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 > This grubby senate power grab > Comments

This grubby senate power grab : Comments

By Philip Lillingston, published 15/3/2016

This 'only a miniscule primary vote' criticism seems to be on the premise that if a voter fails on their earlier choice candidates, then, apparently for the sin of not supporting a popular candidate, they should be punished.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I’ve been involved in politics for 48 years and until last month could not work out how the Greens conned the Coalition into supporting this bill. There is nothing surprising about a political party acting in its own interests, so I could understand the Coalition wanting to get rid of the micro-party senators and the Greens wanting to eliminate the competition for the balance of power. So rigging the voting system to eliminate the representatives of 24 per cent of Australians from the Senate made sense. What I could not understand was why the Coalition wanted to hand the balance of power over to the Greens, with their 9 per cent support, and thus make future governments, Coalition ones as well as Labor ones, hostage to them. It was amusing to listen to fierce opponents of the Safe Schools Coalition and “same-sex marriage” like Cory Bernardi attempt to justify handing the Greens, fierce supporters of both, the balance of power.

Now we have seen the news reports on a Greens-Coalition preference deals in lower house seats, the deal makes more political sense, but it is still a disgrace, and the Coalition remains idiotic for making future Coalition governments hostage to the Greens even if it picks up a few Reps seats in the process.

This reform is not about making the Senate represent the will of the people. It is about making micro-party preferences exhaust so they play no role in the final result.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 8:38:29 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 only applicable comment comes from the past and Paul Keating, who described similar obstructionists as unrepresentative swill and the only difference today, is even more so!?

Look, the sooner we get the electoral reforms done and these folk forced to face their employers and account for their obstructionist roles and electoral system rorts, the sooner the better!

Bring on the double D!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 9:14:10 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
Compulsory preferential voting, like compulsory voting itself, is undemocratic. The Senate is always going to be a hinderance to democracy, no matter what they do with it. An 'upper' house is as archaic and as wrong as the House of Lords is. It's time to modify the whole system.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:18:30 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
ttbn, there's nothing undemocratic about imposing a duty on citizens.

And when bad legislation is proposed, it is better they obstruct it than knowingly impose bad legislation on the country.

[Rhosty I'm surprised to see you also criticise their obstructions -I thought you'd know better]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chris C, the Greens didn't need to con the coalition into supporting the changes – it's the coalition who proposed them, and if anyone's been conned it's the Greens!

The Liberals would be the primary beneficiaries of these changes, as they'd be most likely to gain seats that would otherwise go to microparties.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 12:22:20 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
Aidan is correct:

Imposing a duty on "citizens" who never consented to be citizens in the first place, is absolutely evil - but not undemocratic.

It comes down to a certain group of people forcibly imposing themselves on other people - but isn't this exactly what democracy is all about?

---

As for replacing GVT with partial preferences above the line, I consider it a positive opportunity that gives people [slightly] more power to choose than before. Sadly, partial preferences will still be missing for the lower house.

Nothing stops people from marking 6 or more small parties above the line - it is much easier than voting below the line and I hope that this is what most of us will do!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 12:50:58 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
Philip is a fan of proportional representation, which is very similar to what we get in the senate. It is obvious by the mess that is Tasmania that this is disastrous in its more pure form. It is just much as bad in our senate when preferential voting is added, so the result has no connection to what most people actually voted for.

A quick look at much of Europe shows how the deals behind closed doors with many competing groups in partial control of parliaments leads to bankruptcy, from really stupid projects getting funded, to buy some votes.

You can't have your purse half silk & half sow's ear, if you want one that functions. Good government will only follow a return to first past the post, & winner take all. Anything else just develops into a talkfest.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 1:32:02 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
Yuyutsu, although some of the citizens didn't consent to be citizens, the duty of voting only applies to those on the electoral roll. The duty to vote doesn't apply to those citizens who failed to register to do so.

As for replacing GVT with partial preferences above the line, I think that should be optional for voters - they should be able to number as many or as few boxes as they like above the line, and in the event that their preferences end before all seats are filled, the vote should then be distributed according to the GVT of their number 1 preference rather than being destroyed.

Partial preferences are something that should be discouraged, as the unpleasant choices are sometimes the important ones. However AIUI in some states it is possible to cast a valid Lower House vote with partial preferences by putting the same number in the box of each of those candidates you don't want to choose between. Maybe we should also make that a valid way of voting below the line in the Senate?

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, FPTP is a terrible system. If Labor get 34% of the vote, Nats 33% and Libs 32%, is is really fair that Labor get the seat?

Something similar to that actually happened once, and it ultimately resulted in Australia introducing preferential voting to prevent it reoccurring. Has anything changed since then apart from people being less likely to vote the way you want them to?

FPTP entrenches party power at the expense of the people. It discourages independents from standing as brings a high risk of them effectively disenfranchising their supporters (since the chance of winning is usually far less than the chance of preventing them from deciding who will win). And it's more likely than not to result in bad governments.

What led to bankruptcy in Europe was surrendering monetary sovereignty to the ECB.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 2:30:29 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
Aidan, all I've required of the unrepresentative swill is they actually face the people/their employers and account to them at the ballot box.

Now you be surprised as you like, but even if they're not fair minded, my stance clearly says I am!

You on the other hand seem to think dirty deals done in the dead of night are perfectly okay?

And those who've manipulated the system for pure self interest, have no case to answer before their peers and employers? 0.51% of the primary vote for the motorists party! Comon!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 3:28:52 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
Rhosty, firstly they're not unrepresentative swill; they're representative of the people of their state. Keating's point was that this does not make them representative of Australia as a whole, but the issues that disproportionally affect the less populous states tend to get ignored in the Lower House, so there is a strong need for the representation arrangements to be as they are.

Unless you want to resort to the (constitutionally dodgy) measure of banning parties from issuing How To Vote cards, there will be people voting the way parties want them to, so I see no reason to ban group voting tickets. However I do want to encourage people to think for themselves about how they vote rather than just trusting a party. Personally I never trust parties to distribute my preferences, so I always vote below the line, but I recognise that can be a bit awkward so I support genuine senate voting reform – but not this disgraceful gerrymander.

There is nothing wrong with the Motoring Enthusiasts Party getting a seat with 0.51% of the primary vote, as people who voted for candidates that got eliminated chose to transfer their vote to the Motoring Enthusiasts Party. Its votes were enough to keep it from getting eliminated, and ultimately the people preferred their candidate over whoever came seventh. And the government, out of pure self interest, are trying to change the system to ensure it doesn't happen again.

BTW the government's proposed legislation does not completely do away with GVTs. According to Nick Xenophon's office, it still allows people to cast a valid vote just by voting 1 above the line.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 5:21:03 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
Dear Aidan,

<<the duty of voting only applies to those on the electoral roll>>

And very sadly, the latter is compulsory for anyone who lives at the same Australian address for over a month.

http://www.aec.gov.au/enrol
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/fact_sheets/centenary.htm

I still would like to have the option of partial preferences rather than have a party which I happened to place as my first preference decide for me. I wouldn't mind keeping the GVT so long as I could override their decision, say by placing X's on all the remaining squares.

Nobody should be forced to make an immoral choice. Even currently, if I cannot find even one party that is moral, then I can vote informal so that I don't need to commit the immoral act of selecting an immoral party. Now say I did find one or more moral parties, but on the list were also the Nazi party ("Kill the Jews") and the Islamic party ("Kill the Christians"): according to your suggestion I would be required to select and perhaps even bring to power one of them. I believe this to be immoral.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 5:31:46 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
It is shabby, shabby stuff from the government. The Greens, who I have voted for the past, lost my respect and my vote today, too.
Posted by paul walter, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:56:36 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
Aidan,

"ttbn, there's nothing undemocratic about imposing a duty on citizens."

That's what you think is it? OK, but I disagree with what you think. Compulsory votings is definitely undemocratic. Australia is one of only a few countries that feel the need to force people to vote. The UK and the USA, are no less democratic than Australia because they don't have compulsory voting. You have an authoritarian streak in you. Either that, or you need to be told what to do all the time to survive. Big Brother has certainty got you by the short and curlies.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 11:07:21 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
On meagre research, The Greens' reform proposals appear both fair and fully justifiable in the interest of genuinely 'representative' voting:
- offering selection of 1-6 'Above-the-Line', or;
- 1-12 (or as many more as you like) 'Below-the-Line'.

The Greens do NOT appear to be proposing disbandment of GVT (the 'Group voting ticket' preference distribution system currently available to parties/nominees) - even though this 'system' has been in large part responsible for the election of such as the Motoring Enthusiast representative, and possibly others, who only received a minute 'splatter' of Primary Votes in the last Senate election.

Now, Mr Muir (at least that's how I think his name is spelled, and no offence intended) may be a fine, intelligent, well-intentioned fellow, but that does not alter the fact that on any 'representative' system he would not have had a chance in hades of being elected. So, is that 'representative'?

I would not be in favour of any 'system' which would virtually guarantee that only the 'Majors' could get themselves elected, but I do certainly favour a system which would better ensure that only those receiving a reasonable quota of Primary Votes could get elected. (On the understanding that any worthwhile contender, with a reasonable portfolio, credentials and 'following' would have to achieve a reasonable number of Primary votes.)

In some election systems a minimum percentage of Primary Votes is used as a cut-off point - below which a nominee is eliminated from consideration, and who's Primary Votes are then distributed according to second-preferences. Adjusted 'cut-off' points are then applied progressively until all posts are filled - and results posted including the final vote tally for all 'elected'. This also would be fairer than the current Senate election system.

In response to another prior 'posting', the Upper House (or House of Review) is a fine system - without which the current Coalition would have been able to pass much possibly-contentious legislation which has been 'blocked' (correctly or otherwise) during the current term.
(You may view that outcome good or bad, according to your conscience.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 1:05:52 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
Yuyutsu,

"And very sadly, the latter is compulsory for anyone who lives at the same Australian address for over a month."
Technically true, but it's no longer enforced.

"I still would like to have the option of partial preferences rather than have a party which I happened to place as my first preference decide for me. I wouldn't mind keeping the GVT so long as I could override their decision, say by placing X's on all the remaining squares."
But is there any good reason why that should be an above the line option?

We have a constitution to protect us from parties with a grossly immoral agenda like your example.

___________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

The UK is a lot less democratic than Australia. Admittedly that's because mainly because of their FPTP voting system, but their lack of compulsory voting also distorts the results. For instance when it's raining, people who don't have cars are less inclined to vote.

Declaring compulsory voting to be "definitely undemocratic" doesn't make it so, and I notice you gave no actual grounds for your disagreement. And although I'm generally more libertarian than authoritarian, I prefer to base my decisions on their likely effects rather than some dogmatic position.

And FWIW I lived in London from 1999 to 2003, amd always voted even though I wasn't required to.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 1:14:21 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
Saltpetre,

"....for the election of such as the Motoring Enthusiast representative, and possibly others, who only received a minute 'splatter' of Primary Votes in the last Senate election.

Now, Mr Muir (at least that's how I think his name is spelled, and no offence intended) may be a fine, intelligent, well-intentioned fellow, but that does not alter the fact that on any 'representative' system he would not have had a chance in hades of being elected. So, is that 'representative'?"

Senator Ricky Muir received 479 first preference votes in the last election.

Senator Michaelia Cash received 349 first preference votes in same election.

So, is that representative?

"The first task of a ballot count is to establish which of the candidates have met that 14.3% quota – it’s easily reached by the popular major parties. What people don’t know is that when a candidate goes “over quota”, the number of votes that go over quota are redistributed at a percentage of where their “number 2” preferences are going. Michaelia Cash doesn’t need many primaries, because she picks up this “transfer value” from whoever has the most “number 1s” for the Coalition, who then pass their votes to her."

"This mechanism will remain with the Greens’ changes. What the Greens are removing is what happens to the microparty votes that do not automatically reach a quota: their primary votes are individually small, but combined are around 20% of the total. When quota isn’t met by any candidate, but there are still senators to elect, the counters start go through the smallest pile of votes; they are declared excluded, and their votes are redistributed, at full value, to whoever is second on each individual ballot paper, until a quota is reached."

"But the effect of the Greens changes means that by choosing fewer parties to preference, votes “exhaust” and preferences cease to circulate. If you only vote for one or six minor parties above the line, and all are excluded, your vote will not count, at all, towards electing a senator.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/everything-you-dont-understand-about-senate-voting-reform-and-are-afraid-to-admit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 10:09:36 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
“You on the other hand seem to think dirty deals done in the dead of night are perfectly okay?
And those who've manipulated the system for pure self-interest,”

C’mon Rhosty, aren’t parties expected to arrange Group Voting Tickets in the interests of the party? Don’t you want your favoured party to win, and thus would you not expect it to maximise its chances in how it arranges its GVT?
And what makes a deal dirty because of its nocturnal circumstances if it is still going to be made public in the bright light of morning?
Posted by Edward Carson, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 2:10:52 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
Dear Aidan,

<<But is there any good reason why that should be an above the line option?>>

Personally I could live with having this option below the line.

But it's a lot of work.

In the last elections, I gave each party a mark, then had a small computer program do the numbering below the line for me. But when I came to the ballot with the printed sheet, I found that several candidates withdrew, so it was useless and I had to do it all manually which took about 15 minutes. Most people would have given up.

<<We have a constitution to protect us from parties with a grossly immoral agenda like your example.>>

Thank goodness for that. The example I gave was very gross indeed, but different people have different levels of moral standards, often finer than those provided by the constitution.

Overall, the more options the voter has - the better.
To have the best of all worlds would be to keep the GVT, but also allow partial preferences below and above the line and also allow the option "STOP HERE" below and above the line.

Since having everything available is not on offer, I consider the new arrangement somewhat better than the former.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 5:53:08 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
Compulsion should be abolished and I look forward to voluntary taxation.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:36:32 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
Dear Is Mise,

Everyone nowadays wants to eat the cake and have it too...

The only thing that currently makes taxation wrong is the compulsion to use the money/currency which the state prints, rather than your own.

If you were allowed to use your own currency (or none at all), but still freely chose to use the money which governments print (including foreign currency due to international agreements between the states that issue it), then I could find nothing wrong about you being taxed over that money.

The money that states print comes with strings attached: if you choose to use it, then you must also abide by the conditions that come with the product, taxation included. Don't like those conditions - then don't use to product.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:58:13 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
Poirot,

Thank you for clarifying that.
I guess it means I will be offing for 1-12 'Below-the-Line' in preference to multiple 'Above-the-Line' choices, as I would hope to have at least some say about the operation of my preferences.

In this interest, I wonder if another reasonable measure would be to limit the number of candidates fielded by any party to not more than the actual number of seats available? (In order to better ensure a reasonably broad spectrum of representation in the final outcome?)

In the end result I still believe some appropriate revision of the Senate election system is needed, and I would certainly not like to be stuck with having to number every box 'Below the Line' - now that I have this better understanding of the present 'Above the Line' distribution of Primary votes.

Can we yet have some hope of honour and conviction in the 'system'?
(When I think about a half-billion dollar, but non-binding, Plebiscite proposed on another matter, I have to shudder. One would hope at least for a simple non-compulsory question in the upcoming 2016 Census - if only to be used as a 'guide'? Surely this would serve the purpose, and at no extra cost?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 17 March 2016 1:28:43 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
Yuyutsu,

I thought that all state sponsored compulsion was wrong in your book; why is compulsion to vote any different to compulsory registration of motor vehicles, dogs etc?

You cannot have your cake and eat it as well!
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 17 March 2016 4:07:47 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
Strangely I agree with Poirot on the senate reforms.

These micro parties have given us Ricky Muir, Jackie Lambie, and Glen Lazarus all with the IQ of a pigeon, who hopefully, if there is a DD election I will never hear of again. These chumps would not have a prayer standing on their own, and represent no one except possibly the intellectually challenged.

What I do find amusing is the Shift that Dinner Tally is introducing to the Greens after shafting CM. Rather than be a echo chamber for the Labor party in parliament DNT is actually exercising the power he has, leaving Labor who initially proposed the senate changes looking like chumps.

What Phil goes apoplectic about is the chance of the greens and the libs swapping preferences as this clearly looks like a betrayal of the left. What Phil doesn't grasp is that for the greens to be anything other than a fringe protest party, it needs to get seats in the lower house, and the only seats it is like to take are those presently occupied by Labor. That's right, in parliament, labor and the greens are natural enemies.

It appears that DNT has a strategy:
1 preference swaps to rob labor,
2 To be taken seriously by moving its policies from the fringes to subjects that most voters care about, and to ditch or sideline the far left loonies such as Lee Rhiannon, CM, SHY and Bandt. All of which will take seats from Labor who is already bleeding union sponsorship and other funding.

From which the libs and greens profit and Labor loses.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 17 March 2016 5:10:59 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
Dear Is Mise,

<<I thought that all state sponsored compulsion was wrong in your book>>

Compulsion is wrong, not just by states but by any people or groups of people.

However, suppose there was a loaf of bread and the baker told me: "I would give you this loaf in exchange for one dollar plus your promise to distribute one third of it to birds and that you must eat the rest while seated on a chair". If you agree to this deal and take the bread, then you must follow up, give one third of it to the birds and eat the rest while seated on a chair. No compulsion there.

Had it not been compulsory to use that product that governments produce called "money" or "Australian dollar", but you freely chose to use it anyway, then you should not complain that part the producer's conditions include the paying of taxes, including the provision in small print that these may vary from time to time.

You may not on the one hand ask the state for favours but on the other hand reject their conditions.

Compulsory voting is wrong unless you agreed to be a citizen and accrue the benefits that come with it (but not including your God-given birthright to park your body in this continent).

Compulsory registration of motor vehicles is justified if you want to drive them on public roads which the state paved.

Compulsory registration of dogs would similarly only be justified if you want to take/allow them out to public spaces (but not if you intend to always keep them on your property).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 8:09:44 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
So compulsion is wrong by anyone?

Suppose that someone tries to rob me by the compulsion of a knife threat and I use the compulsion of my military training to break his knife arm.

Is my counter compulsion unjustified?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 17 March 2016 5:35:48 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 Is Mise,

If you were a saint then you would turn the other cheek instead.

But as neither of us is a saint (yet), we must make an allowance for self-defence (or for defending your dependants).

Even then we should not do more than is needed to avert the danger. In the case you described, breaking the knife-arm is not even a compulsion, it's only disabling an offensive weapon, so no compulsion was even needed.

The spirit of what you do is very important, at times even more than the external act itself: it was never your intention to compel anyone - you simply wanted to defend yourself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 8:58:31 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
Real saints don't turn the other cheek, that's why Christ's apostles carried swords.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 17 March 2016 10:23:08 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 Is Mise,

Weren't Jesus critical of those apostles?

John 18:10 - Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)

Then immediately,

John 18:11 - Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 11:38:39 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
You entirely miss the point (NPI), Christ was well aware that his men were armed and indeed he had earlier advocated the carrying of swords, his admonition of Peter's action was not for the action itself but because it tended to attempt to thwart His and his Father's wishes in the matter of Christ's destiny.

Also, in Christian theology, he knew what Peter would do (being God and knowing all things) yet he allowed him to go ahead.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 18 March 2016 12:12:13 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
Dear Is Mise,

It is one thing to carry a sword, yet another to use it.

Yet even if Jesus accepted the use of swords by his disciples, this would only indicate his tolerance and recognition that his disciples were not saints so they shouldn't be expected to pretend that they are.

So much for defending themselves, but when they attempted to protect Jesus himself, that had to stop: Jesus was not their dependant and if he wanted protection then he could easily obtain more than twelve legions of angels.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 March 2016 8:19:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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