On Religious Freedom | Mark Sneddon & Dr. Sarah Irving Stonebraker

[@howardbabcom]

Stonebraker really knows her stuff. it's such a shame that this manner of understanding is so lacking today. Good discussion.

[@angrytrek]

All participants are spot on but Mark Sneddon is incredibly articulate and informative.

[@soniamessinger3086]

This was a fantastic conversation about the historical, legal and societal importance of religious liberty. This is a vital and fundamental freedom.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Finally.....someone who begins at the beginning , with defining our terms before we can even begin to have a conversation.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Just 21 minutes in and I am so excited and must stop to write this because its the most rigorous conversation (in Australia ) that I have listened to in the last year....thank you - so far ?

[@pahum67]

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that as individuals we all have the right to our own beliefs? And furthermore why would I not accept another persons right to believe what they want even when I think they are wrong? After all, it is my expectation that people will afford me my rights to believe what I believe. Reciprocation is a foundational necessity as far as Religious freedom is concerned. This was a good talk by three wise and knowledgable people. Kudos to them!

[@randygault4564]

If the other person believes you must be killed, you should have a problem with that.

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@randygault4564 You have to take all human rights as a package, so that makes your example moot.

[@grannyannie6744]

@@randygault4564 Depends if they want you killed because you were tried by a jury of your peers and found guilty of a crime which carried the death sentence. As was the law throughout most of modern history.

[@grannyannie6744]

Since we now live in a society that condones crimes against humanity, it's no wonder there is no space for conscience.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

@@randygault4564 Really ?

[@stacyliddell5038]

It always amazes me that those seeking to be tolerated by society are often the least tolerant of others.

[@machtnichtsseimann]

They need to get some serious help in therapy and/or have a wake-up moment that displays their hypocrisy out in public to be ashamed of. ( On the most part I am very tolerant, almost to a fault, but I was caught flaming out in public on social media against a friend's religion that I believed was "false". I was so deeply "offended" and "protective" for MY religion's tradition and history that I became a one-man verbal lynch mob. After a couple of days it dawned on me how IN-tolerant I was and how undiplomatic I had been. The very hypocrisy that I had managed to evade for most of my life up until that point. I did apologize to the offended party as well as everyone else on the social media platform that had witnessed it. May God truly help me remember that @sinine act for the rest of my life, not that I believe I am unforgiven, but that I learn from it and not repeat that particular offense. My belief on the topic hasn't changed much, but my posture and approach definitely have. )

[@kirkfletcher7670]

Excellent discussion, Thank you.

[@cmojo68]

We have gone to great pains and extraordinary measures, to ensure that no one, is offended ...and by doing so, we have maintained that everyone, is constantly offended. Welcome to the universal tolerance, of intolerance.

[@waynosfotos]

Yes, we have removed the responsibility of people to take Responsibility for how they react. The current view is that someone else, has control over how the person who is offended. It is a involuntary response as expressed in law. How bizzare, who would of thought we are not in control of our actions?

[@noelajones619]

This is such a great reasoned conversation, and may this be multiplied.

[@rayrayrayrayray79]

Mr Sneddon is the voice of reason.

[@soniavadnjal7553]

Marvellous. A necessary discussion, not before time.

[@berniefynn6623]

A homosexual can call a christian a hater,bigot and homophobe, hate speech and yet a christian cannot say homosexuality is wrong and a sin.

[@soniavadnjal7553]

Ah, my favourite programme theme music. Good to hear it again.

[@brianmckerrow817]

Im really impressed with your personality. Im sure your could be rurhless when needed as a leader but Im sure on principle as your obviously a sincere man. Enjoying the content.

[@jakewalklate6226]

Thank you John!

[@traceygoogleserviced2054]

Refreshing and Brilliant!

[@ChrysanthsMum]

While I didn't agree with you completely, I appreciate the conversation. Thank you.

[@peetsnort]

Spoken with true tolerance

[@berniefynn6623]

If some one does not want to know me after saying something that offends them, they are obviously no loss.

[@555Trout]

Watching dear Australia fall to authoritarianism is unbearable.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

It is so we must stand in the gap...be Daniel's.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

I know. Just when I think I can manage the grief 'they' bring in some other sort of mandate n I have to revisit the pain n anger.

[@georginawhitby1320]

Freedom of conscience , and freedom of religion requires being able to speak what we know to be true, and to refuse to play along with rituals that support a big lie.

[@kayleneemery8217]

Amen Georgina and John says it so well when he states....." I don't see how any society can be free once you unreasonably clamp down on freedom of conscience and belief".

[@grannyannie6744]

Australia now condones crimes against humanity, is it no wonder there is no space for conscience ?

[@kaylenehousego8929]

@@grannyannie6744 Amen !

[@kaylenehousego8929]

@@grannyannie6744 Amen !

[@waynosfotos]

A question; If a Christian at work, is talking with others about marriage and what marriage is, and says, "Marriage is between a man and a woman" then a libertarian says, "I find that statment offensive!" Should the company reprimand the Christian or even go as far as dismissing the Christian if he/she will not apologize. This is were the whole argument gets very sticky. And freedom of saying and believing what they choose too under religious freedom, or freedom of speech. Comments?

[@peterrunge5501]

Short answer to your scenario. Property rights should trump religious free speech. Let workplaces have rules to deal with such conflicts in work contracts. And let people decide upfront if they want to work under those rules. That may not resolve all such disputes but serves as a good starting point imho ...

[@DanielSMatthews]

A very interesting discussion however it seems to have overlooked one very important scenario, imagine being told that you will not receive an exemption in a given matter because your beliefs and practises, which you have adhered to your entire life, do not belong to a prescribed religion as determined by the state. Well there was some discussion of China and official religions, but I mean in Australia today. Entirely theoretical and not probable you say? Well you would be wrong as that is exactly what the Queensland government has done this year. If you are not free to decide what your beliefs are for yourself then you don't have human rights with regard to religious freedoms at all. If you must have your beliefs certified by any authority then the UN Declaration on Human Rights is being ignored as it does not mention or require such authorisations and it is just a false requirement inserted into the process to allow the state to be dismissive of and discriminate against individuals and minorities. This exact issue will now go before the QLD HR commision. If anyone else has found themself in the same position please contact me.

[@waynosfotos]

In law, potentially anything is offensive. But you don't know it is offensive until it is uttered. How can you write a law that we don't know it is wrong until after the fact. I find this bizzare!

[@simonbevan4598]

We do not wrestle with flesh and blood but against principalities powers and rulers of the darkness of this age and the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly realms. Ephesians6 v12

[@daheikkinen]

Sounds like a video game

[@kayleneemery8217]

Be careful Simon - as Christians we can too easily quote the bible to non Christians (and to each other ) and in doing so shut down the discussion so vital to our common humanity.

[@hansreichhardtsohn4522]

God botherer.

[@simonbevan4598]

@@kayleneemery8217 Lord bless you and keep you His face shine upon you and be gracious to you and give you His peace. Choose life. Life most abundant.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

@@simonbevan4598 Thank you Simon. May you experience His love often during these times.

[@nathanngumi8467]

A great discussion! However for a large part only Mark was engaged leaving Dr. Sarah to be part of the audience! I found this weird especially since many of the legal issues discussed by Mark have historical perspectives that Dr. Sarah could have explored! When having two or more panelists in a discussion, whether on TV or radio or podcast, the host ought to engage all of them equally time-wise as far as is possible. If there are two panelists it is simple: just alternate between the two.

[@peetsnort]

Yes I was waiting for the inclusion. But I suppose the 3 is a crowd applies.

[@peetsnort]

TBH i think she is click bait. She does have marvellous legs which is distracting to me as a red blooded male.

[@georginawhitby1320]

Freedom of conscience would have to include the freedom to resist compliance with sacrificing children's wellbeing and health to interventions that can neither benefit them , nor their community interventions submitted to by many only to remove the harassment of agents of the corrupt state.

[@kayleneemery8217]

Amen !

[@peterrunge5501]

John @ 24:00 - "When the state determines what you can and can't say ... you can end up in a worse mess than ever." Are you listening to this ScoMo? And your glorious "eSafety Commissioner?"

[@peetsnort]

Never mind the state interference in free speech. The establishment of the silicone Valley elite and the use of algorithmic censorship that is being employed with artificial intelligence is much worse than slow state intervention. I can have my comments deleted in real time

[@Sk0lzky]

Let's just say if registering temple of Ishtar isn't a valid way to bypass prostitution laws the religious freedom is heavily restricted.

[@jasonseng5463]

Atheism is the way. It's so easy. It has no content. It's like being a non astronaut. I love it.

[@DanielSMatthews]

Atheism is a belief system too, and to communicate it requires as much effort as any other belief system. Only the "I couldn't know so I don't care" point of view is "easy", but only in that sense as there may be other burdens that it introduces into your existence.

[@peterstone8366]

No God, no accountability, no God, everyone god, Rafferty rules!

[@bluemm2852]

Ignorance while blissfull, is still ignorance.

[@veganath]

@@peterstone8366 so you are implying that people who do not believe your claim that a God/s exist have no morality, seriously??

[@veganath]

@@bluemm2852 *_"Ignorance while blissfull, is still ignorance."_* ignorance about what exactly?

[@nwaikikai]

On the matter of curtailing speech on the basis of it being "hurtful" it seems obvious that this highly subjective ground for prohibiting speech must inevitably become unsupportable precisely because the individual's personal preference is the standard for allowed speech - a standard that is as wide and varied as the individual's from which the standard arises. How can such a standard be met and sustained? We can all imagine instances where hurtful words are necessary: medical diagnosis, correction of a wrong answer in, say, math class, prohibiting dangerous behavior, warning of harmful or embarrassing future consequences, and so on. Clearly, making what is "hurtful" or offensive the basis for prohibiting speech is an entirely specious ground for doing so. As the Bible puts it: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend. But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

[@gregtube63]

Victoria. Welcome to Australia's version of California

[@berniefynn6623]

Religious liberty has to be exactly the same as for atheists and NO consequence for saying something, except slander.

[@kayleneemery8217]

But John, to be guided by moral norms and do what one aught one must be immersed in the very essence of what you describe and this sadly is not, the "norm". To be born n live outside that norm can be agony and consequently breed hate and dissension not to mention an appetite for revenge ?

[@arildbrock5132]

BILL AGAINST BILL? When defenders of religious freedom suggest a bill defending freedom against another bill, which has already infringed upon religious freedom, they are entering a dangerous game (a game of power, isn’t it?) Such an effort can in a paradoxical way strengthen the grip of the state on a realm of life it should not have entered in the first place. The old division between religion and state was based on one religion. From this religion’s perspective religion was supreme - about the Supreme Being. To defend religious freedom against the state on behalf of more than one religion is a different task. It can seemingly be done on liberal grounds only. Liberalism, however, is the favourite ground of the state. The state feels very comfortable weighing one freedom against another and MORE than comfortable PITTING one freedom against another. Everybody may have the best intentions. But overt intention is not the same as (covert) motivation. Civil disobedience, however, would take the problem at its root. I guess one religion cannot really accept another religion. The other religion is false, or at best insufficient. But is there any chance that two religions would be about The Same Thing?

[@regine3147]

Maybe just as an aside to this is that I think our society has lost its ability to respect one another. Sort of went out the window at some stage and now everybody has to earn respect. I believe previously it was freely given but that was obviously abused. Where to go now?

[@DanielSMatthews]

The psychopaths have taken over, so the solution is to eliminate the psychopaths from any area of power or influence.

[@regine3147]

@@DanielSMatthews is there a vaccine for that?

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@regine3147 It can be detected on a fMRI brain scan as there are abnormalities in the connection between different parts of the brain. There are also thought to be genetic factors at play. Currently there is no cure so the only option is to detect and redirect those people into careers where they can do less social and economic harm. Many of the less intelligent ones, those with control issues, end up in the prison system, that would make up about 25% of that population. The rest are attracted to any area where there is money or power, and therefore money to be had.

[@regine3147]

@@DanielSMatthews thank you for that, however, I was being facetious in light of all governments believing that their selected vaccines are going to cure us all. 😃🤣

[@grannyannie6744]

Which is not surprising in a society that is willing to commit Crimes against humanity under the Geneva convention in order to enrich big pharma.

[@paulmorgancollings7833]

I think religion and state should NEVER be enforced. Just look at ANYWHERE islamic. Or is that just me?

[@veganath]

Australia made a hugh mistake allowing Islam to be practiced within it's borders. Australia should not have carte blanc tolerance of religion especially in light of that religion of peace 'Islam' publicly stated global agenda to implement a barbaric theocratic legal system, a system that would see circumstance where people could be put to death by the state for inherently non-violent acts, i.e. blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality & adultery or amputation of limbs for theft what to speak of the inherent devaluing of human life given that Islam's God deems some beautiful humans who reject & criticize Allah & Islam deserve an *_INFINITE_* duration of unimaginable suffering(3rd degree burns to 100% of one's body) for said *_FINITE_* transgression.

[@brucewearne5081]

Is a Christian School going to be able to develop its own Christian view of the natural environment for the children and encourage their responsibility to look after God's creation, if it is prevented from employing a Christian gardener? The State is interposing itself into the very purpose of the school where it has no pedagogical basis to do so ... on this matter the Victorian Government is completely out of line with public justice for all. The civil marriage ceremony as prescribed by the Federal Parliament’s bogus reform to Marriage Act in 2017 cannot be viewed as anything other than a "change or suppression practise" implemented by ideologues who refused then and subsequently to be accountable to their electors by spelling out their legislative agenda before hand through their ("both sides") parties platforms. The ceremony, when held for the young woman and young man who wish to be wed as husband and wife, pompously and egregiously ignores their marriage belief telling them that they are viewed from henceforth in the law of the land as but "two persons" - in terms of the Victorian legislation a civil ceremony cannot but be a change or suppression practise directed at their mutual marital sexuality and henceforth should be viewed as a criminal offence.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

The very same bill is currently before the NSW parliament Bruce Wearne , we are not very far behind Vic in all , of the issues spoken about here.

[@peetsnort]

Never mind the state interference in free speech. The establishment of the silicone Valley elite and the use of algorithmic censorship that is being employed with artificial intelligence is much worse than slow state intervention. I can have my comments deleted in real time

[@jonathandnicholson]

I disagree with both Mark and Sarah (theologically), but an interesting discussion.

[@randygault4564]

There has never been religious freedom. There has only been freedom to be a certain kind of Christian. So call it what it is.

[@DanielSMatthews]

That is exactly what the Queensland government has done this year. If you are not free to decide what your beliefs are for yourself then you don't have human rights with regard to religious freedoms at all. If you must have your beliefs certified by any authority then the UN Declaration on Human Rights is being ignored as it does not mention or require such authorisations and it is just a false requirement inserted into the process to allow the state to be dismissive of and discriminate against individuals and minorities. This exact issue will now go before the QLD HR commision. If anyone else has found themself in the same position please contact me.

[@veganath]

@@DanielSMatthews Australia should not have carte blanc tolerance of religion especially in light of that religion of peace 'Islam' publicly stated global agenda to implement a barbaric theocratic legal system, a system that would see circumstance where people could be put to death by the state for inherently non-violent acts, i.e. blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality & adultery or amputation of limbs for theft what to speak of the inherent devaluing of human life given that Islam's God deems some beautiful humans who reject & criticize Allah & Islam deserve an *_INFINITE_* duration of unimaginable suffering(3rd degree burns to 100% of one's body) for said *_FINITE_* transgression.

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@veganath You are completely wrong because you don't get at a fundamental level how human rights work, you only have human rights in a particular area so long as your exercise of those rights does not directly diminish the rights of others. Stick to the above rule and all of your arguments become moot.

[@veganath]

@@DanielSMatthews *_"Stick to the above rule"_* or do unto others as you would want done to yourself..... the golden rule, sure but you will find not everyone is in agreement. Returning to Islam, give me one good reason why we should tolerate an ideology or any ideology that has the stated global agenda to impose it's God's barbaric theocratic legal system globally, yes even in Australia with the death penalty for inherently non-violent acts, what to speak of repeated demonstration from adherents of Islam globally who are only too tempted to be dismissive of non-believers rights *_NOT_* to be subject to violence at their zealous hands, this, given what their God deems is our fate?? Given this level of the diminishing of the value of human life advocated by Islam I make no apology for advocating for it's ban in Australia.

[@DanielSMatthews]

@@veganath You didn't understand a word I wrote. Nothing you worry about is relevant if people are _only free to assert their human rights in a _*_mutually respectful manner._* You can't ban ideas, only actions can be prohibited and only when they breach the above rule. You can't, as a matter of human rights, _practice_ any religion if it directly harms anyone else, for any reason.

[@vizjereigaucho6469]

ABC

[@tonyclack5901]

Religious freedom is dangerous, period, why because religious freedom is fine when those religions that live in the same demographic have a common moral standard. Christianity is based on the teachings of jesus, judaism is based on the teachings of Abraham and islam is based on the teachings of mohamed. The only religion that does not dictate the infliction of cruelty on the animals they eat is christianity. The only religion that does not actively hate other religions or the people who follow them is again christianity. Islam makes it quite clear it does not recognise or tolerate the unbeliever.

[@chriswatson1698]

Islam also ADVOCATES wife-beating. I am grateful for the white Australia policy because it ensured that our lawmakers were not chosen by people who thought that FGM, child marriage, caste, foot-binding, polygamy, slavery and/or honour killings were OK.

[@veganath]

Australia made a hugh mistake allowing Islam to be practiced within it's borders. Australia should not have carte blanc tolerance of religion especially in light of that religion of peace 'Islam' publicly stated global agenda to implement a barbaric theocratic legal system, a system that would see circumstance where people could be put to death by the state for inherently non-violent acts, i.e. blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality & adultery or amputation of limbs for theft what to speak of the inherent devaluing of human life given that Islam's God deems some beautiful humans who reject & criticize Allah & Islam deserve an INFINITE duration of unimaginable suffering(3rd degree burns to 100% of one's body) for said FINITE transgression.

[@tonyclack5901]

@@veganath Perfectly put but the public in the UK and Australia were not asked if they wanted this ideology in their country. In the UK the great Enoch Powell warned parliament what would happen and still they went ahead.

[@veganath]

@@tonyclack5901 *_"In the UK the great Enoch Powell warned parliament"_* so did the the late great Christopher Hitchens warn the West of the religion of peace.

[@tonyclack5901]

@@veganath Yes and still no one took any notice, the same brainwashing implimented over this covid virus.