Protestantism

» redback - No Freedom of Speech in OZ

In response to No Freedom of Speech in OZ posted by Migisi:

...and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.

At least not by virtue of the non-ratification of the UN treaty but that seems to ignore our sovereign laws in the absence of a UN judgement we are non-complying with the spirit of the treaty.

Here's an interesting, (brief) paper by Sir Michael Kirby, Chief Judge of the High Court...and it looks beyond the simplistic definition of 'democracy' and looks to whether we need a Bill of Rights:

There is a tension, even a contradiction, between democracy and protection of fundamental human rights. The tension arises because, if human rights are truly "fundamental", even democracy should not be able to override them. In this sense, fundamental human rights impose a check on democracy, and deliberately so.

http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/...

It appears that public evangelizing is NOT protected by freedom of speech in OZ (yet).

Our right to heckle tests anti-discrimination laws. Their right to evangelise may run foul of many laws if they don't pick the right public place and time.

BTW: While we have the very fundamental "right" to vote we have fought for, the law gives the government a right to fine us if we don't register to vote each polling day.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - A Suppressive State

.
I find it quite interesting that people can learn to live in a suppressive state.
.
http://www.enotes.com/bound-man-salem/bo...
.
After a while, people come to enjoy their bondage as it offers them a form of freedom that liberty does not provide.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - A Better Link

In response to A Suppressive State posted by pink101:

.
This might be a better link for anyone who might be interested:
.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pricetesc/bou...
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by BrianTubbs:
.
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.... it has been exaggerated and over-stated by left-of-center academics in the 20th and 21st centuries.

.
Geez, Brian. Which 'historians' are you attempting to disparage and discredit here? I'd like to see their diplomas from the Howard Zinn School of Leftist Thought. I understand that, as a Baptist minister, you MUST defend the traditional that Christianity was ~solely~ responsible for the formation of this country. However, as a history teacher, I think you'd want to expand your knowledge so you can discuss alternative ideas intelligently (sans the belittling).
.
Take the time to read and absorb the information in this article, Brian.
Iroquois Confederacy and the Influence Thesis
http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqc...
.
It presents a good balance of ideas - the supporting and opposing views regarding the "influence thesis". It offers the reader the opportunity to understand the pro/con arguments - and the academic turf wars surrounding them.
.
The reader is left to make up his own mind.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by Migisi:
.
Whenever anyone makes their point with such an ad hominem statement as, 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. , you know their argument is weak and that they're appealing to people who have never read Zinn. Is Brian trying to say that what Zinn writes in his history books about the Native Americans is wrong?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson_Weems
.
Sometimes, I think Brian looks like Parson Weems...
.
???
.
Cherry tree?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by pink101:
.
From "Some Other Conclusions" from the link I posted above:
.
"The academic battle will continue before consensus is reached. There will be those who continue to decry revisionism in our history. Perhaps this revisionist history, whether or not it eventually carries the day, will be a good thing. Stirring the pot challenges assumptions and forces us to continue the search for truth. Revisionism is to the study of history what mutations are to genetics - they keep the whole thing dynamic and evolving. Writing history is a tough thing. The heavens do not open and present us with unassailable history textbooks. We must argue, fight, and disagree about our history as we go through the tough work of interpreting it. Stirring up the blood of the historian establishment is normal and a good thing. Stale history serves nobody.
.
"Cultural evolution is messy thing. Our sense of Americanness is informed by a plethora of cultural influences. When one looks to identify clear, mathematical linear relationships and direct lines of cultural evolution, one might become quite disappointed. To be sure such links exist, but much of cultural development is non-linear. We can see that much through the investigation of the Iroquois influence thesis."
.
(My bold) I agree. A "plethora of cultural influences" - NOT just the Christian culture -- as I mentioned in another post to Red re: "our 'melting pot' citizenry".
.
-------------------
.
Whenever anyone makes their point with such an ad hominem statement ... you know their argument is weak ...
.
That's how I see it too. Ad hominems don't serve to inform, just to insult -- and attempt to close/redirect discussion.
.
A cherry tree?
.
From your link: "Another dubious anecdote found in the Weems biography is that of Washington's prayer during the winter at Valley Forge."
.
Lots of legends/myths surround heroes.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Balanced Look at Iroquois Influence Theory

In response to Balanced Look at Iroquois Influence Theory posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Obviously, I highly recommend it too.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - Six Nations' influence overstated

In response to Six Nations' influence overstated posted by Migisi:

I had Brian's comment in mind when exploring the Aboriginal's role here. It'd be great to give them the credit they deserve, like your Iroquois peoples. And unfair to hold them to unrealistic WASP standards. I couldn't find a great site. The first Aboriginal State Governor was appointed in 1976 and the first Aboriginal senator was elected to the Federal Parliament in 1971. The simple fact is they were ineligible much beforehand. When I stated they had come a long way, twas not intended to say they've now "made it".

What is difficult to quantify is the input into the creation of a nation, by the ordinary folk...those who didn't sit around in importance-stuffed shirts. The speechwriters, the activists who got good people elected etc and those great unwashed masses who developed a climate of tolerance for change.

Like my requests to identify the uniqueness of Christianity here, what moral high ground etc was uniquely white fella territory...here or in the USA? We need to know that, don't we, to exclude the weight of our Aboriginal peoples' input?

I read Brian's reference to it being a Christian initiative to separate religion from state. Muslim nations and others apparently see no need to so what prompted the Christians?

-- posted by redback

» redback - A Suppressive State

In response to A Suppressive State posted by pink101:

'Freedom': "civil liberty as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government."

'Liberty': "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government"

first definitions within the Macquarie Dictionary.

It's interesting to me how people in Muslim countries enjoy their freedoms while we think they're in bondage...or is this the Christian bondage (B&D) thing to which you refer?

Hard for this old codger to connect the dots today.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - A Suppressive State

In response to A Suppressive State posted by redback:

.
Are you saying you want to discuss the differences between freedom and liberty?
.

-- posted by pink101