Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Anti-discrimination law changes are an ‘attack on religious freedom’ and ‘faith schools’" video.

We can only hope they prevent religions from discrimination. We are all gods children if you believe that stuff.
5
@VeteranfromOz Nicely avoiding the public financial support provided by tax concessions.
4
@VeteranfromOz Avoiding the public money spent on private institutions issue again.
1
@PJRayment I have no problem with non for profit organisations receiving public financial support as long as they abide by government regulations/laws.
1
@PJRayment No not taxing income is the definition of financial support. The government subsidies many organisations, for profits as well. Read a textbook on economics. You are just wrong. Where does legislation end? Where the voters decide.
1
@PJRayment Yes the federal government subsidises Catholic schools with direct funding. This is common public knowledge and significantly reduces the cost of private education. This is financial support the church would otherwise have to cover. What aren't you getting about this? As to whether the Catholic church even makes a profit in Australia is open to question as it is a private organisation and under no compulsion quite rightly to make its financial situation public. It does however receive generous financial support from the federal government and all the taxpayer asks is it comply with federal legislation. I am not avoiding any questions just answering honestly. It is not up to me personally to decide and if it was I would probably not be to kind at all the religious exemptions, however I accept that currently there is still some sympathy towards religious organisations as long as they comply with the secular law of the land.
1
@PJRayment I see no difference in a Catholic school to its parent organisation. All under the one umbrella and yes if it was up to me there would be no government tax exemptions or subsidies to any religious organisation not just Catholic, as there are many out there that even you would consider to be on the fringe. Every cent saved would then be spent on public schools and institutions, not on spa baths or first class travel for the principal of Kings to go anywhere. PS I am not anti-christian, just anti-religious and not trying to convince you of anything.
1
@PJRayment Yep that's right distinct budgets and operations and I see no difference between teaching religionous faith and practising it. Next I don't discriminate at all either no public funding at all for any religious schools. Next I don't care or suggested withdrawing financial support for religious organisations and schools would fully fund public schooling only that it be done. Next That's right I forgot to mention the indoor rifle range Kings School has, once again paid for by taxpayers. Next What is an atheist view please offer one up before I can offer an opinion on it. Next nah just stating the facts.
1
@PJRayment No absolutely no difference whatsoever, just a Catholic church accounting trick. Nope exactly the same, what sort of believer would not practice what is taught. Atheist controlled schools are the best. Of course that's a stupid description of public schooling, but I'm happy to go with your ludicrously stupid spin. Public money for public schools. Private money for private schools. No public money at all for any private/religious schools period. Can't make it any simpler that that. Currently there is a NSW Department of education investigation into the use of public funding at Kings School. The Kings School receives approximately $20 million in public funding every year. " "Bullets for Christ" is the motto on the door arch as you enter the indoor range. I have seen many atheists express a view there may be a god, as for the rest these are not necessarily atheist views, evolution is a scientific fact the same as when you drop a pen it moves towards the ground at your feet. There is no need for a belief in a god for an belief or understanding that objective morality is a thing. Any morality given by a god is subjective by nature.
1
@PJRayment No, not taxing a charity is a significant government expense and is the definition of financial support. Non for profits must accept secular government regulation to receive tax concessions.
1
@PJRayment Not taxing the income of an organisation is financial support in any economists handbook. If you accept the government's money then you accept the government's legislation. I have no problem with religious organisations doing thier own thing just don't take the government subsidies. Easy solution.
1
@DD-bx8rb I have absolutely no problem with Religious schools choosing their teachers on a religous basis, just as long as they don't accept any public money. Once they accept secular money they then are obliged to accept secular laws on non discrimination.
1
@DD-bx8rb No it is not illogical at all. It may be costly but you showed no reason why my point is illogical. Yes I agree if faced with the true financial cost of sending their child to a religious school many if not most parents would decide yeah I don't believe in God that much and send their child to a public school. That federal funding could then be sent to the states to fund public schools. A win all round. Your argument that religious belief is as thin as a school fee displays just how paper thin religious belief is.
1