Jump to content

The 9th Commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."


Recommended Posts

We do have a constitution for what it's worth. It says how the country should be governed, how many pollies etc and how and when they meet. it also states who is responsible for what, which I reckon is completely disregarded by the Federal government, because they made the states responsible for quarantine, when the constitution says it is a federal government responsibility. The Feds only consult the constitution if the think they can get an edge on the opposition, as they did with the foreigners not allowed to be in politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Octave, yes I was wrong. Australia does indeed have a constitution which can be changed by referendums.

What we don't have is a bill of rights and that is the bit I would like to see.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Australia's constitution, like many, has gaping holes in it, which are plugged by constitutional convention. For example, the role/office of Prime Minister is not in the constitution; it is convention that the person who is able to command the support of the majority of the House of Representatives (I almost wrote Commons) becomes the prime minister and appoints the cabinet.

 

Our constitution is worth far more than the unwritten "constitution" of the UK (which is ironic given UK legal draftsmen have written many other country's constitutions). The High Court has the power to, on application of anyone, rule something the executve or the legislature do as unconstitutional, and therefore illegal to do. As long as the military support this (and so far, there is no indication Australia's military would enter into a coup or offer unilateral support for any polly - last time I did work with the ADF, which was about 25 years ago, the officers were clear to where their loyalties lay - and that was the Queen! I took it to mean the constitution.

 

@Yenn, in the case of the pandemic, no-one brought an action to the High Court to have a some sort of latim declaration that will inevitably use the term nullius to have the appropriate government manage the borders. However, this is probably a good thing, given how SFM would have managed it.

 

In the UK's unwritten constitution, the courts recognise the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty - as parliament is the highest court in the land. Therefore, any law made by parliament cannot be inquired upon by the court. Yes, there are judicial reviews where the executive have acted unlawfully - but that is against the laws made my parliament. All a Judicial Review can do is say, "yes minister - you're actions were against the laws laid out by parliament (or common law).. please go back and review your decision." If the government want to do something (and they have a decent majority), they just change the law. Australia's constitution only allows it within the powers granted by the constitution.

 

Mind you, the UK is signed up tio the European Convention of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution; and I think the UK was a founding signatory) and under Blair, the Human Rights Act was enshrined in legislation, but not until 1998. What a lot of people think is that these are absolute rights - but they are not. First, they are qualified rights (e.g., except where the national interests - whatever they are deemed to be - prevail). Secondly, it does not stop parliament making a law in contravention to the European Convention of Human Rights; it simply requires the Secretary of State responsible for the department that administers that law to make a declaration that is not consistent with the Human Rights Act. Of course, this is a big disincentive, but probably not as big as people think.

 

Because of the doctrine that Parliament can't bind its successors (in other words, future parliaments can't be constrained by previous parliaments), the Human Rights Act can be repealed or changed at ay time.

 

You would be surprised at how many people support full repeal of the Human Rights Act because it has been used to grant prisoners the right to vote or asylum seekers that right to a family life (the former I disagree with; the latter, I agree with)

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Used almost universally with scholars and the Clergy. It's still a language that would be functional on it's own, as well as being the basis  of Spanish and French and therefore to a few others. even eengleesh.  Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if our universe was created by a trinity, it clearly is impossible to have ever had gender equity anyway (50/50 M/F).............

 

Unless perhaps there could have been one male, one female and one 'gender fluid' carrying a rainbow flag!

 

Of course, logically, a supreme all knowing, all powerful creator has no need for sex. So the holy trinity must have been genderless anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/05/2021 at 1:48 AM, spacesailor said:

What happend to the English " Magna Carta 1215 " which IS written in Latin.

spacesailor

 

All but an anituitous relic, I believe. Largely replaced by various acts of parliament. Human Rights Act 1998 is the latest.. Of course, there are exception and in fact, as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is established, it all means jack-poo anywway. No one understands it, anyway 😉

 

Also, it really was about noblemen being subject to the laws; the peasants/serfs still were oppressed and had no means to use the legal protections afforded to the nobles.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Because 'father, son, ghost's is only metaphors.

A father becomes a father only through a (successful)sex act.

A son is only a son because of a successful breeding of a female by a male. (Sex)

A ghost is generally agreed as not being a real thing. Except for that one case that certain religious beliefs require. Even then, it seems that those people don't believe in ghosts.

The trinity never mentioned their collective mother, so sex wasn't involved.

 

The first human is alleged to be the only true instance of creation without sex (or surrogacy in JC's case). So this proves that 'Our Father...' is not referring to a father, but maybe a father figure.

 

Hence sex can never have existed in the realm of this god. SHE never need it because all HER creating was done by a (metaphoric) wave of the hand.

Edited by nomadpete
added more ramblings
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the song "bye bye miss america pie" the song goes on

" the three MEN I admire the most,

the father,son, and the holy ghost,

took the last train to the coast,

the day the music died."

 

I rest my case.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

When you consider the true history of religion, it's veracity and all other ideologies, why would anyone ever have any faith, belief or trust in any of them, preacher or follower. Our current sociological, economic and environmental ideologies, are all unattainable fantasies and religion is behind all of them. In fact close to every aspect of life is controlled by the religious and the state of countries and the planet is in a dismal condition because of that fact. I put the total blame on the religious, they control all governments, whether or not they are theists or not. The most insane thing about religion is none of it's true, nothing they say, claim or do, can be classed as factual. It's all the opposite.

 

Came across this forum by accident, don't do forums never had the time. However covid has put a hold on my career and business, that hold has been in force for almost 18 months and doesn't look like ending soon. After reading some threads, thought it seemed to present a good approach to discussing and debating interesting subjects and have a lot of free time some days.

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Welcome to the Forum, @Dax. Sad to hear you career and business are on hold due to the pandemic, and hope you are able to resume unabated (or exploit other opportunities).

 

I don't really have the time for the forums either - but they are like meeting mates at a pub - different views, and albeit quieter than other forums, is always a good range of topics on and are reasonable respectful even when opinions differ. So, I do steal time from other endeavours. Although, like you, the pandemic put thinks on hold for a while (but

 

If you're into flying, this is the sister site to the recreationalflying.com forums. I haven't been on them for a while as my flying is on hold at the moment (massive drop in income due to the pandemic, and partner has a massive refurb to the house apparently needing done, and at the same time, I am trying to get back to Aus with a family of 4 and a puppy - ouch!)

 

Of course, feel free to start new threads, too... The more the merrier, I say..

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I start feeling some tolerance for religion, I get a letter from a friend in Canada with more details about the discovery of hundreds of children’s graves, mostly in Catholic institutions. The story is that parents were never told of the death of their children and graves were later ploughed over and hidden. All this during Canada’s own Stolen Generation era, when Indigenous kids were taken away to be “educated” and to remove them from their “primitive” families. Lots of schools and orphanages are now scanning their grounds for more secret graves.
What sort of Christians were running these places?

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

What sort of Christians were running these places?

The same sort of christians who in have always run these places and the same sort of christians who have invaded countries trying to wipe out opposition to their violent conversions since the cult was invented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well, the saga continues.

 

The council  had issued an order for the church to stop building the dunny, required them to do a site excavation and provide colour samples (it is grade 1 listed, so that is up there with Buckingham palace, just about). Well, they have provided the colour samples for the heritage officer to approve (not yet done), and provided an excavation report - of the wrong area!. Last week building supplies were dropped off. They have started building a path to the dunny form the back door of the church that isn't on the plan (the path on the plan goes to the car park, near where the dunny was supposed to be).

 

Partner spoke to a builder yesterday and someone came up and irately asked who covered the badger set? There was no badger set there and both partner and builder said it was a rabbit warren... Today a different builder was working and plonked this cement mixer outside our gate to the church grounds (we live in the old rectory). Partner gets him to move it - things were cordial.. Daughter was with partner and daughter asked about the path (and how ugly it was). Partner said to daughter (not realising builder was around or eavesdropping) that they may have to move it anyway, and builder jumps into the conversation. first saying we can't see the dunny from our house - which is correct - in summer - as a deciduous tree is in between, but in autumn --> spring it is an eyesore... and then he says in its original place we can see it from our house - which we can't because there is a big evergreen tree between us and the original place, and offset in our property is a big laurel bush - also evergreen.. and two yew trees to the side and a holly tree in front of them.. The he gruffingly says the original position was on top of a badger set at which my partner responded it wasn't... and he said it was because he blocked the entrace with a rock.. My partner said yesterday, the irate man, in front of the other builder unlocked the hole - and it is a rabbit warren (rarely if ever get both in close proximity for a reason). And he had another go at her that no one could have to which my partner responded that he has admitted to committing a crime as badger sets are protected...

 

Anyway, by time partner tells me, builder is off.. so I said to her I have a feeling they are trying for a certificate of lawful use (or something like that) so they can get around the planning process; and that the partner should write to both the parish council (not related to the church, but look after local village issues) and the local council, asking them if the ban on building had been lifted.. and letting them know of the conversation. The response came back pretty quick that the ban hadn't been lifted and that the vicar has not responded to requests for the last week. They had been given the opportunity to resubmit their planning application and have until July 24 or thereabouts - after which she said if they do not, then enforcement action can be taken.

 

As my partner pointed out, the builder seems to have been well versed in what was going on.. so we get the feeling they are trying something very sneaky.The idea of the badger set  which we have never noticed in our almost 3 years here and use the gate which leads directly to the original site is an attempt to justify the move. The try and evade the legal requirements and just do it..

 

Meanwhile, we have just submitted our planning application and doing it by the book...

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...