subscribe btndonate btn

Displaying items by tag: religious freedom

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U. S. ____ (2018) (June 4, 2018), the US Supreme Court by 7-2 overturned previous decisions against a Christian cake maker, Jack Phillips, who had declined to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. While the basis of the decision of the majority is fairly narrow, the outcome is clearly correct, and even in the narrow reasons offered by Justice Kennedy, there are a number of important affirmations which support religious freedom.

Published in Religious Freedom
Thursday, 24 May 2018 21:41

Face-Coverings and Testimony in Court

Should a Muslim woman who wears a face covering for religious reasons, be entitled to give evidence in court with her face covered? This important issue, which has been discussed in other common law jurisdictions, has now been considered in the NSW Court of Appeal, in Elzahed v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 103 (18 May 2018). The Court concluded that no error had been shown in a ruling by a trial judge, that Ms Elzahad was not entitled to keep her face covered while testifying.

Published in Islam

The recent decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Pemberton v Inwood [2018] EWCA Civ 564 (22 March 2018) upholds what was in effect disciplinary action taken against a Church of England clergyman, the Reverend Canon Jeremy Pemberton, on account of his entering into a same-sex marriage. The decision is a sensible one which upholds the religious freedom of the Anglican church to operate in accordance with its fundamental religious beliefs.

Published in Religious Freedom

A student Christian group at the University of Iowa has been reinstated as a registered student organisation by a US Federal District Court Judge, after previously having its status revoked by University authorities. The student group, Business Leaders in Christ (“BLinC”), had been penalised because it would not agree to appoint to its leadership a same-sex attracted student, who said that they would not undertake to comply with the group’s commitment to Biblical sexual values. The University claimed that this was a breach of its Policy on Human Rights, forbidding discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. BLinC claimed, however, that the issue was not the student’s orientation, but their express refusal to modify their behaviour to accord with Biblical norms.

Published in Religious Freedom

Australia is in the middle of a debate as to the extent to which religious freedom rights should be accommodated in legislation introducing “same sex marriage” (SSM). Those who object to this idea tell us that:

Christian conservatives – following the lead of their counterparts in the United States – seek to use freedom of religion to justify discrimination against members of the LGBTQI community. This agenda is now being pursued under the guise of the debate for a marriage equality bill. (“After the yes vote, let’s not remove one inequality and replace it with another” The Guardian online, 22 Nov 2017)
Published in Religious Freedom

I recently attended a colloquium run by the Presbyterian Church, Religion in the Public Square. Speakers included the illustrious Augusto Zimmerman, journalist Angela Shanahan, and other cultural commentators. The talks covered the current litany of restrictions being placed on Christians in the public arena. It was sobering to hear spectrum of persecutions being waged against us both in Australia and overseas - remember this was before the results of the postal vote on marriage were known. If it was bad before, then it prosises to be much worse from now on.

Published in Religious Freedom
Tuesday, 07 November 2017 20:27

This is What Progressives Think About Your Freedoms

One of the major differences between conservatives and progressives is that we demand protections for all citizens, whereas in general, progressives demand rights for their adherents exclusively. This difference has been particularly noticeable during the campaign for marriage equality, although it shows up across the board. Progressives have taken to openly criticising us for our desire to preserve our freedoms. Gay rights activist, Rodney Croome, goes so far as to say that for conservatives - whom Croome refers to as the radical right -  the fear of losing freedoms is actually an attempt to gain power:

Published in Catholic

Australia is a multi-faith society. The 2016 Census shows that, while the mix of beliefs has changed over the years, Australia remains a pretty religious place. In the last census, nearly 70% of Australians self-identified as religious. The number of Australians who have self-identified as Christian in the census has fallen from 88.2% in 1966 to 52.1% in 2016. The number of Australians identifying as being of another religion has grown from 0.8% to 8.2%, with Islam (2.6%), Buddhism (2.4%) and Hinduism (1.9%) being the largest non-Christian faiths. The number who self-identified in the category of “no religion” has grown from 0.8% to 30.1%. This category includes having secular beliefs, other spiritual beliefs or having no religion. This makes it hard to be sure what these Australians believe.

Published in Religious Freedom

Let me open with a few home truths: -Those demanding the complete redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage do NOT want a debate on the matter. -They want it rammed through without the agreement of the public. -They do not have facts and evidence on their side, which is why they despise debate. -They therefore do not seek to win the debate – they seek to shut down the debate. -If they must engage in debate, the best they can come up with is ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, name-calling, hate and hysteria. All this is easily enough documented. As to the other side preventing genuine debate from taking place, and shutting down the ‘No’ voice on homosexual marriage, consider a few recent articles.

Published in Religious Freedom
Tuesday, 15 August 2017 07:43

As for Me and My House

Julie Robinson, wife of Queensland MP Mark Robinson, wrote this excellent social media post about the end goal of Marxism - the destruction of the family. Julie has kindly allowed me to reproduce her article here. 

As For Me and My House.

  What we're facing here is nothing new. Marxism has always taught that the nuclear family - father, mother and children must be eradicated. It is, according to Marx and Engels both a result of capitalism, and designed to perpetuate it. Wealth passed down through family lines only ensures class divisions continue. Patriarchy (and marriage) maintain oppression of women and children as they have less control over resources and are therefore less powerful. In a truly Marxist society, Family must go - or at least family as defined as father, mother and their children. To destroy family, one must first undermine or weaken that unique and powerful bond between husband and wife, and put a wedge between children and parents. State encouragement of sexual experimentation is designed to bring an end to monogamy - all in the name of freedom and equality.

Published in Religious Freedom
Page 4 of 5