The concept proposed that we need to get back to God to establish government authority is not altogether desirable nor rational. Government authority should be vested by the people (ideally). Are you are proposing some sort of benevolent dictatorship influenced by the idea of God and the rules of Christianity.

The trouble with God and religion is that when it comes down to it, it is man that interprets, translates and dictates the word of God and with it all man's imperfections, self interest and (for some) the need for power/money.

Why are there so many versions of Christianity? Because when it comes down to it, it is man who seeks to put in his own world view regardless of whatever the 'good book' sought to convey.

Some of the comments made above lead me to believe that many don't really understand atheism.

That said, it comes down to the simple fact that humans will never agree to follow one homogenous path no matter under which umbrella - Christianity, Islam etal.

PTB's idea to transfer this same confusion and disunity to government would be fraught with disaster.

i think what govt we have now is formed arround a wrong idea of god, we have govt along the lines od a strict diciplin-arian father god who says this you WILL do [or we get armed men with guns and tasers to put you before the men in blacxk dresses and lock up your flesh and blood huh-man for as long as we like

its written that woman and men will rule us..that he who would lead you will serve you...govt should be more like a mother..[protecting the weaker kids from the bully..not giving bailouts to the greedy stealing wealth/fees from the poor..[not having favourites..and making sure we all get a fair share of the common weal...noty just ever more taxes with-out representation

govt should be like a mother who feeds all equally...govt should be prepared to sacrifice of itself..[not make sure its over generous pension sceme is safely banked away..for it and its mates...like govt currently is doing...where the servants of the people..live high on the hog and the poor cant even get the crumbs off the table..[let alone anywhere near the table]..ONE PENSION FOR ALL..damm cap loc

it seems we should all be getting equal largess..from govt not only the fathers mates getting the cash...govt seems so much like a boozer in the pub..buying free drinks for his drunken mates..while his family starves

protecting his drinking buddies while beating up on the wife and kiddies...govt is out of control...its not enough to beat up protestors he sends in police to shut down those simply trying to camplain//ever tried to write to the editor of the news paper...they are part of the boys club...dont think god isnt watching

Why do you think Richard Pratt was able to make so much money? He made it because he was able to get a big law firm to buy him a get out of jail free card, if he broke the law. He broke the law and was fined 40 million dollars. So what price his indulgence? He probably paid another thirty or forty million to his lawyers. As a Jewish Gentleman who attended synagogue, with Graham Samuel, another Jewish gentleman, he was really annoyed that his efforts for charity and other good works had not made him immune from the law. The scuttlebutt is that he and Samuel were previously friends.

These days the big businesses like Telstra, the Commonwealth and The States are all in the business of buying indulgences. They buy them from lawyers, and even have their own law firms to buy them from. Crown Law and the Australian Government Solicitor are nothing more that law firms wholly owned by the Governments. On top of that to be able to keep in good with the lawyers, the Commonwealth spent another four hundred million on legal services. The legal profession is so dishonest, it refuses to accept Commonwealth legislation that has fixed this problem, and still thinks that in 2009, they can continue to sell indulgences to their rich clients, provided the media continues to support their lies. This is Liberal Party Government, and Labor in the Commonwealth has fixed it, but the State Labor Dog, is wagging the Commonwealth tail.

When the State and Federal Governments own all the Judges and Magistrates in Australia, having bought their services from them by various bribes ranging from about $3000 a week for a Magistrate to $7000 a week for a High Court Judge, then the legal profession has something to sell.

The Commonwealth has actually made laws to allow ordinary people like you and me, to be Graham Samuels. It has made the laws to restore the system, and the High Court has ruled that it must be restored. Problem is Judges Rules of Court exclude the legislated Law

We will know God is back, when we are given free and totally unfettered access to the Royal courts of God Almighty. This will happen when the members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth stop frothing at the mouth, getting drunk on their salaries, and start to question the exercise of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth by unelected individuals drawn from the legal profession.

For all the huffing and puffing going on in this thread, the fact is that as a collective community we are realizing that Judges are an abomination. Judges have been a menace ever since one man wanted to dominate another. We are supposed to worship a Judge instead of Almighty God. If the Lord’s Prayer is to have any meaning, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, then there has to be a place where we can pray for justice. That place in the United Kingdom from 1297, was a court.

We are entitled to courts. We should not have to be Muslims, Jews or Communists with a Little Red Book, or a Big Black Book, written by Judges in conclave, with absolute power to overrule every law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. That is what the Rules of Court made by nine separate judiciaries, do. They overrule the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth has legislated to give everyone the right to full participation in this democracy. S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 does that, because justice is a business and a very profitable one. You as members of the Commonwealth, should be in every court. You should not be excluded by Rules of Court and rulings made by Judges. The Rules should be the servant of legislation, not the master. Currently the servant is greater than his master, as Judges rule. Even pagans know you cannot have a disloyal servant.

Every Judge is a pagan. They cannot be Christian and be a Judge. We can be judges, with two or more of our fellow subjects, but only in a jury. That is law

I cannot make sweeping statements without giving examples; S 6 Supreme Court Act 1970 ( NSW) states: Any Act in force immediately before the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the rules shall be superseded to the extent of the inconsistency and while such inconsistency continues to exist. It commenced on the 14th October 1970, but the Governor had no constitutional power to assent to it.

S 17 Supreme Court Act 1970 does not apply the Rules made under S 6 to Criminal Proceedings. So if the State prosecutes you they must comply with the Commonwealth Constitution, but if you are unlucky enough to want civil justice, then you must worship a Judge and he makes the Rules.

What S 6 means is we no longer have any reason to respect the Commonwealth. The Judges make the Rules, and we better like it. The Judges are not our servants, they have one loyalty and one only, to the legal profession, and how they gouge us, one and all. All States including the Commonwealth have abolished courts and created Courts.

In 1363, a law was made in these terms: 36 EDW III Ch 9: Remedy in Chancery for breaches of Statute: If any man feeleth himself grieved contrary to any of the Articles above written, or others contained in divers Statutes will come into Chancery , OR ANY FOR HIM, and thereof make his Complaint, he shall presently there have remedy by Force of the said Articles and Statutes without elsewhere pursuing to have remedy.

By 1487, Judges in Chancery were selling indulgences, so in 4 Hen 7 Ch 20,[1487] the Parliament took away the power of a Judge to grant an indulgence, and only by a jury of 12 men and not otherwise, was a good discharge from a complaint obtained.

This was all incorporated into Australian Law in the Australian Courts Act 1828 and protected by the Australian Constitution in 1900, by S 118. God blessed the English with common sense, and common sense makes common law. Accept nothing less that totally Christian law; its your birthright

Peter The Believer forgot to add an important little message at the end of his rambling monologues. He forgot to add "In my 'opinion'".

He thinks that what he writes is "fact". Good on him - - - - that's free speech in action within this great country. People are allowed to think and write all sorts of nonsense, and that is as it should be.