Religion IS crazy!

[Calliope]

THE royal commission into child sexual abuse says it needs another $104 million and an extra two years to do its job and to allow victims to tell their stories.

I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.

 

[sydboy007]

I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.

I've read the terms of reference and I can't see anything that would preclude any religion or any organisation from having child abuse exposed. If you can point me to something that specially excludes Islamic organisations I'd be greatly interested because I'd be right on the phone to my local Federal member to ask why and get that fixed. hopefully you've already done the same.

Maybe there's been no reporting of Islamic paedophilia because they're a bit like how the Catholic church, along with other organisations, was for the last half century. Plenty of people knowing it's going on but no one with the conscience to expose it.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/about-us/terms-of-reference

AND We declare that in these Our Letters Patent:
child means a child within the meaning of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
government means the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, and includes any non-government institution that undertakes, or has undertaken, activities on behalf of a government.
institution means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described, and:
i. includes, for example, an entity or group of entities (including an entity or group of entities that no longer exists) that provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families; and
ii. does not include the family.
institutional context: child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:
iii. it happens on premises of an institution, where activities of an institution take place, or in connection with the activities of an institution; or
iv. it is engaged in by an official of an institution in circumstances (including circumstances involving settings not directly controlled by the institution) where you consider that the institution has, or its activities have, created, facilitated, increased, or in any way contributed to, (whether by act or omission) the risk of child sexual abuse or the circumstances or conditions giving rise to that risk; or
v. it happens in any other circumstances where you consider that an institution is, or should be treated as being, responsible for adults having contact with children.
law means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.
official, of an institution, includes:
vi. any representative (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
vii. any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
viii. any person, or any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of a body or other entity, who provides services to, or for, the institution or a related entity; and
ix. any other person who you consider is, or should be treated as if the person were, an official of the institution.

related matters means any unlawful or improper treatment of children that is, either generally or in any particular instance, connected or associated with child sexual abuse.

 

[Calliope]

I've read the terms of reference and I can't see anything that would preclude any religion or any organisation from having child abuse exposed. If you can point me to something that specially excludes Islamic organisations I'd be greatly interested because I'd be right on the phone to my local Federal member to ask why and get that fixed. hopefully you've already done the same.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/about-us/terms-of-reference

I don't want to get into semantics about "specially excludes" but unless you consider the Islamic faith to be an "institution " it certainly is excluded. And the reason they got no complaints about Muslim child abuse is because they did not ask for it.

I suppose you are also aware that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children takes place in the family environment and they didn't want to hear about that either. Muslim paedophilia is almost always in the family context.

Letters Patent; Definition of Institution

Institution means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described, and:
i. includes, for example, an entity or group of entities (including an entity or group of entities that no longer exists) that provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families; and
ii. does not include the family.
institutional context: child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:
iii. it happens on premises of an institution, where activities of an institution take place, or in connection with the activities of an institution; or
iv. it is engaged in by an official of an institution in circumstances (including circumstances involving settings not directly controlled by the institution) where you consider that the institution has, or its activities have, created, facilitated, increased, or in any way contributed to, (whether by act or omission) the risk of child sexual abuse or the circumstances or conditions giving rise to that risk; or
v. it happens in any other circumstances where you consider that an institution is, or should be treated as being, responsible for adults having contact with children.
law means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.
official, of an institution, includes:
vi. any representative (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
vii. any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and
viii. any person, or any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of a body or other entity, who provides services to, or for, the institution or a related entity; and
ix. any other person who you consider is, or should be treated as if the person were, an official of the institution.

Terms of reference; (part)

AND noting that, without diminishing its criminality or seriousness, your inquiry will not specifically examine the issue of child sexual abuse and related matters outside institutional contexts, but that any recommendations you make are likely to improve the response to all forms of child sexual abuse in all contexts.

 

[Julia]

To me, PC is like fashion, in that it constitutes what passes as sane conversation around the water cooler.

Thank you, burglar. However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness.

I had a Catholic upbringing, so I find that I still have Christian values.
Becoming an Agnostic or Atheist does not require one to lose one's values.

Since you've raised this, I'd also be interested in what you think constitutes "Christian values" and how these values would be unavailable to anyone who declines to follow any religion.

I don't want to get into semantics about "specially excludes" but unless you consider the Islamic faith to be an "institution " it certainly is excluded. And the reason they got no complaints about Muslim child abuse is because they did not ask for it.

Or perhaps because, having brought out its interim report today, the Commission has made the point that it would need another two years and a large additional amount of funding to be able to cover fully all the institutions and individual complaints presented to it.
So perhaps do not draw the conclusions you are at this stage.

 

[burglar]

Thank you, burglar. However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness ...

Not redirecting questions away from Tink.
Nor answering on her behalf.


I am not a "question cop", ...
I am just adding my take!
(pav calls it interjecting)

... Since you've raised this, I'd also be interested in what you think constitutes "Christian values" and how these values would be unavailable to anyone who declines to follow any religion.

As has been pointed out, most good "Christian values" are Humanist values.
They are definitely not "unavailable" to the literate.
Maybe that makes them unavailable to Muslim women.

Wiki gives:

specific definitions can vary widely between denominations, geographical locations, and different schools of thought.

I agree with Wiki and therefore will not be drawn on the question.

However, I will offer that I no longer ?"turn the other cheek"!

 

[Calliope]

Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this Commission was set up, with the full support of the public and the media, with the sole purpose of targetting the Catholic Church with a little collateral damage along the way to the Salvation Army and some church schools etc.

It is fitting that the spotlight should be shone on thes odious practices, but the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in a closed family environment with the predators being family friends or relatives. In the case of Muslims, because of the complete subjugation of their women and children in the family environment, the Commission takes the easy way out and excludes them from their terms of reference.

 

[Value Collector]

As has been pointed out, most good "Christian values" are Humanist values.

Good, perhaps we should call them humanist values then, or perhaps just good morals, Because attaching a certain brand of religion to it not only attempts to credit ownership of those values to that faith, but it also causes confusion with all the morally bankrupt values of the faith.

eg, if some one uses the term "Good Christian values", I have no idea whether they are talking about love thy neighbour, or about to start an anti gay hate rant.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't care what you think. I prefer Christians to Muslims.

Ok, but a statement like that makes no sense, unless the reason is racism or xenophobia.

and my values are none of your business.

I didn't ask you about your values, I asked for your definition of "Christian values"

 

[pavilion103]

Good, perhaps we should call them humanist values then, or perhaps just good morals, Because attaching a certain brand of religion to it not only attempts to credit ownership of those values to that faith, but it also causes confusion with all the morally bankrupt values of the faith.

eg, if some one uses the term "Good Christian values", I have no idea whether they are talking about love thy neighbour, or about to start an anti gay hate rant.

Christian values do not "hate anti gays". That has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not agree with homosexuality, but this should not be equated with hate. Non-Christians don't agree with Christianity but it doesn't mean they are full of "hate for Christians".

Unfortunately many fail to see that it is actually much of society and the media that has attached things like "hate anti gays" to Christianity. This is the problem when people pick out a few people that hold up hate signs and believe that they are appropriately representing Christian values. Shows like ACA do not help, not just for Christians but for a number of groups and people.

But most importantly, rather than trying to check this out for themselves, people WANT to believe these misconceptions. It is convenient for them, so they spread them and thus the confusion grows further.


People in general disagree on all sorts of issues under the sun.
And people are allowed to respectfully disagree.
There is a lot of irony in a person calling a Christian intolerant because the Christian doesn't agree with their view

 

[pavilion103]

I didn't ask you about your values, I asked for your definition of "Christian values"
Easy. Jesus summed it up like this.
"To love the Lord your God with your heart, mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself."

This is a good way to define Christian values.


To love someone as yourself doesn't mean to agree with everyone on everything.
There are many people that we all love but that we have respectful disagreements with.

Some of the big ones; homosexuality, abortion.

A Christian believes that man and woman were created for relationship. They also believe that life begins at conception and want to preserve this.

If a Christian goes up to a homosexual person or someone who believes abortion is ok and abuses them, insults them etc, then that is NOT Christian values.
If a Christian expresses their view on the topic and has a respectful disagreeance with these people in a loving way that IS Christian values.

In the same way that if a non-Christian person abuses a Christian or calls them narrow minded for holding a particular view that is NOT love (and in fact is ironically showing their narrow-mindedness themself).
But if they respectfully disagree with the Christian in a loving way that IS love.

It's the same for both sides.

Both can have lunch after, talk about the footy and have a good laugh together, whilst still holding differing views.

 

[Julia]

Even with an extension the Commission has no authority to depart from its Terms of Reference and the Letters Patent, which certainly excludes Islamic paedophilia in the family environment.

As I recall the original terms of reference of the Commission, it excluded all family paedophilia, sexual abuse.
Not, as you are asserting, specifically that relating to Muslims.

 

[Value Collector]

Christian values do not "hate anti gays". That has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not agree with homosexuality, but this should not be equated with hate.:

Well that depends on which brand of Christianity, But you admit some Christians definition of "good Christian values" would cause them to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality.

Unfortunately many fail to see that it is actually much of society and the media that has attached things like "hate anti gays" to Christianity

Nope, its those people holding the signs and calling them selves Christians who are attaching connotations, It is not our fault their is over 10,000 brands of your religion that all sprout slightly different views but still label them selves Christian, and use the term "Christian values"

But most importantly, rather than trying to check this out for themselves, people WANT to believe these misconceptions. It is convenient for them, so they spread them and thus the confusion grows further.

That's why am asking people to define what they mean, But as I said, it not our fault that Christians throw around the generic term, attaching it to so many things.

And people are allowed to respectfully disagree.
There is a lot of irony in a person calling a Christian intolerant because the Christian doesn't agree with their view

I agree that we are allowed to disagree with each other, However it is wrong / immoral to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. So if your view is that discrimination is ok, then you are wrong, and me saying you are wrong is not me being intolerant of your view.

 

[pavilion103]

Well that depends on which brand of Christianity, But you admit some Christians definition of "good Christian values" would cause them to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality.



Nope, its those people holding the signs and calling them selves Christians who are attaching connotations, It is not our fault their is over 10,000 brands of your religion that all sprout slightly different views but still label them selves Christian, and use the term "Christian values"



That's why am asking people to define what they mean, But as I said, it not our fault that Christians throw around the generic term, attaching it to so many things.



I agree that we are allowed to disagree with each other, However it is wrong / immoral to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. So if your view is that discrimination is ok, then you are wrong, and me saying you are wrong is not me being intolerant of your view.

1. It is not discrimination but a disagreement. And respectful disagreement at that.
One example. In terms of things like marrying in churches etc, it seems so silly. Why would an organisation that specifically disagrees with homosexuality marry them? This isn't discrimination. Church and government are separate. It's the same with any club that has a criteria or value system. People that join these organisations/clubs do so because they have they share the same beliefs.

If I am speaking with the head of a classic car club and I have a really cool modern car, I'm not going to complain to the guy that he is discriminating me because he won't let me into the club or to display my car in the club. He will tell me there are other clubs for that. It's all cool. I wouldn't then go and kick up a fuss that this guy is disciminating against me.
Common sense guys!

2. On the misrepresentation of Christians.

I can call myself a pilot, I can dress like a pilot, but if I don't fly a plane I'm not a pilot.

You can believe I'm a pilot because I cal myself one and dress like one, but you would be incorrect in this belief (heck you could even get on a plane with me and fly if you really wanted to).

 

[McLovin]

Nope, its those people holding the signs and calling them selves Christians who are attaching connotations, It is not our fault their is over 10,000 brands of your religion that all sprout slightly different views but still label them selves Christian, and use the term "Christian values"

Exactly. Christian "values" run the full spectrum from Jesuits helping lepers in India through to Fred Phelps' Church picketing the funerals of dead soliders with "God hates fags" signs.

It is not discrimination but a disagreement. And respectful disagreement at that.
One example. In terms of things like marrying in churches etc, it seems so silly. Why would an organisation that specifically disagrees with homosexuality marry them?

They shouldn't have to. As you point out, the church is not the government and it should be free to chose who or who it doesn't want to marry.

 

[pavilion103]

Exactly. Christian "values" run the full spectrum from Jesuits helping lepers in India through to Fred Phelps' Church picketing the funerals of dead soliders with "God hates fags" signs.



They shouldn't have to. As you point out, the church is not the government and it should be free to chose who or who it doesn't want to marry.

Exactly.

In terms of the government, Christians can have their view and vote for the political party whose views they agree with. However, the majority vote will win. This is the way it works obviously.

The Christian may agree or disagree with the morality of the law but it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. They may campaign to change it in future, but that is a different matter.
The law doesn't reflect morality but the majority consensus.

 

[Value Collector]

Easy. Jesus summed it up like this.
"To love the Lord your God with your heart, mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself."

This is a good way to define Christian values.

flick over to luke 14:26 and jesus says

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Is this Christian values?

If a Christian goes up to a homosexual person or someone who believes abortion is ok and abuses them, insults them etc, then that is NOT Christian values.

Except there are Christian groups that completely disagree with you and do just that.

the bible also says you should stone gays to death etc.

you can cherry pick as many nice verses as you like, the fact is your bible is the big book of multiple choice, you can love thy neighbour, or you can own slaves, both represent Christian values.

In the same way that if a non-Christian person abuses a Christian or calls them narrow minded for holding a particular view that is NOT love (and in fact is ironically showing their narrow-mindedness themself).

Not if the person is actually genuinely narrow minded, and refuses to accept facts.

But if they respectfully disagree with the Christian in a loving way that IS love.

some people respond to soft discussions, others respond better to more adversarial engagements, both ways have merit.

 

[pavilion103]

McLovin, I also agree there are corrupt "Christian" organisations that label themselves in this way.

I see what you are saying.

This is why I could just as easily drop the "Christian" label and adopt the label "A follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ". This label then eliminate those other "Christian" organisations who claim to be following Christ's teachings but actually aren't.

 

[pavilion103]

flick over to luke 14:26 and jesus says

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Is this Christian values?



Except there are Christian groups that completely disagree with you and do just that.

the bible also says you should stone gays to death etc.

you can cherry pick as many nice verses as you like, the fact is your bible is the big book of multiple choice, you can love thy neighbour, or you can own slaves, both represent Christian values.




Not if the person is actually genuinely narrow minded, and refuses to accept facts.



some people respond to soft discussions, others respond better to more adversarial engagements, both ways have merit.

Luke 14:26 - study the Greek, study the context. Actually take the time to understand what Jesus is saying. The word "hate" here mean to "love less".
Jesus is saying that God is to be the primary priority in one's life if they are to be a follower of Christ.

The best part about this is that God loves and promotes family and a love for God with all your heart will result in a natural outflow of great love for the family.


Look at the history and the context of the Old Testament laws. They were created for a Theocracy.
Study the intended purposes of these laws, the background, the context, which parts God actually agreed with and didn't agree with.
Study this in detail so that you have an informed opinion.


Under the new covenant Jesus summed it up as "love the Lord your God and your neighbour as yourself".


Study why there was a new covenant.
Study the relationship of this to the old covenant.
Understand the broader picture.
If you want to know the truth about it you will do your research.
If you really don't want to then I am of no help to you here.

 

[Value Collector]

This is why I could just as easily drop the "Christian" label and adopt the label "A follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ". This label then eliminate those other "Christian" organisations who claim to be following Christ's teachings but actually aren't.

I don't think that would help, because your still lugged with all the immoral teachings of jesus.

eg.
Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.


not to mention where jesus states during the sermon on the mount that none of the laws of the old testament are changing hence stoning etc is still ok.

 

[Value Collector]

This guy is probably the most rational Christian I have heard talk about gay marriage, I agree with him.