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

"Who is this woman?" She's pretty-well known, so if you don't know, I suggest you do a bit of research instead of showing your ignorance.
2
Yeah, don't bother teaching them right and wrong, just try and distract them with free activities.
1
@pwillis1589 "No, not taxing a charity is a significant government expense..." No, it's not. There is a difference between income and expense. Not getting some income is not the same as an expense. "Non for profits must accept secular government regulation to receive tax concessions." Unlimited regulations? Why? That's very big-brotherish.
1
"Religious freedom for hate speech?" What hate speech? Why should people be banned from making speech that you hate? "While getting tax breaks from the government? Nuts to that." Virtually all non-profits don't have to pay tax. Why should religious groups be discriminated in that regard?
1
@pwillis1589 "Avoiding the public money spent on private institutions issue again." Avoiding the issue that those who support those very beneficial "private" institutions (which are actually open to the public) also contribute to that public money.
1
@pwillis1589 "I have no problem with non for profit organisations receiving public financial support..." Not receiving income (in the form of taxes) is not financial support. "...as long as they abide by government regulations/laws." Okay, you don't have a problem with it. But should there be any limits on those regulations/laws? And if so, what should those limits be and why?
1
@pwillis1589 "No not taxing income is the definition of financial support." According to you. "The government subsidies many organisations, for profits as well." Subsidies are where they pay you money. "You are just wrong." No, it's more a matter of how you look at it. "Where does legislation end? Where the voters decide." Avoiding the question.
1
@pwillis1589 "Yes the federal government subsidises Catholic schools with direct funding." So? We were talking about churches, not schools. "This is financial support the church would otherwise have to cover." Or the parents of the students. Or the school would not exist. That's another possibility. "What aren't you getting about this?" Nothing. I get that you are anti-Christian and are trying your hardest to convince me of your anti-Christian views. "As to whether the Catholic church even makes a profit in Australia is open to question..." It's a non-profit organisation. Many non-profits "make a profit", but it goes back into the activities of the organisation, not shareholders or owners. That's what non-profit means. "...it is a private organisation and under no compulsion quite rightly to make its financial situation public." I believe that there are requirements to demonstrate to the government that funds are being properly handled. "It does however receive generous financial support from the federal government..." Already answered. Churches do not receive any money from governments, except for particular activities that the governments want to support, such as education. "...all the taxpayer asks is it comply with federal legislation." Which is fine for the money it actually receives (such as for education) as long as those requirements are fair and reasonable and not against the purposes of the organisations. "I am not avoiding any questions just answering honestly. " I was asking what you thought. You didn't tell me. "It is not up to me personally to decide..." I realise that, but you personally are arguing that they should abide by regulations, but are unwilling to say whether or not some regulations are reasonable or not.
1
@pwillis1589 "I see no difference in a Catholic school to its parent organisation." And yet they are distinct operations and have distinct budgets. "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." Of course there are ones out that that I would consider to be fringe. And worse. But I don't discriminate against other beliefs like you seem to do. "Every cent saved would then be spent on public schools and institutions,..." What makes you think that the savings would be enough to cover the extra atheist-controlled schools and other institutions? "...not on spa baths or first class travel for the principal of Kings to go anywhere." Most Catholic schools would not be having/doing those things. Only perhaps the most elite of the schools. Where of course parents of the students pay rather high fees. "PS I am not anti-christian, just anti-religious ..." Which means that you're anti-Christian, as I'm certain that you count Christianity as a religion. And just as certain that you wouldn't count atheist views as religious, although they are worldviews that compete with theistic worldviews. "...and not trying to convince you of anything." And yet here you are trying to convince me that tax-free status is an expense, and other such things.
1
@pwillis1589 "Yep that's right distinct budgets and operations..." So there is a difference! "... see no difference between teaching religionous faith and practising it." I'm not saying that there are no similarities. And sure, the teaching might be the same but some similarities does not mean no differences. "I don't discriminate at all either no public funding at all for any religious schools." But public funding for the atheist-controlled schools? That would be discrimination. "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." Sorry, I don't follow that sentence. "That's right I forgot to mention the indoor rifle range Kings School has, once again paid for by taxpayers." What's your evidence that it was paid for by taxpayers? "What is an atheist view" That there is no God. And from that follows other views. Here are a selection: * That God didn't create humans separately to animals. And therefore humans are nothing special in creation; just lucky to have evolved further. * That God didn't create the universe. * That the universe was not designed. * That living things were not designed, but evolved through a process that no scientist has been able to show occurs. * That God has not given us standard and rules, so we humans can make our own. Examples of a consequence of this are Stalin and Mao who thought nothing of murdering millions of their own people. (I'm not saying that such slaughter is the a necessary consequence, but that atheism allows that because it leaves such decisions up to us humans.)
1
@HelloWorld-ns7gt "I think most of them just need encouragement, guidance and reward for doing the right thing if or when they do it." That's what you do with a dog. You give it encouragement and reward for doing the right thing, and hope that it comes to consider those things as being things it should do. We are talking about intelligent people who can communicate in complex language. So you can directly teach them what is right and wrong, rather than leaving it to them to hopefully figure out, and also teach them why it's right and wrong (which you can't do without language), and then reinforce that with encouragement, guidance, and reward. Of course perhaps what I said above is what you meant by "guidance", but that was unclear.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "You get what you give." Says who? You?
1
@welcomeaboard69 "Their own words mate." Whose words? "Oh we want to be able to hire only a certain people here," You mean like the Labor party only wanting to hire people who agree with them? Or should they be forced to hire Liberals too? "...that's discrimination pure and simple..." True. But then there's nothing wrong with discrimination in itself. You want to hire someone for a job, and you get ten applicants, you will discriminate against nine of them. You want to hire an actor to play Sir Robert Menzies, so should you be forced to not discriminate against actresses? "...something that would not be tolerated in other business." And yet I just gave you examples to the contrary. "Oh, but that's different", you might respond. But why? And I expect that you supported the discrimination against Andrew Thorburn, sacked by the Essendon football club for his views. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "And yes I did support thourburn being fired, ..." And yet you criticise schools for "firing" students who oppose the views you're teaching them. That's a double standard right there. "...like I said to you in the beginning you get what you give." Except that you haven't shown any student being expelled for being homosexual, and Thorburn did not fire anyone either. In other words, he got what he never gave. So you support bigotry as well as a double standard.
1
@yourlocaldolphin "see, it's always a culture war to you peeps." A war always involved two (or more) sides. That you won't call it a war doesn't mean that it isn't one.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "If you want the attacks against you lot to stop then stop discriminating." Generally speaking we are not discriminating. And if we are at times, perhaps it's valid discrimination, a point that you seem willing to ignore.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "Anyone who holds extreme views like yours is a person who discriminates." Your premise that my views are extreme is false, and even it it was true, it doesn't follow that I would discriminate. That's a non-sequitur. "You want to be able to discriminate..." Yes, I want to be able to choose the best candidate for the job over the others. You've still not addressing that point. "...but want protection from being discriminated against,..." Only protection from unfair discrimination. Which is a reasonable desire. "...it's not going to happen..." I don't consider your prediction of the future to be credible, especially when you invent premises and indulge in non-sequiturs. "...change your way's or face the consequences." I will face the consequences rather than change my ways to accept things that are wrong. I have principles.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "You are an extremist fringe dweller, you are in the minority with your extremist views." Repeating your assertion does not make it true. And if you surveyed people around the world, I'm sure you'd find that most people have similar views to me. It's mainly the left in the bubbles in the West that thinks differently.
1
@welcomeaboard69 "You are an extremist." Still repeating yourself, I see. You must not have an answer.
1
@HelloWorld-ns7gt I'm not saying that it would not help. I think it's just avoiding the main issue. Besides, there are already youth groups where they can take part in activities with others and learn how to better conduct themselves. They are run by churches. So it wouldn't even cost taxpayer money.
1
@stefanantolin5501 "Yeah, she's a ''pretty well known" puppet for the poo masters in the Liaberals." Someone who denigrates without evidence need not be taken seriously.
1
@DD-bx8rb "You have been poisoned by the media to think all Aboriginals are inner-city Lefties who hate white people." Given that I don't think that, then who or what poisoned your mind to assume that I do think that?
1
@DD-bx8rb "I said what I said" Duh! But you haven't produced a whit of reason to believe it. And of course I know better than you what I think.
1
@pwillis1589 "Nicely avoiding the public financial support provided by tax concessions." First, not taxing them is not a case of providing financial support. Second, not taxing them is the same as happens with almost every non-profit organisation. Why should churches—who do a lot of good—be treated worse?
1
"People are against the churches discriminating while they are entitled to tax free status and rightly so" What makes that right? Not taxing a non-profit organisation give the government the right to control aspects of the church? Why? And what sort of "discrimination" are you talking about? The same sort that would stop a Liberal party member getting a job with the Labor party? What is wrong with that?
1
@willdevine8266 "where are churches getting 'cancelled' " He didn't say that they were. He referred to cancelling "anyone". And yes, Christians have been "cancelled" numerous times for holding Christian views.
1
@willdevine8266 "i mean i dont give a [care] if your view is "christian"." And yet you clearly do. And why the scare quotes? "if you're pushing hatred against a group of people..." Which I'm not, and neither are most Christians, so stop with the straw-manning. "if you're pushing hatred against a group of people then you're just a bigot," So you're a bigot for pushing hatred against Christians who hold that homosexuality is wrong? Thanks for letting me know. "regardless if your magic book tells you to do it or not." I don't have a magic book. You're straw-manning again. It seems that you don't actually have an argument, so have to invent ones to justify your hatred.
1
@willdevine8266 "no because you think a school should even be allowed to teach that being gay is wrong. It's not wrong, period." Because you say so? Because you've not provided any reason. On the contrary, God created us heterosexual, and condemned homosexuality. So it IS wrong. "Adding any "buts" to the end of that sentence makes you nothing but a bigot." Because you say so? Because again, you've provided no reason. Apparently you are the source of all truth. Or at least you think so. "Gay kids have a right to go to any school,..." Because you say so? Because again... you know the drill. "End of conversation." Good. But I wonder if it will be.
1
@DD-bx8rb "How can a Catholic School operate as a Catholic School if it does not employ Catholics? ... This is all simply about anti-Catholic Lefties trying to shut down Catholic Schools, because these schools pass on the Catholic Faith, and the bigggest threat to the Left is the Catholic Faith." Replace 'Catholic' with 'Christian' (which includes Catholics), and I largely agree with you.
1
@DD-bx8rb "The Catholic Church is an identifiable visible organisation with an official teaching." As are other Christian churches. "Protestant Christian groups are a gaggle of thousands of seperated groups arguing about the meaning of the Written Tradition." It takes two (or more) to argue. You can't claim to not be arguing if you're only talking to yourself. But in fact yes, Protestants disagree with Catholics on some issues, and Catholics disagree with Protestants! So you can't pin disagreement just on the Protestants. Further, there are not as many different Protestant groups as you may think. Documented claims of tens of thousands refer to organisations, not denominations. So Victorian Baptists are counted separately to New South Wales Baptists because they are different organisations, not because they have different views. Similarly, Australian Catholics are counted separately to United States Catholics for the same reason. In addition, some differences are over church organisation, not over biblical doctrine. So the number of different views collapses further. And what you're saying is that Catholics don't argue because Catholics all agree. Well Baptists all agree too! You're splitting hairs and making out differences to be something that they are not. "It's the Catholic Church, with it's claim of being established and guaranteed by Christ, that the Marxists fear." You're in dreamland if you think that it's only Catholics that Marxists fear. Who they really fear is anyone who makes a public stand for biblical teaching. That includes Catholics on some issues, but it's certainly not limited to Catholics. One group that they get really upset with is creationists, who dare to claim that evolution doesn't exist and the earth is 6,000 years old. And that's something that most (but not all) Catholics are weak on.
1
@DD-bx8rb "I said what I said, ..." And I answered it. "You will find the Catholic Answers website of great asstance" I doubt it. Assistance in what? Showing that Protestants are under attack from Marxists? If so, please be more specific about where on the website.
1
@willdevine8266 "what does expelling gay kids from school have to do with practicing your religion?" When has that happened? And if it did, perhaps it was due to the homosexual child undermining what the school was teaching.
1
@willdevine8266 "in Brisbane there was a school that put out a contract saying that any students that were homosexual would be expelled." First, as I understand it, no child was expelled. Second, this was a case of agreeing to follow the schools requirements, and expulsion would be a consequence of breaking that agreement.
1
@willdevine8266 "because the contract was brought to the [profanity deleted] human rights commission..." I didn't dispute why it was changed, did I? More straw-manning. "...and the principle got forced out after week of protesting from the LGBTQ community." Yes, they imposed their ideology on him and his school. And you defend that bigotry! "...so you agree, schools should be allowed to expel gay kids." Only as a last resort if they are openly defying what the school is teaching. As is done with other troublemakers. "you're a disgusting human being." Because I have a different view than you? That attitude is the disgusting one.
1
"Like I give a toss if religious schools can't discrimate anymore, ... Of course you don't care. As long as you can discriminate against religious schools. "you'll only be hurting yourselves with no more $$$." No, they'd be hurting the government that would have to put a lot more money into government (atheist-controlled) schools.
1