‘Australians are very skeptical’: Michael Kirby warns against ‘excessive protection’ of religious freedoms
By - dazedjosh
Yes we are skeptical & it’s outrageous we have a heavily Pentecostal influenced Federal government.
It really shows - the highest levels of corruption, disgusting rape scandals, poor behaviour and a do-nothing PM who’s completely out of his depth.
So the religious lobby groups are wondering why nothing has been done? What a long running joke.
Scooter can’t even get us all vaccinated, which should be his priority.
If religious groups cared about their religion as much as they said they do, they would be lobbying the government to stamp out corruption as greed is a sin.
Not according to the prosperity gospel. Lots of money means you have god's favour so therefore poor people are sinners and deserve everything your government inflicts on them
Prosperity gospel is heresy.
Meh. The gospels themselves are the original Christian heresy.
It's a Jewish heresy. Or perhaps a Reformation, depending on your point of view. Certainly not a Christian one.
Sure it is. Pauline Christianity (the earliest writings) is very different from the later Gospels. The earliest gospel was pretty explicate that the whole thing should be read as an allegory. It was only later on that the church fathers locked those gospels in as "fact", denying the deeper mysteries of the early church to those who followed. What we got was a bastardised orthodoxy that was "trading on a name".
For that to be true, you'd have to say that there was no oral tradition contiguous with the Pauline Epistles, which isn't really believable.
>The earliest gospel was pretty explicate that the whole thing should be read as an allegory.
That's a new one. The oldest gospel as far as we know is Mark, and that doesn't come across with an allegorical tone. Your alternative is the Q source, for which we've found no written evidence for so far.
>It was only later on that the church fathers locked those gospels in as "fact", denying the deeper mysteries of the early church to those who followed.
The First Council of Nicea was an attempt to establish historicity and truth from the many different Christian sects/traditions of the time. We can see from the various canons established that there were many different Christian practices which differed from church to church. Not sure what you're referring to as "deeper mysteries" specifically, but if you're referring to the Apocrypha, anyone can read those (and some of them are clearly the earliest examples of fan fiction which try to put in bits of foreshadowing, like Judas and Jesus knowing each other in childhood)
Circling back to the original point about early Christianity somehow being a Christian heresy, that's clearly ridiculous. Christianity is a schism/heresy/reformation/breakaway from Judaism. It establishes a different covenant in which god is accessible to Gentiles, presents Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy (i.e. Jesus is the Messiah), new religious practices (collectivism, dining with non-Jews, abolition of animal sacrifice, etc), and establishing a new religious authority (the Apostles replacing the established Jewish priesthood). It's very clearly cleaved from Judaism, and hence a Jewish heresy.
> For that to be true, you'd have to say that there was no oral tradition contiguous with the Pauline Epistles, which isn't really believable.
No, I'm saying the the oral tradition contiguous with the Pauline Epistles is not
substantively the "authoritative" gospels that followed. It is unknowable, yes: but if you imagine that early oral tradition as the Truth and contrast it with the internal and historical inconsistencies of the current cannon, you can see that something is up.
> That's a new one. The oldest gospel as far as we know is Mark, and that doesn't come across with an allegorical tone.
> Not sure what you're referring to as "deeper mysteries" specifically
The oral tradition contiguous with the Pauline Epistles.
> It's very clearly cleaved from Judaism, and hence a Jewish heresy.
Pauline Christianity is a Jewish heresy yes, but I'm saying that the 2nd century church is a heresy of that. They morphed allegory into historicity (and forged and altered some of the Epistles) just so they could establish an authoritative source for their own doctrinal assertions and establish an orthodoxy that ensconced their power.
I'd be very skeptical of that. Josephus as a source for Mark is extremely dubious for a start as Josephus is dated at 94CE, and Mark would be dated at 70CE to the best of our knowledge.
There's a lot of speculation in your comment which isn't consistent with the current evidence.
>The oral tradition contiguous with the Pauline Epistles.
That's a huge assumption. There's no solid evidence that the oral tradition was contiguous with the Pauline epistles, and there is evidence that suggests that it was not.
>Pauline Christianity is a Jewish heresy yes, but I'm saying that the 2nd century church is a heresy of that.
As there was no established orthodoxy or canon, then there can be no heresy. The purpose of the First Council of Nicea was to establish a formal church with a consistent canon and set of religious norms. If it was heresy, exactly what orthodoxy was it heresy against?
You spelt god wrong. its spelt A-Y-N- -R-A-N-D.
How dare you suggest that their powerful _thoughts & prayers_ achieve nothing! ^/s
It really is a cure all miracle remedy!!
If prayers didn't work how is he PM? Huh
Very true, he definitely didn't get there on merit!
Yep. "Faith" is all too often used as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card/carte blanche for bigotry, discrimination, oppression and abuse.
>“somewhat fewer Christians gave Labor their first preference at the 2019 election”, the report argued they may instead have been spooked by Labor’s tax policies given greater economic conservatism of religious people.
Australian boomers, while they like their gods, like their investment properties and franking credits more.
Basically a bunch of self serving hypocrites.
This is why if you're Federal Labor, you hit the Boomer voters with the recent changes to the Medicare system. Keep that slogan simple.
"The Lib/Nats want American-style Healthcare."
That's the message. Keep hammering it home. Those investment properties and tax-free bucks? Away they go if you need major complicated surgery. Let them connect the dots.
>"The Lib/Nats want American-style Healthcare."
As an American, I hope that any foreign politician who even *thinks* about supporting the kind of healthcare we have here gets their citizenship revoked. The American healthcare system is the kind of system that should be an example to everyone else on how not to do healthcare.
EDIT: Thanks for the silver!
> The American healthcare system is the kind of system that should be an example to everyone else on how not to do healthcare.
But we have the party of rent seekers in power, and their donors can make a fortune from that style of healthcare.
>As an American, I hope that any foreign politician who even thinks about supporting the kind of healthcare we have here gets their citizenship revoked.
If they think it's so great, they should just move to the US. Experience it first hand.
American healthcare is the best in the world for those who can afford it. Of course those who can afford it want that type of healthcare.
>"The Lib/Nats want American-style Healthcare."
Too long and complicated.
"Save our Medicare".
Lib/Nats counter with the usual "It's the best funded it's ever been, we've put a bazillion-jajillion into is since 1901, of course we won't touch an Aussie Icon."
You want to play on Boomers fear. No-one wants American-style Healthcare. Even Americans don't want American-style healthcare, which is why they sneak into Canada to by meds or Mexico for cosmetic surgery. Will the big funding go into the pockets of cronies to the Lib/Nats in private health insurance? Of course it will, and you can point to...fuck, every other thing they've tried to fund and where the dosh ends up.
You do \*NOT\* win those critical Boomer votes by appealing to their better nature. You win them by **making the other side of politics look like it's gonna cost them more money personally.** The bonus for Labor is they can actually point to every other kind of corrupt fuckery that's happened under Scomo and go "Really? You think they won't fuck you on this one issue?"
The other thing is getting coverage in the media for your three-word slogan. Fucked if i know how to fix that one tho.
>No-one wants American-style Healthcare.
You say this. But Greg Hunt does. Even spoke about it in his maiden speech in parliament.
And he's our health minister!
~~No-one wants American-style Healthcare.~~ Ok, no-one that isn't a IPA stooge or has a vested interest in dragging the private health-care insurance companies in Australia out of their death spiral of "We charge you shit-loads, but you're probably not covered for the specific procedure you want so fuck ya" of people ditching them. I'd take a pretty good punt on some campaign funding going Hunts way, except I can't because political funding transparency is a shit-show in this country.
Labor got into grasping distance of winning an Federal election with "Mediscare". That was when the Libs had a popular PM and Labor had Shorten. The Libs have Scummo, the rest of their Cabinet has turned to shit everything they've tried to accomplish, Albo's not too bad and there's actual evidence this time the Federals Gov is fucking with Medicare. What do Labor lose by hammering them on this point?
American style health care will make a lot of people rich(er) and Aussies love their greed.
> You win them by making the other side of politics look like it's gonna cost them more money personally.
That should be easy, as the Libs are substantially reducing rebates on some procedures of interest to boomers from 1 July
> But the AMA is concerned there may be procedures that see an increase in out-of-pocket costs.
> “In the case of hip arthroscopy, and there may be a couple of other types of surgery in orthopaedics, the gaps are likely to be very substantial and may make this surgery out of reach for Australians who are doing the right thing,” Khorshid said.
I think they finally get it.
I've seen a lot of Labor MP's posting campaign material showing how the LNP have been trying to dismantle Medicare right from the start.
They can easily afford American-style healthcare. Rich people want to pay for their own healthcare, not everyone's, which is why Scomo is doing this.
> Rich people want to pay for their own healthcare, not everyone's,
Unfortunately for 'rich people' a lot of them won't realise they're not actually 'rich' until they're confronted with the reality of American style health care.
In the US you pay insurance a pre-tax fee that's independent of your income, and then your out of pocket expenses are comparable to those on Medicare. Those that don't pay insurance are fucked.
Australia's rich want exactly that, to not contribute to poor people's medical fees. That's also why universal healthcare is not getting any traction except in some white states - nobody wants to pay for poor blacks' medicine.
A disaster, no matter how you look at it.
I have 7 different prescriptions a month. Not on a concession. Costs me about $200 a month. In the US, from pricing the drugs on the net, it would cost me $1800. A sizable chunk of anyones monthly income.
If they can connect the dots. They would probably be more healthy.
Then the LNP supporting media will print headlines claiming the changes are to increase spending, especially for procedures that mainly help boomers.
It will be lies but that group will eat it up, vote LNP and then when they have to pay higher gap payment will blame someone else.
They need to interview Americans whose lives have been destroyed by the busted healthcare system there and get them on ads telling people not to let it happen to them.
> like their investment properties and franking credits more
Which Jesus objected to.
Just so people know, Michael Kirby is (afaik) the fucking rockstar of the legal world, an absolute titanic mind and one of the most influential high court judges in our history.
If he's warning against it, people should be listening.
He's also been pushing for a bill of rights for almost 30 years now with no luck :/
The "Great Dissenter"
It's always the freedom to impose their superstitions on others, and never for people who don't subscribe to said superstitions being able to live without it interfering in their lives. Must be nice having "you'll thank me for abusing and oppressing you when we get to heaven" as a get-out-of-logic-free card.
Plus they have weekly meetings where the prejudice is drummed into them like propaganda, and from a young age.
When kids go to church every week and are told over and over that being gay is bad, abortion is bad, all those other religions are wrong, we are right etc, they get indoctrinated.
That's why they're so against kids being taught acceptance at an early age. They know that propaganda aimed at kids works
It's not about "religious freedom". It's about turning religions into a special class with greater powers than others.
Language is a powerful thing and the one thing Scott Morrison is good at is using spin terms like "religious freedom" to confuse and mislead the public. What religious freedom actually is is the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose without fear of persecution. What Scott Morrison actually wants is the legislated privilege to force his fringe faith down the throats of people who don't want it.
Yes it's freedom for *them* to discriminate. It's trading away one groups freedoms to privilege another group.
There is plenty to dislike about the modern church. That it feels it needs protection from the people might be a sign it’s not really a church for the people.
FFS,there are a million far more important issues in society.Sadly we have this self serving fake religious nut for PM who sings to the fairies.He just wants more money from the happy clapper set and whoever will donate and is just using religion to get it [all.At](https://all.At) the end of the day it's all about $$$.
He's a phoney Christian who just shopped around for his group/cult and chose the ones who give the most money.
I was only a kid when 9/11 happened but it honestly seemed like lots of things were going in the right direction back then and 9/11 just pulled an uno reverse on everything.
I remember having commercials on tv explains global warming, it was accepted and taught in schools and 20 years later we have just almost
come back around to saying it’s real, but now still debating on whether it’s our fault or not.
>I was only a kid when 9/11 happened but it honestly seemed like lots of things were going in the right direction back then and 9/11 just pulled an uno reverse on everything.
Yeah I was 21, the world seemed bright and on the right path. The economy was booming, the cold war was over, yes there were wars and problems but things seemed to be going in the right direction, then one night the TV switched from a boxing documentary to crumbling towers and my Uncle looked at me and said "this changes everything" and god-damn was he right.
Yeah I honestly think why 90s nostalgia is so big for millennials and younger gen x’s. It’s not just the normal nostalgia of getting older, I think it’s the last time the world didn’t just feel like it was falling apart and our lives weren’t just basically going to be pointless
100% agree - religion is a fucking toxic and manipulative force in this world. That cunt Mother Theresa used to enjoy watching people suffer from disease and sickness because it brought them closer to god.
All religion is poison and anyone who thinks otherwise has drunk the kool-aid and isn't worth having a logical/secular discussion with.
You missed the best part about Teresa, while she denied pain medication to people under her supposed care because she believed that suffering brought them closer to God, the old hag was pumped up on every pain med under the sun during her final days. An absolute disgrace of a human being.
Absolutely disgusting - she let people suffer because she thought they were close to her imaginary friend. Fucking sadistic hypocrite.
Actually, they year 2000 was auspicious year for granting unprecidented power to religious fundamentalists when 5 Republican members of the US Supreme Court illegally installed George W. Bush as president.
Technically the Supreme Court did not decide the outcome, it just refused to authorise the contested recount in Florida or some such.
Al Gore decided to back down after the ruling in order to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. He didn't have to as the Supreme Court actually *cannot* make definitive rulings on election outcomes. Frankly it's a pity he did given how the past twenty years have turned out.
That's incorrect, as the 5-4 majority in Bush v. Gore actually states.
One of the better, contemporanous accounts on the matter was written by Republican prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (same guy who prosecuted the Manson family cases).
Students of history will enjoy it- even as they see parallels to today.
A short version appeared in *The Nation* on 18 January 2001.
Can you please quote the relevant section that invalidates my post?
Congress is ultimately responsible for ratifying the election winner; not the courts.
Read the contemporaneous sources. It's all in there (in trucated form via Bugliosi, who published an entire, detailed and well referenced book on the subject).
The straight up legal material (which- cowardly enough, was *per curium* for the 'majority' opinon) can be parsed here: [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/531/98.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/531/98.html)
See also: "Bush V. Gore Isn’t Precedent, But It Keeps Getting Cited" [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bush-v-gore-isnt-precedent-but-it-keeps-getting-cited](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bush-v-gore-isnt-precedent-but-it-keeps-getting-cited)
Sure but the ruling was on the validity of the recount. It was not the definitive decider of the election itself. There is still a process where the results of each state have to be ratified through congress. That was my point.
Gore *could* have cited the partisanship of the supreme court and refused to concede the election even after the ruling went against him. He decided not to.
> Humanity was heading in the right direction back in 2000 with regards to religions losing traction
You're dreaming if you think that's true.
My understanding of what happened:
America was very inward-looking in terms of finding problems to solve. It makes sense, after the Cold War (and the collapse of the only real opponent they had). This is where the 90's anti-hero pastiche comes from; it's also worth noting that this time also led to Bond movies focused on the former USSR (Goldeneye), media barons (Tomorrow Never Dies) and the oil industry (The World Is Not Enough).
After 9/11, America realized that the collapse of the USSR did not, in fact, solve all the world's problems, and this led to greater international involvement with the US. This led to the Damien Craig Bond movies (international terrorist organisations, and so on), and generally, while there was still a focus on improving Western society (it's still a good thing to do), there was also a focus on setting the world straight.
They should have still maintained a wider interest in the world. al-Qaeda and the Taliban were winning wars in Afghanistan in the 1990's, and the former in particular was committing terrorist attacks on the US. Furthermore, the Nepalese civil war somehow ended with a US-led coalition *losing*. It's possible that people should have taken some stuff more seriously. Yes, war is bad, but it's retrospectively hard to approve of America's relative neutrality.
Our Little Johnny H was in 5 years before then. We were well on our way, but September 11th cemented his US fawning and conservative agenda for the country.
Of course we're bloody 'sceptical' because too often those 'freedoms' have been used to *oppress* others.
Religious "freedom" is one of the classic LNP standbys when things aren't going great, the other major ones being refugees and war. There's a reason why they are pulling this stuff out now. The whole thing is nuts, no one is being deprived of religious freedom. If they think they are then they need to do some navel gazing about their attitudes.
If Jesus came back the first thing he'd want to do is take a large shit down Morrison's throat. It's absolutely baffling how these people can call themselves "Christians" while sitting in their diamond encrusted ivory towers.
That sounds more like an Old Testament punishment :p (but I agree with the sentiment, Jesus didn’t supposedly overturn the merchants tables in the temple courts so he could install his own payment system and gift store)
That’s the fucked thing of it, there already is religious freedom enshrined in glorious black and white in our constitution :
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
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.
What they actually want, the non-tax paying bastards that they are, is to be able to use their religion to be bigots.
A school firing a teacher for being LGBTIQ, a bakery refusing to serve someone because they’re of a different religion, yadayadayadayada
If it's illegal to ask someone's sexuality on a job application, it should be the same for their religion. At the same time, absolutely no special treatment should be afforded to the religious. Keep that shit at home, where it belongs.
> it's illegal to ask someone's sexuality on a job application
Unless the job is religious. Religious institutions are already allowed to discriminate.
And like the article says, Morrison failed to keep his promise to prevent schools from expelling gay students.
Religious privilege is already here. Scotty wants to make it worse.
Remember when the liberals wanted to make it legal for religious people to refuse services in the medical industry based on their beliefs?
Tax free churches and mosques ruining this country and I'm sick of it. It's just a money laundering bullshit to control and brainwash people.
Just treat religion like sex, follow any god you want at home but if you're doing that shit in public, you get fined or arrested.
Yes. And you're not allowed to subject children to it, not even your own.
Governments like religions because it's a way to outsource social support policy at a discount.
Plus, it keeps the people pacified, conservative and confused.
Skeptical is a nice word for it. Considering this current push was triggered by the Gay Marriage vote and gets brought up whenever someone mentions Folau, the twit who thought saying gays would go to hell on instagram would not cause any repercussions on his career.
It's not so much 'freedom' as supremacy.
Im all for granting more protection of freedoms for churches.
Just after we remove their tax exempt status.
It's not "religious freedom," it's religious privilege.
There does seem to be some controlling influence that's obsessed with money, media control, sex and the destruction of democracy that claims to be religious but shows no Christian values.
Kirby,or someone like him, should be PM,instead we seem to have a low IQ halfwit who wants people who sing to fairies rewarded.Morrison is seriously an insult to Aussies with half a brain...
That's right, and the minority that claims to believe in some kind of god, \(but acts like there isn't\) is thrilled that Scotty slipped in a 'laying on of hands' while pretending to shake hands.
I’m an atheist and I vote. ‘No religion’ is the largest ‘religious’ group in Australia and the fastest growing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia
Memo to Paul Karp & Cp.
Stop using far right framing. It's unfettered bigotry, discrimination the ability to abuse people without consequences that the right wing and its religious nutters are after.
Considering god doesn't exist. You better fucking believe I am sceptical.
Man, wouldn't some laicism be great?
I don’t know that I agree with this.
Then maybe form an opinion and then comment.
I’m a bit skeptical about it.
> It's the arrogant wankers who claim to be 'rationalists' without acknowledging their own personal ideological belief structure, that we should be most concerned with...
No, it's the homophobes, kiddy fiddlers and lobbyists that are trying to legislate protectionism that we should be most concerned with.
If, as you claim, the lack of a religious belief is itself a religious belief (hint: it’s not), we’d be entitled to the same rights as you. Which would mean your rights wouldn’t eclipse ours.
By the way, if you really want to be nasty to gay people, that says nothing about your religion and everything about you as a person.
Not all belief systems are afforded the protections afforded to religions, though. And not all of them offer infallible moral guidance as a system. What people want protected are the stupid, hypocritical, and self-serving bits of religion. I think your ideas are correct, but they're not what the argument is about.
It is **precisely** what the argument is about. What is being implied is "your *stupid* traditional religious viewpoint" should conform to "my *superior* modern secular viewpoint".
The modern secular viewpoint (we likely both share) is just as rife with idiocy and shortcomings.
People vote with their feet, for example, the mass exodus of members from the Catholic Church. The reflex to *ban* and *condemn* is where the stupidly lies. From the European inquisitions to China's cultural revolution, we learn, the freedom of belief is tightly buttressed with the freedom to think and speak.
OK, I thought you had a point before, but now I realise you've got no idea which way it is to reality.
He's just regurgitating drivel he's taken in from the Jordan Peterson crowd.
Oh please, direct me to reality! What a joke :)
Accepting the bare minimum that I think therefore I am and that I'm probably not a brain in a jar is a fuckload different from actively believing that **AND** that there's a magical man in the sky who build an infinite universe just for me and he wants me to protect kiddy fiddlers and oppress gay people.
You're taking an inch and running a mile here mate.
Ah, so that's what happens when you run out of psuedo-intellectual Jordon Peterson quotes to prattle off.
Pretty sure it's you mate, not Kant.
Do you have any viable counter argument for my statement that you're drawing a massive false equivalence between the bare minimum assumptions we all must make to survive in the world, ie that we exist and the world is real and has consequences, and taking all those same assumptions PLUS an additional raft of others, including an entire fantastical mythology including cosmic beings?
Pure nonsense, there's nothing I take for granted that is anywhere near the level of projecting anthropomorphisms onto nature and then telling people I can't treat them as humans because my anthropomorphisms don't approve of them.
Believing the volcano is erupting because we didn't sacrifice enough virgins this year and pushing for political action based on that belief isn't anywhere near the same level of assumptions "everyone" makes.
Why don't you give me some examples of the assumptions you think I'm makeing that **are** similar. Because it still seems you're making a giant false equivalence.
Who actually believes they don't have a belief structure? Sounds like projection to me
His entire post is basically just a big "ACTSCHUALLYYY on a TECHNICALITY.... " attempt to explain how is smarter than others.
When you're arguing you should be more concerned about people wanting to preserve the environment we all rely on to live but are concerned about people's ability to be dicks to others (at the least), maybe your priorities need some serious reflection.
Okay, I'll play the stupid game for stupid prizes.
*Why* should we be most concerned with "the arrogant wankers who claim to be 'rationalists' without acknowledging their own personal ideological belief structure"?
And no, just the others having those blind spots doesn't equate to the massive amounts of harm perpetrated by those with faith against those without, in case you have been making a good faith point and that was the entirety of it
Looking at your profile active in these communities r/jordanpeterson gross
Yeah anytime you have a rational and well thought out opinion that even slightly deviates from the hive mind, your gonna get down voted like crazy.
This sub is a cesspool of mindless idiots who get all their opinions straight from media headlines.
Mindless is the correct term :)
I'm different, I think for myself, please notice me senpai uwu
They don't want freedoms, they want world domination.
Anyway...i don't think it's Christianity we should worry about. Its dying.