Philosophy versus Christianity

Must ask if the viewpoint of the following religo'\ historical backed essay fits in with what is needed for our discussion concerning true freedom?

Must say as historical philosophers we tend to follow history and the early growth of Christianity with minds mixed somewhat between legend and spiritual reasoning.

The wonderful tale of the young Jesus if true, expresses in background so much in the Sermon on the Mount, a tale again if true, finishing humanly so sadly, yet so gloriously religiously in the Spiritual Outcome beyond the Crucifixion.

While mindful of the Thou Shalts of the disciples, heartful of the cruelty of the pagan Romans against the battling Christians, as well as experiencing a mixture of historicism and religiosity as the Roman emperor Constantine though never himself a Christian, not only gave the order to treat the Christians as normal citizens, but also took control over the Council of Nicea in which Christianity was declared not only spiritually powerful by Constantine but politically powerful.

However, as Christianity became more political, it was realised that the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount had never talked about doing down or killing off the unbelievers, but even putting oneself in the position of the so-called enemy, as was said to try and offer love and friendship to our enemies.

And so it was not long before the Thousandth Year after the Death of Jesus, it was decided to fake a document giving the now dead but possibly Spiritual Constantine the gift giving Christianity the right to declare war.

As every political historian should know, this document since known as the Donation of Constantine, has also given the right for Christian nations to practice the somewhat illegal colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong to this very day, yet making what is left of conquered natives so disillusioned?



Certainly we are now left with the major point of discussion?

Regards, BB, WA.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and who came as an alien from The Netherlands, the constitution is important to me, yet I find that politicians couldn’t care less about it unless it serve their purpose.
What we have is not a democracy but a DICTATORSHIP, aided by what I view crooked judges of the High Court of Australia. When I was for the third time (on the very day of the invasion) before the High Court of Australia seeking within section 75(v) of the constitution to prevent the unconstitutional invasion as a Prime Minister has no constitutional powers to declare war or authorise the invasion into Iraq the High Court of Australia continued to refuse to accept the application for filing, as it did for the 4th time subsequently. As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I canvas numerous unconstitutional conduct by the Federal Government (of whatever political party in power) but the real problem lies by the High Court of Australia effectively blocking attempts to hold the government accountable.
Kevin Rudd during the last federal election made known he is a federalist, yet he does precisely the opposite, as John Howard did before him.
.
If I were to train politicians on constitutional matters you would find a drastic change for the better. If I were in power I would take action to stop the rot. The problem is that the political parties have formed a dictatorship to prevent a return to democracy. Still, I fight on.

On 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld my constitutional right to not to vote after a 5-year epic legal battle against the Commonwealth. As I made clear constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot compel anyone to vote. Yet the Commonwealth still compel others to vote because it knows it can disregard court decisions at will.
.
The entire election system has been hijacked by politician to have the unconstitutional “payment per vote” for candidates, etc.
.
The above the line voting is another scandalous way.
The Sue v Hill and the Sykes v Cleary also highlight how the High Court of Australia instead of protecting the people’s constitutional rights was to the contrary undermining it.
.
Contrary to the ill conceived belief that one need a majority to oppose a unconstitutional Bill before the Parliament it takes only one Member to object and it stops it in its tracks.
A Bill introduced in the Senate but not voted upon or lost in a vote in the same session is for all purposes and intend defeated, at least so the Framers of the Constitution made clear. Yet, it is disregarded time and again.
.
We have the unconstitutional 50 nominations to be a candidate even so the Framers of the Constitution held it was a “civil right” to become a Member of Parliament, if one were to be a candidate and elected. As such this 50-nominations is unconstitutional requirement.
.
Members of Parliament are not at all entitled to all kind of perks and a salary only entitled to an “allowance” that is a one of yearly total the same for all members as a compensation for the loss of income and travelling expenses while they are attending to the parliament and no more.
.
So much is wrong but without a credible High Court of Australia system it is in the end a DICTATORSHIP.
Nothing to do with a federation as my books, blog and websites set out extensively.

David Fisher and John Tons,
< The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The media must nail the lies of politicians:media releases and other propaganda must not drown out the truth.>

Let’s also not forget about the truth in reporting on propaganda directed at the West by The Muslims
How about some balance by the Western media.

Let’s start with the Arab (freedom fighters?) who cut a man’s throat on world television while he screamed in agony. Not much said about that in the Western media.
George Negus though, and the Australian media, went on for weeks about American torture. The effect of their one-sided reporting resulting in the deaths of eleven innocent Western civilians in overseas countries . Why didn’t they harp on about the horror of the throat cutting incident in the same way. Not much was said about the man found in the street in Iraq with electric drill holes all over his body either.

There is not much said in the media about the fact that religious tolerance is a bad thing not a good thing because it leads to segregation and religious wars when those religions decide they have the numbers to rule. Why does the media not question why devout catholics like Tony Abbot, and parties like the Family First Party are allowed to run for Government when our children are taught in schools that Western Governments are secular. I believe the Family First Party has or did have one of the deciding votes in the senate. This means that religious fundamentalists are not barred in any way shape or form from gaining control of Western countries. A bit of questioning vigilance here might preserve freedom from religious persecution for our children in the future.

What about other truths that are taboo in the media, that unless intregration takes place in multicultural countries, freedom fighters and or civil wars are inevitable . Can the public handle these kind of truths, I doubt it. Far better to push the easy lie that these bomb plots are just perpetrated by a handful of radicals.

sharkfin your point is well taken. For example if one reads Shute, S. and S. Hurley (1993). On Human Rights; The Oxford Amnesty lectures New York, Nasic Books. We are forced to face the reality that no culture has a mortgage on 'niceness' or 'nastiness'.
One of the problems that we did not address in our article is that even the most dilligent of journalist will still have his or her blind spots, a genuine independent and well informed press is no guarantee that falsehoods will not be peddled as truth.
However, our concern stemmed from the fact that given the current state of the press there are so few resources to enable the truth to emerge. I am well informed on some issues. When I read some of the articles that are produced on the issues about which I am well informed it is clear that the journalists have not even done the merest modicum of research. I then reflect - these are the people I rely on for information about subjects I know little about. How can I trust their information given that they are so spectacularly missinformed about subjects that are my bread and butter?
Note this is not about agreement or disagreement - more often the reports that purport to argue for a position I myself hold are so badly put that I cannot help but wonder that it is a put up job to discredit that particular view.

<when I read some of the articles that are produced on the issues about which I am well informed it is clear that the journalists have not even done the merest modicum of research.>

BAYGON, I totally agree with what you say,I have also felt a lot of frustration going back many years now at the totally unresearched reporting of the journalists, especially on a lot of world conflicts. They never made any attempt whatsoever to delve into the historical background 0f issues leading up to these conflicts and on many occasions got it totally wrong by making quick assumptions and just printing things they were told by politicians or freedom fighters on either side without regard for what the actual truth might be.

I often think the Western schools they went to have somehow failed them as they seem incapable of thinking outside the status quo or beyond the simple surface.