When you're in the sights of trolls, they…

By Georgia * The following is the story of how I became the…

Fresh Start for NSW: Premier Chris Minns Temporarily…

By Denis Bright The NSW election results were a historical milestone in Australia’s…

NSW Election: Too Close To Make Any Conclusions

Last week I heard a commentator make a wonderful statement along the…

AUKUS, the Australian Labor Party, and Growing Dissent

It was a sight to behold and took the wind out of…

Reform in Qld ALP Still Needed: MORE THAN…

By Callen Sorensen Karklis A strong history of Social Democracy The Australian Labor Party…

BRICS: The opponent awe of the West

By Isidoros Karderinis Brazil, Russia, India and China originally formed the bloc in…

China, the United States, and us

Some people can easily remember what they were doing at the time…

Narendra Modi’s Cricket Coup

What a coup. Nakedly amoral but utterly self-serving in its saccharine minted…


When there’s a clash of faith, which ‘religious freedom’ takes priority?

Under the Morrison Government’s proposed Religious Freedom bills, what happens when there’s a clash of religious belief? Of all the religions and faiths subscribed to in this vast nation, which freedom will take priority when head to head at the service desk of a hotel, the pharmacist’s counter, or proselytizing on social media? Whose beliefs will take precedent above all others in the fight of the rights? How will the correct order of religious freedom be determined? Will there be a duel at dawn? A water walking competition? A zealous race to see whose dead prophet will rise the fastest?

What if the faith holders both attempt to pull rank when refusing the other service? Will they quote chapter after verse after testament until the glorious reigning mighty religious bigwigmen intervene to give the supposedly correct doctrine?

Will secular courts be required to determine the true interpretation of the holy books and scribes and scrolls, when even religious scholars can’t agree, or will they defer to the religious overlords, thus enshrining religious tenets into the common law?

What if a nasty pasty says something vile and unconscionable to a random stranger on the street and asserts their legal right to do so because ‘religious belief’? Will they have to prove they’re religious, or will their word simply do? Is there a waiting period before a person can make a defense of ‘religious freedom’ to a claim of discrimination against them? Or can they claim to have found their faith and converted to religion a mere three minutes before flinging an unprovoked slur at a person for simply being?

Is there an assumption of religiosity whenever someone speaks the words of a bigot? Will the onus of proof fall on the defendant to a claim of discrimination that they, in fact, have ‘faith’ and their faith, by its very nature, requires them to treat others as lesser people because of who they are?

What if the atheists chime in & heckle from the sidelines, asserting their protected right to call the warring factions religiloons and faithofarts? Will there be a three-way claim of discrimination and counter-discrimination and third party claimants and respondents and additional parties from each particular school of religious thought, all claiming to be the religiously righteous superior and thus the absolute protected by the law?

Will the entire farce collapse into a cringe-worthy public slag fest, transcribed carefully by the court, of “you are”, “your mum is”, and “that’s what she said” between the religious and believers and atheists and anyone who is otherwise not one of the protected species under any respective religious code?

How will Morrison manage the fallout from the proposed bill on social inclusion and community cohesion and assimilation and mental health and general feelings of happiness, fulfillment and the enjoyment of people to participate fully in public life, while also exercising their personal freedoms to bodily autonomy and accessing appropriate medical care?

Will Morrison demand tolerance and respect and fairness, while women, people of colour, racial minorities, people with a disability and LGBTIQA+ Australians are actively being denied services and publicly shamed, slandered and humiliated?

What further laws will Morrison rush through parliament when atheists, joined by any empathetic, loving and open-hearted religious folk, protest on the streets to denounce the positive rights of the religious to discriminate against them, their friends and families? Will he call in the military? Will he pray? Will he command the nation join him in prayer while the military confiscates padlocks, gaffa tape and glue?

What if? What if? What if?

What if Morrison and his merry band of religious zealots actually recognised and respected human rights, and instead of a knee-jerk reaction to appease the haters who think it’s their god-given right to impose their fundamentalist, extremist beliefs on the rest of the population, he proposed a bill to protect everyone from harm?


Morrison and his government are more concerned about the hurt feelings of a bunch of rotten losers than the real, demonstrated harm even the debate on ‘religious freedom’ is causing in the community.

But bets on who will be the first to cry foul when it’s religion up against religion, up against yet another religion, and maybe another religion (because who knew, even the religious types can’t agree on if there is one almighty supernatural creator or many) and then add in the atheists who will surely exercise their newly reinforced right to fiercely criticize religion and religious belief …


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

 615 total views,  2 views today


Login here Register here
  1. Baby Jewels

    Hilarious! I can’t wait.

  2. Joseph Carli

    JEEZUS!!…that header pic!…for just a moment I thought that bloke with the mallet held high had hold of the other blokes nuts and . .. .. .!!

  3. Terence Mills

    In the workplace context it would seem that the religious beliefs of the employer and even those of an individual manager could prevail to the detriment of some employees, particularly women :

    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Timothy 2: 11-15).

  4. Kaye Lee

    Religious organisations want the right to exclude people from employment, education, aged care etc who do not share their beliefs. Presumably applicants will be forced to answer questions about their marital status, sexual habits, and religious beliefs.

    So are atheist employers and service providers allowed to do the same thing – exclude people because of their religious beliefs and the disharmony that might bring to the workplace or school or care facility?

    What about hospitals run by religious groups? Will doctors and nurses have to profess their faith to work there? Will patients be refused care? We see the start of that with doctors wanting not only the right to refuse to do terminations, which they already have, but also the right to refuse to refer a patient.

    If a service or organisation refuses to treat all Australians equally, should it be government funded? Should it be tax exempt?

  5. Eva Cripps

    So many questions and so little listening by the Australian Government. I’m actually dreading the next version of the bills which purport to incorporate “community consultation”.

  6. Matters Not

    Moral decay is not only in Australia but also in the good ole USA, according to Attorney General William Barr and it’s the progressives who are at fault.

    Virtually every moral pathology has gained ground … laws are being “used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values”

    so-called progressives,” are mobilized in an “organized destruction” of religion. … Because of the decreasing influence of Judeo-Christian traditions, Barr insisted, “along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence and a deadly drug epidemic.”

    Schools are leading the way apparently.

    Barr said religion has been under “increasing” assault in America over the last 50 years and that “ground zero” for attacks on religion now are “the schools.”


    One wonders how long it will be before Morrison turns his eyes to the curriculum. Perhaps a compulsory unit or two of intelligent design – just for balance?

  7. Kaye Lee

    I don’t suppose the unfettered greed that has made an indebted workforce slave to the owners of capital, and the increasing wealth divide this has caused, and the pressure to provide all the gadgets the advertisers tell us we must have and the finance firms who are ready and willing to sign us up to things we ca’t afford and don’t need, and the increasingly unaffordable housing as investors sew up the market, and the precarious nature of employment so employers can keep the workforce maleable, and the violence portrayed as entertainment in the movies we watch and the games our children play…..would have anything to do with it.

    Let’s go back to the good old days when priests could rape whoever they wanted and no-one would say a word. Let’s have more orphanages because the church does a much better job of caring for children. Let’s get rid of divorce because women and children are, after all, a man’s property. It all fell apart when we stopped caning kids.

    Ah yes, religion…

  8. New England Cocky

    Uhm ….. I seem to remember that Murphy J sorted out “What is a religion?”, but where?? Was it the Scientology matter?

  9. Pete Petrass

    Religions should not be tax exempt because they are really not charities, they do not acquire moneys to give to the poor, they do not hand out money to those who are homeless for instance, they hoard their money. Look at the catholic church and the billions they have in their coffers to pay for lavish vaticans and priests living the high life. Look at religions who take percentages of everyone’s paypacket (like Hillsong) – where does all the money go? Helping poor people, providing food, building shelters? No, building lavish churches and secret compounds. IF the mantra of Scummo’s church is to look after the rich to the detriment of the poor why are they tax exempt???
    If all churches lived up to their god bothering gibberish their would be no poor people, everyone would have a roof to live under and food on the table. If they are not doing that, living up to their so-called christianity and good samaritans and love thy neighbour and all the other shit then they SHOULD NOT BE TAX EXEMPT.
    Further to the above how many new religions are out there these days, you know the pretend ones making a mockery of the tax exempt status? It is a total crock of shit which is being blatantly abused by all and sundry.

  10. Eva Cripps

    NEC; the AG has ensured that a broad definition of religious belief is included so as to not leave anyone out who so desires to be religious … Quoted below, it pretty much covers anything as long as it’s not ‘mental illness’ or ‘motivated by criminal intent’.

    “Religious belief
    The concept of religious belief is not defined for the purposes of this Bill. Religious belief is intended to include
    beliefs associated with major faith traditions (such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Judaism) in
    addition to the beliefs of smaller and emerging faith traditions. However, it is not intended to capture beliefs
    caused by mental illness or that are motivated by criminal intent.”

  11. Zathras

    One reason for the religious freedom campaign by the fundamentalist evangelical Taliban in the USA is to rebalance what they see is unfairness in the outcome of the same-sex-marriage freedoms.

    The withholding of marriage licences or the refusal to bake wedding cakes was only the first part of their (failing) campaign and they want to entrench their “rights” in legislation, and we are just following along in their footsteps.

    One by one their long-held tenets are falling away, from the end of slavery and the burning of witches to women getting the right to vote, the world is leaving their arcane beliefs behind and they continue to struggle for relevance.

    Religions in general – and Christianity in particular – have an in-built persecution and martyrdom complex that drives them.

    All the “freedoms” they want are already legislated but they want specific ones for themselves only.

    How long before people start picketting and protesting outsides churches over pedophilia claims in the same way that others protest outside abortion clinics? The proposed legislation can be a two-edged sword.

  12. Kaye Lee

    The church will make itself irrelevant through their own intolerance if they let fundamentalists like Glenn Davies speak for them. It is him who is at odds with the bible’s teachings and the opinions of many within the church including the pope.

    “As pope, Francis has repeatedly spoken about the need for the church to welcome and love all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Speaking about gay people in 2013, he said that “the key is for the church to welcome, not exclude and show mercy, not condemnation.” In July of that year, he said “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying…: ‘no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society.'”

    In April 2018 Pope Francis met with Juan Carlos Cruz, a survivor of sexual abuse by Chilean priest Fernando Karadima. Cruz discussed with Francis in detail how his sexual orientation was used by Latin American media and news outlets to discredit his report of abuse and label him as a pervert and liar. In a private conversation between the two Francis reportedly said to Cruz, who identifies as homosexual, in regards to his sexuality, “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”

  13. blair

    the No voters lost, Losers don’t get a prize.

  14. paul walter

    I’ve never seen a subject so well delineated as in the headliner.

  15. wam

    You have to love the children of the bible. They are so sure that god is a man who made a mud man in his own image, no room for gays, then did a caesarean to produce a woman.
    They believe they will be bonking in heaven with god reforming hymens on the morning after and the sheet will be hung over the bannister in the morning washed and rehung next day. Presumably with no need for children it is all system go 24/7. oops is there time in heaven???
    Have a look at this old skit.

    Time for the green, purple and white??

  16. RosemaryJ36

    One point which I have not seen addressed is what happens when canon law takes precedent over Australian law- such as in reporting sexual abuse revealed in the confessional? I

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: