When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

One person or a group, the principle of knowing your audience and tailoring your message accordingly applies.

I think I need to clarify what I mean. I was thinking more along the lines of the social norms and morals we set for society and what basis we should use to order society to achieve those ethical values. I think generally there is opposing sides to how society should be ordered which may cover the Left and Right, Christains and Athiests, Conservative/Traditional and Progressive/Liberal. But fundementally at least from a Christain worldview its a spiritual war about who reins over society and the world God or Satan.

Each side includes metaphysical assumptions and beliefs about the world, nature, human nature, either materialism or spirituality and from that morality whether subjective/relative or objective and about truth and reality itself. These will determine what sort of society we ened up with.

So its about which side of the fence you stand on to make a better society one thats based on God as the foundation or one that says humans themselves are the gods of their own lives. Either you are for God or against Him. I think its important to stand up for Gods Truth as this is aligned with nature and reality and we should point out when discussing important matters the edestinction between what secular society thinks is good and what Gods Truth is because its a matter of life aned death in this world and the next.

I have found, generally, that if we take fulness of life as our basic ethical good (after all, Christ came that we may have life in its fulness), that's one that a secular pluralist society resonates pretty well with.

Yes I think everyone wants fullness of life. But I think that can mean different things for Christains and non Christains or materialist and Atheists. Fullness of life for Christains comes from living Gods Kingdom here on earth and submitting to Gods Will. Storing up riches in Heaven, sacrificing and putting others before self. Whereas secular ideas are about storing up riches in this life, self fullfillment, often putting self first, the Individual and group identity is held up as sovereign rather than God.

It's not just fire and brimstone that's the problem. Although social media has handed those small pockets a megaphone, and they're not afraid to use it.

I think social media has been a revolution in many ways. One negative aspect is that its created a monster in turning people into monsters regardless of who they are. Theres a lot about the internet and media that can influence a person and maybe as the tech is becoming so prominent that its taking over and messing people up.

But the biggest change I think is that people are attacking each other over their beliefs and personal views even to the point of violence. It use to be that people couled say something controversial or different and all views were allowed apart from threats. Then threats became ok according to some so long as it was defending woke ideeology. Violence was usually limited to threats and name calling behind a computer.

But lately its getting to a point where people are acting on their hate and destroying people, their reputations, livlihoods and even physically attacking them. Examples come to mind with Riley Gaines under threat for her life and Street preachers being physically assaulted. I think this was unheard of 30 years ago or at least not so bad and it seems to be increasing. But its not really coming from

But I think this hatred aned violence isn't coming from Christain and Conservatives in society but from those who support the New Woke religion. Its like Christain religion has been replaced by a New age Religion but its not draped in tradeitional religious garb but rather its draped in human ideas of virtue, But its acts like any fundemental religion where it dictates morals and condemns even destroys anyone who opposes it which is the exact opposite of Christainity.

But even a quick glance through a few threads on CF will show plenty of hateful and discriminatory attitudes from people who probably don't think of themselves as being extreme.

I agree theres no excuse for hateful, revengeful, descriminatory attitudes towards anyone. I think you nailed it on the head that people on both sides who go to the extreme position 'don't realize they are doing it' or maybe they do and don't want to see it as its too hard to admit. We all do it sometimes. That is why I think Christ is the objective standard as it takes 'US' out of the equation for determining whats right and best and becomes a common denominator between individuals and groups.

Mmm. Being disagreed with - even strongly - is not really persecution.

If you think in the context of what I have said above then it does become persecution. Many even think religion in general is hateful and and descriminatory especially Christain belief. Its becoing that being a Christain is a threat to society. I expect Christain persecution to increase.

Well, no one is actually obliged to listen to us, I suppose. Which brings us back around to considering our audience...

When it gets to the point where even words and language are seen as hate speech I don't think people can even have a conversation. At least not one that is open to all views. But as we are seeing along with this New Religion and ideological belief taking over society deplatforming, cancelling and political correctness is increasing.

People are not obliged to listen but its common curtesy and only fair if you want to object to certain views you should listen to what the other side is saying and engage in mature discussion to find the Truth. But there is no discussion with the New Ideology as its a belief rather than being rational. Facts and Truth have no feelings. Theres no nice way to present the Truth, it is what it is. Simply saying a Truth today gets you shut down.

From what I can see, the reaction against Christians comes mostly out of, in no particular order: cultures of abuse;

Yes the Church has a lot to answer to. But there comes a point people should not tar the Truth with past bad behaviour of the church. Shoot the messager but not the message.

appalling treatment of LGBTIQ folks; sexism and misogyny;

Yes the church has done a lot of damage but also society in general has a history treating people of difference poorly. The church should know better. But I think we have come a long way even to the other extreme where some churches support LGBTIQ+ ideology. But I think its now going the other way where its Christains who are now being treateed badly by the LGBTIQ+ community and society in general. yet theres no call for supporting religious minorities. They are in fact now seen as below other mniorities on the victim hierarchy.

economic and political exploitation; a materialist-consumerist approach to church and/or ministry; and generally failing to live the gospel with integrity.

I think this is a big part of it. Money is at the root of evil. The Church has mae money their god. The church conforms to secular conventions and this makes it no different to secular society as a whole. Theres needs to be a New Awakening where we go back to the basics of Christs teachings if we are to restore integrity.

Unfortunately for us, even if we got completely right on all of those things tomorrow (and we're a long way from it), I reckon it would be at least a generation before people would be willing to see whether the repentance was real. In the wake of the Royal Commission etc. etc., we'll be fighting an uphill battle for at least that long.

Yep it will take some time to restore integrity. Something like a revival is needed like perhaps as the Friars did in going back to basics and living the Gospel. But I think for some if not many as it seems today no amount of change will be enough because its about belief beyond this world and its imperfections.

If it's a spiritual war, it's one where the enemy is as much within the church as outside it.

Yes Satan works best when he fools the very establishment that represents God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All of your examples sound exactly like what happens when someone is deliberately anti-social at work (or school). I really can't see a justification for such behavior.

Making it legal to fire me from a job, if I address you as a partner, to another. Your relationship as a union, instead of marriage Etc.

You're going to redefine someone else's legal relationship to their face? Sounds kind of rude.

Say I work with you, as a homosexual person.

(For the record, no one on this thread has identified as a homosexual person, married or otherwise. I'll take this as a hypothetical.)

You get Married. You introduce your partner as wife or husband, as married.

[Dialog]:
Co-worker Jim: Hi, have you met my new husband, Jack?
Jack: Nice to meet you.

I should not be able to be demoted, or fired or legally suffer any repercussions, For responding by addressing them as your partner, your relationship as a union.

Now how would this happen. In the scenario above do you take that moment to tell them that theirs isn't a proper marriage, but a union partnership because it is unbiblical? (Which would be rather rude) Or, do you just say "Hi" or "nice to meet you" and excuse yourself?

That is the sort of thing I am talking about. My Child at school should not be disciplined for following that address. Etc. We see this kind of thing happening today with gender ideology.

If Ms. Blue returns to the classroom after a weekend wedding and says her name is now Mrs. White or Ms/Mrs. White-Blue it doesn't matter who "White" was that triggered her name change (man or woman). That is her new name and like all students were expected to before, she is to be addressed like all teachers by [title] [surname].

From the examples you give, it really feels like you want to portray your self as someone who insists on being confrontational about coworkers and your kid's teachers about their marital and relationship status. And, yes, your boss should be able to deal with anti-social employees. (It's not like you need to socialize with your coworkers outside work, or even at lunchtime.)

 

[Paidiske]

I think I need to clarify what I mean. I was thinking more along the lines of the social norms and morals we set for society and what basis we should use to order society to achieve those ethical values. I think generally there is opposing sides to how society should be ordered which may cover the Left and Right, Christains and Athiests, Conservative/Traditional and Progressive/Liberal. But fundementally at least from a Christain worldview its a spiritual war about who reins over society and the world God or Satan.

Ah, I think this shows where we are operating from some very different assumptions. I hold the following assumptions (among others):

- Christians are a minority in our society. (I gather that practicing Christians are somewhere less than 10% of the population in Australia).
- By definition, God does not reign over society. Short of a theocracy, that's not going to change. Even if we manage to legislate some "Christian" social norms, it still won't be the case. You can't order society to express the reign of God, without the people in that society actually becoming part of the Kingdom.
- Not only do we have no right to impose our values or morals on the rest of society, it actually is detrimental if we do. Why? Because it doesn't save them. A non-Christian whom we happen to shame and control into avoiding a particular sinful behaviour, is still a person with no relationship with Christ. All we have done is taught them that the church is about shame and control.
- All of the above means that when it comes to social norms, the Church should have three aims; build a healthy community in the church; draw more people into participating in the life of the church and that healthy community; respond to the needs of our neighbours in loving service (which may include working to transform injustice, pursue peace and reconciliation etc). We are not called to try to impose social norms or morals on unwilling non-Christians.

Basically, "we" dont'set the norms and morals for society. And that's okay. That's not what we're called to do.

Yes I think everyone wants fullness of life. But I think that can mean different things for Christains and non Christains or materialist and Atheists. Fullness of life for Christains comes from living Gods Kingdom here on earth and submitting to Gods Will. Storing up riches in Heaven, sacrificing and putting others before self. Whereas secular ideas are about storing up riches in this life, self fullfillment, often putting self first, the Individual and group identity is held up as sovereign rather than God.

I think that's an over-simplification (on both sides). Be that as it may, I find that an ethic of human flourishing is one which resonates more broadly than just within the church. Then we can work together on what building a flourishing society looks like.

Violence was usually limited to threats and name calling behind a computer.

I think you're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses, there. Patterns of violence might have shifted, but there have always been people who lived under significant threat of violence.

But I think this hatred aned violence isn't coming from Christain and Conservatives in society but from those who support the New Woke religion.

Hmm. I personally would say I've encountered far more violence, hatred, intimidation, and so on, from Christians/conservatives, than from the other direction.

Many even think religion in general is hateful and and descriminatory especially Christain belief. Its becoing that being a Christain is a threat to society.

Well, that's because that's what Christians have shown them. Honestly, I mean looking at - for example - the Christians campaigning now to keep conversion therapy legal, you bet that's a threat to society (or some of the most vulnerable in society).

When it gets to the point where even words and language are seen as hate speech I don't think people can even have a conversation.

What would hate speech be, if not "words and language"?

And if you can't have a conversation with getting into hate speech, that would be a problem, no?

People are not obliged to listen but its common curtesy and only fair if you want to object to certain views you should listen to what the other side is saying and engage in mature discussion to find the Truth.

Maybe. I'll admit there are some points of view I'm not likely to be that gracious for. If someone is engaging in dehumanising others, I don't think that merits much mature discussion; in fact, treating it as meaningful is only likely to legitimise something that shouldn't be given the oxygen.

But there is no discussion with the New Ideology as its a belief rather than being rational.

Oh come on, now, steve, if we're going to argue for a faith position, we have to at least admit that, if our position is not irrational, exactly, it too is based on beliefs rather than established facts.

Theres no nice way to present the Truth, it is what it is. Simply saying a Truth today gets you shut down.

I don't think I agree, on either count. We are able to tailor how we present our views. And there are ways to share views which don't get one shut down.

Yes the Church has a lot to answer to. But there comes a point people should not tar the Truth with past bad behaviour of the church. Shoot the messager but not the message.

I don't think we get to tell people to get over our bad behaviour, especially when it's not all in the past.

But I think its now going the other way where its Christains who are now being treateed badly by the LGBTIQ+ community and society in general.

I think there's a little bit of this, but we're going to have to work through it, because we earned that mistrust. I do think it's going to take at least a generation to work through the legacy of the Royal Commission etc.

The church conforms to secular conventions and this makes it no different to secular society as a whole.

I would be curious as to which secular conventions you have in mind, here. Most of what I see in this line is compliance with things like laws around safety, and it's hard to argue against those.

 

[stevevw]

We never did need God to save us. What in our egotistical little minds makes us think that among all of the universe's creatures we alone should be saved? As if our existence is far too important to just let it end like everything else's existence does.

Ah Gods Word and Truth says we are worth saving. God created us and it was Good. Now we are seperated from God through sin. God thought it was important enough to send His only Son to save us. We are Gods children and I think that makes us pretty special.

Well excuse me, but if we're all that important to God, and we can't do it ourselves, then I guess that it's pretty much up to Him, but don't go laying any guilt trip on us, we're just doing what He bloody well designed us to do.

Yes and we were created with free will to choose what God offers or not. We can also choose to follow his Word and Truth and Moral Laws or not.

And we're doing a pretty good job of it too if you ask me. In fact I'm willing to take that bet... that we don't need God to save us. I can't see where He's been much help so far. So I say let humanity handle it all on its own.

Then what happens to the Christain belief that we are fallen in sin and need saving. Like what Paul said "we are slaves to sin" and cannot overcome this on our own. It is by being born again of the spirit, putting to death the old flash self with Christs crucifixion and being reborn a new person in the spirit and no longer a slave to sin and this world.

And you know this how?

Theres plenty of data around. For one right now in this present age we have the highest rates of mental illness, despression, anxiety in any time of history especially amoung the latest generations of young people. New mental disorders are growing every year and its not like we are finally deiscovering them and they have always been there.

Generally there is anxiety about life, this planet and its getting worse not better despite the tremendous success we have had with tech and improving comforts and regulations to create a safe, equal and peaceful society. I think its partly because to achieve safety, equality and peace we have had to bind ourselves up in laws and regulations that actually deny freedom and divide society.

The Global Rise of Unhappiness
The Global Rise of Unhappiness

Why are young people so miserable?
Why are young people so miserable?
The research above mentions several causes of why young people are feeling miserable. Academic, job and career pressure, social expectations, social media which seems to have high correlation, money high costs in housing and living and as I have mentioned political polarization. Many people feel: “How can I live in a country like this, where half the people are terrible?

Political polarization is the result of the New Ideological belief about PC, and being Woke. This divides people and makes them unhappy.
The Religion of Workism Is Making Americans Miserable
https://www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2019/02

Ironically the Report mentions that having good family support and religion help give sense of meaning and stability which other studies have reported.

The Bible says that this worlds idea of peace and happiness is different what Christ said about what gives peace and security.
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (John 14:27)

 

[stevevw]

Where do you hear that stuff? Here’s an article on adolescent gender dysphoria treatment from Stanford Univ. Medical School. A very legitimate source. Learn the real facts.

Better mental health found among transgender people who started hormones as teens

Transgender adults who started gender-affirming hormone therapy as teens had better mental health than those who waited until adulthood or wanted the treatment but never received it, a Stanford-led study found.

med.stanford.edu

It is interesting that you say "learn the real facts" like there are more than one set of facts and truths floating out there in the world. This is a good insight I think into how modern society thinks compared to yesteryear. I think this is due to Postmodernism and of course the age of the Internet and social media that floods us with all sorts of ideas and claims. Society is more relativistic and now individual truth trumps facts and reality. Or maybe its that personal truths have become the new reality.

The Trans Affirmative care model is a good example of the different thinking between the Left/Progressive/Liberal and the Right/Conservative/Traditional which is more often Christain. The Left/Progressive/Liberal believes there is no fixed nature and humans can be reconstructed according to human idea whereas the RightConservative/Traditional believes we are created in Gods image male and female which cannot be reconstructed naturally.

I find when people claim certainties especially with Gender and sex we need to be cautious as I don't think there is a lot of information out there on this topic as its a relatively new for society. So I don't think people can be that confident and pretending otherwise I think is misleading and harmful.

Another point is the level of willingness to use treatments that have yet to be confirmed compared to other health issues it seems Trans Care is willing to take more risks and experiment with kids which society has not allowed for minors or young people who cannot make informed decisions about the long term effects. So there is some beliefs rather than science involved that is swaying peoples thinking.

I agree that Affirmative and Transitioning does bring some relief and happiness to sufferers of GD at first. But the studies that are available on the long term results show a declining benefit and even making GD worse because the underlying causes were not addressed. That is because Trans Care doesn't allow professionals to address other reasons as its seen as Conversion Therapy and the only treatment allowed is Trans Affirmative care. That in itself seems dogmatic.

As a result many people have been misdiagnosed as Trans including many Gays and people with Autism and trauma. Considering that around 85 to 90% of GD people grow out of it after puberty. So how can we send kids to get Trans care like Puberty blockers when its Puberty itself that resolves the problem for most. It seems premature. Many Professionals have said Trans Care and ideology is unscientific and harmful.

“the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care.”
Original Paper https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080
and the correction https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.1778correction

So according to this article also done by a reputable organisation 'The American Journal of Psychiatry' The largest dataset on sex-reassignment procedures—both hormonal and surgical—reveals that such procedures do not bring the promised mental health benefits. On one score the paper says that "treatment for anxiety disorders—patients who had sex-reassignment surgeries did worse than those who did not".

So at the very least there is conflicting evidence and certainly not enough to make lifelong changes that we cannot know what the repercussions are. It also seems to go against the basic principles of Psychiartry and Psychology in that we don't harm the body to fix the mind but rarther work on the Mind to adjust to the body.

Anyway I don't want to get into a debate about Trans and GNC people but rather in regards to the OP its important to note how different and opposite the two sides see things for such an important life changing issue and on a number of issues like gender, race, abortion ect and what is best to achieve a happy aned fair society. How can people see things so differently.

That is why I think we need more debate regarding the Truth of the matter because whichever way we go it will determine whether we create even more problems or actually help people overcome these problems. That is why so much is at stake as to which side you take on many issues in society. It seems only one side is being pushed which is Woke religion which is wrong on so many levels even if that just means denying free speech.

 

[Whyayeman]

I should not be able to be demoted, or fired or legally suffer any repercussions, For responding by addressing them as your partner, your relationship as a union.

If you were in my employment I would certainly be addressing your inability to treat colleagues with respect. I would expect my staff to work as a team, not as adversaries. I would make it clear that your continued employment was in question.

(I think you have made unwarranted assumption about my sexuality. I have never disclosed it and am not about to!))

 

[timothyu]

We are not called to try to impose social norms or morals on unwilling non-Christians.

Does that not follow the concept in the parable of the sower where we are to sow seeds but we have no control over where they land or how they should grow if at all? We are sowers only otherwise we become GMO producing Christians

 

[ralliann]

If you were in my employment I would certainly be addressing your inability to treat colleagues with respect. I would expect my staff to work as a team, not as adversaries. I would make it clear that your continued employment was in question.

(I think you have made unwarranted assumption about my sexuality. I have never disclosed it and am not about to!))

It was a Hypothetical Geesh,

 

[ralliann]

All of your examples sound exactly like what happens when someone is deliberately anti-social at work (or school). I really can't see a justification for such behavior.

You're going to redefine someone else's legal relationship to their face? Sounds kind of rude.

(For the record, no one on this thread has identified as a homosexual person, married or otherwise. I'll take this as a hypothetical.)


[Dialog]:
Co-worker Jim: Hi, have you met my new husband, Jack?
Jack: Nice to meet you.

Now how would this happen. In the scenario above do you take that moment to tell them that theirs isn't a proper marriage, but a union partnership because it is unbiblical? (Which would be rather rude) Or, do you just say "Hi" or "nice to meet you" and excuse yourself?

If Ms. Blue returns to the classroom after a weekend wedding and says her name is now Mrs. White or Ms/Mrs. White-Blue it doesn't matter who "White" was that triggered her name change (man or woman). That is her new name and like all students were expected to before, she is to be addressed like all teachers by [title] [surname].

From the examples you give, it really feels like you want to portray your self as someone who insists on being confrontational about coworkers and your kid's teachers about their marital and relationship status. And, yes, your boss should be able to deal with anti-social employees. (It's not like you need to socialize with your coworkers outside work, or even at lunchtime.)

A bunch of bunk......It goes both ways. But you don't want that. there's the problem.

 

[ralliann]

I think the difficulty in the sort of situation @ralliann raises here is that it's about more than the definition of marriage, or even religious freedom. But deliberately (for example) and publicly refusing to recognise a legally married person as such could, depending on the circumstances, tip over into meeting the definition of bullying, harassment, or the like. Workplaces have a legal responsibility to protect their employees from being on the receiving end of that, so... yeah, they need policies against it.

I don't think there's any easy way to avoid that. If it is such a strong point of conscience that you can't even make a mental distinction between marriage in the civil, legal sense, and marriage in a more expressly Christian sense; and you feel you cannot find a way to politely avoid offending your colleagues, and it's a common enough issue to create problems for you in the workplace, then it might not be the right workplace for you.

Honestly, though, that's a pretty extreme situation. I mean, I don't usually ask people "How's your wife/husband/spouse/partner?" "How's Michelle/Jane/Kate/John?" will usually do fine, and doesn't make any statement of my assessment of the validity of their relationship.

Then just make all our religious beliefs hateful, violence etc. That is where we are going. You can see it in the responses in this. Declaring what we believe is becoming hate speech.

 

[Paidiske]

Then just make all our religious beliefs hateful, violence etc. That is where we are going. You can see it in the responses in this.

No, I don't see it. Plenty of people hold the same beliefs as you, but don't receive the kind of response you're getting, because they have enough respect for boundaries, context, and so on, to realise that there is a time, a place, and a way, to articulate those beliefs, so that they don't impinge inappropriately on others.

Declaring what we believe is becoming hate speech.

The problem isn't declaring what you believe. It's expecting everyone else to conform to your belief.

 

[ralliann]

No, I don't see it. Plenty of people hold the same beliefs as you, but don't receive the kind of response you're getting, because they have enough respect for boundaries, context, and so on, to realise that there is a time, a place, and a way, to articulate those beliefs, so that they don't impinge inappropriately on others.

The problem isn't declaring what you believe. It's expecting everyone else to conform to your belief.

No it is not. Not to me and many others. That's the same issue with attending a gay wedding. It doesn't bother you, ok. It does bother others. Who is making someone's beliefs to conform?
1 cor 8:
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don’t think this is established. Most developed countries are way past America in moving away from the Christian world view and are not so radically polarised.

Which countries are these.

For one example - look out of the window Steve.

OB

 

[jayem]

No it is not. Not to me and many others. That's the same issue with attending a gay wedding. It doesn't bother you, ok. It does bother others. Who is making someone's beliefs to conform?

Heck, if a same sex marriage violates your beliefs, then don't go. I've never known that being a wedding guest would ever be mandatory.

And anyway, (as the Bard said) what's in a name? Marriage/civil union--who cares? FWIW, I'm reminded of my 11th grade English Lit teacher. Mrs. Marvin was tough. And a stickler for concise writing. We were taught to always use short sentences with the most precise vocabulary. "Marriage" is one word, with 8 letters. "Civil union" is 2 words with 10 letters. So the preferred terminology is marriage.

 

[ralliann]

Heck, if a same sex marriage violates your beliefs, then don't go. I've never known that being a wedding guest would ever be mandatory.

And anyway, (as the Bard said) what's in a name? Marriage/civil union--who cares? FWIW, I'm reminded of my 11th grade English Lit teacher. Mrs. Marvin was tough. And a stickler for concise writing. We were taught to always use short sentences with the most precise vocabulary. "Marriage" is one word, with 8 letters. "Civil union" is 2 words with 10 letters. So the preferred terminology is marriage.

This has already been discussed. Yes, I can choose to not go. Choice to keep a religious conviction!

 

[Paidiske]

That's the same issue with attending a gay wedding. It doesn't bother you, ok. It does bother others. Who is making someone's beliefs to conform?

I don't understand. Unless someone is forcing you to attend a gay wedding (in which case there are other issues going on), nobody is forcing you to conform to their views. Your conscience is not being violated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A bunch of bunk......It goes both ways. But you don't want that. there's the problem.

This is about your apparent desire to be bigoted. From the post above this response (#108) your whole thing is just a hypothetical. In that case is just a manufactured scenario to make an empty claim of religious discrimination. How am I wrong? (or am I not?)

 

[stevevw]

For one example - look out of the window Steve.

OB

I think the Land Down Under is similar to the US and Britain when it comes to the New Woke religion. We have moved away from Christainity and have replaced it with another Religion. So it may be that we have moved away from Christainity but we haven't moved away from religious belief. Christainity worked for 2,000 + years lets see how the New Woke religion pans out.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the Land Down Under is similar to the US and Britain when it comes to the New Woke religion. We have moved away from Christainity and have replaced it with another Religion. So it may be that we have moved away from Christainity but we haven't moved away from religious belief. Christainity worked for 2,000 + years lets see how the New Woke religion pans out.

You have a weird concept of religion. And if 'woke' means being aware of how we should treat minorities, then we're doing quite reasonably well down here. Maybe a B+? But then, being somewhat parochial about where 'down here' actually is, Queensland has always been a little late to the party when it comes to the acceptance of said minorities.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think the Land Down Under is similar to the US and Britain when it comes to the New Woke religion. We have moved away from Christainity and have replaced it with another Religion. So it may be that we have moved away from Christainity but we haven't moved away from religious belief. Christainity worked for 2,000 + years lets see how the New Woke religion pans out.

Seriously?

There is a huge difference between the US and Aus when it comes to 'woke', attitudes to religion and political polarisation.

We are far ahead of the US when it comes to putting religious beliefs to one side - the non-religious are almost a majority of the population. We have no serious arguments about abortion, sex before marriage, book censorship, assisted dying, homosexuality, same-sex marriage and transgenderism to name a few.

We are not politically 'polarised'. We may disagree but, compared to the US, the level of political division is minimal. There are no gerrymanders or attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. We all agree that the disadvantaged need help - we just disagree on the level. Our elections are a model of propriety and public confidence.

You need to take a hard look at the society you live in and stop imagining you live in the US.

OB