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 > How our political system fails us > Comments

How our political system fails us : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 24/3/2009

Politics is replete with careerists who lack education, training, and political character to deal with substantial issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Could say suggestions from us insignificant OLO's probably don't get us very far.

But as a strong believer in a competent UN run by a democratically chosen body rather than by an interfering single strong nation like the US, must give reminder that the United Nations in the first place was organised to handle severe global problems both political and economic.

And if the oncoming financial depression plus global warming are not fit problems for a competent UN, what in blazes are they fit for?

A Rather Disgusted, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:59:52 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
I don't like the idea of a world governing body like the UN having control over us, not while the majority of its participant governments are so far from democratic, or even representative. Such a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, self-serving politico's are hardly likely to serve our needs well, are they? On any level.
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 12:35:01 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
Our political system originated in the 19th century and has changed remarkably little since that time.

This is a wrong statement. The political systems of the United Kingdom Australia and the United States originated in 1297, when the Poms enacted the Magna Carta, so that all central governments had to get their laws enforced locally by local political meetings, with twelve locals sitting as the power, and a Justice as administrator. The United States and Australia Constitutions are both grown out of that system, which is itself rooted in Protestant Christianity.

Karl Marx and the Pope had a lot in common, because both believe that government should come down from the top, instead of being tempered and controlled from the bottom up. The Twentieth Century should be marked as the century of communism. Communism and Protestant Christianity are deadly enemies; one treasuring individuality and the other the collective.

Just as Russian communism has collapsed, so too has the communism in the United States. We do not need communism here but we got is when the Federal Court of Australia was created and it has never sat as an Australian court since its inception. We also got communism when Fraser modified the High Court and Bob Hawke made them inaccessible. Because we already had communism, Paul Keating was defeated when he started to abolish it, and the communist Liberal Party returned to power. The communist Liberal Party destroyed democracy in New South Wales in 1970.

The Australian communists cannot accept that the Australian Constitution is a Christian document guaranteeing democracy. In a true democracy, the democratic process is guaranteed by forcing the Sovereign, and all who exercise power in His name, to call a local political meeting together, before beating the crap out of anyone at all.

If KR is to govern for all Australians, his first priority should be to make the High Court work. The Federal Supreme Court should open its doors to all who would bring them a dispute. They should use S 44 Judiciary Act 1903 to send every complaint received back for retrial with a jury.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:56:13 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
Peter the Believer wrote: Communism and Protestant Christianity are deadly enemies; one treasuring individuality and the other the collective.

Dear Peter the Believer,

The above is absolutely wrong. The three manifestations of early Protestantism are:

1. Church of England
2. Lutheranism
3. Calvinism

They all suppressed individuality.

The Church of England under Henry VIII remained essentially Catholic rather than Protestant in nature. Pope Leo X had earlier awarded to Henry himself the title of fidei defensor (defender of the faith), partly on account of Henry's attack on Lutheranism. Some Protestant-influenced changes under Henry included a limited iconoclasm, the abolition of pilgrimages, and pilgrimage shrines, and the extinction of many saints' days. However, only minor changes in liturgy occurred during Henry's reign, and he carried through the Six Articles of 1539 which reaffirmed the Catholic nature of the church.

The split between Lutherans and the Roman Church arose mainly over the doctrine of Justification before God. Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification "by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone," which contradicted the Roman view of "faith formed by love", or "faith and works". Unlike the Reformed Churches, Lutherans retain many of the liturgical practices and sacramental teachings of the pre-Reformation Church.

A master of the art of organization, Calvin had been able to transform a whole city, a whole State, whose numerous burghers had hitherto been freemen, into a rigidly obedient machine; had been able to extirpate independence, and to lay an embargo on freedom of thought in favour of his own exclusive doctrine.

Calvin held sway over the printing presses, the pulpits and the professorial chairs; as wax in his hands were the various authorities, Town Council, university and law-courts, priests and schools, catchpoles and prisons, the written and the spoken and even the secretly whispered word.

Protestantism was essentially totalitarian. It was only with the secular state which separated church and state that people were free to express their individuality
Posted by david f, Saturday, 28 March 2009 1:03:58 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
Apparently you have not much time for historical ideas brought in to plan for a fairer world, Maxmilliam.

A League of Nations or United Nations is not my idea, but a historical discussion point from volumes in university libraries.

If you have a better alternative as a seemingly studious person, would certainly wish you supply a well constructed alternative.

Regards, Bushbred.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 28 March 2009 1:33:56 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
bushbred,

I agree with Maximillion,

A democratically elected UN might be bad news for the democracies since most of the world's population live under authoritarian regimes. The recent ominous decision by the UN Human Rights Council to condemn "Defamation of Religion"is an prime example of violation of the Western concept of free speech. Better the devil you know,that is, the nation-state system since it is our only protection.

We still should persevere with the UN, of course.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 28 March 2009 2:55:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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