Oceania The Official Oceania Political Debate Thread! Current Debate: **The Pauline Hanson Verdict**

As much as I hate to admit it, the whole issue just keeps coming back to religion. One would assume that, in a country such as Australia, we have the right to practise freedom of religion. How can Howard then condone the forcing of a religious belief on a group of people? If you are not Catholic, why should you be subjected to their rules?

 

As a Christian, I must say that I am mortified that the extreme right wing is using God's good name to justify wars, oppression etc.

As for gay marriages, though they may be a sin, I think they should be allowed to do whatever. I think adultery immoral, but I'm not going to seek for adulterers to be punished or anything.

EDIT: As for teh Pope, I think he's just an old man in a cool hat. He isn't God's representative on Earth, that's Jesus' job.

 

Okay, I'm going to preface my reply by confessing I'm Catholic, so feel free to regard me as backward, homophobic, and out burning Protestants, Muslims and Britney Spears fans in my spare time

I will agree that Uncle Johnny shouldn't really weigh in on the Pope's side on this, mostly because to my recollection his electorate at present isn't overwhelmingly Catholic in any event, and therefore there is a question as to his mandate.

If what's being contemplated is legislation forcing the churches to permit same-sex marriages, that clearly would be wrong. Nobody is forced to join the Catholic Church, or indeed any church; even if baptised, you can renounce your vows any time and go forth safe in the knowledge you've been excommunicated. Free country and all that.

But I think the gay marriage issue would need to be put to a conscience vote if it came to amending the 1961 Marriage Act (which is what's required). Tinkering with the concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman really touches people on very deep levels, and I don't think it's fair to ask a parliamentarian to decide his stance on the basis of supporting the party view.

Also, can I just put in a calm objection to the phrase "edict" being used to describe the Pope's actions. As far as I know, the Pope hasn't prescribed excommunication as the penalty for noncompliance; it could be better described as an exhortation to Catholicism to take up this cause. Every Catholic has to be guided by their conscience in the end as to whether to respond to that or not.

The Pope isn't God on earth, no. But in the Catholic faith, he does stand as Peter's successor, to whom was given the promise "on this rock I will build my church," and the jurisdiction "whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven" (paraphrasing). Within that same Catholic faith is the belief that (a) marriage is made between one man and one woman and that (b) homosexuality is an affront to morality, if not to God, because it goes against the natural order of human procreation and reproduction. Does anyone really expect the Pope not to comment on such an issue, given these two beliefs? And given those beliefs, does anyone expect him not to lead Catholicism in upholding those beliefs and asking others to do the same?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Even the heads of backward, outdated, and homophobic institutions, which incidentally spawned such modern bodies as the Little Sisters of Mercy (whose head Mother Theresa was out embracing AIDS victims long before Princess Diana got in on the act), the Franciscan Friars, or Father Maximillian Kolbe who gave his life willingly for another man selected to die in the Auschwitz starvation cells. (Of course, Catholics call him a saint, but that's perhaps another example of a backward, outdated, and homophobic belief system )

People, the Pope isn't calling for Catholics to don suits of armour and go out castrating the unholy. He's asking Catholics to stick closer to the beliefs they...we...hold. Is he right to do that? I'm not the one to judge. And for that matter the Pope doesn't either. That's reserved for God alone. I don't see how people can pass judgment on the Church or the Pope for saying what they believe. It's no different to the expression of ideas on these boards, to my mind. (Albeit the Pope's Mod defers his ban/unban decisions until after death )

Can we lay off the Catholic Church now?

 

Merrick and Rosso called the Vatican and got through to a secretary, I think, and asked her to give the Pope a message, then proceeded to play
"I wanna take you to a gay bar" over the phone...I thought it was funny.

Then today they called Parliament Press Secretary (or whatever) and left the same message for Johnny.

^0^

 

However, Jonny justified it as the way to keep the "Family" alive and bascially said that marriage was for procreation purposes.

Does that mean that any heterosexual couple that can't produce children (for any reason) aren't married or are despoiling the sanctity or something equally inane?

To me it doesn't really matter. Two poeple (male and female, male and male, female and female) who love each other and want to remain together for ever is cool - wanting a small slip of paper that legally validates that is fine as well.

Kithera

 

Does that mean that any heterosexual couple that can't produce children (for any reason) aren't married or are despoiling the sanctity or something equally inane?

Quite. Those people who are married and don't want children oughta be outlawed too!!

 

If what's being contemplated is legislation forcing the churches to permit same-sex marriages, that clearly would be wrong. Nobody is forced to join the Catholic Church, or indeed any church; even if baptised, you can renounce your vows any time and go forth safe in the knowledge you've been excommunicated. Free country and all that.

What praytell, about a Catholic who practices homosexuality and wishes to marry in the church he has been at since his youth? Should he be forced to leave the Church? Or is he simply "not a real catholic" because he was born different to the average idiot on the street? Forgive my ignorance, but this is not the action of a Church upholding Christian ideals of egalitarianism, piety, humility and love. It is bigoted, stratifying and ultimately contrary to what I and I'm sure others perceive to be the teachings of Jesus Christ.


But I think the gay marriage issue would need to be put to a conscience vote if it came to amending the 1961 Marriage Act (which is what's required). Tinkering with the concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman really touches people on very deep levels, and I don't think it's fair to ask a parliamentarian to decide his stance on the basis of supporting the party view.

Indeed, I just hope none of the Catholics in parliament feel swayed by their Pope's "exhortation". Wouldn't want the old git to have an undue influence on Australia's legisilation would we? Free Country and all that.

Also, can I just put in a calm objection to the phrase "edict" being used to describe the Pope's actions. As far as I know, the Pope hasn't prescribed excommunication as the penalty for noncompliance; it could be better described as an exhortation to Catholicism to take up this cause. Every Catholic has to be guided by their conscience in the end as to whether to respond to that or not.

I hope all Catholics have the objectivity as you. As stated above, especially if they are a parliamentarian. Your objection to the word edict is noted and complied with, although as I'm insinuating rather heavily, the wording of his "exhortation" did suggest exclusion from the Will of God if one does not comply. It was cogent, forceful language, not how one would word a "suggestion".

The Pope isn't God on earth, no. But in the Catholic faith, he does stand as Peter's successor, to whom was given the promise "on this rock I will build my church," and the jurisdiction "whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven" (paraphrasing). Within that same Catholic faith is the belief that (a) marriage is made between one man and one woman and that (b) homosexuality is an affront to morality, if not to God, because it goes against the natural order of human procreation and reproduction.

Hence my main gripe. A purportedly benevolent institution is preaching a mandate of bigotry based on far outdated ideals of population, and extremely halycon views of society and equality. It is this interfering with the liberalisation and cerebral expansion of society that in my mind is immoral: not two people in love wishing to legitimise their love in the eyes of the state and/or their God.

Does anyone really expect the Pope not to comment on such an issue, given these two beliefs?
Yes. If he practiced what he preaches, he would see the need for reformation of these two beliefs. Wouldn't be the first time the Church has changed it's stance on parts of scripture to suit a changing world, they could easily fob it off as "yet another metaphor". Seems to have worked well in the past.

And given those beliefs, does anyone expect him not to lead Catholicism in upholding those beliefs and asking others to do the same?

Yes. He should be preaching acceptance and equality, which last time I checked where two of the central tenants upon which Catholicism is based. Bigotry and labelling constituents and others as practicing "immorality" were not. As for asking others to do the same, certain oth

 

What praytell, about a Catholic who practices homosexuality and wishes to marry in the church he has been at since his youth? Should he be forced to leave the Church? Or is he simply "not a real catholic" because he was born different to the average idiot on the street? Forgive my ignorance, but this is not the action of a Church upholding Christian ideals of egalitarianism, piety, humility and love. It is bigoted, stratifying and ultimately contrary to what I and I'm sure others perceive to be the teachings of Jesus Christ.

At the end of the day the Church doesn't recognise same-sex marriages or homosexuality as a valid expression of love. He wouldn't be forced to leave the Church; if he is a practicing Catholic, one would think he would be aware that, so far as the Catholic faith is concerned, he is in a state of sin by practicing homosexuality. If he feels in his conscience that this dichotomy is irreconcilable with his faith, he's left with the option of leaving the Church or abstinence, and as far as the Catholic Church. And staying out of sin was as much part of Christ's message as egalitarianism, piety, humility, and love: "Woman, where are those who condemned you? ... Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more." As I said, it's a point of individual conscience for the person.

I hope all Catholics have the objectivity as you. As stated above, especially if they are a parliamentarian. Your objection to the word edict is noted and complied with, although as I'm insinuating rather heavily, the wording of his "exhortation" did suggest exclusion from the Will of God if one does not comply. It was cogent, forceful language, not how one would word a "suggestion".

An objective Catholic? Surely not Exclusion from the Will of God is the language, but it means you aren't doing all that you can do to be a Catholic. Doesn't mean excommunication (ie kicked out of the Church).

Hence my main gripe. A purportedly benevolent institution is preaching a mandate of bigotry based on far outdated ideals of population, and extremely halycon views of society and equality. It is this interfering with the liberalisation and cerebral expansion of society that in my mind is immoral: not two people in love wishing to legitimise their love in the eyes of the state and/or their God.

Nobody's asking you to get your head ducked and take Communion, PoT. And the Catholics have as much right to be heard as anyone else. As for the Church having halcyon views of society and equality, as Browning once wrote, "Man's grasp should exceed his reach, or else what's a heaven for?"

Yes. If he practiced what he preaches, he would see the need for reformation of these two beliefs. Wouldn't be the first time the Church has changed it's stance on parts of scripture to suit a changing world, they could easily fob it off as "yet another metaphor". Seems to have worked well in the past.

Can you give me an example? I really should remember this part, but I can't...

Yes. He should be preaching acceptance and equality, which last time I checked where two of the central tenants upon which Catholicism is based. Bigotry and labelling constituents and others as practicing "immorality" were not. As for asking others to do the same, certain others may not feel the need to have a dottery old fool guiding their thoughts for them. These people may even feel affronted that he has the gall or audacity to urge them to go one way or the other.

Have you read "Veritas Splendour", PoT? That ain't no doddering old fool guiding their thoughts as you say. And the Pope has never said that "love thy neighbour" isn't the first and greatest commandment. Did you stop to consider he is objecting to gay marriage as an institution, rather than to individual people?

No one is saying no good comes from Catholicism. That would be as ludicrous as claiming Love is immoral in one case and not in the next.

Is it? Isn't adultery immoral? And don't the participants frequently characterise it as

 

Catholicism itself isn't entirely to blame, hopefully people do have some sort of independent thought, especially the leader of our nation. When Howard can prove to me that homosexual marriages will decrease the birth rate in Australia, or decrease the number of heterosexual marriages, then I will be more than happy to hear his arguments. Until then, he's quite welcome to return to the Middle Ages and convert a few heathens to the one true religion.

 

Did you stop to consider he is objecting to gay marriage as an institution, rather than to individual people?

And this makes his objecting less bigoted, how?

The main inference I garner from post, is that you have a right to villify a section of the community based on a 2000 year old collection of bedtime stories. That indeed, your faith as a catholic and the need to adhere to the tenants as expressed in your faith supercedes your responsibility to love and care for your fellow human being.

That, if a fellow member of your Church who loved God with all his heart and was the model of a good Christian came out as a homosexual and participated actively in a relationship, he would suddenly be excluded from the Will of God.

How can you justify this and still maintain the integrity as your institution as a beacon of Hope, acceptance, equality, and love?

If indeed the Pope maintains "Love thy Neighbour" to be the single greatest commandment, why must he then contexualise this by saying "unless he/she is of the same sex and you decide to take the commandment literally?"

 

Have to ask this, sorry:

WHY does the Church need to accept same-sex marriages?

Marriages can be performed in a civil or religious context, right? So why force the secular views onto the Church?

I'm all for same-sex marriages but I feel it's wrong to crucify (pun intended) the Holy See over their marriage stance. I mean, we're seeing people here complaining that the Church is trying to force anti-homosexual views onto society, and in turn they're trying to force their views onto the Church.

I feel very strongly, as someone who was brought up Anglican in a Catholic household (So who do I defer to? Her Majesty or His Holiness? ) that the views of the Church be allowed to remain the views of the Church. Similarly, they cannot speak for society. Thus, if we define marriage, in a civil context, as a union between two people, then I can't see why same-sex couples can't be married. However, if you take the Church's view of man-and-woman sacred before God, that's a different story. Let them believe what they want, let us believe what we want, and if it causes contention then let's work for consensus.

E_S

 

E_S: civil marriages all sound good to me, really. They're still not allowed though.

 

ES: my two bones of contention that differ from what you just stated, are simple.

1) The Church may have it's own stance, but it must not attempt to overtly assert such a stance on a population, and more importantly, cannot as a moralistic institution attempt to coerce it's membership into following such a stance. It's irresponsible.

An individual can have freedom of speech, I'm all for it. But a governing or signifigant institution that heads a collective of people that look up to said institution, has a moral obligation to provide fit guidance to its constituents.

2)I'm also concerned for Catholics in active same-sex relationships. They should have a right to both believe in what they wish as well as marry whom they wish. It seems unfair that a Catholic must choose between his or her partner and remaining faithful to his/her Church. Imagine the heartbreak if a Church goer is told he is "excluded from the Will of God" for marrying the person (civil or otherwise) whom he loves?

Shouldn't he or she be allowed to marry at THEIR Church which they have been devoted members of for decades, as opposed to being relegated and stratified to a civil union, or none at all?

 

Shouldn't he or she be allowed to marry at THEIR Church which they have been devoted members of for decades, as opposed to being relegated and stratified to a civil union, or none at all?

That is the issue for the Church, not for civil liberties activists, or you and me.

The Church may have it's own stance, but it must not attempt to overtly assert such a stance on a population, and more importantly, cannot as a moralistic institution attempt to coerce it's membership into following such a stance

You're a Catholic, PoT, so you know how they work. They don't coerce; but if you don't agree you're going to hell!

An individual can have freedom of speech, I'm all for it. But a governing or signifigant institution that heads a collective of people that look up to said institution, has a moral obligation to provide fit guidance to its constituents.

Ah, dude, what you're overlooking here or forgetting is that to them, they ARE doing that. Their guidance isn't what you or I would agree with, but nevertheless it's what they consider moral and responsible guidance.

E_S

 

New Topic: Revisiting Law and Order: The Pauline Hanson Verdict.

Guys and girls, here is a new topic that has swept the media as a bunch of two-bit journalists try and pull the heart strings of feeble minded and soppy Australia yet again to get one more media beat up to notch on their belt.

Here's my point of view, and it is written in the heat of emotive disgust with this nation after flicking through the albeit lowest common denominator newspaper, the Herald Sun.


There, I saw people claim she was a martyr. Long Live One Nation their letters proclaimed proudly, they cried much in the vein of the current One Nation leadership that she was a veritable "Joan of Arc": once more proving that such stupid individuals can't come up with an arguement or catchphrase by themselves and must rely on the organisation of another's synapses.

They claimed that she was a "poor women" and told us to "think of her family and kids" obviously not thinking about everyother family member of every other CONVICTED CRIMINAL in this country. Does anyone shed a tear over the family of any of our other criminals? Yet again, the lowest common denominator, appeal to people's waxing emotions and sell a paper or two. And the indoctrination has worked, because the great unwashed are singing her praises yet again. Do we TRULY have such short memories?

People begin arguing over the divergence between her JUST penalty - I may even say soft penalty - and that of Murder's, Rapists etc.

I ask you Australia, how is this even relevant? If you want tougher penalities for these crimes petition the government to seek a change in the judiciary on such matters. But it is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is Ms. Hanson's JUST sentance over a crime we know she committed.


There is no grey here people, the facts actually almost speak for themselves. I also note that no one is crying foul over Mr. Ettridge's similar penalty in this whole saga: Why? But he's not famous, and he's not quite as blissfully ignorant as Ms. Hanson: He MUST be guilty! Eh?

What sort of twisted logic we weave.

Let us lay it down straight. Ms Hanson is guilty of MASSIVE electoral fraud, where she received funds and legitimacy for her hateful extremist cause.

From a fraudulant platform in politics she used her illicitly gained legitimacy and funds to indoctrinated thousands, a veritable army of ignorant farmers and the elderly who believed the lies she spoke.
From this fraudulant platform she sowed the seeds of hate and discord, a spiteful and hateful rhetoric where she condemned some of the core tenants we as a nation hold to. She attacked multiculturalism in a racist assault on immigration and assimilation that has to this day had profound effects on the idealigical, social and communal levels of our different political forces and the communities they represent. A social schism has been forged wherein racism and bigotry are justified in some quasi-mystical nationalism or border protection.

She not only did this in her disasterous whirlwind campaign of spiteful and hateful idealogy, but this firebrand right-wing extremist gratutiously upset the political balance all over the country, affecting gravely the state of affairs in Queensland.

She was given cate blache authority to spread her extremist right-wing conservative rhetoric, in a political circus where she smiled in the spotlight, was disturbling potrayed by hick farmer types as a "sex symbol" and made a mockery of our political process.

She set into motion a chain reaction of political decay that has brought us to the current day shambles...


And all of this Australia, for those with such short memories, from a fraudulant, illegal basis.

The maximum penalty for her crime was 10 years. 3 years is soft, and far better then someone of her ilk who has committed such atrocities deserves.

If you want to raise the bar on other crimes fine, but that is a seperate issue

 

I heard on the radio last night that she got Life in prison, while her partner got three years.

 

Not true unfortunately. She was let off on the lenient sentance of 3 years, as was David Ettridge, one of the other members of the One Nation Triad.

 

Lenient sentence of 3 years? Are you kidding? Murderers and rapists get less than that; all Hanson did was mere fraud (and she paid most of the money back anyway so it was quite victimless). The lack of consistency in our pissweak judicial system is an outrage

Community service would've been more desirable




And:
From a fraudulant platform in politics she used her illicitly gained legitimacy and funds to indoctrinated thousands, a veritable army of ignorant farmers and the elderly who believed the lies she spoke.
From this fraudulant platform she sowed the seeds of hate and discord, a spiteful and hateful rhetoric where she condemned some of the core tenants we as a nation hold to. She attacked multiculturalism in a racist assault on immigration and assimilation that has to this day had profound effects on the idealigical, social and communal levels of our different political forces and the communities they represent. A social schism has been forged wherein racism and bigotry are justified in some quasi-mystical nationalism or border protection.

She not only did this in her disasterous whirlwind campaign of spiteful and hateful idealogy, but this firebrand right-wing extremist gratutiously upset the political balance all over the country, affecting gravely the state of affairs in Queensland.

She was given cate blache authority to spread her extremist right-wing conservative rhetoric, in a political circus where she smiled in the spotlight, was disturbling potrayed by hick farmer types as a "sex symbol" and made a mockery of our political process.

She set into motion a chain reaction of political decay that has brought us to the current day shambles...

Completely irrelevant to a charge of fraud. The question in the case was not: Is Pauline Hanson an idiot? Because, if it was, she would have gotten 3 years minimum

 

Its sad state of affairs when murderers and rapist get less time than someone who commits fraud.

If I go into a servo and rob it, I get less time if I kill the attendant and plead guilty to murder, than if I just rob the servo and leave the attendant alive.

 

Murderers and rapists get less than three years in Australia?

What are you guys smoking?!




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

What are you guys smoking?!

The good stuff

That's if they don't get acquited. Some guy got off the other day, even though he looked his victim in the eye and stabbed him.

A guy down here in Adelaide walked up to a man, and shot him in the eye. The guy walked free.

Right now, I think the laws aren't harsh enough. There is no way these people should have gotten off.

 

A guy recently found guilty of killing his two month old daughter got 7 years jail; but can be out in 4.

4 years jail for murdering a defenceless baby.

Pauline Hanson gets 3 years for fraud.

That's only one year's difference.

I'm sorry, but that does NOT add up

 

Agreed. It seems that in this day and age, money is more important than someones life.

 

Sadly, it seems that way, doesn't it. But I still agree with Pauline Hanson's verdict. As PoT said, she got off light considering the full sentence is usually ten years. Instead of saying her three year sentence is too harsh because murderers are getting 4 years (at the most it seems), there needs to be a serious review of our legal system. Judges need to pull their heads in when it comes to charges of rape and murder.

 

I think Mike Rann, the SA premier, is trying to change our system to be harder on crims, especially after that guy got shot in the eye and the guilty walked away. I don't know much about politics, but I *think* he's doing a good job. Eitherway, I do believe we need to be alot harder.