I am not an auditor, but if a social auditor were to weigh up all the benefits and scourges that religion has brought the world, then the ledger would weigh heavily on the side of mayhem, bloody wars and destruction.

That would be a very difficult task, all the same, because though religious wars through the centuries and the accompanying death and destruction are easy to document, not so easy is the benefit that many individuals appear to gain from religion - because it gives them a safe anchorage in times of desperation of loneliness or uncertainty.

However, I doubt whether creating a new political party is the go. If anything that would give religion a hightened status in politics - much more than it deserves.

That said, the current hyped up debate about the Muslim faith ought to give society a much wider insight into the destructive aspect of religion per se (Christianaity has so much to answer for) and the degradation of politics that religion has so often brought about.

The time is ripe for such a broadened debate.

Religion is humanities cancer.

I suspect you will be faced with a number of challenges:

1. In the current Australian climate, you will be branded as a bunch of academics, an elite, lefy, chardonnay swillers etc. The usual abuse against people who put up a considered, alternative view.

2. Yet another political party! Australians are so apathetic that they can't think beyone one or two. Never mind 4 or 5 or 6.

3. The media will report your policies not based on what they are, but based on what the right wing elite tell them they are. You will not get a fair go in the media, and will find it hard to get through to the sport watching, reality TV, home renovation obsessed population.

4. You're up against some of the richest organisations in the world i.e the churches.

If you can overcome these challenges, you'll be doing well. Good luck.

I must agree that religion is a problem, perhaps the problem with which we all struggle. Any ideology that does not welcome criticism and discussion and relies on preset positions that are not open to debate are a threat to our well being. This is what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Being religious in the above sense is not a option but something that we are freed from. In the light of such radical freedom the platform of a proposed secular party begins to look decidedly religious. For where did these “universal moral principles such as compassion, honesty, freedom and justice” come from? The secularists may think that they have escaped the binding and blinding snares of religion but they fall into the same old traps. The only way to avoid these snares is to be a follower of Jesus. The biggest mistake Christianity has made is to identify itself as one of the world’s religions when it is in fact the end of all religious thinking.

Our memory is certainly short. Do we expect from this new secularism what it has brought us in the past? Enlightenment thought gave us the French revolution and its excesses, Marx and the subsequent slaughter of millions, National Socialism which was based on pure reason. Alas, when we try to be free we find ourselves in chains.

Certainly there must be a separation between church and state as I have argued before. But that does not mean that the state should ignore the voice of a body of men and women who hold the secret of true freedom. This article argues that only the secularists are holders of the truth a position that, historically, has been found to be far from the truth.

If “30 per cent of people did not identify with any religion, and many of the remaining 70 per cent did not have a strong identification with religion”, it seems to follow that it is the religious beliefs of politicians – acting as ‘leaders’ and not the servants they are meant to be - that is the problem. Politicians are not concerned with offending religions; they are concerned with pushing their own barrows and personal standards. The current issue of the abortion pill is an example of this. It doesn’t matter what the electorate thinks, it’s what the politicians think.

John Perkins offers us The Secular Party. We now have over 30 registered political parties in Australia, plus independents, and most of us still vote either Coalition or Labor. Small parties can only run interference and support for them is in decline.

If we want politicians to truly represent us, the voters, then we have to get rid of the idea that democracy means merely having a vote every four years. Politicians need to be harried and made to listen to us between elections with letters, emails, telephone calls or whatever it takes to make them realise who’s the boss. If ordinary Australians are not prepared to do this, we have to put up with what we get.

The saying that we get the politicians we deserve is true. And the same old same old we get from the only two parties capable of forming government in Australia clearly shows we are not very deserving

This sounds like an interesting idea though its worth thinking through the means by which a society may experience liberalism given the uneven point from which we each start. Liberalism is both "freedom to" and "freedom from". The model that you propose (re: school) certainly fits the "freedom from" mould but not the "freedom to".

I fear - as a person of no religion - that those who feel threatened by different models of thought or who wish to have the whole word share their point of view (see posting 4 - Sells) will feel that the pursuit of the "freedom from" model is really just subterfuge for the attempt to impose a new model of universal thinking that challenges their own. This is perhaps because it denies the "freedom to" aspect of liberalism.

While France is not a good example given the cultural and historic dominance of Christianity, the dogmatic pursuit of students wearing Islamic apparel to school - in the name of secularism - is an easy example of "freedom from" causing another kind of oppression. True (or even approximate) liberalism was not achieved through this pursuit.

Never-the-less, the idea has great merit and is worth looking at - including secular schools. Australia has never been a secular state. Perhaps this is the way forward. On that note - the Liberal Party has not lost its liberalism, it simply never had that ethos. The party just borrowed a popular name that may have reflected a slight tendency toward liberal economic ideas in some areas (particularly taxation) though noteably not all (industry protection). There are some in the Liberal Party who are liberals as are there some in the Labor Party who are. But we have never yet had a party of liberal ethos in Australia. It would be an interesting party to see.

"The biggest mistake Christianity has made is to identify itself as one of the world’s religions when it is in fact the end of all religious thinking. "

"This article argues that only the secularists are holders of the truth a position that, historically, has been found to be far from the truth."

Brilliant! Thanks Sells.

I like the idea - especially only funding secular schools. However I think Gecko made a good point. It is unlikely that a new party that is basically anti-religion will succeed and will have the unfortunate effect of providing those in government a mandate for their more extreme religious viewpoints. I think it will only make things worse. Ther might be room in the Senate though for a loud secular voice.

Sells claims that Jesus brings “the end of all religious thinking”? Explain how this is so? Most understand religion as that defined in just about every dictionary in the world –

> Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe and a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
> The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
> A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Sells, please explain how this doesn’t fit with your view of Jesus? Or is this the new Sells spirituality?

As to the outcomes of secularism – the excesses of totalitarian regimes had nothing to do with rejecting religion/Jesus but with enforcing a non-democratic process on people.

Why would a secularist democracy fail/devolve into a despotic regime? Is it that, as Sells claim, Jesus is the source of “universal moral principles such as compassion, honesty, freedom and justice”. Sells, please outline why this is so?

Is it true that principals were formed pre-Jesus? Consider values held by ancient Greece. Those held in American Indian civilisation. Or the peaceful tribes of South America. Is it because they differ in some aspects to ours that they aren’t the ‘pinnacle’ we hold Western values to be?

The constant claim the ‘West knows best’ is bewildering, ignoring the fact that there are ongoing investigations into corruption in government and crimes committed by politicians and community ‘leaders’ (i.e. businessmen/women) world-wide. Yet these same people come from the supposed Western pinnacle of ethics and values. Oh, that’s right – they don’t really follow Jesus.

This is not bagging the West – the West has some good principles. But how can anyone claim the West holds ‘the’ standard? Would anyone disagree the West has a family values issue right now? Consider the SE Asian community model of looking after the elderly and maintaining a family unit is a worthy model, which has been around for thousands of years with no religious influence.

More later... let the debate begin

I welcome this new political party into the scene although I doubt it will get my vote.
From the article it appears the party is advocating a religionless society rather than just a secular society. And it seems to imply that basing (political) opinions on religious beliefs is somehow wrong.
The fact is anyone's opinions are based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise. And beliefs are based on many factors, including subjective experience, education, influence of parents, peers or other influentials, etc. So just because a belief is religious in nature does not mean it is somehow invalid, as it comes from the same factors that a non-religious belief comes from.
Furthermore, this idea that religion causes problems is very sweeping and should be scrutinised. Take war for example. It is evident that conflict and war are caused by disagreement, ie differences in values, ideals, beliefs, or whatever. Hell, I used to fight my sister over who should have the remote control even when we both wanted to watch Neighbours.
The fact that there were and are religious wars is only due to the differences between the beliefs. That they are religious beliefs doesn't matter, except perhaps when considering the ferocity and passion with which they are fought (because people tend to hold their religious (and anti-religious) views very close to heart and are willing to fight for them).
But not all wars are over religious beliefs, especially in the century just past.

Our democratic system is constructed so that policy and laws are based on the opinions of the population. And underlying these opinions are the subjective experiences of each and every person. If the major opinion has religious roots then i'm afraid that is what will come through in policy. If the census truly reveals that we have a non-religious majority then maybe this new party will gain large support and do quite well. However if you want to eliminate religious based opinions totally from politics then i'm quite sure that it will take a system other than democracy to do it.

It seems to me that these 3 related essays provide an Illuminated understanding of origins & consequences of the religious (so called) vs secular culture wars.

There Is NO Face Within the Sky 1. www.dabase.net/noface.htm

Space-Time IS Love-Bliss 2. www.dabase.net/spacetim.htm

Christ=MC2 3. www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm

Sells if "jesus" is the end of thinking, how come we have had 2000 years of "theological" (thinking) explanation of "jesus". There is more "jesus" propaganda flooding the planet than at any time in history.
And the world is becoming more insane by the minute!

We live in a time when all the scriptures of the Great Tradition of Humankind are freely available on the internet and because of this I would suggest that Sells has not even begun to think yet. His writings are all limited by the dimwitted provincialism of his inherited entirely exoteric protestant christian "mind".

See The Religious Conscious of Western Man is Trapped at:

4. www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm

Sells and others tell us that the slaughters of the 20th century were all created by secularism. That is partially true and mostly wrong. A gross simplification.

What about the 100's of miilions of slaughters done in the name of "jesus" prior to the 20th century? Much of Europe was devastated by the catholic vs protestant "religious" wars of the reformation counter-reformation decades. Centuries even. How many millions wre slaughtered then. And look at the "religious" slaughters done by catholic Croats and orthodox Serbs in recent times.

And lets not forget that "christian" America is by far the largest maker, owner, seller and user of weapons of all kinds including WMD's. And that "god's" man is in the Whitehouse bringing "freedom" and "jesus" to the rest of the world.

This essay provides a very sobering analysis of the state of the world body politic.

5. www.dabase.net/coop+tol.htm

It doesn't matter what new Party is formed, the Big MacBank CEOs will rule the land. They already have the Democrats in their hip pocket over SEQueensland profitability.

I propose we cut out the middle men and we vote directly for the real power in Australia. We vote for CEOs. If, compared to CEO salaries of up to a million dollars a day for doing SFA, Our politicians are on $300k a year, then we are obviously paying peanuts and getting monkeys.

We could have Max the axe as PM, Jamie 'you don't think this is a democracy' Packer as Treasurer. We could even get Bob the Builder back in the act as minister for Baritones. He's practically a Bank CEO anyway.

But let's have no doubt, Mandy Vanstone stays as immigration minister. How else could you overpopulate and ruin a perfectly nice country without her.

We could be the most secular nation on the planet, at least since Nazi Germany.

Oh ... We are already?

Victoria was set up as a secular society.
The education system looked more Irish than English, University of Melbourne was set up as a secular instituion and even today theological colleges are not part of the university. This is in marked contrast to Ireland where Catholics are still unable to study at Trinity College right in the heart of Dublin.

I thought Australia had made great progress since the 1970s towards becoming a secular society but recently the Liberal party has exercised wedge politics to great advantage.

If Catholics push too hard they will still find the faint glimmerings of my protestant soul. A soul that only becomes apparent under extreme duress like

- seeing women's access to legal, safe abortions curtailed
- spending money on religious schools when the state system is in a parlous condition
- when passing through the temple to mammon every time I enter the CBD.

Bhuddists and Muslims haven't intruded on my space yet so I have yet to become a "born again" christian.

Roll out the following anti-religionists as models of justice, humanity and virtue.....blokes like: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.......... I can just see the photos of these heroes of secularism adorning the secularists meeting rooms (do they really bow to these images as they walk past?) Is it true that these 4 in less than a century spilled more blood, caused more human suffering and carnage than all previous wars put together. If religion is a cancer what can you say about the secularists?

Don't know about this new political party, I would have to see their real policies first. Being a bit cynical in this day and age, I have my doubts that they will produce policies that reflect the peoples best interests. When you have economists involved, you have a recipe for social disaster Like others though, I agree its a great idea to put religion where it belongs, last.

Sells, “For where did these “universal moral principles such as compassion, honesty, freedom and justice” come from?”

Certainly not from religion. Compassion, ha ha, honesty, double ha ha, justice, nearly choking in mirth. Just watch question time in parliament, they are solemn when they pray to god. Then they display true honestly, compassion and with justice in mind for the people they represent, in the well know historically documented, religious fashion. Lies, corruption, dishonesty and no compassion except for themselves and their vested interests. Morals, none of you can lie straight in bed your so bent.

If this secular party comes up with policies that will make a difference, like making sure the country gets a fair return for our assets. Stop large amounts of our hard earned money disappearing overseas and into CEO's and controling the escalating charges we pay, for less and less services. Plus am environmental sustainable policy that gives us hope.

Considering the status of those involved, I expect that we will just get more of the same, with a different transparent spin.

John, you base your whole premise on the notion that we are looking at religion for answers when any post or news report condemns religion as the basis for all our problems.

I am not devoutly religious by any means but in the absence of faith there is cynicism to life in general. Secularisation cannot exist in any form when it is devoid of the beliefs that instigated its creation. Someone once believed that blind dogma was not a rational system of order and secularisation was born. That is an assumption, as I have not studied the history of that particular process but it would be natural to assume that there was an instigation born from frustration.

That blind dogma, that so infected and corrupted the religions of the world, would be no less prevalent in the party you propose. It would blanket all religion as, if I may borrow a phrase, the "opiate of the masses", with all the inherent diminutive connotations.

If religion gives the world just one thing, regardless of its faults, it is a voice of compassion that transcends mere rhetoric and statute. Without it we are cattle that use everything in our power to defend nothing of substance.

I have criticised religions vehemently on other postings and do not retreat from any of them however there is an inherent nobility, though difficult to define in contemporary society, that we would lose, at our peril, if we were to disgard it.

billie, what you say about TCD is simply untrue. Times change, and I have several Catholic friends with TCD degrees. Your Protestant soul isn't just glimmering, but burning with a nasty, and I'd have thought outdated, sectarianism. It ain't the sect, my dear, but the belief itself that's the problem. Or are you simply opposed to what Ian Paisley calls 'the whore of Babylon'?

As a profoundly lapsed Catholic, I would be delighted to have the chance to vote for the Secular Party. Long may it - at lvery east - hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Sells means the political under the guise of religion I think. CS Lewis said there can be no Christian political party. A political party can act on Christian principles but there are anti- theocratic principles in Jesus’ teachings. “My Kingdom is not from here” and perhaps “render under Caesar” etc. Jesus saved his worst denunciations for the Pharisees. Probably equivalent to Muslim clerics/Quranic Muslims of today. Religion that is all exterior and no heart. Whitened sepulchers he called them.

Nietzsche provided the spiritual energy for fascism, provided the death of God so that Hitler could fill that vacuum. Marxist Leninism the intellectual force behind Bolshevism. Marx’s opiate of the masses was effective in eroding the right authority of God and His Church – Communism filled the void. I think with the Germans they were quite happy to cede responsibility for their lives to the Nazi’s. The cult of personality of Stalin perverted the human religious impulse in Russia effectively too.

I understand what you mean Reason -The mix of Greek philosophy and Judaic monotheism are the two streams running through the Christian west. But the Beatitudes turned upside down Greek and Roman virtues. Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc could not cope with God become man giving up his honour for the cross, Jewish Law could not cope with Jesus fultilling the Law in his person while claiming the authority to forgive sins and calling himself ‘I AM’ which only God could do.

Christian virtues are very different from Roman/Stoic and Epicurean ones.

Western civilization is the best anyone has come up with. Political and religious freedom can only really be found with us. Only Christian civilization has successfully applied reason to the natural world with science, to commerce with capitalism, to social relations in the democratic constitutions we have, and political equality of all men and women, races and religions. All with the moral capital created by the love of Christ throughout the centuries. For example the monastic orders that became the universities, capitalism, and refuge of the learning of the ancient world against barbarian invasions.

Don’t be hoodwinked by those who want to tear down legitimate authority, they either wish to replace it with themselves or have nothing to replace them with at all. The moral authority they claim is an affront to their own moral vacuity.

What passes for secularism today is a perverted kind I think. I'm agreeing with Craig Blanch here I think. It is supposed to be a twin pillar with the Church supporting our society. Without the Church the edifice comes down. We see that today with the crisis facing the West, with Islam filling the religious void.

I think history will see Islam as a mere tool that roused a sleeping world. Much needed because secular humanism is a death loving creed (Humanism:The Death of Western Civilisation John Carroll LaTrobe Uni), and while we have no desire to carry Christ's yoke it seems it will take a death loving religion to break its spell.

Anomie, not quite sure what ian Paisley means by the whore of babylon but I meant the casino.

I referred to Trinity College, Dublin as an example of pernicious sectarianism that had successfully kept the majority of locals out of university education for quite along time at least 400 years until past 1980. I have no problem with the fact that Redmond Barrie quietly set up the Victorian legal and education system to mimic that in Ireland. I am glad that Australian universities were set up without that sectarian bias, in part, as a reaction to conditions in Ireland.

I was trying to say that the prime minister's use of wedge politics to inflame fear and hatred of ethnic groups to win elections has highlighted the differences between all of us and made us more sectarian than we were 20 years ago.

PS Dan O'Connell was protestant - that's just to stir you.

Gecko said “Christianity” has so much to answer for”

If you had said “Christendom” or.. ‘The historical manifestations of the Church at various periods
-all ok.
BUT
saying as you did, is in fact outright vilification of a faith. You have not defined ‘Christianity’ you have just crucified it in a similar manner to how the Jewish Sandhedrin crucified Jesus. i.e. it was a frame up.

Now that you have made this statement. I challenge you to back it up as follows:

1/ Show me the section in the New Testament which justifies your statement ? Note.. NEW Testament on which Christianity is based, in that it interprets and fulfills the Old. If you so much as even once drag up some obscure out of context old testament verse about ‘genocide’ I will leap through the monitor and ‘speak harsh words’ to you :)

2/ Show me from the life and words of Jesus, correctly interpreted, using historical/cultural context, that which justifies your re-crucifixion of Him and His teaching ?

You can say what you like about ‘bad Christians’ but villifying ‘Christ’ is not something which will go unchallenged.

-Forming a Secular party when 69% of Australian identify with God is an exercise in futility.

THE MAGIC OF NUMBERS amazing how specific casualties which are all pretty well recorded from various wars, suddenly become:
a) HUNDREDS of millions (when it is more like 10s over all history)
b) Christianity/RELIGION’s fault (this is pure undulterated bias, barely worthy of a response, but it has been offered re Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Stalin ALONE 20+million in just a few yrs.

SECULARISM= “no God” = ‘Make-It-Up-As-U-Go’ = Existentialism at best, Nihilism at worst.

Philosophers ...Peter Singer “cull the weak children”
Scientists..... “Lets clone people.. arrange genes, make ‘super’ people.

JESUS “I am the good shepherd, I lay down my life for the sheep” “I came not to call the righteous, but the unrighteous” (and that, if I’m not mistaken would be pretty much ALL of us)
“I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness”

Christianity Versus Islam

[Posted by coach, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 2:27:04 PM]

The Australian New Muslim Association has challenged Dr Peter Barnes* to a series of three debates at Bankstown Town Hall (Sydney)

The dates and topics are:

1. Friday 18 Feb - The Word of God: the Bible or the Qur’an?
2. Saturday 19 Feb - God’s man: Jesus or Mohammad?
3. Friday 24 Feb - Salvation: Grace in Christ or the five pillars of Islam?

There will be both Christian and Islamic bookstalls, and we are hoping that there will be supper afterwards. The cost will probably be about $5.

All meetings start at 7.00 p.m.

There will be opportunity for questions.

Please pray for this, and support it if you possibly can.

*Dr Peter Barnes, pebarnes@ezylink.net.au is a minister at the Bankstown Presbyterian Church, lecturer in Church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre and member of the Historical Records and Library Committee of the NSW General Assembly

Those that believe "secular" means no belief in God or divine principles of law [religion] have not defined the term correctly.

Secular and religious (spiritual) are not antonymns; they are coexistents of each other. Secular refers to natural needs of the body and religion the spiritual needs of the mind and soul. Singing a rousing National anthem isn't a secular need: but supplying water to drink is a secular need.

An atheistic State is not a new idea the Communists and atheistic Socialists have tried its introduction since Federation. Secular is being assumed as another term for atheism. It's just another form of totalitarian atheistic doctrine. It is not a new policy it just the same old Communist policy dressed up under another Party name.

Note his idea of removing funding from a large population that prefer to educate their children in private and religious schools - reeks of another form childhood indoctrination by atheists in an endeavour to remove the spiritual needs of children.

Quote, "A group of rationalists and humanists from Sydney and Melbourne .. think that forming a new political party might actually be the only way to get going the kind of debate that is needed in Australia. .. The original idea of secularism was the separation of church and state. The state would remain impartial and not endorse or compel the practice of any particular religion."

THE PROPOSED CONSTITUENTS:
Quote, "70 % did not have a strong identification with religion. Yet these people do not have an effective voice. No existing party is willing to risk the possible displeasure of religious voters. Hence the need for a new party, the Secular Party of Australia. The key objective of the party, as we see it, is to achieve a true separation of church and state in Australia."

Note the subtle agenda here by the constant brainwashing that secular people are distinct from religious people and have the answer to the world's ills. History has proven that power in the hands of atheists is just as immoral and ruthless as any other world-view

can I suggest that you broaden the debate.

Why not include an atheist, or someone who can argue the irrationality of all mediaeval belief systems, including islam and christianity?

Or would this be too much of a challenge?

"Show me the section in the New Testament which justifies your statement ? Note.. NEW Testament on which Christianity is based, in that it interprets and fulfills the Old. If you so much as even once drag up some obscure out of context old testament verse about ‘genocide’ I will leap through the monitor and ‘speak harsh words’ to you :)"

In that case David, perhaps its time that the Xtians throw out the old testament from their holy book. Clearly the angry, vindictive,
baby killing, sperm worshipping god of the old testamement is not part of their belief. Unless he changed his mind of course...
Nope I have no intention of killing my neighbour for working on the sabbath..

Founding any new party is not easy, even though 90% of Australians don't bother attending a church. Religion simply doesent matter to most, apart from the religiously obsessed.

I think that the secular movement just needs to be more outspoken.
OLO is one great place to do it :) Point out the shallowness of their claims, the dogma based on supernatural claims, no evidence etc.
The point is that a secular society should allow freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Peoples rights matter etc.

Politicians need to be aware of how many votes they stand to lose,
if they get carried away with beliefs in the supernatural and want to force us to live by those beliefs. Our human rights matter, the majority of Australians would agree with that and vote for it.

Forget political correctness, we need to say what we think more often!

I doubt whether forming a "Secular Party" will do anything but divide the nation further. We already have seperated church and state in Australia... the fact that money is being given to the church based schools is unusual even wrong but it has hardly blurred the line.

The real problem in Australia is that we need a third party of substance... one which has members in both the upper and lower houses. One that actually gets out there and represents middle Australia. Neither left nor right. One that can be trusted to follow their parties platform to the letter... An honest party perhaps?

The Democrats once had a chance but alas they were too comfortable "keeping the bastards honest" and didn't try hard enough to get into the House of Reps. The Senate can be a cushy long term existance for a Polly. The real demise of the Democrats occured after Natasha left the top job and the GST debacle which basically left them as "one of the bastards". It has spiralled towards nothingness ever since. With Natasha they at least had a broad spectrum, popular person with a public profile.

Up until the "Rosaries off my ovaries" teeshirt the Greens were making some headway into at least having a chance to form a significant party... but ... a tee-shirt may have shot them down. Don't Senators have advisors?

So what's left... another party... I doubt it. Actually even though it pains me to say it the members of the Secular party could join the Democrats and work within the existing framework. I'm not a Democrats supporter per-se but I still think they have the structure and some good people to at least get some of their voters back onside.

I'm not sure whether traditional Democrat supporters will trust the Senators enough to reboot their lost potential, but with the current Govts. work in the Senate I suspect people will want someone back to keep control of any meglamaniacs that gain power.

Do any ex-Dems really trust the party and it's Senators?

Opinionated2,
Not being a supporter of the Democrats, I can't answer that question, however I would suggest this....

Those of us wanting a change in Australian politics, should join one of the two major parties, with like minded friends if possible, and try to change the philosophy of the chosen party from within. To my knowledge, the Labor Party has 10,000 members in Australia, so if a significant number joined that party for example, it would not be too difficult to bring them back to the centre of politics.

I am not sure about the internal structure of the parties, except they tend to be state based, if one state branch advocated something sensible I imagine other state parties would be compelled to follow the lead, only a suggestion, but one that may work for us. I am more left orientated, however could quite happily vote for a centreist party.

Secular to me means religious law is not imposed.

It’s a fine system, I have no problem with religion/idealism in private, we all believe in something.. Me, I have hero’s, Winston Churchill and my Grandfather.

Scout
If you are around, you were asking me somewhere ages ago why I don’t pick on Christians but I openly loathe islam, its simple, I like them and I despise islam/pc/new-age. Understand now?

Christians are decent and easy to get along with. They are a bonus to our society with charity work and they wont hurt me for being an atheist or having green hair or any of my other various “strange” lifestyle choices. Plus in a secular society, I can vote for or against any issues they push.

Islam has not made this leap.

My problem with a secular party is that people who claim to be an Atheist are usually just bitter at god, society or the church. The argument they put forth is “its not fair”. They are not Atheists at all, but embittered pious new-agers pushing a political newage idealism into our legislation. These newage “atheists” are not actually secular at all.

They are the very thing they claim to hate. Pious gits forcing PC romanticism down unwilling peoples throats.

Newage anger/resentment/reason is inane and futile, “its not fair” just does not cut it as a political argument... Life naturally is not fair. We make what we can of it.

Atheist is the simple conclusion there is no after life or spiritual world… (a beleif system in itself)Atheist is about having no one to rescue you and no one to blame.

I assume Winston was religious (I have never checked, does anyone know just for interest sake?), but man he was practical

My, my my, what an interesting bunch we have here. G'day all. I'm a card-carrying Quaker myself, but don't hold that much truck with the bible, qu'ran, torah etc. As George Fox put it: "You will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

I believe in God, although it is beyond me to say exactly what or who "God" is. All I "know" is that God exists.

As for "religion" - my true faith lies in democracy. Albeit a certain kind of democracy, viz:

i) Where the executive arises from within the legislature (as opposed to an American system of executive separate from the legislature).

ii) Where the judiciary is separate from the legislature (this is pretty standard the world over).

iii) Where members of the legislature are elected via preferential voting for single-member constituencies (as opposed to proportional representation - the worst-case in the world being Israel)

iv) Where (HERE'S THE BIG ONE FOLKS - NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS THIS ... YET) full general elections for all representatives are held on an annual basis.

That's right folks - annual general elections. It would make for better accountability, transparency, stability, long-term planning, consensus-building, and cost cutting. It would foster a better "culture" of democratic processes and ideals, and would give us all something to celebrate each and every year.

We have built a pretty good House of democracy in Australia. Alas, we have yet to learn how to maintain it well.

One thing ALL traditional “religions” have in common? Annual festivals that celebrate and inculcate their particular “world view”. You cannot have Easter (or Christmas), or Hajj, or Passover, or Buddha’s birthday, etc. etc. every second, third, fourth year! And the same goes for all secular “religions" – ANZAC Day, Australia Day, 4th July, AFL grand final, etc.

Happy to discuss this further if anyone wishes.

In peace,
David (in Perth, Western Australia)

One of the most disputable assertions made amongst these (generally constructive) comments is a longstanding claim made by religious devotees that a secular person or secular state is not able to adopt and adhere to a moral code of behaviour because they have no fundation for such.

This has been one of Christianity's most cherished defences against atheism. 'If you don't believe in God then you can't be a morally uprighteous citizen'. Even way back in primary school catechism classes my brain took offence at the shallowness of this argument.

All I can say in hindsight, on the basis of a lifetime's experience, is that the most humanitarian, thoughtful and moral people I have come across have by and large derived their moral standing not from closed religeous ideology but from open discourse, unclutterred by the dogmatism and limitations that religion tends to impose.

This is not to say there are some fine leaders in church circles, nor that all secular leaders are moral human beings. But the proof is in the pudding. Dogmatism breeds intolerance, intolerance breeds bigotry, bigotry breeds hatred, hatred breeds violence. Even if we overlook Northern Ireland, the Middle East and Kashmir battlegrounds and all the other holy wars, the forceful eradication of diverse human cultures the world over in the name of Christianity is a history of terrible shame.

A society that can liberate itself from these demeaning shackles is one that has finally matured. People who are driven by religious faith have to be respected as part of the mix, not above nor below. Secularists would do themselves a disservice if they, in turn, became smug or pious in ther attitude to others.

Let's get one thing clear.

Pogroms and genocides have always been about hair, eye and skin colour ever since white mutants were booted out of predominantly black mother Africa.

Religion is always called upon at the last minute as a political tool to collectively harness the fear of God, the fear of "us or them" and turn it into a savage weapon. After that it gets ingrained in the folklore and becomes symbolic of a much deeper conflict as cultures develop.

That conflict is generally over simple resources like land, water, food, military advantages, waste disposal and concubinage.

To solve real problems between warring ethnic cultures, you need to look much deeper than religion. As I suggest, it is principally about resource conflict and along visual cue lines based on skin, hair and eye colour. The reasons for this are imponderable without some kind of genetic research.

Examples:

Islamic V Western cultures.
Appearance: Caucasian V 'of middle east appearance '.
Conflict:The Saudis have all the oil and money on the planet but they don't have the power that should go with it because of ingrained US military might. The anger is palpable and the Saudis and others continue to find ingenious ways to vent that anger. Its currently called terrorism. When the West learns to live without middle east oil, Islam is capable of being a friend to the west of truly amazing proportions. They really can be the most beautiful people when given their due recognition.
Religion:A useful tool.

Ireland:
Appearance:Orangers-red hair, fair skin blue eyed Angles and Saxons V Greens - dark hair green eyed Celtic peoples originating in Africa and Spain.
Conflict:Ireland is a poor country and always has had numerous resource shortages. The most poignant is its use by the English as a outpost or sentinel against Sanish invasion.
This latter item of conflict is the real basis for the Irish conflict. The English have found other exclusive uses for Ireland that don't involve the Spanish and this perpetuates the conflict today.
Religion:Irrelevant except as a symbolism for English (protestant) V Spanish (Catholic)

KAEP

Tell that to my second last b/f an Irishman of Negro appearance or to my close Armenian friend of Middle Eastern appearance.

The Irishman suffered the IRA and the Armenian's family were survivors of the 1915 massacre, both will tell you your full of it. Both have slaughter in their familys.

My friends and family are various skin/eye types, what we have in common is moral. We are not whining nihlists.

Philo... thanx for making the point about "Secular" not neccessarily meaning absence of divine principles in government.. quite true.
I was reacting more to the apparent thrust of the article which seems to be using the 'secular' in a deliberate 'Non God based' manner.

Gecko, the point you miss, is your own cultural-centrism.
You are right in your point about atheists being able to come up with moral codes. The problem though, is also one you stated "No foundation". What this means, is that without reference to revealed truth, the anchor chain has been cut, and the ship of state is adrift.

It will drift in the direction of the loudest and most organized and well funded voice. (Singer etc)

Your point neglects to put social and political values in the larger philosophical/historical context. What ideas are driving society ? They begin with the philosophers, thinkers.. and they filter down through the arts and education. "Clockwork Orange" was one of the first 'existential/life is meaningless' movies. Another "The Sensualist" 60s ish.... they all said the same thing, but the clearest one to me, was/is "Intensity" (if you have a chance, watch it.. but need a strong stomach)

When the main evil character has the heroine tied to a chair at his place; (he has already slaughtered a whole family, and numerous individuals, lecturing them about life and existence being about 'intense' experiences, as they slide bleeding to the floor, then he tastes their blood... and all the while he has this little girl locked in his basement, waiting for her to be 'ready' for him) -she calls him a sicko psychopath and that God will blot him out etc... he replies with the key sentence of the whole movie "Actually hunni, there is no God, and I'm probably the most honest person you will ever know"

The Church must be a prophetic voice, in the spirit of the Old Testament, calling the 'king' secular or otherwise, to account.

Yabby, you missed, muffed and mangled it again :) (understanding of God)

Gecko:
Your post was excellent. It was delight to read, so lucid and clear headed, and of course I for one absolutely agree with you.

You mention that your views are based upon a life times of experience. My guess is that we must be in the 65-75 age bracket.Am I correct?

Hear! Hear! bigmal, I also enjoyed gecko's post.

I remember seeing Jack Spong here a few years ago talking about the fight in the USA for Gay Rights. He said he would have hoped that the various Churches could have helped, but in fact it was the secular Corporations who had led the way. THEY were the ones who first came to the party and recognised a Gay partner's rights to health benefits, superannuation payments etc.

Being quite a "believer" in this thing called "God" myself, I have no grief whatsoever trying to accommodate whatever belief others might have.

However, above all I believe we are "social animals" and it is - in the end - not up to "me" but "us" as to what we prescribe and what we proscribe.

And the BEST way to ascertain exactly what that may be?

Annual general elections of our representatives through single-member electorates via preferential voting.

Thank GOD women now have the vote AND can stand for election.

These are still VERY early days in the life of representative democracy - and Australia has historically led the way in many important reforms.

Let "The Spirit" work it's wonderful (peaceful) ways through our ballot boxes. Much better than through bullets!

And that even goes as far as allowing our children to proscribe or prescribe things that we had done the OPPOSITE to!

Thankfully, most people agree about most things most of the time. That's why democracy works.

Never get too upset about "political apathy" ... it's MUCH, MUCH better than the opposite (political fanatacism).

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Great article John. Your comment about church and state being too close are spot on.

Your ideas on Federal funding for religious schools have some practical problems. Many people send their children to these schools because they dislike the state schools and religious schools are the only affordable option. Often the cost of religious education is subsidised by the church. Endowments are often given to religious schools because they operate within a religious community and the benefactor can gain respectability within that community.

I agree with your ideas. In fact my own children go to secular schools, but eliminating religion from schools will result in escalating fees and affordability issues.

Reason has quite rightly challenged me on some of my statements about Christianity denying religion. Before the Enlightenment we never thought about Christianity being a religion, it was just the way we saw the world in the same way we now see the world largely through the spectacles of natural science. It was not until the rise of secularism that Christianity was branded a religion and that is why any dictionary or text book has that slant. The relativizing tendency then simply placed Christianity with other world religions. The problem is that secularization has blinded us to the true essence of Christianity as revealed in the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus who acted outside of the religious confines of his time and was framed and murdered by the religious authorities with the complicity of the state authorities. This did not come out of thin air. The history of Israel is essentially a history of this nation’s struggle with religion and the way it distorts our life.

When compared with Islam, it is obvious how different Christianity is. Islam is a religion with a capital R. It is about unquestioning obedience to what purports to be divine law. There is no theological development in Islam. Christianity is really about the unmasking of what we now know as religion. This produces a freedom from all religiosity, all idols, all gods. It is a mistake to think that fundamentalism represents Christianity. The temptation for us all is to become religious and that includes the secularist who claims the ascendancy of reason. Dig a bit below the surface and you will find the same old tired idols, the same fear of death, the same human triumphalism and belief in progress. That is why it is only radical Christianity that will truly set us free.

I'm sorry. But this post, and Gecko's support is so much nonsense.

The WORST bloodshed and violence has been caused by 'secular' states. The death of over 170 Million people in the 20th century is well documented by RJ Rummell at his power kills website http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills. This figure is well above pretty much every other historical carnage added together. So much for the non-religious.

That the author hails the saving secularism of europe is absurd. Considering Europe is on the verge of complete economic collapse due to demographic disasters pushed by the secular humanists, I think the we should head the warning and flee from the stupidity put foward before we too are doomed (Our fertility rate is 1.77, so we have already been pushed a little way down that destructive path).

What I find most interesting is the notion that religion should have no influence on politics. How should that influence be reduced? Well, in a democratic country where everyone has a say, you can only do this by one of two ways. Trying to stop people having religious beliefs (A common secular humanist method is through state sponsored indoctrination in schools), or by removing the democratic right to vote.

What is even more amazing however is the notion that secularists aren't "religious". Of course, if you want to read the first two humanist manifesto, you will quite clearly see that they call themselves religious. Indeed the secular humanist belief fits the functional definition of religion to a t. So our good author is merely wishing to use his own religious belief to influence politics whilst attempting to bar all other religious belefs. What rubbish.

I believe in John Perkin's rights to influence the politics in this country. Pity he doesn't extend the same democratic courtesy to me.

A secular Party in an already secular Country. Hmmm, interesting idea perhaps a bit comical but why not after all this could be the one to bring the balance back to a secular democracy. Oh no I think we had some of those before.

If you take religious people out of the State, HOW can you take religion out of people?

How could you tell if one of your Sydney/Melbourne clan secretly prays under his/her desk 5 times a day?

Your statistical inferences don’t wash either when it comes to elections day. A good example was our last federal election where people ran away in droves from Latham a self confessed atheist (with the lifestyle to prove it – sorry Meredith) giving the Family First Christians a convincing win.

I wonder how you would fair on issues like same-sex marriage and an eminent Islamic state for example?

How deep would you have to scrape into your leaky barrel of “secular morality” before you come begging for the main-stream religious wisdom (and vote)? Just a thought.

Meredith,

No one is saying long term racial conflicts are not complex. They evolve over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. Different people are brought into the fray for a wide variety of reasons.

It is not nihilism to look past the complexity towards the root cause of the problem ... some kind of resource shortage conflict in overpopulated scenarios. It is in this kind of analysis that solutions are to be found. Your approach is to say its too complex therefore it can't be solved. Blaming it on religion or whatever prop or political tool is at hand, just keeps the war going. I find this objectionable. Your approach is not nihilistic so much as defeatist and perhaps even perverse.

Now the skin, hair eye colour discriminator is difficult to interpret because it requires genetic research to understand properly. But one thing is sure, all initial race conflicts were originally based on that when resource shortages and overpopulation began to bite. As a guess I'd say that segregation by visual clues was paramount in early primitive civilisations that had few other tools to rely on. But like I say this aspect needs research.

Further, I am not saying that understanding the true nature of race based conflicts will solve the associated problems. You have to find some way of giving each side the resources that are required. That may not be possible. But at least this way you can remove a lot of the religion type subterfuge and know what it is you are really at war about. It evens the playing field so that things like modern technology MAY have some chance at conflict resolution.

China is a good example of this. Internet usage has brought diverse often conflicted chinese cultures with dialects varying sometimes over 20 miles or so into a unified language scheme that has propelled China to near superpower status.
And technological progress and booming export industries have helped the Irish situation somewhat as well.

In each case technology has led to prosperity thus solving resource shortfalls.

All those that hide under the definition of "secular" meaning agnostic or atheistic are stealing the term to mean what they want it to mean. Agnostic and atheist are religious terms that define their belief system. It has nothing to do with providing natural resources for all human need.

All our present political parties are already essentially secular in purpose and nature in that they do not enforce a particular belief system upon the people. A defined belief system is a religion - even a belief there is no divine presence - is a religion.

The fact is the belief there is no God does not enhance the supply of food, water, energy, communication, housing, or education in the production and administration of the supply of these common human needs and the advancement of common secular needs of a society. All societies have these essential needs, it is not the domain of any world view [well quakers might not have need of all modern services].

Join any political Party they all deal with the common secular needs of society. Those that want to enforce in education atheism as the epitome of learning fall into the same trap as any Totalitarian system. Removing freedom of belief, and the State administration of the Governments religious view - there is no God. Talk about hyprocisy!

Sells conveniently forgets that Henry VIII the founder of the Anglican church of which he is a member was a serial killer, a mass murderer and one of the greatest thieves, plunderers and cultural vandals of all time.
Strange basis/way of founding a church on and about "jesus"!

Martin ibn Warrig claims that western so called "culture" is the only game in town.
Whay about the rising influence of China & India?

Meanwhile this site

1. www.coteda.com

effectively argues that our western christian/materialist adolescent anti-"culture" of competitive individualism has brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural & ecological meltdown.
Adi Da,the inspiration of this site recently wrote an essay which offers a summary criticism of our western so called "culture".
It is titled
RIGHT HUMAN LIFE MUST TRANSCEND THE MATERIALIST "CULTURE" OF DEATH.
In it he points that ALL of western "culture" is in effect a "culture" of death and that this "culture" is having devsatating effects on quite literally everything.
This "culture" of death is in its most advanced form in the USA where THE dominant "cultural" institution is the Pentagon & its associated military industrial complex.
Its "values" permeate every aspect of USA "culture".
As I pointed out in my 1st post the USA is by far the largest maker, owner, seller and USER or weapons of all kind including WMD's.
Then there is the NRA with its associated "culture" of death which is one of most powerful lobby groups in the USA.

The "culture"o of death literally rules!

BD, where do you FIND these films? I thought I was something of a cinefile, and an ageing, retro one at that, but these slipped under my radar. On excitedly checking the IMDB, I found no listing for 'Intensity', and so few people had seen the (unavailable) 'The Sensualist' that there weren't the requisite five comments needed for a review. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have mentioned you were a missionary (a group whose intentions I abhor, but whose dedication I cannot but admire): do they show these films in missionary school? I am reminded of Fred Nile's claim he'd seen 'Caligula' 17 times - something which takes a far stronger stomach and far higher boredom threshhold than mine - to fully apprise himself of its debauchery. Do they (this is a genuine question, not intended as mockery) find the worst excesses of the secular world, and rub your nose in it? If you have an interest in nihilist film, even to learn what you despise, have a look at 'Man Bites Dog' and 'Funny Games'.

Shonga,

If only it were that simple.... I agree with you. The Democrats allegedly have the most Democratic processes of any political party...BUT the Senators allegedly don't like following the party line at times. To an outsider it looks as though they want the ability to be flexible with party policy .. to be traders as it were... trading policy for compromise. Hence the crash!

That is the problem... politicians have egos as big as rock stars and don't like being told what they should do... It is the problem with democracy (not that I wish to change options or go to socialism) once you have cast your vote the pollies can claim a mandate for anything they wish... At that point the voters view is basically irrelevant and the party machine takes over.

The machine is full of back room players (oops advisors). These advisors have incredible powers ... their advice can help a party like labor lose an unloseable election because of a new tax called the GST. These advisors may even be able to stop a Prime Minister from being told "kids weren't thrown overboard... the ship was sinking".

Ask a labor voter ... the advisors and the Pollies thought they couldn't lose the GST election but still did. I bet the advisors who assisted in the complacency at that time still have their jobs.

Pollies (in general) don't like sharing power with anyone especially the members.

Tigerlily,
Quote, "The "culture"o of death literally rules!"

This is a facinating reflection on our own culture in the light of the RU486 champane celebration by secular atheists members of Federal Parliament. This is a celebration of a death pill for taking the life of the unborn child. Does the stinging anti-Catholic comment directed at Tony Abbott by the nettle indicate that she intends to act irresponsible become pregnant and take the pill as a form of birth control to abort unwanted children? "Take your rosary off MY OVARIES" is a personal commentary of irresponsible behaviour.

These are the same people pushing for the rights of Dr. Death to take life. Next we will have the introduction of infanticide for unproductive members of society. The next will be the death of those that threaten society by criminal acts. This is the present agenda of true secular atheists seking Government.

The USA may be considered the enemy acting outside the threatened society but when we look at the secular atheists within our Government we can recognise them as the enemy of the innocent and vunerable in our society.

Philo, Like all right wingers and righteous religionists you like to reduce everything to a set of black & white binary exclusions.
Every issue is full multiple historical & cultural contexts.

The only way to deal with the problem of abortion is via a fully comprehensive EMOTIONAL-sexual education fopr all young people so that they are thoroughly informed about every aspect of their EMOTIONAL-sexual being. See Sex & Emotion at:

1. www.beezone.com/AdiDa/sex.htm AND

2. www.dabase.net/twoarmc.htm

AND to create a freely chosen truly humanising culture of intimate cooperation whereby the TERRIFYING threat of survival is mostly eliminated and everyone knows that they are capable of giving & receiving love. A culture of expectation and demand whereby everyone is fully responsible for all of ones actions.

The ROOT cause of the abortion problem is the sex negative and body negative script that we have inherited from the church, especially the catholics and the more calvinistic protestants. A script whereby sex and where even bodily pleasure is considerd "sinful". A script which up till recently caused us to be entirely ignorant of even the geography of our own bodies.
And ENTIRELY ignorant of the EMOTIONAL dimensions of our being.
This body negative script is the root cause of all our seemingly intractable social problems from overeating/bulimia, to drug abuse and the destruction of the environment which is just an extension of our bodies.

Altogether this body hating, body negative script can be described as a war against the body. Indeed the author of the Right Human Life essays states exactly that. He points that western "culture" as a whole is mounted upon an extreme hostility to everything to do with the culture of WOMAN. Everything to do with feeling, the senses, bodily pleasure, intimate relationships.

The fear based "culture" of anti-feeling manifests as the arms race, worldwide terror and perhaps inevitably total war.

See THE TABOO AGAINST THE SUPERIOR MAN at:

3 www.dabase.net/2armP1.htm#ch2

Also Freedom of Choice in Sexuality

4. www.dabase.net/freersex.htm

I can see you've taken your fear pill today Philo, just proves my point, religion can only survive on induced fear. Every religious posters entire argument relies on instilling fear of future change, away from their power base. Desperately trying to prove any other form of political control other than religious, is doomed.

Honestly, morals love, none of this in religious history, they deliberately avoid the extent and influence of religion in despotic regimes.

Alan Grey says, over 170 Million people in the 20th century were killed by these regimes. I can't find any supporting evidence for this other than religious sources. Just lies, adding another nail in the coffin of religious credibility.

The desperation of their fear knows no bounds, as seen throughout history by the overreactions to those that have opposed them. They steer clear of the evangelistic deaths during their colonisation of the world. The lengths they went to destroying other belief systems, replacing them by violence with the love of god. I've seen them in action when travelling with my father as a kid to missions throughout Australia, as well as in Borneo, Indonesia and Papua in the 60's.

My observations were unknown by the missionaries in the 60's, when they were aware of our presence, they acted very differently. I can vouch for their violent inducing of fear into indigenous peoples. Look at the basket case Africa has become since the introduction of monotheistic religions. The degenerate lifestyle that the people now live, whilst the churches get richer worldwide.

We are wasting our time winding up the metronomes and oiling their revolving doors, their in violent meltdown mode worldwide. We will just have to ride the storm and hope they will kill themselves, so we can get on bringing this world to a scenario that will allow people to live in peace and harmony free from religious influence and dominance.

We don't need a new party, but a new system the allows everyone to have a vote on all important issues. Until then, it will be more of the same, with a different name.

Alchemist,
I see you approve of death to innocent healthy babies in the womb, but dissaprove strongly if innocent people are accidently killed in war. A double standard here in your values.

You are so out of touch with reality with statements like this: "The lengths they [missionaries] went to destroying other belief systems, replacing them by violence with the love of god. I've seen them in action when travelling with my father as a kid to missions throughout Australia, as well as in Borneo, Indonesia and Papua in the 60's."

Get updated on the reality. I have a civilised Papuan family as close friends in the Church here and his grandfather was a head hunter. Today a more gentle man you would not find anywhere. His brother was killed six weeks ago by a native tribal pay-back with a poison dart; from tribal rivalry dating back many generations. He has learned to forgive and will not take a life from his tribal rivals because he is now a Christian. Obviously you prefer tribal pay-back killing than Christian civilised response. "Forgive your enemy, do good to those that hate you.

Alchemist
I must agree with your analysis of the effect of religion on the human race.
As you say, they all operate on inducing fear into people to make them believe their dogma. However, a belief based on fear cannot last long in the light of scientific reason, and increasing knowledge, wealth and independence of the majority of the people.
It is notable that religion has only really prospered in backward, poor societies; indeed why is Islam supposed to be the “fastest-growing religion” today, if not for the fact that it springs from some of the most backward, unsophisticated and desperately poor nations on the earth?
Just as the Catholics used to do, they encourage their adherents to breed faster so that they can keep them in ignorance and inferiority, thereby making it easier to control them and further impose their revolting belief system.
This is why we must be vigilant in keeping these people out of Australia, as they will quickly become a “lumpenmass”, easily manipulated by unethical religious authorities. It is already happening in Europe, as we have seen recently.
Only an iron resolve against such immigration can save this country and its standard of living, its freedoms and its progress.
Hopefully, we would be able to absorb and bring those that are already here up to the necessary standard.
I don’t think there is any need for a new secular party. All that is required is for democracy to operate, as it seems to have done in the recent RU486 debate.
Perhaps more frequent referendums on major issues, such as immigration policy, using the technology we have nowadays, would help genuine democracy to flourish. Maybe more frequent elections would also help, as suggested by a previous poster.

Philo. Desperation is a sign of fear, insecurity and paranoia. I don't recollect ever mentioning anything about children in wombs, or abortion. The drowning, normally clutch at straws in panic. There are no innocent deaths in war, just deaths caused by war and they are no accident. However I'm sure you are more experienced in war than I, being religious it's part of the doctrine of suppression. I've only experienced one war, thats enough for me thank you.

Philo, I'm sure your indoctrinated friend is a lovely person, but he certainly doesn't reflect what the majority of PN people say, nor the current civil conditions. I saw myself what it's like when visiting Lae, Madang and Wewak a couple of years ago. But I do understand how narrow and desperate the religious perception is. As to PN people being civilised, I think it is derogatory to even consider them as otherwise. Just because their belief systems and approaches to life are different, there is no comparison with their localised methods and the world wide barbarity of religious history and the current growing worldwide religious war.

Froggie yes your right, we should use the technological methods now available to us to ensure that the people have a real say in the running of our country. But having shorter election periods, I'm not sure of.

We should elect people on how they can manage specific portfolio's, they would provide their plans with timetables before elections. Those plans in the form of binding statuary declarations, must be implemented. That way we would know what we're getting and vote accordingly. If they failed to adhere to their timetable, they'd be thrown out with no pension or super. If they do the job, give them a good income that is performance outcome based. Thats a fail safe system, necessary changes to those policies or other agendas that appear, could be voted on by the populance in electronic referendums.

Then we would actually get what we vote for, rather than pack of corrupt liars, giving away our assets to their mates.

Dear Froggie, The alchemist, et al,

Be careful about this idea of 'referenda' for all things to make it 'more democratic'. There are good reasons why we have a "representative" legislature ...

Truth is, 'democracy' works best in the cabinet of 20 or so people. In that space, whatever problem is brought forward to be discussed, debated and deliberated upon. With 20 or so people (the 'median sized group') there is enough life experience to throw differing ideas around and still enough air-space for everyone to be heard.

Many people have an (erroneous) idea that 'town hall' democracy is somehow 'better democracy'. Truth is, what happens in a town hall setting is that people with OPPOSING ideas come together to try and win your support/vote. Their positions are set well before they arrive at the town hall, and there is little or no true discussion or deliberation between the opposing sides.

In the cabinet or committee however, people talk WITH each other and gain a 'spirit of the meeting' (I'm sure even die-hard atheists can understand this concept! :-)) so that a better sense of concensus can arise from the deliberations.

Please note that (contrary to popular myth) MOST Bills that pass through democratic legislatures around the world do so with UNIVERSAL support. In fact, OVER 90% of Bills that go to multi-party Senate Committees in our Federal Australian Parliament thereafter pass through BOTH houses with unanimous support!

You will note that democracy WORKS because most people agree about most things most of the time - it's where we DISAGREE that makes life so interesting ... and this raises the thorny questions of legitimacy: who has the RIGHT to prescribe or proscribe, to punish and reward, etc.?

Obviously, in the end, it's our GOVERNMENT who has the last say. We ALLOW governments to have a monopoly on the use of force, so that no other individual or group will (as the saying goes) 'take the law into their own hands'.

Ooops … posting is too long. Will have to make it in 2 parts...

As I was saying …

Now, even though cabinets and committees are filled with good people and our elected representatives who want the best for all concerned, they nevertheless need to be put to the "test" of public support from time-to-time through the wonders of free and fair regular elections via secret ballot, so that they do not become completely divorced from "The People".

Sorry The alchemist, but the idea that representatives should 'delegates' with "binding statuary declarations" is anathema to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strengthening our democracy, but I fear (there's that word again :-)) that many well intentioned people do not fully understand HOW the two-party democratic system actually works.

I support Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), but in the end, give me annual general elections before anything else.

If you believe annual general elections would be ANYTHING like the elections we have NOW, only annually, then you have completely missed the point.

Much more I could say, but must go now ...

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Is there anything new under the sun? or have we humans tried everyway and found most unsatisfactory?
Most of the religions are run on either financial or power lines or both.
We ,in Australia, have sampled and paid for every kind of political dogma.
We still have large numbers of unproductive politicians and hangers on on our back , what do they do for us?
Any politician who enters parliament with truly humane ideals is soon gobbled up by the factions, the ideals are spat out as junk.
In any society someone rises as leader and soon has all the trappings of supporters and enforcers.
Which way now?

Mickijo,

Looking at the pollies we have at the moment on all sides could we go any lower?

Here is a radical idea... Why not ban parties & alliances altogether and only allow independents in both houses.

We would need an odd number of pollies in both houses and no-one is allowed to abstain.

Say we had 151 independents then the worst possible vote would be 75 to 76 but at least you would have a decision.

But we might be able to improve this also .... if the vote was within say 11 votes (80 to 71) then the vote is transferred to a referundum of the people. It was too close for the pollies to make the decision on their own so they should have to take it to the people.

With the internet these refernda could be done very cheaply and quickly & securely... almost like a daily poll on a news station... Access for people without computers could be at post offices, council chambers etc.

Suddenly we would have more voter representative Houses of Parliament.

Now I haven't thought all this through but an imperative would be a totally independent speaker... paid seperately like a judge.

If a pollie didn't answer the question the (speaker)judge could fine him/her for contempt of parliament up to a years salary ... abuser pays...lol. Continuous contempt could mean they aren't allowed to run for election next time and they lose their superannuation benefits with the funds given to the poor.

Of course the speaker would be in a very powerful position so he should be assessed by a non-partisan committee of his peers. Peer review as it were.

True democracy could be a wonderful thing... I can see the pollies trembling already... What something that effects us... No way jose.

In keeping with the healthy mind/healthy body and to make the pollies accountable we could set a weight limit for them... say 100kgs for men and 90 kgs for women... that way our pollies would be role models in one way at least. Can anyone think of any other ideas?

Perthwestern

I would like further elucidation on annual elections please. From the tenor of other posters (and myself) there is concern that our political system is not as democratic as it could be.

The current crisis between fundamentalist faiths underscores the absolute necessity for secular government. I am interested in any ideas to ensure that the personal religion of a pollie isn't given free reign over our lives, such as Tony Abbott tried to do.

:-)

I agree solidly with Froggie's post. But then, as a Gecko, I would!

Now... the immense damage that religion has caused humanity, is for me just an historic fact, certainly not a tirade against religion and spirituality. Far from it. The rich diversity of religion and mythology around the globe is one of the most fascinating, absorbing aspects of the whole human experience.

It is a sobering thought that If I was born in India, I would most likely be a devout Hindu. If in Iran, I would be a devotee of Islam. If born in Brazil I would be Catholic. If born an Australian Aboriginal it is the Dreamtime that would give my life meaning.

Having been inducted into a belief system, largely by random fate of where and when we happened to be born, we then set out to smugly defend that locked-in faith as if we arrived at it via a considered view of all the alternative belief systems. Of course, almost nobody does that. The exquisite irony of this fateful journey seems to escape everyone who is imbued with what we call 'Faith',

I define Faith as: "That which allows us to believe what we know to be untrue". To some extent every one of us can all fall into that trap, not only religious devotees. As others have wisely commented, secular forms of dogmatism have been arguably as destructuve as religious forms have been. Another reason not to get too smug about our own world view.

Gecko at first glance your epistemology looks very reasonable especially given our age's guiding moral principle of tolerance. That is that "everyone has a right to decide for themselves what constitutes the good life". Unfortunately this moral principles goes over into relativism which says "nothing can be said about what constitutes the good life".

The doctrine you hold is just as geographically and culturally relative as you think religion is. Maybe only .05% of people have ever believed it.

What would be much more useful to you is to test the truth of the claims of religion. For example the majority of the world believe Jesus is either a reincarnation of the Buddha, the second last prophet of Allah, or God incarnate. They are either right or wrong. What an important question to look into!

This is more work, more responsibility but there is no other way.

Being automatically skeptical of primarily religious authority (and not with scientific) it does mean we have to do the work ourselves. Unfortunately most are quick to reject the authority (and its powerful) of the Church and do no work to replace it with anything with similar credibility, it is often the religion of the self that is put in its place instead. And we're in big trouble because of it.

History shows that it is in the questioning that we become fully human, disputation will go on but we musn't stop questioning just because religions don't agree, or political philosophies don't agree.

Have a good look at Christianity - read some apologetics even if you don't change your mind you will understand better the beliefs of millions of your fellow humans.

Lastly. Be careful when it comes to religion and war. Humans seem to kill much more readily when God is taken out of the equation. Witness the 20th Century as the most brutal and genocidal century of them all. But I understand what you mean, religion is the most powerful force for good and for evil much greater than patriotism, sex or mere human political power. Even more reason to understand religion.

Perth western, not sure what you are saying, but it does appear that you are advocating the same system we have that is destroying us, just electing them yearly. Its a new system we want, not the same one altered a bit. There isn't democracy here, we have forced preferential voting, which is in breach of the constitution. We have a 2 party system that is actually one party but different factions, they all reflect the same masters, big business. Without their donations, parties would cease to exist.

Considerings between all parties Australia wide, except for compulsory labour membership of unions. They would be lucky to have more than 100000 members. A very small minority, that dictates to the majority through corruption and lies.

We need a 21st century approach, not a failed old one. A cabinet of 20 people is not a democracy, but a beaurucrasy, a true democracy would be where all people participated in all decisions, which is rather impracticable. The same goes for local and state, we need a different system. If we elected people to take care of specific portfolios, according to the their stated methods and forecast outcomes. We'd be able to review them yearly and decide whether they should continue in their job, rather than have fresh elections.

This would mean politicians and senior beaurucrats would be forced to be honest and accountable. Sadly most would fail and be out of a job. The other problem is that 100% of current politicians would never get elected as they have no capacity or knowledge to undertake the job. Considering that the vast majority are doctors, lawyers and accountants, shows how little knowledge they have about anything but semantic lies and deceptions.

We understand how the two party system works, for the party and those that own them, not for the people. Retaining any part of the problem, is like replacing one part in a broken machine and expecting it to work properly on the other broken bits.

As some see it we have representatives of Political Parties instead of Community representatives.

How about this proposal:
Each 4 years people are nominated from the local community by community groups eg Chamber of Commerce, Parents and Citizens, Agricultural Industries etc etc. They are put foward by the local community to show support for them by what the local community feels are the pressing needs of the community and how the community feels they would do the job. Two persons could be presented for one community interest group.

Then their supporters register votes at the local electoral office over a period of perhaps four weeks. At the end of the four weeks the balot is closed and the four proposed candidates who gain the most votes are then put foward for the whole electorate to vote upon.

This would undermine the strangle hold of Party politics and is a fairer way of nominating a representative Canditate from the local community.

1. Nominations from the community interest groups.
Allow four weeks for nomination.
2. Allow four weeks for supporters of community interest groups to vote at the Electoral Office.
3. The four with the highest support are given four weeks to identify their qualities, expound their vision and why they are running. This would happen in public forums and community presentations and the Electorate Office posted a single brief of the four Canditates resume and vision. For this letterbos post each would produce a 2,500 word submission on who they are, their vision and purpose and how they intend to perform their job. There would be no other electoral propagander stuffed into letterboxes.
4. A whole of Electorate vote would then occurr on one day.

Some good thoughts Philo... I would add to this in a very 'Chrisian' way :) that some like Scout might take exception to but I actually doubt it given what I'm about to say.

Lets put forward people who:

Regard themselves as 'last'.. and 'servant of all' (Matt 10:44)
Place others interests before their own. (Luke 14:7)
Seek to resolve conflict with those who have things against THEM. (Matt 5:23)
who don't conveniently 'prune' their values when the going gets hot.
(Parable of the Sower, Mark 4)

Or..just use 1 Timothy 3

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach,
-the husband of but one wife,
-temperate,
-self-controlled,
-respectable,
-hospitable,
-able to teach,
-not given to drunkenness,
-not violent but gentle,
-not quarrelsome,
-not a lover of money.
-He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

(for "Church" read community.)

To me, the 'system' does not matter.. the people do.

Don't know much about it but the Swiss seem to have a reasonable system based on their cantons and a president has the chair for only one year.
All important decisions are put to citizen referenda, that sounds fine to me.
Here we have to vote for candidates WE have not selected, they are put in front of us and we are told --vote for these people or else!
The minor parties are more of an irritation than they are of use, they fulfil no useful purpose whatever and are simply an expense.
The two major parties are mediocre , their main interest is in getting reelected.
Unfortunately the opposition is so weak it is in danger of becoming just another minor party.
We deserve better than that.

Sorry for the mispelt words in the last post.

"For this letterbox post each would produce a 2,500 word submission on who they are, their vision and purpose and how they intend to perform their job. There would be no other electoral propagander stuffed into letterboxes."

This would mean Party politicts would not receive huge refunding from Taxpayers for material and expenses. The booklet distributed would contain the essential material and be directly funded by the Electoral Commisson. Detail policy would be financed by the community group they represent and not refundable by the taxpayer. Equal unbiased media coverage would be given each Candidate. How to distribute preferences and photographs would also be in the booklet mailed to every voter. As NRMA or RACQ does in Board elections.

No lobbying outside polling booths as at present. Though I know the large parties like the atmosphere of the polling day as it indicates their support. Posters of the Candidate and how the Candidate would prefer you distribute your preferences be posted inside the Polling Booth.

Philo,

I am quite happy with that because at least we finally have local people representing local interests in our parliament.

I believe you still have to outlaw alliances because people will always form groups to defeat individuals. For instance Chambers of Commerce tend to always represent conservative values so they would usually ally themselves with similar people. Trade Unions would do likewise at the other end of the scale.

Your community group idea is fine but many battlers just don't belong to community groups because they haven't the resources to fund themselves. Also cutting the money flowing to parties would get a better use of resources as we wouldn't have that cost at all.

The system has to be designed to stop the manipulators in our society. I still believe the speaker should be a judge who has strong powers and his deliberations are assessed by a peer review type process. I agree we should ban the polling day pamphlet pushers.

But look what we have achieved in a few moments of thinking ... no parties, no alliances, communities better represented, independent speakers, a more representative democracy and we have changed very little really.

Amazing!

Oh my goodness! I will try to build some bridges here first (before burning them all? :-))

To all the posters on this site, let us first remember that when it comes to individual affairs of the State, thee & me are more like than not to be on the "same side". I, like you, want peace, goodwill, health & prosperity for all.

However, it is obvious from many of the postings that we have somewhat different perspectives about what is, and what is possible.

Reading many of the postings reminds me of reading 'letters to the editor' - which is usually the first page I turn to when opening any newspaper.

In all the years (since 1974) that I have been reading these letters, two letters are perennial:
i) The Prime Minister (whoever it may be) is "just like Hitler"
ii) Why can't the politicians just get together and get the country out of the mess it's in!

I also remember discussing politics with a couple of shearers when Paul Keating was in The Lodge. They were a class apart from anything I had discussed politics with previously. Their hard-line stance was that PK was "selling the country down the gurgler".

NOTE: they were NOT saying his policies were doing this. Oh no. They were saying he, personally, was DELIBERATELY selling the country out.

When I queried them as to why the Prime Minister of our country would want to do that, their response was just as hard-line:
"Because he's a puppet!"

I am saddened that so many on this site have such a low opinion of our elected representatives. I agree they ain’t no saints, but I do believe that we in Australia are in fact quite lucky with the quality of our politicians, especially Federally.

I think they generally do a remarkable job in very trying conditions, especially consideration of how much vilification they CONSTANTLY get – and allow through our wonderful “freedom of the press”.

Am I a lone voice on this one, or do others listening in have similar “OK” attitudes to our legislatures?

David

In trying to keep to the spirit of Occam’s razor / KISS principle, I would just say that I believe the ideas and ideals that Philo, Opinionated2 and other on this site express about “no parties”, “no lobbying”, etc show a gross misunderstanding of how democracy actually works.

The closest example of a legislature full of independents that I know of would be the Israeli Knesset. This legislature is elected through proportional representation, with all of Israel being one electorate. With a membership of 120, it could THEORETICALLY mean less than 1% of the vote would be needed to secure a seat. In their infinite wisdom, over the past few years the Israeli’s have incrementally increased the quota needed to win a seat. It presently sits at 2.5%!

What this means is that to pass anything through the legislature it is necessary to do deals with all sorts of small parties and independents who hold the balance of power.

Who are the small parties and independents? The ULTRA right, religious, nationalistic, weirdo, etc.

Sorry folks, but democracy works BEST when there is a government and a strong and encouraged “alternative government”, ie the “two-party system”.

With preferential voting in single-member electorates, a person needs to secure 50% plus 1 of the vote to win the seat, meaning they have at least broad community support. The beauty of prefential voting is that deals can be struck AND radicals can be marginalized (as what happened with One Nation when BOTH Liberals and Labor put them LAST on their ‘how to vote cards’)

Alas, once again I must be off. If anyone is in the mood, perhaps you might like to read an old posting of mine on the OpenDemocracy website:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=83&threadID=42462&messageID=48175#48175

It is rather long and rambling, but hopefully will give you more food-for-thought on the matter.

I must, I must, I must write a booklet sometime soon on this matter which is more tightly argued. I figure it need be no more than 100 pages, possibly 50.

For the time being …

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

To the extent that religion has enriched the total human experience, providing diverse customs, a source of contentment and, perhaps, moral codes of behaviour to follow, then it has positive value….. And to that extent we should welcome its (indirect) influence and involvement in politics.

To the extent that religion has been used to overpower other societies; to justify exploitation; as an adjunct of colonialism; as a form of mind-control; as a justification for prejudice; as a major cause of warfare.... then it has been an immensely destructive force…… How can we keep this side out of our politics?

The problem we have is, in this modern global village, overpopulated as it is, where people of all faiths and ethnicities have to live together and share the planet's resources, the harmful, destructive aspects of religion-in-politics has come strongly to the fore.

In the Middle East and the United States strident religion has become so entwined with politics so as to virtually control it. And so religion-in-politics has become a much more pernicious and dangerous threat than ever before. Now we are all threatened by it.

I thank the original author for pointing out this alarming world trend and how it could so easily spread into our body politic. But as for trying to lock in a more sane secular state by means of contrived political structures, I have my doubts. Our best defence is awareness.

Some very interesting ideas above. Alchemist, i like your meritocratic ideas.

I don't like the annual election idea though, to me that means constant campaigning and no work done.

PerthWestern, i am with you on still having some optimism about our existing system and elected representatives.
It is questionable whether a more direct system of democracy would be superior to what we have. It places a lot more trust in the general population and the will of the people to decide what is right. It assumes that the majority knows best. But this is not necessarily so. The majority can be quite irrational, it can often vote for the likeable above the capable, with emotion rather than reason.
I may be being sacriligious towards the ideal of democracy here, but it is worth thinking about.

So a more representative democracy shows a lack of understanding how democracy works... Sorry PerthWestern it shows you may grossly not understand democracy.

You say a two party system works best... so you are pro parties... you sure have kept it simple... do nothing... yep that's as simple as it gets.

The system I outlined didn't get rid of preferential voting... the person would still need 50% + 1. It just got rid of parties & alliances... No biggy really. This proves that it is nothing like the Israeli Knesset.

Also I could argue that with the current misuse of it's power in the Senate... your two party system has big holes in it. Plus we actually don't have a two party system we have a multi party system. Are you against any other parties and want just 2?

I don't want annual elections... God it would send us all loopy.

Im mostly interested in preserving and re enforcing the secular system.

Not interested in yearly elections, or referendums on national issues.Councils are good enough locally there.

How would unofficial alliances be avoided? If I was an elected member of such a hypothetical totally independant parliament, I would get the drift of how my fellow members tended to speak and vote on various issues. And from that I would have a pretty good idea of who would be likely to support or oppose a motion I may put on behalf of my electorate.

Presumably we would all be free to meet each other for a private chat. And tell one another who had agreed to say what about whatever and how they were likely to vote when it came up for consideration.

Next thing we knew, some of us may be prepared to compromise on something in order to get something else passed.

Sounds a bit like the two party system, with a few minor party people and a handful who may remain independant.

This scenario isn't carefully thought out, just whizzed down off the top of my head, so feel free to pull it to pieces.

a lot of good worthwhile thoughts here..

Gecko ..

well said on the indirect influence of religion. Could not agree more. To understand the 'evil' side, one needs look no further than the human heart, and see how it tends to 'manipulate' truth and skew it for personal enrichment or gratification.

In the case of the faith delivered through Christ, a simple comparison between His teaching and ethics and those of the 'evil' manifestations you cataloged will show the truth of His parable of the Weeds and the Wheat.

The American situation is not an easy one to understand, as there are many diverse religious and secular interests at play. You have Focus on the Family (Dobson)(cheers and claps) and you have Reconstructionists (boos and bricks) who want to revisit the Old Testament law as modern social/criminal law.

REX "unofficial alliances" :) spot on mate.

ALCHEMIST had an 'idea' ? shock horror.. I'm so programmed to just read abuse in his posts :)

I am absolutely 'ho hum' about a 'secular' party, -not worried about it, its too reactionary to be enduring.

FAmily First are VERY active at the moment in Victoria.. watch out for a good result in November.

-Adloph Bracks 'TOLL' freeway.
-Adolph Bracks beefed up RRT2001 'suppression of valid free speech' (such as MINE on OLO about Mohammed)
-Adolph Bracks in general.
-Adolph Bracks also caused the 40+ degree days :)

Rex,

Of course you would be free to talk to others and meet with them... I was not aiming for a Stalinist State (ha!). It's a better democracy with more input from the people!

Please remember I only had a thought the other day.... I haven't been thinking about it for years.

Like minded people are always attracted to one another and that isn't an alliance. If they used block voting or some other form of vote rigging then that would be an alliance.

Basically I am against voting on party lines. Every vote should be a conscience vote... as every vote affects people's lives and therefore needs people to have thought about how the vote affects
their electorate. Afterall they are the people the member represents.

Perhaps Parliamentary votes should be by secret ballot through some electronic voting system. This allows people to genuinely vote on conscience and if someone was being pressured by lobbyists or pressure groups they could easily vote the opposite way without the pressure group knowing. Doing deals would be virtually impossible

On the Family First Party... Fancy trusting little Johnny with their preferences. What happened to the Telstra Sale family impact statement? Did Johnny Howard tell a fib to a Christian Party to get
their preferences? Will 10,000 job losses have an impact on familes?

Keep religion out of politics... Politicians use religious groups to capture votes and then spit them out after they get in as above. Also anyone can say they are Christians... look at George Bush, are his actions Christian? Is bombing innocent Iraqi families Christian? Is keeping people in Camp Xray and torturing Christian?

I think we have a secular democracy on the whole... sure they say a prayer (big deal) but the antics of our parliamentarians are rather "unGodly" at times. As soon as the prayer is over... it's gloves off... sort of like the footy after the National Anthem Ha! Also members in Australia are not usually questioned regarding their belief systems and neither they should be.

One more party? Aren't there existing parties that believe in keeping politics and religion separate? I wouldn't vote for any party except on the basis of their policies and they would have to have a wider range than just the separation of religion and state.

Love, Compassion and Goodwill are not the sole possession of any one religion or political doctrine - they exist among individuals and among individual acts from most religions and political world views. It is blind, bigotted and simply not true to claim them just for Christianity.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, his hero was Charlemagne, who was the Holy Roman Emperor crowned by the Pope in 800AD thereby starting the first Reich. His writings constantly talk of God and his own perception that he was here on earth to fulfil God's and Christ's purpose. He hated the communists precisely because they were atheists and railed against atheism.

It doesn't matter if you choose a religion or a secular political stance for your value system. In the end you are choosing a set of moral values that suit you.

The problem with the 'Religions of the Book' is they try to assert their world view by insisting that anyone outside their religions is evil and destined for eternal punishment. Any doctrine that insists on that is bigotted and will suppress other opinions and views. Cont...

No matter how pacifist Jesus was there is nothing pacifist about the tortures of the Pit, the Judgement Day nor the casting of anyone who doesn't agree as evil. Mainstream Christianity does not hold pacifism as a doctrine anyway. Only minor sects like the Quakers, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists etc. The villification and hatred that spews through every threat of the pit, the place of gnashing of teeth, of the miseries of Revelations, etc. in the New Testament is the fervour behind the Crusades, the inquisitions and behind a lot of Christian hatred towards other religions today. While some Christians point to Christ's pacifism there is just as many that point to the Revelations and want to go in gun blazings to wipe out the infidel.

To believe that Secularism is a set of moral beliefs beyond the separation of Church and state is not true. A person that does not adhere to any religion is just as capable of being anti-abortion or same sex marriages so John's Secular Party is not simply secular but includes a barrow of beliefs they wish to put under that banner making up a world view that is not simply secular.

What it should really be about is individual issues and the motives behind them. The senseless 'us and them attitude' of either side when their beliefs differ as widely from their fellow 'believer' as they do from their 'adversery' is produces bigotry and hatred for our fellow human beings.

Aziliz

I always find your posts well balanced and informative - it is heartening to know there are people who can look at both sides of an issue.

I don't believe a purely secular party is possible for the reasons you have stated.

While I find people like Tony Abbott chilling at least I am aware of his views and can vote accordingly. Whereas star chambers like the Lyons Forum are secretive - truly a concern. Not so much because they are religion based, but more because of the power they exert behind closed doors.

Dear Opinionated2,

Sorry, but I cannot see how one could keep any legislature full of "independents". Have you heard of "The Iron Law of Oligarchy"? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

As for "secret voting" in our legislatures? This is an absolute no no: they are our elected representatives - we NEED to be able to see what they are voting for & against!

Once again, in trying to keep to the spirit of Occam’s razor / KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid) ... the two-party system is by far the best for democracy. As I said: a government, and a strong and encouraged alternative government.

And no, I am NOT against multiple parties and independents. If they are good enough to get elected in single-member electorates (where 50% +1 of the vote is required) then good on them.

The British two-party system used to be the Liberals v's the Tories, until early in the 20th century when the Labour Party took over the role of His Majesty's loyal Opposition ... and eventually won office.

Who knows? Maybe the same might happen here with our own Federal Labor Party? Maybe the Greens (or someone) might take over their role of "alternative government" one day ... and eventually sit on the Treasury benches!

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Hi PW,

Yes I agree that having lots of independents is a bit radical.... but like most things it could work if people were prepared to work at it.

Out of all the things I suggetsed I would just like to have an independent speaker in both houses for a start... I don't think partisan speakers are a good concept at all giving too much freedom for the incumbents to misuse question time by not answering the question.

I am not up with history but I don't think the original concept of parliaments included parties. Of course these naturally happen but this system stops them forming organisations and helps to stop boting along party lines. There is no perfect system.

I wasn't sure about the "secret ballot" at first either but I think it is still worth considering... I know there are some pitfalls but if people are just voting along pre determined party lines then that is hardly representing the people. Maybe more people would cross the floor if ballots were secret.

Plus if you don't agree with that party position you have almost no chance to sway a members vote... even if they agreed that it was wrong.

Maybe we wouldn't have joined the war in Vietnam or Iraq if there were secret ballots. Maybe a no confidence motion might get up when it should if we had secret ballots. This dealing behind closed doors in the party room is in no way democratic. The members are told how to vote and we never hear about the real debate. Look at Barnaby Joyce when he dared to do what under the constitution says... he represents the State of Qld, not a party machine.

Basically our sytem is a good one and I am just thinking of ways of tweaking it to make it better.

What I can't understand is why most here are desperately sticking to the same failed system. Saying that we have a good system in this country is like saying that global warming isn't happening. Its failed and getting worse, how can anyone say it's working when we have no choice. Party politics is dead, its from the past, was good for awhile, now we have a dictatorship. Parties control, no freedom to speak out, toe the party line or get squashed.

Perth western seems to be a party hack unable to see past the mirror of the past. This system has seen all our assets and resources given away, continuous lies from them all. Toll roads, a total stupidity, now they are narrowing roads to force people onto tollways. If you can't see that we're in the grip of a totalitarian economic dictatorship, you have rocks for brains.

After all the posts telling Andrew Bartlett, multiculturalism doesn't work and we need to stop importing morons, whats he do. Releases a statement saying, we must embrace multiculturalism, just a cloned slave like the rest.

We don't need hundreds of politicians, we only need enough people to handle the required portfolios and make them accountable for what they do. Currently they stuff things up then take a huge payout for failing, really sensible logic on the part of the lemming masses that vote for them.

Someone mentioned that the metronome mob always talk about hell in detail and how horrible it is. Could someone describe heaven for me, in detail. Or is that a non core understanding.

BD, abuse cannot be applied to a fictional despotic fantasy, although I suppose some would get upset if Mary Poppins got a bagging. The mentality of believers, just look around the world for the evidence.

Aziliz, they must reject Hitler, as his religious example is the truth of monotheistic beliefs world wide application, throughout history.

Dear Opinionated2 & The alchemist, et al,

Modern representative democracy is still very much an evolving thing. No one person has sat down in the past and said "this is how it should be", there have simply been incremental changes over the centuries to many and various external influences.

eg William the Conqueror wins battle of Hastings in 1066 and starts ruling most of the island of Britain AND Normandy with his Norman mates. A few generations later in January 1215 a group of barons demanded a charter of liberties as a safeguard against the King's arbitrary behaviour. The barons took up arms against John and captured London in May 1215. John was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

In the 16th century, Henry VIII established himself as a Protestant ruler and Catholics were suppressed.

In the 17th century, Charles’ disdain for consulting parliament led to the English civil war, the defeat of Charles by the parliamentary forces, and the establishment of the Commonwealth under Cromwell.

After Cromwell’s death, England restored the monarchy under Charles II, but his successor James II tried to turn England back into a Catholic nation. It was in this period that the “parties” – or Whigs (anti-Catholic) & Tories (more Catholic-friendly) really began.

James' attempts to force Catholicism on England and regain prerogative doomed his reign. Parliament emerged supreme.

Meanwhile, the loose alliances of Whig & Tory continued to evolve throughout the 18th & 19th centuries. Sir Robert Walpole (1676 - 1745), first Earl of Orford, is considered to be Britain's first prime minister. The Whig alliance evolved into the Liberal Party of Britain and the Tories became the Conservative Party. These were the two main parties until the rise of Labour at the cost of the Liberals.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, there was pressure to have more say in politics from the new bourgeoisie. The first Reform Act of 1832 dramatically increased the franchise to all men who owned property worth £10 or more. This gave the vote to a whopping 7.5% of the population!

cont ....

I reckon go further...Abolish all religions and political parties in Australia.
Provide everyone who's interested with a computer and conduct everything by referendum on line.
That way the only thing left to discuss is of course sex, which computers are quite good at I believe.

Just a point. Being interested enough to want to participate in referenda and knowing anything about the various issues could be two different things. So we would need informed and impartial preambles. But who is invariably impartial enough to provide these preambles? And, as we all know, questions can be phrased to make the outcome more likely to be what the questioner wants.

So both the preambles and the form of the questions would need to be open to challenge. Some challenges could be justified, others frivolous. Some could be used merely as delaying tactics. And some challenges could be honestly made, but logically unsustainable because they come from a religious or philosophical faith based belief. But the people with such a viewpoint are entitled to be considered, aren't they, just as long as they aren't allowed to force their views on everyone else? [Which is an unacceptable part of the current system.]

And with this right to challenge, how long would it take for some referendum questions to ever be decided? I suppose we could consider how the Swiss do it.

As I was saying ...

1838 the London Working Men’s Club put forth the “Peoples Charter”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism

They wanted 6 MAJOR reforms to the British parliament, viz:
i) universal suffrage
ii) every man can stand for parliament
iii) parliamentarians to be paid
iv) equal electoral boundaries
v) secret ballot
vi) annual general elections.

Note: AUSTRALIA was the first country to implement five of these (at the time, RADICAL) reforms! Secret ballot is still known as the Australian ballot in many parts of the world.

The Australian constitution did NOT mention the word “party” until AFTER a 1977 referendum. The 1975 sacking of Gough was possible because casual Senate vacancies were, by “convention”, filled by nominations from the same party by the state governments. NSW & Qld did NOT do this, which gave the Conservatives power to block Supply. After the 1977 referendum, a person of the same “party” MUST be nominated!

As for the war in Iraq, it could NOT have occurred if Bush, Blair, Howard, et al had to face the electorate each and every year!

No, I am NOT a “party hack”. The choices we have now are not always the best, but I certainly know that two-party democracy is far better and more accountable than multi-party (or "independent") shenanigans.

I cannot see why the grief over the idea of annual general elections? If you’re a shareholder in a company, it must hold an AGM. We are all equal shareholders in our respective nations, states and communities.

Making our political servants more accountable may even one day help make our private enterprise corporations more accountable!

Sorry Opinionated2, but legislatures full of independents is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky to me (although annual general elections would certainly connect them better to "the people" in their constituency!).

And no The alchemist, to me it ain’t a “failed system”, not by a long way!

You CANNOT "conduct everything by referendum on line". As Rex points out, someone needs to set the agenda/questions etc. I do support Citizen Initiated Referenda however.

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Yes thats food for thought...
you would need a team of academics to phrase the questions as many different ways possible then get a computer to randomly distribute them. I wonder why this is not done already with ballot papers, where if you score the number one position you get 20% of the vote (like Fred Nile) because most people realise it dosent matter a rodents posterior anyway when the choices are so ordinary.
I dunno if I'd quote Wikipedia on too much, its an interesting place to get peoples opinions on things much the same as this site. But I'm in total agreement that annual elections (of the non compulsory type) would be of great benefit to the vibe of the place. I can only dream of the day that Gretel Killeen announces "Its time to go..."
With kind regards from tropical north Queensland.

PW Thankyou for your history lesson I appreciated it.

I suppose I could say the same as what you say about my independents, about annual elections... I just can't believe our pollies would ever put that before the voting public to test it... as they wouldn't test my everyone's an independent proposition.

They are not about passing power back to us... that I know for sure.

That is why the citizens referenda will never get up.

I don't think people want to vote on everything online... but we certainly could increase the numbers of referenda using that as a system.

The point regarding referenda though under the system I outlined you would actually be voting for the bill if the parliamentarians couldn't make up their minds.

As I said earlier I haven't thought all bits of this through it was only a suggestion.

-I wish people wouldnt invoke godwins law- its asking for trouble. You just need to do a little bit of history research to find clearer, better and less controversial figures than Hitler to hang your opponents idealogy on.

-Alchemist, please! The ad-hominem! Anyone with rocks for brains would be dead and certainly in no state to post on this forum.

-Our system isnt perfect, but old habits die hard and the only way to change anything is to work within it over time. PerthWestern describes this well (Although then goes on to propose the 'pie-in-the-sky' idea that we have an election every year- i thought that was very cute).

At least this Secular Party is doing that, working within the system to counter groups such as Family First and the prevailing norms that have us open parliment with a prayer to the Christian God. They are not 'only secular', they have other policies as well- but a party cannot stand on such a narrow platform. Of course, they lost my vote the moment i took a look at their 'Keep religion out of politics' Videos. *sigh* Politics as normal, i guess. Personal attacks and ostentatious statements.

The alternative to working within the system, of course, is revolution- which always tends to put someone worse (IE, more willing to use force to get what they want) in the leadership seat.

Still, pie-in-the-sky theories on The Perfect Government are good fun, as long as we realise they are never going to be realised in their entirety.

The point that needs to be made here is that change is always possible...

Imagine if during Federation people had thrown up their hands and said... nup too hard.... what would our democracy look like today.

Lots of people I talk to are against parties... none of them seem to represent the individual and as I said earlier once the election is held ... the party machine and the backroom boys take over and suddenly they can claim a mandate for everything.

If we object to referenda on the basis that someone independent has to word the things and explain the things then just accept what a Polly says as gospel. I mean he has worded his answer and many people seem to believe that easily enough. We demand independence in the wording of referenda and yet we don't demand honesty from our pollies.

Aussies are a complacent lot... we all like to whinge.. but when it comes to pushing for change it's all too hard. So I guess we get what we deserve ... politicians who represent the people until they are voted in and then vote along pre-determined party lines.

There is so much right with Australia but like everything there is always room for improvements... but I guess from what most people are saying here... it is all just too hard...

So I guess we can't blame the pollies for their complacency as we allow them to get away with it.

The problem we face is that everyone just goes round in circles and are scared to change. Of course we have a good system of government, thats why we have a massive growing account deficit, collapsing infrastructure, dying environment. Political rorts running in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The number of ex politicians drawing a huge pension and on the board, or working for those they supported during their time in office would fill a book.

A public service thats incompetent, shallow and stuck within reams of red tape, strangling anything other than what senior beaurucrats and politicians favour. Our countries resources are owned by multinationals, taking the majority of money overseas, they have sold of our assets and heaped us with constantly increasing costs in the name of profit, so the majority are slaves to corporations. Excellent work by the two faction party system.

Saying independents wouldn't be successful, shows ignorance and lack of foresight. Challenging the accepted norm is usually denounced, by those incapable of thinking freely and progressively. Just shows how class conscious some are.

Its arrogant suggesting only the lib lab coalition is capable of governing, the facts show the only thing they are capable of, is destroying everything and feathering their own nest.

At least 80% of the populations informed enough to make very good judgments. Having worked for quite a few years in Canberra and been privy to conversations and socialisation of those in power, I haven't met one senior bureaucrat or politician that has any creative understanding.

A revolution is coming, its called nature, try saying no to that PW.

Church and State survey for the Humanist Society of NSW.

HUMANIST MOVE TO INTRODUCE A NEW LAW TO SEPARATE RELIGION (church) AND GOVERNMENT (state) IN AUSTRALIA

The humanists recently instigated a phone survey asking questions on Church and State separation. The fact that the Humanists are paying money to ask "should there be a LAW to separate religion and government" could mean any of four things

They are concerned about the growing Christian influence in politics. (Good)
They want to find out is people believe the humanist rhetoric about there being a constitutional 'separation of church and state'
They know their own rhetoric about there already being a 'separation of church and state' is wrong and they are concerned.
If the survey shows people are not sure or don't believe there is such a division, they will try to introduce one.
It costs a lot of money to do such a survey so they will not take the results lightly. We need also to remember that the Humanist society ARE a religious organisation. Yes - The US Supreme Court actually said so back in 1965 - The Humanists (secularists) don't like people saying so. This is ALL about trying to get CHRISTIANS out of politics., not 'religion'.

The results to question 1: "DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS/IS NOT A LAW SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE IN AUSTRALIA"
The majority of people do not believe there is such a law - the second largest group say they don't know if such a law exists.
That is good for us and bad for us - Good, because the humanist (and other groups) lies have not convinced the majority - Bad, because the swinging group are open to manipulation by the loudest voices and we don't tend to be loud!
Cont:

The results to Question two were concerning - "ARE YOU IN FAVOUR/AGAINST INTRODUCING A NEW LAW TO SEPARATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA"
Result: 47.7% said Yes / 36.5% said No / 15.8% Neither or don't know.
Of course, there IS NO LAW separating the church (Christians) from the state, but there is a constitutional law separating the state from getting involved with, or ruling over, the church or what it does and says. Except in Victoria and Queensland where there are religious vilification laws and Tasmania, NSW and WA where they have homosexual vilification laws to control what anyone says including 'the church'. These are used as 'back-door' approach to controlling what the church says.

We must stay alert to the possibility that a government in Australia might just be silly enough to actually try to introduce such an unworkable law - Remember, "Power corrupts and complete power corrupts completely" That is what you get when you take 'Christian values out of government"

The survey questions and answers can be accessed at http://www.secular.org.au/ChurchStatePoll020206.pdf

Philo-Religious and homosexual villification laws are a backdoor approach of trying to control the church?? Well at least you are admitting the church would villify others if it had the choice.

Getting more christian values into government? You mean like another Constantine/Charlemagne and their wannabes, all the Popes who had armies and ruled over more than the Vatican, crusades, inquisitions, torture and executions in the name of God? Maybe a good Chrisitan Right with Bush or Howard? Pre-emptive strikes, arrests without charge, the erosion of civil liberties, guantanamo and abu ghraib? Rumsfeld's approval of torture (authorisation December 2002)? Bush's insistence the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists because they are 'bad people' (speech February 2003)?

The problem that is the basis of the discussion on this post is the individual vs. the group. Everyone would like to have their own way but no two people have the same opinions even if they wear the christian, secular or 'we the people' badge. On our own we have our peculiar set of values/priorities/policies but if anything is to be achieved we need a group to work towards a goal. The more people conform to a policy the more effectively it can be carried out.

Anyone who's served on committees or even been in a partnership (unless they've a partner who abrogates responsibility for their lives to them) will know that its no easy path coming to mutual decisions. But the problem is, in the end one decision must be made no matter how many people are involved-even 20 million people. 20 million is an enormous amount of people to get to agree on something.

The problem with having all 20 million making the decisions in our government:

-getting them appropriately informed on a very wide range of issues
-administering the voting process
-taking the arbitrary results on a range of issues and trying to make a synthesised whole out of them

This still presupposes there'll be someone deciding what issues to present, how to present them, and how to inform the voters about them also negotiating with industry and other nations, etc.

Then the result is majority rules. As someone said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner". Not that the alternatives look better but this will make Iraq a bloodbath with it's new army full of Shia, it's government predominantly Shia and with traditional and recent animosity between them and the Sunni. While the west is still screaming about the results of democracy in the Palestinian and Iranian elections.

As Philo points out he believes in Christians villifying other religions and pov's too.

In the end what makes the majority happy is living in a certain level of affluence and security from attack-most don't care for the responsibility of administration or would even vote if it wasn't compulsory. Once prosperity goes and peace is threatened it's pretty obvious most just search for a 'saviour' who'll bring prosperity and attack the 'bad people'.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor.

Unfortunately that's what we are seeing now.

Perhaps instead of having a referendum for every issue having it for major issues like going to war would be a good idea for a start. The polls showed the majority were against the Iraq invasion.

In the end no matter how much you may disagree with the current government you've got to admit the reelection of Howard in October 2004 was done after the Invasion of Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction scandal and the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, after Guantanamo Bay was set up and the long process of the chipping away of civil liberties had begun. The people of Australia spoke.

Yep, too true Aziliz (about Howard being re-elected AFTER the invasion of Iraq).

As also Bush & Blair.

I love the quote "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner" ... although I note when I googled it I only got one VERY right-wing website: www.nicedoggie.net

As for The alchemist's castigation of all things political in Australia, I can only say YES ... and ... what's new?

Except in totalitarian regimes where everyone is brainwashed into loving their "glorious leader", where are people EVER totally happy with their political leaders?

I am holding the faith however that Australia’s political system is better than most.

However I am reminded of the fragility of peace & harmony from two (Quaker) Friends who worked in a Bosnian refugee camp during the 1990’s. It was reported through the press that the conflict was because of “age-old hatreds”. However my Friend’s assessment that it was very few ratbags who has caused the trouble. The vast majority of people had been living peacefully side-by-side (and inter-marrying etc) for centuries – much like Catholics & Protestants in Australia. Not denying there had been problems in times past, but let’s admit it – it would be difficult to imagine C & P’s in Australia at each other’s throats … wouldn’t it?

… that is, until a few ratbags move into the neighbourhood with guns and start harassing people!

But no, The alchemist, I cannot really envisage a “revolution” happening in Australia.

I think everyone has completely missed the point somehow on the idea of annual general elections. The POINT is to make “democracy” a “religion” in itself! As I said above in a previous posting:

One thing ALL traditional “religions” have in common? Annual festivals that celebrate and inculcate their particular “world view”.

It would “raise the bar” incredibly for everyone and everything:- from politicians to the press to “We the People” … all of us would have far more responsibility for what we are handing on to the next generation.

Thank God it would not be some simple catechism!

cont ...

The age of reason has almost arrived, this is the way to it. We NEED responsibility in order to be able to learn what to do with it.

I TOTALLY agree with Aziliz that “most don't care for the responsibility of administration or would even vote if it wasn't compulsory”.

Which is WHY we need to keep it compulsory, in the same way that education is compulsory.

As I also said in an earlier post, in many ways we also NEED people to be reasonably apathetic about politics. Why? Because the opposite is fanaticism!

What exactly is the GRIEF that everyone has with the idea of trotting down to your local polling booth once-a-bloody-year!

I give myself enough intelligence to be able to cast a vote. Is everyone here saying that they don’t TRUST others, or what?

The beauty of the two-party system is that it AUTOMATICALLY gets rid of the loony left or right. Especially with preferential voting, parties have to appeal to the centre.

With annual general elections, ideas can more easily be mooted, and either be taken up or squashed by weight of public opinion. But nothing TOO radical can be foisted up an unsuspecting electorate, or forgotten as a “non-core promise”.

I sometimes think it is time to change the party names to “A” and “1” – so that it is clear we are voting for parties who will be a government and a strong an encouraged “alternative government” who will simply swap from time-to-time.

THAT is what will “keep the bastards honest”!

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

One would have to believe that the authors dream is only a fiction as all laws are based in someone's value system. To imagine that any politics could be void of values is nonsense.

In fact one's politics is one's values. These are the things that motivate us with passion. Hense the political conflict as differing values confront each other. To imagine that there is only one value system that all can agree upon is equally a pipe dream. Any attempt to enforce only one value system is totalitarianism and violates the freedom of others.

Democracy gives the best freedom for the individual and sharpens ideas and intellectual growth. Ones creatorial ability peaks when stressful emotions are not focused upon mere survival, but on the free immagination. That is the reason totalitarian societies fall behind and finally fail in gaining new intellectual property.

Just look at companies that employ authoritarian rulers. They might work for one generation but imaginative companies with input from many diverse opinions will outstrip them in the next.

To imagine that the freedom of religious belief is not creative fails to recognise true democracy. Solomon in all his wisdom gathered ideas from many sources and was willing to converse with many leaders to learn ways to improve his society. That is why he had wives from many countries, they brought with them a diversity of culture and opinion and this was a strategy to retain friendship with their homeland.

I agree with the ideals of the Secular Party. I will attempt to address common religious objections to its policies.

Abortion - yes, it will eventually become a baby, but until then, it is completely dependent on the pregnant woman. Forcing women to give birth when pregnant reduces them to living incubators. It would be equally logical to force healthy or even adequate donors to donate blood to save lives - despite the fact that donating blood is much less of an "inconvenience" than pregnancy and childbirth are. Enforced pregnancy and childbirth are more likely to cause harm to both mother and fetus, and cause a miscarraige due to stress. Abortion is not considered murder because only the pregnant woman can choose to terminate life support to the fetus.

That said, I do believe in reducing the abortion rate, but I do not agree with right-wing approaches and methods. Free and easy access to condoms and government-funded sterility surgey would reduce the number of abortions by virtually eliminating all unwanted pregnancies, except those caused by rape.

Gay marraige hurts no one, and gays have shown themselves to be excellent parents when given a chance. They can also help lighten the load on orphanages by adopting orphans.

Regarding voluntary euthanasia, if you are pro-life, you should support it. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it will lower the suicide rate among the terminally ill and elderly.

If you have seen the film Mademoiselle and the Doctor (http://www.exitinternational.net/mademoiselle.htm) you would understand that Lisette Nigot would have stayed alive longer if she could get help to die if she got a stroke or suffered from cancer. It was either die now, or die painfully. Palliative care and terminal sedation are insufficient (http://www.exitinternational.net/esther_wild.htm), and there is no reason to insist that the terminally ill *must* be limited to those options. Australians should not need to travel to Switzerland to get a peaceful death from Dignitas.

Can't all of you see that believing in nothing is believing in something. The Secular Party of Australia clings as much to its policies and aims as the Christians, Muslims and Hindus. It is as much of a religion as anything and the problem that we face is that it doesn't remove religion from government, all it does is creates a new religion.

Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

People are forgetting that 'religion' itself doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a 'God'. It's got everything to do with a belief in regards to that 'God'. If atheism, cynicism and freedom for rights has become the 'belief' system for this political party then it is much of a religion as christianity

Congratulations, josho. You've earned a spot in a Hall of Shame: http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=16021

I think you'll find that we don't "cling" to any dogmatic ideals, Josho.

So secularism means the devaluation of the unborn human life as they kill their own child by abortion.
They believe free-love has no responsibility for its consequences of pregnancy as it can be destroyed by the government funded medical service.

Women who fall pregnant are devalued as they are not seen as mothers but as living incubators. They devalue their own mothers body merely as incubating them.

The taking of an innocent human life is not considered murder, because only the pregnant woman can choose to terminate the childs' life. Currently abortion can only happen upon the advice of a Doctor who fears for the mother's life.

There are condoms in almost every public toilet, and chemist and supermarkest on every corner yet secularism blames falling pregnant upon those who act responsibly.

Secularism wants free and easy access to condoms and government-funded sterility surgey. The current available flooding supply of mechanical and chemical devices to avoid a pregnancy has not stopped the increase of unwanted pregnancies.

Secularism wishes to act irresponsibly yet blames the Church for their sin and avid lustful acts.

With adoption - There are four times as many happy couples willing to adopt children than there are available children.

They believe Gay marraige hurts no one. They forget aids and anal ruptures plagues many in the gay community.

They believe in terminating the life of the terminally ill and elderly.

Secularism is obsessed with killing the innocent and unwanted. They will not stop at the innocent unwanted children and the elderly. They have a Hitler mentality to eradicate those that the State determines unwanted. They are slaves to their irresponsible passions.

Let us examine a secular State.

China is a prime example. Killing of a few hundred million dissident of the State is acceptable because it encourages conformity to State laws and idiology.

There is no uneasiness of conscience in harvesting the organs of living religious prisoners, like hearts, lungs, eyes etc.

There is enforced abortions because the State believes they are overpopulated anyway. There is no freedom of choice in this matter. They inspire the doctrine of the socialist Greens as a managed State.

Socialism in the view of the State removes greed [accumulation of property] and power from the individual. People exist for the good of the State and not the State for the good of the person.

The State is the highest authority and the ideals of the State is upheld as God