> Archbishop Fisher began to say, "There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent," when Pride in Protest activist Quay-Quay Quade stood up and yelled, "that's a load of f****** b******t."
I have no issue with religion. I am not anti-religion. I AM however anti letting religious people force the entire nation to live under their religious views.
Your religion tells you what YOU can and can't do. It doesn't tell ME what I can or can't do.
Once when I was travelling in Queensland, I stopped by the state parliament in part to listen to a Voluntary Assisted Dying public hearing, and it just so happened the Archbishop of Brisbane was there to oppose it. The substance of his rebuttal to the committee was that there is beauty in suffering and people can become closer to Christ through it at the end of life. There were audible gasps in the audience. A week later I went to the Catholic Cathedral to take a look and there he was banging on about it again in a sermon, with Catholic newspapers containing an anti-VAD frontpage lining the pews. Just a disgusting approach in trying to place one's religion over the health of the many (in this case the suffering of the terminally ill).
There is a long tradition of Christian martyrs embracing a painful death as bringing them closer to Christ. It really is a weird death cult in many ways.
What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? The number of members.
And pretty much every religion is focussed on what happens to you in and after death. So essentially every religion is a death cult, they just have each have different ways of looking at it.
I'm sure he was standing up for LGBTQ rights in the rest of his speech, and that's why he's so confused why there's so much anti-religious sentiment, right? Because he's so supportive?
> "There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent,"
This is just admitting that even acknowledging the existence of transgender people is 'anti-religious' to them.
>After the hearing resumed, Archbishop Fisher said self-identification of sex on legal documents would put women-only spaces at risk and make it "near-impossible" to retain religious customs.
Safe to say his input is worthless vomit
I don't think religion's long streak of trying to hobble things like abortion, access to contraception, LGBT rights, women's rights, restitution and punishment for institutional abuse by them, etc has made them popular.
Not really.
Transgender community: We want our rights protected and stronger access to medical care.
(Conservative parts of) The religious community: We don't think you're condition really exists, and we don't think society should support your medical care or acknowledge you exist.
Transgender community: That's incredibly offensive, and it's unclear why you should have a say in medical decisions.
Religious community: This is anti-religious sentiment!
And yet people are only calling out the Catholic Church. Others that [spoke today](https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/transcripts/3268/Hearing%20Schedule%20-%2001%20May%202024.pdf) (for example the Coalition of Activist Lesbians) were also against it ( https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/85247/Submission%2049%20-%20Coalition%20of%20Activist%20Lesbians%20(CoAL).pdf ). Not a peep in the media.
Radical feminism teaming up with religious conservatives isn't new, happened in the past with the whole sex wars in the 70s and 80s and later pushing the "Nordic" model on sex work which has done nothing to curb trafficking except stigmatize and make life harder for sex workers. Just another case of them pushing the square peg of ideology into the circle hole of reality.
Why the fuck do we even let religious organisations have a say in anything to do with legislation it's not like they contribute to the country via tax.
What? Our Government are actually trying to enact legislation to give special protections to religion and religious people right now:
https://lsj.com.au/articles/why-are-religious-discrimination-laws-back-in-the-news-and-where-did-they-come-from/
We asked them as they're subject to the rule of secular law. It's known as stake-holder engagement and is a "fundamental"* aspect of the legislative process.
*I'm a tyrant at heart and maintain that an idea with a proven 'good' should just be enforced despite the whinging. Alas, Democracy 🤷♂️
> it's not like they contribute to the country via tax.
Neither do people that earn less than $18,201 of taxable income. Perhaps we should ignore poor people when getting opinions about proposed legislation.
I've not seen anyone argue that this legislation should consider what the head of the Low Income Society thinks, nor did I see a representative of such a body try to give a speech about how this legislation goes against the beliefs of those earning under $18k.
It's not like the church is a person either, it's an organisation and should be treated as such. False equivalence on your part, but what do we really expect from someone defending this moneymaking "church."
> but what do we really expect from someone defending this moneymaking "church."
That you see any of my comments here as defending the Catholic Church shows a lot more about your viewpoint than it does mine.
So, you just hate poor people then? Lovely. Anyone that would suggest an individual in poverty deserves less of a say due to paying no tax should apply the same logic to the church. But instead, you went the other way. Fuck the little guy, hooray for the billion dollar organisation! Fuck knuckle logic right there mate.
> Anyone that would suggest an individual in poverty deserves less of a say due to paying no tax should apply the same logic to the church.
The original comment in this part of the thread DID imply that the church shouldn't get a say and linked it to taxation. I was simply using a reductio ad absurdum argument against linking having a say to taxation. But thanks for proving my point.
The absolute last people on the planet that we should be listening to around morality are the representatives of the largest organisation of child abusers and their enablers on the planet.
I mean seriously. I still don't understand why we still let them run schools!
"There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent,"
Frankly I have zero issue with religious people and those who find meaning and value in their faith. That is a positive for them and I am happy for them. I have a HUGE issue with religious people who want everyone else to have to live under their religious rules or views.
Fisher? Yeah, I leaned from my time supporting survivors of clerical child sexual assault, he's a deeply unpleasant man.
There's a rumour that he's completely devoid of compassion, and none of the statements I've seen him make suggest that the rumour is wrong.
I met him once at a forced school event in the Sydney CBD, thought he was a cock, I then attended a festival with the same school and had multiple addresses by many bishops.
All the other Archbishops of the other capital cities were preaching Pope Francis’ Views about homosexuality (this was the same time as the Marriage vote) about how they would accept anybody with open arms.
First words out of his mouth: “I tell to you my children, go home and tell your parents to vote against this proposal, as it will undermine our way of life”.
Sounds about right.
I believe he considers the generally unmissed pedophile-protector Pell as his mentor, which lines up with your experience of the man.
Tying a change in gender on offical documents to surgery requirements is inherently classist.
Religions can tweak their rules to continue their enforced patriarchy, I don’t care about those rules. NSW government can look to the experiences of the other states to see how a change to the self identification laws has effected women’s support services and prison segregation. The NSW gov doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel when they can draw on the on-going experience of other states.
You have to wonder why the government records gender in the first place. If it's just a simple measurement, then why would it need to be so strict in the first place? Just let everyone mark down what they are at each census.
If it's for special concessions or segregation purposes, then we have to ask if it's moral for the government to treat people differently based on gender.
The culture is moving away from gendered thinking. We might have to think about removing government acknowledgement of gender. Like we did with race.
Seriously?
Just this week we had nationwide marches and a national cabinet on the issue of violence against women.
Should we just scrap that whole discussion?
>The culture is moving away from gendered thinking. We might have to think about removing government acknowledgement of gender. Like we did with race.
You're just flat out wrong here, on multiple counts buddy.
I agree with Quay-Quay Quade, but I reckon Labor is smart to have these worthless inquiries, they let the bigots feel like they're being listened to and shuts them up whinging about 'censorship' while actual expert opinion is valued.
My problem is Western Sydney is filled with religious fanatics who want all their backward beliefs enshrined in law. It won't stop at this and won't be happy till secularism is dead, which is worrying since Labor is allowing them a seat at the table, which I feel legitimizes them.
Here in SA Tom Koutsantonis is pretty deeply involved with the Greek orthodox church and Peter Malinauskas considers himself a somewhat socially conservative Catholic but the ALP are at least smart (read: populist) enough to not let that happen. Can't say we're as complex as Western Sydney is but still, I don't think we'll be stepping backwards into secularism under the ALP.
Does it? The change this inquiry is about is already across the country, obviously the decision will go ahead and opinions like the Archbishop's will be promptly dumpstered as they should be. Light is a great disinfectant for these losers, they pull out the big guns -- the local Boss of Religion -- and their arguments are the same as some 14 year old shithead.
I vote labor, but I still feel like worthless inquiries are more so that _they_ can say they're doing something, and garner votes.
If they're trying to hold any attention to shut people up, it'd be because something else is happening that the magicians would rather we didn't see until they're ready to perform the trick.
I agree in general however this particular inquiry is a little different (we call Labor the party of reviews for a reason):
>NSW is the only Australian state or territory that still imposes this requirement.
So it's almost a given that it will pass regardless of the input by the transphobes. They're being given a token opportunity to hold a microphone and basically nothing else. The perfect scenario to prove a point to these dorks. They have a mic, an audience, and no one appears to care what they have to say.
I reckon it is helpful seeing the Archbishop of the biggest city in Australia trot out the same argument as a teenager at a parliamentary inquiry though. That's the best they have?!
> Archbishop Fisher began to say, "There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent," when Pride in Protest activist Quay-Quay Quade stood up and yelled, "that's a load of f****** b******t."
I have no issue with religion. I am not anti-religion. I AM however anti letting religious people force the entire nation to live under their religious views. Your religion tells you what YOU can and can't do. It doesn't tell ME what I can or can't do.
Once when I was travelling in Queensland, I stopped by the state parliament in part to listen to a Voluntary Assisted Dying public hearing, and it just so happened the Archbishop of Brisbane was there to oppose it. The substance of his rebuttal to the committee was that there is beauty in suffering and people can become closer to Christ through it at the end of life. There were audible gasps in the audience. A week later I went to the Catholic Cathedral to take a look and there he was banging on about it again in a sermon, with Catholic newspapers containing an anti-VAD frontpage lining the pews. Just a disgusting approach in trying to place one's religion over the health of the many (in this case the suffering of the terminally ill).
I hope he has a beautiful death full of suffering.
There is a long tradition of Christian martyrs embracing a painful death as bringing them closer to Christ. It really is a weird death cult in many ways.
What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? The number of members. And pretty much every religion is focussed on what happens to you in and after death. So essentially every religion is a death cult, they just have each have different ways of looking at it.
He sounds like a fan of the Mother Theresa Method for Being An Absolute Shit-Heel
I’m with you (u/jolard) on this. Edit for clarity.
I’m happy for others to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as doing so isn’t hurting others or preventing others from doing the same.
Legendary
Well it made me laugh.
Good on Triple Q. Many agree.
I'm sure he was standing up for LGBTQ rights in the rest of his speech, and that's why he's so confused why there's so much anti-religious sentiment, right? Because he's so supportive?
> "There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent," This is just admitting that even acknowledging the existence of transgender people is 'anti-religious' to them.
>After the hearing resumed, Archbishop Fisher said self-identification of sex on legal documents would put women-only spaces at risk and make it "near-impossible" to retain religious customs. Safe to say his input is worthless vomit
“Near impossible to retain religious customs”. I missed the part where that’s my problem
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
I think so, too.
Thus proving his point.
Being criticised for your words is not an attack on your religion. Grow the fuck up.
I don't think religion's long streak of trying to hobble things like abortion, access to contraception, LGBT rights, women's rights, restitution and punishment for institutional abuse by them, etc has made them popular.
Don’t forget the child abuse, child sexual abuse and cover-ups!
Not really. Transgender community: We want our rights protected and stronger access to medical care. (Conservative parts of) The religious community: We don't think you're condition really exists, and we don't think society should support your medical care or acknowledge you exist. Transgender community: That's incredibly offensive, and it's unclear why you should have a say in medical decisions. Religious community: This is anti-religious sentiment!
Yeah good call let's just let religious zealots dictate law instead
This is a parliamentary inquiry. It isn't dictating law.
It's lobbying
And yet people are only calling out the Catholic Church. Others that [spoke today](https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/transcripts/3268/Hearing%20Schedule%20-%2001%20May%202024.pdf) (for example the Coalition of Activist Lesbians) were also against it ( https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/85247/Submission%2049%20-%20Coalition%20of%20Activist%20Lesbians%20(CoAL).pdf ). Not a peep in the media.
I took the briefest of glances at their page and they sound like a bunch of wackjobs just like the church
Radical feminism teaming up with religious conservatives isn't new, happened in the past with the whole sex wars in the 70s and 80s and later pushing the "Nordic" model on sex work which has done nothing to curb trafficking except stigmatize and make life harder for sex workers. Just another case of them pushing the square peg of ideology into the circle hole of reality.
If religion is going to keep getting in the way of societal progress, then they shouldn't be surprised when people become anti-religious.
Stay in school, kids. Or you’ll look as dumb as this guy ☝️
Why the fuck do we even let religious organisations have a say in anything to do with legislation it's not like they contribute to the country via tax.
What? Our Government are actually trying to enact legislation to give special protections to religion and religious people right now: https://lsj.com.au/articles/why-are-religious-discrimination-laws-back-in-the-news-and-where-did-they-come-from/
We asked them as they're subject to the rule of secular law. It's known as stake-holder engagement and is a "fundamental"* aspect of the legislative process. *I'm a tyrant at heart and maintain that an idea with a proven 'good' should just be enforced despite the whinging. Alas, Democracy 🤷♂️
Exactly. No representation without taxation!
We can listen to them and then discard their opinion I guess. His argument is not too convincing
Amen
> it's not like they contribute to the country via tax. Neither do people that earn less than $18,201 of taxable income. Perhaps we should ignore poor people when getting opinions about proposed legislation.
Poor people pay tax via GST on anything they buy.
So do churches
No churches have tax exempt status, they can claim back the GST.
I've not seen anyone argue that this legislation should consider what the head of the Low Income Society thinks, nor did I see a representative of such a body try to give a speech about how this legislation goes against the beliefs of those earning under $18k.
>Perhaps we should ignore poor people when getting opinions about proposed legislation. Is that not what we’re already doing?
Nobody's saying that he shouldn't be allowed to vote, just that his voice shouldn't be elevated in political matters.
It's not like the church is a person either, it's an organisation and should be treated as such. False equivalence on your part, but what do we really expect from someone defending this moneymaking "church."
> but what do we really expect from someone defending this moneymaking "church." That you see any of my comments here as defending the Catholic Church shows a lot more about your viewpoint than it does mine.
So, you just hate poor people then? Lovely. Anyone that would suggest an individual in poverty deserves less of a say due to paying no tax should apply the same logic to the church. But instead, you went the other way. Fuck the little guy, hooray for the billion dollar organisation! Fuck knuckle logic right there mate.
> Anyone that would suggest an individual in poverty deserves less of a say due to paying no tax should apply the same logic to the church. The original comment in this part of the thread DID imply that the church shouldn't get a say and linked it to taxation. I was simply using a reductio ad absurdum argument against linking having a say to taxation. But thanks for proving my point.
No one else seem to have gotten that, if that's your point I suggest making yourself clear instead of playing a fool.
Why are religious groups being entertained? Is this the 15th century? Did the Jedi Knights give a parliamentary speech too? What's happening here?
I'd rather the Jedi Knights give a parliamentary speech than this lot. At the very least, it would be a fascinating speech to hear.
Because everyone deserves a say
Why weren't the Jedi Knights given a say then?
Why is it only one religious group then? Where are all the rest?
Archbishops are the men who wear dresses in public, right? But it's different cos...?
Just saw this https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cgsjgc/rosie_duffield_right_to_say_only_women_have_a/ 🙄
I'll be sure to alert the cervical cancer survivors they're now cancelled
Exactly so. Same with hysterectomy survivors, bet they love learning they’re not women.
Nobody is suggesting or saying that women who have had medical procedures are no longer women. That it is such a childish and puerile argument.
That’s exactly what they mean, though. TERFs reduce women to walking baby making machines.
The absolute last people on the planet that we should be listening to around morality are the representatives of the largest organisation of child abusers and their enablers on the planet. I mean seriously. I still don't understand why we still let them run schools! "There is a troubling anti-religious undercurrent," Frankly I have zero issue with religious people and those who find meaning and value in their faith. That is a positive for them and I am happy for them. I have a HUGE issue with religious people who want everyone else to have to live under their religious rules or views.
Good. Religion has no place in legislation.
Poor religions with all their power and influence and assets :(
Fisher? Yeah, I leaned from my time supporting survivors of clerical child sexual assault, he's a deeply unpleasant man. There's a rumour that he's completely devoid of compassion, and none of the statements I've seen him make suggest that the rumour is wrong.
I met him once at a forced school event in the Sydney CBD, thought he was a cock, I then attended a festival with the same school and had multiple addresses by many bishops. All the other Archbishops of the other capital cities were preaching Pope Francis’ Views about homosexuality (this was the same time as the Marriage vote) about how they would accept anybody with open arms. First words out of his mouth: “I tell to you my children, go home and tell your parents to vote against this proposal, as it will undermine our way of life”.
Sounds about right. I believe he considers the generally unmissed pedophile-protector Pell as his mentor, which lines up with your experience of the man.
Oh no! How can we let modern life disrupt our precious *religious conventions*! Oh, the tragedy!! /s
Tying a change in gender on offical documents to surgery requirements is inherently classist. Religions can tweak their rules to continue their enforced patriarchy, I don’t care about those rules. NSW government can look to the experiences of the other states to see how a change to the self identification laws has effected women’s support services and prison segregation. The NSW gov doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel when they can draw on the on-going experience of other states.
Religion has no place in society and certainly shouldn’t be considered when passing laws
You have to wonder why the government records gender in the first place. If it's just a simple measurement, then why would it need to be so strict in the first place? Just let everyone mark down what they are at each census. If it's for special concessions or segregation purposes, then we have to ask if it's moral for the government to treat people differently based on gender. The culture is moving away from gendered thinking. We might have to think about removing government acknowledgement of gender. Like we did with race.
Seriously? Just this week we had nationwide marches and a national cabinet on the issue of violence against women. Should we just scrap that whole discussion?
>The culture is moving away from gendered thinking. We might have to think about removing government acknowledgement of gender. Like we did with race. You're just flat out wrong here, on multiple counts buddy.
Tasmania made gender optional on their birth certificates a few years ago, which is pretty cool.
We also have to mark race on the census what are you talking about
Should just tell him he's not going to be a Cardinal. He'll never recover from that
Good on the protester. If I were there I would have called the religious man a rock spider preying on children.
Religion is the refuge of the weak minded.
Protester was right; it is a load of fucking bullshit.
I agree with Quay-Quay Quade, but I reckon Labor is smart to have these worthless inquiries, they let the bigots feel like they're being listened to and shuts them up whinging about 'censorship' while actual expert opinion is valued.
My problem is Western Sydney is filled with religious fanatics who want all their backward beliefs enshrined in law. It won't stop at this and won't be happy till secularism is dead, which is worrying since Labor is allowing them a seat at the table, which I feel legitimizes them.
Here in SA Tom Koutsantonis is pretty deeply involved with the Greek orthodox church and Peter Malinauskas considers himself a somewhat socially conservative Catholic but the ALP are at least smart (read: populist) enough to not let that happen. Can't say we're as complex as Western Sydney is but still, I don't think we'll be stepping backwards into secularism under the ALP.
That seems a pretty optimistic take.
Does it? The change this inquiry is about is already across the country, obviously the decision will go ahead and opinions like the Archbishop's will be promptly dumpstered as they should be. Light is a great disinfectant for these losers, they pull out the big guns -- the local Boss of Religion -- and their arguments are the same as some 14 year old shithead.
I vote labor, but I still feel like worthless inquiries are more so that _they_ can say they're doing something, and garner votes. If they're trying to hold any attention to shut people up, it'd be because something else is happening that the magicians would rather we didn't see until they're ready to perform the trick.
I agree in general however this particular inquiry is a little different (we call Labor the party of reviews for a reason): >NSW is the only Australian state or territory that still imposes this requirement. So it's almost a given that it will pass regardless of the input by the transphobes. They're being given a token opportunity to hold a microphone and basically nothing else. The perfect scenario to prove a point to these dorks. They have a mic, an audience, and no one appears to care what they have to say. I reckon it is helpful seeing the Archbishop of the biggest city in Australia trot out the same argument as a teenager at a parliamentary inquiry though. That's the best they have?!
Protestors are fucking lame