I suppose one doesn’t really appreciate their freedom of speech etc. until it is limited or gone completely. The following is ‘Reprinted by permission of FamilyVoice Australia, 4th floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000.’
Australian Federal Government
The following is from an Australian Senator bringing her constituents up to date concerning the Religious Freedom Bill. This will not turn out good for those who have religious beliefs based on the Christian Scriptures. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here is what the Senator wrote; ‘Australians of family and faith want to be able to live their lives in accordance with their faith and their convictions. The growing body of cases in Australia of people facing harassment, intimidation and persecution because of their religious beliefs and actions highlights the need for positive religious freedom laws. Some are even losing their livelihoods.
Indeed, since the 2017 same-sex marriage campaign and postal survey, people who hold and practice traditional values of marriage and family have been intimidated and harassed.
When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief is framed only as an “exemption” to other rights, they are “read down” against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one’s freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Consequently, in June 2019, I launched a petition in the Australian Senate calling for the enactment of a Religious Freedoms Act to protect the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
To date more than 30,000 original hardcopy signatures have been tabled in the Senate and I thank you to those of you who have signed my petition. My petition is ongoing and more signatures will be tabled this year.
I have continued to regularly speak in the Senate and in other forums on the need for protection of religious freedom as well as working with faith leaders and their communities toward this end.
On 29 August 2019, the Federal Government released its first exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills. Following almost 6,000 submissions and strong pressure from religious leaders, experts and stakeholders from across the faith spectrum, on 10 December 2019, the Federal Government released its second exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills.
The second exposure draft Bills are available at: http://ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts.aspx
Whilst the Second Draft did address some changes, there are still major issues of concern including:
- The current draft bills DO NOT include or define religious bodies as being involved in “commercial activities”. Therefore, no full legal protection is provided to aged care facilities, retirement villages, residential colleges, school boarding houses, camps, conference facilities or marriage counselling organisations being operated by religious organisations. Protections should extend to all bodies which are conducted in accordance with, or in furtherance of, the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of a religion. That a religious body pursuing a religious purpose could cease to be a religious body because of “commercial activities” is deeply problematic. The solution is to ensure the commercial activities test MUST be removed.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal protections from discrimination to religious corporate bodies and unincorporated associations. The definition of “persons” should not just include corporate bodies, but there needs to be a mechanism by which a religious belief can be attributed to a corporate body in light of judicial rulings that a corporate body cannot have a belief. The solution is to ensure religious corporate bodies and religious unincorporated associations MUST be protected.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide full legal protections to religious bodies to preference the employment of staff that support the religious ethos of the organisation as well as to religious bodies to preference people of faith in the use of their facilities. This should include any consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The proposal that faith-based aged care, retirement villages and hospitals only be permitted to discriminate in respect of employment, but not services, will seriously compromise their ability to act consistently with their religious ethos. The solution is to ensure religious bodies MUST be afforded full legal protections to preference the employment of staff that support their religious ethos as well as preference people of faith in the use of their facilities
- The current draft bills DO NOT extend to State vilification laws. “Vilify” needs to be defined to remove the implication that “causing harm” amounts to vilification. The interaction between the protection of statements of belief and the protections to employees against indirect religious discrimination needs greater clarity. The “reasonableness test” (clause 8) leaves open the prospect that an employer may dismiss an employee, or a professional may have their accreditation removed, even though their statement of belief is protected under clause 42. The solution is for the protection for statements of belief MUST NOT be removed or watered down but extended to include State vilification laws.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections for employees to make statements of faith at their workplace or private time without fear of retribution from their employer (no freedom of speech or religion). It will not protect you from being the next Israel Folau! Concerns remain with the $50M threshold, the principle of “unjustifiable financial hardship”, and the fact that the current drafting may in fact incentivise secondary boycotts and third-party activism. They should also apply to persons irrespective of the turnover of their employer and whether they are engaged by government. Also, reasonable statements of belief should be protected from adverse discriminatory action by qualifying bodies and others (not just employers). In order to provide adequate protection, the protections to employees and professionals should extend to reasonable statements of belief made inside and outside the workplace or in the course of their profession. The solution is to ensure genuine statements of belief MUST be protected across the board inside and outside work.
- The current draft bills DO NOT override State laws, which gives too much power to State Governments that may be hostile to religion to pass laws prohibiting certain activities. The definition of “religious activity” should exclude “criminal” rather than “unlawful” activity. “Criminal activity” means activity that constitutes a criminal offence under the laws of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory. Whilst the Second Draft excludes council by-laws from lawful religious activity, it otherwise allows State or Territory laws to override the Bill. For example, the Victorian and Queensland Governments have recently proposed to ban conversion therapy (which is so broadly defined that it includes traditional religious teaching on sexuality and prayer and pastoral care based on that teaching). Such core traditional religious practices may be made unlawful by State laws and the Bill would provide no protection to religious bodies or individuals from discrimination. Further, courts have taken restrictive views of what comprises ‘religious activity’, confining that notion to prayer, worship or the observance of religious rituals or customs. This interpretation has the potential to exclude religious statements on matters such as marriage, gender or the family from the Bill’s protections, or to exclude religiously motivated acts, or to exclude refusals to perform ‘secular’ acts that are contrary to religious teaching. In light of this jurisprudence, such activities should be clearly included within the protected notion of ‘religious activity’. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST exclude only activities that are considered criminal offences.
- The current draft bill contains a “reasonableness test” that TOO BROADLY permits “reasonable” policies and conditions that discriminate against religious people and organisations. This leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable”. The “reasonableness test” for indirect discrimination and the “comparator test” for direct discrimination is too broad and leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable” and is therefore inconsistent with the strict grounds for limiting religious manifestation in Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both tests will weaken the protections to religious believers. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST be strictly interpreted to international standards Australia has ratified as under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal and financial protections to Charitable organisations. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Freedom of Religion) Bill 2019 proposes an amendment to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) that will clarify that a charity may advocate for a traditional view of marriage and not fail the requirement that it conform to public policy. This needs to be extended to ensure that a charity will not breach the public interest test and will not lose its tax-exempt status due to its traditional view of marriage. The solution is for Charitable organisations espousing traditional views of family and faith MUST retain their charitable status without any qualifications, exemptions or exceptions.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections to individuals who may hold genuine beliefs (minority) that are not the view of a religious denomination (majority). For example, an alternative point of view from a person in that particular denomination could be used to declare that individual’s belief as wrong. The protections in the Bill to religious bodies and persons should not turn on whether ‘a person of the same religion … could reasonably consider [the conduct] to be in accordance’ with the beliefs. The focus should remain on the sincerity of the belief, consistent with the approach taken amongst leading Anglophone Courts across the world, including the High Court in the Scientology Case. The requirement that religious bodies and persons must act in ‘good faith’ may also allow the imposition of secular notions of reasonableness. The solution is to ensure an individual’s genuinely held beliefs MUST be protected (a major hallmark of a mature and plural society).
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide maximum protection to health practitioners who seek to exercise conscientious objections and they DO NOT provide protections to faith-based health institutions. Conscientious protection offered to a limited number of health practitioners is insufficient. The solution is to ensure health practitioners and faith-based health institutions MUST be protected to exercise conscientious objections’ https://mailchi.mp/1f1752e00177/religious-discrimination-2nd-draft-exposure-bill-more-work-needed?e=63ff15b667
Most politicians probably do not really know where the tax dollars go and if they did would they seek to change anything? For instance; the ‘Diversity Council Australia is 
urging employers to drop “Christmas parties” in favour of “holiday season drinks” so Muslims and other non-Christians “feel included at this time of year”.
“If you’re having a Christmas celebration, try to make sure it’s inclusive of other faiths as well because the office is for everybody,” hectored Lisa Annese for the Diversity Council, in comments to the Herald Sun reported by MailOnline.
Following the backlash which Annese’s comments provoked, the Diversity Council issued an irritable statement insisting that they “At no stage… ever urged bosses not to mention Christmas.”
“Lots of organisations celebrate the end of year holiday break with a Christmas party,’ the Council, which has received Australian taxpayers’ money to advise government agencies, explained testily.
“We are simply saying that it’s worth remembering that many Australians do not celebrate Christmas religiously, either as followers of non-Christian religions, or as individuals with no religious affiliation.
“There is a lot organisations can do to make them feel included at this time of year.”
Diversity Council Australia has previously advocated banning the word “chairman” and innocuous expressions such as “you guys”.
“Imagine a world in which sexist language was replaced by racist language,” the Council mused.
“Instead of saying ‘chairman’ and ‘you guys’, people would use ‘chairwhite’ and ‘you whiteys’… If we cringe at ‘you whiteys’ and would protest such terms, why don’t we work as hard at changing ‘you guys’?”
The Council has even claimed that “Frequent non-inclusive experiences at work have just as harmful effects as more intense but less frequent experiences” — including “sexual coercion and harassment”.
“For [the Diversity Council] to be pretending that somehow people are offended by all of this, there’s something wrong with Christmas, they’re making this up to try and get some petty relevance,” commented Mark Lathan, a New South Wales MP for the national populist One Nation party.
“They’re funded not just by big businesses who are wasting their money and should have better regard for their shareholder value — they’re actually funded by a whole bunch of government agencies,” Latham complained, branding the Council “very extreme — extreme in their delusion.”’ https://outragedpatriot.com/look-what-diversity-council-just-did-to-christmas-parties/
The following video was produced by Sky News due to the outrageous article the one billion plus dollar per year Government sponsored Australian Broadcasting Corporation published. That leftist climate scamming ‘nutty’ article by a Sydney University Professor of Gender and War may be found at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/is-fragile-masculinity-the-biggest-obstacle-to-climate-action/11797210.
This is really a sad story for it seems, all too often the government has funds for the foolish things in life but not for those folk that really matter.
‘We have allowed our farmers on the brink of financial ruin to cash in food vouchers to feed their families while hipsters are handed thousands of dollars to “experiment” with paint brushes. But instead of sheepishly pocketing their cash and disappearing into artistic obscurity, these artists want more money.
And the broader community of artists has become so consumed by identity politics that they now want money to be taken away from organisations with too many white people and too many men and given to those with more “diverse” resumes. Their ideology stems from the entitled belief it is their right to pocket the $177 million annual funding pool given to the Australia Council for Arts. The mechanisms by which we distribute tax dollars are broken. Meanwhile, the Australian Government has kicked 1300 Queensland farmers off household assistance. The $244 weekly payment was helping feed the children of farmers battling one of the worst droughts in living memory. Anyone who says we cannot afford to help these people is a fool. We have the money, it is just going to the wrong people. And if we don’t help them, the economic fallout of towns collapsing will be far worse. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg rightly pointed out that Australia’s measly economic 1.7 per cent growth forecast lost roughly 0.25 per cent to the drought. But while we debate how many dollars to send our farmers lets go over what we supposedly can afford. In August alone, more than $180,000 was given to “emerging and experimental” artists. Sydney musician Gail Priest, who describes herself as a “solo electro-acoustic” performer was given $16,000. “I seek to have a multifaceted practice that explores the aural realm both materially and conceptually,” she writes on her websites. Artist Josh Harle was given $46,507 from the same funding pool but this writer cannot work out exactly what he does. He describes his art as an investigation into “the virtual spaces generated by emerging technologies, our encounters with the world through them, and their social and political impacts”. Cool. Artist Rebecca Gallo got $42,435, Lucas Ihlein got $43,300 and something called Fusebox Festival got $50,800. The Australia Council which gave them the tax dollars was contacted but their spokeswoman Brianna Roberts declined to reveal details of their projects. “We cannot provide more specific details about individual projects for privacy reasons,” she said. No transparency, no accountability. They should be stripped of their ability to decide who gets your money, but instead, artists are making a move for even more funds. More than 700 artists released a letter this month calling for arts ministers around the country to revise funding procedures. They want more “diversity” and more money to come from “Major Performing Arts” projects and instead given to obscure individual artists. “The MPA Framework is a roadblock to Australian culture’s growth and survival,” the letter said. “Currently, MPA funding constitutes 59 per cent of Australia Council grants, a proportion that is ‘ring-fenced’. “The direct consequence of this is severely diminished discretionary funds available to independent artists.” University of Melbourne academic Jo Caust followed up the letter with an article in The Conversation where she argued money should be pulled from Australia’s top orchestras, operas, theatres and ballets. These “traditions”, she says, are too European. Too white. “The MPA organisations include ten orchestras, five opera companies, eight theatre companies, and three ballet companies, “she wrote. “These companies are generally focused on the western canon and follow the European tradition in terms of their cultural priorities. “They tend to be white and male dominated in their leadership – Bangarra is the only First Nations company. The very nature of major performing companies excludes all other art forms, such as literature and the visual arts.” Art is subjective, this writer accepts that. But it is absurd to suggest that money should be pulled from our greatest orchestras and given to someone who describes themselves as an “electro-acoustic” performer. And while the artists tear each other apart over these generous grants lets all spare a thought for the farmers who would have lifechanging circumstances with even a fraction of that money.’ https://www.skynews.com.au/details/5daf94ef1de1c4001ae90b80?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Viewpoint%202310&utm_content=Viewpoint%202310+CID_e1d97ab0f215953a240ca46069646113&utm_source=Daily%20newsletter&utm_term=Entitled%20artists%20squander%20millions%20while%20our%20cattle%20starve
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the Australian Muslim Times would support the Labor Party and the Greens over the more conservative fiscally responsible Coalition. The Labor Party and Greens are usually in bed together when it comes to whacky, leftist policies. Both parties seem to want to take as much money as they can from the citizen to feed their frenzied crazy phantom religion of so-called climate change or as it is now being called climate emergency.
When the Greens, the Labor Party, and Muslims are all in bed together nothing good can come out of it for the conservative citizen and especially those who claim the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.
2Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears and will follow false religions such as Islam and Gaia.
Thankfully, John 3:15-17 is still in the Bible. 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Australia will be voting the 18th May, 2019 for a new Federal Government which means also a new Prime Minister. Bill Shorten is the leader of the Australian Labor Party and is seeking the PM position after being the leader of the opposition for six years.
Now, the main purpose of this article is what Bill Shorten said in the third PM debate. 
‘Mr Shorten then surprised by arguing strongly for religious freedoms, before adding he doesn’t believe in Hell.
“People should be free to practise their religion,” Mr Shorten said.
“… Mr Morrison is right. It’s a contractual negotiation at one level, but I’m uneasy about where that debate’s gone.
“On one hand, I think Israel Folau is entitled to his views. And he shouldn’t suffer an employment penalty for it … But I also think that we’ve got to be mindful about the other side of the equation.
“People putting out on social media that if you’re gay you’re going to go to Hell, I get that’s what he genuinely believes.
“I don’t think if you’re gay you’re going to go to Hell. I don’t know if Hell exists actually. But I don’t think if it does that being gay is what sends you there. So I am uneasy.”’ https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2019/2019/05/09/no-need-to-get-nasty-pm-and-labor-leader-trade-policy-blows-in-final-leaders-debate/
So, Bill Shorten doesn’t believe in Hell but he does claim to be a Christian. ‘“I am a Christian and a supporter of marriage equality under the law”. – Bill Shorten’ https://www.eternitynews.com.au/archive/kind-christian-bill-shorten/
What is scary in what Shorten and the present Prime Minister say is that they believe in religious freedom but if your religious beliefs are verbally voiced, such as Israel Folau’s were, then that can be hate speech. PM Morrison said “Free speech is one of our fundamental freedoms, so is religious freedom. I feel this very strongly. I mentioned it in my maiden speech to the Parliament. If you’re not free to believe, what are you free to do in this country?”
“Freedom of speech is important, but we have to exercise it responsibly and exercise it in a society such as ours with civility and due care and consideration to others.”
Now, what did Israel Folau say? 
To a Bible-believing Christian all Israel did was quote the Bible and say what it means and that is, those that commit such sins will not go to Heaven! However, it must be admitted that those words would not go well with those committing those sins. For instance, Alan Joyce of Qantas Airlines (which is also a sponsor of the team Israel plays for) is a Sodomite and he personally took offense. Does that mean Israel doesn’t have the liberty to say what he believes? Joyce as head of Qantas had plenty to say when Australia was getting ready to vote for so-called same-sex marriage. Even though Joyce’s words offended many who did not hold his view he had the freedom to state what he believed. The same should be for Israel Folau!
But, my point in all of this is Bill Shortens statement ‘I don’t know if Hell exists’. Therefore, let me seek to show that according to the Bible there is a place of torment waiting for unrepentant sinners.
First, what makes mankind different from all other creatures? Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. That statement carries a lot with it which would take more time than we have here but one thing it is saying is that man is eternal. No other creature is said to be in the image of God other than mankind! It is this God of which it is said in Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity…
God is eternal and mankind will live eternally with Him, which is called ‘eternal life’ or live that which is called the ‘second death’ in Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Some will argue over interpretations but taking the PLAIN SENSE of Scripture certainly makes COMMON SENSE. Paul declared we are to be “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” which is Scripture compared with Scripture.
In concluding, there are at least three things that stand out here.
- Both men seeking the office of PM say they are Christians. PM Morrison is a member of a Pentecostal church and Shorten of an Anglican church. Pentecostals historically have believed in a real hell but contemporary Anglicans perhaps not so much. Nevertheless, whether one believes or does not believe there is a real hell doesn’t do away with the reality of such a place.
- Freedom of speech should not even be questioned in a free society! Whether one’s speech, written or verbalized, disagrees with another person’s lifestyle or beliefs shouldn’t restrict one’s freedom of speech!
- It seems that the stimulus for freedom to live less moral lives, such as men having sex with men, has an impact on many other things including the freedom of speech.
Where Civil War battles were once fought there is a new battle being fought ‘…on the farms surrounding Culpeper, Va., about an hour outside Washington, D.C., and in the shadow of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Now, a new conflict is underway, as members of the local community push back against energy providers attempting to cover Culpeper—and other parts of rural Virginia—with solar facilities, sometimes thousands of acres in size.
The push for solar in Virginia is part of a nationwide effort to ramp up several fashionable renewable energy sources in the United States. To attract energy providers, federal, state, and local governments offer generous tax credits and subsidies for solar and wind facilities.
Virginia’s General Assembly voted in 2016 to subsidize solar and wind energy with an 80 percent sales and use tax exemption for machinery, tools, and equipment for public service corporations, following a number of legislative pushes for clean energy in the state. It was a successful strategy: Since the decision, solar providers have gained approval to set up shop in Spotsylvania, Chesterfield, Accomack, and other communities. The proposed solar facility in Culpeper, operated by the California-based Cricket Solar, will cover 800 acres of land intended for agricultural use and is set to produce 80 megawatts of power for the county.
But a growing body of research shows that, in the long run, solar isn’t efficient enough to justify the land used and the money spent to make it a primary energy source. Doug Orye, an industrial electrical engineer who operates a farm near Culpeper, said he fears that solar companies moving into Virginia are using up land that would be better served for agricultural use.
“We’re destroying huge amounts of land for a system that, at best, is 20 percent efficient,” he told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that for their cost, solar facilities produce an almost negligible amount of energy.
Orye added that in his experience, solar works best in small-scale situations, such as panels installed on private rooftops and sheds. For larger scale projects, though, the area solar panels cover coupled with their fickle nature—such as the impossibility of use on rainy days or at night—makes them not worth a hefty investment from government entities.’ https://freebeacon.com/issues/virginias-push-for-solar-panels-offers-few-rays-of-hope/
The Left-leaning Greenies have several agendas of which one is to bankrupt Western nations through wasting billions on so-called renewables. Here in Australia, we are fighting the same battles these fruit loop Green environmentalists are pushing there in the US of A.
Sadly, here in Australia, both major parties have swallowed the kool-aid. We don’t have a Donald Trump that hasn’t partaken of the kool-aid thinking that these ignorant renewable greenies believe are the answer to whatever catastrophe they are prophesying. This renewable obsession is a religion to these people. They, or at least they seem to believe they can save the earth from whatever they falsely believe we humans are doing to it. Their biggest enemy here in Australia is coal. Even though the exporting of coal brings billions of dollars into the Australian economy and provides thousands of jobs these eco-rodents are bound and determined to cease coal being mined and exported.
If the renewable fruit loop Australian Labor Party wins May 18, 2019, Australian Federal Election burning the furniture to keep warm this winter may be the average man’s only option.
whatyareckon 