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.