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