The Australian Greens party

[fiftyeight]

Is that it?!

Also, if you exclude every wise offering of every religious tradition

Prayer is 100% not a wise offering

The complaint is about the authorship , rather than the content, of the prayer itself?!!

If authorship means so little why keep fighting to keep it even if there is a risk it excludes some and offends others?

 

[cynic]

Prayer is 100% not a wise offering

And your basis for asserting this opinion in such a manner is ... what exactly?

If authorship means so little why keep fighting to keep it even if there is a risk it excludes some and offends others?

Because it's the content that matters!

I am still awaiting an explanation about how that content is problematic for those seeking to live in a prosperous, compassionate and well behaved, human society!

 

[Darc Knight]

Is that it?!

That's the reasoning?!

The complaint is about the authorship , rather than the content, of the prayer itself?!!

If so, how is such behaviour justifiable, when content is vetoed based solely upon authorship considerations?

How could anyone, behaving in such a manner, continue with their feigned concern for equality and inclusiveness, whilst retaining any semblance of credibility?

Also, if you exclude every wise offering of every religious tradition, irrespective of its virtues (or absence thereof), what then remains for inclusion?(I would surmise that the true answer to this particular question, would be precious little, if anything at all!)

I'm not sure why the Greens do a lot things, except maybe coz there's some pretty good smoko available in Nimbin, but I assumed that to be the case due to their proposed phrase of "let us in silence pray or reflect upon our duty .... ".

Anyways, I'm going to have to tap out of this little debate. You have a good evening.

 

[Tisme]

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/b2f80821b2ff27e97e89f90cf0c2f03e

Wow man that's good schit

 

[SirRumpole]

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/b2f80821b2ff27e97e89f90cf0c2f03e

Wow man that's good schit

Yes, that's good Murdoch shite allright.

 

[luutzu]

Most churchgoers think that they have to go to church to follow the teachings of Christ.


That's not true, but it's the myth that the churches like to spread.

We should be thankful that they don't learn by the Church's examples.

The Church seem to be taking advantage of people's generosity. From Churchgoers volunteering their time and money; to Catholic school teachers and parents having to fork out more time and money to help the kids. It's a bit screwed up.

I heard of a Catholic school principal having to turn up during school holidays to fix furniture, paint rails etc. because there's no budget for it.

There are parents volunteering to help kids with reading so they can catch up.

School fees haven't gone down though. The Church still get their cut as usual. What a racket.

 

[Tink]

I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu.

You can go public or private, be it schools, hospitals etc.

 

[luutzu]

I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu.

You can go public or private, be it schools, hospitals etc.

Having variety is not necessarily a choice though. But that's another topic.

The way I see it, organised anything tend to bring out the worst in people at the top. Seems that once you're up there, everyone and everything is just a number, and if it's the financial number, it has to grow.

There are things that shouldn't be run for a profit, not financial profit anyway. Schools being one of them. But apparently it does with religious schools... I know Catholic ones so I'm using it as an example. Not saying it doesn't happen in other religious schools.

It's quite incredible the ways they force schools to increase the costs while cutting back on services that teachers or parents either have to step up or watch their students and kids fall behind.

Nice cathedrals though.

 

[fiftyeight]

And your basis for asserting this opinion in such a manner is ... what exactly?

I meditate (poorly) most days, the thought of taking time to better understand myself to then give it up to someone/thing is dumb tbh

Because it's the content that matters!

I am still awaiting an explanation about how that content is problematic for those seeking to live in a prosperous, compassionate and well behaved, human society!

Of course content matters??? No one is arguing that. But why does content have to be wrapped to suit you.

As stated previously I dislike the content, but even if it was acceptable I still see no need to wrap it up in your beliefs.

I am sure you will disagree with but I will say it anyway

I am not forcing my views or my propaganda on anyone. I am advocating for a pause in proceedings in which ALL (including christians) can reflect as they wish.

You are advocating for your personal view/prayer/propaganda to be heard by everyone. The onus is on you to tell why how this is better than the alternative.

PS

Just re-reading some posts, nothing I can quote but I get the feeling you are not christian?

 

[fiftyeight]

I am thankful we have choice in this country, Luutzu

We finally agree on something!!!

BUT

Tax payer $$$ should not be used to prop up such organisations, be it through tax breaks or state/federal funding

 

[Tink]

The Greens are a bunch of disgusting deplorables.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Tink]

That is taxpayer funded, fifty eight.

 

[cynic]

I meditate (poorly) most days, the thought of taking time to better understand myself to then give it up to someone/thing is dumb tbh

Bravo! Regular meditation is a most worthwhile and commendable practice (even when poorly performed).
Perhaps you are already aware, that some have achieved states of ecstasy/euphoria, consequent to their engagement in meditative practices.
Which is hardly surprising as the parallels between the goals of meditation and the goals of religious prayer, suggest that this may well be a common goal, namely manifesting heaven on earth!

Of course content matters??? No one is arguing that. But why does content have to be wrapped to suit you.

I am arguing for the preservation of the valuable content, not its wrapping!

As stated previously I dislike the content, but even if it was acceptable I still see no need to wrap it up in your beliefs.

If it was wrapped in my beliefs, the wording would be different, but the values would remain present.

I am sure you will disagree with but I will say it anyway

I am not forcing my views or my propaganda on anyone. I am advocating for a pause in proceedings in which ALL (including christians) can reflect as they wish.

You are advocating for your personal view/prayer/propaganda to be heard by everyone. The onus is on you to tell why how this is better than the alternative.

On the contrary, the onus lies on those pushing for the proposed change to demonstrate their case! The Greens have done naught more than demonise the prayer, claiming that it is somehow discriminatory!
Before supporting the Greens efforts to 'fix' something, would it not first be appropriate for the Greens to demonstrate that it is actually broken, before considering their proposed remedy?

PS

Just re-reading some posts, nothing I can quote but I get the feeling you are not christian?

That would depend upon one's definition of Christian.

I subscribe to the view that "there is no religion higher than truth", and that none of mankind's contemporary endeavours, can rightly justify claims to monopolisation of truth. However, that fact, doesn't prevent zealous fanatics (secular and non secular) from attempting to assert otherwise.

 

[cynic]

We finally agree on something!!!

BUT

Tax payer $$$ should not be used to prop up such organisations, be it through tax breaks or state/federal funding

So religious schools, hospitals and welfare service providers, no longer merit financial recognition for their easing of the burden on publically funded institutions?!!
How is that not discrimination?

 

[fiftyeight]

Do you agree with this?

Onsite with patchy internet and cannot get the video to load but I did read the transcript this morning. Have you watched or read?

It mostly explains peoples rights, the law and where to find help if you feel under pressure. BUT if you still want to do it then it suggest cropping to minimise potential harm if you regret it later.

My wife is pregnant with our first child, that is 100% the kind of advise I will be giving.

 

[fiftyeight]

Which is hardly surprising as the parallels between the goals of meditation and the goals of religious prayer, suggest that this may well be a common goal, namely manifesting heaven on earth!

With enough practice I hope to achieve ecstasy

I can only speak for myself, but my goals have nothing to do with a higher power. It is to bring myself back to the present, appreciate myself and my mind. I have not once tried to manifest heaven on earth nor do I intend to.

On the contrary, the onus lies on those pushing for the proposed change to demonstrate their case! The Greens have done naught more than demonise the prayer, claiming that it is somehow discriminatory!
Before supporting the Greens efforts to 'fix' something, would it not first be appropriate for the Greens to demonstrate that it is actually broken, before considering their proposed remedy?

How can it not be discriminatory? The first line is discriminatory.
"Our father, who art in heaven"

The prayer starts by professing a core religious belief that god is our heavenly father. He is not mine.

1st commandment, “I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.”

1st line of the prayer and the 1st commandment exclude everyone but christians. I don't believe in a god so I am already farked. If you believe in another god you are farked. The content is now irrelevant as I am pondering what hell is like rather than any message for good it may contain.

If our goal here is for members of parliament to take a minute to reflect on the massive responsibility that they hold it has failed at the first line.

I seriously cannot get my head around why christians are so hell bent on others hearing this prayer. No one is wanting to stop you from reciting internally. No one is disagreeing it is a good idea for parliamentarians to take a moment to reflect or not if they choose. Just dont make us listen to something we may truely dislike hearing.

I dislike hearing it so at a minimum it is excluding one Australian.

I subscribe to the view that "there is no religion higher than truth", and that none of mankind's contemporary endeavours, can rightly justify claims to monopolisation of truth. However, that fact, doesn't prevent zealous fanatics (secular and non secular) from attempting to assert otherwise.

All (dangerous making sweeping comments I know) claim to have a monopolism truth. Science is merely seeking the truth.

 

[fiftyeight]

So religious schools, hospitals and welfare service providers, no longer merit financial recognition for their easing of the burden on publically funded institutions?!!
How is that not discrimination?

Another rabbit hole I should not have opened. Lets keep this one closed for another day. I have to get some work done today

 

[Humid]

I like the holidays and penalties but that’s where religion ends with me!

Whoops forgot the chocolate eggs,presents and nitrate free leg ham!

 

[Humid]

I will vote green for the very first time at the next election based purely on their pot policy...

Prohibition isn’t working by the looks of it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...-of-australias-illegal-cannabis-trade/9889304

 

[cynic]

With enough practice I hope to achieve ecstasy

I can only speak for myself, but my goals have nothing to do with a higher power. It is to bring myself back to the present, appreciate myself and my mind. I have not once tried to manifest heaven on earth nor do I intend to.

Would it be fair to say that the aims of meditation typically include the exaltation of human consciousness?
If so, how could repetition of such practice, fail to deliver an elevated level of awareness?

How can it not be discriminatory? The first line is discriminatory.
"Our father, who art in heaven"

Yes! I eagerly await an explanation of why this phrase is deemed discriminatorily offensive!

The prayer starts by professing a core religious belief that god is our heavenly father. He is not mine.

1st commandment, “I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.”

Exactly how many times does the word "god" feature in the Lord's prayer?
The last time I checked, it didn't feature at all, not even once!

1st line of the prayer and the 1st commandment exclude everyone but christians. I don't believe in a god so I am already farked. If you believe in another god you are farked. The content is now irrelevant as I am pondering what hell is like rather than any message for good it may contain.

The ten commandments debuted centuries before Christ was born.
Please also note that the words "god" and "hell", don't feature within the Lord's prayer. Furthermore, nothing about its content, suggests the insertion of exclusivity into a peace seeking populace. (Those seeking something other than peace, might perceive their chaotic intentions as being excluded.)

From my literal understanding of your postings, your discomfort seems to largely centre around references to "heaven", and a "heavenly" (or "heaven" dwelling) "father", alongside your interpretation of same. So I ask you, does your disbelief in the concept of humanity, as a divine manifestation, somehow preclude the pursuit of the beneficent values, subsequently advocated, within that prayer?
And why should any profession to belief, in the existence of an inherently magnificent aspect, to all mankind, be seen as cause for offense? Shouldn't that be seen as a compliment to humanity?

If our goal here is for members of parliament to take a minute to reflect on the massive responsibility that they hold it has failed at the first line.

The goals are contained within the prayer, and, contrary to popular misconstruance, those goals do not exclude the interests of any person truly seeking to live in a harmonious and prosperous society.

I seriously cannot get my head around why christians are so hell bent on others hearing this prayer. No one is wanting to stop you from reciting internally. No one is disagreeing it is a good idea for parliamentarians to take a moment to reflect or not if they choose. Just dont make us listen to something we may truely dislike hearing.

Did you fail to notice that a beneficent prayer, advocating for virtuous qualities, and much admired by many, many, (past and present) members of the human populace, has now been demonised in a very public manner?
And yet, you somehow claim, to be amongst those concerned about causing offence?!

I dislike hearing it so at a minimum it is excluding one Australian.

So, it now appears that one has chosen to identify oneself as a potential victim of persecution, via naught more than, audible recital of another's prayer!!
How can hearing somebody praying beneficently, cause such angst?

All (dangerous making sweeping comments I know) claim to have a monopolism truth.

I am a little unclear on what it is you are trying to say here, as I cannot claim to know all the things you know! Also there exists an ambiguity in your bracketed statement, rendering your intended meaning uncertain.

Science is merely seeking the truth.

The same can be rightly said of many religions. The science religion does not hold a monopoly over truthseeking.