Dear Polycarp,

Pericles wished you a "hate-free day."

I second that for all of us.

"Fac alteri ut tibi vis."
(Do unto others).

Or ...

"Facta non verba."
(Deeds not words).

Foxy
A person can take an Afirmation as an alternative to the Oath.
In this you affirm to tell the truth etc.
Oddly enough it was originally adopted because some Christian denomenation are not allowed to swear on the Bible.

"The religious society of friends" ("Quakers" as they're commonly incorrectly known) are one such group.
'Quaker' was derisory nick name on account of the length of sermons (often over 2 hrs and the preacher would sway, not surprisingly) given to them by the founder's disapproving father in law, a judge.
It's very different now they're a non dogmatic church and meetings are largly quiet,contemplative. Betcha Polycarp didn't know that! :-]
(smug look)
By oath I don't mean like one person in Adelaide years ago was supposed to have done when asked "Do you swear to tell the truth.." he intejected with" 'ken oath your wigship" He was fined $20 for being a smart arse.
and no it wasn't me either :-)

Foxy your contribution to these threads reminds that not all Christians wish to impose their religion on others.

Another Christian, like your good self, posted the following in yesterday's Age 'Letters to the Editor'

"Quiet, please

AS A Christian, I feel the question of whether or not the Lord's Prayer should be read in Parliament can be answered by following one of Jesus' teachings: to treat others as we wish to be treated.

Just as we Christians would not feel comfortable with a prayer from another religion or an atheist declaration of the inexistence of God being read in Parliament, we must respect that atheists and people of different faiths do not feel comfortable with the Lord's Prayer being read. Perhaps in a place where silence is so rare, a moment of quiet time instead of any specific prayer would allow our MPs to pray, or not, to whomever they believe in."

30/10/08

Cheers

Hi Exammy.. u do like to snigger don't you :) Hmmm..I imagine you like old Steptoes dad...

Pericles.. I could run with those predictable comments of yours but it would defeat the purpose of the thread.
Let me just say that you simply underlined the problem.

1/-You don't know anything about it.
2/-You then declare those who do to be wrong.
3/-It is irrational and absurd to claim ignorance then authority in the same breath. "I dunno bout that but sure as eggs you don't either"

You have no basis for statement 2 if statement 1 is true...that's basic logic.

Fraccy.. as I've said.. I can find no other argument for retaining the Lords prayer than that I like it being there. I'd prefer it was something all members of parliament could subscribe to, but the nature of people and the Christian faith itself necessarily means we cannot impose it.
Currently 68% of Australians claim "Christianity" as their religion.
(2006 census)

Why should parliament not reflect this ?

Reasoning is:

1/ Most Australians by far are Christian (almost 70%)
2/ Parliament is representative of 'the people'
3/ Thus, it should reflect the religous flavor of the people.

Just in terms of democratic process..is there a problem with this?

I cannot accept the argument that something is being 'imposed' because the very nature of democracy means SOMEone will have SOMEthing 'imposed' on them by the decisions made in Parliament.....no?

The only argument I can accept is that there is no Biblical need for it to be there.

PC: "Just in terms of democratic process..is there a problem with this?"

Not at all. Your understanding of representational systems is remarkable.

I further propose that, because 80% of Australians live on the Eastern seaboard, that Australians who live south, west, north and inland should no longer be represented in parliament.

Democracy, innit?

Boaz, you have a great and apparently limitless capacity for missing the point entirely.

>>Let me just say that you simply underlined the problem.
1/-You don't know anything about it.
2/-You then declare those who do to be wrong.
3/-It is irrational and absurd to claim ignorance then authority in the same breath. "I dunno bout that but sure as eggs you don't either"
You have no basis for statement 2 if statement 1 is true...that's basic logic.<<

But I do know about rabble-rousing, Boaz, which is my statement 1.

I have made a study of it over the years, and recognize its characteristics, its strategies and its tactics.

And what I see in your bloody Surah bloody 9 argument is a classic instance of the famous South Park Chewbacca defence.

"This is Chewbacca, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! None of this makes sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!"

The Wookie in your case is bloody Surah bloody 9.

Explaining at great length the import of this particular translation, or enlightening us with a statement of corroboration from that Imam, is exactly analogous to the South Park lawyer's claim that Endor, Ewoks and the planet Kashyyyk are relevant to the case under consideration.

I have no need to study different versions of ancient texts to recognize when rabble-rousing is taking place, in much the same way as Mosley's audience didn't need a detailed knowledge of the Torah or Talmud.

Let's see if I can sum it up.

You are talking about the meaning of bloody Surah bloody 9.

I am talking about using ancient texts - any ancient texts - as rabble fodder.