- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
I think what is causing you confusion is that most Humanists are openly against religion and want to restrict the influence of religion in schools and on governments etc, which makes you think they want to forcibly abolish all religion. So when you see them step in and defend the rights of muslims, you think this is a contradiction.
What is really happening is that most humanists are pro religious freedom, even more so than most religious people, and they don't want members of one religion having their religious freedom trashed in favour of another.
For example, If you want to ban new mosques being built, then you need to ban new churches also, if you want to ban Muslim faith schools, you need to ban Christian ones.
I hate religion, I wish people would abandon all superstition in favour of rational thought, however I believe its peoples right to believe what they want, and as long as they are not harming anyone, and keep it out of government and schools, then I support their right to have and practice a religion, so protestors calling to ban mosques do not have my support, people can build as many churches or mosques as they like, as long as its not government subsidized.
I actually support religious freedom more than the religious people here, I mean they only want freedom for their brand, I want everyone to have religious freedom, so long as its not infringing on the rights of others.
No.
My confusion is in the observation that secular aspects of our notionally Christian society are subjugated in favour of the expression of religious minorities.
For instance the absurd (and ambiguous) banning of Christmas hymns in Victorian state schools. On the face of it not unreasonable if you want to remove religious from school. But in actuality, it expressly refers to the Christian religion.
Is it then reasonable to ban the observance of Ramadan in schools, ban the hijab, or anything symbolic of one's faith?
The religions of the Asian far East, Buddists, Taoists etc, have coexisted... and even participated in the secular cultural aspects of or Christian tradition (Just like atheists/humanists). Even the Afghani Muslims that have been here for generations haven't batted an eyelid.
It is only the open expression of fundamentalist Islamism which has caused the stupid left to start banning our own culture.
As I have said, our country was built on our Christian Heritage.
Christmas has been here a lot longer than your political correctness,
If they are offended by Christmas songs, and feel the need to destroy Christmas for the children, banning hymns from schools, they need to grow up.
The Communists are here, welcome to North Korea.
.............Banning our culture from expression is refuting who we are and I simply can't believe that we are allowing this to happen. Our "leaders" need a good, swift kick up the backside, bloody morons.
I am gobsmacked that our "leaders" are doing this. We are a Christian culture and if anyone doesn't like it, too bad!
Banning hymms and nativity scenes and the like is just cowtowing to some rose coloured view of I don't know what. Banning our culture from expression is refuting who we are and I simply can't believe that we are allowing this to happen. Our "leaders" need a good, swift kick up the backside, bloody morons.
No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.
.
Is it then reasonable to ban the observance of Ramadan in schools, ban the hijab, or anything symbolic of one's faith?
.
What's wrong with teaching children to respect their fellows and treat others as they would like to be treated ?
.
It doesn't have to have a Bible or Christian wrapping, Jesus's teaching were mainly ones of civil courtesy towards others (why do you take offence at that ?), and I see no problem teaching those values without promoting any particular religion
No we are a secular democracy, religion is for sunday schools, not public schools.
No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.
I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination).
Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.
As I have said, our country was built on our Christian Heritage.
Christmas has been here a lot longer than your political correctness,
If they are offended by Christmas songs, and feel the need to destroy Christmas for the children, banning hymns from schools, they need to grow up.
The Communists are here, welcome to North Korea.
Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture.
I'm not a christian as such and while I think the lords prayer is probably inappropriate in parliament these days, I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination). Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.
Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture.
I'm not a christian as such and while I think the lords prayer is probably inappropriate in parliament these days, I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination). Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.
s116 Australian Constitution said:The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
No we are a secular democracy, religion is for sunday schools, not public schools.
No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.
I'd go as far as to say the reading of the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional.
The standing orders require the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to recite the Lord's prayer (a protestant version of it too, I might add. Which no doubt has its origins in the anti-Catholic sentiment of the late 19th/early 20th century in Australia). How is that not imposing a religious observance? Or if that doesn't make the cut because the standing orders are not law, how does it not amount to a "religious test"?
I've no issue with religion being taught at school as long as the pupil has the choice of which religion to study or can opt out instead.
.
I do have an issue that our society having its roots and was built on a Christian faith, can't express that fact for fear of upsetting someone. Too bad I say, this is the way it is, deal with it.
For children, what I would like to see is that kids make their own mind up whether to study or believe in a religion.
I'd go as far as to say the reading of the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional.
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?