Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 9:22pm:

yes, the terrorist sympathising greens are definitely consistently inconsistent in their views.  It's a tragedy they are trying to claim to be a left leaning party.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 9:14pm:



If you don't swear on an religious oath, will you forget what you believe in?

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 6:47pm:



Ain't that the truth.... my uncle, upon his death, was lauded at his funeral by the Commissioner as 'The Honest Copper' - which speaks volumes for the rest, as my brother said.  Indeed my uncle was an honest copper who had more interest in welfare and well-being of people than in fitting them up.  He was known in country towns for putting homeless young men up for a few days, giving them work mowing lawns and such, and then paying them with a few bob so they could have something to eat and would not get into trouble through having to steal of anything.  He was also noted for going round the pubs and sending people home to their kids, who were often left at home alone while the parents drank, and for standing up for accused people in court when they deserved it, and for never giving preferential treatment to the 'rich man's son'.

He is still remembered in country towns in NSW such as Tumut and Braidwood .. fondly.

Stratos wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:56am:

Thats the same argument as suggesting anyone with more access to spread their free speech should be banned from using certain media,  but it's not the same as excluding all others.

You want to stop singling out main stream religion then enlarge the scope, dont ban it.

____ wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 10:01am:


Draw whatever doodles you want in the sand.  The fact remains that you should remain consistent : either you value religious sanctity or you dont.  You cant argue against one but then get all green faced over another, especially when the other isnt even part of religious sanctity, although your misguided pc land tells you it is.

____ wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 10:09am:


It is when your argument is its a religious outfit and should be respected on those grounds.

I wont even go into the "choice" these women have, thats obviously beyond you.

The fact is we either have the freedom to express our religion or we dont.  But no government should be allowed to try and pass laws in between.  The oath should ultimately be taken on anything a person holds sacred, be that on a bible or a peice of carrot.  The value is in the persons belief they are taking a sacred oath, not actually the words.

If you ask me, id do away with freedom of religion and wed have a completely different ball park.  But while our constitution continues to afford this right i dont believe its okay for governments to dither on the sidelines.

Israeli Far 'Right' ... yes.
Yet ...  not correct.

Secularisation of the courtroom is a step in the correct direction.
The religious oath implies religionists are above those that are not part of any cult.

Now, without swearing to the flying spag monster, will religionist be more likely to lie.

If not, then the opposition to the change is a storm in a teacup.