7 posts tagged “politics”

What do people think of banning smoking and/or/not legalising marijuana?

Let there be debates! (Hopefully someone reads this thing - apart from GinBaby ofcourse [whilst she is win, she can't have a debate with herself, or can she?]).

I have just fallen in love with a couple of new cartoonists. So what? you say. Well.... They are from New Zealand, the traditional enemies of Australia (just because we decimate them in sport and they decimate us in human rights quality).

But anyway, here's a sample of the three or so cartoonists:

I have recently been watching (rewatching) the TV series by Micheal Moore called "The Awful Truth". THe particullar episode that I am interested in is one in which he runs a Ficus for the American Parliament. He actually wins but (like Mickey Mouse, who wins a seat at every election) is refused a seat because he had to have write in votes.

I propose we do the same here in Australia, not merely to make a point however, but to inject some sense of

intelligence back into Australian politics.

The qualifications for running for a commonwealth seat are:

The candidate must be enrolled or entitled to be enrolled to vote:
Compulsory enrolment and voting for Australian citizens 18 years and over who have lived at their present address for one month.
The candidate must be 21 years or older
The candidate must be born in Australia or be a naturalized citizen or have lived here for six or more years.

Does anyone have a tree that fits the bill?
Would you like to lend support to the campaign for Ficus?
Any thoughts on the political or legal ramifications of running a tree for a political seat?

It's a very fast news day (if you can say a day with much news is fast). John Howard on A.M. with his new Immigration bill (read racist, white australia bill), fires sweeping accross the country, Pinochet being dead (and the riots about it), Kofi Annan retiring.

Which of these is the most important?

Well, worldwide - Kofi Annan (he was a good bloke and will be sorely missed) but in Australia - John Howard and the immigration legislation.

This legislation is the most, biggoted, reactionary, close minded piece of pointless conservative tripe dished up to us from a government who has previously given us changes to IR laws (which remove workers rights) and has spent their entire term in office systematically removing rights and priveleges from the working class.

More on the immigration test later - an essay is in the works.

A friend and I have been working on this little loophole for the past month or so, sussing out all of the relevant legalities and this is what we have come up with (we sent it out yesterday):

Department of Education & Training

Uniform policy guide for students:

Literally Wear Whatever You Want

For all students in Western Australian state schools, you probably have had to endure some pretty shoddy Uniform requirements in your school. For example at , it is compulsory to wear black shoes and other formal uniform in 2007, making way for the new Academically Selective School.

If you’re any public school student fed up with those horrible garments or styles, you might be surprised to learn that the law actually states that you can literally wear whatever you want; as long as you preferably have the school logo somewhere, (though it technically doesn’t even have to feature that), and you can’t legally be punished in any way by any teacher or administrator in the school.

Sounds good? The part applicable is contained within Part D. of the Dress Requirements for Students Policy:

Dress Requirements for Students

Effective: 1 September 2005

                                                                    NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRESS REQUIREMENTS

         d.)              Sanctions do not include suspensions, exclusions, or any approach which would inhibit                                                          participation in the student’s educational program.*

                                                       Sanctions are limited to the following actions:

i)                                                                preventing the student from any activity in which the student would have been representing the school (Regulation 36(2)(a)); or

ii)                                                              preventing the student from attending or participating in any school activity which, in the opinion of the Principal, is not part of the educational program (Regulation 36(2)(b)).

So in summary, if you’re a teacher reading this printout, it means you cannot do the following:

*Hand out an infringement or incident slip.

Incident or infringement slips, when one has accrued a specific number, causes suspension or detention (which are both "exclusions" and therefore against the approved sanctions).

*Force a student to see any administrator (Principle, Deputy, etcetera), the Year Coordinator, Student Services, or take a student out of class to discuss uniform issues.

This would inhibit participation in the student’s educational program, and is also therefore against the approved sanctions.

*Try to remove a piece of uniform, whether by force, or by mounting verbal pressure on the student to do so.

According to the CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 222, if you use force, it is assault, and if you apply verbal pressure, it can also be assault.

The definition of ASSAULT is:

A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without his consent.

"The term "applies force" includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort."

Shouting or demanding that the student remove a uniform item can cause personal discomfort, and therefore can also be classified as assault.

*Exclude a student from a class activity or punish them in any way.

Other than excluding the student from an excursion or out-of-school event, you are powerless under the law to hand out punishment of any kind that would inhibit the student’s education; this can be interpreted to mean almost everything.

Students should stick to these guidelines assertively, and use this printout to inform ignorant teachers of the Law and their rights

In our society we have traditionally viewed the media as the defenders and regulators of our political and social systems, exposing the flaws and holes in our democracy and societal values. We had come to regard them as an integral part of our information age, bringing enlightenment to the masses and scandals (both political and social) to the fore. They were meant to serve the public in holding their representatives accountable, to creat a golden age of transparency, but now it seems that they have become appeasement factories, designed to pander to those of us in society with an already apathetic view (those doing a perpetual dog-paddle in the vast see of intellectuality) and serving to dumb down those who truly care (our champion swimmers).

The television stations of our society have become ruled by two types of people. In the non-for-profit/state sector they are now controlled by largely rightwing, politically correct men who, out of fear for their jobs and their funding (especially in the government run stations), pander to the whims of a government who are consistently lowering funding for these ventures regardless of their success and who have activelly state that they are totally against an academic, intellectual Australia. In the commercial sector, unlike yet akin to the nfp's, we have a culture of ratings obsession. Instead of producing programs that both entertain and inform we have seen the rise of that despicable genre – reality T.V. – with shows like Big Brother seducing those unwary viewers with its risqué (if pointless) antics and the user interaction it provides.

Apart from these "reality" shows all that is available on T.V. and commercial networks in particular is bad American drama. Not only is it not Australian it is also quite often incredibly bad. We have seen shows like Dharma and Greg, Days of Our Lives, The Bold and the Beautiful, The OC and Lost, all of which are frankly terrible.

Furthermore, whilst providing shows like Big Brother and Dancing with the Stars  our T.V networks have given us a disturbing lack of serious Australian drama, the only long running show we have left at the moment is Neighbours, a show which could hardly be argued to be intellectual. Over the years we have seen consistent caning (to use a media term) of shows that challenge the audience. On the political & social satire front we have seen the demise of shows such as:

The Graham Kennedy Show, The Mavis Bramston Show, Frontline,

The Glasshouse, The Paul Hogan Show and The Gillies Report.

The last bastion of this genre is seen in The Chaser, which, it has to be said, is not the greatest defender of political satire and humorous expose.

However political satire is not the only genre that has become unwanted in medialand. We are also gradually losing our current affairs/investigative shows, with shows such as Today Tonight, A Current Affair and Sixty Minutes becoming the major performers in the area. These are, perhaps, the most terrible shows (not just in current affairs but in every sector) in Australian history and when seen from the perspective of an outsider they render a truly disturbing picture of the spiralling decline of the Australian media and our society as a whole (especially considering the ratings that these shows pull). However all is not lost, we still have one warden on this front - , the ABC’s seminal investigative program 4 Corners, is the shining light of our media industry. Whilst it may not be as impressive as it has been previously (with a no holds barred exposé of the worst in Australian life) it is still a brilliant program which showcases problems in Australian society.

With the introduction of new anti-sedition laws by the Federal Government we can only look forward to our T.V. getting worse, if not because of the continual ratings chase than out of fear. We can already see the first steps in this process being implemented by the ABC board (consisting of people like Keith Windschuttle, Janet Albrechtsen and Peter Hurley) in the new “anti-bias” rules. These rules, as they are written now, effectively prevent opinion journalism and political satire. The Australian public should recognise them as the small snowflakes before the avalanche.

In many ways the media has become like McDonald’s or any other fast food provendor. Instead of providing us with quality food at decent prices we are given fatty, disgusting and mostly pointless “food-substitute” which makes their companies a fortune and leaves consumers fatter and thicker than ever before.

To conclude, it has been made clear by the media (through the programs that they present and the rules laid down by both the media companies and the government) that they no longer care about challenging, educating or inspiring the public and all they care about is either (in the government sector) maintaining neutrality or (in the commercial sector) maintaining ratings. Instead of providing us with programs that are made well and about somethign – programs that we need and want, we get handed drivel that is meant to appease us because it humiliates our fellow man. We are not being educated or informed by our media anymore – we are now going through a process of de-education and misinformation. It is now time for the Australian public to go out and reclaim the television media for their own and not leave it as some huge fast food chain bent on padding and slowing the country’s intellectual nervous system.

 

Is God schizophrenic or is it just his worshipers with the problem? The two religions who the monotheistic deity presented in over 300 different bibles preach practically the same philosophies (albeit in different languages and with a few small, yet markedly divisive differences). These two religions, Islam and Christianity, with their many offshoots and subsets, have the same themes, same ideals and practically the same scriptures. Both believe in Adam and Eve and in Abraham, it is just that the institutions of worship and the worshippers themselves seem to follow a conservative, xenophobic line based on the conviction that there can be and should be no church other than their own. This schizophrenic zeal of what is, for all intents and purposes, a single religion has kept two entire cultures at ideological loggerheads for millennia.

There are six main areas upon which the two religions differ these are:

1.        Jesus – the Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of God (because they believe that God is the whole and shall not, under any circumstances, split himself or part with any of his substance) although they still think he was a prophet and his birth was a miracle.

2.        The trinity theory -  The Muslims do not believe in the Holy Trinity (n.b. Father, Son, Holy Ghost/Spirit) they hold that God is a single whole entity not personified as many different entities but whole and unified, a single master being.

3.        Death of Christ – Muslims believe that Christ was neither crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies and the enemies of Christendom. They also believe Jesus was taken up to God after his death.

Christians on the other hand believe that Jesus was crucified (hence the use of the cross as the symbol of Christianity) by the Roman’s and betrayed by the Jewish apostle Judas.  Christians believe Jesus was resurrected (raised from the dead) three days after being crucified (Good Friday to Easter Sunday are the days when Christians remember and celebrate this.). Jesus' crucifixion, they believe, redeems Christians of their sins, particularly the original sin committed by Adam and Eve.

4.        Judgment – The Christians believe that everyone is judged after their death and sent to heaven, hell or perpetual purgatory (a state of waiting between heaven and hell – sometimes interpreted as living).

The Muslims, however, believe that everyone is judged at the end of the earth, on the (aptly named) judgment day. They believe they get sent to heaven or hell on this day.

5.        In Islam it is held that all mankind is born pure and he/she is responsible for his or her own sins and not someone else's (therefore no concept of the original sin is present in Islam – this can be seen reflected in the belief that Jesus did no die on the cross and that his death was not a redemption for human sin).

However in Christianity there is the concept of original sin in which all of mankind is held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve – the mother and father of the human race - which only the sacrament can expiate.

6.        Holy books

Islam - The Qur'an exists today exactly the same as it was revealed to Muhammad, p.b.u.h. there have been absolutely no changes whatsoever made to the wording. Special checks and balances and special means for the preservation of accuracy (.e.g. memorizing of the text by many people, etc. etc.) were put into place so that no error or change could possibly creep into the text.

Christianity - A council was called, in the early days of Christianity, where the church fathers and elders debated. This was presided over by the Roman (and Christian) Emperor Constantine (circa 324 A.D.). This council codified (systematized) standard Christian belief and gave us the New Testament in its present form, depriving some books of the status of Scripture (many of which still exist today and are known as the Apocrypha).

As you can see these major areas of difference do not affect the underlying philosophical and ideological principles of the religion. These churches were founded by people for the purpose of helping and enlightening people and bringing light to an otherwise dark world. They both have strong virtues of benevolence, kindness, tolerance and beatification, all of which seem to have been overlooked by those who attempt to cause hatred because of a few conceptual differences. 

There are many, easily noticeable similarities between these two churches:

1. Both are Monotheistic and believe in the same god figure.
2. In both the deity is omnipotent, omnicognisant and omnipresent.
3. The deity is both the master and slave of man.
4. Armageddon is present in the teachings of both religions and in both it involves some concept of judgment.
5. Both have a devil and in each the devil will be defeated at the end of the world.
6. In the teachings of both Christianity and Islam the deity judges humans on actions and moral compliance and thereby determines wether they are sent to heaven or to hell.
7. The soul is the dominant moral and religious vessel in the ideology of each religion

These are only a few of the similarities from just a cursory look at these two religions. In fact there are many essays dedicated solely to the similarities between these religions, some of them include;

Islam and Christianity/Similarities and Differences by James Abul Rahim Gaudet, Rabia Mills and Syed Mumtaz Ali, Comments Regarding Christianity and Islam by C Johnson, Pastor, A Christ Walk Church and Similarities between Islam and Christianity by Dr. Zakir Naik

It is possible to quote from each book – the Qur’an and the Bible – and show a great amount of discord, for example:

Qur’an 8:5 “Your Lord sent you from your homes to fight for the true cause.”

 

Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’

 

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Compared to verses from the bible such as:

Matthew 5:44:

"But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

And

Luke 6:35

"But love your enemies and be kind and do good so that someone derives benefit from them and lend, expecting and hoping for nothing in return but considering nothing as lost and despairing of no one; and then your recompense (your reward) will be great (rich, strong, intense, and abundant), and you will be sons of the Most High, for He is kind and charitable and good to the ungrateful and the selfish and wicked."

But when you quote from these sources you must realize that you must understand that they have to be understood within the context of their history as described in the Hadiths. All the quoted verses from the Qur’an were directed against the pagan Arabs that had carried unjustifiable acts of terrorism against a nascent and small group of Muslim believers (acts of terrorism far worse than seen ever before in the world). Before it even got to that level, the Muslims persevered for more than 13 years, and even emigrated from to because of this persecution. Even after this, they were still chased by those pagans, and so God authorised the use of force so the Muslims could defend themselves. The verses were not intended to mean a war against Christians at that time, and even special verses were revealed concerning the Jews  that helped the Pagans meaning they were not aimed at the Jews either. At one time Christians from were actually friends to, and protectors of the Muslims when they were still a small group.

You must also remember that Christianity is not entirely innocent of such things – even in defiance of the written bible. For example in the bible there is a verse referring to turning their cheeks when they have been struck instead of retaliating. This has clearly not been the case in the current war on terrorism. There is also the evidence of the crusades against Muslims in the 10th and 11th centuries which were not supported by any biblical references, yet swept the majority of the Christian world into action against the Muslims.

By fighting the Muslims in the crusades the Christians explicitly violated at least 4 of their holiest commandments; "You shall not murder.", "Neither shall you steal.", “Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife.", "Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

There will always be more than one religion, it stands to reason, the vast stretches of land that the human species covers and all of the different conditions and civilizations associated therewith will, of course, give rise to a plethora of different religions and cultures – perhaps even one for each settlement. These two religions worship the same god and the holiest text of one, the Qur’an, actually states “Tell them [the Jews and the Christians], we believe in the revelation which has come down to us [the Qur’an] and the one that has come down to you [the Torah and Gospels]; Our God and your God is one; and it’s to him we surrender.” Qur’an 29:46

Wars between the two religions are caused, not by God, but by system; the system of worship has been built up so much and has become so complex and original that people no longer believe in the God as such, or even the ideology the god promoted, they believe in the system. The system may be wrong, or it may be open to vicious interpretation (good examples of this are the interpretation of Qur’anic verse by fundamentalist, terrorist Muslims, and the zealous anti-abortion Christian groups) but it remains at the centre of the churches, especially the Catholic Church.

In reality these two different religions are really only two different brands of the one big religion. Catholicism and Protestantism are two denominations of Christianity and Islam and Christianity are two brands of the one big franchise – the worship of God. There are many religions out there aside from these two who believe in one supreme god, they may practice their faith in different ways or believe in God with more than one incarnation like the Hindus but they still worship a single creator.

It is foolish to believe that one of these is superior to another since they all worship the same creature, each one has its good points and bad points and each one appeals to different people.

In this climate of fear surely we should be concentrating on uniting these two religions in peace rather than separating them. By examining these two in depth it can clearly be seen that they are, at least in the core, one religion. Why should we let a few differences engender decades and centuries of war and hatred? It is time for these two churches and indeed the two cultures surrounding them to drop the façade of individualism and superiority and recognise that they are both attempting to achieve the same ends – universal peace and understanding. Instead of asking what do we have that is different let us ask what do we have that is the same.