The Flaw of Monotheism (2 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

Christian prayers before convening the legislative assembly that rules on its laws, acknowledging that we are all 'humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God' in its constitution

Yeah, ok, but those prayers don't really serve an actual purpose, they are are not much more than respecting tradition, aren't they? (However I don't doubt, MP's who are seriously Christian would probably be sincere in their prayers).

I doubt publically athiest MP's would be required to prayer anyway, though they might bow their heads and mutter "amen" or w/e as a sign or respect...

The courts also do a similar sort of thing out of tradition, swearing a witness in using a Bible, for example, though I know you don't have to use it.

That isn't harming anyone and isn't influenceing public policy.

and then being influenced by an exclusively religious dialogue into discriminating against thousands of homosexuals and others would probably count as compromising the secularity of our nation, yes.

Australia doesn't function as a direct democracy.

Voters vote in representatives who then debate and dictate policy. As the example of gay "rights" does not represent a failure of democracy.

If the voters choose people who hold certain values, it is somewhat unsuprising that this can be seen in the policies that the representatives decide.

If one is strongly in support of say gay marriage, to the detriment of other policies, then they should vote for people who will represent their views in parliment. (Greens I know fairly strongly support the LGBT movement, as an example of one party).

The fact that gay marriage etc is not in effect is more of a reflection on its relative insignificance (perhaps a too harsh a word) in regards to issues that the average Australian sees as more important, such as climate change, general economic policy or w/e as examples.

MP's are always accountable to their electorate anyway, if the electorate wants gay marriage and it is stressed as an issue, they will most likely be voting for the representative which most accurately mirrors their views.

Furthermore, democracy is often characterised by the length of time it takes to introduce social policies which are not deemed "urgent". This isn't something new to gay "rights" lol, its usually like this.

 

[Scorch]

I doubt publically athiest MP's would be required to prayer anyway, though they might bow their heads and mutter "amen" or w/e as a sign or respect...

I absolutely would not.

The courts also do a similar sort of thing out of tradition, swearing a witness in using a Bible, for example, though I know you don't have to use it.

Not anymore they don't.

That isn't harming anyone and isn't influenceing public policy.

Of course it is. It compromises the secularity of our nation. The government and constitution are not to favour one religion view over another, but here we are saying Christian prayers before parliament convenes, discriminating against people based on Christian dogma, with a government that funds Christian chaplains in public schools and no other faith. It is absurd and against the spirit of secularism that brought us out of the medieval period in the first place.

Australia doesn't function as a direct democracy.

Voters vote in representatives who then debate and dictate policy. As the example of gay "rights" does not represent a failure of democracy.

If the voters choose people who hold certain values, it is somewhat unsuprising that this can be seen in the policies that the representatives decide.

If one is strongly in support of say gay marriage, to the detriment of other policies, then they should vote for people who will represent their views in parliment. (Greens I know fairly strongly support the LGBT movement, as an example of one party).

The fact that gay marriage etc is not in effect is more of a reflection on its relative insignificance (perhaps a too harsh a word) in regards to issues that the average Australian sees as more important, such as climate change, general economic policy or w/e as examples.

MP's are always accountable to their electorate anyway, if the electorate wants gay marriage and it is stressed as an issue, they will most likely be voting for the representative which most accurately mirrors their views.

Furthermore, democracy is often characterised by the length of time it takes to introduce social policies which are not deemed "urgent". This isn't something new to gay "rights" lol, its usually like this.

So if the majority of people want to violate the rights of a minority, they can? If a democratic majority wanted slavery, that would be fine? No. A line must be drawn whereby the law is accountable to higher principles of equality as well as simple public opinion.

 

[Name_Taken]

I absolutely would not.

This doesn't suprise me

Not anymore they don't.

P. sure they do, or at least if you are Christian, they let you.

Of course it is. It compromises the secularity of our nation. The government and constitution are not to favour one religion view over another, but here we are saying Christian prayers before parliament convenes, discriminating against people based on Christian dogma, with a government that funds Christian chaplains in public schools and no other faith. It is absurd and against the spirit of secularism that brought us out of the medieval period in the first place.

Christianity has played a vital, however not always positive role in both the history of Australia, and that of the Britain. It therefore still plays quite a
traditional role in various official ceremonies. Also as I have said, most MP's are Christian, quite a few are really into it as well, so most MPs who are the ones taking the prayer don't seem to have a problem with doing so.

I think you are slightely mistaken about the governments "rights" in regards to religion, our consititution differs from Americas. The constitution of Australia, in regards to religion reads;

116. 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.
​

So legally, its all good, however I do think it does represent double standards if they deliberately give funding for X religion while denying it for Y -- tho that said, its allowed, as long as they are not imposing religious observance on anyone, or denying others the ability to engage in a different religion.

I agree, the fairest way to go about it is not fund it at all, but w/e. We don't have a chaplin @ our school and even if we did, I probably wouldn't attend their classes. Seems like a waste overall in terms of where the money could be going IMO.

So if the majority of people want to violate the rights of a minority, they can?

Um... that is how democracy works. Even if say, you had a bill of rights, which prohibited descrimination agaisnt a specific minority, a referendum is all thats needed (lol easier said than done in practise, but hypothetically) to remove or add clauses which allow such descrimination.

If a democratic majority wanted slavery, that would be fine? No. A line must be drawn whereby the law is accountable to higher principles of equality as well as simple public opinion.

Lemme guess, you decide these higher principles?

The only fair way these principles (say a bill of rights or the like) can be arrived at, is through the democratic process in the first place. For these principles to hold any authority, they must be approved of by the people, which means they can be changed, if a majority wants them to be.

It is naturally restricted by the fact that very few people are going to want to legalise open descrimination against a minority, especially if they feel like they belong to a different minority which may subsequently be targetted. Most likely, a person may just have a decent sense of moral direction and realise that it is wrong.

That said, democracy, i.e. the will of the people, should always hold a greater authority than the moral prinicples of an individual or chosen few.

 

[Scorch]

Christianity has played a vital, however not always positive role in both the history of Australia, and that of the Britain. It therefore still plays quite a
traditional role in various official ceremonies. Also as I have said, most MP's are Christian, quite a few are really into it as well, so most MPs who are the ones taking the prayer don't seem to have a problem with doing so.

Which is fine. However they are elected to a secular authority and are employed to make their decisions, one would think, based on what is best for society and what is substantiated and existent rather than superstition and fear, and by voting down proposals on gay marriage, that is exactly what they are pandering to, and I find it cowardly and revolting.

Um... that is how democracy works. Even if say, you had a bill of rights, which prohibited descrimination agaisnt a specific minority, a referendum is all thats needed (lol easier said than done in practise, but hypothetically) to remove or add clauses which allow such descrimination.

Not entirely. In a legal framework, it is accountable to itself and to ideals of justice embedded in the constitution and such which are already in contradiction with eachother.

Lemme guess, you decide these higher principles?

Of course not. Rational inquiry and analysis will reveal such principles thusly, as opposed to the fear and superstition of Christianity.

 

[thongetsu]

Another religion thread indeed. TROLL!

 

[Name_Taken]

Which is fine.

Exactly, it is fine, but before you were crapping on about how it infringed on the secularlity of the nation etc -- when it obviously doesn't.

However they are elected to a secular authority and are employed to make their decisions, one would think, based on what is best for society and what is substantiated and existent rather than superstition and fear, and by voting down proposals on gay marriage, that is exactly what they are pandering to, and I find it cowardly and revolting.

Lol, and you don't think that they think they are acting in the best interests of society?

They can make their decisions based on whatever they want to. Being Christian it is somewhat inevitable that their personal values (w/e they may be) influence policy. This is totally acceptable, since they, not you were elected into parliment to represent the people in the first place and in doing so, the electorate has approved of that person being given the privledge to be involved in policy making.

If you don't like someone, don't vote for them.

Pretty much no MP (aside from the Greens but like w/e) I know of ran for office with the election promise of introducing gay marriage. They were elected on the basis of their stance on other policy matters. They don't actually have an obligation to introduce gay marriage, especially if it goes against their values, and did not make any promises regarding it prior to being elected in the first place.

Furthermore, MPs are under no legal obligation to actually stay true to any of the election promises they make anyway. Eg. Obama saying he was going to pull out of Afghanistan, as soon as he was elected, now he's just sending more troops in. Unless the voting population chooses to keep him accountable, he can do w/e he wants (so to speak).

If gay marriage was such an important issue for you individually as a voter, you probably would have voted Greens or a party/indapendant who made it clear that introducing "marriage equity" as it has been called was a major issue. Instead, the majority of the population voted on the basis of other issues, and this must be respected. The fact that like no mainstream (by which I mean Labor/Libs) MP (even openly gay ones such as Penny Wong) actually cited gay marriage as a key election issue, shows its relative insignificane in the eyes of the general public, at least when compared with other things like climate change, general economic policy, GFC, migration policy etc etc.

Not entirely. In a legal framework, it is accountable to itself and to ideals of justice embedded in the constitution and such which are already in contradiction with eachother.

Yeah, but no, because in a democracy, there is no greater authority than the will of the people.

If the consitution is in the way, it can be removed via referendum and replaced in its entirety, same with the courts.

Of course not. Rational inquiry and analysis will reveal such principles thusly, as opposed to the fear and superstition of Christianity.

It is utterly impossible for humans to create a totally objective universally applicable set of moral rules, to which everyone can be held accountable.

Please explain how, keeping in mind everybody hold completely different values (and so what is right for you, presumably isn't so for many others) you intend to come up with this list of rules via rational thinking.

If it were that easy, then it surely would have been done before.

 

[trickx]

In theory. You point to America's secular constitution but they still have a pledge that says "One Nation Under God", have "In God We Trust" emblazoned in Court rooms and Congress says a prayer to the Christian God before convening (as does our parliament). In fact the preamble to our constitution says that we are, as a nation, 'humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God.'

Issues of homosexual rights and stem cell research are held back by religious discourses that cloud the secularity of the decision-making process of our nation's government.

So again I say: in theory.

But those remarks, "One Nation Under God' have not yet been dealed with. They haven't been ruled on by the courts. They are currently being taken up by secular critics. Stop confusing history with law ffs ..

If you grant that religion has no influence or authority in legislative and executive governments, then you've contradicted your initial question.

[youtube]qzVxHF8T0Hk[/youtube]

 

[Teclis]

I am a practicing Christian...

I think religion should stay out of politics and running a country.

I am a member of the Labor party... my views are influenced by my beliefs... I still think Christianity should stay out of it.

The bible states that Christian's should abide by the rules of the country they are under (short of breaking God's rules).

For example, I am personally of the belief that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. But I am also of the belief that looking at a woman/man lustfully who isn't your spouse is a sin, because in your mind you have had sex outside of marriage with that person. I put them in the same category because they are seen the same by God. Jesus made this quite clear.

I have no issue with the STATE allowing homosexual marriage, because I am also of the opinion that ANY marriage without God at it's centre is a poor one.

I also think a serious issue is that a lot of Christians (as you have made the point a couple of times Scorch) is that a lot of Christians do not know their own bible very well. Although I still think you saying you know more than most Christians is a little absurd. Perhaps if you read a few commentaries, perhaps some Calvin, some Spurgeon, some modern ones... then you'll probably know more than most Christians... or perhaps listen to some Sermons from some of the many highly intelligent ministers out there (like my old Minister, who had a PhD in Molecular BioChemistry) who take the bible in it's historical context and explain what a particular passage is saying and then put it in its proper context.

But meh... this is an unclear and unstructured rant... and it's all pointless anyways... We're all like little children, and we all always think we're right... So I'm going to go watch SYTYCD

 

[-Lemon-]

I am a practicing Christian...

I think religion should stay out of politics and running a country.

I am a member of the Labor party... my views are influenced by my beliefs... I still think Christianity should stay out of it.

The bible states that Christian's should abide by the rules of the country they are under (short of breaking God's rules).

For example, I am personally of the belief that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. But I am also of the belief that looking at a woman/man lustfully who isn't your spouse is a sin, because in your mind you have had sex outside of marriage with that person. I put them in the same category because they are seen the same by God. Jesus made this quite clear.

I have no issue with the STATE allowing homosexual marriage, because I am also of the opinion that ANY marriage without God at it's centre is a poor one.

I also think a serious issue is that a lot of Christians (as you have made the point a couple of times Scorch) is that a lot of Christians do not know their own bible very well. Although I still think you saying you know more than most Christians is a little absurd. Perhaps if you read a few commentaries, perhaps some Calvin, some Spurgeon, some modern ones... then you'll probably know more than most Christians... or perhaps listen to some Sermons from some of the many highly intelligent ministers out there (like my old Minister, who had a PhD in Molecular BioChemistry) who take the bible in it's historical context and explain what a particular passage is saying and then put it in its proper context.

But meh... this is an unclear and unstructured rant... and it's all pointless anyways... We're all like little children, and we all always think we're right... So I'm going to go watch SYTYCD

on what basis do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[Bereie]

It's in bibble.

 

[-Lemon-]

It's in bibble.

yes but there are many holy books, on what basis do you choose to derive your 'sin' criterion from this specific one?

 

[Scorch]

@Name_Taken

You are once again missing the point. To deny that such nonsensical dogma has an influence on the decision-making process of our society would be ignoring the reality of the situation.

Let me try and spell it out for you. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the very idea of secularity is that the government is not to support one religious view over another and makes its decisions based on what can be rationally justified and proven rather than nonsensical fear and superstition. When one group of people who don't believe in the Christian God or Bible are denied social equality based on the influence of an entirely religious discourse, that flies in the face of what you may call the core ideal of secularity.

You talk of the state's position on homosexuality almost as if you are completely unaware that Christianity viciously condemns it as a sin and constantly pours out filth and bigotry on the subject.

 

[Bereie]

yes but there are many holy books, on what basis do you choose to derive your 'sin' criterion from this specific one?

The basis of God. It says it in bibble.

 

[-Lemon-]

The basis of God. It says it in bibble.

good point. I stand corrected.

 

[Teclis]

on what basis do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?

Well I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God...

The bible makes it clear that marriage is between a single man and a single woman (yes I understand that Solomon had a ridiculous amount of wives, but that's a whole can of worms I can't be stuffed opening).

The bible makes it clear that sex is only between married couples...

The bible makes it clear that sex outside of marriage, in any form is a sin (adultery)... Jesus expands this to include thinking lustfully.

Hence all sex outside of marriage including all lust outside of marriage is a sin...

Homosexuality fits into this category (the same category that I am in)

 

[Scorch]

Well I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God...

The bible makes it clear that marriage is between a single man and a single woman (yes I understand that Solomon had a ridiculous amount of wives, but that's a whole can of worms I can't be stuffed opening).

The bible makes it clear that sex is only between married couples...

The bible makes it clear that sex outside of marriage, in any form is a sin (adultery)... Jesus expands this to include thinking lustfully.

Hence all sex outside of marriage including all lust outside of marriage is a sin...

Homosexuality fits into this category (the same category that I am in)

That's fine. Now please kindly keep your bronze-age nonsense out of our legal system.

 

[trickx]

That's fine. Now please kindly keep your bronze-age nonsense out of our legal system.

Scorch, I'm as anti-theist as they come, but seriously mate, religion has no influence on our legal system or government. I don't know why you're being so stubborn on this.

Name me one ruling in a western court or an approved bill in parliament that had the authority of religious faith. All of our laws are secular.

 

[Scorch]

Name me one ruling in a western court or an approved bill in parliament that had the authority of religious faith. All of our laws are secular.

Give me, then, a secular, scientifically substantiated reason why homosexuals are not allowed to marry in our state. Such inequality and discrimination is advanced, in this regard, by an exclusively religious discourse in this country and many others.

Our constitution says that the government should not impose religious observance or establish any one religion as more valid than any other, yet that very same constitution states that our nation is 'humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God.' and a parliament that is run under the pretense and guidance of that very same constitution opens its proceedings with a Christian prayer. At the same time, our government funds Christian chaplains in public schools and none of any other faith.

I maintain that a truly secular government should, aside from the above hypocrisy, legislate based on attempts to provide equality and remove discrimination and it is no coincidence that it is an exclusively religious discourse that prevents progress in this area despite the scientifically and psychologically substantiated evidence.

I understand where you're coming from, but secularity pervades deeper then the superficial reality of a separation between church and state. When religious reasoning flies in the face of scientific evidence in order to propagate discrimination against people who are doing nothing wrong or harmful to society except in the perception of a particular religion which happens to, despite the words of the constitution, hold a privileged position in our parliament, I would not hesitate to question whether the idea of secularity upon which modern, respectable nations ought to evolve has been compromised here.

 

[annabackwards]

Scorch, I'm as anti-theist as they come, but seriously mate, religion has no influence on our legal system or government. I don't know why you're being so stubborn on this.

Name me one ruling in a western court or an approved bill in parliament that had the authority of religious faith. All of our laws are secular.

Not officially now do religious faiths have influence over legislature but you have to admit that many laws have a religious base that forces those religious beliefs on to others for eg. the laws discriminating homosexuals.

 

[0bs3n3]

In fact the preamble to our constitution says that we are, as a nation, 'humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God.'

So if someone says good luck do you chastise them for being superstitious?