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?