I recently stumbled across a very interesting online booklet at http://www.ourconstitution.org/your_will.php Author was a certain Arthur A. Chresby who reportedly devoted 53 years of research and study into constitutional law.

The following in particular made me sit up and take notice

'The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.

By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should come before them.

It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your members and Senators can properly fulfil~their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame

The people well and truly let them know what they thought about a carbon tax. Didn't make an iota of difference. The people will once again let them know what they think about a carbon tax in September.

Do you think they'll listen this time?

Praxidice>> You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame<<

A bit harsh sport.

Given that the sovereignty of most nations of the globe has been usurped by the U.N, the IMF, and the World Bank, what part of our destiny can any national political party direct? Only domestic social policy and that is contoured to fit U.N social mandates we have been signatories to.

We have a partisan media that like our governments are directed on subjects that are taboo for national debate. Unless you are like most on this forum, you have a media only cloistered view of the world. It’s difficult to ask the right questions when the act is unknown to you.

Have you spoken to the unwashed lately? They live for today, there is no history and no tomorrow for them, what affects them today is all they are concerned with. Praxi, how can you blame simple souls for being inadequate lobbyists, they are distracted with media blitzes on misogyny and the C02 they exhale.

There are only two ways to get accountable government in Australia, either instate non compulsory voting or ask for an IQ validation, but again that is a bit harsh.

Dear Prax.,

It would be great to have our elected representatives
actually listen to our views.

Ever tried talking
to your MP? It would also be great if we could
formulate our views on being given full information
so that we could make informed choices.

But in order for that to happen we need to not be
denied access to the information we need to make those
choices. We're often given false or misleading
information. Our media reporting is often very
narrow. And our public officials don't always tell us
the truth. Only then as citizens could we
use our rights in a meaningful way.

Still I suppose that
no matter what country people inhabit, they tend simply
to accept the system they've been socialised to believe
in. Most people take the legitimacy of their particular
political system for granted.

Good Luck with expressing your views (will) to any
politician.

Note that what I put in the original posting was verbatim from the author Chresby. I intended to add the following however something didn't work out so here 'tis (all bar the last paragraph is Chresbys)

How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops it from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example:- Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:-

Dear Sir,
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
Yours faithfully,
(signed)

(Insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)

Should your Member or Senators try to side-step (and some of them are extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing, you simply write back and say:-

Dear Sir,
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
Yours faithfully. '

Given my utter disgust with the political circus generally & with a federal election looming on the horizon, Chresbys comments come at a particularly good time. All three of my local representatives are near moribund oxygen bandits, consequently I'm always interested in anything that promises to ignite a conflagration under their fat backsides. I would nevertheless be glad to hear comments from others as to whether or not they perceive holes in Chresbys story.

RawMustard - no I don't think they will listen, however what I got out of the Chresby booklet was the words of someone with vastly more knowledge & experience than mine. I figure there is nothing to lose and possibly a lot to gain.

sonofgloin - that was Chresbys words not mine, although personally I don't consider anything said in condemnation of apathetic sheeple unduly harsh

Lexi - I'm gonna give it a go, what has one got to lose ??

Your Will Be Done

It’s all because of deodorant

When the local drunk in the movie “Secret of Santa Vittoria” who was elected mayor because nobody wanted the job, was asked, what qualification he had to hold the position, he answered.

“Ia smella the people and the people theya smella me”

Before the will can be done, the will doer must first understand the will.

To understand the will you gotta smella the people.

There is still one problem.

If they did start listening, it would be an absolute catastrophe if they to pay any attention to about half the contributors on here.

This is the only post I have ever made where I expect full agreement with the basic thought.

On the other hand I expect total disagreement about which of the posters should they should be listening to.

How about a list of requirements for political office

(1) Lawyers, ex-lawyers & members of the judiciary are absolutely prohibited from entering politics.

(2) Any elected official who lies, distorts, misleads or otherwise deceives the people the people in any way will immediately forfeit all salary, allowances, benefits & perks and will henceforth be sent to the front lines in Afghanistan or other suitable warzone where they will remain until some Taliban manages to put the offender out of our misery. Should the war be finalized with said offender still breathing they will be immediately assigned to the nearest suitable conflict, in absence thereof the penalty in clause 5 will apply.

(3) Any instance of nepotism, consorting with developers, lobbyists, media, banksters, the United Nations, representatives of public companies (whether Austraian or otherwise) or nay other person or entity not being a registered voter will be subject to the same penalties provided for in paragraph 2.

(4) Total & irrevocable control of the Parliamentary Renumeration Tribunal to be vested in the people.

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, red-headed witches, dying ducks, RAbbotts, GoAnnas, General Disasters, Slippery Petes & any other bottom-feeders nominated by a minimum of two registered voters will be donated to the military with the express purpose of being used for target practice.

(6) In any dispute, the first & final decision will be made by a minimum of two registered voters. In particular, there will be **NO** right of appeal to a court or anyone else.

That should sort out at least a few of the problems

Just think that australians schools don't teach the Australian Constitution. It's a clear indicator where we're heading.

individual - australians schools don't teach the Australian Constitution

Of course not, that would make it much harder for schools to do the job intended of them ie turn out good little team spirited sheeple who follow footbrawl or thugby religiously & who belong to either the red team, the blue team or the green team

If schools taught the Australian Constitution people might wonder why S.116 isn't followed.

S. 116 of the Australian Constitution outlines the relation of the Commonwealth with religion: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This applies to Commonwealth legislation but not to the states. However, it is reasonable to assume that any institution that receives Commonwealth funding should be required to observe S. 116. Law as applied is interpreted by the courts. However, we can look at s. 116 and see how it can be interpreted to separate religion and state

School prayer, prayer at public events, religious indoctrination of any sort including what is called religious education can be interpreted as imposing a religious observance. The government allows tax exemption for funds applied to charitable purposes. However, tax exemption is granted to religion on the basis that advancing religion is itself a charitable purpose. It is legitimate to discriminate by selection on the basis of competence. A priest, minister, rabbi or imam is best equipped to indoctrinate individuals into their religion, but sectarian institutions may demand that they hire a cook or janitor on the basis of their religious identification. IMO all the foregoing are violations of S. 116.

Government aid to sectarian schools, religious instruction in the public schools, teaching of creationism or intelligent design as science, and the National School Chaplaincy program (NSCP) are current issues in education where the separation of religion and state is violated.

Dear Prax.,

By all means give it a go.

However don't be surprised if you get a standard letter
in reply, if you're lucky. Or, alternatively they may
tell you that it's not their job that it's a Federal/State
issue and you should contact the appropriate MP. Or
you may not hear from them at all.

Ring-a-ring-a-rosie ...

The best way to get their attention is to attract the media
to your cause. Bash a policeman with your placard while
demonstrating and make it on the evening news. Peaceful
demostrations don't achieve anything. (Kidding).

Have fun.

david f, - Government aid to sectarian schools, religious instruction in the public schools, teaching of creationism or intelligent design as science, and the National School Chaplaincy program (NSCP) are current issues in education where the separation of religion and state is violated.

I'd expect intelligent design to be promoted in a christian, jewish, or islamic run school, after all the parents who pay the extortionate fees would almost certainly be adherents of whatever sect runs the educational institution in question. Obviously there is the question, at least for some, of whether or not a non-secular school should be gubmunt supported. Personally I'd sooner see the total end of **ALL** subsidies / handouts / support payments as exceptions inevitably get abused, although there would be civil war with blood in the streets unless something so drastic was phased in over a number of years.

On the same theme, if there are buddhist / hindu / sikh / whatever run schools, one would reasonably expect them to teach whatever grabs them. Whilst there hasn't been a hue & cry over gubmunt funding, the same arrangements as provided for christian / jewish / islamic institutions should apply.

As for secular schools, it would be reasonable to provide an overview of both Darwinian evolution & intelligent design, although some might argue that both subjects should be optional. From my perspective, it would be treading on dangerous ground to provide only one side of the story, nevertheless the parents should have the final say on what their little horrors are taught, or not taught.

Dear praxidice,

There are not two sides of the story with evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is science. Intelligent design and Creationism have no scientific basis and should not be taught as science. The Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education (US, 2005) judgment declared that neither creationism nor intelligent design should be taught as science.

Children are entitled to a proper education in science.

Interesting point. The WILL of the people and the GOOD of the people can sometimes be two different things, and our pollies certainly spend a lot of time telling us that what they are doing - whether we like it or not - is for our own good. If they are truly there to represent the will of the people, then they must set this agenda aside and, whether they agree or not, act according to our will and not according to what they believe to be our interest.

Obviously, if they believe that, say, a carbon tax is good for us, then it is their job to present us with sufficient information to demonstrate that clearly and unequivocally. Then, when introducing such a tax, they are acting according to our will and in accordance with what is good for us.

Hmm ... I think I've confused myself here - but hopefully you'll get my drift. Eloquence isn't my forte today.

david f, funding or charitable status of religious schools/organisations does not "establish" a religion, "impose" a religion, "prohibit" a religion or have anything to do with public office qualifications.

This is why no court case has ruled your preferred verdict.

Neither are rules or practices chosen by the *school* (prayer, creationism) created by the government.

You would achieve more by arguing against tax-exemption and public funding of private entities *in general*, instead of trying to crucify Jesus one more time.
Many people, myself included, would support such reforms, but not if presented as an anti-Christian crusade.

.

Dear praxidice,

.

As I live in Paris, whenever I feel the need to contact a member of parliament in my home state, Q'ld, I do so by e-mail. I usually have to send a couple of reminders before I receive a reply.

I can't recall ever having obtained satisfaction of any of my requests.

As regards e-mails to ministers, the state premier and Australian prime minister, I always receive a quick acknowledgement followed a few weeks later by a well documented, detailed response, with an indication of somebody to contact for further details.

The procedure and quality of the response is the same whatever the government.

The response is favourable or not depending on the policy of the government in office at the time of my request.

In the case of a favourable response, I became aware, through various sources, that I was not the only one making that particular request.

I learned it was being formulated by many others and also relayed by one or more parliamentary members of the ruling majority.

I have a favourable opinion, based on this experience, of the relationship ordinary citizen/political representatives in Australia.

In France, only once did I ever receive a reply from a member of parliament and it was "no". It took six months and three reminders by e-mail and by post.

What prompted the reply in the end was a PS in my last reminder in which I mentioned that I had recently seen the Member on a late-night TV political debate, followed by a detailed description of his activities which I found on his blog, adding that I understood why he had not had time to reply to me earlier.

I never received a reply from a government minister or prime minister.

I should add that as I am a foreign resident here I do not vote in France.

I only ever voted once in Australia, when I reached voting age. I lost and never tried again - same with the lottery - I only ever bought one ticket and lost.

.

I lost and never tried again - same with the lottery - I only ever bought one ticket and lost.
Banjo Patterson,
Now that's what we call a real Aussie battler.

no I don't think they will listen,
Praxidice,
If people were to develop an interest in our Constitution then they WOULD KNOW how to make them listen. Alas , thanks to our education system !

Banjo Paterson - FWIW, I usually get responses albeit after prompting from local & state representatives but rarely federal ones. Mind you they are noticeably quicker if the subject is agreeable to them. When they are being asked to get up off their invariably well padded nether regions, their attitude is demonstrably one of 'if I ignore this long enough it will hopefully go away'. Mind you the responses I do receive are typically blah blah blah style things that appear to have been written by a machine. To give him his due, General Disaster at least signs responses and often handwrites a line or two so it looks like he's on the ball. Like the vast majority of his ilk however, its a case of lights on but nobody home. There however are several issues of considerable interest to me that WON'T go away and I'll keep bashing away until the clowns sit up and take notice. The Chresby booklet just 'might' assist here, seems with 53 years experience in the area, he should have an insight superior to many.

As we've seen over the past twenty years or more, it doesn't matter one iota whether the blue team, the red team or the purple with orange spots team is in office, in all cases their objectives are cruising peacefully along whilst furthering the interests of campaign contributors, friends, cronies & associates, lining their own pockets, avoiding accountability for anything, going on as many junkets as possible & doing stuff-all else.

In theory at least, representatives are accountable to those who elected them & are overseen by the upper house, governors, governors-general the media, and to some extent at least, the judiciary. Clearly that concept belongs with 'Little Red Riding Hood' these days, all players are in it for themselves and the constituents can go jump. I'm hoping that the letter formats suggested by Chresby just might have some magic formula ... eg his point about making it crystal clear to the clowns that in affect 'you are hereby formally INSTRUCTED to do whatever'

in office, in all cases their objectives are cruising peacefully along
Praxidice,
That's because of the Labor back bone, the public service which doesn't change it's entrenched useless senior bureaucrats even though another lot has been voted in. UNLESS we CHANGE the SENIOR bureaucrates at every election we will continue on that dreadful journey.

Dear Shockadelic,

To teach science as science rather than as something else is not an anti-Christian Crusade. Parents are free at home to tell children anything they like. However, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. The mainline Protestant schools and the Catholic schools do not teach it as science. They clearly know the difference between science and Bible stories.

.

Dear individual,

.

Well that's not actually the full story.

I have, in fact, bought several lottery tickets for my mates and various friends and acquaintances over the years, usually for their birthday or a Christmas present or something. But none of them ever won anything either.

I figured that was the confirmation of what I thought from the start - that the dice were loaded.

Same thing for elections. I always go for the loser. So it's just not worth it.

That's probably why I'm sitting here in Paris too. Most of the traffic is in the opposite direction.

I guess my life is just one long story of going against the current.

.

The boys had come back from the races
All silent and down on their luck;
They'd backed 'em, straight out and for places,
But never a winner they struck.
They lost their good money on Slogan,
And fell most uncommonly flat
When Partner, the pride of the Bogan,
Was beaten by Aristocrat.

"And then when I think that they're ready
To win me a nice little swag,
They are licked like the veriest neddy --
They're licked from the fall of the flag.
The mare held her own to the stable,
She died out to nothing at that,
And Partner he never seemed able
To pace it with Aristocrat.

Next week, under "Seller and Buyer",
Appeared in the Daily Gazette:
"A racehorse for sale, and a flyer;
Has never been started as yet;
A trial will show what his pace is;
The buyer can get him in light,
And win all the handicap races.
Apply here before Wednesday night."

The rushing of floods in their courses,
The rattle of rain on the roofs,
Recalled the fierce rush of the horses,
The thunder of galloping hoofs.
And soon one broke out: "I can suffer
No longer the life of a slug,
The man that don't race is a duffer,
Let's have one more run for the mug.

(from "Our New Horse")

.

david f - Whilst I'm only too happy to debate this particular subject til the cows come home, I don't believe it has any immediate relevance to the original intent of the thread. Would it be too much to ask that you create a new thread specifically stating your point of view in order that those contributors who wish can debate the pros and cons of educating rug-rats in the finer points of intelligent design versus educating same in darwinian evolution.

Dear praxidice,

Thanks for your suggestion, but I am unaware of any finer points in intelligent design.

david f, you will never accomplish any political reforms while you cannot see past your personal, fanatical atheism to the general issues like "tax exemption" or "public funding of private entities".

You will simply alienate potential allies and are therefore doomed to fail.

Dear shockadelic,

You have a queer notion of being a fanatic. Wanting science taught on the basis of scientific evidence is, to your mind, being a fanatic? I guess to you it is. Hypatia, a brilliant woman who was a mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, was murdered by Christian monks in 415. Michael Servetus, who discovered pulmonary circulation, was burned at the stake in Protestant, Calvinist Geneva, in 1553. Giordano Bruno, who suggested that our solar system was just one of many, was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome in 1600. None of them were fanatics. However, the Christians who murdered them were fanatics.

I am an atheist but not a fanatic. Given the choice of being burned at the stake or saying that I believe in the Christian mumbojumbo I will say that I believe in the Christian mumbojumbo. Fortunately Australia is not a theocracy, and I can be honest about my beliefs.

david f - Fortunately Australia is not a theocracy, and I can be honest about my beliefs.

Certainly, but you aren't entitled to demand that your personal beliefs are taught to the exclusion of all others, which is the distinct impression you are giving. I personally, and I suspect most Australians, have no problem with teaching BOTH Darwinian evolution AND intelligent design in schools, whether as optional or compulsory subjects being up to the particular school. In fact I consider teaching intelligent design in isolation is to be deplored. The label applied (whether science, theology or mumbo-jumbo) is immaterial). Some of the maths subjects I studied at university were within a maths unit & others were within laboratory units, whatever the label on the unit, they were still maths subjects. For what its worth, there is a substantial number of scientists who don't perceive Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are incompatible, maybe you'd find 'The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross enlightening.

.

Dear praxidice and Shockadelic,

.

I think david f has raised a valid point which is pertinent to the matter under discussion on this thread.

In his opening remarks praxidice introduces a gentleman "who reportedly devoted 53 years of research and study into constitutional law".

Individual picked up the ball and ran with it by commenting:

"Just think that Australian schools don't teach the Australian Constitution. It's a clear indicator where we're heading".

To which praxidice replied:

"Of course not, that would make it much harder for schools to do the job intended of them, i.e., turn out good little team spirited sheeple who follow footbrawl or thugby religiously & who belong to either the red team, the blue team or the green team".

David f intercepted the pass and ran for goal with this observation:

"If schools taught the Australian Constitution people might wonder why S.116 isn't followed ... Government aid to sectarian schools, ... teaching of creationism or intelligent design as science, ... "

Both of you, praxidice and Shockadelic tried to tackle him on that.

Individual came back with the comment:

"If people were to develop an interest in our Constitution then they WOULD KNOW how to make them listen. Alas , thanks to our education system !"

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the total number of students in Australian Schools exceeds 3.5 million, with 2.3 million of those attending Government schools, compared with 700,000 at Catholic schools and 500,000 at independent schools.

Non-government school numbers continue to grow at a much higher rate than government schools. In the last ten years, Catholic and Independent schools have seen a 12 per cent and 31 per cent increase in student numbers respectively. This compares with just 2.6 per cent increase in government school students.

The increasing influence of religion in education through Catholic and so-called independent schools should not be underestimated and evacuated from our debate.

Nor the fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy whose head of State is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

.

Dear praxidice,

Science is not my personal belief. It is grounded in evidence, experiment and the theory based on that evidence and experiment. Creationism and intelligent design are not science. One is free to have whatever religious beliefs they choose, but it should not be confused with science.

i don't feel there need be anything more said on the subject. You may post what you like, but I have had enough.

.

To all and sundry,

.

The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

Its objective is to teach creationist ant-evolution beliefs in public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the "Wedge strategy", describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a re-dressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

David f's remonstration on this thread not only echoes that decision but, above all, it is the simple application of what is universally considered the "scientific method", i.e., a method of research in which a phenomenon is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

As we all know, there is no scientific proof of the existence of any supernatural being or "intelligent designer".

The quirk, of course, is that a few otherwise highly reputable American physicists and biologists, albeit staunch religious believers like Chapman, such as Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University and Stephen Meyer, physicist and philosopher of science, actively advocate intelligent design theory.

The temptation is great to treat such advocates as rogue scientists but, while that may be true, their credibility with the general public finds its principal source and strength in the fact that the "science of life" is still very much in its infancy.

In other words, the intelligent design theory thrives on present day ignorance.

.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

Its objective is to teach creationist ant-evolution beliefs in public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects."

John Paul 2 has made a statement on evolution on October 22, 1996. It can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm which is a Catholic website.

Part of the statement follows:

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Unlike Bruce Chapman the head of his church, Pope John Paul 2, apparently accepted evolution.

As I've said previously, Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are not in fact incompatible even if extremists of either persuasion believe so. A simple example, few serious students regard the six days of creation as referring literally to six 24 hour days. Reference to ancient Hebrew texts shows clearly that what has been translated as 'days' should really be 'periods'. Personally I wouldn't ascribe any relevance whatever to what any catholic pope decreed as there are plenty of examples where religious leaders made decisions for purely commercial rather than sound theological ones. Control of the sheeple has always been a feature of human leaderswhip whether secular or religious. Furthermore, the bigger any entity, the more it exhibits the 'born to rule' syndrome. In this respect, the catholic church is really no different to the USA. In the beginning, probably both had some semblance of honorable intent but as both entities grew, their own existence was believed far more important than any principles they once might have espoused. Note particularly there is a VAST difference between theology & religion, especially where the 'holy' roman church is involved. Then again, there is a vast difference between the concept of the Westminster political system & the execution thereof.

I posted this some time ago re: the God thing

For the record my position is, there is no god. He/she/it has been invented by humans to explain ignorance or to control the ignorant for power and/or gain. I would like to introduce a new god that is more substantial and realistic than all other franchises.

Introducing “Little Wooden God” (Not to be confused with the less portable Big Wooden God)

Little Wooden God’s advantages over all other franchises are:

You can see it without a psychotic condition (Try that with those other gods).

How it looks is only limited by your imagination.

Everyone can have one.

It is small enough that you can take it with you (Customs bio security permitting).

If you are attacked you can use it to defend yourself.

Hollow ones have the ability to make music.

Solid ones can be used as percussion instruments.

Its carbon neutral (In fact it is a mini carbon sink).

If you can’t swim it can be used as buoyancy.

If you’re cold you can burn it to keep warm. (Replacements are not expensive)

Your children would be safe in its company.

The question of worship has to be addressed:

I would suggest Little Wooden Gods should be driven in a row on a lawn. A holy person should symbolically fend off the “Devils Coach Horse” (an insect otherwise known as a Rove Beetle) symbolized by something round and hard. This is tossed with some vigour at the holy person by one who is not so holy. All the followers could sit around and cheer when the holy person is able to fend of the Devils Coach Horse with a Little Wooden God protecting the other Little Wooden Gods driven in the lawn behind. Followers could wear funny hats and could their own develop side rituals and sects. Sounds a bit stupid I know, but stranger things have caught on.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for that interesting link.

John Paul II was the first and, for the time being, the only pope to understand that it is not in the best interests of the Catholic church to contest the findings of science.

There is ample room for religious faith without the Church having to take the risk of exposing itself to ridicule as in the case of Galileo and others.

.

We do in fact already have in Australia quite a few gods which cater to particular groups, their respective religions being footbrawl, thugby (one or both practiced by the sheeple), avarice (as practiced by banksters, public company CEOs, lawyers etc) & multinationalism / commercialism / economic growth-ism / big-Australia-ism (as practiced by bloodsucking parasites among others). In addition we have child worship as practiced by at least 90% of Australians. Quite obviously rug-rats & yard-apes must be some kind of deity as they can do no wrong & everything they say is automatically & universally regarded as true. I suggest therefore that any further gods are superfluous as society already has far more than sufficient to meet the needs of its members.

Dear praxidice,

.

You wrote:

"As I've said previously, Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are not in fact incompatible even if extremists of either persuasion believe so".

.

If you consider they are not incompatible, then they must be compatible.

According to my Oxford dictionary, compatible means "mutually tolerant, capable of existing or living together in harmony ".

It derives from Medieval Latin compatibilis, from Late Latin compati to be in sympathy with; see compassion".

In my view - and I doubt that I qualify as an "extremist" - I do not consider that Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are compatible. I see them as being contradictory.

For them to be compatible, the same person should be able to accept them, simultaneously, as being true - just as one could accept magnetism and gravity simultaneously as being true.

Holding conflicting beliefs simultaneously is what George Orwell termed "doublethink" in his dystopian novel 1984. Psychologists call it "cognitive dissonance".

A more appropriate term would seem to be "coexist", which means "to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries".

In nature, I understand (though I am no expert) that chemical substances such as metals of the alkali group, are highly reactive, some with water, others with acids. They coexist (separately) on earth despite the fact that they are incompatible (capable of existing together in harmony).

Hopefully, the coexistence of Darwinian evolution & intelligent design will be short-lived and science will prevail.

It is in the best interests of our children and humanity.

.

Dear Banjo,

You referred to Orwell's dystopian novel. The novel described a dystopia, but the novel itself was not dystopian.

Dear Banjo Paterson, Regardless of any infantile fooling around with semantics, there are no reasons whatever why Darwinian evolution & intelligent design should be regarded incompatible. Any perceived difficulties are purely in the mind of those incapable of coming to grips with one or the other. Whilst you clearly don't acknowledge the existence of a higher intelligence, a substantial number of highly regarded scientists do, and none of that group perceives a problem with the combination of intelligent design & Darwinian evolution. I've previously provided relevant details of one particular scientist & publication that covers the subject. I don't for a second expect anything I say to change a completely closed mind, so lets just agree to disagree.

Praxidice – I didn’t pick you for a botherer.

You have rightly pointed out that politics as we know it is not desirable and change is required.

Religion in all its forms is in my opinion the ignorant attempting to explain rather than accept their ignorance and a tool used by the unscrupulous to control and influence the ignorant.

There nothing there, nobody has a photo, a recording, a movie, there’s nothing, zip, zilch.

Praxidice – Organised religion is just another group of, in your words “bloodsucking parasites”.

If we as individuals had the ability to accept we will for all time never possess all knowledge, religion would not exist.

What a better place this planet would be!

A little song about war, power and religion, play it loud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7ZWfvCjBE

.

Dear david f,

.

"You referred to Orwell's dystopian novel. The novel described a dystopia, but the novel itself was not dystopian".

.

Well noted, david. I just wanted to keep you on your toes.

.

Producer - Organised religion is just another group of, in your words “bloodsucking parasites”.

They indeed. Note however that there is a VAST difference between organized religion & christianity

.

Dear praxidice,

.

You wrote:

"Whilst you clearly don't acknowledge the existence of a higher intelligence, a substantial number of highly regarded scientists do, and none of that group perceives a problem with the combination of intelligent design & Darwinian evolution".

.

I think you are referring to a "higher intelligence" exterior to the material universe, some form of supernatural entity, a deity perhaps.

If so, I doubt that anybody could rightly "acknowledge" the existence of any such entity, "acknowledge" meaning "own up to, or admit, having knowledge of". In my mind, neither you nor I nor anybody else could possibly "have knowledge" of any form of supernatural entity, albeit a "higher intelligence".

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Most likely, I think you meant to say: "... you clearly don't believe in the existence of a higher intelligence ...".

If so, that is correct. I do not. However, I am willing to do so if there is one such as you describe it.

I consider the matter to be of capital importance and faith alone is an insufficient basis for my acknowledgement of the existence of any such entity. Nothing short of regular direct physical contact in the presence of credible witnesses or, failing that, solid scientific proof, will do, so far as I am concerned.

It is not something I take lightly. Nor do I place my faith without, at least, a good deal of irrefutable circumstantial evidence.

Until such time, I remain convinced that there is no "higher intelligence" other than all those talented people who share this life on earth with me, and I imagine they are legion.

You may be interested in the results of some recent research on the subject of "Religiosity and Intelligence" I found on the internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
.

http://www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/divineintuition.pdf

PS: I am sad to read that you consider that everybody who disagrees with you has a closed mind. I hope you will reconsider that.

It is certainly not reciproal so far as I am concerned.

.

Praxidice – The last time I looked Christianity was very well organised. I consider it no different to all (without exception) other religions.

There is a lot of good stuff being done by botherers of many franchises. The purpose with very few exceptions is to influence individuals to join the flock (some are honest enough to call it a flock) of sheeple.

Surely as a sheeple yourself it is a bit rich to bag other sheeple such as Spindoc, Hasbeen, Shadow Minister and Yuyutsu. These contributors believe passionately in their chosen franchise to a degree that it clouds any logic and stifles any meaningful discussion that does not fit with their particular mindset or agenda. Just like religion?

Whether it be religion or politics it is the blind acceptance of a particular doctrine and the dogmatic belief that everyone else should accept that doctrine as well is a very dangerous, retarding and generally a self-serving principle.

I believe in the power of one.

I believe from chaos will come order.

Stability will come from revolution.

A bit of Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8

Dear Banjo,

All species develop tools for survival or they don't survive. Shared religious belief as far as I can see is an unequaled binding force when humans live in tribal conditions. However, when different groups with different religious beliefs mingle it becomes an unequaled force for conflict if those groups have a missionary impulse. The worst sources of conflicts are the missionary religions, Christianity and Islam. They are not satisfied to rest secure in their mumbojumbo. They would put it on other people. Islam was not originally a missionary religion. Early Islam regarded itself as a religion for the Arabs and discouraged their subject peoples from conversion. However, after a while they imitated their Christian opponents. One reason could have been that armies motivated by a righteousness could more eagerly slaughter other human beings.

Akbar (b. 1542), one of the Muslim Moghul emperors, came to believe that all religions are equally illusionary and should be tolerated in a state that sought real peace. Since he was emperor he was free to state any opinion he liked. In a theocracy which many countries have been in the past and are still in the present people with the same opinion as Akbar had must keep silent to preserve their status and even their lives. The secular state, being neutral as to religious beliefs allows all people the freedom to state their opinions as to religious belief. An increasing percentage agrees with Akbar. In my opinion the idea that the belief in an unprovable religious proposition carries with it the right to impose that 'truth' onto others is a pernicious idea.

>>If you consider they are not incompatible, then they must be compatible.<<

But they aren't. This video and this wikipedia article might go some way toward explaining why they are incompatible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPv4FMtxO9o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Intelligent design is not science. It uses supernatural explanations to explain natural phenomena: scientific theories are purely naturalistic or they're not scientific. If a theory involves any supernatural explanations then it falls outside the purview of science. It is probably philosophy or theology. There is nothing wrong with philosophical and theological theories but they shouldn't be confused for science and taught in science classes: they should be taught in philosophy or theology classes.

Darwinian evolution is science. It is an entirely naturalistic theory, using only natural explanations for the phenomena it deals with. Until evolutionary theory starts using supernatural explanations (and thus stops being science) or intelligent design drops any supernatural explanations (and thus starts being science) the two are not compatible.

Claiming that they are compatible is like saying astronomy and astrology are compatible - and that astrology should be taught in science classes so children can hear both sides of the 'debate'. Astrology and astronomy deal with similar subject matter: the motion of heavenly bodies. But astronomy is science and astrology is not: astrology deals with the supernatural effects of the movement of those bodies whilst astronomy doesn't consider the possibility that those movements have any supernatural effects at all. Astronomy is appropriate to be taught in science classes, astrology is not.

It should be noted that there is no inherent incompatibility between an acceptance of Darwinian evolution and a belief in the supernatural. Darwinian evolution is only incompatible with supernatural explanations for observed biological variability, not necessarily with the supernatural itself.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Banjo,

To keep men on their toes, raise the urinals.

.

Dear David,

.

You ingeniously suggest:

"To keep men on their toes, raise the urinals".

.

... and who would clean up the mess ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Wise poker players and urinal raisers limit their raises. That's a variant of Ockham's raiser.

.

Dear David,

.

You wrote:

"Islam was not originally a missionary religion. Early Islam regarded itself as a religion for the Arabs and discouraged their subject peoples from conversion. However, after a while they imitated their Christian opponents. One reason could have been that armies motivated by a righteousness could more eagerly slaughter other human beings"

.

History is fairly clear at least on one point: Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was not only a religious leader, but also an aggressive warrior and political leader.

During the 62 years of his lifetime, from 570 to 632, he imposed his new monotheistic religion throughout Eastern Arabia by military conquest, quite ruthlessly in some instances.

Whereas the conversion to Islam of today's largest Islamic nation, Indonesia, appears to be something of a mystery.

According to the historians, Islam penetrated Indonesian society in a largely peaceful way. It seems that from the 14th century to the end of the 19th century there was almost no organised Muslim missionary activity.

Prior to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and animist religions were the predominant religions in the region.

The best guess seems to be that Islam was brought into Indonesia mainly by traders from India during the eleventh century, though some Muslims had already visited the country earlier in the Islamic era.

I read somewhere that "magic" is thought to have played an important role in the appeal of the new religion to the indiginous Indonesians at the time. Also, that the local royalty were among the first to be converted, creating a watershed effect throughout the country.

.

.

Dear David,

.

"Wise poker players and urinal raisers limit their raises. That's a variant of Ockham's raiser".

.

Sounds pretty dangerous to me. I think I prefer Russian roulette.

.

Banjo - History is fairly clear at least on one point: Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was not only a religious leader, but also an aggressive warrior and political leader.

Possibly nit-picking, but Islam can be traced much further back than Mohammad. The first 'islamic' was arguably Ishmael, the illegitimate 'wild man' son of Abraham. As a mosaic religion, the root of islam is actually Moses (of the Ten Commandments & so on). The extent of the animosity between islamics and jews is interesting considering their common origins.

Dear Banjo,

Mohammed did impose his religion on the Arabs. However early Islam was regarded as a religion only for Arabs. North Africa was not populated by Arabs. The Egyptians were Hamites and further west the inhabitants of North Africa were largely Berbers. Both peoples have had Arab culture, religion and language superimposed on them after the Arab conquest. I visited Morocco. Most Moroccans learn Arabic in their religious schools, French in their secular schools and speak Berber at home.

Chinese Muslim missionaries and traders converted some of the Indonesians to Islam. It was a number of separate kingdoms. Some such as Bali are still Hindu. Indonesia recognises five religions - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity.

Jesus Christ was a Jew not a Christian. His followers reject his religion. As the song goes which I wrote and sang to the tune of the old jazz standard on 4zzz goes:

Six feet two,
Eyes of blue,
Jesus Christ,
He was a Jew.
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose,
There he goes
Preaching so that
Everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared in the abdomen
By a Roman
Blood gushing out
Rose from the dead
So it is said.
People believe without a doubt.

Jesus died
Still a Jew
Still a Jew
So why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

.

Dear Producer and Tony Lavis,

.

Sheeple, astrology and intelligent design do, indeed, seem to have something in common.

They have something in common with religion but they are not religion.
Religion, at least the major religions, are quite respectable. They are compassionate, offering solace and comfort to those in distress. They also provide numerous social services, sometimes more effectively and efficiently than the State.

Intelligent design, though perhaps originally a sincere expression of wonder coined by scientists immersed in the marvels of nature during the course of their research, is an idea that has been unscrupulously hi-jacked by a certain number of pernicious political and religious agitators.

These agitators use it as a wedge to cause a division in the education program of high school students, creating confusion by introducing theistic explanations of natural phenomena as a substitute for natural science in official high school curricula.

The proponents of intelligent design are clearly pursuing religious political objectives, not educational scientific objectives.

Tony's conclusion is quite pertinent to our discussion:

"It should be noted that there is no inherent incompatibility between an acceptance of Darwinian evolution and a belief in the supernatural. Darwinian evolution is only incompatible with supernatural explanations for observed biological variability, not necessarily with the supernatural itself".

.

.

Dear David,

.

"Jesus Christ was a Jew not a Christian. His followers reject his religion. As the song goes which I wrote and sang to the tune of the old jazz standard on 4zzz ...".
.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with " the old jazz standard on 4zzz". But I'd really like to see that song and dance act, David.

Is it negro-spiritual, Sachmo style, trad jazz or mod jazz , or more in line with Roy Orbison, or perhaps the old Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire jazz dance style ?

If you have a clip or a recording and access to a blog perhaps you could post a link to it here.

.

Dear Banjo,

I don't know who Roy Orbison is. I stopped paying attention to pop music at the time of Elvis and the Beatles.

It is Satchmo style mouldy fig jazz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbE9ZAfAvH8 contains a recording of the original song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKBR23d-UDE contains me singing my parody.

I have all the Fred & Ginger movies on disk also a lot of Busby Berkeley movies.

I like the Cyd Charisse - Gene Kelly dance in Singin' in the Rain. I've been in Gene Kelly's room at the Phi Kappa Theta fraternity in the University of Pittsburgh. Big thrill! My oldest granddaughter went to that U. She studied journalism there. With what the net has done to newspapers she's a waitress in New Orleans.

.

.

Dear David,

.

That's a great show. I enjoyed that. Thanks.

Sounds like you have had some interesting experiences, a colourful life and also have a colourful family.

I got names mixed up in my previous post. It was not Roy Orbison I had in mind but Paul Robeson.

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo – As I have stated before, it is my opinion that practice of all religion is base on nothing more than the human species inability to accept its own ignorance.

I generally religion with few exceptions it is designed to exclude rather than include unless you subscribe to their particular franchise. This has been the root of murder, death, kill, hunger, starvation, racism, misogyny to mention a few plus the continued practice of cultivating ignorance.

It is an indictment on the collective us that religion done some stuff better than the state. It is not that religion does, but the fact we don’t, we should be questioning

Producer - generally religion with few exceptions it is designed to exclude rather than include unless you subscribe to their particular franchise

Same as every man-made institution, established / institutional EVERYTHING is about power / influence / control. In general, the bigger an entity / franchise, the greater its perception of infallibility (power corrupts, and and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The point that needs to be recognized in respect of 'religion' is that its a MAN-MADE event (the concept of 'franchises' is apt), like politics, bureaucracy, law, commerce etc.