australia, is in everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money, it’s a soft fascism, no question can be usefully seen that way.

there are bastards out there that want to crush other forms of capital, and the ideology (devices) to do that are fairly much widely internalized now. In no small part courtesy the American film industry I might add.

My point is just that if you expect the right to say things as above, that I agree with but many people will find offensive, then you have to allow other people the right to say things that you find offensive. That doesn’t mean that there is no limit to what can be said in public, but the limit is a matter for the law, and should be fixed by the normal legal processes.

I’m not part of a social movement. I don’t consider myself a model. I joy that my opinions aren’t contagious, or important elsewhere.

99+% of the limits are common manners and self-imposed restraint. Always have been, always will be

dv said:

Rev, would you apply the same criteria to members of the armed services and police? There have been cases of people being disciplined for white supremacist social media activity.

“Any ADF member found to be associated with extremist ideologies can expect to be investigated and will potentially face adverse administrative action,” is their published policy.

Depends what you mean by “the same criteria”, but in general it seems quite reasonable that members of the armed services, police, education services, and many other public services should have tighter restrictions on what they can say. Also extremist ideologies are a very different thing from mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

If we did we may have to redefine our term “God”
And a lot of other word like “Life”
If these builders had only one gender would they be homosexual according to the bible or just have no soul ?

Anyway how would you fin one it would be very “Black”

Way off topic….

Brett

Ian said:

the limit is a matter for the law, and should be fixed by the normal legal processes.

—

Soon to be amended by the happy-clappy Morriscum gubmint.

In the Folau case, it’s just about contract law, the Fair Work Act and whatever impact his $2m team can have on the case.

I don’t want to go back over Folau yet again, but in general there are legal restrictions about what an employment contract can say about activities outside work, and contracts that do not comply with the law are not valid contracts.

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

If we did we may have to redefine our term “God”
And a lot of other word like “Life”
If these builders had only one gender would they be homosexual according to the bible or just have no soul ?

Anyway how would you fin one it would be very “Black”

Way off topic….

Brett

I was thinking how religious concepts of god, messiahs, heaven, hell, etc are very simple and not well thought out, like a tokenistic effort to convince believers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Rev, would you apply the same criteria to members of the armed services and police? There have been cases of people being disciplined for white supremacist social media activity.

“Any ADF member found to be associated with extremist ideologies can expect to be investigated and will potentially face adverse administrative action,” is their published policy.

Depends what you mean by “the same criteria”, but in general it seems quite reasonable that members of the armed services, police, education services, and many other public services should have tighter restrictions on what they can say. Also extremist ideologies are a very different thing from mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

It’s a fairly mainstream (not a majority but a significant minority) idea among Baptists that non-Christians and non-baptised Christians are going to hell. I don’t specifically know whether this is the AoC view, but if Folau had said Jews are going to Hell, should that also be protected speech?

>>>>>I was thinking how religious concepts of god, messiahs, heaven, hell, etc are very simple and not well thought out,

Well the idea of Hell and of a Satan is a very new addition to Judeo Christianity The word hell is is such a throw away . We do not torture our worst criminal for a second . Every punishment , even life imprisonment is a finite punishment.
Folau supported torture for an infinite time , that is abhorrent .
As such should not be supported or tolerated .

>>>like a tokenistic effort to convince believers.

“convince” ?
coerce and control more like it

Brett

mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

—

Don’t mention Folau.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Rev, would you apply the same criteria to members of the armed services and police? There have been cases of people being disciplined for white supremacist social media activity.

“Any ADF member found to be associated with extremist ideologies can expect to be investigated and will potentially face adverse administrative action,” is their published policy.

Depends what you mean by “the same criteria”, but in general it seems quite reasonable that members of the armed services, police, education services, and many other public services should have tighter restrictions on what they can say. Also extremist ideologies are a very different thing from mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

It’s a fairly mainstream (not a majority but a significant minority) idea among Baptists that non-Christians and non-baptised Christians are going to hell. I don’t specifically know whether this is the AoC view, but if Folau had said Jews are going to Hell, should that also be protected speech?

Can we swap Morrison for Folau?

Is it OK for Morrison to say that his personal belief is that all non-baptised people, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc, are going to hell?

If that is what he believes, and I suppose it is, then yes, certainly he should be allowed to say it.

Being PM, it would though be quite reasonable for those who decide the PMship to decide that they don’t want someone with that opinion in the role.

“Well the idea of Hell and of a Satan is a very new addition to Judeo Christianity “

(not sure whose quote that is)

A new addition?

It’s in the book. It can’t be that new.

Ian said:

mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

—

Don’t mention Folau.

I’m trying to avoid it.

Happy to discuss what Morrison is allowed to say though.

Thomo said:

>>>>>I was thinking how religious concepts of god, messiahs, heaven, hell, etc are very simple and not well thought out,

Well the idea of Hell and of a Satan is a very new addition to Judeo Christianity The word hell is is such a throw away . We do not torture our worst criminal for a second . Every punishment , even life imprisonment is a finite punishment.
Folau supported torture for an infinite time , that is abhorrent .
As such should not be supported or tolerated .

>>>like a tokenistic effort to convince believers.

“convince” ?
coerce and control more like it

Brett

hell’s a social trash can basically, very handy in this day and age, the evolving culture of love you know, as governments wind back provisioning of housing, essential services, and leave any form of egalitarianism behind them.

Ian said:

mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

—

Don’t mention Folau.

I did once, but I think I got away with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Depends what you mean by “the same criteria”, but in general it seems quite reasonable that members of the armed services, police, education services, and many other public services should have tighter restrictions on what they can say. Also extremist ideologies are a very different thing from mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

It’s a fairly mainstream (not a majority but a significant minority) idea among Baptists that non-Christians and non-baptised Christians are going to hell. I don’t specifically know whether this is the AoC view, but if Folau had said Jews are going to Hell, should that also be protected speech?

Can we swap Morrison for Folau?

Is it OK for Morrison to say that his personal belief is that all non-baptised people, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc, are going to hell?

If that is what he believes, and I suppose it is, then yes, certainly he should be allowed to say it.

Being PM, it would though be quite reasonable for those who decide the PMship to decide that they don’t want someone with that opinion in the role.

Some Christians intense dislike of Jews doesn’t even make sense.
Their messiah was a Jew and even if the Jews were responsible for killing Christ, his entire life was leading up the event, it was preordained and fate and he came back anyway which reinforced the view he was the son of god.

Woodie said:

Ian said:

mainstream Christian ideologies, which has been the focus of recent discussions.

—

Don’t mention Folau.

I did once, but I think I got away with it.

Don’t do the silly walk though

doesn’t surprise me at all that the less generous human sentiments might find expression in something that appears quite different, opposite even works, transformed apparently.

there are so many ways to hide things, and humans are the master dissemblers, nothing compares.

transition said:

doesn’t surprise me at all that the less generous human sentiments might find expression in something that appears quite different, opposite even works, transformed apparently.

there are so many ways to hide things, and humans are the master dissemblers, nothing compares.

or master sublimators

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

I imagine in our search for aliens through various projects, if we found a Dyson type structure that would qualify the builders as a god, could swat us like a bug. Realistically in a century or so we could create life from scratch and enter into that category at the lowest level.

If we did we may have to redefine our term “God”
And a lot of other word like “Life”
If these builders had only one gender would they be homosexual according to the bible or just have no soul ?

Anyway how would you fin one it would be very “Black”

Way off topic….

Brett

I was thinking how religious concepts of god, messiahs, heaven, hell, etc are very simple and not well thought out, like a tokenistic effort to convince believers.

Well it’s very hard to be consistent when you’re just making shit up, in an ad hoc post factum committee.

Ian said:

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

If we did we may have to redefine our term “God”
And a lot of other word like “Life”
If these builders had only one gender would they be homosexual according to the bible or just have no soul ?

Anyway how would you fin one it would be very “Black”

Way off topic….

Brett

I was thinking how religious concepts of god, messiahs, heaven, hell, etc are very simple and not well thought out, like a tokenistic effort to convince believers.

Well it’s very hard to be consistent when you’re just making shit up, in an ad hoc post factum committee.

True but not even much effort goes into it and people accept it.
Like heaven you die and go to be with god and everyone you love for eternity.
Sounds like a punishment and what if you came from an abusive family and had no one to love and are people still people with all our failings plus you can’t interact with the real world so you leave everyone behind and miss their lives.

>>>> True but not even much effort goes into it and people accept it.
Like heaven you die and go to be with god and everyone you love for eternity.
Sounds like a punishment and what if you came from an abusive family and had no one to love and are people still people with all our failings plus you can’t interact with the real world so you leave everyone behind and miss their lives.

Makes me laugh , people imagine lying around listening to Harps …
I don’t want to do that now

Thomo said:

>>>> True but not even much effort goes into it and people accept it.
Like heaven you die and go to be with god and everyone you love for eternity.
Sounds like a punishment and what if you came from an abusive family and had no one to love and are people still people with all our failings plus you can’t interact with the real world so you leave everyone behind and miss their lives.

Makes me laugh , people imagine lying around listening to Harps …
I don’t want to do that now

I’ve never seen them depicted as lying around. They are all standing around in awkward poses.

Tamb said:

Thomo said:

>>>> True but not even much effort goes into it and people accept it.
Like heaven you die and go to be with god and everyone you love for eternity.
Sounds like a punishment and what if you came from an abusive family and had no one to love and are people still people with all our failings plus you can’t interact with the real world so you leave everyone behind and miss their lives.

Makes me laugh , people imagine lying around listening to Harps …
I don’t want to do that now

I’ve never seen them depicted as lying around. They are all standing around in awkward poses.

Like a Lowes underwear or pajama ad

Thomo said:

Tamb said:

Thomo said:

>>>> True but not even much effort goes into it and people accept it.
Like heaven you die and go to be with god and everyone you love for eternity.
Sounds like a punishment and what if you came from an abusive family and had no one to love and are people still people with all our failings plus you can’t interact with the real world so you leave everyone behind and miss their lives.

Makes me laugh , people imagine lying around listening to Harps …
I don’t want to do that now

I’ve never seen them depicted as lying around. They are all standing around in awkward poses.

Like a Lowes underwear or pajama ad

Certainly a nightgown ad. Flowing voluminous garments.

Christian Porter, said the proposed religious discrimination legislation would “not necessarily be very contentious” because it would be similar to other anti-discrimination legislation.

While the legislation is planned, it doesn’t appear to be written yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/03/coalition-wants-to-amend-marriage-act-as-part-of-new-laws-to-protect-religious-freedom

Ian said:

Christian Porter, said the proposed religious discrimination legislation would “not necessarily be very contentious” because it would be similar to other anti-discrimination legislation.

While the legislation is planned, it doesn’t appear to be written yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/03/coalition-wants-to-amend-marriage-act-as-part-of-new-laws-to-protect-religious-freedom

They’re merely ensuring that more and more people are going to question the whole concept of “religious freedom”, which seems to amount to nothing more than a demand that religious believers be entitled to stomp on the rights of other people.

when you think about it, the concept of hell, it’s application, suggests a desire to have people past (the dead) subject to ideology, which a sane person might find disturbing, if it went unabstracted. Of course that dubious business isn’t monopolized by the religious.

transition said:

when you think about it, the concept of hell, it’s application, suggests a desire to have people past (the dead) subject to ideology, which a sane person might find disturbing, if it went unabstracted. Of course that dubious business isn’t monopolized by the religious.

You’d think if hell was real the real baddies like Hitler would be recruited by Satin to be a demon

transition said:

when you think about it, the concept of hell, it’s application, suggests a desire to have people past (the dead) subject to ideology, which a sane person might find disturbing, if it went unabstracted. Of course that dubious business isn’t monopolized by the religious.

I am not religious at all but got the usual New Testament religious hour stuff. My main objection was the unfairness of the “system” (as taught to kidlets”, I used to wonder why did people over in the next valley or in other countries who had never heard of Jesus, or who died before he was born, get to go through extra hurdles.

Cymek said:

transition said:

when you think about it, the concept of hell, it’s application, suggests a desire to have people past (the dead) subject to ideology, which a sane person might find disturbing, if it went unabstracted. Of course that dubious business isn’t monopolized by the religious.

You’d think if hell was real the real baddies like Hitler would be recruited by Satin to be a demon

A demon in the sheets eh…

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

“A former Adelaide doctor jailed for trying to murder a pharmacist”

It’s a jungle out there.

A Maxwell’s demon in the sheets, a Maxwell’s silver hammer in the streets.

If the Catholic church is allowed to refuse to employ gays, why isn’t a gay business allowed to refuse to employ Catholics?

Answer: because superstition is privileged by law, and this government is determined to increase the privileges of the superstitious. And the Opposition is likely to support them.

AwesomeO said:

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

That’s disappointing but as long as you’re continuing to improve, you’ll be stronger by the time you do go home.

AwesomeO said:

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

vancomycin probs, covering all bases wrt to bacteria.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

vancomycin probs, covering all bases wrt to bacteria.

That’s the one.

For me, I reject all the literal interpretations of the bible and look at first principles. What is good and evil? Good is basically doing what is right by everyone else, and evil is being prick who ruins it for everyone else. It is a summary of what society considers good and useful versus what it considers bad and harmful. All of the things we associate with being evil (dishonesty, lying, cheating, stealing, deceit, bullying, violence, anger, greed etc) are harming others in the desire to satisfy selfish impulses, and all of the things we associate with being good (like honesty, truth, generosity, kindness, loyalty, self control, being peaceful and loving, caring etc) are a repression of the selfish impulses for the benefit of others.

The Christian ideas if Satan and God are just a conceptual model of how to chose one from the other. It sets up a dichotomy with exemplars at each extreme, one representing perfect good and one representing perfect evil. You imagine that each person is inside your head giving you advice, one telling you how to act good, the other always giving you the evil option. So if you want to do good, then always listen to the still small voice of Jesus and do what Jesus would do. I have no problem with that.

Where it gets a bit muddier is when we start adding on and embellishing the concept. The evil guy lives in an evil place and practices his evil upon those that live there. The good guy lives in a perfectly good place and all the people that live there get to experience perfect goodness. So you call these places Heaven and Hell.

The problem of course arises when people start believing in the conceptual model to be real, or how the real world ought to be. This is the path to ideology and fanaticism. Utter belief in made up things is where good people can be led to do evil things.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

vancomycin probs, covering all bases wrt to bacteria.

Dr House used to like vancomycin.

I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think it is linked to senses of wonder and a quest for understanding all of which due to some brain switch, separated us from apes that were prepared to stay in the trees and forage and never contemplate a belly button.

It seems to be pretty fundamental to the human condition, all societies engage in it, though not everybody needs to believe, I am sure that whilst a creation myth was being retold around a home fire more than a few of those huddled were going pffft.

AwesomeO said:

I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think it is linked to senses of wonder and a quest for understanding all of which due to some brain switch, separated us from apes that were prepared to stay in the trees and forage and never contemplate a belly button.

It seems to be pretty fundamental to the human condition, all societies engage in it, though not everybody needs to believe, I am sure that whilst a creation myth was being retold around a home fire more than a few of those huddled were going pffft.

The brain switch responsible for religion is actually an ERROR signal that goes unnoticed by the believers.

There are far more important things that separate us from apes, than a tendency to believe bullshit.

AwesomeO said:

I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think it is linked to senses of wonder and a quest for understanding all of which due to some brain switch, separated us from apes that were prepared to stay in the trees and forage and never contemplate a belly button.

It seems to be pretty fundamental to the human condition, all societies engage in it, though not everybody needs to believe, I am sure that whilst a creation myth was being retold around a home fire more than a few of those huddled were going pffft.

I think it serves several useful purposes, religion in general that is, not any specific brand of religion. Community bonding through ritual and affirmation is one of them. Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other. In some sense I think that the importance of ritual is the performance of it rather than the specific rites or the idea behind it. people go to church to get that hit of brain chemical release, the actual message is unimportant.

>I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think the traditional homophobia of religion should be thanked, because it’s helping to ensure that religion is dying out at an accelerated rate.

Religion is increasingly seen not just as unbelievable, but socially harmful. The churches and their lobbyists are energetically digging their own graves.

>Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other.

Such as when they’re ripping out human hearts to sacrifice to the sun god, or burning heretics at the stake, throwing the gays off roofs, exploding the backpack in the crowded market square etc.

Happy happy happy.

Bubblecar said:

>I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think the traditional homophobia of religion should be thanked, because it’s helping to ensure that religion is dying out at an accelerated rate.

Religion is increasingly seen not just as unbelievable, but socially harmful. The churches and their lobbyists are energetically digging their own graves.

Religion is dying out? I don’t think so.

party_pants said:

I think it serves several useful purposes, religion in general that is

It has given us some lovely art and architecture.

As for happy brain chemicals, yes. People like being in a tribe of like-minded people.

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

And I am in hospital for another two weeks, gotta find a newspaper somewhere. I am on two antibiotics meraperrim and vanququim or summit, hospital in the home only does one visit per day. On the plus side they are trying to transfer me to Maryborough so that’s another tour t shirt for antibiotics and also to plug into services which they can’t do from here. That will be over three months, easily defeating my previous.

vancomycin probs, covering all bases wrt to bacteria.

Dr House used to like vancomycin.

It’s the go to for weird side effects and treating things you don’t know wtf are.

I had a woman get Redman syndrome from it…

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

>I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think the traditional homophobia of religion should be thanked, because it’s helping to ensure that religion is dying out at an accelerated rate.

Religion is increasingly seen not just as unbelievable, but socially harmful. The churches and their lobbyists are energetically digging their own graves.

Religion is dying out? I don’t think so.

In Western countries the fastest growing group are the “nones”, people with no religion. In Australia we already outnumber the Catholics, the single largest religious group.

Bubblecar said:

>Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other.

Such as when they’re ripping out human hearts to sacrifice to the sun god, or burning heretics at the stake, throwing the gays off roofs, exploding the backpack in the crowded market square etc.

Happy happy happy.

No, that’s the bit where it becomes corrupted and goes too far. Faith is a corruption of religion and not its primary purpose. The primary purpose is creating social bonds.

I don’t think Americans are turning against religion.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

>Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other.

Such as when they’re ripping out human hearts to sacrifice to the sun god, or burning heretics at the stake, throwing the gays off roofs, exploding the backpack in the crowded market square etc.

Happy happy happy.

No, that’s the bit where it becomes corrupted and goes too far. Faith is a corruption of religion and not its primary purpose. The primary purpose is creating social bonds.

I think you’re being naive. Organised religion has always been about power and social control, ensuring the dominance of a priestly elite and their appointed kings, etc, largely through fear and other manipulation.

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think Americans are turning against religion.

They are. “Nones” are the fastest growing group there too, but they’re coming from a position in which there were more believers and larger religious participation than in other Western countries.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

>Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other.

Such as when they’re ripping out human hearts to sacrifice to the sun god, or burning heretics at the stake, throwing the gays off roofs, exploding the backpack in the crowded market square etc.

Happy happy happy.

No, that’s the bit where it becomes corrupted and goes too far. Faith is a corruption of religion and not its primary purpose. The primary purpose is creating social bonds.

I think you’re being naive. Organised religion has always been about power and social control, ensuring the dominance of a priestly elite and their appointed kings, etc, largely through fear and other manipulation.

I agree. Organised religion is usually corrupt. But it is not all about ruling by fear, there is some reward in there too with the happy brain chemicals and ritual. This is what keeps people coming back week after week, the emotional reward. You can’t beat emotion with logic. Emotion is a deeper primitive thing. You can’t persuade some people out of religion without giving them some kind of emotional alternative. People are always going to search for that emotional fulfillment, whether it be through organised religion or through some other form of neo-paganism or spirituality or some other alternative movement, searching for that emotional hit that logic and reason alone cannot provide.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think Americans are turning against religion.

They are. “Nones” are the fastest growing group there too, but they’re coming from a position in which there were more believers and larger religious participation than in other Western countries.

But this phenomenon is basically restricted to western culture, everywhere else it’s business as usual.

Bubblecar said:

>Human brains are wired to release happy brain chemicals in response to positive interactions with each other.

Such as when they’re ripping out human hearts to sacrifice to the sun god, or burning heretics at the stake, throwing the gays off roofs, exploding the backpack in the crowded market square etc.

Always some idiot gunna take things a bit too far.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think Americans are turning against religion.

They are. “Nones” are the fastest growing group there too, but they’re coming from a position in which there were more believers and larger religious participation than in other Western countries.

But this phenomenon is basically restricted to western culture, everywhere else it’s business as usual.

Not really. Most Chinese are not religious. The “nones” are rapidly increasing in Arab countries*.

The decline of religion is certainly more marked in the West but it’s likely to become a global trend.

*A survey of more than 25,000 people across 10 countries and the Palestinian territories found that trust in religious leaders has plummeted in recent years.

The study, compiled by BBC News Arabic and Arab Barometer, a Princeton University-based research network, also identified a marked rise in the proportion of people describing themselves as “not religious” – from 11% in 2012-2014 to 18% this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/24/arab-world-turns-its-back-on-religion-and-its-ire-on-the-us

Bubblecar said:

AwesomeO said:

I think religion should probably be thanked.

I think it is linked to senses of wonder and a quest for understanding all of which due to some brain switch, separated us from apes that were prepared to stay in the trees and forage and never contemplate a belly button.

It seems to be pretty fundamental to the human condition, all societies engage in it, though not everybody needs to believe, I am sure that whilst a creation myth was being retold around a home fire more than a few of those huddled were going pffft.

The brain switch responsible for religion is actually an ERROR signal that goes unnoticed by the believers.

There are far more important things that separate us from apes, than a tendency to believe bullshit.

one important feature of religion, well there’s an expression of something important in it about, is that materialist culture tends (by contrast), after someone dies, to amplify the immediacy of that end, though for the living switching to an immediate end (death/gone) isn’t what the committed or invested mind is inclined. So heaven is there, and not at all an entirely unhelpful thing.

there is also, related, the prospect of a wasted life, in which a materialist culture denies any sort of afterlife, which influences the values and value of the living. In some ways all people enjoy something of an afterlife, one would hope, respect variously, even if just memories in practice, held by the living.

not much human is without memory.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t think Americans are turning against religion.

They are. “Nones” are the fastest growing group there too, but they’re coming from a position in which there were more believers and larger religious participation than in other Western countries.

Trouble is the “Nones” are lazy bastards. It’s a bugger of a job getting them off their couches and marching in the street.

party_pants said:

For me, I reject all the literal interpretations of the bible and look at first principles. What is good and evil? Good is basically doing what is right by everyone else, and evil is being prick who ruins it for everyone else. It is a summary of what society considers good and useful versus what it considers bad and harmful. All of the things we associate with being evil (dishonesty, lying, cheating, stealing, deceit, bullying, violence, anger, greed etc) are harming others in the desire to satisfy selfish impulses, and all of the things we associate with being good (like honesty, truth, generosity, kindness, loyalty, self control, being peaceful and loving, caring etc) are a repression of the selfish impulses for the benefit of others.

The Christian ideas if Satan and God are just a conceptual model of how to chose one from the other. It sets up a dichotomy with exemplars at each extreme, one representing perfect good and one representing perfect evil. You imagine that each person is inside your head giving you advice, one telling you how to act good, the other always giving you the evil option. So if you want to do good, then always listen to the still small voice of Jesus and do what Jesus would do. I have no problem with that.

Where it gets a bit muddier is when we start adding on and embellishing the concept. The evil guy lives in an evil place and practices his evil upon those that live there. The good guy lives in a perfectly good place and all the people that live there get to experience perfect goodness. So you call these places Heaven and Hell.

The problem of course arises when people start believing in the conceptual model to be real, or how the real world ought to be. This is the path to ideology and fanaticism. Utter belief in made up things is where good people can be led to do evil things.

Agree. Very well expressed.

:)

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

If Joesph Bloggs signs a contract with Rugby Australia that stipulates no religious vilification, and then he posts on social media that all Catholics are child molesters, I would support RA in sacking him for violating his contract.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

that’s fine, but making peoples sexuality (private business) a football, incitement i’d call it, is a different matter, likely to bring others into disrepute.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

If atheists behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

If religious believers behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

But the religious lobby (supported by the Rev) want to change the law so that the religious believers can’t be kicked out.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

For me, I reject all the literal interpretations of the bible and look at first principles. What is good and evil? Good is basically doing what is right by everyone else, and evil is being prick who ruins it for everyone else. It is a summary of what society considers good and useful versus what it considers bad and harmful. All of the things we associate with being evil (dishonesty, lying, cheating, stealing, deceit, bullying, violence, anger, greed etc) are harming others in the desire to satisfy selfish impulses, and all of the things we associate with being good (like honesty, truth, generosity, kindness, loyalty, self control, being peaceful and loving, caring etc) are a repression of the selfish impulses for the benefit of others.

The Christian ideas if Satan and God are just a conceptual model of how to chose one from the other. It sets up a dichotomy with exemplars at each extreme, one representing perfect good and one representing perfect evil. You imagine that each person is inside your head giving you advice, one telling you how to act good, the other always giving you the evil option. So if you want to do good, then always listen to the still small voice of Jesus and do what Jesus would do. I have no problem with that.

Where it gets a bit muddier is when we start adding on and embellishing the concept. The evil guy lives in an evil place and practices his evil upon those that live there. The good guy lives in a perfectly good place and all the people that live there get to experience perfect goodness. So you call these places Heaven and Hell.

The problem of course arises when people start believing in the conceptual model to be real, or how the real world ought to be. This is the path to ideology and fanaticism. Utter belief in made up things is where good people can be led to do evil things.

Agree. Very well expressed.

:)

Yes well put, I’m a catholic but the CoE cannon is much softer.
I don’t like the evangelicals, it’s all about the Pastor and his/her church, basically sprukers for money.
With the Catholic or Cof E mass the priest is just the intermediatery and any parish will do anywhere in the world.
“Wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name I will be there” etc.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

If atheists behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

If religious believers behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

But the religious lobby (supported by the Rev) want to change the law so that the religious believers can’t be kicked out.

The atheist lobby (supported by the so called Rev) wants to limit the right of employers to interfere in the outside work life of everybody. In principle and in general (with limited exceptions) this interference should be limited to behaviour that is illegal, or impacts directly and significantly on the business.

Whether the behaviour is religious, anti-religious, or something in between, has nothing to do with it.

Next to health is wealth
And only wealth will buy you justice

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d just like to say that I strongly support the right of all non-believers to openly express their non-belief without threat of adverse consequences from their employers, or other restriction of basic rights.

Unfortunately if that right is to be retained in a democratic environment then a similar right must be extended to believers.

If atheists behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

If religious believers behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

But the religious lobby (supported by the Rev) want to change the law so that the religious believers can’t be kicked out.

The atheist lobby (supported by the so called Rev) wants to limit the right of employers to interfere in the outside work life of everybody. In principle and in general (with limited exceptions) this interference should be limited to behaviour that is illegal, or impacts directly and significantly on the business.

Whether the behaviour is religious, anti-religious, or something in between, has nothing to do with it.

As has been pointed out, Falau’s antics were indeed “impacting directly and significantly” on his employer.

They certainly didn’t want to get rid of him, he was their star player. But with sponsorship threatened and RA constantly embroiled in a public controversy not of their own making, they felt they had no choice but to dump him.

Enough of this.

I’m watching Mad as Abhorrent Fiction Invented by Christian Bastards.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

If atheists behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

If religious believers behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

But the religious lobby (supported by the Rev) want to change the law so that the religious believers can’t be kicked out.

The atheist lobby (supported by the so called Rev) wants to limit the right of employers to interfere in the outside work life of everybody. In principle and in general (with limited exceptions) this interference should be limited to behaviour that is illegal, or impacts directly and significantly on the business.

Whether the behaviour is religious, anti-religious, or something in between, has nothing to do with it.

As has been pointed out, Falau’s antics were indeed “impacting directly and significantly” on his employer.

They certainly didn’t want to get rid of him, he was their star player. But with sponsorship threatened and RA constantly embroiled in a public controversy not of their own making, they felt they had no choice but to dump him.

Who?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

If atheists behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

If religious believers behave in an anti-social manner, employers are free to kick them out.

But the religious lobby (supported by the Rev) want to change the law so that the religious believers can’t be kicked out.

The atheist lobby (supported by the so called Rev) wants to limit the right of employers to interfere in the outside work life of everybody. In principle and in general (with limited exceptions) this interference should be limited to behaviour that is illegal, or impacts directly and significantly on the business.

Whether the behaviour is religious, anti-religious, or something in between, has nothing to do with it.

As has been pointed out, Falau’s antics were indeed “impacting directly and significantly” on his employer.

They certainly didn’t want to get rid of him, he was their star player. But with sponsorship threatened and RA constantly embroiled in a public controversy not of their own making, they felt they had no choice but to dump him.

Political conspiracy theory is they were under pressure from the Qantas chief.

Personally I don’t think an employer contract should be able to dictate what an employee does in their social pages unless it is related to employment. Policing of motherhood statements into a personal space is an intrusion too far.

AwesomeO said:

Personally I don’t think an employer contract should be able to dictate what an employee does in their social pages unless it is related to employment. Policing of motherhood statements into a personal space is an intrusion too far.

That’s just what I have been saying.

I’d better have a rethink.

>People should have the right to both believe in and talk about anything that does not contravene the law.

that’s a distorting proposition

they do have the right, the law is mostly applied after some transgression(and it’s application involves discretion, even forgiveness), which means you can do many things, even illegal things.

the law protects a space, a discretional space.

transition said:

>People should have the right to both believe in and talk about anything that does not contravene the law.

that’s a distorting proposition

they do have the right, the law is mostly applied after some transgression(and it’s application involves discretion, even forgiveness), which means you can do many things, even illegal things.

the law protects a space, a discretional space.

In what way is it distorting?

It is a very generalised and simplified statement, which means it is easy to pick holes in it, but as a statement of a general principle I think it is the opposite of distorting.

It is ignoring the principle that introduces the distortion.

Cymek said:

Lying is a survival instinct I mean if a women asks “Does this make my bum look big” do you lie and even then its hard as do they want or not want a large looking bottom and do you say what they want to hear even if it’s a lie.

Being asked that question is a ‘no-win’ situation; it’ll just be all down hill from there regardless of the answer you give.

Unsure if it has been mentioned in the thread but really this shouldn’t be about religious freedom but the rights of a corporation to maintain an image. Rugby Australia have (rightly IMHO) that what he said was incompatible with RA’s policies. I’m relatively sure he knew that prior to making the posts and besides, he was told that and had the chance to tone it down. Instead he made a big deal of it and so I believe that RA has every right to say ‘your public statements are incompatible with our image & therefore you have to go’.

Obviousman said:

Unsure if it has been mentioned in the thread but really this shouldn’t be about religious freedom but the rights of a corporation to maintain an image. Rugby Australia have (rightly IMHO) that what he said was incompatible with RA’s policies. I’m relatively sure he knew that prior to making the posts and besides, he was told that and had the chance to tone it down. Instead he made a big deal of it and so I believe that RA has every right to say ‘your public statements are incompatible with our image & therefore you have to go’.

Then the question becomes one of which is the more important right; the right of an individual to freely state their religious beliefs or non-beliefs outside the work place without getting sacked, or the right of corporations to maintain an image.

The answer would obviously depend on the particular case in question, but in general in my opinion the rights of the corporation (or other organisation) should only trump the rights of the individual in extreme cases, where the out of work behaviour has a clear and direct relationship with the employment duties.

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

The Rev Dodgson said:

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

what if the biology teacher still taught evolution as per the curriculum?
What if the RI teacher still taught RI as per the curriculum, or the doctrine of that particular school?

They are doing their job as pertaining to why they were employed.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

what if the biology teacher still taught evolution as per the curriculum?
What if the RI teacher still taught RI as per the curriculum, or the doctrine of that particular school?

They are doing their job as pertaining to why they were employed.

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Obviousman said:

Unsure if it has been mentioned in the thread but really this shouldn’t be about religious freedom but the rights of a corporation to maintain an image. Rugby Australia have (rightly IMHO) that what he said was incompatible with RA’s policies. I’m relatively sure he knew that prior to making the posts and besides, he was told that and had the chance to tone it down. Instead he made a big deal of it and so I believe that RA has every right to say ‘your public statements are incompatible with our image & therefore you have to go’.

Then the question becomes one of which is the more important right; the right of an individual to freely state their religious beliefs or non-beliefs outside the work place without getting sacked, or the right of corporations to maintain an image.

The answer would obviously depend on the particular case in question, but in general in my opinion the rights of the corporation (or other organisation) should only trump the rights of the individual in extreme cases, where the out of work behaviour has a clear and direct relationship with the employment duties.

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

You’ll need to do a flowchart, Dodgy Rev. You know, a complex array of artificial intelligence logic blocks to implement your plethora of ifs and buts. But no maybes OK? Just can’t have any maybes.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Obviousman said:

Unsure if it has been mentioned in the thread but really this shouldn’t be about religious freedom but the rights of a corporation to maintain an image. Rugby Australia have (rightly IMHO) that what he said was incompatible with RA’s policies. I’m relatively sure he knew that prior to making the posts and besides, he was told that and had the chance to tone it down. Instead he made a big deal of it and so I believe that RA has every right to say ‘your public statements are incompatible with our image & therefore you have to go’.

Then the question becomes one of which is the more important right; the right of an individual to freely state their religious beliefs or non-beliefs outside the work place without getting sacked, or the right of corporations to maintain an image.

The answer would obviously depend on the particular case in question, but in general in my opinion the rights of the corporation (or other organisation) should only trump the rights of the individual in extreme cases, where the out of work behaviour has a clear and direct relationship with the employment duties.

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

You’ll need to do a flowchart, Dodgy Rev. You know, a complex array of artificial intelligence logic blocks to implement your plethora of ifs and buts. But no maybes OK? Just can’t have any maybes.

Sorry, but there are always maybes.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Obviousman said:

Unsure if it has been mentioned in the thread but really this shouldn’t be about religious freedom but the rights of a corporation to maintain an image. Rugby Australia have (rightly IMHO) that what he said was incompatible with RA’s policies. I’m relatively sure he knew that prior to making the posts and besides, he was told that and had the chance to tone it down. Instead he made a big deal of it and so I believe that RA has every right to say ‘your public statements are incompatible with our image & therefore you have to go’.

Then the question becomes one of which is the more important right; the right of an individual to freely state their religious beliefs or non-beliefs outside the work place without getting sacked, or the right of corporations to maintain an image.

The answer would obviously depend on the particular case in question, but in general in my opinion the rights of the corporation (or other organisation) should only trump the rights of the individual in extreme cases, where the out of work behaviour has a clear and direct relationship with the employment duties.

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

You’ll need to do a flowchart, Dodgy Rev. You know, a complex array of artificial intelligence logic blocks to implement your plethora of ifs and buts. But no maybes OK? Just can’t have any maybes.

i reckon a spaghetti and meatballs diagram myself.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Then the question becomes one of which is the more important right; the right of an individual to freely state their religious beliefs or non-beliefs outside the work place without getting sacked, or the right of corporations to maintain an image.

The answer would obviously depend on the particular case in question, but in general in my opinion the rights of the corporation (or other organisation) should only trump the rights of the individual in extreme cases, where the out of work behaviour has a clear and direct relationship with the employment duties.

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

You’ll need to do a flowchart, Dodgy Rev. You know, a complex array of artificial intelligence logic blocks to implement your plethora of ifs and buts. But no maybes OK? Just can’t have any maybes.

Sorry, but there are always maybes.

No if’s, but’s, becauses, well, when’s or why’s

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

For instance, it would seem reasonable for a school to sack a biology teacher who tweeted that evolution didn’t happen, or a religious education teacher who facebooked that she thought all religions were mythical nonsense with no basis in fact, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to sack a maths teacher for either of these crimes, even if some parents objected to them, and threatened to remove their children from the school.

what if the biology teacher still taught evolution as per the curriculum?
What if the RI teacher still taught RI as per the curriculum, or the doctrine of that particular school?

They are doing their job as pertaining to why they were employed.

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what if the biology teacher still taught evolution as per the curriculum?
What if the RI teacher still taught RI as per the curriculum, or the doctrine of that particular school?

They are doing their job as pertaining to why they were employed.

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

OK, from “Use of Social Media by Defence Personnel” (DI(G) ADMIN 08-2). This has been superseded by the Defence Communications Manual but it will give you an idea.

Defence personnel are reminded that certain behaviour within a social media environment may amount to prejudicial conduct under the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act and the Australia Public Service Values & Code of Conduct…

In line with… the DFDA and the Public Service provisions…, Defence personnel must not post material that is offensive towards any group or person based on any personal traits, attributes, beliefs or practices that exploit, objectify or are derogatory of gender, ethnicity or religion. Such behaviour involving social media may amount to conduct that could constitute an offence…

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what if the biology teacher still taught evolution as per the curriculum?
What if the RI teacher still taught RI as per the curriculum, or the doctrine of that particular school?

They are doing their job as pertaining to why they were employed.

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

And that seems perfectly reasonable to me; not that it is up to me.

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

… and if enough people choose someone other than the current employee, that person is sacked.

Obviousman said:

OK, from “Use of Social Media by Defence Personnel” (DI(G) ADMIN 08-2). This has been superseded by the Defence Communications Manual but it will give you an idea.

Defence personnel are reminded that certain behaviour within a social media environment may amount to prejudicial conduct under the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act and the Australia Public Service Values & Code of Conduct…

In line with… the DFDA and the Public Service provisions…, Defence personnel must not post material that is offensive towards any group or person based on any personal traits, attributes, beliefs or practices that exploit, objectify or are derogatory of gender, ethnicity or religion. Such behaviour involving social media may amount to conduct that could constitute an offence…

The defence force also can’t wear, or display, “death” symbols because it goes against the “ethos” of the military. I would have thought that death symbols would be very much in line with the character of an armed force…

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

In what way?

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

Possibly, what a mess that is all for national pride

furious said:

Obviousman said:

OK, from “Use of Social Media by Defence Personnel” (DI(G) ADMIN 08-2). This has been superseded by the Defence Communications Manual but it will give you an idea.

Defence personnel are reminded that certain behaviour within a social media environment may amount to prejudicial conduct under the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act and the Australia Public Service Values & Code of Conduct…

In line with… the DFDA and the Public Service provisions…, Defence personnel must not post material that is offensive towards any group or person based on any personal traits, attributes, beliefs or practices that exploit, objectify or are derogatory of gender, ethnicity or religion. Such behaviour involving social media may amount to conduct that could constitute an offence…

The defence force also can’t wear, or display, “death” symbols because it goes against the “ethos” of the military. I would have thought that death symbols would be very much in line with the character of an armed force…

Surely if the ADF is fighting some group of people they are not prohibited from criticising them.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

Possibly, what a mess that is all for national pride

In what way is it a mess for national pride?

Cymek said:

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

I think you are on to something there….

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“We” have the opportunity to do that every 3 years or so.

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

Quite often not right either. (In both senses of the word)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I wonder in the USA if it’s harder to justify telling someone off for offensive comments on social media when the president does it all the time.
I wonder if many politicians especially conservatives are secretly racist/sexist but are reasonably smart enough to not make it obvious or portray it on social media due to the backlash they’d get.

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

In what way?

Protesting the result of the legally constituted vote.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Among other things – money.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

Possibly, what a mess that is all for national pride

In what way is it a mess for national pride?

National pride was the reason they decided to leave with what benefits for the UK as an independent nation

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

Shrug.

Regular elections seems a way better option than trying to impose some code of conduct on what politicians can say.

• Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

Who gets to decide which politicians should be sacked for which supposed infractions? Best leave it up to the constituents, I suppose. So what is the best way to make this happen? Popular vote would be the easiest method. Which is pretty much the way it is set up now…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

Shrug.

Regular elections seems a way better option than trying to impose some code of conduct on what politicians can say.

They should be held to a standard if they represent the people, but perhaps they do represent the people by acting the way they do.
If you get reprimanded in the public service for making inappropriate comments in the workplace it should apply to everyone, no political privilege nonsense

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

No we don’t. All we can do is choose between pollies.

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Politicians are all ‘sacked” every 3 years, and have to re-apply for their jobs again.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Would the anti Brexit protestors be bringing democracy into disrepute?

In what way?

Protesting the result of the legally constituted vote.

You have a problem with people protesting about a vote carried out years before, without any details on the matter being voted on, being treated as though it was set in stone for ever?

What could be more democratic than another vote, when the actual conditions of leaving or staying are better known?

furious said:

• Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

Who gets to decide which politicians should be sacked for which supposed infractions? Best leave it up to the constituents, I suppose. So what is the best way to make this happen? Popular vote would be the easiest method. Which is pretty much the way it is set up now…

I was thinking of the example of rorting travel allowance and lying about it to get money, why is that not a criminal charge.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

All then pollies that stuff up their citizenship stuff got sacked.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Among other things – money.

Money is a separate issue.

Some people do very nicely from being sacked. Many don’t.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Possibly, what a mess that is all for national pride

In what way is it a mess for national pride?

National pride was the reason they decided to leave with what benefits for the UK as an independent nation

No it wasn’t.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It should be a sackable offense shouldn’t it, they are titled the right honourable whomever when they are quite likely to not be honourable at all.

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Politicians are all ‘sacked” every 3 years, and have to re-apply for their jobs again.

If not reelected they still get large amounts of super, pensions, gold cards etc. Sacked employees get nothing.

furious said:

• Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

Who gets to decide which politicians should be sacked for which supposed infractions? Best leave it up to the constituents, I suppose. So what is the best way to make this happen? Popular vote would be the easiest method. Which is pretty much the way it is set up now…

I think that’s the first comment I agree with I’ve seen today.

I can go and do some work now :)

Woodie said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How is being voted out different to being sacked?

Sacked shows you did something wrong, voted out is enough people didn’t like you, one is less tarnished I suppose

All then pollies that stuff up their citizenship stuff got sacked.

Admittingly just with the small area I have worked in the government they cover up most infractions instead of dealing with them so what would be different at the top

Tamb said:

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would depend on the particular case, but since school children have access to tweets and facebooks (or so I hear), it might be considered a significant fault in the teachers’ teaching styles for them to say stuff outside school that was completely incompatible with what they said inside school.

But even if those examples are not considered sacking-worthy, I’m sure you can come up with an example where it would be reasonable for someone to be dismissed for some legal activity outside work.

I’m pretty sure that you can be sacked from Defence for ‘legal’ activity: if you were a neo-Nazi / white supremacist, for example, and posted such things on Farcebook, etc. You’d be asked to show cause, your activity bringing Defence into disrepute.

I’ll see if i can find the policy, just to make sure I am not bullshitting you.

Maybe we should sack some pollies for bringing politics into distepute.

Great idea.

Now, how do we get them to implement such a policy?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>People should have the right to both believe in and talk about anything that does not contravene the law.

that’s a distorting proposition

they do have the right, the law is mostly applied after some transgression(and it’s application involves discretion, even forgiveness), which means you can do many things, even illegal things.

the law protects a space, a discretional space.

In what way is it distorting?

It is a very generalised and simplified statement, which means it is easy to pick holes in it, but as a statement of a general principle I think it is the opposite of distorting.

It is ignoring the principle that introduces the distortion.

my point was people do believe in (whatever they like) and talk about anything, extending to illegal things, already

seems a substantial liberty already exists.

moving on, I have a question for you..

imagine for a moment your a religious person(I know it’s a stretch)

you’re a math teacher at a local school (stay with me), and want to advertise to sinners in social media, so they see the light and improve their prospects of being saved. Go to heaven you know, somewhere safe where the devil’s not chasing them around all the time, with that fork thing.

you post something unfriendly toward gays.

now, my question is not should you be allowed to state your religious belief, but how many times should you be allowed to do it.

you post once, and the sinners seem not persuaded, there’s no mass conversion, your good work has no end, so you then repost it or post something similar say on average every three days.

so my question is, if I license you to do it once, and you keep doing it, repetitiously, when does it become wrong?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>People should have the right to both believe in and talk about anything that does not contravene the law.

that’s a distorting proposition

they do have the right, the law is mostly applied after some transgression(and it’s application involves discretion, even forgiveness), which means you can do many things, even illegal things.

the law protects a space, a discretional space.

In what way is it distorting?

It is a very generalised and simplified statement, which means it is easy to pick holes in it, but as a statement of a general principle I think it is the opposite of distorting.

It is ignoring the principle that introduces the distortion.

my point was people do believe in (whatever they like) and talk about anything, extending to illegal things, already

seems a substantial liberty already exists.

moving on, I have a question for you..

imagine for a moment your a religious person(I know it’s a stretch)

you’re a math teacher at a local school (stay with me), and want to advertise to sinners in social media, so they see the light and improve their prospects of being saved. Go to heaven you know, somewhere safe where the devil’s not chasing them around all the time, with that fork thing.

you post something unfriendly toward gays.

now, my question is not should you be allowed to state your religious belief, but how many times should you be allowed to do it.

you post once, and the sinners seem not persuaded, there’s no mass conversion, your good work has no end, so you then repost it or post something similar say on average every three days.

so my question is, if I license you to do it once, and you keep doing it, repetitiously, when does it become wrong?

It depends.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In what way is it distorting?

It is a very generalised and simplified statement, which means it is easy to pick holes in it, but as a statement of a general principle I think it is the opposite of distorting.

It is ignoring the principle that introduces the distortion.

my point was people do believe in (whatever they like) and talk about anything, extending to illegal things, already

seems a substantial liberty already exists.

moving on, I have a question for you..

imagine for a moment your a religious person(I know it’s a stretch)

you’re a math teacher at a local school (stay with me), and want to advertise to sinners in social media, so they see the light and improve their prospects of being saved. Go to heaven you know, somewhere safe where the devil’s not chasing them around all the time, with that fork thing.

you post something unfriendly toward gays.

now, my question is not should you be allowed to state your religious belief, but how many times should you be allowed to do it.

you post once, and the sinners seem not persuaded, there’s no mass conversion, your good work has no end, so you then repost it or post something similar say on average every three days.

so my question is, if I license you to do it once, and you keep doing it, repetitiously, when does it become wrong?

It depends.

indulge me

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In what way is it distorting?

It is a very generalised and simplified statement, which means it is easy to pick holes in it, but as a statement of a general principle I think it is the opposite of distorting.

It is ignoring the principle that introduces the distortion.

my point was people do believe in (whatever they like) and talk about anything, extending to illegal things, already

seems a substantial liberty already exists.

moving on, I have a question for you..

imagine for a moment your a religious person(I know it’s a stretch)

you’re a math teacher at a local school (stay with me), and want to advertise to sinners in social media, so they see the light and improve their prospects of being saved. Go to heaven you know, somewhere safe where the devil’s not chasing them around all the time, with that fork thing.

you post something unfriendly toward gays.

now, my question is not should you be allowed to state your religious belief, but how many times should you be allowed to do it.

you post once, and the sinners seem not persuaded, there’s no mass conversion, your good work has no end, so you then repost it or post something similar say on average every three days.

so my question is, if I license you to do it once, and you keep doing it, repetitiously, when does it become wrong?

It depends.

Social media offence is a two way street, you could just ignore them and without an audience they’d probably stop if you react then they will continue. I personally couldn’t care what anyone says as if its something nasty I’d just classify them as a person not worthy of attention and ignore it

transition said:

indulge me

OK.

You are forgiven for asking a vague question with many different answers, depending on the particular circumstances.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

indulge me

OK.

You are forgiven for asking a vague question with many different answers, depending on the particular circumstances.

couldn’t have been that vague, you seem clear about there being different answers depending on circumstances.

>>Social media offence is a two way street, you could just ignore them and without an audience they’d probably stop if you react then they will continue. I personally couldn’t care what anyone says as if its something nasty I’d just classify them as a person not worthy of attention and ignore it.

probably most viewing on social media is passive, meaning no response, or view only.

I’ve been giving the matter some thought, and have clarified it into a couple of simplistic sentences:

If you live in a free and open society you should not have the right to correct or lecture a stranger over what they are doing wrong according to your religion.

Accept with good grace that not everybody has chosen the same pathway of faith as you.

If you want to be a witness for your faith do so by example and not by preaching.

———

I think this should be an explicit social bargain for all those who chose to live in a free and open society. I want Australia to strive to be such a free and open society.