Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I had forgotten Amanda Vanstone and now you have reminded me. What a pity. Who wants to be reminded of failed pollies?

 

 

Posted
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.

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

Posted
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.

 

 

Posted
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:"

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

Posted

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

 

 

Posted
... 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.

 

 

Posted
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.

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

Posted
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.

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

Posted
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.

 

 

Posted

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.

 

 

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...