Arrowman

Galatian, Morat or any of their BB acquaintances - please note:

On the BB, our dear friend Helen has been ranting about proposed legislation in South Australia outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief - here:

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000298&p=" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000298&p=</a>

As usual, her argument is based on exaggeration, extrapolation and the view that anything which does not actively favour or promote Christianity must be therefore against or oppressing Christianity.

She also claims that
when in fact all that has happened is that the SA Attorney General has published a discussion paper which says in part
I heard the SA A-G on the radio this morning and he's bending over backwards so far to be reasonable on this that it ain't funny; including acknowledging and welcoming the opinions expressed by a conservative Christian MP.

I welcome any discussion on the nature of anti-discrimination laws in relation to religion, and the application and effects of such laws elsewhere.

I would also like to bing the following to the attention of The Galation or Morat (two voices of reason on the BB) if they or their friends are reading this) - the discussion paper in question may be found at:

<a href="http://www.justice.sa.gov.au/news_detail.asp?id=40" target="_blank">http://www.justice.sa.gov.au/news_detail.asp?id=40</a>

- in case anyone would care to rebut Helen's rantings with fact.

In particular, Helen might find it interesting to note that
1. One of the cases from other jurisdictions cited by the discussion paper was that of a Christian man who refused to contribute via his union to a welfare payment to striking workers (he preferred to provide support through his church) - the court found in his favour.
2. The paper canvasses the possibility that religious bodies be protected from [some forms of] attack for their anti-homosexual beliefs, by posing the question "Should a homosexual parade be at liberty to satirise the anti-homosexual beliefs of a particular religion, by presenting homosexual people dressed as religious figures?"

BigBlue2

If Muslims have influence here it is not because of their numbers. Less than 2% of the population are Muslim. There are no Muslims in Federal Parliament or in the parliament of my home state (NSW).

As to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act - it exempts private conduct. My guess is that the "private christian meeting" mentioned in Helens OP was not "private" at all.

Arrowman

Oh, Helen's OP is full of dubious assertions but I've given up on critiquing her point by point. She's a mistress of the emotive, exaggerate assertion, followed by duck and weave - classic example
She's been called out on this and similar assertions so many times (evidence, please?) it's not funny. And that's by other Christians, too. She never responds. Notice how her participation in the thread in question has died off after a spanking from The Galatian and Morat.

But this issue is a classic example of how (a) issues can be distorted and (b) religion distorts people's perspective. By this I mean
(a) From the first few things I heard on talkback radio etc here, I was a bit worried that the proposed legislation might be a bit heavy handed. Then I read the discussion paper. It'd be nice if public debate and discussion were based on the facts about what is actually being proposed, and not some distorted Helen-version.
(b) John Hepworth, cited in Helen's post, is actually a pretty pragmatic and logical man when it comes to political commentary (his main claim to fame in SA). Given that, and Helen's track record, it wouldn't surprise me if she misrepresents what he said - on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if the mind of this "pragmatic, logical man" turned to mush when it comes to religious issues. I'll be interested to find out, if I can, his real position.