...Continued

<<Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins?>>

Absolutely.

That’s one of the reasons I challenged his absurd views on the topic.

<<Here I disagree, the same as I disagree that I should accept blame for what e.g. the Young Earth Creationists claim...>>

I also don’t think you should accept the blame for what Young Earth Creationists claim, because you don’t make those claims.

But if Young Earth Creationists claimed that it was inappropriate to scrutinise their beliefs because it was their “faith”, and you were a Christian who made others out to be ‘rude’ or ‘intolerant’ or not ‘living and letting live’ for criticizing religious beliefs, then yes, you would need to accept some of the blame.

<<...or that mathematical physicists should accept blame for Hiroshima, manufacturers of kitchen knives for stabbings, etc.>>

That analogy is absurd to the point of being totally unrelated to what we’re talking about here.

If you invented the human emotions that went towards people making out as if their religion was a no-go-zone, then it might be a different story.

Sorry George, I read this part wrong....

<<Do you mean to say - this coming after you refer to Dawkins and Examinator - that also Examinator ought to accept the blame for some radical views of Dawkins?>>

I thought you were asking if Examinator should accept some of the responsibility for the radical views of some Theists.

But even that would be wrong as I have never suggested that moderate Theists should accept responsibility for the “views” of radicals. Only that they are a part of the problem by helping to perpetuate this idea that religious belief is something that should never be criticised.

I won’t be continuing this if you are going to keep subtly altering what I say in order to attack straw men. It’s unhelpful to the discussion, and only helps to make it look like you really are trying to bog me down in semantics to divert attention from my original points - something you wouldn’t need to do if your position was reasonable.

Besides which, I don’t know of any radical view held by Dawkins. So I don’t know what you’re talking about there.

Even if Dawkins did have radical views, then how would Examinator speaking out AGAINST them mean he should take some of the blame for them?

Sorry, but it seems to me like you’re getting so tied up in obfuscation now that you’re not even making much sense anymore.

This discussion has provoked more posts than a Sellick article. Probably because Christianity is really central to good government. We have posts decrying the saying of the Lord’s Prayer in the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the start of each days work. However what most of you have failed to understand is that Christianity is the greatest grass roots political organization in the world.

Wherever it has taken root, women are treated with respect, children are fed and nurtured, and government is for the people by the people. The departure of the English from their Christian Roots means that their government, in flirtation with Atheist Europe, has departed from their fundamental systems of good government, into the sort of government that destroyed Eastern Europe.

Instead of a strong Central Government on Christian Principles, we have a wishy washy central government divided between Christians and Atheists, unable to run a p**s up at a brewery, let alone a fully functioning democracy. We have a High Court that no longer issues process in the name of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, despite a law that says they must, and a competition between the atheists in the ALP to see which one can ruin Australia first.

So insidious has atheism become that even the versions of the Holy Bible used in Anglican Churches have taken the Christian word, commonwealth out of Ephesian 2:12 and substitued citizen. If you have a Authorised King James Version you will see that both the Lord’s Prayer as said in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and the word commonwealth are in it. They are not in some of the Atheist influenced Bibles, that modernizers have installed. This atheism has extended to all the facets of the law. Magistrates refer to themselves as God. We have it on tape: “In this Court I am God.” No wonder drought has been stalking this land.

The ultimate power in a democracy is a jury of 12 people sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth. KR continues to allow Atheist tails to wag the Christian Dog: the ALP risks defeat

Atheism in Australia was legislated into law by the Australia Act 1986. It created nine separate and equal Gods, ( Sovereign State Parliaments) who on pain of a fine we are obliged to worship. Instead of One Government under Almighty God and relying on the blessing of Almighty God, we now rely on the blessing of a Mafia Don, in charge of a State Government, with the power to destroy all opposition absolutely. We have nine leaders in Atheist Australia, all more or less equal, even if their constituency is no bigger than inner Sydney. One of these is currently Liberal, and eight are Labor.

If the so called Christian Prime Minister wants to have a State that can be governed effectively, he must use his last few months to install Christian Government. He must sack his lying Attorney General, a member of the Cartel that rules Australia, and appoint Chris Bowen, the Cartel Buster to the job, with instructions to restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the paramount law of Australia. The cartel is the lawyers union, the last undisciplined union in Australia, busted by the amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 introduced by Chris Bowen and passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth this term.

As a Christian Nation we should be governed by the people for the people. Instead we have nine atheist occupying armies in addition to the Australian Armed Forces, called State Police, all under a different Parliament. We have a Governor General who has so far refused to deputise every Magistrate in Australia as Her delegate, so that they know they represent Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. Of course the Commonwealth should pay them the same as a Federal Court of Australia Judge, about $6000 a week, but that is what we need to restore grass roots political power to the people locally.

These Magistrates should know that S 116 Constitution was introduced to preserve Christianity as the State Religion. Give us that basic reform Kevin, and clip the wings of your State Mates. Do it before Tony does

Peter.... "These Magistrates should know that S 116 Constitution was introduced to preserve Christianity as the State Religion".

That is simply not true.

Do you have something to back up your assertion there?

It looks like this new High Court challenge will be testing this very question anyway, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

If this fellows case fails, of course, that will allow the Commonwealth to fund religion, and given the leanings of our current crop of politicians, they will do just that as quickly and as much as possible.

The long suffering tax payers will be further lumped with funding myths as truth, even Truth, and it will mark the end of any notions of secularism in Australia, and we will go backwards a few hundred years to be on a par with the Taliban regime we are currently fighting against.

Funny old world, eh?

I call the Attorney General a liar, and an Atheist liar at that, because he wrote to Robert Oakeshott, stating that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not part of Australian Domestic Law. I went to the University Library, and went to the year book of Acts passed in 1981. The Human Rights Commission Act 1981. It says

Whereas it is desirable that the laws of the Commonwealth and the conduct of persons administering those laws should conform with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights …… and other international instruments relating to human rights and freedoms.

BE IT THEREFORE ENECTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows: and the Covenant is Schedule 1 to that Act.

Assented 14th April 1981. No 125 of 1986. An Act to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission , to make provision in relation to human rights and in relation to equal opportunity in employment, and for related purposes.

BE IT THEREFORE ENECTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows: and the Covenant is Schedule 2 to that Act.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is enacted as:
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Queen , the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia as follows ;- and S 13 (2) says: Every schedule to an Act shall be deemed to be part of an Act.

Since Act no 8 of 1991, the enacting words have been left out of the Acts passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Atheists in concert, have replaced the Queen without a referendum on Acts enacted by all Parliaments. This repeals the Constitution and makes Atheism the law of Australia. Is it any wonder I am angry. The law relies on anger for its enforcement. Angry young men use violence, angry old men should be able to use the law. Remove the law and violence rules. Young men use knives or guns