There are more stupid commentators in Australia than there are "Bible Bashers".

ttbn,
so true !

Religion is a crutch for those poor individuals who find life lacking.

It can be difficult for Christians to contribute to the church at the moment, in a meaningful sense. Like, medical people and educational people can do good, but i feel blue collar types would also like to more closely align their work and beliefs.
I dont know but you raise some good points in the article, thats for sure.

"Religion is a crutch for those poor individuals who find life lacking".

That's pretty insulting, particularly coming from a person who values animals higher than human beings.

I am not what anyone would call religious. I don't go to church; I don't read the Bible, except for reference purposes, and I am not convinced that God exists. I merely believe that Christianity, combined with Western culture, is better than anything else

Mark,

<<This country is constitutionally secular. Not atheist, but secular>>.

To support this assertion, you call on S116 of the Constitution.

It's negligent of you to omit the beginning of the Constitution: "WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established", http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=956BE242B820434A995B1C05A812D5E1&_z=z#covering_clauses-act_to_extend_to_the_queens_successors

Secular but 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'. What a paradox.

S116 was designed to prevent legislating for the establishment of religion. It was NOT designed to exclude God from the Australian Commonwealth, http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

<<Why are people voting them into power, and why are there so many members of Parliament who profess such strong religious convictions>>

The reasons are simple. These politicians of faith are those of strong character and people in the electorates like the job they do.

You are happy to quote Matthew 16:26 but you missed a verse that applies to all Christians in parliament: 'So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God' (1 Corinthians 10:31). I'm blessed to have a strong Christian Senator in Qld.

There are at least a few alternatives that could be an answer to the question of Christians in the parliment. It's possible that there are more Christians voting them in then are recognized in the seemingly secular Australia. Another alternative is that more people regardless of religion agree with their stances on issues. Possibly that the "bible bashers" have a more stable view that is agreed with then the nonreligous who might be voted for.

A few other options would be outside the voting choice, but might be involved in how one becomes a candidate to be voted for. Since that's outside my knowledge base, I won't comment outside of saying there are other factors out there then our all's distaste for religion.

*last sentence should have read "your all's distaste for religion."

This bitch-session article is hilarious.

Mark appears to wander through the world wit eyes wide shut.

A couple of obviously major points he missed. One big one is the election of Donald Trump. Generally attributed to those with a religious bent. Without the Bible Bashers, it would be a US governed by Hillary Clinton and her Democrats.

And that was the tone of resentment throughout the article. Damn those Bible Bashing deplorables, if not for them, we would be living under a new Australian flag of rainbow.

Conveniently, the non-religious Buddhists weren't mentioned either. Also responsible for mass slaughter of Muslims in Burma. Buddhism is the seculists claytons religion, while they avoid and rag established religions of the theists. So atheists are really quite hypocritical when crying over the religion of others, aren't they Mark?

There is more, but that's enough counter to this nasty small-minded ranting article.

Dan

I never realised we had so many fools in this nation. The god deniers blind to their own Creator and then pretending they somehow hold superior morals. The amazing thing is that God has been so merciful to a totally perverted generation that kills the unborn, promotes perversion and celebrates porn. You really should take a good look at yourself bucko. On top of that they pull the secular fantasy and bang on about the man made gw myth. You would think at a time like this a little self reflection but instead push their god and people hating dogma and demonise anyone telling the truth and exposing the shallowness of their failed ideology. If we were 'over run by bible bashers' we would be much better off than the god deniers filling our kids minds with their perverted dogmas.

ttbn,
As Homo sapiens is but another animal species your comment is senseless.

Think on this one Mark.
How beautifully poignant to seequantas suddenly on their knees. Not so cocky now Allan Joyce are we!

Maybe we could gather up some rainbow flags while he's on his knees, and stuff them where they fit best. After all, he doesn't seem to mind putting in the boot when people disagree with him and his perversions.

Well spoken runner!

Dan

To OzSpen
The 'preamble' is not an operational section of the Constitution. The reference to Almighty God was included by Protestant groups from the states, prior to the passing of the Act. It was approved by the National Australasian Convention, which met from 1897 to 1898, which you will know was prior to the enactment.
The difference between secular and atheist should be clear to anyone with a dictionary. Secular attempts to separate church and state. Atheistic means no belief in God. There is no mention of outlawing God, anywhere.
The article in question concentrates on the negative effects of Kevin Andrews' actions, in outlawing assisted suicide in certain jurisdictions. It is an example of a legislator using his platform, and his position, to impose his religious beliefs on citizens he did not represent. I presume he did it to save his 'immortal soul'. Who knows? It did not create a benefit for the people who wished to use the option.
There is no hatred, no rant, just why did he do it? He put the cause for assisted euthanasia back 20 years. How do you feel about that?

This essay describes the difference between traditional back-to-the-past religious true believers and those of a more secular persuasion. It begins by pointing out that conventional religiosity is not about or based upon God, or Truth & Reality
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/noface.html
This essay described the narcissistic nature of such religionists, and everyone else too
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm

And doesnt the fact so many back-to-the-past "conservative" Christians support the Trumpenfuhrer provide in-your-face proof of how decadent such religion has inevitably become.

ateday,

I don't know anything about you of course, but all people I've know who lump man in with animals have been, to put it politely, very odd bods indeed, usually lacking the social skills to form sold relationships with other people. You might be different, but I can speak only as I find in real life. I am pleased to say that the religious people I know are well adjusted when it comes to the differences between man and beast.

Kevin Andrews acted in good faith in moving the private member’s bill subsequently passed in the Australian parliament. Unlike the writer, he acknowledged that: human suffering is part of human life; assisted suicide is devoid of dignity; it is unethical for a doctor to prescribe or administer life-ending drugs; and it is inhumane of relatives to coerce a dying person into assisted suicide.

OzSpen ...

Whose God ?

Christian , Muslim , Jewish or just the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... or none of the above .

May I chose...... ?

assisted suicide is devoid of dignity;
Raycom,
what about COVID-19 assisted, courtesy of the World travelling junkies who brought it to us, dignified ?
Seeing my neighbour presently vegetating whilst the the Hospital makes him "as comfortable as possible' doesn't really smack of dignity !

askbucko,

<<The 'preamble' is not an operational section of the Constitution. The reference to Almighty God was included by Protestant groups from the states, prior to the passing of the Act. It was approved by the National Australasian Convention, which met from 1897 to 1898, which you will know was prior to the enactment.>>

Nevertheless, the Judeo-Christian Almighty God provides the foundation for a moral Australian society. We are not a secular society.

Even ABC News, Brisbane, Qld (The Drum) in an opinion piece admitted: “The Westminster system of government and much of common law, inherited by Australia, can only be understood in the context of Christian values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It's no accident that parliaments around Australia begin with the Lord's Prayer”, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-29/donnelly-the-bible-deserves-a-place-in-the-national-curriculum/3750156

I suggest you read Augusto Zimmermann's article, 'CONSTITUTING A ‘CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH’: CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF AUSTRALIA’S CONSTITUTIONALISM' from The West Australian Jurist.

It stated: "This reception of Christian legal principles was perhaps best encapsulated in Justice Hargraves’s famous comment for the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Ex Parte Thackeray(1874): 'We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” . . . this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by Coke and Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law....'

"Christianity’s embedment in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the court in Thackeray.The pronouncement exemplifies the judicial recognition of the Christian heritage of the common law. The court took the major step of declaring the supremacy of Christian legal principles—namely, that the divine or revealed law is applicable, and superior, to colonial laws –and that ‘all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation’, are applicable, and superior, to colonial laws", http://www.murdoch.edu.au/School-of-Law/_document/WA-jurist-documents/2014/Zimmermann---A-Christian-Commonwealth2

Poor old Kevin Andrews will never be allowed to forget his trashing of the right to die. What is forgotten is the fact that a majority of politicians voted for his bill, and no-one has tried to redeem euthanasia. It's been a dead issue for years.

Aspley,

<<Whose God? Christian , Muslim, Jewish or just the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... or none of the above. May I chose...... ?>>

This comment demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge concerning the First Fleet in 1788 and the evangelical Anglican chaplain on board. He and his wife planted the first Bible-based Anglican Church in Sydney, http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/religion/display/98704-reverend-richard-johnson

Your throw-away lines indicate your disrespect for the Almighty Lord God of Christianity who was here for the founding of Western society.

'Whose God ?

Christian , Muslim , Jewish or just the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... or none of the above .

May I chose...... ?

I suggest the One you will answer to Aspley. You know the One that the regressives detest.

There is a life beyond this one and every person living on earth has an allotted time. All the gold in the world would buy a second more.

I mean, you could have the finest doctors, the very best medicine and avoid convid-19. Then have out of nowhere, a heart attack, just drop dead? Seemingly young and healthy?

Nobody needs assisted suicide! Just a pistol and one round of ammo!

What then? Do we put the manufacturer of the pistol on trial and find him/it/her culpable?

Or if one takes Nembutal? Can we hold the drug manufacturer liable/apply the same test, given a speedy, painless death is achieved at both occasions and by our own hand!

As it would be if we stepped off a tall building and smacked the concrete, head first! Should we sue the Architect?

Nembutal is far more sanitary! And the only difference! There's a cadaver each time!

Control freaks want to decide for you and sometimes they do when as many as a dozen doses of morphine are injected one after the other, the pain is gone but we lose the patient!

These same control freaks don't want you to own a gun, given you just might kill yourself with it?

But wax lyrical about their obsession, assisted suicide. And you just as dead either way! Eat your gun, or get an armful of Nembutal.

We rant on about killing sick folk while withholding a proven if prohibited remedy! After all, were we allowed miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213. most of the annual trillions big pharma earns from palliative medicine, would dry up!

Now we can't allow that can we or indeed, something more efficacious replacing highly toxic sub-lethal chemo! And let's not forget how many billions these " medicines" earn for big pharma!

If we are given a choice and there is that choice! To kill or cure? Which option should we choose?

Because, at the end of the day that's what we are choosing along with the burial of doctors/hospital's mistakes? I chose the withheld/prohibited cure! Alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213!
Alan B.

'There is a life beyond this one and every person living on earth has an allotted time. All the gold in the world would buy a second more. '

yeah we can at least agree on that Alan.

.

Dear Mark (the author),

.

You pose some interesting questions.

My guess is that the religious vote in Australia remains relatively strong, despite the fact that, as you say, the country is constitutionally secular, and people no longer go to church regularly. Politicians still have every interest in playing to the religious vote.

Also, Church lobbies continue to be very powerful and active in political circles (state and federal parliaments, governments and political parties). Like the economic elite, they exercise considerable influence on our local, state and federal policymakers.

In addition, it is worth recalling that our head of state, Her Royal Highness the Queen of England, is also the head of the Church of England. Our whole political system of parliaments and governments is based on the Westminster system. And like the United Kingdom, Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy.

For this to change, we really need to complete the final stages of our long, drawn-out process of emancipation from the venerable “mother country”, now that we have come of age, and establish ourselves as a truly independent nation capable of assuming our own destiny - which we have always been obliged to do anyway !

We sacrificed much of our youth on a number of occasions in the defence of the interests of our "mother country", but when we, in turn, were under attack by the Japanese invaders during the second world war, our dear, venerable "mother country" was nowhere to be seen. She left us to face our fate alone.

Thank goodness, the Americans came to our rescue.

.

Hi Mark,

One interesting thing about those men (they were all men) who framed our Constitution, they would all profess to be Christian, most regularly practising their Christianity. Yet the same Christian gentlemen seen it as imperative that state and religion had to be separated, and it was impotent that our nation when formed, be secular. What danger do you think the framers of the Constitution perceived if we had gone down the path of becoming a Christian recognised nation?

Some people refer to the "religious vote", no doubt with a curled lip, assuming that the targets of their disdain base their votes on religious principles.

So, what are the votes of the irreligious to be called: the "nothing vote", the "atheist vote"? And, on what principles and beliefs do the irreligious base their decisions, given that the very basis of Western culture is Christian mores. They might not be "Bible bashers", but your their way of life is based on Christian ethics; otherwise they would be barbarians like those people who are not Westerners and who don't even pay lip service to Christianity as most Australians do.

spoke to a non religious plumber yesterday. Yep even he was in agreement that a baby born with a penis is male. He hated the way the schools were brainwashing the kids.

The god deniers bash their putried ideologies on the average Aussie far more than 'bible bashers'. In actual fact you can find plenty of filth in State schools but bible reading and prayer is largely banned.

You simply need to believe in biology and hard science to see how sick the secular/globalist dogmas have become.

The globalist are so stuck up themselves that when people reject them they show there true Marxist colours. The Democrats in the US still can't accept democracy. Russian collusion, Ukraine Collusion and any other hoax to convince that people have rejected their godless agendas.

The funniest thing is that the likes of Bucko and others think that somehow they are going to rid their consciences by ridding themselves of God. One day they will see like the communist that it is a pathetic match. God is going nowhere and the only place they will end up is hell unless they are smart enough to humble themselves and receive His mercy.

Secular doesn't mean without religion, it means without religious preference. The idea that s116 somehow prohibits religion in public life is to misconstrue the section, as also is it to misconstrue secularism to interpret it as excluding religion. Wikipedia is pretty good on s116. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

The way some use secular to try to exclude religious belief as a valid foundation for argument or participation in public life is an attempt at logical sleight of hand. What they are really saying is that policy must only be based on rational principles, and religion is not rational.

But that ignores the fact that you can't interpret facts outside a conceptual frame, and that all conceptual frames have assumptions which are essentially non-rational. I'd prefer the Christian's conceptual frame with its non-rational assumptions, than the Marxists', or the socialists' with theirs.

At the same time, given that religious belief varies within and between religions, I wouldn't seek to exclude Muslims or Buddhists, or ban Catholics or Pentecostals because I think my brand of belief is better. Nor would I ban atheists, Marxists or socialists.

Anyway, the idea that religious belief applied to public policy is irrational is flawed. Most theology is argued on a logical basis, even if you don't agree with the premises.

Graham Y,

<<Anyway, the idea that religious belief applied to public policy is irrational is flawed. Most theology is argued on a logical basis, even if you don't agree with the premises.>>

Thank you for bringing clarity and sanity into this thread.

Hear, hear and well said, Graham Y!

Take care and stay safe.
Alan B.

One might consider the growing attraction to being ‘Christian’ vis politicians which may lay in the possible false assumption these people are actually religious at all.

It may just be they understand there are votes to be had if you pretend and pander to this dwindling percentage of the population. There are still enough votes which may decide who wins or loses a seat. Validity of this is probable given the craven nature of modern politicians.
Galen

"It may just be they understand there are votes to be had if you pretend and pander to this dwindling percentage of the population".

The most important percentage of the population to pander to is the MAJORITY. Galen wouldn't be a successful politician if that was his tactic.

Galen: Sadly, have to believe you're right on the money with the political analysis.

Q: How do we know when a politician is telling great big pork pies?
A: When his/her lips move.

And it now these folk who are the filter of alleged medical information, regarding the pandemic! And not assisted by the media, the thirty-second sound bite, sloganisms and sensationalising everything to the enth degree!

Take care and stay safe.
Alan B.

Alan, yes, spot on.

And now we have those same pollies helicoptering tax pay money to all and sundry just to try to keep our corrupt and ever closer kleptocracy in the money for a little longer.

When it’s broken, and it is broken, why waste our billions on a dying horse.

Build a new one, savings banks separate from investment banks, remove one tier of government, stop subsidies to uneconomic entities, go nuclear and invest in infrastructure which builds the nation.

Maintain the separation of church and state, abolish the Lord’s Prayer in parliament and get on with governing for the people, not corporations and also ban political donations other than from individuals and limited to $500 and one time only per election cycle.

That would be a good start. You stay safe also.
Galen

A fascinating cross-section of opinions on show here. Not very enlightened, most of them. And off the point again, as usual.
There is a world-view which competes with that known as 'religious'. Include all religions you care to name in that term. I have no argument with peoples' right to believe in whatever they want to. My own 'religion' is reason, or the evidence of the senses.
I agree that the Judeo-Christian system of shared ethics has a role to play in Australian life, but as I have tried to explain, secular means separation of religious belief from the mechanics of government. So ask yourself whether Andrews' bill was good for the country, or good for his personal sense of grace.
I know the arguments he, and others will use, because I was educated by the Christian Brothers. I still don't think it is a duty of the state to interfere with a citizen's right to choose to die if their suffering is too great to bear. And I would guess the writers expressing approval of Andrews' position have not been in unbearable pain, or someone very close to them has not. And finally, 87% of Australians disagree with you.

' I still don't think it is a duty of the state to interfere with a citizen's right to choose to die if their suffering is too great to bear.'

you really are naive or a deceiver bucko. You know the type that argued abortion was all about the poor 14 year old girl who was raped and that no doctor or system would either abuse their power. Now about 100000 a year unborn murdered with Hollywood deviants celebrating the killing. Everywhere else where killing the elderly was on 'compassionate' ground the system has been misused. I am sure we can kill all sorts of people on 'compassionate ' grounds. But yeah, those who hold to godless secular dogmas are the 'compassionate' ones.

Runner, you are a duffer. You should read more closely, and you should consider whether you have evidence for your outrageous claims.

"You know the type that argued abortion was all about the poor 14 year old girl who was raped and that no doctor or system would either abuse their power. Now about 100000 a year unborn murdered with Hollywood deviants celebrating the killing."
It was never about the 14 year old only; it was about the rights of women to choose.
"Everywhere else where killing the elderly was on 'compassionate' ground the system has been misused. I am sure we can kill all sorts of people on 'compassionate ' grounds."
Where are people being killed on compassionate grounds? In every jurisdiction where assisted euthanasia is allowed, it is always the decision of the person, never relatives, or officials, or politicians.
If you can show one instance of forced mercy killing, anywhere in the world, I will bare my backside in Bourke St.
So, wake up to yourself. Stop making up dumb lies. And stick to the point.
Oh, finally. I'm not sure why I have to continue explaining this, but here goes: Godless and secular do not have the same meaning. I have explained the difference in the article. If you don't like my explanation, read a dictionary. Or better still, buy one. Then you might understand more of the words you mis-use.

If Godless and secular are not meant as the same thing, then why was the article complaining about politicians claiming to be Christians?

The context of the article make it the same in this instance. Separation of church and state is one thing. Removal of church is another. It seems like too many people aren't happy unless Christians give up their faith completely and neither act on it, nor depend on it in their everyday decisions. It's because of that type of secularism and atheism that drive home for me that Christians should not compromise in their faith. Not when they are in a political office, not in a business position, nor in any other position.

Instead if you believe in God let that belief be known through your actions, and if a politician goes to church then let that influence be a positive influence on their policies.

.

On 27 June 2018, the Australian Senate instructed the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure to investigate and report on a proposal to replace the requirement for a prayer with an “invitation to prayer or reflection”.

Senator Richard Di Natale on behalf of the Australian Greens declared :

« We are doing this because we live in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. We live in a country of many different faiths—in fact, a country where many people have no faith—and a modern Australian parliament should reflect that. We do say that there should be some opportunity for reflection or, indeed, prayer, if people feel that way, and that is why we would like to see a minute at the start of each day in this place being offered for that reason »

The Catholic Women’s League Australian Inc added :

« We also recognise that in an increasingly secular society not all Australian citizens chose to pray. Such an amendment recognises the diversity in spiritual and religious beliefs and is a positive development. Therefore a space for them to reflect is important too, and provides an opportunity of mindfulness for every person engaged in Parliamentary work »

The Council of Australian Humanist Societies noted :

« The current prayer is unrepresentative of the diversity of beliefs of the Australian community that MPs are elected to represent »

The Committee investigated and concluded as follows :

« The submissions put to the committee on this occasion, and the views of committee members and their colleagues, suggest that opinions about the prayer are not significantly different in 2018 than during the 1997 inquiry, nor indeed than when the prayer was first adopted.

« The committee does not consider, on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations, that there is a momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted »

Here are two research papers on the issue :

http://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/05_About_Parliament/52_Sen/524_Research_and_education/Other_Publications/Prayers_in_the_Senate.pdf?la=en&hash=205242465FF457C3EC0B9350B97AA3F6A26898DD

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/pubs/pops/pop51/puig.pdf

.

My favorite quote ever when religious types start quoting their sacred text in order to justify their particular stand:

"I found it impossible to believe that a stranger, coming to the bible for the first time, would receive from it any clear idea of what Christ or Christianity stood for - so varied and self-contradictory are its messages and parables - and yet I was able to recognise the sources of all the different Christianities which 20 centuries have produced. Christ the King for the imperial churches; suffering for the Middle Ages; quietness and humility for those who find that path to God; a note of radical protest for the revolutionaries; the Apocalypse for the apocalyptic. In recent years, when the western world has made almost an alternative religion of personal relationships, we have emphasized, with justification, but more than any age before us - that the message of the gospels is Love. If our countries move gradually into a Socialist form of society, we shall hear rather more - again with justification - that the central theme of Christianity is sharing. This is not a cynical point, nor would such a development be cynicism on the part of Christians. To be able to adapt is strength in a religion as much as in a species. It is something which 2,000 years of Christianity have amply proved."

From "The Christians" by Bamber Gascoigne (The book first published in 1977 following from the BBC Television series of the same name which traced the history of the christian religion from the death of Christ to the present time.)

In my (humble) opinion, this says it all. For centuries, Christians have been able to justify their position by cherry picking quotes from their sacred text and ignoring all the others. That's hypocrisy for you with a capital "H".

Aries54,

<<My favorite quote ever when religious types start quoting their sacred text in order to justify their particular stand: "I found it impossible to believe that a stranger, coming to the bible for the first time, would receive from it any clear idea of what Christ or Christianity stood for - so varied and self-contradictory are its messages and parables - and yet I was able to recognise the sources of all the different Christianities which 20 centuries have produced.>>

Of course it would be your 'favorite quote' as you demonstrate you don't have a clue about interpreting the Book of God (the Bible) which demonstrates evil human nature. Psalm 143:2 puts it well, 'Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you'.

<<In my (humble) opinion, this says it all. For centuries, Christians have been able to justify their position by cherry picking quotes from their sacred text and ignoring all the others. That's hypocrisy for you with a capital "H".>>

And what did you do? You cherry picked your 'favorite quote' to slam Christianity. Who is the one committing hypocrisy with a capital H?

Poor ole' Oz, Oz, Oz, Precisely as described - a classic come back by a typical bible basher content to cherry pick and quote bits from their sacred text in order to justify their position. You will need more than that to challenge my position sunshine.

Aries54,

<<Poor ole' Oz, Oz, Oz, Precisely as described - a classic come back by a typical bible basher content to cherry pick and quote bits from their sacred text in order to justify their position.>>

Thank you for demonstrating your irrational reasoning with this fallacy. We cannot have a reasonable conversation when you do this.

to cherry pick and quote bits
Aries54,
Still less hypocritical than editing as is the case with the Left !

As my final post on this, or any other article for this website, might I just say that I have certainly, once again, launched a torrent of commentary. Someone in this thread thought I had lost my touch. Clearly not!

Enjoyed your contributions Mark, Why are you leaving the forum bubble?

I have found the answer to the dilemma of how to choose the right person(s) to lead us. Forget policy, forget political philosophy, its all to do with STYLE! To be more precise HAIR STYLE! After careful study of the present bunch of political nitwits, I have come to the conclusion its all to do with STYLE, HAIR STYLE!

Just cop the crop on top of the melons of Morrison, Trump and Johnson! diabolical disasters! The old man, a philosopher in the vain of an Aristotle or a Socrates philosophised the following; "Son you can always judge a man by the cut on top of his melon!" Pretty profound stuff in my opinion. Look at the bad hair days being suffered by Morrison, Trump and Johnson at the moment.