sharetrader
Page 1550 of 1608 FirstFirst ... 550105014501500154015461547154815491550155115521553155415601600 ... LastLast
Results 15,491 to 15,500 of 16077
  1. #15491
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    All the legislation in the world will not prevent discrimination. No law can control what you think. - Discriminate all you like - just keep the reason to yourself.
    If you don't like Muslim bi-sexual dwarves, no law can make you employ one. Just don't tell her why.

    Imagine, people like Israel Folau will be able to spout all that gays will go to hell & damnation stuff with complete impunity, Australian Rugby Union would not be able to terminate his contract under this law.

  2. #15492
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Skies View Post
    Imagine, people like Israel Folau will be able to spout all that gays will go to hell & damnation stuff with complete impunity, Australian Rugby Union would not be able to terminate his contract under this law.
    So he should be - not that I agree with him, but I fully support free speech - whatever it is.

  3. #15493
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    So he should be - not that I agree with him, but I fully support free speech - whatever it is.

    Not when Israel Folau's free speech is incredibly damaging to other people, esp younger vulnerable teenagers struggling with sexuality or any vulnerable person battling repression.

    It's like the appalling stories of Catholic priests & nuns in Ireland (& elsewhere), telling unmarried mothers they would spend eternity in hell & taking their babies off them, or controlling abused children with similar threats of damnation if they told their parents.

    No thinking decent person could 'fully support Free Speech - whatever it is', & I think/hope you don't mean that.

  4. #15494
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Skies View Post
    Not when Israel Folau's free speech is incredibly damaging to other people, esp younger vulnerable teenagers struggling with sexuality or any vulnerable person battling repression.

    It's like the appalling stories of Catholic priests & nuns in Ireland (& elsewhere), telling unmarried mothers they would spend eternity in hell & taking their babies off them, or controlling abused children with similar threats of damnation if they told their parents.

    No thinking decent person could 'fully support Free Speech - whatever it is', & I think/hope you don't mean that.
    Catholic churches in NZ preach eternal damnation - burning in hell for all eternity and similar nonsense. Some other churches aren't much different. If that's their belief surely they can say so. As far as threats to tell parents if kids have been abused (by the church I imagine) that's so different. It's criminal stuff. Threats of violence etc - definitely not. That's criminal. Personally I wouldn't let children near any religous organisation while they're young and gullible. If I believed in banning speech - religous instruction to kids would be the first to go, Sunday schools, bible classes and camps etc. Plenty of time to explore such things when they can reason - not when they're into Noddy and Superman. So I'm all for free speech but with age limits for certain things, a bit like we have movie censorship e.g. Adults, R18 etc.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 28-11-2021 at 02:03 PM.

  5. #15495
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Catholic churches in NZ preach eternal damnation - burning in hell for all eternity and similar nonsense. Some other churches aren't much different. If that's their belief surely they can say so. As far as threats to tell parents if kids have been abused (by the church I imagine) that's so different. It's criminal stuff. Threats of violence etc - definitely not. That's criminal. Personally I wouldn't let children near any religous organisation while they're young and gullible. If I believed in banning speech - religous instruction to kids would be the first to go, Sunday schools, bible classes and camps etc. Plenty of time to explore such things when they can reason - not when they're into Noddy and Superman. So I'm all for free speech but with age limits for certain things, a bit like we have movie censorship e.g. Adults, R18 etc.
    The traditional teaching of hell is not even scriptural, it has its origins from the Italian Poet Dante and then was picked up by the Roman Catholic Church, until the King James Bible was printed the only words used in the Hebrew and Greek for the place of the dead was Sheol and Hades. I was also taught this myth 40 yrs ago when I started following the Christian faith and believed it for many years but have since seen its absurdity. The idea that God will have some eternal torture chamber running in the background forever is completely insane but yes it is the tool of fear used against many.

  6. #15496
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Skies View Post
    Shocking, the bill will allow people to override anti-discriminatory Federal laws, on the basis of a persons religious beliefs.
    e.g. a school principal might not employ a gay teacher or discriminate against a gay student, or allow a business to discriminate against a person of another religion, or a doctor to object to certain procedures. They're even seeking assurances it won't allow discrimination against people with a physical disability.
    After the Israel Folau incident, you would think they would have learnt their lesson but I suppose he got a lot of support from some religious groups.
    Such a backward step.
    Not much different to the Taliban.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australi...imination-bill
    No, it is not different to the Taliban. It’s the same philosophy to dominate those who are “other.”

    The bill is about maintaining about white supremacy.

    In the most basic sense, white supremacy is a philosophical, material, ethical, economic, scientific, religious, and political system that works to maintain the dominant and relative superior group position of those identified as "white" (and their allies) over those marked as "non-white." Not just white, but heterosexual, Christian and male.

    White privilege is central here: those people considered “white” are also judged to be “normal”; the experiences of white people are taken to be universal and a baseline for how others are to be evaluated; blacks are judged en masse as having “bad culture” while whites are de facto viewed as having “good culture.”

    White people are viewed as individuals where the bad behavior of one white person does not reflect at all on the merits of the group. By comparison, people of color are not afforded that freedom.

    Implicit and subconscious bias, as well as taken for granted stereotypes and “common sense,” can also serve a white supremacist order.

    https://www.alternet.org/2014/04/10-...ite-supremacy/

  7. #15497
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    So he should be - not that I agree with him, but I fully support free speech - whatever it is.
    I read about someone defending their right to free speech as believing they have the right to point out the flaws in others. Those at the top point out the flaws of those beneath them, the poor, the unemployed, non-whites, non-Christians etc.

    I think it is time to use our right to free speech to focus on the flaws of those at the top who see themselves as the dominant group, which I describe as the stale, pale, male who does not believe in equality. Society reflects the views of the dominant group, with institutionalised racism and sexism widespread in Western culture.

  8. #15498
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I read about someone defending their right to free speech as believing they have the right to point out the flaws in others. Those at the top point out the flaws of those beneath them, the poor, the unemployed, non-whites, non-Christians etc.
    Garbage. Everyone has the right to point out flaws in others, whether they are above, below, or equal. Whether they should or not is another matter. The poor, the unemployed, the non-whites, non Christians, those you see as being beneath others, are undoubtedly just as good at finding flaws in others.

  9. #15499
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    What a load of rubbish and another own-goal embarrassment to yourself. 233 words of his 2,518 word maiden speech were dedicated to his faith. Here's what he actually said:

    "It seems it has become acceptable to stereotype those who have a Christian faith in public life as being extreme, so I will say a little about my Christian faith. It has anchored me, given my life purpose, and shaped my values, and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself.

    My faith has a strong influence on who I am and how I relate to people. I see Jesus showing compassion, tolerance, and care for others. He doesn't judge, discriminate, or reject people. He loves unconditionally.


    Through history, we have seen Christians making a huge difference by entering public life. Christian abolitionists fought against slavery. Others educated the poor and challenged the rich to share their wealth and help others less fortunate. The world is a better place for Christians like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Kate Sheppard contributing to public life. My faith is personal to me. It is not in itself a political agenda. I believe no religion should dictate to the State, and no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others. As MPs, we serve the common cause of all New Zealanders—not one religion, not one group, not one interest. A person should not be elected because of their faith, nor should they be rejected because of it. Democracy thrives on diverse thinking and different world views."
    But Luxon then wants to limit other people’s freedoms because of his religious beliefs. He is entitled to his personal views, but he does not have the right to impose them on others or to judge others who make decisions to have abortions, euthanasia or use recreational cannabis.

    Luxon told Morning Report that he was anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and doesn’t want to legalise recreational marijuana.
    Unfortunately, many people with strong religious views do want to impose their views on others. This does not show compassion, tolerance and care for others.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...seat-of-botany

  10. #15500
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    I have never yet voted for National because they have never yet met my brief for what I expect/want from a government. Previous leaders religious beliefs have not been a consideration to date, but as I just said, Evangelical Christianity is a different kettle of fish to mainstream religions. So, right now, I would not vote for National if Luxon was leader. My personal experience with evangelicals is that they cannot separate their religion from their politics. Luxon would have to work hard to convince me that he would be the exception to the rule.
    What does it mean to be an evangelical Christian?

    Chris Trotter discusses it in this article.

    “Chris Luxon has been identified as an evangelical Christian. That’s why I believe Chris Luxon owes New Zealanders a working definition of evangelical Christianity – and how he intends to practice it.

    A private matter? Well, that might be true if Luxon was a person moving into private life.

    What, then, is generally understood by the term Christian evangelism? At its core, evangelism is about the active spreading of Christ’s teachings – especially among those who are ignorant of his message. For a politician to identify himself as an evangelical Christian is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance.

    If such politicians are genuine in their self-characterisation, then they will take every opportunity their public office provides to proselytise on behalf of their faith. They will also feel obliged to bear witness against beliefs and practices they believe to be evil. To do all they can to save the souls of those who are in the grip of sin. Christian evangelism is, above all else, faith in action.”

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/11/0...s-chris-luxon/

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •