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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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