Fear mongering Australian Idiots in Politics: positive side effect only Athiests are Real Aussies

Senator Lambie told an increasingly bewildered Barrie Cassidy on The Insiders that she believes anyone who doesn’t fully follow the Australian constitution should get out of the country. Given every religion has a code of law to follow and Senator Lambie’s residency criteria, apparently the only people who can live in Australia and in alignment with the constitution are atheists - a group whose spiritual leader needs “your a dick” tattooed on his forehead so he can look at it first thing every morning before settling in to say something else dickish on Twitter.

We’ve already established that, amazingly, religions have rules and that maybe Senator Lambie doesn’t understand that fact, or that religions contain a diversity of adherence and interpretation contained within. Given she has confused political extremism with religious practice, we’re not sure Senator Lambie understands much except the word ‘constitution’.

But maybe the senator doesn’t really understand the Constitution either. Like that part in the Constitution that has an express freedom of religion statement (section 116, if you're interested) and that the Commonwealth is prohibited from making "any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion".

Prohibiting the free exercise of any religion? Like that part where she and fellow ideological dreamboat Cory “I hate everything more than you, even myself in the cold dead of night” Bernardi are trying to ban the burqa or her one-woman mission to diss Sharia law?

Didge wrote:THis is right, people who do not obey the law should leave.
Claiming religious laws would supersede the nations law, shows why the writer of this article is an idiot, so claiming we should respect the law to stone people?
Execute children if they disobey their parents?

Of course not, religion is nothing more than a personal belief, which has to abide by the laws of the land, if not leave and find a nation that applies your religious laws

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:THis is right, people who do not obey the law should leave.
Claiming religious laws would supersede the nations law, shows why the writer of this article is an idiot, so claiming we should respect the law to stone people?
Execute children if they disobey their parents?

Of course not, religion is nothing more than a personal belief, which has to abide by the laws of the land, if not leave and find a nation that applies your religious laws

Well, I think the point is that she's claiming some kind of constitutional reason for banning the free expression of religion, when actually the constitution forbids the government from restricting the free expression of religion

Maybe I'm just weird, but I think I should have the right to walk down the street wearing, for example, an Anonymous mask without government interference. Maybe not go into a bank or get my ID taken in it, but in a free country, you have to justify the denial of freedoms, not the defense of freedoms.

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:THis is right, people who do not obey the law should leave.
Claiming religious laws would supersede the nations law, shows why the writer of this article is an idiot, so claiming we should respect the law to stone people?
Execute children if they disobey their parents?

Of course not, religion is nothing more than a personal belief, which has to abide by the laws of the land, if not leave and find a nation that applies your religious laws

Well, I think the point is that she's claiming some kind of constitutional reason for banning the free expression of religion, when actually the constitution forbids the government from restricting the free expression of religion

Maybe I'm just weird, but I think I should have the right to walk down the street wearing, for example, an Anonymous mask without government interference. Maybe not go into a bank or get my ID taken in it, but in a free country, you have to justify the denial of freedoms, not the defense of freedoms.

Again why should preferential treatment be given to people who follow faiths?
Do I get such treatment being an atheist?
No, so why should a religious person be given exceptions to the rule?
Again the point made is on following the law and if people do not wish to follow that law, what is wrong with that?

Didge wrote:
Again religion should not have preference within laws. 
These are myths that people follow and if they conflict with sane rational laws, of which the abrahamic faiths constantly do, being they discriminate against women for a start and we are kidding ourselves to think they are in anyway nice beliefs to follow.

Again why should myths take preference within our laws?
They are personal beliefs nothing more and should have no relevance towards the common sense laws of a land, the problem with religious laws, is they are unbreakable.
So religion should not have exceptions, again why should it?

If people want to believe in nonsense, that is up to them, but they should not get preferential treatment because of it