Thursday, November 26, 2015
Australian Leftists come out as anti-free speech on marriage
Labor nailed its colours to the Greens’ anti-free speech mast today, joining them to block a Senate motion supporting the Catholic church’s right to teach the orthodox Christian view of marriage.
Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said it was chilling to have the alternative party of government oppose in Parliament the church’s right to teach about marriage being between one man and one woman.
“Labor’s action raises serious questions about where the same-sex political debate is taking our nation.
“Labor’s move coupled with Greens politicians Adam Bandt and Robert Simms today calling people who support traditional marriage ‘bigots’, is evidence of a growing intolerance emerging in Australian politics.”
The Senate motion was to support the Catholic church’s right to free speech in the face of an anti-discrimination complaint lodged with authorities in Tasmania.
The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is investigating the complaint by a transgender Greens’ political candidate against the Catholic church for distributing a booklet that explains its millennia-old view on marriage.
In an extraordinary political maneuver, Labor today joined the Greens in blocking the motion from even being discussed in the Senate.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Homosexuals and their ilk are a small minority, but they have the Liberal Politically Correct crowd trying hard to limit freedom for the majority.
So, the left is refusing to even allow the church to teach the Bible's teachings on marriage because "bigotry"? Hmmmm…
bigotry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
The key word in that definition is "intolerance".
intolerance
1. lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
2. unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group.
Hmmmm… So one side promotes the concept of freedom of speech (and here in America even elevated it to Constitutional Law) and the other side is trying to say that their opponents are not even allowed to talk about their position. Which side is demonstrating actual bigotry?
Psychological projection seems to be a common failing of the left all around the world.
The Roman Catholic Church's dogmas about marriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. is very well known, and of course they should have the right to promote their beliefs as beliefs, but the manner in which they do so may be questionable, and presumably that's what's at issue and not the basic freedom of expression. That being said, it cannot be denied that the RCC has an infamous record of suppressing views it doesn't agree with wherever it has/had the power to do so. In that respect they are hypocrites to trumpet the principle of freedoom of speech or expression.
Wow - the 'Luke English Dictionary' quoted yet again. Where can I purchase a copy of such an impressive work, or find an online copy? Obviously it's pointless wasting time going to look for a Webster, Oxford or Wiki dictionary when there's the Luke one that's so frequently referenced in detail on this site!
Apparently 6:07's web browser does not support hyperlinks. Either that, or his typical willful blindness has struck again.
Okay, Annonymous 6:07,
Merriam-Webster defines Bigot as: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred or intolerance.
The words are different, but the definition is essentially the same.
Intolerant: 1) unable or unwilling to endure
2) a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights: bigoted
So...yeah. Looks like the same thing from a different source. So, 6:07, how would you define these words?
I can't help but think this relates to the distribution of a booklet to schoolchildren in Tasmania. I would agree as long as all other interested groups are treated the same way and teachers are not allowed to let their opinion influence children either which means that if there is no reason to treat children purely as boys and girls without any mention of other options that the left would like to introduce. Should that happen then all bets are of in the courts.
We have a major problem in Australia where in the Senate Labor and the Greens which are in opposition to the government but don't hold a majority as also doesn't the government. The balance of power is held by 6 independents of varying political beliefs. I am stunned that they closed down the government on this issue. The sad thing for Australia is that the Greens are slowly gaining support at the expense of Labor and Labor feels it need to move towards the extreme left to recover votes. Australia is coming under attack by extreme socialism and we are seeing small faction willing to align with the left to pressure the government. As more people become dependant on welfare, especially the middle class it is easier for the socialists to gain ground. Until the middle class realise they are paying for the welfare they are receiving at a cost nothing will change.
Luke and Brian are evidently too dim to get the point that 6:07 was making with satire - that we don't need to be fed dictionary-style definitions here in such a pedantic way as though we are incapable of understanding the meanings already of basic English words, or if not, that we couldn't just look them up in a standard dictionary without Luke's patronizing and pointless "help"!
So it seems the standard of our unfriendly neighborhood troll is that if the truth is undeniable, grasp at any silly straw possible to try to create a distraction.
The truth is simple: It is clearly the left that is engaging in bigotry, and in the process, being hypocritical by making that claim of those they are attempting to victimize.
Luke pathetically trying again to assert his dominance of the thread, and pompously dismiss any opposition as "our unfriendly neighborhood troll". Doubtless, the "our" is the freudian "royal plural"!
And still, not one word on the point. That's what makes it trolling. "The prosecution rests, your honor."
6:07 AM and other hypocritical,
Invited to take a long walk off of a short pier you are! Bigots you are!
Yoda
Luke "your less-than-honorable" - all points don't have to be covered with one comment. Are you too dim to realize the other points may have been covered elsewhere?
If Yoda is your even more dim friend, I even sympathize with YOU!
Post a Comment