Yenn Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I had forgotten Amanda Vanstone and now you have reminded me. What a pity. Who wants to be reminded of failed pollies?
Marty_d Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 I had forgotten Amanda Vanstone and now you have reminded me. What a pity. Who wants to be reminded of failed pollies? Because if we don't remind ourselves of failed pollies, we are doomed to re-elect them, or at least ones with the same faults.
DonRamsay Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Whoever you vote for you end up with a politician - a vocation that is just one notch above journalist and one below used car salesman.
DonRamsay Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 One thing I really despise is politicians who bring their religious views overtly to the forefront. We have by Constitution a secular country but at every chance the religious right trot out their faith and try to enact it in law or oppose secular freedom and equality because it cuts across their religious view that, for example, homosexuals need stoning and not in a druggy way.
Yenn Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Those religious pollies push their views because they know what is right, probably God told them. There can be no doubt. Abbot is one of them and typical. I wouldn't trust him with anything of importance. Lets not vote for any more of them.
turboplanner Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Great idea Yenn, then we can save that 4,000 person salary bill, have no laws, and eat pizzas until we roll.
Old Koreelah Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 One thing I really despise is politicians who bring their religious views overtly to the forefront. We have by Constitution a secular country but at every chance the religious right trot out their faith and try to enact it in law or oppose secular freedom and equality because it cuts across their religious view that, for example, homosexuals need stoning and not in a druggy way. What was that old line? "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". For too many politicians, Religion comes next. My favourite line from the wonderful old Frank and Earnest comic strip: Politics is easy: you just have to stand for whatever people will fall for.
eightyknots Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 One thing I really despise is politicians who bring their religious views overtly to the forefront. We have by Constitution a secular country but at every chance the religious right trot out their faith and try to enact it in law or oppose secular freedom and equality because it cuts across their religious view that, for example, homosexuals need stoning and not in a druggy way. I have a feeling, Don, that you haven't read the Australian Constitution lately. This is how the Preamble commences: "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:"
Marty_d Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 That was boilerplate at the time though. I think Don's point is that our Constitution provides for a clear limit to the influence of religion in our laws - The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The starting point of any tolerant society has to be secular, ie without a state religion.
facthunter Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Why would a very religious polly listen to anyone. God outranks anyone I know. The French used to reckon it was a waste of time talking to George W Bush, as he thought god spoke through him. When you have the best ignore the rest. I think pollies have a near impossible job to do . Please the electorate. Nev
bexrbetter Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 The French used to reckon it was a waste of time talking to ... ... anybody.
Marty_d Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 ... anybody. They've got a point. Heard Jeb Bush announcing his candidacy on the radio, to the sound of cheering Republicans. You'd think that after George Dubya, that surname would be toxic enough to preclude him having any chance, but Yanks (like us) seem to have short memories.
DonRamsay Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 I have a feeling, Don, that you haven't read the Australian Constitution lately. True, it's been quite a few years (decades) since I studied Constitutional Law. However, I recall that, fortunately, that quaint passage, or any other part of the preamble, has no effect in law. Furthermore, it is contradicted by s 116 as quoted by Marty above. Interestingly, that section was based on the USA Constitution. It is a shame that a general knowledge of our constitution is not a part of high school curriculum.
DonRamsay Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Another shame is that s116 does not restrict the States the same as the Commonwealth. Morons with extreme religious views like Fred Nile consistently wield God like power from their lofty perch in Australia's oldest Parliamentary chamber, the Legislative Council. Australia, like Iran, is a theocracy to the extent that the Head of State (Queen of Australia) is the head of the State religion. Unlike Iran, the Head of State is just a figurehead - ask any ALP voter and they may not agree - but the facts are we do have a Constitution that sits between Autocratic, theocratic power and we 'umble servants of the Crown.
facthunter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 How 3 BUSH brand people can be right to lead the USA has me beat. There's plenty of choice surely? Nev
bexrbetter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 How 3 BUSH brand people can be right to lead the USA has me beat. Anything involving bush involves money.
facthunter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Usually Oil, OIL and OIL. great mates with the Saudi's (hierarchy). Nev
Marty_d Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Anything involving bush involves money. I think you're stuck in the 70's Bex. There's a lot less bush these days.
bexrbetter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 I think you're stuck in the 70's Bex. There's a lot less bush these days. The stripping of Brazilian rainforests was always a bad thing.
Pearo Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Another shame is that s116 does not restrict the States the same as the Commonwealth. Morons with extreme religious views like Fred Nile consistently wield God like power from their lofty perch in Australia's oldest Parliamentary chamber, the Legislative Council. Australia, like Iran, is a theocracy to the extent that the Head of State (Queen of Australia) is the head of the State religion. Unlike Iran, the Head of State is just a figurehead - ask any ALP voter and they may not agree - but the facts are we do have a Constitution that sits between Autocratic, theocratic power and we 'umble servants of the Crown. A lot of people are fooled by s116. There is no separation of church and state in the Australian Constitution and the high court has confirmed that on more than one occasion IIRC.
turboplanner Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Anyone know the origins of Prester John? It's an ancient name which is found in literature in several countries down through the centuries, may have some religious connotation.
horsefeathers Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Anyone know the origins of Prester John? It's an ancient name which is found in literature in several countries down through the centuries, may have some religious connotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John OR http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12400b.htm
dutchroll Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 A lot of people are fooled by s116. There is no separation of church and state in the Australian Constitution and the high court has confirmed that on more than one occasion IIRC. This is true, but with Section 116 of the Constitution prohibiting the Government from legislating on religious grounds, the effect could be described as a similar one. What it doesn't do is prevent a political party from formally aligning themselves with a religion or particular religious views. The major difference though, is that Australian society overall is not very tolerant of the intrusion of religious views into politics compared to the US. So politicians do it at their own peril.
facthunter Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Can't imagine unless you go around saying "God Bless America", you would get elected to anything over there, except a society of atheists. Nev
Marty_d Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'd like to say Australians have better bullsh*t sensors, but looking at the current government, we obviously don't. We've ended up with the worst PM in the history of this country. I personally have no interest in our politician's religious affiliations, so long as they don't impact on their policy decisions. I don't think Pony Rabbit is an intransigent, narrow minded fool because of his religious beliefs, I just think he's an intransigent, narrow minded fool.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now