Where do I register

What do you get when you hire idiots to build crap designed by fools using dregs on a foundation of garbage? No. Not an apartment in Sydney but rather a legislative and regulatory edifice in Canberra.

The latest construction to appear on the horizon is the proposed religious “freedom” laws which attempt to plaster over previous regulo-legislative dross.

So. Let’s get this right.

Certain organisations, tax exempt organisations, demand that people should not be able to be terminated for expressing religious views. Yet these same organisations, tax exempt organisations, also seek the power to terminate people who express views contrary and possibly in offense to their views.

But wait. There’s more. People who have a deep and visceral opposition to legislation that criminalises speech that is offensive or which vilifies are more than comfortable in criminalising speech that offends and vilifies them.

Some views and beliefs are more equal than others apparently and as such require protections and tax exempt status.

Rather than remove existing ridiculous oppression (not protections) as provided through various Human Rights laws and commissions, the Government now is seeking to build and extend this existing crap.

Call it a shield. Call it a sword. Call it a banana. It will still be a pile of garbage built upon a pile of garbage.

For anyone who supports the repeal of 18c and the abolition of the AHRC and who now supports the extension of 18c equivalent laws into the religious realm, including through a “Religious Rights Commissioner”, please hang your head in shame. In fact, it’s time to leave the island.

Please tell us Attourney General, who will decide what is and is not a religion under this regime? Given somewhere around 2% of Australians declare their religion as Jedi, does this mean the Government will ban the screening of the coming Star Wars movie because it will show images (graven or otherwise) of Jedi? Will the Government imprison or fine anyone who writes a bad review of the movie because that might blasphemous? Will the playing of Darth Vader’s theme song lead to fines? Will a school for Jedi qualify for tax exempt status and Gonski funding?

Can someone please tell TAFKAS … where does one go to register a religion? And will there be a new Minister and Department for Religious Affairs that will manage this?   Will there be a national religion registry, with a well staffed and funded secretariat of course?

You could not make this stuff up. This is not protection. This is privilege. This is not freedom.  This is tyranny.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Where do I register

  1. Dan Dare

    TAFKAS, I will seek an answer from the Ministry of Truth

  2. Karabar

    If the Truth were known, the global warming religion probably has one of the largest memberships of any of the religions.
    Given that some 9 or 10 percent vote for the Greens, and a whole wollop of urban latte sippers and Chardonnay drunks worship Gaia, I reckon the religion encompasses about 40% of the population.
    If this fictional nonsense is the foundation of this religious movement, are the fairy tales and myths that it spreads to be protected. Will it be a chargeable offense to say that ‘climate change is crap’? Will it be blasphemy to point out that temperature is not climate, and that weather is a product of old Sol?

  3. Driftforge

    Some views and beliefs are more equal than others apparently and as such require protections and tax exempt status.

    This is inherently true.

    1+1=2.

    1+1=3.

    Without leftist redefinition of terms, the first statement is inherently more equal than the second. Protection of the basis of thought is important, and arbitrary redefinition should not be permitted as it damages a common good, a common understanding.

  4. Roger

    Certain organisations, tax exempt organisations, demand that people should not be able to be terminated for expressing religious views. Yet these same organisations, tax exempt organisations, also seek the power to terminate people who express views contrary and possibly in offense to their views.

    I’m having trouble following your argument.

    Do you believe people should be terminated from their employment for expressing religious views in their own time?

    And do you believe religious organisations should be compelled to employ people who do not share the organisations goals or ethos?

  5. Rusty of Qld

    Tafkas,
    Do you get the feeling that your bashing your head against a brick wall and when will his maddness end?

  6. Roger

    …the Government now is seeking to build and extend this existing crap.

    But only because the activist Left has made it an issue.

    The Constitution implicitly guarantees freedom of religion.

    And several international human rights covenants to which we are a signatory spell out the nature of religious freedom quite concisely.

    Meantime, there is one very prominent case going before the High Court.

    The government could not leave the legislative lacunae unfilled for long in this climate.

  7. Tim Neilson

    I think you’re getting a bit emotional TAKFAS.

    I agree that there shouldn’t be any sort of 18C prohibitions against speech that “offends” (etc) religious believers. (And, of course, that 18C should be repealed, or at the very least amended so it doesn’t apply to words that merely “insult” or “offend”.)

    But I think you’re being a bit disingenuous in saying that
    Certain organisations, tax exempt organisations, demand that people should not be able to be terminated for expressing religious views. Yet these same organisations, tax exempt organisations, also seek the power to terminate people who express views contrary and possibly in offense to their views.

    I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s occurring.

    I have seen the Israel Folau saga where some people say, with absolute logical consistency, that if someone is hired to teach in a Christian school where parents are paying to have their kids taught Christianity then the school ought to be able to sack them if they start teaching anti-Christian views, but if someone is hired to play rugby they shouldn’t be liable to be sacked for saying something in their own non-employment related time that has nothing to do with rugby. (There’s a “freedom of contract” overlay, i.e. the second proposition is not incontrovertibly correct, but the two propositions aren’t in any way contradictory.)

    As for the “tax exempt” thing, speaking as a Christian I wouldn’t mind religions not being tax exempt if they got proper deductions for the way they apply their money e.g. to good causes and to promotion of their religion (which after all is how they earn the income – it would be just like any other business deduction). I imagine the government would end up collecting very little. Probably the compliance costs would outweigh any real benefit, at least for real religions.

  8. Tezza

    I’m pretty much with Roger #314028.

    People have freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Some people (though not me) exercise those freedoms in the formal framework of a ‘religion’, with beliefs in a god or gods, and other transcendent elements of ‘faith’. There is no reason to licence such views as ‘freedom of religion’ and give special authority to what John Anderson calls ‘professional religionists’ (ie, ministers, rabbis, imams or what not). Basic exercise of freedoms requires the abolition of s 18c, not a shield for some religions against its exercise by those taking offence.

    I don’t think the cause of recovering all our freedoms is advanced by mocking religious use of those freedoms. Sparty’s arguments will only aid the green left and QWERTY crowd who want to crush all remnants of freedom of conscience, speech and association in favour of their woke gospel of approved thought.

  9. Buccaneer

    Will the government be forced to define what qualifies as a religion? That could open an interesting can of worms…

  10. Diogenes

    I have always joked that I am a (pun on my real surname + part of an indian cult’s name) . Therefore everything I don’t like is ‘against my relgion’, and my religion not only condones smoking, but demands it !

  11. Peter Greagg

    Driftforge
    #3146016, posted on September 2, 2019 at 5:07 pm
    Some views and beliefs are more equal than others apparently and as such require protections and tax exempt status.

    This is inherently true.

    1+1=2.

    1+1=3.

    Without leftist redefinition of terms, the first statement is inherently more equal than the second. Protection of the basis of thought is important, and arbitrary redefinition should not be permitted as it damages a common good, a common understanding.

    I am not having a go at you, but from a Pure Maths perspective, 1 + 1 = 2, only because we say it is true.
    We could say 1 + 1 = 10, if we wanted to, and it would be equally valid as the 1 + 1 = 2 you mentioned.
    Therefore your comment doesn’t say what you think it does.

  12. struth

    Who the fuck is the government to get involved in any of this?

    I know that seems like a basic statement but anyone in government be they a politician or a public servant of any kind from Judges to cleaners, that concerns themselves with regulating the speech of anyone should be taken out and lined up against a wall and shot.
    Full stop.
    These arrogant c..nts, these totalitarian scum should taste the same fate as those Australians that copped bullets fighting against the scum behaving the same as them in defending Australia.
    Say it loud.
    Say it without fear.
    Shout it from the rooftops and never be silenced.

    The already defeated pick over the technicalities of speech laws.
    If there are none in your heart and you sre righteous there’s no arsehole that can shut you up.
    They’ll just draw attention to what you are saying.
    See a certain President of the United States for a lesson in using the pricks.

  13. Dr Fred Lenin

    All this shit is the product of dfourth rate politicians being pushed by woke bludger bastards
    A la Guillotine les elitistes , mort aux politiciens de toute les sexes .

  14. Chris

    A la Guillotine les elitistes , mort aux politiciens de toute les sexes .

    Non, non, a les lumieres! C’est plus vite.

  15. Chris M

    Do you get the feeling that your bashing your head against a brick wall and when will his maddness end?

    When he is introduced to a padded cell? All this hate and spittle with lashings of fake ‘tax exempt’ nonsense. Freedom of speech (which we also lack) and freedom of religion are the foundations of western civilization. This bitter one apparently wants freedom from religion rather like North Korea, Soviet Russia or Red China.

  16. Diogenes

    We could say 1 + 1 = 10,

    It does !

    There are 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don’t

  17. stackja

    Who created this mess?
    Lionel Murphy.

  18. Peter Greagg

    Diogenes
    #3146097, posted on September 2, 2019 at 7:09 pm
    We could say 1 + 1 = 10,

    It does !

    There are 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don’t

    Exactly!
    Of course, we could define 1 + 1 = 4, if we wanted as well.

  19. Fat Tony

    Diogenes
    #3146097, posted on September 2, 2019 at 7:09 pm
    We could say 1 + 1 = 10,

    It does !

    There are 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don’t

    Now that was clever……

  20. The BigBlueCat

    One wonders if TAFKAS might think it unfair for, say, they LNP to sack a staffer who joined the Greens ….

  21. Dr Fred Lenin0

    Stackja ,murphy , that crim he would love have been an Aldi bagman if Aldi had been in
    Australia then ,wonder if the libs take David Jines bags or Myer ,little bitta class .

  22. notafan

    I’m with Roger, Tezza and Chris

    Name the ‘tax exempt organisations’ that stood in the way of 18c being repealed.

    The only one that had any influence that I recall began with an I.

    Non profit ‘ tax empemt organisations’ aka religions may not be taxed (which is an irrelevancy) but their voluntary members are both taxpayers and voting citizens who apparently should have no basic human rights.

    Tafkas is now rolling with the totalitarian nutjobs who want to tax already taxed donations (contributions to churches are not tax deductible) or force Christians (let’s be honest) to hand over their convents, monasteries, schools, hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, churches etc to the state, as they have done so many times in the past.

  23. mark jones

    The entire Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unfit for purpose. It is all gobbledegook best returned to the two tenets of the Judaeo-Christian culture..Love one another and treat others…a form of respect not taken as gospel by the militant tax exempt organisation that is not a race…anyway, why is religion to be protected? Is this the beginning of a state sponsored religion? The reason the US constitution is written thus is that, even in that god fearing country, you are free to follow any religion you wish, thus preventing one religion ruling over all others. Ise Falao has his own special religion that entreats him to proclaim his beliefs in all manner of his life. That is written in a very ancient text that predates our modern civilization. That text is a basis for a very simple people to live together harmoniously…you must not perform an act that the majority find repugnant….it isn’t until JC came down amongst us and modified it a bit to protect the individual..love one another and do unto others that the whole protection of the individual’s rights took off and those that performed acts repugnant to the majority were protected…or were they? Bottom line? There is no need to protect anyone, just give them a fair go and if that means they get to say things that USED to be followed by the majority then so be it. It is no grounds to be sacked.

  24. None

    What notafan said. Always have muses me how many totalitarian ideas are aired at Catallaxy. Freedom of religion is perhaps the most fundamental freedom of all but it seems lost on the libertarians.

  25. Iampeter

    For anyone who supports the repeal of 18c and the abolition of the AHRC and who now supports the extension of 18c equivalent laws into the religious realm, including through a “Religious Rights Commissioner”, please hang your head in shame. In fact, it’s time to leave the island.

    It’s good that I’m no longer the ONLY ONE who is pointing out glaring problems like this at the Cat.
    Welcome to the party, TAFKAS.

  26. Iampeter

    Do you believe people should be terminated from their employment for expressing religious views in their own time?

    And do you believe religious organisations should be compelled to employ people who do not share the organisations goals or ethos?

    If you don’t answer yes to the first question then you can’t answer no to the second question.

  27. Up The Workers!

    Bearing in mind TAFKAS’ first 3 paragraphs, I wonder…do Christian churches have an exemption (Statutory or otherwise) from that so-called “halal tax”?

    Our quivering, emasculated Misgovernments of both persuasions have ducked, dived, wimped and welshed on the question of the legality of one religion unilaterally taxing everybody else.

    Given their egregious lack of testicular fortitude on this question, maybe it would be administratively easier for the lily-livered Australian Misgovernment to allow the Musbyterians to levy a considerably higher rate of religious “halal tax” on everybody and just pass on the extras into Treasury coffers?

    When the Musbyterians first wanted to religiously tax the followers of other faiths, they never hummed, harred or dithered about it for decades – they just went straight ahead and did it regardless. You’d never get such forthrightness from a Liberal or Labor Misgovernment, and they’d need to set up new bureaucratic mechanisms, employ tens of thousands of new Public Serpents and gobble up 150% of the proceeds on salaries and on-cost.

    Much easier to give the job to the experts, and if you shirk on your taxes, it’s “Off with your Head” in the public square at midday. (You can even sell lucrative admission tickets to avid fans willing to see the tax-collector at work with his sword – something else you don’t often get these days under our system).

    OK – I’m purloining the micturition – but only a little bit.

  28. Gilas

    Iampeter
    #3146508, posted on September 3, 2019 at 6:35 am

    Do you believe people should be terminated from their employment for expressing religious views in their own time?

    And do you believe religious organisations should be compelled to employ people who do not share the organisations goals or ethos?

    If you don’t answer yes to the first question then you can’t answer no to the second question.

    Bullshit!
    The two arguments are not logically congruent. Agreeing or not-agreeing to one has no implications for the other, they exist in different logical domains.
    But then, one expects nothing less from a pseudo-intellectual Marxist like wimpeter.

    BTW, I completely agree with TAFKAS and Struth. All government now does is putting more coats of polish on the turds that make up our legislative chains.
    Unfortunately, apart from bloody upheaval (.. anathema to the paunchy cardigan-wearers on this blog) I can’t see an effective solution to this poisonous trend.
    That’s the conservative curse.

  29. Mother Lode

    We could say 1 + 1 = 10,

    It does !

    There are 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don’t

    LOL

  30. Terry

    “Freedom of religion is perhaps the most fundamental freedom of all”

    Surely, Freedom of Speech(Thought) is fundamental and Freedom of Religion downstream from that.

    If we protect Free Speech, Religious Freedom should require no further protection at all.

    The problem is allowing our inept legislators to tamper with our most basic rights through ham-fisted laws and regulations.

    We should be talking about repeals, not yet more badly designed and poorly enacted legislation.

  31. I_am_not_a_robot

    It’s a matter of employment contract regardless of state legislation, anyone including religious organisations ought to be able to write contracts that bind employees’ behaviour while they remain employed — don’t like the contract, don’t sign.

  32. cuckoo

    Purely anecdotal, and relying on my memory (double disqualifier) but when Victoria brought in their version of this (to protect Muzzies from Infidel Crusaders, naturally) one of the few cases brought was by a Satanist.

  33. TAFKAS:

    This is not protection. This is privilege. This is not freedom. This is tyranny.

    Well you’ve got that right.

    The Constitution implicitly guarantees freedom of religion.

    Uh huh. Now, let’s think this one through…
    What’s the definition of Religion?
    What if one – God Forbid – started a conquest ideology and branded it as a religion, how can one tell the difference?

  34. Tim Nielson:

    But I think you’re being a bit disingenuous in saying that
    Certain organisations, tax exempt organisations, demand that people should not be able to be terminated for expressing religious views. Yet these same organisations, tax exempt organisations, also seek the power to terminate people who express views contrary and possibly in offense to their views.
    I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s occurring.

    Good God! An Underground Denizen surfaces and because no one has cut its throat in its ten seconds of existence, declares “It’s safe to come out!”

  35. Thomas Ray

    Yes, TAFKAS, bona fide religious institutions should be tax exempt. So should all businesses and charities. The way the tax system is set up, the gov gets to tax your income; ergo, you can spend only 65% of what you earn. If you decide to buy something, you pay GST of 10%. If you donate to a church, you at least get to donate the true amount. (As an aside, the clergy do pay income tax if I am not mistaken.) If you buy shares, then the business makes a profit, that is taxed, then you get your dividend, which can be taxed. As for your point about speech, I agree. The more someone tries to define free speech, the less free speech we have.

  36. Tezza:

    People have freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

    Conscience:
    Free Speech:
    Association:

  37. calli

    “Freedom of religion is perhaps the most fundamental freedom of all”

    Surely, Freedom of Speech(Thought) is fundamental and Freedom of Religion downstream from that.

    What one believes is expressed in what one says and does.

    Whether protection of the first is primary for legislators is another argument.

  38. John A

    Diogenes #3146097, posted on September 2, 2019, at 7:09 pm

    We could say 1 + 1 = 10,

    It does !

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don’t

    Diogenes, I hope you are of similar vintage to myself, and therefore can recall punched paper tape, punched cards, and 60-bit Words in computer mainframes.

    And 300-baud acoustic couplers 🙂

    Ah, yes, nostalgia: there’s nothing like it these days!

  39. Iampeter

    The two arguments are not logically congruent. Agreeing or not-agreeing to one has no implications for the other, they exist in different logical domains.

    If you’re a sloppy thinker and have no principles then I can see why you might think that.
    But to those who are not, the fundamental question is: does a business have a right to fire people for any reason or not?
    Those of us who are actually right wing will answer: Yes. No one has a right to a job.
    Those of you who are clueless leftists, like all too many posters here, will answer with all your usual clarity: Yes…but no. It depends. Religious rights. Marxists! Bullshit! And so on and so forth…

    BTW, I completely agree with TAFKAS and Struth.

    No you don’t. I’m pretty sure you didn’t understand a thing that TAFKAS wrote and no one understands what struth wrote. It can best be described as a crackpot rant, which is sadly very typical here.

  40. Iampeter

    It’s a matter of employment contract regardless of state legislation, anyone including religious organisations ought to be able to write contracts that bind employees’ behaviour while they remain employed — don’t like the contract, don’t sign.

    That’s how it should be, but thanks to things like FWA, contracts are written to appease regulations instead of by unforced agreement between employers and employees.
    The regulations TAFKAS is talking about will make this situation much, much worse.

    What if one – God Forbid – started a conquest ideology and branded it as a religion, how can one tell the difference?

    Yep. Just one of the many, many issues with ideas of “religious freedom.” All of today’s talk about “religious freedom” stems from a gross misunderstanding, or intentional misleads, as to what the American Founders meant in the First Amendment. Today’s advocates take it to mean special privileged for Christians. The Founders meant, and it’s true meaning is, the government shouldn’t be able to tell you how to practice your religion, or any belief system for that matter.

    Surely, Freedom of Speech(Thought) is fundamental and Freedom of Religion downstream from that.

    Yep, freedom of speech includes freedom of religion.
    What those that try to raise “freedom of religion” to some special status are trying to do is argue for special privileges for certain belief systems but not others. This in turn is a violation of actual freedom of religion, free speech and many other rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.