There is not much difference between threats of intention and action. Religious freedom wants the freedom to discriminate get rid of gays and fornicators, while Nazis want to kill Jews and Islamic extremists.want to kill infidels.

Consider the intent of the above the and intent of the following.

Terrorists who intend to bomb an event.

Bank robbers who intend to rob a bank.

Someone who is intending to commit a mass shooting.

Why should the law allow some threats and not others?

Tau.Neutrino said:

There is not much difference between threats of intention and action. Religious freedom wants the freedom to discriminate get rid of gays and fornicators, while Nazis want to kill Jews and Islamic extremists.want to kill infidels.

Consider the intent of the above the and intent of the following.

Terrorists who intend to bomb an event.

Bank robbers who intend to rob a bank.

Someone who is intending to commit a mass shooting.

Why should the law allow some threats and not others?

The law does not allow any significant threats.

Don’t allow religious extremists to hijack the words “religious freedom”.

Tau.Neutrino said:

There is not much difference between threats of intention and action. Religious freedom wants the freedom to discriminate get rid of gays and fornicators, while Nazis want to kill Jews and Islamic extremists.want to kill infidels.

Consider the intent of the above the and intent of the following.

Terrorists who intend to bomb an event.

Bank robbers who intend to rob a bank.

Someone who is intending to commit a mass shooting.

Why should the law allow some threats and not others?

> There is not much difference between threats of intention and action.

Whoa! Until recently, i would have agreed with you. Until it was pointed out to me that there is a world of difference vetween obsessive and compulsive.

Let me take a simple example. Compare the threat of “i want Trump out of office” to the action of removing Trump from office. Half the world wants Trump out of office, but only a tiny fraction of a percent of those will take action to remove Trump from office.

We can’t have a law that prohibits non-credible threats, not without descending into a Stalinist regime.

> Why should the law allow some threats and not others?

I’m reading the biography of a policeman. And the key to deciding which threats to allow and which to arrest comes down to reading people. For example, one person had a samurai sword by his side and a gun on the table in front of him. He was going for the gun. To shoot him or not to shoot him, split second decision. In that split fraction of a second the policeman determined that the gun was a replica, and didn’t shoot.

Determining which threats to allow is very very important, as is the rapid and correct response should the threat change into action.

> Religious freedom

One religious freedom that concerns me greatly, the only one, is that the Australian Aboriginal religion allows murder and cannibalism. In one documented case the Aboriginal law forced a mother to eat her own baby. We’re talking real action here, not intent.

Why should white law allow Aboriginal religion to operate completely unrestrained in large tracts of this country?

mollwollfumble said:

Why should white law allow Aboriginal religion to operate completely unrestrained in large tracts of this country?

I very much doubt that it does.

Do you have some evidence for this?

>gays and fornicators

chuckle

it was a gay fornicator that worked out the secret code of the expansionist heterosexual war machine in WW2, while the fascists were bending each other over with ideology.

I just realised that the site of the Cooby Creek Tracking Station is only about 2km from me. I’m pretty sure i’ve been past it at least once, without knowing what it was.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3962449,151.9388658,361m/data=!3m1!1e3

Might drive out there tomorrow.

captain_spalding said:

I just realised that the site of the Cooby Creek Tracking Station is only about 2km from me. I’m pretty sure i’ve been past it at least once, without knowing what it was.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3962449,151.9388658,361m/data=!3m1!1e3

Might drive out there tomorrow.

Oh, bugger, wrong thread again.

captain_spalding said:

captain_spalding said:

I just realised that the site of the Cooby Creek Tracking Station is only about 2km from me. I’m pretty sure i’ve been past it at least once, without knowing what it was.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3962449,151.9388658,361m/data=!3m1!1e3

Might drive out there tomorrow.

Oh, bugger, wrong thread again.

I fully support your right to drive out there if you want to.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

captain_spalding said:

I just realised that the site of the Cooby Creek Tracking Station is only about 2km from me. I’m pretty sure i’ve been past it at least once, without knowing what it was.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3962449,151.9388658,361m/data=!3m1!1e3

Might drive out there tomorrow.

Oh, bugger, wrong thread again.

I fully support your right to drive out there if you want to.

Seems like the appropriate day for it.

mollwollfumble said:

One religious freedom that concerns me greatly, the only one, is that the Australian Aboriginal religion allows murder and cannibalism. In one documented case the Aboriginal law forced a mother to eat her own baby. We’re talking real action here, not intent.

Why should white law allow Aboriginal religion to operate completely unrestrained in large tracts of this country?

Oh dear…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

I think we should make a clear distinction between belief and delusion.

I define belief as a personal conviction that some thing is true that is unknowable or not known at this time. I am happy to tolerate belief, but respect is stretching it.

When belief crosses the blurry line into delusion I have a problem with it. I define delusion as a personal conviction that something is true even though it is known to be wrong, and can be shown or demonstrated to be wrong. We should not be tolerating delusions, let alone respecting them. People with delusions should be excluded from the conversation.

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

And that is a big concern.

more on

Why the PM and most Christians are ‘going to hell’
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

Scott Morrison is going to hell. So is Hillsong Pastor Brian Houston and most of the donors who gave money to former Wallaby star Israel Folau’s legal defence fund organised by the Australian Christian Lobby, according to the teachings of Folau’s church.

Another Hate Group.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

>Religions also hate each other.

good part of competition philosophy picks up respectability as it goes through the instrument of salvation, selling you Satan

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

>Religions also hate each other.

good part of competition philosophy picks up respectability as it goes through the instrument of salvation, selling you Satan

meaning you could baptize a committed Social Darwinist, then deconstruct the conversion, and still find a Social Darwinist, doing Gods good work apparently

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

I am hoping that this case will reinforce your right to direct your hate speech at those of religious faith without suffering adverse financial consequences.

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

I agree.

The interaction between human physical survival rates and various tribal cultures seems to have been fairly neglected for some reason.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/why-the-israel-folau-case-is-relevant-to-you/11282386

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

I am hoping that this case will reinforce your right to direct your hate speech at those of religious faith without suffering adverse financial consequences.

I don’t actually harbour hatreds, and my rejection of religion is based on rational arguments. Thus it won’t be protected by laws that seek to protect religious beliefs.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It is an important case.

Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms. Because it’s not just “the gays” that various religions hate.

Religions also hate each other. For example, one of Folau’s groups headed for the fires of Hell are “idolaters”, which is usually Protestant code for “Catholics”. If all religious sectarian bigotries are allowed full and free expression with no consequences in terms of employment etc, it’s a green light for ever-extending hate speech – as long as it’s superstitious hate speech.

And that’s the crowning irony – bigotry will be deemed “socially acceptable” on the condition that it is based on supernatural beliefs. i.e., impossible to rationally defend.

The law will say: As long as your hatreds make no sense, you should be free to indulge them.

I am hoping that this case will reinforce your right to direct your hate speech at those of religious faith without suffering adverse financial consequences.

I don’t actually harbour hatreds, and my rejection of religion is based on rational arguments. Thus it won’t be protected by laws that seek to protect religious beliefs.

I doubt that the wording of any new legislation will make protection of beliefs dependent on them being irrational, and I doubt that the courts will introduce such a restriction if it is not in the legislation.

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

As much as the Rev apparently finds it distasteful for businesses to maintain codes of ethics and conduct, presumably they’ll still be free to do so even if they can’t enforce them.

What this will mean for companies like Rugby Australia is unclear. I assume when a religious player violates their contract RA will merely be able to inform the public that this behaviour is against their code of conduct and that they disapprove of it but can’t do anything about it, and hope that’s enough to appease their sponsors who also take exception to that behaviour.

Or perhaps the law will be extended to ensure sponsors have to continue sponsorship deals that they no longer support.

All seems to be a massive intrusion into accepted freedoms, purely for the sake of allowing a bigot to give free rein to his bigotry without suffering adverse professional consequences.

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

Ian said:

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

I like that one

transition said:

Ian said:

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

I like that one

Deviate!

Ian said:

transition said:

Ian said:

I like that one

Deviate!

don’t tell anyone.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I am hoping that this case will reinforce your right to direct your hate speech at those of religious faith without suffering adverse financial consequences.

I don’t actually harbour hatreds, and my rejection of religion is based on rational arguments. Thus it won’t be protected by laws that seek to protect religious beliefs.

I doubt that the wording of any new legislation will make protection of beliefs dependent on them being irrational, and I doubt that the courts will introduce such a restriction if it is not in the legislation.

> Deciding that religiously sanctioned homophobia warrants legal protection in this way would open up a huge can of worms.

Or that religeously sanctioned paedophilia warrents legal protection?

transition said:

Ian said:

transition said:

i’m fairly sure you could get survival of the religiously fittest into Herbert Spencer’s original idea, give it some respectability

there you are, a new term, religious fitness

I like that one

Heathen

Bubblecar said:

All seems to be a massive intrusion into accepted freedoms, purely for the sake of allowing a bigot to give free rein to his bigotry without suffering adverse professional consequences.

The right of commercial organisations to interfere in the private lives of their employees is not an “accepted freedom”.

To make it a legislated freedom would have adverse consequences far beyond an over-zealous Christian sportsman losing his excessive payments.

Australia is such a young country.

We tend to forget that this is at least the thousandth time that religious leaders have tried to interfere in the law.

The whole purpose of the humanitarian movement and, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole purpose of the British legal system that we’ve inherited is to stop religious leaders from using religion as a way to infect the Law.

mollwollfumble said:

The whole purpose of the humanitarian movement and, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole purpose of the British legal system that we’ve inherited is to stop religious leaders from using religion as a way to infect the Law.

Keep going…

>The right of commercial organisations to interfere in the private lives of their employees is not an “accepted freedom”.

high profile sports people get a lot of their status from being models to the broader community, so are subject to their audiences’ opinions/values.

seems to me your pondering the nature of overdetermining social forces really, overreach that way.

God’s an undetermined entity, requiring overdetermining belief to compensate.

transition said:

>The right of commercial organisations to interfere in the private lives of their employees is not an “accepted freedom”.

high profile sports people get a lot of their status from being models to the broader community, so are subject to their audiences’ opinions/values.

seems to me your pondering the nature of overdetermining social forces really, overreach that way.

God’s an undetermined entity, requiring overdetermining belief to compensate.

underdetermined ^ that should say

and your should be you’re, or you are

i’m thorough