My recent submission to the Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/O Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

ETA Monday, April 2: So I've come across two things that address the issue of Religious Liberty from some different sides, not necessarily straight up anti or pro, and I think they're definitely worth sharing.

I subscribe to Counter Arguments and I do encourage people to check it out. The arguments are clear and fairly comprehensive and provide great great ground for further discussions. In this video, he tackles the subject od religious freedom, specifically addressing the Kim Davis case and the arguments around civil disobedience. I think it does a great job of breaking the situation down, particularly helping to distinguish the roles of the different branches of US Government in legalising Gay Marriage and the implications for law enforcement.

An area of difficulty I found was in the idea that those advocating for religious liberty are in any way looking for a free for all pass on any behaviours claiming roots in religious belief and that is very well addressed in this article:

#KimDavis, Slippery Slopes and Religious Freedom

I think what this article does is outline the ability to have a balance that allows all cases and rights be properly examined and then dealt with accordingly which, as per my submission below, is something I strongly agree with.

**************************

Further information regarding the current review is available here:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

The right to freedom of religion and belief is as fundamental as the right to dissent or criticise any form of belief. Both should be equally and adamantly protected. 

For the state to create an overriding general mandate on morality despite the complexity of core beliefs and the right to express those beliefs ultimately stifles the opportunity for genuine and open discussion which is essential to furthering human understanding in a pluralistic world. One doesn't wipe out discrimination by forcing people to act in genuine conflict with their conscience and the only real way you can distinguish between the two is through honest conversation which also must involve honest listening. 

If a case comes forward and is placed under scrutiny, then the merits of each side's arguments can actually be judged. Once the ability to even argue a side, whichever side it is, is taken away by being made contrary to law, the opportunity to judge actions based on genuine reason and merit disappears. In a democracy, such a thing would be unspeakably wrong. 

We must fight discrimination tooth and nail, but in trying to stamp out real discrimination, lumping those who intend to spread real hatred and unjustly discriminate with those who have genuine reason for their beliefs and whose beliefs have no root in hatred, does the population real injustice. In a democracy, we cannot abide by simply gagging a portion of the population. 

Our only chance is to protect the freedom of all sides to peacefully and respectfully live and express their beliefs and therefore allow genuine discussion and further encourage real understanding between all.

On the notion of Freedom of Speech and Millenial Student Protest - a Cracked comment

Cracked too often allows me the opportunity to be lazy and not have to construct my own points of argument. Nevertheless, the comment made below on this story, by JF Sargent, pretty well outlines exactly how I feel about this issue so cheers, Rowangirl.

'Rowangirl
11-24-2015 | 9:24 PM

I don't want to spend too much time on this because there are already over a thousand comments and most of them seem to agree with what I have to say. But the issue I have with this article is that he's basically arguing that 1) these students are just exercising free speech and not actually trying to take it away from anyone else, and 2) they have no power, so what they say/do is irrelevant anyway. Both of those things are false.

If you want some examples, look at my alma mater, Northwestern University. A few years ago, a student published an opinion piece in the student newspaper arguing against affirmative action. Minorities were outraged, and demanded the newspaper remove it from their website. That, my friends, is censorship. They made this girl's name dirt on campus. And by the way, THAT SAME ISSUE ran a column arguing FOR affirmative action as a counterpoint. It was literally a perfectly balanced issue, but it didn't matter. Someone had dared to suggest that minorities should not be treated preferentially in admissions, and everyone blew up.

Every year at NU, students are told what they are NOT allowed to do or wear on Halloween and certain holidays. On Cinco de Mayo one year, a Hispanic student group was given access to send out a campus-wide email laying out precisely how students were and were not allowed to celebrate the holiday. And, I s**t you not, they claimed it was offensive for white people to eat tacos and burritos on that day. This isn't harmless waving around of signs; it is actively policing other people's behavior.

Another example: recently, a sorority on campus was going to have a fundraiser called "Jail & Bail." The premise is that the sorority girls would stand in these pens until people put in enough money to "bail" them out. Again, minorities threw a fit. You see, because so many minorities are in actual jail, it was offensive for the sorority girls to pretend to be in jail. The event was to raise money for low-income kids to learn to read, by the way. It was cancelled.

At Northwestern, as at Princeton, demands are being made to remove the names of people important to the histories of the schools from buildings and such due to past ties with racism. At NU, they want John Evans's name removed from everything. 

And there was a speaker, hosted by the College Republicans, I believe, who students also demanded not be allowed to speak because he supposedly said racist things at one time or another. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of this speaker at the moment. I do remember that, despite the best efforts of these students to stop the event, he was ultimately allowed to speak, though dozens of students camped outside the lecture hall in protest while he was doing so. But again, this was most definitely an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints. And while we're talking about silencing viewpoints, protesters at one of these colleges (to be honest, I'm losing track of what's happening at all of them, so I can't remember which) released a statement explicitly requesting media that covered them to give statements saying they agreed with them, and basically telling media outlets that didn't agree with them not to cover them. But no, they're not trying to interfere with free speech.

And it goes beyond simply stating viewpoints. If they were just waving around signs that said "Racism is a problem here!" well, they'd still have backlash, but not nearly as much as they're having now, because they're not just trying to make themselves heard. At Dartmouth, BLM protesters swarmed into a library, shouted obscenities, pushed people against walls, and screamed in their faces. At Columbia and elsewhere, students are reporting feeling pressured to join in protests and walkouts, or else they're called racist. These groups are intimidating people and being disruptive. At Princeton, 200 students barged into the president's office and refused to leave until he signed an agreement. At Mizzou, they interrupted the homecoming parade, refused to move even when it was clear people wanted them to. At Northwestern, protesters just interrupted a groundbreaking ceremony for a very expensive new building. That's part of the reason they're getting so much backlash. They're being obnoxious, and it comes across as childish, not to mention makes people angry.

And these people aren't just trying to get a message out. They're making DEMANDS. They want people fired. They want school history to be erased. They want dorms just for black people. They want professors to be forced to undergo sensitivity training. (I.e., classes where they're told what they are and aren't allowed to say.) At Princeton as well as Northwestern, they want to change the curriculum of every single student to make it mandatory to take a "diversity" class. At Northwestern, they're demanding a "technology hub" for black students. (I should mention that they already have the Black House, so I'm a bit unclear on why they need a technology hub, too.)

And this is a problem because, contrary to what J.F. Sargent says, these groups are not powerless. In this day and age, people bend over backwards to accommodate these groups. That charity event? It was cancelled without an argument the moment people complained about it. How did the Hispanic group send out a campus-wide e-mail about not eating tacos and burritos, when that listserv access is necessarily strictly limited? Someone thought their message was important enough that they deserved that platform, so they gave it to them. Professors and administrators are either stepping down or being forced to resign. At Mizzou, a professor sent out an email encouraging students to come to class, telling them not to let "bullies" win. He sent this email before it was widely known that there were serious threats of violence, and for this unforgivable misunderstanding, immediately handed in his resignation because people were offended. So no, these groups are not powerless. Administrators bend over backwards to appease them. And when you look at the kinds of demands these groups are making, it's disturbing to think what will happen if colleges continue to give in so easily.'

Today on Facebook

Sunrise

MUM'S POWERFUL FACEBOOK POST ABOUT THE INSENSITIVE THINGS PEOPLE SAY ABOUT HER BABY WITH DOWN'S SYNDROME...

"Here is my baby girl, Louise. She is 4 months old, has two legs two arms, and one extra chromosome. Please, when you meet a Louise, do not ask her mother, “Was it not detected during pregnancy?” Either it was, and the parents took the decision to keep the baby. Or it wasn’t and the surprise was great enough that there’s no need to revisit it. Bear in mind that mothers have a tendency to feel guilty about each and every thing, so a surprising extra chromosome… I don’t need to tell you.

Don’t tell her mother, “It’s your baby no matter what.” No. It’s my baby, period. Plus: ‘nomatterwhat’ is quite an ugly name; I’d rather call her Louise.

Don’t tell her mother, “As she is a Down’s baby, she will… etc.” No. She is a 4-month-old baby who happens to have Down’s Syndrome. It’s not what she IS, it’s what she HAS. You wouldn’t say “she’s a cancer baby.”

Don’t say, “They’re like this, they’re like that.” “They” all have their features, their character, their own tastes, their life. “They” are as different between them as you are from you neighbour.

I know that if you haven’t experienced it, you don’t think about it, but words do matter. They can comfort and they can hurt. So just give it a thought, especially if you’re a doctor or nurse of any kind.

I usually don’t make my status ‘public’ on Facebook, but this one will be. You can read it and share it as you want. Because each year (in France) there are 500 new ‘mothers of Louise’ who can have a day ruined by those kind of words. I know it’s not meant to hurt. But you just need to know."

#sun7

This is one of the most beautiful reply threads I've ever seen on Facebook.

I've only scrolled down so far but even though, thus far, every reply is a voice of support (highly uncharacteristic for your typival Facebook comment thread) and ultimately understanding of a fundamental truth.

Disability of any kind doesn't make anyone less of a person. Clearly, Peter Singer I am not. Thank God.

The fact that anyone thinks it does is just plain sad. Doubt your ability to handle the challenge or wonder about what hardships may come, but don't ever, ever think that child is any less than they are.

Every person has intrinsic value and is important. Nothing on Earth changes that. Not a single thing.

The severe underestimation or outright disregard of that value lies at the core of every atrocity any person has ever committed against anyone else.

We have got to stop treating that assumption as though it were normal. It is absolutely not.

On the notion that science is the only bearer of truth in today's world...

So, what's below was drafted I've no idea when, obviously while I was still attempting to complete my Grad Cert so we'll gauge it around mid to late 2011. I've no idea at all why I didn't post it in the end, likely excessive second-guessing as is my general way, however this is something I strongly believe so here you go, 2 and a half year old post, fly free!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Whilst ploughing through my readings for the new sem, I happened upon the following:

'Science, and the seeming certainty of scientific knowledge, have undergone vast changes in the past 100 years. After all, before Einstein, most educated people believed that Sir Francis Bacon had accurately and eternally described the basic actions and laws of the physical universe. But Bacon was wrong. Scientific inquiry in the 20th century searchingly explored a variety of physical phenomena, almost always uncovering new relationships, new areas of knowledge, and most importantly, new and expanding areas of ignorance. What modern humanity regarded as certainty of scientific truth has changed fundamentally in the last 100 years, and humanity has every reason to expect similar changes in this century. Science and certainty are not synonymous, despite our tendency to blur the two.' - Philip Patterson & Lee Wilkins in 'Media Ethics: Issues and Cases'

You only have to look at the so often flawed parameters involved in scientific measurement, alongside the potential for inaccuracy in conclusion, whether due to bias or outright human fallibility, to see just how true their words are.

Now, I'm certainly not attempting to claim outright that science provides us with no factual information, far from it. What I contest, along with Messrs. Patterson and Wilkins, is its apparent status to some as the most objective source of fact when in reality history hardly speaks for its steadfastness. Hell, one could argue that by comparison, ethical reasoning has a far more consistent history (and of course, P&W do).

Essentially, there will always be more to the world than what science tells us so we should never allow it to limit our understanding of said world.'

C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism

I love this. Logic abound.

I would be genuinely interested in a well thought out response. It’s not often I can’t immediately imagine what it would be and here, the logic is simple enough that I wonder how much further you could nitpick, outside of arguing the nature of the ‘God’ in question.

Following from the above, I think it stands very well to reason that there had to be a first cause with actual intent, implying the presence of something greater than us outside of natural physical development.

I believe it to be God.

What would one who is certain of the absence of a god (as implied by atheism as opposed to agnosticism) believe it to be?

Sittin' on the fence...

This is incredible, however the full article MUST ALSO be read here: Liberals Are Ruining America. I Know Because I Am One.

I am one of likely many ‘fence-sitting’ moderates out there (I may not be from the US, but let’s face it, ‘left VS right’ politics exists everywhere) in that I find no one entity on either side wholly espouses my personal convictions. I also find that nowhere near as contradicting as the pundits would make it seem. Quite honestly, I think that political parties end up so desperate to keep the party line that even if they agree on something, they’ll find some way to disagree/argue/extend the madness.

That said, they are the ones in power (regardless of the democratic process claiming we are) and we have to work with them as much as they have to work with one another. That, I think, is the best point made by Steve Almond’s article. Instead of running into issues determined to butt heads, people need to listen to one another and actually try to find common ground upon which to build solid foundations for real progress and problem solving.

However, take a look at the comments below the story. Already you can see who has gone in determined to find an agenda in the article that ‘undermines’ their own or to berate the author for his naivete, or simply further propagate the prejudices held on both sides via the typical name-calling.

Clearly, it’s not just the political parties who aren’t willing to actually listen to anyone other than the wingnuts, spectrum end regardless… and these people are just as loud. So basically, the loudest groups in any issue are the extremists and the people decrying (and therefore calling more attention to) said extremists while anyone suggesting any actual communication gets drowned out.

Mr Almond, it appears as though you ask too much.

But hell, I’m hoping right along there with you.

(article found via rtnt tumblr)