The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Harvesting a secular Greens vote > Comments

Harvesting a secular Greens vote : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 8/7/2010

To win votes the Greens should declare themselves for what they are: a secular party in everything but name.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
A thoughtful article. It's an important time for the Greens. Gillard will suck prefs back from the Greens but maybe not as many as the ALP would like. The ALP have to hold those Qlds seats or else they are in big trouble.

The Greens have never been known as a strong social justice party. That claim was held by the Democrats. In the GST split many of the left of the Dems moved to the Greens creating a decidedly red Green party. The Greens have the policies but not the runs on the board.

They have a golden opportunity with the boat people news beat up to stick up for human rights. There's considerable uneasiness in the electorate about how we treat boat people. The Greens have to be careful as they are also anti-population and the prime cause of our rising population is migration (not only boat people).
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:14:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The greens are going to have to get more credibility for mainstream politics such as economics, business, industrial relations and the like.

Despite Cardinal Pell's 1988 statement supporting separation of church and state, the apparent increase, in the last decade or so, of the proportion of Catholics and other pious-Christians in Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet suggests a wider agenda.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:37:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< For all the variety in their many progressive policies, the Greens can’t shake off their image as a one-dimensional pro-environment party. >>

That is so untrue Max!! The Greens have been very vocal about the asylum seeker issue – and it has done them no good at all, because they are entrenched on the WRONG side of that particular debate!

I would think that many good environmentally concerned people have shunned the Greens directly because of this.

As for George Pell’s two cents worth, who gives a hoot??
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:46:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Greens don't stand for anything very much. They talk unrealistic nonsense - pie in the sky stuff, totally impractical.

The Greens rely for their votes on the young and on the irrational. Most people mature and become more conservative as they grow older: that leaves the Greens only with irrational people as their core supporters.

The Greens will never be anything other than a nuisance and an insult to democratic political process.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The huge point being missed is that the Greens are quasi-religious. Some of the most religious people I know are atheists: dogmatic, obedient to an ultimate source of authority (usually Gaia or a philosopher). No wonder the big Churches fear their competition for market share! The late Michael Crichton summed it up perfectly:

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

(Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton San Francisco September 15, 2003)

"There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe"
Posted by byork, Thursday, 8 July 2010 10:35:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Wallace wrote: "Of course, the Greens would have to declare that their secularism would not mean a reconsideration of funding for Catholic schools, but they could certainly demand there should be transparency into how that school funding is allocated, a policy that may be no different to Julia Gillard’s."

To me secularism means religion is not the business of the government. It neither supports nor opposes it. Government funding of religious schools is support for religion. I am a Green. If the Greens were to declare themselves a secular party and announce they will continue support for funding of religious schools I will resign from the Greens because they would be dishonest in claiming to be secular.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 July 2010 11:39:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max misses the obvious that although many people deny, hate and ignore God they are smart enough to see the fruit of secularism. That is why they including many Labour politicians are willing to pay to send their kids to schools who aren't reaping the rotten fruit of secularism at the same rate as the State run secular schools. Despite the pc correctness from Ms Gillard she also knows that many people are comfortable with homosexuals going around their daily business but are sickened by public displays of perversion. That is why she backed down along with many of her other so called convictions on 'gay' marriage as if their really ever could be such a thing.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 July 2010 12:15:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, oh I agree with Cheryl. It was a thoughtful article. If that happens again I'll get really confused.

Well done to Max Wallace for writing it and OLO for putting it up.

I hope the Greens get enough power so that people won't dump the Greens for minor indiscretions and minor policy shadings. Labour and Liberal can Lie, Steal public money, have extra-marital affairs (gay and straight) and everybody still supports them and votes for them. If the Greens support climate change too much or not enough, or say they will or won't give Catholic schools money, people go back to Labour and Liberal. Yuck. At least they aren't business as usual.

Love Ya Cheryl but we still need to get sustainable and stabilising population is still one important step.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 8 July 2010 12:26:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Leigh. "The Greens rely for their votes on the young and on the irrational. Most people mature and become more conservative as they grow older: … ."

If you are claiming a causal connection between maturing and becoming more conservative, you leave us curious about whether you use the verb "mature" to mean getting older or getting wiser. If you mean the former, you might have evidence on your side as it does appear that conservative people represent a bigger proportion of older groups than younger. But if by maturing you mean getting wiser, then you are making the outrageous, unsupported and, I think, unsupportable claim that the wiser people get, the more conservative they become. And many would think that people making that claim have already excluded themselves from the subset of the population on whose behalf they are making the claim.
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 8 July 2010 2:30:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philosophically I am opposed to the financial exemptions religious institutes enjoy. However, government funding for religious and other private schools cannot be abolished.

During the 60's governments issued the same threat, to cease funding to private schools.

Spokespeople for private schools at the time, threatened to send every child from every private school to state schools on the Monday, following funding withdrawal. The threat of funding withdrawal was hastily abandoned.

The Greens are smart enough to understand that it is cheaper to pay recurrent grants to private schools than for government schools to be inundated with thousands of children they cannot accommodate and which would cost the taxpayer much more than the recurrent grants now being issued to private schools.
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 8 July 2010 3:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max seems to make the common mistake of assuming that being pro-abortion, pro-gay etc is some kind of secular, atheist or agnostic "position". It's not. Heaps of people who have no religious faith are anti-abortion or anti gay marriage and so on. Others are pro these things. Despite Max's view, we are a secular state. Pell and other religious leaders can have their say. It's up to us whether we take any notice. We generally don't.

Max's article is more about the Greens harvesting the far left vote. They do that already. Their problem is that not many Australians are far left. Pauline Hanson had a similar problem, albeit at the other extreme of the political spectrum. We are an overwhelmingly secular society and, thankfully, a politically moderate society as well. That's why Australia is such a great place !
Posted by huonian, Thursday, 8 July 2010 4:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max says, "Of course, the Greens would have to declare that their secularism would not mean a reconsideration of funding for Catholic schools"... that's already a done deal due to the DOGS case where the High Court has determined they will get funding.

Too late to get that changed, which is why Xenophon's windmill tilt is doomed too... no chance of excising one set of religious fruitcakes from the rest.

As for David f, grow up man.... they have no choice but to keep that money bleeding to the faith schools, because of DOGS.

You sound like that goose Adams, resigning from the ALP because the most pious person in the ALP got dumped, his godbothering mate... fair suck of the sauce bottle!

For others here, worried about the atheist leanings of the Greens, don't fear.

I went to a Greens meeting once. It was full of Papists fiddling with beads, New Ageers eating stargazey pie, irrodologists, tarot carders, white witchesnwarlocks as well as fed up ex ALP voetrs and every now and then, a person concerned about the environment.

The Greens are already far more 'secular' than most parties, beyond the Secular Party, and as Max says, Bob Brown would be well advised to grasp the nettle and declare then to be a 'secular' party with a very distinct secular education policy.

Actually, the Greens used to declare their 'secularity' some years ago, so it's just a case of going back to the future (I hate that phrase) and picking up what every political party in a secular state should be stating openly, up front, and honestly.

I'll even consider voting for the Australian Sex Party if they stand a candidate in Qld-they say no more tax free status for religions, and the Greens next but I really do want to vote for a political party that is 'secular' above all else.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 8 July 2010 4:32:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From memory *David F* said that Judaism is more concerned with what people do as individuals, as opposed to what they profess to believe.

And to consider a supposed Christian saying:
"Know the Tree by its Fruit."

I regard the correct move for the Greens is not, or not just to indicate their secular nature, but rather to convey those things which they share in common with all "People of Good Will" for want of a better term, which of course may include the religiously inclined.

For example, I can't think of any friends of either the Christian or Green persuasion that practice the pulling off of wings from flies, or the rolling of insects onto their backs to mess with them for some perverse pleasure.

It is in part a question of growth and the casting off of the outer garment, and not that I'm advocating for people to run around naked, though I think that can some times help, but rather, to consider the essential things that we hold in common and unite us collectively as members of the Human Race.

Both some Christians and the Greens have a strong sense of sense of social justice, contrary to *Cheryl's comments,* as indicated by the lot of the down trodden, weary and weak legitimate "Asylum Seekers."

Both have a Heart for the poor and the disadvantaged, the elderly, the sick and the infirmed, as well as the homeless.

..

I personally find that there is great Spiritual Beauty in certain aspects of the Greens, and not because they profess to Believe this or that, or conversely what they do not Believe, but rather because of what they do.

In the final analysis, I suspect that under a Greener political persuasion, there would be a caring and nurturing place for all of "God's Creatures" irrespective of race, creed or colour, something that is aspired to and hoped for by the majority of us, where a state of more Harmonious relations prevails on this our planet, the shared inheritance of all of us, both animal, mineral, plant and people.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 8 July 2010 4:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear The Blue Cross,

I am quite aware that no political party can stop the allocation of public funds to religious schools at this time and hope to get much of a vote. I am also against dishonesty. It is dishonest for a party to call itself secular and not be secular.

Politics is the art of the possible. I am in favour of the Greens program and realise they would not get the votes if they were truly a secular party. They cannot support funding for religious schools and honestly maintain they are a secular party.

Max Wallace recommends dishonesty.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 July 2010 4:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f... it almost doesn't matter whether the Greens, or any other party for that matter, says they do or do not support funding for religious schools, because the DOGS decision has overtaken mere party ideals.

Without a reversal of the High Court decision, which is highly unlikely, that irresponsible funding will continue.

Given that, the Greens can still claim to be secular.

They can indeed have a policy of 'not funding' religious schools, a bit like the ALP still pretends to support the old socialist ideals without ever having any intention of implementing them, but it will not be worth a cracker.

However, they could, and should, have a clear secular policy on public education.

Bob Brown has already been the only honest politician, apart from Dr John Kaye and the ex Democrat Senator Lyn Allison, to point out the purely religious nature of the NSCP scheme.

Brown needs to build on that honesty and publicly declare Green support for an end to evangelising and proselytising in public schools.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 8 July 2010 5:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear The Blue Cross.

There is a lawsuit challenging the National School Chaplaincy Program on the grounds that it violates section 116 of the Australian Constitution. I feel strongly enough about the issue to contribute to its funding.

www.highcourtchallenge.com is the website where you can find out more about the lawsuit and contribute. Even if you don't contribute you could have a look and see what it's about.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 July 2010 6:18:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*David F*

I am currently having a look at S116.

Oh, but re *Blue Cross's* earlier comments, I note that it is a bit hard for people to know what he is talking about when he refers to DOGS in conjunction with his unfounded assertions as he provides no citation and no reference.

Of course, irrespective of the above, a majority RED LOWER HOUSE with a GREEN BALANCE OF POWER UPPER HOUSE can easily enough make new law to prohibit funding of religious schools, as in my view, it ought to be on the grounds that Children ought have the Right not to be indoctrinated.

..

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

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.

..

Now, I am no expert so do take what I say with a pinch of salt, however, to have a go at making a few comments on this as a legal basis:

1. The Chaplaincy Program is not establishing a religion, as Christianity already exists.

2. Forcing people to participate in prayer sessions may be a breach as it would be the imposition of "a religious observance." If it was voluntary at tea break though I think that would be acceptable though.

3. Having the Chaplaincy program certainly isn't prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

4. I do not know the status of the "Chaplains." I suspect though if we are talking about state school employees that that doesn't constitute the holding of "an office or public trust under the CommonWealth."

Perhaps someone can add to this.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 8 July 2010 8:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe the case has merit at 2. if it is true that the chaplains impose themselves on everyone at "all school assemblies" but that would perhaps only serve to curtail their activities as opposed to banning the program altogether.

In the alternative, the section of the constitution does read "the commonwealth shall not make any law ..." So even in the case of "all school assemblies" has there actually been a law enacted in regards to this or is this just what the respective schools allow them to do?

If that is the case then I suspect that this case will fail and if you truly want to do anything about it, simply vote and lobby GREEN RED, and hope for some new rules post the election that a put an end to these fanatics of all description indoctrinating children.

If there is legislation relating to the establishment of the chaplain program then maybe someone can refer the name of same to us for further examination.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 8 July 2010 8:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DOGS refers to Defense of government schools. http://www.adogs.info/ is their website.

On that site you will find:

The Australian Council for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) has been fighting for public education since the 1960s.

The Council has two main objectives:
1. The promotion and protection of public education
2. The separation of Church and State and opposition to public funding of private religious schools

along with other material.

The chaplains are not state employees but supplied by religious organisations. In Queensland they are supplied by Scripture Union, a fundamentalist Protestant missionary organisation.

http://www.suqld.org.au/home/ is their website. On it you will find:

"Primary School Work
SU exists to work with churches, resourcing and supporting them in their ministry. This partnership provides a strategic alliance for taking advantage of the many opportunities which exist for ministry in primary schools."

Government funds are supporting a fundamentalist missionary group. This is taxpayer money going to missionise public school students.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:51:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting and timely article, but I think that Max Wallace misses the mark somewhat. Certainly, the Greens need to correct public misapprehensions that they are a unidimensional 'environment' party, but focusing instead on their relative secularism would be selling them short.

Cetainly, there is a quite deliberate conflation in some sectors of the commentariat of all things "green" (i.e. environmental) with the Greens political party. In this way, all the radical and wacky ideas and actions of extreme environmental activists can be associated negatively in the electorate's consciousness with the Greens. Thus, we're always hearing about 'Gaia-worship' from certain wingnut pundits in the same breath as the Greens.

Besides their advocacy of ecological sustainability as one of the four 'pillars' of Greens ideology, as a member I agree that there is insufficient awareness in the electorate of the other three - namely, social justice, participatory democracy and peace. However, while Greens policies tend to be secular and inclusive, secularism per se as a core value is not particularly promoted in Greens policies. Indeed, the Greens have many religious members, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc.

Of course, the George Pells and Jim Wallaces of the community (not to mention their loopier representatives in the commentariat and blogosphere) like to construct the Greens as some kind of Antichrist movement for political purposes, but anybody who has had any involvement with the Greens recognises such mendacious negative spin for what it is.

As we move closer to the election, I expect that we'll be regaled with the usual hysterical and dishonest rubbish about Greens promoting injecting rooms in schools where gay heroin can be consumed by schoolkids avoiding scripture classes (or some other such nonsense), but I think that intelligent voters already recognise such spin as the garbage it is.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 9 July 2010 9:34:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJM.... "However, while Greens policies tend to be secular and inclusive, secularism per se as a core value is not particularly promoted in Greens policies. Indeed, the Greens have many religious members, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc."

Quite so, so 'being secular' is not foreign to the Greens as you point out above.

So, how hard would it be to state that publicly, and ensure that a vote for the Greens, is a vote for a secular public education system?

It's worth noting that the ALP, long a hotbed of Papists, has no desire to use the 'secular' word in its platform, no doubt under orders from Pell direct to all his henchmen in the ACTU and the ALP office bearers from his pocket unions (AWU and SDA amongst others).

And the traditionally Protestant Liberals are devoted to the Jensen views, so also cannot openly claim to be 'secular'.

There is a space there for the Greens, to openly be a secular party, like the Secular Party is, but better equipped than them to take seats and do something really useful.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 July 2010 10:28:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the Greens agonise over 'going secular' religions are going green in the USA.

When, finally, something is done to save the world, religions will be there claiming that it was they who drove the new path...

Time to get with it Bob Brown, and the rest of the Greens... state your case, go secular, and start competing with these PR driven pew-stuffers:

Green religion movement hopes spill wins converts

by John Flesher
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS – Where would Jesus drill?

Religious leaders who consider environmental protection a godly mission are making the Gulf of Mexico oil spill a rallying cry, hoping it inspires people of faith to support cleaner energy while changing their personal lives to consume less and contemplate more.

Read the complete story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_re/us_rel_religion_today
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 July 2010 12:08:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A correction to Max's article, where he says no political party has ever advocated separation of church and state in Australia. The Secular Party is now a registered political party, and certainly does advocate separation.

The Greens have religious members and voters, so that is a problem for them. Only the Secular Party stands for separation, which includes winding back state funding for faith schools.

http://secular.org.au
Posted by John Perkins, Friday, 9 July 2010 3:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I vote for the Greens because they are the only political movement which asks real questions about the state of the world, both human and non-human.

I also have a Spiritual Master - a concept, and practice which is completely unacceptable to both secularists and mainstream exoteric religionists, which is the only kind of "religion" that now exists in the Western world.

This site and Zoo was set up as a tool to re-educate humankind re the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human world.

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org

The recent Avatar film gave an very dramatic portrayal of the differences between the world views of the now world dominant techno-barbarians and the wholistic ecological consciousness of the Navi.

At a very basic level the film was about the technocratic "culture" of death versus the culture of life.

It is interesting to note that ALL of George Pell's right-thinking friends(eg the Quadrant cabal) came out very STRONGLY in support of the technocratic barbarians and the "culture" of death.
Posted by Ho Hum, Saturday, 10 July 2010 11:00:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the article well thought out.
I also think Cheryl has never read the Greens policies. I have (they are readily available online, which is more than I can say about Labor, and the Libs' site has Liberal motherhood statements and lots of negatives about labor.

Leigh, The demographic of Greens voters is quite interesting. There are 2 groups of voters. The biggest group is made up of well educated, experienced people who do know the difference between the parties and their policies and have the best interests of Australia in mind. The other group are mainly younger, but includes pensioners, who find themselves disenfranchised by both large parties who don't give a stuff about inequality in our society and worship consumerism and corporate greed.

Both groups are becoming larger and I predict Liberal and Labor pre-election pork-barreling to attract these voters as well as dirty advertising will reach new highs as the big 2 get desperate. Is anyone old enough to remember when Liberal and Labor deliberately gave each other preferences to lock out the Democrats when it looked like they may take the balance of power in the Senate?
Posted by pilotyoda, Saturday, 10 July 2010 3:58:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pilotyoda

To OLO forum, welcome!

People who love to bang on about the Greens being a single issue party are unable to do so if they actually go to the Greens website and read through all the well articulated policies. You really think this has not been suggested to the little dears before?

I agree that both Labor and the Libs have alienated too many people for too long, well perhaps not too long at all. For while the 2 parties have been chasing the Christian Right vote, the Greens have had time and opportunity to develop into a real alternative.

BTW I think all the Liberal policy consists of, is listing Labor's faults, have you read MS J Bishop's article here? Nothing new, nothing to offer the electorate:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10670
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 10 July 2010 4:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho-Hum... actually, those who endorse and seek a secular Australia would have no issue with your spiritual pursuits, anymore than objections would be mounted against Christianity, Islam Judaism or 'the others'.

The issue is only when they intrude overtly and unhelpfully into the machinery of state....for instance, the state provided privilege for Christianity, in each state and territory, to access public school students (and of course, particularly here in Qld where we have no secular public system of education at all, but a 'soft theocracy' promoted by Anna Bligh, favouring Christianity).

A similar access would be denied to your group, or Pagans, or a political body, be that the Greens or Liberals etc..

I'll pass on comment on the film, not having seen it.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Saturday, 10 July 2010 6:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I missed *Avatar* in 3D but did see it on DVD in HD when last in Perth in June.

Whilst both the story and script were rather retarded, as is typical of Hollywood in my view, I could easily excuse that on the basis of the overall concept and magnificent graphics.

I personally found it very touching at the end, when His Partner, scoops him up Tech intact, and not withstanding his disability, and presumably takes him back off to places Sacred, with a Willing & Loving Heart.

..

*David F* mayb U should get up a thread on the relevant section of the constitution and the High Court challenege. It remains unclear to me what the legal basis of the tenure of the Christian chaplains is.

..

Re more Harmonious International relations, I thought that was great work by *Bazza Obama, Auntie Sam et al* and *The Rusky Federation* in the "Spy Release" affair.

And did anyone else see the recent interview with *Joe Biden* re same? The interviewing Dude puts up a graphic of that super spunky red headed chicky babe and asks something like:

" ... Do we have anyone Spying for US that that is even remotely as HOT as this? ... "

To which *Biden* replies something like:

" ... Hey, that wasn't my idea to let HER go! ... "

To which everyone laughed and lauged.
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 11 July 2010 2:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear DreamOn,

It is unclear to me, also. The thread should include the sections of the US Constitution relevant to religion. I can see no significant difference between them and S. 116 of the Australian Constitution. In the US, government funding of religious schools is illegal.

If it is too much info for a thread I will write an article.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 11 July 2010 7:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Davidf

Prior to a federal election, with a self-declared atheist for a PM, is an excellent to raise the issue of separation of Church and State.

One can be a member of any number of groups be they, for example, political, sporting, environmental and not bring one's personal religious beliefs into the group.

I would be very interested to learn more. I am aware that it is illegal in the USA for tax-payer funding of religious schools. However, I have no doubt that since MS Gillard's revelation, she has to tread carefully with regard to existing policies. An article clearly defining the meaning of 'secular' and what it entails would be very helpful and of interest to many.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 12 July 2010 8:59:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Someone mentioned dirty advertising coming to new highs... I was wondering if any of the parties is actively engaged in Internet advertising - I don't mean straightforward ads like banners or email marketing, but more of the "sneaky" stuff, i.e. social media, search engines, etc.

http://www.seo-scoop.com/2010/04/06/the-dangerous-revolutionary-mix-of-social-media-and-politics/
http://www.mattersolutions.com.au/internet-advertising/

I wouldn't be surprised, though probably it's something they wouldn't really want to talk about.
Posted by WinstonS, Thursday, 15 July 2010 10:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy