"THE Greens' campaign to scrap the Lord's Prayer from parliament is so exquisitely boutique, bourgeois and anally introspective that it is hard not to believe it was deliberately conceived in an effort to make the party even more repellent to middle Australia than it already is.

Indeed, it is almost as though the Greens' Marketing Sub-Collective had stumbled across a hitherto undiscovered rock-dwelling hermit who didn't already regard them as a pack of inner city wnkrs and thus determined that they would have to ratchet up their brand messaging."

The Telegraph.

Is this the greens' way of differentiating themselves from the main parties and real issues? Is this the party for whom reality is too hard?

Or is it the media choosing to pick up on one issue and ignore the rest of the Greens’ policies?

This is just another SM anti-Green post. There is nothing new in the idea of separation of powers. It is an integral part of modern western democracies and the idea that religion and politics should be inter-linked is a scary one.

The Lord's Prayer is a private activity that politicians are free to cite at anytime at home or in Church. We can only hope it has some effect on their behaviour. So far it appears to have no effect whatsoever on the integrity of parliamentarians.

Ludwig
Have you ever read the Greens policies? If so which ones don't you like. I can never work out the vitriole towards the Greens. Think about where the negative press comes about the Greens and ask yourself why.

I have a love/hate relationship with the Greens; I love to hate them.

Well, not all of them, only the more reptilian ones, the snakes in the grass.

You can count me in the demographic that fails to understand why the Greens exist at all, much less fathom the logic of their people-hating policies.

What satisfaction can there be in promoting the idea that humans are a destructive embarrassment on the face of the earth, apart from generating a smug glow of pious self-righteousness?

I suspect that the membership of our Australian version of a Green party contains only a tiny percentage of people who have actually run a business more complex than an organic pumpkin market stall. This infects their thinking to the point where only slogans matter: genuine, implementable policies designed for the benefit of the population (ugh, those nasty, superfluous people) don't tend to get a look in.

It is an issue that need to be addressed.
I am not a greens supporter, but agree with this issue.
Funny that, I am a Liberal voter but do not always agree with their policies.
The issue is simple.
The challenge to you is also just as simple.
If you can name one prayer that has ever been answered by divine intervention then I will agree with you.
Until then it is a waste of taxpayers time and money.

Dear shadowminister,

You ask;

“Is this the greens' way of differentiating themselves from the main parties and real issues? Is this the party for whom reality is too hard?”

Actually I think it is more a bit of parliamentary pushing and shoving in response to Kevin Donnelly touting the line that our schools are too secular.

For me I don't think we should be looking to get rid of the Lord's prayer in our parliament I do like Mark Drefuss' idea of adopting the US congress style of having representatives from all the faiths take it in turns to offer opening prayers/guidance to our MPs whether they be priest, imam, rabbi, even atheistic humanists.

If we are serious about the representative nature of our democracy then this should be a given.

SteeleRedux
That suggestion sounds like a good idea.

The Greens exist because in a democracy people have voted for them and continue to do so.

I am not a member of any party but I like the Greens because they are not easily bought even if I don't agree with their actions all the time. They are as much biased as everyone else, but that is the nature of politics and ideology. People come to different points of views for various reasons.

The Pirate Party have some good policies too.

I have several family members who are now or were at one point in a country branch of the Greens, one has run as a senate candidate a number of times, from what I know of the movement it's mainly geared toward middle class, baby boomer types who jealously protect their seniority and position within the organisation.
The most glaring thing about the Greens is there are almost no young men involved in the movement especially as we know the vital ingredient for success of any political group is activism from intelligent young men.
I can't blame them, why would men want to join what amounts to a senior citizens club run by 60 year old spinsters and feminists?
When you have dashing young men in your party the young female recruits will follow and the older people can take a back seat and let the party evolve with the new generation.
This isn't happening with the Greens, they have nothing to offer the young people and the movement will be dead within 20 years if they don't clear out the dead wood.

A friend of mine had the following published in The Age today.

"The proposal to drop the Lord's Prayer from Parliament is essential if we are to have a government that truly represents our secular democracy (''Move to scrap prayer'', 15/1). This explicitly Christian prayer excludes and alienates the not insignificant minority of 38.9 per cent of people in Australia who don't identify as Christians. It implies a higher authority to which our elected representatives are ultimately responsible, instead of the only authority that they in fact should be responsible to, the people of Australia they were elected to represent.

Prayers in Parliament are inconsistent with the spirit and probably the letter of section 116 of the constitution, which prohibits ''imposing any religious observance''. Its use is potentially offensive to those of other faiths, and those of no faith.

The Lord's Prayer should be replaced by an oath of loyalty to the Australian people and a statement of principle pledging to perform their duties with an open mind, and an informed ethical viewpoint that has the long-term wellbeing of all the people in this country at heart."

The writer has the arguments exactly right.

Pelican,
If the Greens were to become authentic coalition partners in the future they would have no choice but to sell out and become just like the others, that's the way Liberal democracy works all over the world.
Watch Europe very closely this year and you'll see what I mean, Liberal democracy can absorb and dilute any political tendency no matter how radical. Marine Le Pen and her FN may well be the next French leaders, Golden Dawn has overtaken Syriza in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary are looking like a real chance to win in coming years as are the UKIP and there are dozens of reactionary and neo Fascist micro parties on the move. What will happen though is that they are going to have to dilute their policies and lose their rhetoric simply in order to govern and especially to maintain the co-operation of the judiciary.

Pelican,

The reading of the Lord's prayer is a symbolic ritual based on tradition, and trying to link it to the separation of powers is specious. I personally care little for the pomp and ceremony, and would care less if they scrapped it all as it makes not a jot of difference to the governance of the country, however, that is entirely besides the point of my post.

The point I was making is that this is yet another example of the tokenism that exemplifies Green politics. Forget the budget, the boats, the Davos talks, etc, simply focus on a tiny change in parliamentary ritual, and address it publicly. And yes I have read the greens' policies, and it is a wishlist of tokenistic aspirations, with the costings hidden, and devoid of any depth of thought.

I wonder if the falling education standards has anything to do with the rise of the green vote? Someone has to represent the donkey vote.

Can we please forget who proposed this idea.
Green blue pink it does not matter.
The Lord's prayer is a waste of time.
It could also be regarded as discriminatory, what about Islam are you going to get the members recite the Quran.
Then the Hindu's, Calathumpians will all want a prayer for their God.
By the time we have said all these prayers a complete day would be wasted.

It is quite understandable that the Greens decided to add a second policy to their agenda, just in case their first (Gay-marriage; marriage-equality; sexual-orientation-non-discrimination; and the same under several dozen different other names and descriptions) happens to pass, leaving them without a platform.

As for the Lord's prayer in parliament, while I praise all those who pray in earnest, when I pray it's carved out of my own free time and nobody pays me for that time - why should others then be paid from my tax-money for time they don't actually work? Prayer is supposed to be a form of sacrifice: what then do those who get paid sacrifice there?

Jay
I suspect that the Greens would have to temper some of their policies if they ever form government or form a Coalition. However, I doubt they would be predisposed to succumb to pressure from big business in approving ventures or rules that have an adverse effect on the majority of others. It is not just about environment, while that is important, but about treatment of human beings and at worst about corruption (think the Obeid example).

SM
It may surprise you to learn that I really don't put the subject of the Lord's Prayer high on the agenda of important policies, but that does not mean it should not be considered, as indeed you thought enough of it to raise the topic. However, we will have to respectfully disagree on your statement that this issue does not have anything to do with separation of powers. It has everything to do with it.

The attitude towards this is one that comes up a lot when people disagree. Just because an issue does not have a high priority does not mean it should be ignored forever. The republic debate gets the same response.

Yuyutsu
Same sex marriage is but one of the Greens policies and is shared by many in both the ALP and the Coalition. They do have a platform if you would care to read it on their website. That would be like me arguing that the Liberals don't have a platform other than 'stopping the boats' just because it is receiving most attention at the moment.

ponde,

"It could also be regarded as discriminatory, what about Islam ....
Then the Hindu's, Calathumpians will all want a prayer for their God."

Where on earth did you and your friend get the laughable idea that the Lord's Prayer is exclusively Christian?

It is acceptable to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Christian faiths and Mahatma Gandhi thought that it was fine.

This current attempt at headline grabbing is par for the Greens compounded of no substance plus ignorance.

Dear Is Mise,

<<It is acceptable to Jews>>

It is not acceptable to Jews, only grudgingly tolerated:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/848875/jewish/Is-the-Lords-Prayer-Non-denominational.htm

yep well Bob Brown was happy to speak to the aliens in space and yet the Greens saw him as a hero. Anything anti decency you will find the Greens all for.

Runner,

When you refer to "aliens in space"

I assume you are referring to your imaginary friend residing there?

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

Its interesting in its full understanding, that given the maths for being the only ones, and the other maths saying we are the only ones, makes for dull debate. Even to think we are the only life in the universe, insults every intelligent mind across the planet.

I'll just make one reference....Why are humans different to all other life forms?

Planet3

I would be skeptical.

Pelican,

I'm going to have to call you out on this. How does an opening prayer grant the church power to exercise authority over the parliament?

As for comparing it to the republican debate, Really? not even in the same ball park.

Ponde,

Why would Brown eye Bob talk to runner's imaginary friend?

Planet3

"Why are humans different to all other life forms" The same reason that all other life forms are different to each other.

Even if the odds are that there other intelligent life forms, the odds that they are close enough to be able to make the round trip in less than a few hundred millennia is remote.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/01/19/1226805/443586-54461b3c-8102-11e3-ab00-514ef8eeaf66.jpg

"I'm going to have to call you out on this. How does an opening prayer grant the church power to exercise authority over the parliament?"

Oh dear SM. Look to your wording very carefully. You well know that my argument is not that the Lord's Prayer in itself grants power over governments. It is not a legislative instrument.

Churches do have undue influence compared to ordinary people on government policy, but that is not instrumental via the Lord's Prayer.

Without personal attacks on one's level of education and intelligence, I simply ask what is essentially a private act (reciting prayers) doing in Parliament within a secular democracy?

If we must stick with some sort of ritual process why not the suggestion raised earlier that there be different sorts of statements related to ethics and serving the people. Personally I would much rather our elected representatives get on with it as words can be cheap if not followed through in action.

SM..but the fact that we know next to nothing, does leave the possibility? Why is there cave paintings of upper level Gods? Why has man developed skills that he couldn't of discovered at the time period? Why is there still a missing link between other species that share similar DNA?

Think like a god you know nothing about( no punt intended )or a an intelligent life form....Question..would you put all your eggs in one basket? or would find other planets, for the just in case factor of a unpredictable universe.....again we no next to nothing about?

Planet

Yuyutsu,

How about 'broadly acceptable'?
But tolerated will do for the purpose of the exercise.

You got anything to say about the other religions that I mentioned?

'I assume you are referring to your imaginary friend residing there? '

actually Ponde my 'imaginary ' friend (and thanks for the compliment) is the One who you will bow your knee to one day. For the mean time you can pretend to be your own god. Hopefully you will come to your senses before your day of account comes.

Pelican...If we must stick with some sort of ritual process....and your quite right. As you know, future thinking is just a sample and to change an entire way of life, is not what Iam saying. Change is investable at all levels.

Planet3

What Pericles said
But if truth be known Liberals would only too quickly dump the welcome to country ceremony if given the chance.
If one why not the other

Pelican,

As I thought, you have absolutely nothing.

The separation of powers is precisely to prevent the church from exercising legislated powers over parliament. The vague influences of the population's belief system is something entirely different and has nothing to do with the separation of powers.

As for reciting the lord's prayer, it is a recognition of the heritage of the country, just as the man walking ahead with the ceremonial sceptre. I care for neither, and would be just as happy if everyone wandered in wearing shorts and sandals and sat down to a day's work. But many others feel differently, but on a scale of 1 to 10 of importance it ranks a zero.

Belly...The greens push some different points of view.

leave it at that....If you have a problem with me, at least be man enough to say it to my face...:) Greens - pursuing issues that no one knew existed!

Belly...look at it from my point of view...we all have the right to an opinion:)....

Planet3

Dear Is Mise,

<<How about 'broadly acceptable'?
But tolerated will do for the purpose of the exercise.

You got anything to say about the other religions that I mentioned?>>

Islam considers Jesus ("Nabi Isa") a "minor prophet" and the new testament as part of "Al Kitab", so it has no problem with "Our Father".

Hindus have no problem with this prayer as they are very used to variety - although many would prefer "Our Mother".

Most Buddhists would like this prayer even though they wouldn't agree with the Judaic term 'Father', but any Buddhist would at least tolerate it.

I know of no religion (as I don't count Satanism as a religion) that would not at least tolerate "Our Father".

The one religion I suspected most would have a problem with "Our Father" is Wicca, so I looked up and found that even Wicca tolerates this prayer as "This is the first evolutionary rung on the spiritual ladder. Not in historical chronology, but in spiritual development... While these forms of relationship with the Divine are presented as levels or stages of evolution, none is wrong or less than another. Each is a way of relating to the Truth, which is perfectly appropriate for people at different places on the journey Home." - http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/relationship-with-divine.html

And there was even an attempt to combine the two in: http://ladycerridwenbrighidmorrigan.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/a-christo-pagan-prayer-the-lords-prayer/

So probably the only practical implication is that a Jew could not take the chair in parliament.

Thank you Yuyutsu.

We may take it then that the claims that this particular prayer is offensive to a large portion of the population to be mere speculation by those desperate to claim a bit of the limelight.

The Lord's prayer was originally used by Essene Jews and Jesus taught the same to his disciples. [It is not a prayer to Jesus but to the Lord] So Jews should not find it offensive as no concept contained in it differs from their faith [Cp Psalm 23: 1 "The Lord os my shepherd"]. Muslims uphold Jesus as a prophet and respect his teaching. The only ones who would object are atheists of varying degrees, as they see themselves as the highest authority.
Think about the words.
Our Father - who occupy the spiritual realm of power.
Holy be your character. Name = character
Your kingdom be revealed = may purity rule our world.
Thy will be done on Earth - May your highest values rule our world.
Give us today our basic needs - manage the environment and our resources well so our needs are met.
Forgive us where we have violated another's character and help us be forgiving of others violations.
Lead us not into temptations of dishonest dealings, lying or deceiving.
For your government reflects true holiness and purity.

YES! lets get rid of all these values and may we never be reminded that Government should not consider these things. Where does this leave atheists? Lets have a look at their values. Do they differ?
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 15 January 2014 9:25:16 AM

Josephus, it has been proved many times over that one does not have to believe in any god in order to be a good or decent person.

Chanting meaningless words (to most politicians in parliament I would suggest) of an ancient prayer to an invisible being in the sky, before commencing the day in parliament is a ridiculous waste of time.

They can do that at home, or in their church, or quietly in their own time.
It is actions, not words, that we want from our politicians.

As I thought SM you have not addressed the issue at all. It is not difficult to understand that some people think religion is a private matter. You can confuse all you want.

Why do people so often conflate values with religion. There are those who are religious who display no values whatsoever and think a quick trip to the Church will make things okay. There are atheists who also display no values. Overall most people share the same values.

What values does a Christian person have that other do not share other than a belief in a deity?

For any person, the voicing of values is one thing acting on them is quite another. Behaviour must reflect values otherwise it is just window dressing that gives a free pass.

I don't doubt for many that religion assists them to live to their values. For others it is a sense of ethical and shared community values. Why is one better than the other.

Ponde,

See: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles3.html#pellegrin

These are offered as, and considered to be, answers to prayers to a supernatural being, kindly read and offer a scientific explanation of the various cases; as a student of "funny happenings" I await your illuminating reply (ies).

Dear pelican,

Attending church is indeed no proof that one is religious.
Not attending church is indeed no proof that one is not.

<<What values does a Christian person have that other do not share other than a belief in a deity?>>

Belief in a deity is not a value (faith is, but that has little to do with belief), but just a religious technique. The only difference between theists an atheists is that theists practice this specific technique while atheists do not.

Religion offers many different methods for coming closer to God: believing in God is just one of those methods and it does not suit everyone.

<<I don't doubt for many that religion assists them to live to their values. For others it is a sense of ethical and shared community values. Why is one better than the other.>>

Whatever works is good and whatever works is religious.
For some people the one works better than the other.

Religion, of course, does not stop at assisting people to live their values, but that is an essential step without which one cannot progress much further.

Pelican,

"What values does a Christian person have that other do not share other than a belief in a deity?"

Not lying, and as our Green MPs in NSW have been caught lying then it follows that they aren't Christians.

How's that for a simplistic statement?

I must give it to Shadow Minister, and his paranoia with The Greens, hate them, or hate them, he simply can't ignore them. They certainly must get to him, at the least opportunity he will launch into a baseless attack, hoping to ignite anti Green sentiment amongst other "like minded" forumites. The measure of the desperate level he sinks is demonstrated in his very first post, resorting to faithfully reproducing a line from his beloved Murdoch fish wrapper The Daily Telegraph. Was that the wisdom of the repugnant Piers Akerman, a oft quoted hero of the pugnacious SM. As no one of intelligence would be caught dead reading The Daily Telegraph, little own quoting from it, we will never know.
Pity SM can't start a discussion on the achievements in government of his leader, and ecclesiastical clown the Mad Monk himself, ably assisted by his merry band of half witted Liberal nincompoop. Alas, it would be a very short discussion indeed.

Julia Gillard slammed the Greens:

- “the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation";

- as a 'protest' Party; and

- (to the Don Dunstan Foundation), Gillard criticised the Greens for being unable to "strike the balance" that would facilitate reform while protecting and providing jobs.

The public are awake to the Greens, as was evidenced by the trouncing the Greens received at the last federal election.

Complaints about the Lord's Prayer is the sort of cheap, headline-hunting stunt expected of the Greens. When is that Tasmanian State election the Greens and Labor are rightly so worried about? March 15th, say hooray as Tasweigians get to put the garbage out in 2014.

Pelican,

What utter rot. I caught you out using a legalistic term for an unrelated issue.

We expect our politicians to have a solid sense of values that reflect the community, whether from family, religion or the community. That an MP is Christian or Muslim is not the church or other religious body directing legislative or any other control.

The greens are a complete joke, from Brown eyed Bob, the alien whisperer to Rhiannon the Stalinist, and every hue of whack job in-between.

Shadow, a like minded forumite, in the form of one of the 'usual suspects" Beach person has waded in to lend you a hand. He, like you is well known for repeatedly making delusional comments and once again he has not let us down with this little pearler
"as was evidenced by the trouncing the Greens received at the last federal election." Evidence please of this supposed trouncing, seats lost? hummm. In desperation he turns to quoting Gillard of all people.
For you, it seems 'reds under the beds' is now 'greens in the trees'
Is this another quote from your tabloid bible 'The Daily Telegraph'
"The greens are a complete joke", a Churchillen quote if ever there was one. Do I need to remind you that the following list of human baboons are not members of The Greens Party, and are never likely to be invited to join, but rather are the "intellectuals" of the Liberals and Nationals, in no particular order as they are all dumbos of equal standing.

Warren Truss (the head hayseed)
Julie Bishop (the token woman)
Scott Morrison (oh my god, a religious nutter)
Barnaby Joyce (Oh poor Barney)
Joe Hockey (lost his play lunch money at school)
Mathias Cormann (is he a dumbed down version of Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Christopher Pyne (failed the 3rd grade)

The list goes on.
And of course there is the circus master himself, the Liberals, very own Mad Monk, Tony Abbott!

The cock up of the week award, surly must go to George Brandis the Liberal Attorney-General with his "Brandis Library". Poor George ordered a $20,000, at taxpayer cost, custom-built bookcase for his office, his personal liberty, all to house his collection of 'Daffy Duck Comics' sounds extravagant, but but. The only problem was the million dollar bookcase wouldn't fit in poor Georges office, too big, the bookcase, not the office. There is a Liberal Party Parliamentary BBQ scheduled for this week, George is supplying the firewood.
p/s George is getting another new bookcase next week, a little smaller, this new one is only the size of the 'Titanic'.

Paul 1405, "In desperation he turns to quoting Gillard of all people"

Both Rudd and Gillard were constantly harassed and hampered by the unreasonable, treacherous Greens.

Beach, I thought Rudd and Gillard were constantly harassed, by each other and not The Greens. They will clearly go down in history as the worse two Labor Prime Ministers of all times and the most divisive pair.

As for “the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation" Coming from Gillard, given her track record, I would describe that sickening statement as sanctimonious clap trap!

Don't forget to back up your;
"as was evidenced by the trouncing the Greens received at the last federal election." how many seats did we loose?

This article is on the rights and wrongs of the Lord's Prayer in Parliament.
It has turned into a political mud sling match.
It is not important which side of the mud puddle you are.
Praying in a public place where tax payer money is used in wrong.
Wrong because there is no evidence that prayer works.
If a MP wants to feel good and pray he can do it on his own time.

Ponde,

The post was about the Greens making an issue of supreme irrelevance their front and center issue of the month. The Greens' modus operandi is that when reality of politics is too hard, make up a new issue that no one else cares about, or as Paul has so aptly demonstrated, simply fling baseless insults.

The greens don't have a single implementable policy, only a clutter of populist wishlists. They are lead by the airhead Milne who is only capable of answering questions with trite banalities, the dimwit SHY who weeps at the plight of an asylum seeker having to sell some of her jewelry to pay a people smuggler, yet when asked about 200 people that drowned essentially says ** happens, not my problem. Bandt whe joined the greens because they were closer to communism than Labor, and Rhiannon who until recently tried to pretend that Stalin didn't kill 20m of his own people.

Any one of the coalition is better than this green bunch of clowns.

Paul, I know you struggle with reality, but the greens lost about 30% of their primary vote in the last election, which if not a trouncing, is a good beating. Also Brandis's bookshelf was fitted to his previous parliamentary office and is not portable. It will be available for the next incumbent.

If you want to talk of waste, then the $140k Juliar spent jetting to a party meeting, or the $1.5m that Rudd spent as a tourist is where you really need to look.

ponde,

"Praying in a public place where tax payer money is used in wrong.
Wrong because there is no evidence that prayer works.
If a MP wants to feel good and pray he can do it on his own time."

I know not if St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, would be considered a public place but some millions of taxpayers' money was recently spent on building the spires onto the towers, so it might be wrong, by your lights, to pray there.

The Cenotaph in Martin Place is certainly a public place and is maintained by taxpayers' money,just as is Parliament House in Canberra.
Perhaps you and the Greens might object next ANZAC Day when prayers are said there by people both on and not on the public payroll.

Are prayers answered from on High?
Lourdes would seem to fit the bill, or are you going to ignore my earlier post addressed to your good self?

Shadow, The Greens must be doing their job, as it clear that we have many of you arch conservatives rattled. If as you would assert in you posts we are a spent force in Australia then why the effort to denigrate the party and its policies. If we are history, just ignore us, after all we are going to fade away. I have little concern with the up and downs of voter support, its rather fickle at the best of times. Although according to the AEC in the house of reps the Green vote was down by 3.11% did you misplace the decimal point. Oddly in the seat of Melbourne our sitting member Adam Bandt increased his primary vote by 7.03% the voters of Melbourne know a good local member when they meet one. Even the Mad Monk in his silver tail seat only managed a 1.97% swing.

Take the Greens small business policy,
A few points in the policy.

# lower taxes by cutting company tax for small businesses from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, helping 600,000 small businesses.
# raise the instant asset write off from $6,500 to $10,000 to encourage small businesses to purchase productive assets to help them grow.
# Strengthen competition policy to prevent big business using their market power to gain unfair advantages over small business.
# Give the Small Business Commissioner legislative backing and double the funding to $10m so it can act as an effective advocate for small business.

According to you this is some kind of Bolshevik policy which is unimplementable, only a clutter of populist wishlists. Unlike the Coalition which only has eyes for Big Business and what it wants. Where is the Liberal Party policy on small business

Paul,
Everyone knows the Green platform but the fact remains, it's a middle class senior citizens party which is unable to attract the young, intelligent men who are the crucial part of any movement.
If the platform doesn't recruit these men then on it's own merits then there's obviously a problem, no?

Paul,

I see maths is not your strong point. If you primary vote in 2013 is 8.6% and has dropped by 3.1% that is a loss of nearly 30% of your total vote.

The reason that most Australians feel such contempt for the greens is that they have no concept of how business works. The small business policy which is pretty much cut and pasted from labor is a prime example. The reason small business is struggling is because of the huge burden of regulations imposed by the labor green alliance that costs time and money and makes them uncompetitive. A few small tax breaks on money they are not making is pure tokenism.

The state where the greens have the greatest influence is rotten with the consequences of thoughtless activism. Tasmania thanks to the greens who have crippled the forest industry, stopped hydro electric dams, and pulp mills being built, has the fastest shrinking economy, employment and population in Australia.

It looks as though most people are becoming wiser and the elections in Tasmania will be proof of that.

Shadow, you are being silly, about Tasmania. It is a well established fact that although a beautiful island Tasmania suffered economically long before the Greens existed, even long before federation, even before it was Tasmania. You raise issues that relate to sustainability in that state, your conservative line when it comes to forestry of "chip it up, and ship it out" is not sustainable. Please take the time and read some real policy

http://tas.greens.org.au/policies/tas/forests

Can you comment on Adams vote in Melbourne and compare it to the Mad Monks vote in his silver tail electorate. Even in "Abbottland" 13,873 (15.5%) people had the good sense to vote GREEN!

Paul,

While it is true that Tasmania started behind, it had the potential to catch up. However, under the Labor/Green alliance, it has gone backwards at an unprecedented rate, shrinking and shedding high value jobs.

The forestry deal is a prime example of incompetence. Firstly much of the native forest the greens want to protect has been logged previously and is far from pristine. The reason that the state sells chips is primarily because it cannot export timber competitively and the "high value add" that the greens ignorantly waffle about is labor intensive done far cheaper overseas.

The only three viable alternatives are
a) Close 90% of the forestry industry and produce niche market timber.
b) Continue as before selling timber and wood chips.
C) Build the modern low emission pulp mill in the Tamar valley that add huge value to the chips, makes the timber and forestry more viable, and creates high value technical jobs that spend their money in the area.

The greens idiotically block b) & c)

As for Abbott, I see that he got an increased 2/3rds of the primary vote, while the greens vote shrank. The greens/labor vote shrank by about 3%.

Adam Bent in Melbourne got an increased vote, but the liberals vote increased too to 23%. The combined greens/labor vote shrank by 4.5%

Hello Is Mise,
Parliament house Yes - that is the whole idea of this posting.
I am not particularly interested in who put the bill forward if it is a good bill I support it.
The Cenotaph - war is the perfect example - if there was a god there would be no wars. A bit late praying for the fallen.
St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney it is stupid to pray anywhere. What is wrong is tax payers money being wasted on such an structure.
Which government donated this money? They have no right to do that. Discrimination. Every other church - faith sect will want equal share.

Maybe it has nothing to do with religion, ponde.

>>St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney it is stupid to pray anywhere. What is wrong is tax payers money being wasted on such an structure<<

You need to separate the purpose of the structure from its architectural and historical context. Old buildings, whatever their provenance, are eligible for preservation via public funds. You wouldn't necessarily withhold funds from, say, Hyde Park Barracks, simply because it started its life as a prison camp, and shortly afterwards became a "female asylum".

To ask private enterprise to value our heritage is like asking a politician to value the promises made before the election. Expediency will always trump responsibility to the community, and without taxpayer support via the government, in place of the impressive cathedral Sydneysiders might easily be gazing upon another Blues Point Tower.

Yummmm, tasty architectural goodness.

Shadow, since when is 60.89% 2/3 it actually 3/5. Even 4 out of 10 silvertails couldn't bring themselves to vote for the Mad Monk. How appropriate, Abbott is only worth 3/5th of FA at the best of times.
You are all spin with adding Labor into the Greens the combined Liberal/One Nation vote was also down. You will say so what.
Try this one. At the last federal election more people voted for the Australia Labor Party that any other party including the Liberal Party. Twice as many people voted for The Greens than voted for your coalition partner The National Party. You can make numbers say anything you like.
How about this one only 0.4% of voters voted for Abbott.

Ponde.

Are you Suseonline in disguise?

You object to prayers being said in a place that is maintained by Government money so do you object to prayers at the Cenotaph and at all War Memorials by a Parliamentarian who is present, often officially and being paid?
You may think that it is useless but do you object to the politician praying for our fallen on the grounds that it is a mis-spending of public money?

You neglected to respond to the apparent supernatural cures at Lourdes, i.e. answers to prayers; if you are not Suse you might ask her about the medical aspects involved.

Pericles.
The Hyde Park Barracks is a public structure owned by the public.
St Mary's is not.
If a House is heritage listed it is the owners's responsibility to maintain it, not use public funds.
Adding a flight of stairs into a steeple has nothing to do with heritage.

Is Mise,
Lourds - approximately five million people visit that site every year.
So far there has been 10 declared "Miracles" There is no records kept of these claims so it is not determined what they were cured of.
Five million over 150 years and 10 doubtful miracles - amounts to no miracles at all. Just another Roman Catholic joke.

Ponde,

I despair at your apparent lack of knowledge, use Google to search, Lourdes and the apparent miracles are well documented, all 67 of them.

" And so John Traynor was lifted into the bath — a physical wreck, covered with sores, a dying cripple.
The signed statement of Doctors Azurdia, Finn and Harley testifies that he was suffering from:

epilepsy
paralysis of the radial, median and ulnar nerves of the right arm
atrophy of the shoulder and pectoral muscles
a trephine opening in the right parietal region of the skull — in this opening, about one inch, there is a metal plate for protection
absence of voluntary movement in the legs, and loss of feeling
lack of bodily control

A second time he was placed in the bath, and then he was taken to be blessed during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament in the great square in front of the church. Just as the Sacred Host had passed by, his right arm, which had been dead since 1915, was violently agitated. He burst the bandages and blessed himself — for the first time in years. A strange feeling came into his legs. The stretcher-bearers thought he was having another bad turn. He was given an injection to keep him quiet, and taken back to bed....next morning he heard the bells ringing out the Lourdes hymn, and jumped out of bed....John Traynor was cured....you should make a sacrifice....I made the only sacrifice I could think of. I resolved to give up cigarettes.”

Afterwards for twenty years, you could see in Liverpool a hefty 16-stone man, in the coal and haulage business, lifting 200 lb. sacks of coal, who was officially classified as 100 per cent disabled and permanently incapacitated....He died in 1943 from hernia, a complaint in no way related to the illness and wounds of which he was cured in Lourdes.

Another group of experts testified, though unconsciously, to the miracle. The British War Pensions Ministry, after extensive investigations, awarded him full disability pension for life. They never revoked that decision."
http://saints.sqpn.com/catholic-truth-society-saint-bernadette-miracles-at-lourdes-the-facts-behind-the-story/

That's a tad contradictory, ponde.

>>If a House is heritage listed it is the owners's responsibility to maintain it, not use public funds.<<

Where do you stand on the acquisition by the Historic Houses Trust of NSW (the owners of Hyde Park Barracks) of various privately-owned dwellings (Rouse Hill House and Farm, Meroogal etc., for the sole purpose of using public funds to maintain them in their original, heritage-listed form?

And you may be sure that if the future of St Mary's was threatened, it to would be snapped up for the same reason and with the same purpose.

From the Hyde Park Barracks Management Plan:

"An area of historically associated sites surrounds the nominated site and includes adjacent buildings, such as The Mint, St James Church, St Mary’s Cathedral and Land Titles Office, as well as the northern part of Hyde Park, the southern part of The Domain and sections of the historic thoroughfares of Macquarie and College Streets. These areas provide a historically and visually significant setting for the Hyde Park Barracks."

http://www.hht.net.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/57684/BARRACKS_MP_FEB_2010.pdf

Forget religion. It's about our history.

Paul, you are quite sad.

However you fiddle with the figures, the greens are going backwards. The greens are not even worth 1/10th of FA, and only got a little more than Palmer United. If things keep going this way the greens will be grouped under other.

The branches of the liberals consist of the liberal party, the LNP and the CLP which gave the labor party a canning. But I suppose your argument is so feeble that you need to be dishonest to look good.

Shadow, I enjoy our exchanges on the forum, you are about the only conserve on here who can mount a semi serious argument on most subjects. Many of the others from the extreme right are literally off the dial. I made the point to you that figures can be twisted without a word of a lie to suit.
Elections come and go, leaders come and go, even political parties come and go, but for me its not the short term that counts, its the long term direction and well being of the nation that is far more important. In my life time I have been a member of 2 political parties the ALP and The Greens. I quite the ALP when I realised the Hawke/Keating governments were a sellout, and that no good was going to come from the Labor Party, and years later what did it throw up the Rudd/Gillard governments and they didn't let me down, they proved my belief.
From day one I was opposed to a deal with Labor, for them to form government, I wanted The Greens to stay out of it and let Labor/Liberal fight it out, it was none of our business, we should always follow our own path, not be hitched to the ALP. I was surprised at the election result I honestly expected Labor to cop a far bigger hiding than they did, and I expected us to suffer much more fallout.
SM explain this stat to me, 3444 people voted for Craig Thomson, in the same seat a Christian Kunde, who I don't know from a bar of soap only scored 622 votes, where is the justice. Christian stood for the Bullet Train For Australia Party,which I don't know much about, other than their name, but they can't be that bad compared to Thomson.

Sorry Is Mise, I don't know Ponde at all, just like I don't 'know' anyone else on this forum.

As for Lourdes, I doubt anyone is going to take your 'Saints' site as proof for anything at all.
I have seen many so-called 'medical miracles' over the years Is Mise, and none of those people were at Lourdes, and many never prayed at all, and several weren't Christian.

There are many unexplained medical occurrences that happened over the years, and people who believe in gods have no more clue about how some of them happened than anyone else.

That's the whole point, Suse, no one has any clue as to how they happened, least of all the Medical Tribunal at Lourdes.
The 67 proclaimed miracles are scientifically/medically inexplicable.

The case of John Traynor, that I recounted above, is not counted among the miracles, merely an exceptional cure.

To get back to the Greens pursuing unimportant issues, do you think that they should pursue other forms of prayer on which the Government spends taxpayers' money?

It is an important issue.
Prayer is a totally unjustifiable wast of time.
67 people cured at Lourdes that have not been tested by medical science.
What sort of God would "cure" people in one particular place on earth
The millions starving Africa would be a better place to start curing people.
Therefore there is not a single reason to even remotely claim that prayers are anything of use and should not be used and supported by public funds

Ponde,

Religion is an extremely powerful tool and can be used to brainwash people to think and act in abnormal ways. I'm sure Bernadette Soubirous firmly and steadfastly believed she saw these apparitions, and I am equally convinced she saw nothing. I think these apparitions were hallucinations brought on by her mind through the brainwashing she was receiving as a child from the Catholic Church.

Is Mise "To get back to the Greens pursuing unimportant issues, do you think that they should pursue other forms of prayer on which the Government spends taxpayers' money?"

A silly question Is Mise.
Religion and politics should not be mixed at all.

Suse,

In the context of politics the pursuit of "unimportant" issues is important, parliament should debate all manner of things. Naturally the ramifications of some issues for society are of greater impotence than others. Parliament is the only forum we have where elected representatives can make not only laws on our behalf, but also open the way for public debate on on broad range of social and moral issues.
I think in recent years both Labor and certainly the Conservatives, have both failed to use parliament to facilitate debate on issues. There has be far to much debate on the narrow issues of the economy, although important, and little debate of broader social issues of society. The Greens as a progressive party are duty bound to raise social issues, and not allow only non-representative pressure groups to make all the running on these important matters.

"Prayer is a totally unjustifiable wast of time.
67 people cured at Lourdes that have not been tested by medical science."

Ponde,

You didn't read about Lourdes or you would not make the ridiculous claim that the miracles have not been tested by medical science, they have been exhaustively tested by medical science because, if for no other reason, whoever cracks the scientific reason for the occurrences will have it made, both in fame and fortune.

Can you prove that some of the cures are not the answer to prayers?
Can you give me any references to any scholarly/scientific refutations?
Because I can't find any and I've looked hard.

Suse,

The question may or may not be ridiculous but you chose not to answer it.
Surely if reciting the Lord's Prayer in Parliament by the paid representatives of the people is a waste of time and taxpayers' money then all other forms of public prayer in which they engage whilst on the payroll should also be banned.

Is Mise,
You seem to jump to far too many conclusions and need to a science course.
Can you prove that some of the cures are not the answer to prayers?
You are making the claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You have to prove that they were answered by prayers. Assuming that they were cured by divine intervention. You have not proved that it is your particular god that did it - the curing could have been done by Allah or the flying spaghetti monster living in the spring. Good luck in proving that.
No I cannot give any refutation since the miracles were not examined by neutral doctors.
Being a typical christian you have only read your side of the story - read some more - it may be uncomfortable for you.

Ponde,

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, I'm only stating what has been reliably reported.
You make the claim that prayer is useless and as I've given you what are, on the face of it, answers to prayers, then the ball is in your court.
The shrine at Lourdes is to Mary as she is said to have appeared there so the assumption is that the cures are by her intervention.

"No I cannot give any refutation since the miracles were not examined by neutral doctors."

Didn't Google "Lourdes" did you? Neutral doctors are welcomed as are other medical professionals and of any or no faith.

"Being a typical christian you have only read your side of the story - read some more - it may be uncomfortable for you."

I assure you that
1. I am not a typical Christian
and that
2. I would be delighted to read some scholarly/scientific refutation of the mystery of Lourdes, kindly give me some references, electronic or written.

Is Mise, until somebody actually proves that gods exist, no one is going to believe in 'miracles' supposedly made in their name are they?

Many may have 'faith' that this has happened, just like they have faith there are gods in the sky.
There is absolutely no proof at all...there is only faith.

I certainly wouldn't knock anyone's faith, because many gain comfort from this faith, but I would never believe in miracles as such...

Had a quick peek at the Greens and their policies. Oh dear, but continued to scroll down to the other political parties. Are you kidding me. Ok the bad joke is over. Who oversees and allows these ... people to be taken seriously. Im sure I could get together a crew, and be slightly more realistic.
The Greens seem to follow the big two around picking up left overs for their new policies. Was it the 'sex party' wanting to decriminalize personal drug use, not just marijuana either. Shouldn't they be drug tested? You have to laugh.
I really hope no grown up political parties from other countries are aware of the state we are in.
Please someone tell me that they know that these other circuses are not tax payer funded. That after their bit of fun they go back to their regular place of employment.
Besides this lot, are Rudd and Abbott going to remain the only choices we have as the strong, determined all praise-worthy leader of our Country?

Paul,

While I am glad that you enjoy shadow boxing, and while we very clearly come from very different ends of the political spectrum we can debate mostly without resorting to ad homimens or insults.

If you quit the ALP because of Hawke and Keating's reform, then you joined when the greens became more than just environmentalists and absorbed the far left of the labor party at the time that Thatcher showed the world that socialism was failing.

H&K were faced with trying to follow the old labor direction or introducing the reforms pioneered by Thatcher that had reinvigourated the British economy. When they introduced the reforms, the die hards left and joined the greens. Thus the greens political ideology is mired in the 1970s.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BelKsY4CQAEY2LX.jpg

describes how most liberals think of the greens.

Ponde, Suze, Is Mise,

The 15 seconds it takes for the Prayer is supremely irrelevant, which is the point of the thread. If you want to save time, there are many many other issues in parliament that could save far more time.

Suse,

You said, "Is Mise, until somebody actually proves that gods exist, no one is going to believe in 'miracles' supposedly made in their name are they?"

Yes they are, and millions do because, as you say, "Many may have 'faith' that this has happened, just like they have faith there are gods in the sky.
There is absolutely no proof at all...there is only faith."
I think that you answered your own question.
Sort of an own goal:)

As a medical professional what is your opinion of the spontaneous regeneration of the nerves in Traynor's right arm?

Faith without evidence is dangerous and unfounded.
It is better to live in the real world no matter how sad and terrifying than to live in a delusion no matter how conforting

Shadow Minister,

Was that a good guess or did you time yourself?

Spot on for the Catholic version but a bit quick for the Anglican.

Is Mise "As a medical professional what is your opinion of the spontaneous regeneration of the nerves in Traynor's right arm?"

Yes, I have seen many unexplained medical happenings in my time Is Mise (if, in fact, the telling of Traynor's story is true at all), but have often found that in the end, it was someone trying to pull the wool over someone else's eyes!

Sorry Is Mise, but I have seen it happen so much that I am now a confirmed cynic : )

There is a lot to be gained for the clergy to keep their hold over the worshipping masses by throwing out a story here and there of an amazing 'miracle' or two, to keep the masses under their spell.

IM,

I went to a church school with the result that I am an atheist and know lots more about religion than I need to.

Suse,

Traynor's story is true all right; that's one of the reasons why the British Government kept paying him a full disability pension while heaving and carrying sacks of coal.

Have you ever seen nerves spontaneously regenerate?

Have you seen someone in the final stages of tuberculosis make an almost instant recovery?

But perhaps you can give me a reference to some reading that disproves all these claims of miraculous cures?

How about you, Paul?
You reckon Bernadette only imagined what she claimed to have seen, could you give me some reference to scholarly refutations?

Is Mise, maybe these people did have an unexplained recovery, but as I said, I have seen this happen before, when no "praying" was involved.

How on earth can anyone at all prove that an invisible being in the sky, that has never been seen, actually 'cured' anyone?

Sorry Is Mise, you won't ever convince me otherwise.
I have worked in the medical industry far too long to believe any of that rubbish.

Suse,

No doubt about it, these people did have an unexplained recovery and I don't doubt that you have also seen such recoveries, but have you ever seen or heard of nerve regeneration in a few minutes or of a similar recovery from the advanced stages of tuberculosis?

The cures at Lourdes are all well documented and have been exhaustively investigated and any health professional is able to view the files.

Have you managed to find any creditable refutation or explanation of these happenings?

Is Mise, it is well documented that nerves can and do regenerate.
That is not the point though.

I don't believe anyone could have recovered from 'advanced' TB back in the days before antibiotics, but then maybe that person never had TB in the first place. Medical diagnoses were not as advanced back then as they are now.

And maybe the Catholic doctors didn't look too hard, and maybe their 'independent' colleagues didn't either.

Amazingly, we don't seem to have any proven so-called miracles these days do we?
Even with such an increased world population...strange that.

The point is that there is no proof that any so called god made it happen that time, or any other time!
I don't think there is any point going on with this conversation.
We will have to agree to differ...

Suse,

Secondary nerves regenerate naturally but not primary ones.
In the case of Traynor his arm had been nerve dead for 15 years etc., yet, according to witnesses, both lay and medical, his arm regained almost full function in minutes.
Scientifically and medically inexplicable.

As regards modern miracles (for want of a better word) how about:

"Paris, France, Mar 30, 2011 / 01:55 pm (CNA).- Bishop Emmanuel Delmas of Angers, France confirmed the healing of a man at the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes....Serge Francois, 56, had lost almost all mobility in his left leg after complications from two operations left him with a herniated disc. He made a pilgrimage to the shrine on April 13, 2002 to pray for healing....Bishop Delmas noted that the healing took place after Francois “had finished praying at the grotto and went to the miraculous spring to drink the water and wash his face. A unique gesture of the Virgin Mary can be seen in the healing of this man,” he said.

The Spanish daily La Razon said that after Francois' recovery, he returned to Lourdes in 2003 and reported his case to the medical commission, which began its investigation."

The investigation process is long and thorough, hence the time between 2003 and 2011.

There are other cases in the pipeline so your contention that there are no modern miracles is rather hollow and evidence that you have not read anything on the subject, yet you cast aspersions on the medical professionals who have given an opinion; perhaps you might give a reference to where you get your information?

I'm a cynic Is Mise : )

Of course the good Bishop is going to say all that you mentioned.
A timely 'miracle' keeps the people under the church's control.

I grew up with a strict Catholic mother, nuns and priests, and heard about Lourdes and miracles all my life. I am very aware of all that propaganda, and the church's considerable financial means to pay for it.
I have read up on it, and only managed to find all this so-called evidence of miracles, on religious sites and publications. Funny that.

Maybe this guy was just due for a recovery, and it had nothing to do with any god or Blessed Virgin at all? I have personally witnessed amazing recoveries before.
You have still not given me any proof that it was some invisible god who 'cured' these people at all.

We have only the church's say on this, and the fact that the supposedly non-religious, unbiased medical professionals agreed that any of these sick people made an 'unexplained recovery', still does not tell us unequivocally that a god caused it.

Members of the god squad, and anyone else who wants to give an opinion. Can you clarify something for me.
When I was in 3rd Class in a Catholic primary school way back in 1960, I distinctly recall my teacher Sister Mary, an old Irish nun about 70, full of fire and brimstone, the ideal teacher for impressionable 8 year old's. One time during 'religion' Sister Mary though she would explain who goes to heaven and who don't. Sister Mary was adamant that only Catholics could go to heaven, but not all Catholics, only those that died in the "grace of God without mortal sin", seemed reasonable, since we were all Catholics. Some inquiring mind asked "What happens to the rest of the people?" Sister Mary assured us that sinners, including Catholic mortal sinners, would all burn in hell for eternity. People like Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, were pagans and at best, even if they had lived very good lives and never sinned, all they could hope for was an eternity in a place called purgatory, not a pleasant place, but not as bad as hell, serves them right for worshiping idols. Some people like the still born, would end up in another place limbo, certainly no where near as bad as hell and not as bad as purgatory, a neutral kind of place. I thought bad enough not getting a life, gee not getting heaven as well, that them the breaks. As for PROTESTANTS! Sister Mary was adamant that despite the daily prayers for their salvation. by his Holy Father in Rome, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and all those other protestants sinners "WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY! No ifs, no buts, I though they would be better of with the idol worshipers. I don't know what Sister Mary would have in store for a good little catholic boy, turned atheist. So I do hope in Canberra they are reciting the good Catholic version of that prayer and not the sinful Protestant version, they could well be consigning us all to an eternity of fire and brimstone, so said Sister Mary.

Suse, a cynic, no I'm glad I'm not, still a good little Catholic boy, I am. LOL

Take that dirty bit of old rag the Catholic Church holds up as a "divine miracle", The Shroud of Turin, the Holy father himself, no less, had declared it to be so.
A quick modern scientific test, something the Church resisted for years, soon exposed the "divine shroud" to be as phoney as a $3 bill. no doubt created by past church criminals for monetary gain. Did that deter the Catholic Church, did they come out and say "Well fellas we got that one wrong." No, they simply carried on praying to it and claiming it has miracles properties. like Lourdes, its a money maker and the Catholic Mafia will never pass up a money making opportunity. That is why the Catholic Church is the richest private organisation in the world. What else do Catholics pray to, the popes holy old socks. Does that say something about how the Catholic Church treats "miracles".

Paul,

Never mind the anti-Catholic ravings just point me to one (1) scholarly refutation of the miracle cures at Lourdes, internet or written, either will do.

There are refutations of the Shroud in plenty but no one seems to want to take on the problem of Lourdes.

Look up the verification process, just Google.

Suse,

You're at it again; you stated that there were no modern miracles and I gave you one from 2011.

You could say thank you for partially diminishing your ignorance pool.

How modern do you want?

Perhaps some of our more learned posters, such as medical practicioners might tear this apart (should be a good exercise):

"Yvonne FOURNIER

Born inJanuary, 1923.

Cured on 19.8.1945, in her 23rd. year. Miracle on 14.11.1959, by Cardinal Maurice Feltin, Archbishop of Paris.

This young lady sustained an accident at work in January 1940, when she was 17 years old. The whole upper left arm was pulled violently downwards when it became entangled in a driving belt. During the following 5 1/2 years an extensive and progressive traumatic syndrome set in, with virtually intolerable pain, oedema, and trophic lesions in the affected arm, rendering it practically useless. Nine operations were carried out, the majority of which dealt with the stellate ganglion and the sympathetic chain. Professor Leriche and Dr. Clovis Vincent were the surgeons, particularly capable in this area. Improvement in function was not achieved, except for some temporary and slight relief. About three years after the accident, a tribunal granted her-a 70 % pension. This rate was the same as for an amputated limb. Miss Y. FOURNIER joined the National Pilgrimage in 1945, the first after the war of 1939. On 19th. August, after a Bath, she felt her left arm come back to normal, with freedom from pain and movement, and power restored. She was examined by the medical team of the National Pilgrimage, with Prof. Salmon in 1945, and with Prof. Thiebaut recognised the cure of Yvonne FOURNIER as medically inexplicable... but at that stage nothing more was done. Ten years later, in 1956, her cure was the subject of a paper published by Prof. Salmon. Brought out of obscurity where it had lain since the cure, it was submitted to the scrutiny of the International Medical Committee in 1959. On the report of Prof. Thiebaut, the Committee approved the results as being in keeping with former ones, with the advantage of ten years' hindsight, stating:

"The cure of Miss Yvonne FOURNIER was instantaneous and definitive. Moreover, it is medically inexplicable".

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles3.html#fournier

Let's get back to the OP's topic.

Why would the acting Greens leader Richard Di Natale stop at getting rid of the Lord's Prayer, surely there is fertile ground among all the other activities that Parliamentarians take part in of a religious nature whilst on the public payroll?

How about State funerals, most often of a religious nature and involving public prayer?

Or all those crosses, often a form of prayer, that the taxpayer pays for?

Consistency is what we need not just headline grabbing.

But being consistent might exhaust the limited amount of intestinal fortitude available.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/heaven-help-those-trying-to-scrap-lords-prayer-in-parliament-20140117-310mr.html#ixzz2rONHLfGH

Is Mise, whenever you hear of someone making an unexplained recovery, like the one you mentioned above, how do you KNOW a god caused it?

Is Mise, I have no problems with anyone praying to their god out loud at State funerals, I just don't want them doing it in parliament.
One expects people to pray out loud at funerals, but NOT at their workplace, such as when working as politicians in Parliament.

Imagine if you are in the bank and the tellers all suddenly start chanting some prayer loudly? Most people would be annoyed waiting to be served while the tellers wasted their time at work.
I see no difference between that and the chanting of the Lord's Prayer at Parliament.
It's time to move on from that ancient old ritual.

Suse,

"Is Mise, whenever you hear of someone making an unexplained recovery, like the one you mentioned above, how do you KNOW a god caused it?"

I don't and never said that I did; but I wonder why no one is exploring these cures, as I said before, there is fame and fortune for anyone that cracks the mystery.

If it's not a mystery but mere Catholic trickery then why no expose, are the Catholic Church's propagandists so smart?

I have been accused of reading only one side of the story, I'd dearly love to read the refutations.

What refutations Is Mise?
The doctors involved have said they can't explain why certain medical recoveries happen.

They didn't say they thought gods cured them did they?
If any of them did, how would they scientifically prove that?

If you don't think your god miraculously cured these people because they prayed to him/her, then what are you on about?

Suse,

What I'm on about is that some posters said that prayer is a waste of time so I posted some examples of what some others regard as answers to prayers.
I'm also on about the Green polly being so selective in attacking one Parliamentary practice because of its religious connotations but ignoring all the other religious practices of Parliamentarians, whilst on the payroll, and the religion oriented practices of the State.
One out, all out.

No one can refute these Lourdes claims of the efficacy of prayers or even give any references to any refutations, so on the face of it the claims that prayers have been answered should stand.

Responde Ponde?

Is Mise "No one can refute these Lourdes claims of the efficacy of prayers or even give any references to any refutations, so on the face of it the claims that prayers have been answered should stand."

Rubbish!
I, for one, refute it.
No one can prove any god caused these recoveries.

If there was any god out there granting 'miracles', why on earth wouldn't he heal all the poor dying children that are dragged to Lourdes every year?
I can just imagine all the prayers their relatives are saying ...

And yes, I agree that parliamentarians should not use their parliamentary time to pray out loud in public, at any time.

Is Mise, would it not be just as logical if I was to claim, all those "miracles" you site are down to a Hindu god or goddess, there sure is plenty to choose from. I can claim your god is simply stealing my gods thunder, besides your god's getting a better press, so he might, given he has the whole lot of the christian churches behind him.

The Prayer the Lord taught to his disciples must relate to real life otherwise it is just a chant not believed by those saying it. You would wonder at the character of those objecting to the reality of its meaning.
1. There is a higher power in the Universe to which we are accountable both morally and physically. There are principles in the universe to which we owe higher allegiance.
2. We ought to desire a human society where pure thought and behaviour is our aim.
3. We as leaders of our society must plan for the needs of society.
4. May we forgive those who have spoken given false witness against us.
5. Lead us not into the temptation to falsely dishonor another.
6. May through all my deliberation purity and truth reign.

Of course the Greens would not want any resemblance of these values.

Paul,

It would be rather illogical for Hindus etc., to make such a claim as Lourdes is firmly associated with Mary, the mother of Christ.

What I cannot understand is why no one has torn the claims of miracles there apart.

There have been reams of paper written upon proving that the Shroud of Turin is false so why not about Lourdes?

You have said that the miracles are a hoax; is that just your non-medical, unscientific opinion or can you give references?

Suse,

You said:"....Imagine if you are in the bank and the tellers all suddenly start chanting some prayer loudly? Most people would be annoyed waiting to be served while the tellers wasted their time at work."

Funny that you should mention that for I have had just that experience, except that most of the bank's customers joined the staff and were not in the least annoyed; those that didn't join in, for religious reasons probably, were not annoyed either.
I thought it a rather nice custom.

You also said:"And yes, I agree that parliamentarians should not use their parliamentary time to pray out loud in public, at any time."

So if a form of prayer is offered in Parliament for our War Dead then Parliamentarians should not take part?
What if it is a silent prayer but observed in Parliament and they are being paid to pray silently?

How about the Australian Parliament maintaining Christian Crosses at public expense?

Is wearing a Cross a form of Christian prayer?

Bye the way, your "I refute" is not a refutation in the scholarly/scientific manner.

Is Mise, as I said, I have no problems with silent prayers being chanted to yourself at any time really, because no one can tell you what to think or not think.

I would suggest the bulk of the politicians wouldn't be praying to a god during this 'minute of silence' though...

You are getting way too serious about this matter for me now though Is Mise.
You would be better having a conversation about this matter with the like-minded Josephus than me.

Susie,
There would be no point in discussion if we all agreed. Obviously you believe you have no higher moral or social responsibility other than yourself to which you are accountable. Do politicians have the highest values of morality and social responsibility they espouse and want for us all?

They need to be checked in social conscience and motive.