Hi all

Fellow-Human (post 3:22:38 PM 18/1)
Point #1 acknowledged; I disagree re #2 - Qur'an is considered non-'divine' & inaccurate in non-Arabic language (I have Dawood version & consult with Islamic scholars). Much of the world is still illiterate - especially amongst backward Africa & Asia.
We've probably met. Philip Ruddock?

Friedrich (posted 9:00:14 AM 21/1), et ali
You seem well-versed on past occurrences.
A Sydney-based religious leader was 'allegedly' stopped in the inner-west several years ago. He was unlicenced, uninsured & unregistered. 'Trouble' for him?. "No!" Not even the 'alleged' loaded firearm on the backseat of the car was sufficient for the DPP to proceed with the charges. The post-1996 'new' Firearm laws were activated. You or I? Gaol!
What about the 1998 Menai McDonalds' riot? 5 good Police Officers (from the 6) weren't 'politically correct'. The resigned or were dismissed. The self-confessed criminal? Became a 'hero'.

Meredith (posted 10:00:11 AM 21/1)
Good one!

Thor (posted 10:46:56 AM 21/1)
Thanks for acknowledgeing what I continually say. It is a religio-cultural clash - only racial by commonality with the aforementioned.

Kristos (posted 11:17:47 PM 21/1)
You sound well-grounded for 25. You serve the less-fortunate? That's great. However, I have lived in Sutherland Shire since 1978. A minority have been spoiling it for the majority for 20-plus years - without intervention. Those individuals have a different ideology which I've only grown to understand since 1999.
Let's hope we don't need to migrate. But if we do the rules for living are those of our host - we'll have over 400 countries to chose from.

Philo (posted 12:48:01 PM 22/1)
How true. Poverty & oppression was rife in Britain in the 18th Century. Convicts often did little more that try to survive. Sentence? Deportation.
Some recent immigrants mirror that image also. Some/many don't. Australia ought to have a choice as to whom we accept.

Friedrich (posted 1:10:29 PM 22/1)
Think that you meant "some" not "most". It is those 'some' whom we don't want because they are non-conformists & disrespectful.

Cheers

Scout,
I certainly do not want a Religious State where people indifferent to the Christian Gospel start telling me what to believe and how I should behave in religious ritual. That is the reason Heads of Government cannot also be heads of a State controlled Church.

The sovereign head of the state must always be the individual and the individuals right to personal belief and live by his / her own conscience. Our Sovereign representative is there for the protection of the individual from opressive and unrealistic laws brought down by Governments. An understanding of English History will outline my defense of seperation of the State from the Church. England wanted freedom from Romanism that did not allow freeedom of the individual to his own belief.

Any system even atheism if dictated by the State over the freedom of the individual to choose personal belief must be outlawwed as opressive and retrograde. The Victorian Government is begining to violate that right of expression and belief as they dictate on religious matters before Tribunals and the Courts. This is a retrograde move as they listen to laws on blasphemy from their Muslim advisors and implement them.

Anyone who takes offense at religious denegration by a word spoken or written can under Victorian laws have the person charged with vilification of a religion. Alchemist constant tirade of religion would put him guilty under Vic law if someone decided to lay charges. Dont worry Alchemist we recognise your hot air represents injury in your past psyche and we just ignore your ignorance.

Philo,

Do both you and the Victorian (noun and adjective) government not know that the constitution has it all:

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.

Constitutionally, we are, if not an atheisic society, then irreligious.

Sapper_K9

Sapper_K9

You have failed to read my early posts stating the very same act.
You are stating a Commonwealth act so I am not sure how Victoria has got around the act. The Case of Dany Scott V ICV is currently before the High Court for hearing so a ruling is awaited against the Vic law as interpreted by Judge Higgins in the State of Victoria.

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.
_____________________________

Where do you come up with nonsense like this? Quote, "Constitutionally, we are, if not an atheisic society, then irreligious." WRONG! WRONG! 67% of Australians in the last census claimed to be Christian, and 47% of our politicians claim to attend Church ocasionally. We are not an irreligious society nor is our constitution irreligious - it says "We the people humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God". This forms part of the preamble to the Australian Constitution hardly atheistic or irreligious wouldn't you say? Try telling Kim Beasley and Kevin Rudd they are irreligious or John Howard, Tony Abbot or Peter Costello they are irreligious when they attend Church regularly. Our criminal laws are based upon the conscience of religious people.

Almighty God? Aha, that one, the King or Queen of England's god? But if I'm forced to have one, I want an Australian god?

Can I have one of those please? Must be one eh? I mean there are thousands around the world, one of them must be on the dole? How many died in the recent tsunami? Second World War about 36 million? 6000 children a day die? Seems to me she's a vindictive old cow, and very bloodthirsty at that. Nah, second thoughts, don't want one, I'll have a good dog thanks, real unquestioning service, loyalty and demonstrable love that I can unquestioniningly reciprocate.

Who or what is this "Almighty God" anyway? Depends on one's own definition. The point is that you miss the point. What we are personally, or statistically, is not the same as what we are constitutionally. And the preamble is NOT a part of the LAW that is the constitution, its a parliamentary convention. So that's what she is, a parliamentary convention!

Ergo; we are, constitutionally, an irreligious, ie. indifferent to religion, society. QED.

Like I said, want a theocracy? Sod off to Iran, Israel or Northern Ireland, all prime sources of blood for your "Almighty" whatever. Tibet's been fixed by China, so that's no longer on offer.

Thanks for not disappointing me Philo, for awhile I thought you were beginning to think. Veiled threats I am used to from the philosophically blind and paranoid religious. Throughout the ages, those that put forth fact against religion are always crucified, remember that bloke 2000 years ago.

But my hands and feet are prepared for religious vengeance, well bathed in holy anointing oil, so no pain and I already have large scar on the right side of my chest. I told them to be careful where they aimed the spear, but you know the religious, can't see very far ahead.

You answer lots of our questions by pointing out how religious our political leaders are, hence the reason for our growing social dilemma. Our legal system is also controlled by the religious, another reason we have no justice, just religious bigotry.

Vilification laws, just another religious attempt to stifle reason and push the religious ideal of separation and conflict.

“Alchemist we recognise your hot air represents injury in your past psyche and we just ignore your ignorance. “

Philo, my view of religion changed after my experiences on active service and consequent studies. That change was further enhanced by a life threatening physical condition that I over came and have been able to control for many years. Consequently, I spend a great deal of time supporting those in the same situations, lots of time in palliative wards, watching and supporting people dying in confusion. Not once have I seen your god give any help, even after much praying and pleading by patients and their relatives.

I have watched as self righteous representatives of your god, have given false hope and little support. Those that have been able to overcome their problems, have done it without your gods help and in many cases, in spite of the interference by religion.

Philo, like the rest of you, your heads are so big and filled with fear and hate, that they are always bowed with the weight of guilt your beleifs carry.