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.