Rights charter runs into religious opposition

[SoylentGreen]

Rights charter runs into religious opposition - World - NZ Herald News

Australia's religious leaders have come together in a rare show of unity to oppose plans for a national charter of human rights, which they claim would erode religious freedoms. Pell wrote in the Australian newspaper yesterday it would be used to attack religious schools, hospitals and charities that elected to employ people of a particular faith. He and other leaders, who met the federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, say judges would be given the final say on fraught issues such as abortion and gay marriage. They are also concerned about the introduction of religious vilification laws, which they say would undermine the right to freedom of expression.

The church does not want human rights because they think there priests will no longer be able to stand at a pulpit and tell lies and create hatred for anything they disagree with, eg. homosexuality, woman's rights or abortion and not to mention to push the congregation into voting politically in certain ways by making false and spurious claims.
All of which they claim as their right because god told them they could.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Rights charter runs into religious opposition - World - NZ Herald News The church does not want human rights because they think there priests will no longer be able to stand at a pulpit and tell lies and create hatred for anything they disagree with, eg. homosexuality, woman's rights or abortion and not to mention to push the congregation into voting politically in certain ways by making false and spurious claims. All of which they claim as their right because god told them they could.

And whether or not it is that God is the one who told them that they could do what they do, is it not their {right] to do what they do? Can they not claim that {right?]

Secondly, why is it, that in the same manner that your priests are allowed to exercise your {right] to tell {lies} and create hatred for anything that you disagree with, that their priests should not be allowed to exercise the {right] to tell {“lies“} and create hatred for anything they disagree with? And not to mention, why is it, that in the same manner that your priests are allowed to exercise your {right] to push congregations into voting {politically} in certain ways by making {false} and {spurious} claims, that their priests should not be allowed to exercise the {right] to push congregations into voting {politically} in certain ways by making {“false“} and {“spurious“} claims? Or is it that you are of the mind that such a {right] is reserved for only you and your priests? Is it that you are of the mind that you and your priests should hold a monopoly on such an Action?

Thirdly, where is it stated that the church does not want human {rights?] Where in the article has such a statement regarding the church been made? Where does it state that this church does not want human {rights?]

Now, Mr. Green, your own statement wouldn’t happen to be an example of a {false} and {spurious} claim. In fact, it wouldn’t happen to be an example of the kind of the {false} and {spurious} claims from the priests that have you so incensed?

Fourthly, isn’t the opposition or objection to something that you dislike or abhor, a human {right?] Or is such an Acton not covered under the section that deals with human {rights?]



By the way, in regards to homosexuality, woman’s {rights,] and abortion, what are the {false} and {spurious} claims that have been made by this church?

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Rights charter runs into religious opposition - World - NZ Herald News The church does not want human rights because they think there priests will no longer be able to stand at a pulpit and tell lies and create hatred for anything they disagree with, eg. homosexuality, woman's rights or abortion and not to mention to push the congregation into voting politically in certain ways by making false and spurious claims. All of which they claim as their right because god told them they could.

Yes, because every time an atheist speaks, their message is full of love!

We should have atheism churches!

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk And whether or not it is that God is the one who told them that they could do what they do, is it not their {right] to do what they do? Can they not claim that {right?]

can they? what is the right to spread lies and hatred?

Secondly, why is it, that in the same manner that your priests are allowed to exercise your {right] to tell {lies} and create hatred for anything that you disagree with, that their priests should not be allowed to exercise the {right] to tell {“lies“} and create hatred for anything they disagree with? And not to mention, why is it, that in the same manner that your priests are allowed to exercise your {right] to push congregations into voting {politically} in certain ways by making {false} and {spurious} claims, that their priests should not be allowed to exercise the {right] to push congregations into voting {politically} in certain ways by making {“false“} and {“spurious“} claims? Or is it that you are of the mind that such a {right] is reserved for only you and your priests? Is it that you are of the mind that you and your priests should hold a monopoly on such an Action?

what priests do you speak of? since when were there two sets of priests?

Thirdly, where is it stated that the church does not want human {rights?] Where in the article has such a statement regarding the church been made? Where does it state that this church does not want human {rights?]

try in the heading. " Rights charter runs into religious opposition "
you do know what opposition means i take it?

Now, Mr. Green, your own statement wouldn’t happen to be an example of a {false} and {spurious} claim. In fact, it wouldn’t happen to be an example of the kind of the {false} and {spurious} claims from the priests that have you so incensed?

or could it perhaps be an example of your not bothering to read the article?

Fourthly, isn’t the opposition or objection to something that you dislike or abhor, a human {right?] Or is such an Acton not covered under the section that deals with human {rights?]

so you didn't read the article then.

By the way, in regards to homosexuality, woman’s {rights,] and abortion, what are the {false} and {spurious} claims that have been made by this church?

this is not a class room mr m go figure it out and then come back with your answer.

[DoctorBarber]

Quote by: SoylentGreen can they? what is the right to spread lies and hatred? what priests do you speak of? since when were there two sets of priests? try in the heading. " Rights charter runs into religious opposition " you do know what opposition means i take it? or could it perhaps be an example of your not bothering to read the article? so you didn't read the article then. this is not a class room mr m go figure it out and then come back with your answer.

Whats the right? Freedom of speech, obviously. If the KKK can still do it, so can everyone else. For US anyway.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Whats the right? Freedom of speech, obviously. If the KKK can still do it, so can everyone else. For US anyway.

freedom of speech is a right, and with rights go responsibilities. if your not prepared to take the responsibility for what you say then you have no right to say it.
To make hate speeches and then not accept the blame for people who act in hatred to others for that speech is typically a religious thing. the KKK uses god to support their hatred.

[Apeman81]

Imagine that!

Another "slam religions for holding to their doctrines" thread.

Enjoy!

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Apeman81 Imagine that! Another "slam religions for holding to their doctrines" thread. Enjoy!

because it is a religious doctrine it should not be slammed?
and if you find it boring then why comment?

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoylentGreen because it is a religious doctrine it should not be slammed? and if you find it boring then why comment?

I do not find it boring. In fact, I find it rather exhilerating to slam religious doctrines.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: DoctorBarber Yes, because every time an atheist speaks, their message is full of love!

Well, Dr. Barber, of course their message is full of love. Whose message is not full of love? The only difference with the atheists is that his message is full of the love of atheism. Atheists love atheism. But this love of course means one Thing: That regardless of how atheists may spin and lie, they also hate and are endowed with hate. After all, No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. That is fundamental in Reality.

Quote by: DoctorBarber We should have atheism churches!

Oh we do have atheism churches. The only thing is that they are just not recognized as such.

Quote by: SoylentGreen can they? what is the right to spread lies and hatred?

Well, being that it appears that atheists are quite adept at such Things, why don’t you tell us? What is the right to spread lies and hatred?

Quote by: SoylentGreen what priests do you speak of? since when were there two sets of priests?

Ever since there were multiple sets of religions and religious beliefs. Or is this not the case? Is this too a lie?

Quote by: SoylentGreen try in the heading. " Rights charter runs into religious opposition " you do know what opposition means i take it?

Oh yes, one is very aware of what opposition means, Mr. Green. But such an awareness means that the question still stands. So again, Where is it stated in the heading that the church does not want human {rights?]

Now, Mr. Green, the reason why the question must be asked again, is because, the heading which you say is that which is the evidence that has led you to the claim that the church does not want any human rights, tells us that the {rights] charter which has been presented, is that which is not wanted. It is that which has run into the opposition. In other words, those who oppose that {rights] charter do not want that {rights] charter. But Mr. Green, here you are to tell us all that that is not the case. Here you are to tell us that those who are in opposition to that {rights] charter, are in fact in opposition to all human {rights?}

So Mr. SoylentGreen, not being unable to comprehend the definition of opposition does not appear to be where the problem lies. Instead, the problem appears to lie with you and what you have attempted to direct the opposition towards. Again, one was not aware that being in opposition to that {rights] charter meant that an individual was in opposition to all human {rights?] Maybe you can explain that one to us all?



By the way this is not the first time that something of this nature has occurred. If you will recall, in the thread Jesus hates Figs, Mr. Barts, your compadre, attempts to do a similar thing with Jesus and the cursing of the {unproductive} fig tree. So Mr. Green, it is starting to appear as if these types of claims are part of a deliberate systematic approach that is being employed by atheism to turn the public against a certain group of people? Or maybe it is that we shall say, that this is being employed by atheism to have the public hate a certain group of people? But of course we know that atheists would never do that? Atheists do not hate!

Quote by: SoylentGreen or could it perhaps be an example of your not bothering to read the article?

Oh, it was not a bother to read the article, Mr. Green. It’s just that no matter how many times it was read, one could not find that which you have claimed. So again, your own statement wouldn’t happen to be like one of those {“false“} and {“spurious“} priestly claims that have you so incensed?

Quote by: SoylentGreen so you didn't read the article then.

Once again, the article was read. But again, the question still stands: Isn’t the opposition or objection to something that you dislike or abhor, a human {right?] Or is such an Acton not covered under the section that deals with human {rights?]

Quote by: SoylentGreen this is not a class room mr m go figure it out and then come back with your answer.

Well then, Mr. Green, if that bee the case, then maybe it is that we can agree that you should stop trying to teach us all about how evil and ignorant Christians and the people of religion are? Maybe it is that you should stop trying to teach us all about the virtues of homosexuality and some of your other pet interests?