The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Should Australia become a republic?

Should Australia become a republic?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All
Dear Paul,

These are excellent questions, thank you.
I already gave much thought to some of them, but I am open to listen to and investigate the consistency of different ideas.

---

"communes like what existed around Nimbin NSW in the 1970's"

Not my personal cup of tea. Perhaps some Amish-style community could appeal to me more, but that's impractical because I'm not a Christian.

In any case, once the state no longer forces itself on others, I would have no compelling reason to leave its mainstream in the first place and could try improving it from within.

---

"Can it not be all or nothing?"

Certainly, I am all in favour of a system with multi-tiered levels of citizenship, so long of course as the outer-most tier is along the lines that I described under "opt-out".

---

"How does this apply to people in jail?"

Prisoners too should be able to apply to opt-out, but if they still pose a danger to the community then the need could arise for some alternative preventative action, which though not being a punishment per-se, might be even less pleasant for them (perhaps chopping their arm so they can't steal again or deporting them to a remote area and informing them that if they return then they would be shot on the spot, or even killing them if they are still deemed prone to murder again).

---

"What happens to children of those who agree to opt out?"

First, bear in mind that the arbitrary age of '18' is a social construct that applies within a given society, but means nothing outside that society.

If the child can speak sensibly for themselves, then it's according to their own wish.

Otherwise, if both parents opt out, then the child goes with them (unless mutually agreed otherwise) and if only one parent opts out, then the other parent decides.

A child can also request to opt out on their own. If so and it's suspected that they might not fully understand what they are asking for, then they would need both their parents' consent.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 29 October 2015 12:30:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Paul1405,

.

« Church leaders certainly have had a strong influence, and still do, in state affairs in Australia … »
.

Not just in Australia. The two principal monotheistic religions, the Catholic Church and Islam, do not accept the separation of Church and State as a general principle. It is contrary to their religion. However, they usually try to avoid open confrontation with governments, preferring to circumvent the law in a more discreet and covert fashion. Only rarely do they take the initiative of launching publicity campaigns or protest rallies.

Their political activities are, nevertheless very real and subversive, in complete violation of the “sacrosanct” principle of secularity of modern democracies.

I am not aware that any government has ever sanctioned the non-respect of the principle of secularity of any sovereign State.

Any rule of law without legal sanction is a grave omission in my opinion because it renders the law null and void. It might as well not exist at all.

Granted that the problem is complex and delicate. I nevertheless consider that appropriate sanctions should be foreseen for the transgression of the rule of separation of Church and State, as for any other rule of law.

Naturally, the sanctions must be sufficiently dissuasive for them to be effective.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote to Paul :

« …in order for me to support … a Bill of Rights, I place just one condition: that it will include an exit-clause, whereby individuals have the freedom to opt out and disassociate themselves from the state …»
.

As I live in Paris, I guess I have “ipso facto” done just that … and I’m not alone. It seems we are roughly 1,000,000 Australians who have opted out :

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

I do like to feel, though, that it would be nice to have the benefit of a Bill of Rights whenever I return home to visit family and friends … just in case some zealous undercover agent mistakes me for a human bomb guided by some religious guru or other.

Do you take amendments ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 29 October 2015 2:55:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Bill of rights might give one the right by removing the right of another. A Bill of responsibility as a citizen is more applicable. Take the issues of euthanasia, adoption, foster care or abortion and similar. All have very strong religious values and in current State laws violate someones right of life. Because a secular State is ruled by the majority.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 October 2015 7:48:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

"What do you mean by "establishing the absolute neutrality of the State on all matters relating to religion'. Does that mean imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State, similar to China or the former USSR?"

Why did you leave out America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html?ir=Australia

"Conservatives who so proudly tout their fealty to the Constitution want to trash our founding document by violating the First Amendment in hopes of establishing Christianity as the nation's religion. This is precisely what the Constitution prohibits:"

"Let us be perfectly clear: We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to "God" or "the Almighty" or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word "god" mentioned in our founding document. Not one time."

Founding Fathers:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....
--Thomas Jefferson

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 29 October 2015 8:15:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

You are still a fully-fledged and undisputed Australian citizen, regardless where you live. Your wishes are fully respected.

On the other hand, had you chosen not to be subject to Australian laws, then there should have been no need for you to physically leave your home or to subject yourself instead to some alternate law, such as the French.

Should there be an Australian Bill of Rights, then surely it will have something to say about over-zealous undercover agents, but does it mean that without such a bill it is OK for such agents to do as they please?

As I explained, I will support a Bill of Rights on the one condition that among all the other freedoms it will protect, it will also secure the most basic freedom of all - the freedom from involuntary association.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 29 October 2015 11:22:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
In my world view you post a lot of nonsense. The matters of State are secular as envisaged by the Constitution, that does not mean atheism is the fundamental foundation of Government, which you believe it to be.

Your Quotes on views of religion do not reflect the true values of followers of Christ.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 29 October 2015 8:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy