- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
I suppose that's why they excluded Muslim paedophilia from the terms of reference...otherwise it would go on forever.
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.
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
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.
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.
Thank you, burglar. However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness.To me, PC is like fashion, in that it constitutes what passes as sane conversation around the water cooler.
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 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.
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.
Thank you, burglar. However, the question was addressed to Tink who is the person complaining about the unfairness of political correctness ...
... 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.
specific definitions can vary widely between denominations, geographical locations, and different schools of thought.
As has been pointed out, most good "Christian values" are Humanist values.
I don't care what you think. I prefer Christians to Muslims.
and my values are none of your business.
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.
As I recall the original terms of reference of the Commission, it excluded all family paedophilia, sexual abuse.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.
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.:
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
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.
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
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.
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"
pavilion103 said: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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?