The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Queensland Education Minister backs Cardinal Pell: 'Secular Experiment Failed' > Comments

Queensland Education Minister backs Cardinal Pell: 'Secular Experiment Failed' : Comments

By Hugh Wilson, published 9/7/2009

Why would Queenslanders need to move beyond the thinking of the 1870s, when our mines are open, our farms produce food, and we have tourism and foreign students?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Rusty Catheter
My cosmology has no need of a deity either. But while “Philosophy and ethics do not depend on the existence of a deity”, neither do they necessarily exclude one—whatever it might be. Neither can science say what is "true" or “untrue”; indeed, science uses rather a crude approach to the phenomenal universe, with great success, though its theories are becoming more and more arcane in response to seemingly infinite complexity. In my conception there’s no need of a god that I cannot conceive, moreover one that is inseparable from traditional/scriptural notions of him. The numinous belongs to what I don’t know, and I’m persuaded that this ignorance (human ignorance) dwarfs the so-called Enlightenment (what we do know, or think we know) in extent. But I’m getting off track. None of this is to deprecate the advances you allude to. I see you’re now calling it a “physical paradise” (I struggle to dissociate “paradise” from its Edenic etymology), by the way, but what other kind of paradise is there in a secular world view?
My point was pointing-up the ethical problem of the “paradise for some”—that paradise is exploitative and unsustainable, at least until we invent food synthesisers ala Star Trek, and less invasive, less toxic modes of production.
The more interesting angle, for me, is the perceived spiritual void at the centre of secularism. Human beings seem desperately to need to invest in some notion of ultimate meaning (a psychic hangover caused by centuries of religious binging?), and here secularism fails them utterly (spare me the Saganesque rhapsodies about the grandeur of it all—another form of mysticism). I disagree that secularism has “won”, and different polls will tell you different things about church attendances. My sense is that the vast majority are as loopy as ever over deities, more or less, or anything metaphysical. Of course we have capitalism and commodity culture to cater for secularism’s deficiencies—drugs and multi-media provide our transcendental diversions.
I’m afraid that the human race is ultimately irrational—but then who’s to say that the universe is rational? That may be a secular conceit.
Squeers
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 12 July 2009 8:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty

You suggest 'I say again, get an education, I'm not fooled'

Coming from someone who denies the obvious (creation points directly to a Creator) I find that a bit rich. I would be the first to agree it is a good thing to continue to learn but embracing your dogmas is not part of my plan.

I would suggest you need to get education. Your knowledge of spiritual matters seems very low. I would think that someone who is hell bound would look at their corrupt nature and conscience and stop hiding behind pseudo science as an excuse to deny the obvious. You don't really think your intellectual snobbery based on myths is going to help you on judgement day do you? The writer of proverbs rightly says that a fool says in his heart their is no god. Your pathetic little evolutionary tales will certainly look very foolish (as if it does not now) on that Day.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 12 July 2009 10:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If it were not for another secular experiment tried on the Queensland Guinea Pigs, by the Goss Government, the secularization of the Supreme Court maybe Hugh Wilson could get a fair hearing on his concerns, but today in the fully privatized secular Supreme Court in Queensland, he would just be thrown out with costs.

A truly honest education system would teach as history, as I was in Queensland between 1949 and 1959, the introduction of Christian democracy into the United Kingdom, in 1215, made law in 1295. It would teach as fact that the Australian Courts Act 1828 brought this representative democracy to Australia and Queensland got it when it became a separate colony. Fully representative democracy is not a right to vote once every three years, but a full franchise to both vote in elections, and vote as a member of a jury.

The words that secularized the Supreme Court are these:

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND ACT 1991 - SECT 56
56 Single judge to constitute the court
(1) All proceedings in the Trial Division are to be heard and disposed of before a single judge.
(2) For those proceedings, the judge constitutes, and is to exercise all the jurisdiction and powers of, the court.
(3) The court, including the court as constituted by a master, may be constituted at any place.
(4) This section does not affect the hearing and disposal of proceedings before a master, registrar or other officer of the court in accordance with an Act or the rules.
(5) This section does not affect any right to trial by jury under an Act, the rules or a practice of the court.

This is a fundamentally dishonest piece of legislation. The word court is un-capitalised, but it does not comply with S 79 Constitution. S 79 says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Because it gives a pagan Judge power to constitute a court, without fair just and impartial judges of fact, as existed before 1991, it repeals the Australian Constitution. That is beyond power
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 12 July 2009 12:28:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One part of S 56 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, that should be obeyed by all Judges and Magistrates is ignored every day, by the secular and totally un-Christian Judges and Magistrates of Queensland.
(5) This section does not affect any right to trial by jury under an Act, the rules or a practice of the court.

These patently dishonest individuals, these grubby little wannabe Gods, should read the recent Pape decision in the High Court, brought down on July 9 2009, and take special note of the pronouncements on s 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth).

In Queensland after I was shafted by the Supreme Court, constituted by a single Judge, like so many others since 1991, when I pointed out to the government that they had not repealed the sections guaranteeing jury trial in Queensland, in two other Acts, they consolidated them in the Supreme Court Act 1995. The pagan Judges in Queensland ignore these sections.

51 Judge may by consent try questions of fact
(1) The parties to any cause may by consent in writing signed by them or their attorneys as the case may be leave the decision of any issue of fact to the court.

259 Duty of judge and jury
(1) It shall be the duty of a jury to answer any question of fact that may be left to them by the presiding judge at the trial.
(2) But nothing herein or in any rule of court contained shall take away or prejudice the right of any party to any action to have the questions submitted and left by the judge to the jury with a proper and complete direction to the jury upon the law and as to the evidence applicable to such questions.

These are the sections that make the Supreme Court the court of the Supreme Being. If Mr Dick, the Attorney General, is fair dinkum, he will accept that there is an irreconcilable conflict between S 56 of the 1991 Act and S 51 and 259 of the 1995 Act. He may surpass even Kevin
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 12 July 2009 12:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner: If the diet is too rich for you, water it down, start with logic. Something non-existent cannot create, cannot do anything. Something that actually exists may well evolve internally, might indeed do anything, no intangible "thingy" required. See? Simple. Stumps Archbishops. Apparently clinging to what is historically, definitively dogma, your criticism isn’t compelling. Your imaginary bogeyman friend is impotent to act in this world, let alone judge in an imaginary next. You can go to *your* grave content, not stopping you. The people really sailing the boat sleep less easy to be sure, knowing some of the perils in this world. Knowing it’s up to us, we prefer Pastor not jog our elbow during important work. He is dismissed.

Go sift a religion from the thousands on offer, get consensus from the religiose about it, and I'll consider spending some time on it. Betting it's not yours. Similarly recent and derivative, I don't spend a lot of time “studying” Star Trek either. Get some idea of the gulf that exists between Pastor's impotent prayer and selecting appropriate antibiotics for the otherwise terminally ill. This usually after a simple microbiological experiment recapitulating the heart of natural selection. It isn't dogma, it's demonstrated daily. Catch up.

The wives of yank televangelists go to the “Mayo”, staffed by athiests and scientists. Only the mugs in the cheap seats have to put up with faith "healing" as a substitute. Pastor acts like a sideshow operator, sells trinkets to punters and puts his (formerly your) money where the good odds are.

Which PhD's refute biological evolution again? Is pastor's favourite the unemployed moonie? Or perhaps the one who invented the chocolate diet? About Pastor's top scientific speed, I imagine. No Nobel Prize-winners? Didn’t think so. I think his "spirituality" will be about as deeply considered. His audience is not, after all, very critical. How can adherence to a cheap PR campaign be "spiritual"?
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Sunday, 12 July 2009 10:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty the teacher of doctors writes

'Something non-existent cannot create,'

Drrr. And the chances of the 'big bang' are (not enough space to put the numbers). He then so cleverly writes 'something that actually exists may well evolve internally,' How did the 'something' come into being smarty?

Evolution is a fairytale for adults who really are blinded by dogma and a desire not to be accountable to their Maker. If Rusty is really a teacher of doctors it shows why our society is in such a mess.
Posted by runner, Monday, 13 July 2009 10:12:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy