The public expects to choose its leaders with full knowledge of the opinions held on economic, social and environmental matters. A fully informed electorate is the essential engine of democracy.

In light of this, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc has sent a Social Issues Survey to federal political aspirants regarding modern community concerns. It is the unwritten task of investigative journalism to seek, question and report the attitudes of contenders, on not only monetary and ecological policy, but any hidden personal beliefs. This is especially the case if those values influence politicians to vote against the public interest.

The AFA Social Issues Survey is unique in that it supplies the media a framework on which to build a helpful profile of those seeking to exercise power on behalf of all Australians.

David Nicholls, president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc stated; “Western democratic systems are beset with people using dogma instead of rational and reasoned evaluation as a guide in making law. This is leading civilisation back into a Dark Age mentality. Those recognising the threat are duty-bound to react according to their capacity.

When oppression grows, brought about by inaction, it will be a heavy burden to bear.”

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/survey.htm

Contact:
David Nicholls
Phone: (08) 8835 2269

Head Office:
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573

Website: www.atheistfoundation.org.au
E-Mail: info@atheistfoundation.org.au

So you'll lobby against pollies who have faith?.

Isn't only having pollies who have no faith just as "bad" as having pollies who only have faith?. Obviously it is, so why do you need to know what they believe in on a less than public level?.

You're trying to convince me of something that's completely contradictory to what you're insinuating we need, aren't ya?.

the pollies will not be greatly troubled by your organization, david.

i urge you to find out what a 'right' is before going any farther.

you might profit from reviewing that children's story about putting a bell on the cat, also.

it wouldn't hurt to find out what 'democracy' is, either. you might decide asking questions of pollies is of trivial importance, since you can not tell if they are lieing, or punish them if they are eventually found out.

Hear, Hear, Demos... I fully agree. Politicians follow their own (usually - their party's agenda)... All you usually get is - spin. Have you noticed in recent TV interviews - they avoid answering direct questions, and simply spout off the party's election hype, consistently attacking their opposition. What they really think?
Perhaps only their wives know ... and they're not about to say.

StG,

I think you have missed the point. The AFA expects politicians to make decisions based on the evidence before them and not on predetermined answers.

DEMOS

Good luck in your voting without knowing what the opinions of your politician are.

Foxy,

You may be satisfied with the dishonestly of political-speak, the AFA is not.

David

David,

Of course I'm not satisfied with the dishonesty of 'politicalspeak.'
But do you really believe that you'll get an honest reply from politicians to any social survey?

Or for that matter that they will even bother to fill it out themselves. Have you ever written to any politician? Who replies? Not the man himself - but some admin. officer on their behalf - again, towing the party line.

Surveys - are about as useful as polls ... but I guess if they make your organisation feel like its achieving something useful - go for it.

Yes, Foxy, we receive replies from politicians frequently. But that is hardly the point here. I would have thought you would be pleased the AFA is attempting to bring honesty to the system. Without being rude, what are you doing about it, or are you just satisfied in knocking those trying.

David

Yeah, I missed the point. I actually still don't get the point. I think there's a different in asking for honesty, and demanding transparency.

Just 'cause I'm having a blonde day, can you please state exactly what you're trying to achieve, David?.

David,

I'm certainly not knocking you. If politicians do reply to you -
Congratulations! And, as I stated earlier - go for it!

StG,

I guess you are not reading the other posts. In short, that politicians are open about personal religious ‘beliefs’ they hold. They may not be the best way of making decisions for those that do not ‘believe’ the same things. As an example, a politician may ‘believe’ that indoctrinating children with “intelligent design” is equal to or better than educating about evolution and they will vote this into law accordingly given the opportunity. Fine, if they wish to ‘believe’ such a thing, but it is not fine if they vote on laws to make all children 'believe' it.

My prior knowledge about a politician ‘believing’ the above example would give me enough information as to not vote for her/him. Others would differ and may vote for her/him because she/he does 'believe' in "ID".

Parliamentarians should use every bit of available evidence to arrive at conclusions in making laws for us all. They should not rely on words written thousands of years ago which have many interpretations.

I hope this has made it clearer on you 'blond day', StG.

David

The Australian Government is thinking about setting up a 'consultation blog' or forum to give the public a chance to comment on policy and proposed legislation.

If you'd like to help shape this blog then take this quick survey at

www.openforum.com.au/Survey

It could lead to something really worthwhille,

Thanks.

Religious or not , I don’t care too much .

At this point in time I’d just be happy to have a local mp who would actually bother to read a bill & ask himself ‘Is this a help to my electorate ? Or a hindrance ?’
before voting for it .

How about we demand they disclose their medical history, and that of their family members because of the emotional bearing that might have on decisions based on stress. Stool samples, blood tests, aptitude testing, IQ testing, accept only those who've 'served' in the police or military for at least 3 years, psych evaluations, get them to do a 'spit handshake', have them swear on the Bible, Koran, Torah and whatever you read (everyone is valued in society, aren't they David?), do a 'cross my heart and hope to die', and finally, sacrifice a goat to include the satanists.

Whatya think, David?

Would you consider allowing evolution AND "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum?. I mean, you're hard pressed to have anything that remotely resembles Christmas at schools 'cause we can't insult our Muslim and Jewish brethren, let alone teaching the concept of Christianity in this Christian based society. Go to Saudi Arabia and demand what you are, David. Your head would be "Express Post" back to your missus inside a week.

Here's some trivia, David. When you spell check bible, torah and koran, only torah and koran come up as needing capital letters at the front, but not bible. Did you have something to do with that, Dave?. ;o

(you'll need to try it in "reply")

StG,

The secular portion of society is merely demanding that politicians use all available evidence and unhampered reasoning in developing legislation. If you consider that is inappropriate, well that is your poorly thought out opinion. The rest of your post did not contribute anything worthwhile to the topic.

StG, allow me to ask you a couple of questions;
• What is wrong with the above criteria?
• What would constitute a better criteria?

David

You used the word yourself. 'Secular'. Where would it stop?. As per my going on about politicians fitting every criteria that any "secular portion" might dream up. Why don't Satanists and Pagans have the same rights as you're demanding?.

Demanding politicians disclose their fundamental beliefs through legislation based on the whims of a "secular portion of society" for the purposed of demonising their proposals goes against the fundamentals of what this society is based on. Of course unless those beliefs have destructive, illegal and immoral aspects to them.

What would constitute a better criteria?. Freedom of belief without discrimination from "secular portions of society". Where would you stop?. Only agnostics and Buddhists can vote on certain legislation?.

I heartily agree with you David. There are so many flippant and irrelevant posts on this site, I wonder at their logic and comprehension of your statement. It seems perfectly logical to me to know the attitude one's representative in parliament may have to many questions to which they are voting on behalf of constituents. I would like to know how their opinions are prejudiced by their beliefs in eugenics or euthanasia for instance...........particularly the latter as I am sure there is a chance that more than 50% of the elderly population are in favour of it
Keep up the good work David. I don't need to tell you that all religion is conceived by man to rationalise the unknown. I have no objection to others having their "faith" but I object to them imposing it on me.

Foxy, I’m not trying to upset you for two reasons and I apologise if I did. You didn’t say anything upsetting and Foxy Love, your namesake, (Character in Drawn Together SBS) is one of my heroines. ;)

Thank you and I agree with you snake, but I will give StG one more chance at being rational. Here we go.

StG,

I’ll type very slowly so you can better read what I am saying. I do not intend to repeat myself ad infinitum. I said secularists require that; “…politicians use all available evidence and unhampered reasoning…”

This means, (Now are you following me?) that all the evidence about certain proposed legislation has to be considered. (Are you still with me?) That evidence must then not be biased by people’s personal beliefs, whether they are Satanists, Christian, Muslim or UFOlogists.

To make it clear to you, secular people do not have beliefs as do religious people or UFOlogists etc. Secular people work on the evidence and that is what we require politicians to do also.

If you wish to have a rational conversation and start again, then I will oblige. But you have to resist jumping all over the place. No hard feelings.

David

Spam man gets narky. You hurt MY feelings too dave.

Lets leave it at the point where people deserve their right to privacy. No matter what their role is in society.

The title of your spam is "The Rights of Politicians versus the Rights of Electors". Democracy means we ALL have rights, Davey boy. My point lays there. Everything else you're on about is null and void considering that issue from the top.

Good luck in your endeavors.

What's your definitive proof there is no God....Dave?.

Proving negatives is an irrational religious concept. If I asked you to prove there are no fairies, would that be fair. (And could you?) More to the point StG, what is your proof that there is a god? I mean proof that everyone will accept, not just those of a particular religion or a sect within that religion. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to hurt your feelings but if you play in the big boy’s puddles you have to expect to get wet.

David

A joke about the feelings thing. Foxy Love?, please. Slurp, slurp.

In the immortal words of one Ozzy Osbourne; "Fairies wear boots", davey boy. There's your proof. Well, you started it.

Definition of Atheist; "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Fair enough (In some regards), but what do you call someone who actually has a foundation based on disbelieving someone elses beliefs?. Freud would have a field day on that concept. Faith is how the faithful prove their God (billions can't be wrong, can they?), but how does someone who believes in nothing prove the existence of nothing?....

I'm all understanding of agnostic, but you!...well, intrigued is one word for it. Like a kid with a fly that has its wings removed.

Here's some wisdom for you, Spam Man. Reality is what the majority believe.

Good luck in removing more rights.

StG - with all due respect, I think you've lost the plot, old son.

CJ~ Clowns like that deserve nothing but time wasting drivel. Join their forums, why don't ya?. ;o)

No thanks StG - I'm not really keen on fundies of any persuasion :)

Mr. and Mrs.
Only because I am insisting on the democracy,human rights and
science in China,I have been deeply subjected to the stroke and
persecution by the absolutist political power of the
CCP(Communist Party of china), the article and theories also
are forbidden to announce completely, and Be knowing perfectly
well a way, I am not under the circumstance of the mental
illness, they order the police men and the relevant personnel to
jail me to the mental hospital by brutal force, and strongly force
me to get a so-called treatment. The absolutist political power of
the CCP(Communist Party of china) have been doing much
more cruel shameless behaviors to inhibit me. This is’nt only a
personal injury to me, actually, this injury is also to the chinese
nation and the whole human being,so,I hope the whole world
and the people who have the sense of righteousness would
rebuke the CCP for their behavior, and use the powerful valid
means to forbid the CCP’s inhuman treatment to me, and help
me to end and get away from the current’s inhumanes lifes. This
kind of help from you will contribute to be ending this crime
that the human being can’t been accepted ,and maintain the
dignity of the whole human being. Regardless now, still
future,the human being would have to face and have to deal
with the Anti- civilization’s absolute ruler, power politics and
the endless lies form the CCP(Communist Party of china).
Yours faithfully
Ou yang jun
2007/5/7 at home in ji’an city china

The follow is some achievements I had achieved:
1, established the theory of “the ghost and the god is created by
the aliens ", I think the ghost and the god like the god,ghost and
the Buddha is made by a height flourishing civilization,they
made this kind of virtual person’s society in the Earth.So Man
can’t see this ghost’s society include the God.

Good on you Ou, don't let the bastards tell you what to think.

StG: "Reality is what the majority believe".

Hmmmm, "All Jews are evil", perhaps?

How about, "Saddam has WMDs and we have to depose him immediately"?

What about "Refugees are throwing their children overboard"?

The majority is a particularly poor judge of reality, StG. Looking at this thread, I'd suggest that the same applies to religious fruitcakes.

Stg reality is what the majority think? No single belief is held by a majority. Every god that has ever been invented including the latest franchise gods of Christianity , Islam and television has remained a minority. No god has ever had any where close to 50% popularity. There is an exception , everybody is is born and dies an atheist as small children cannot believe in gods until they can conceptualise monsters under the bed and dead people have not got a functioning brain to believe anything. Most people that have ever existed are dead and so the majority of people end up as Nihlists. Of those of us who decended from North Africa and Europe and Central Asia more of our ancestors while they lived believed in Cattle than the few generations which experimnented in monotheism. So by popularity politicians should sacrifice a bull to nihlism.

What do politicians believe in ? They usually betray themselves if they are superstitious. We know the Dungeons and Dragons players because they shuffle off to church or make twilight deals with clergy.

Politicians should stay clear of religion as it has no business in federal politics.
.
I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) "religious objection" but includes also any secular belief objection.
.
If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being "theistic belief" then it would be unconstitutional.
.
See also; WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 197
.
See my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

.
On 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria ruled in my favour refusing to vote on constitutional and other legal grounds such as my set out quoted in the following post.

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; "religious objection" (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that while using the "religious objection" referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an "theistic belief" based "religious objection" but in fact it also includes any secular belief based "religious objection", as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for an "objection". This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only "theistic belief" based "religious objections". Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of "religious objection" have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an "religious objection" requires to state his/her religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a "religious objection" as the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a "religious objection". Therefore, the wording "religious objection" is to be taken as "objection" without the word "religion" having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-200

My response is that it is morally corrupt and unethical to withhold religious beliefs Mr G.

First of all religion is the institutionalisation of superstition, a religion is a union , a collective of people who follow the same occult rituals and endorse the same occult agendas. No occult organisation wether it be Catholic or Baptist or wether it be occultist wether it be Christian or Moslem or Budhist or Jewish will formulate a begnine dispersion of policy expectation , that is for example the Pentecostal Demand that women grow their hair long less they are possessed by satan will be transferred to all women and so even those who do not believe in such fairytales will be required to wear their hair long or be severely punished for no material or ethical reason.

God is fantasy and therefore gods works (and words) are the invention of man. If a politician is representing god , he is representing a minority of men and the agendas of those men. Thus to over simplify this point (it requires a book) politicians are not morally forthcoming in the first place since they they represent the position of a mythical creature (god) and secondly the agendas of men who are morally void by claiming to be men on behalf of god in the first instance.

Thirdly is why should a superstitious persons belief take preference over another? If I were to believe if I vote I will turn into a frog ,I guarantee I will be compelled to vote, yet frogs exist and Jesus does not and so the likely-hood of turning into a frog is more plausible than a darkage magician returning life and raising the dead.

Fourthly is what the dead say about the validity of religion and gods .