Protestantism

» redback - The smarts

In response to The Problem posted by pink101:

And, maybe not reading it all adds to my confusion?

Brian states he's too smart to get into some debates...I'm not that smart. You don't bog yourself down with stuff you think takes off on irrelevant tangents for you. I'm not that smart.

New research apparently indicates (of Alzeimer sufferers), those who are smarter will experience a more rapid deterioration. I hope I'm not that smart.

I will be attending a Garvan Research Institute seminar on all the latest research on the ageing brain. My colleague tells me it sounds scary so has changed his mind about going. I'm not that smart. ABC

Look...I don't want to compete with Brian about who's the busiest among us here or who's got more of a life offline...but there's a series of seminars I'm booked into over the next few months and I like to do my homework. That plus my wish to get on a Forensic Medicine Certificate course (add advocacy work) may keep me pre-occupied outside of here. Health & body permitting.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The smarts

In response to The smarts posted by redback:

.
I guess that if we keep beating on your door, you'll let us know a little more about who it is that you are.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Freedom of Religion in OZ

In response to Is democracy a 'Christian' principle?? posted by redback:
.
The link you provided offered me good research direction. Thanks. I landed here: Documenting a Democracy
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?...
.
Interesting that the Church of England was (is?) the established Church, and Roman Catholics were discriminated against. A 1673 law legally prohibited Catholics from holding high civil or military office. One had to swear an oath that he did not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Catholicism, and he had to deny any allegiance to the descendants of Catholic monarch James II. The history of the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act is explained at the above site. Fascinating that it was written because of and for one Catholic man.
.
Regarding religious freedom, quoting from the above:
.
"This document [Constitution Act 1934 (Tas)] includes a legal guarantee of the religious liberty and equality of Tasmanians. Every citizen is guaranteed freedom of conscience and the free exercise of religion under Section 46(1) of this Act. Section 46(2) declares that no person is required to take any oath on religion or religious belief, and that no religious test is required for any public office.
.
"No other State Constitution in Australia contains a provision like this, but a broadly similar provision is included in the Commonwealth Constitution."... [Migisi: **see Section 116 wording below].
.
"...Section 46 is a reference to the 1830 Act extending to Van Diemen's Land an 1829 Act of the British Parliament titled an 'Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects' (10 George IV No. 5)..."
.
(**Section 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".)

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - No Freedom of Speech in OZ

.
It appears that public evangelizing is NOT protected by freedom of speech in OZ (yet).
.
Quoting from:
Free Speech and the Constitution
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/20...
.
"... Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression..." [Migisi: **see wording below]" - Art. 19, United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
.
"Australia is a signatory to this treaty and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.
.
"The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.... There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts.
.
"Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns. This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'...
.
"It is interesting to note that not only is there no legislation providing for freedom of speech either in the Constitution or in other legislation, but Governments have passed legislation to prevent free speech in certain circumstances. Examples include the various State and Territory defamation laws, and racial vilification laws. Censorship laws may also be used to prevent freedom of speech by restricting distribution of certain films and publications, although these laws now serve mainly to classify publications according to the age groups which can see them, rather than preventing their publication.
.
"...Since 1973 at the Commonwealth level there have been attempts to legislate for a Bill of Rights which would incorporate provisions of the ICCPR, including Article 19, into Australian law...
.
"...The European Union has included freedom of expression and information in its Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for possible adoption by member states. This makes Australia alone among like-minded countries not to provide for freedom of speech in legislation or the national constitution."
.
[**Art. 19 - 1. "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."]

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - No speech freedoms?

In response to The smarts posted by redback:

.
To your knowledge, have there been any recent changes (amendments, acts of Parliament) to legislate freedom of speech since this article's date (2002)?
.
Good luck with your seminars, Spider. Take copious notes so you can share with us. Drop in when you get a minute.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Church-State Separation

Democracy has been experimented with in various forms and by different cultures, since the dawn of time. If by "democracy," we mean "rule by the people," that is.

However, the concept of separating Church and State is Christian in origin. Goes back to Jesus' words in Matthew 22:21, in which he draws a distinction between the things of God and the things of Ceasar's. And then Augustine developed that into a systematic theology with his City of God.

Of course, not all Christians have been the best practitioners of separating Church and State, but the concept IS Christian in origin.

» Brian Tubbs - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Is democracy a 'Christian' principle?? posted by Migisi:

I consider myself a moderate on this historical debate, but let's face it. Those historians who argue that the Iroquois influence on America's founding and democratic ideals was significant are almost ALWAYS coming from a leftist, Howard Zinn-ish school of thought. There isn't much in the way of hard-core, actual EVIDENCE to support a strong Iroquois influence.

From Wikipedia...

The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by many[13] as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. However, that theory has fallen into heated debate among many historians and is regarded by others as mythology. Historian Jack Rakove[14] writes: "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois." Researcher Brian Cook[15] writes: "The Iroquois probably held some sway over the thinking of the Framers and the development of the U.S. Constitution and the development of American democracy, albeit perhaps indirectly or even subconsciously... However, the opposition is probably also correct. The Iroquois influence is not as great as [some historians] would like it to be, the framers simply did not revere or even understand much of Iroquois culture, and their influences were European or classical - not wholly New World."

Personally, I think the influence was there, but it has been exaggerated and over-stated by left-of-center academics in the 20th and 21st centuries.

» Brian Tubbs - Balanced Look at Iroquois Influence Theory

For those interested, I believe the article linked below provides what is probably the most balanced and fairest look at the debate over the Iroquois infuence theory. I highly recommend it...

http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqc...

» redback - The smarts

In response to The smarts posted by pink101:

I guess that if we keep beating on your door, you'll let us know a little more about who it is that you are.

Tis unfortunately more about what you don't remember of me than what I'm yet to tell! ABC

-- posted by redback

» redback - Freedom of Religion in OZ

In response to Freedom of Religion in OZ posted by Migisi:

Our convict heritage tells us if its not in the law, we can't break it. If we don't ask permission, we can do it until we're told not to. If our wife tells us we go to church, we go but not because of 'church authority'. Our sense of freedom needed to evolve and mature.

Our Federal Court and High Court play interpreter for the States with the High Court the umpire. Then the Parliament changes law to suit. Bear in mind that at the time you cited, these courts did not exist...a new colony...and the only part not on the mainland...Tasmania...was probably testing its wings. Maps of Australia still omit Tasmania at times...and tours of Australia etc frequently exclude Tasmania. It's to my shame I'm yet to visit there.

In 1980 as a new JP, I had to swear a lifetime oath to the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law. By default...not an oath to the Pope nor US President. NOR to Australia. That has changed.

Fascinating that it was written because of and for one Catholic man.

A precedent? How many laws today are triggered by one person or incident?

'Consolidating' legislation is law that overtakes old laws including extracting us from the UK, combining separate laws within the State and factoring newer Federal laws that over-ride State laws. This is far more sophisticated today. No point in a State law if a Federal law over-rides it UNLESS it impacts on other State laws indirectly. This also saw a growth in interpretative sections of each law...an Acts Interpretation Act that would have stumped Clinton. When you read The Potato Factory by Bryce Courtney, set in those times...it adds human context.

Don't get too excited about any alleged extra freedoms the closer one got to Antarctica ie Tasmania. For example, they were forced by the Federal Government and UN Human Rights to repeal their laws on homosexuality as late as 1997.

-- posted by redback