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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.