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 > General Discussion > The Rights of Politicians versus the Rights of Electors

The Rights of Politicians versus the Rights of Electors

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
Good on you Ou, don't let the bastards tell you what to think.
Posted by freediver, Saturday, 10 November 2007 11:31:08 AM
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
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.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 11 November 2007 4:48:17 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
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.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:05:24 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
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.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:00:57 AM
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
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
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:02:10 AM
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
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 .
Posted by West, Saturday, 17 November 2007 8:00:07 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

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