1. Islam is not a race it’s a philosophical and political ideology
2. My (work/purpose/chat/whatever is current) is for the robust political discussions which include immigration policy, policing, and Commonwealth Constitutional power Rule 10.3 of the New South Wales police media policy assured the right of persons to record the police.
“As far as I’m concerned, you have sharia law here,” she said. “Lakemba is a monoculture, and it is one that does not allow critique of Islam and does not allow free speech because it’s conquered land.”
The justification given for stopping her is that her presence in the area may provoke violence against her.
This perversion of the rule of law is becoming increasingly common in the West whereby we see a shift in the onus of responsibility for any violence that occurs onto the victim rather than the perpetrator based on the race or creed of the lawbreaker.
FACT-CHECK: We (Australia) do not have integration of Islamic culture in Australia we have conclaves of Islamic culture and social/political (Sharia) law operating within Australia outside the laws of the land.
FACT-CHECK: We are by this type of action of Police supporting the conclaves of Islamic culture and social/political (Sharia) law as any unbeliever (infidel) should be able to walk and talk about Islam in “Australia” without fear of abuse or physical threat “PERIOD” and this should be enforced at all times, time to send the message to Islamic followers in Australia “integrate or migrate”
FACT-CHECK: After viewing the News Headlines and editorial content of articles in Australia one could easily lead to believe “Australian media appears to be clearly demonstrating that it is on its knees to Islam.” (some might say butt kissing the master)
Hillsong Church has, over the years, hardly avoided the limelight, often finding itself at the center of hotly-contested debates.
Now one of its biggest leaders is running headlong into the creation debate.
Evolution is undeniable—created by God as a reflective means of displaying nature’s pattern of renewal in pursuance of God’s Word—an ode to the nature of the creative God it reflects—and only ever in part—not the SOURCE! Science and faith aren’t at odds. God created the Big-Bang. https://t.co/Q6Cfkvn9PU
Joel Houston, eldest son of the Sydney-based church’s founders, lead musician in the worship band Hillsong United, and co-pastor of Hillsong Church in New York City, tweeted Monday that “evolution is undeniable.”
Houston is certainly not the first to raise questions about the six-day creation story outlined in Genesis, but the affirmation of evolutionary theory nevertheless remains controversial in many — if not most — Christian circles today.
In 2014, Christian musician Michael Gungor stirred up controversy for a blog post he actually wrote in 2012 in which he explained he had “no more ability” to believe
“that the first people on earth were a couple named Adam and Eve that lived 6,000 years ago.”
He continued, according to Relevant:
“I have no ability to believe that there was a flood that covered all the highest mountains of the world only 4,000 years ago and that all of the animal species that exist today are here because they were carried on an ark and then somehow walked or flew all around the world from a mountain in the Middle East after the water dried up.”
Gungor defended his claims at the time during an interview with Mike McHargue, co-host of “The Liturgists Podcast,” saying that, though he was raised to hold a literalist or “young earth” interpretation of the creation story, he “came up against some of the science” in college. A lot of what Gungor learned, he explained, created “tension” in his theology. See Right:Study Unwittingly Uncovers Possible Major Flaw in Evolution of Species Theory
Famed young earth creationist Ken Ham, founder of the conservative nonprofit Answers in Genesis, took issue with Gungor’s admission, which he described as “outrageous.” He went on to claim the musician was “repeatedly indoctrinated into evolutionary ideas” throughout college.
So when Houston raised his own questions about theology and evolution earlier this week, Gungor chimed in:See Below
HOW DID PEOPLE RESPONDED TO HOUSTON’S CLAIMS?
Woah. “You’ll never believe what this Christian musician believes about the Bible”
😄
(Inside joke from 2014 when I was blacklisted for talking about evolution)
For those who don’t know, Joel is arguably the most influential Christian singer/songwriter in the world. Here he says that evolution is “undeniable.” Fascinating… https://t.co/O7ybsRaezv
How can @joelhouston call himself a worship pastor & yet hold such a heretical view of creation? The Bible says that “God created the heaven and the earth” and “on the sixth day God created man “in His own image”. Times aren’t “evolving”, our culture is decaying. See 2 Peter 3:17 — Frank Sowers (@FrankSowers) June 25, 2018
I just read that line as "whatever your viewpoint, God controlled it". But don't you see a problem if natural selection happened pre-Fall? Surely, It'd invalidate "Through one man, death entered the world…"?
I just read that line as "whatever your viewpoint, God controlled it". But don't you see a problem if natural selection happened pre-Fall? Surely, It'd invalidate "Through one man, death entered the world…"?
Context—things evolve, they change and adapt, I DON’T believe in evolution as a theory of SOURCE, I believe it’s merely a pattern of nature—created by God, reflecting Nature’s desire for renewal, survival, new life—something-SomeONE—Like God. ✌️
After seeing the intense reaction that arose from suggesting evolution is “undeniable,” Houston hedged a bit by offering some context to his earlier tweet.
He asserted God is “way bigger than we think,” and regardless of one’s theological or scientific beliefs, He “is undiminished by our limitations.”
“If God’s creative process was an easy working week, or finely crafted over six-ages of millennia, does it make Him any more or less God?” Houston asked. “Or us any more or less created in His image? Either way, it was an unfathomably wonderful six-day process, however you think to see it.”
Apparently we can’t judge a book by its cover, but we can assume a persons theology by a headline?
1. I don’t ‘call myself a worship-pastor’ per-se.
2. I don’t actually hold any view of creation conflicting those you mention.
In an interview with Faithwire, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a research biologist for Answers in Genesis, gave Houston the benefit of the doubt, admitting it appears the famous worship leader could still be working through his own theological beliefs because his comments on evolution are “ambiguous.”
One of Jeanson’s main criticisms of progressive thought on evolution is that, according to Scripture, death is an interruption to God’s perfect creation — a bug in the system.
But according to evolutionary theory, death isn’t a bug at all — it’s a feature, a mainstay in a process designed to elevate the fittest by eliminating the weak.
“I think the straightforward reading of the whole of Scripture, the entire corpus of Scripture treats death as an intruder into a very good, perfect creation, in which there is no death, and bloodshed, and suffering,” Jeanson explained. “It’s man’s sin that brings this to bear on the universe. God curses the universe as a result of mankind’s sin.”
Jeanson argued those who don’t hold to a literal interpretation of the creation story found in Genesis but instead see it as some sort of poetic narrative must “tolerate errors in the Scripture.” He went on to say the Genesis account is in “severe conflict” with mainstream evolutionary theory.
After delivering a lecture recently at Boston College, Jeanson recalled a student approaching him to say she “can’t believe” that certain parts of Scripture are literal and without error while others parts are fictional and inconsistent with fact.
“I can’t pick and choose, wake up every morning and pick which parts of the Bible I believe and which parts I don’t. That doesn’t make any sense to me,” he recalled the student saying, adding, “I think the next generation understands the severe importance of this issue when it comes to the foundations of the Christian faith.”
But for Gungor — and perhaps Houston — that dichotomy might not pose a problem.
As Jeanson noted, those who hold to a young earth view often see the evolutionary debate as paramount, while those who espouse an old earth perspective tend to put the issue on the back burner, though many, according to Jeanson, call into question the scientific honesty of their opponents.
Original Source: Date-stamped: June 26, 2018 - Author: By Tré Goins-Phillips Article Title: Hillsong Worship Pastor’s Evolution Comments Spark Fierce Debate Among Christians Article Link: faithwire.com
• OPEN DOORS RANKING [0/50] FiftyMost Dangerous Countries To Follow Jesus.1)Open Doors World Watch List (ranked 1 to 50)
• FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2018 . STATUS: Free .FREEDOM AGGREGATE [98/100] Aggregate Score 2)Freedom in the World 2018 Table of Country Aggregate Freedom Score{0 = least free, 100 = most free}
• ADL-GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM INDEX [14%] (0% = least – 100% = most)
• ISRAEL’S TOP TEN ANTI-SEMITISM NATIONS LIST [0/10]
US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Australia is a constitutional democracy with a freely elected federal parliamentary government. In a free and fair federal parliamentary election held in July 2016, the Liberal Party and National Party coalition won a majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives and formed a government with Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister.
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security forces.
The most significant human rights issues included: abusive treatment of minors in detention centers; and allegations of serious abuses against asylum seekers in off-shore detention centers.
The government took steps to prosecute officials accused of abuses, and ombudsmen, human rights bodies, and internal government mechanisms responded effectively to complaints.
FULL REPORT PDF COPY – Pages
BACKGROUND RESOURCE:
a. US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor: state.gov
b. Freedom in the World 2018 Table of Country Aggregate Score: freedomhouse.org
c. Top anti-Semitism nations ranked 1-10 Jewish perspective: timesofisrael.com
d. ADL-Global 4,161,578,905 Total adult population of countries surveyed: global100.adl.org
Article Title: Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain Article Link: facebook.com/PaulineHansonAu/ Date-stamped: 08 06 2018 Time-stamped: 07:06 am Author: Australian Senator Pauline Hanson
If we cannot talk honestly and openly about things like this then it is women likes these who will suffer the most.
If you ever wonder why we must talk honestly and openly about the dangers of Islam all you have to do is watch (below) this report on A Current Affair.
After denouncing Islam this brave Melbourne woman and her daughter were forced to go into hiding after their family turned against them. Her own sons even threatened to murder her and brutally bashed her new husband.
She goes into detail about how she felt like an “animal” and a “slave” while practising Islam says she hopes she’ll inspire other female Muslims to “free themselves” from the religion.
The sons who ‘want mum dead’ after she left Islam
Article Link: 9news.com.au Date-stamped: Jun 5, 2018 Time-stamped: 7:53 pm Author: Reid Butler • A Current Affair Reporter Article Lead In: Nadia tells A Current Affair that her sons threatened to kill her for the family’s honour.
A Melbourne woman who told how she felt like an “animal” and a “slave” while practising Islam says she hopes she’ll inspire other female Muslims to “free themselves” from the religion.
Nadia (last name with held) and her eldest daughter Allawea are now in hiding, after their family turned against them when the pair denounced Islam.
“It is in an honour for them to kill somebody whose turned away from Islam, and their own mother has turned away from Islam so I mean nothing to them,” the 40-year-old told A Current Affair.
Nadia is speaking out in the hopes of helping other Muslim women. Picture: ACA
Things escalated in October last year, when Nadia’s two eldest sons turned up at her former home in Melbourne’s western suburbs, brutally bashing her new husband.
“They were screaming we’re going to kill you, we need you dead,” she told ACA.
The young men fled when police arrived, with officers later allegedly finding several rifles in their possession.
Nadia says her sons treated her like an “animal” and “second class citizen” after she denounced Islam. Picture: ACA
Police allegedly found several rifles belonging to Nadia’s sons. Picture: ACA
Nadia and her teenage daughter are now living in a safe house, provided by a domestic violence charity.
The 40-year-old, originally from Bendigo, met her ex-husband when she was in her late teens. She fell head over heels and converted to Islam but “struggled to do daily prayers, daily washing” and “read the Koran”.
“I watched my children giving me their seconds off their plate … and that was okay because I was western and white, and not Muslim,” she said.
She claims she denounced the faith after growing concerned about growing anti-western sentiment in the family and discovering her ex-husband had been seeing other women – a move that ultimately led to the October incident.
“Maybe after today, there will be some women who will say ‘hey I am human, I’m not an animal’ and maybe they will get the chance to be free,” she said.
*An old station hand named Billy was overseeing his flock in a remote pasture in the outback when suddenly a brand-new $193k BMW X5 M advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust. *
*The driver, a man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the old man, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?” *
*Billy looks at the young man, who obviously is a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, why not?”*
*The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell Precision 5520. Laptop, connects it to his Iridium 9555 Satellite phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. *
*The yuppie then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany*
*Within seconds, he receives an email on his iPhone 8 Plus smartphone that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his KeyOne Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. *
*Finally, he prints out a full-colour, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturised HP OfficeJet All-in-One 250, turns to Billy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.” *
*”That’s right. Well, you’ll be help-in yourself to one of me calves, then, since you won it fair en square.” says Billy. *
*He watches the smartly dressed yuppie select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the man gingerly picks it up & stuffs it into the boot of his car. *
*As the yuppie is carefully brushing the dust & hair off his suit, Billy says, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what work you do & where you come from, will you give me back my calf?” *
*The yuppie thinks about it for a second, wondering what this wrinkled up dirt encrusted uneducated old man could possibly know? He grins and then says, “Okay, old fella, why not? I’m a believer in fair play.”*
*”You’re a politician” *
&
*” You work in Canberra.” says the old timer. *
*”Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but, tell me how on earth did you guess that?” *
*”No guessing required.” answered Billy “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living – or about cows, for that matter. *
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley spoke to the UN General Assembly ahead of its vote on the status of Jerusalem, December 21, 2017: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-nikki-haleys-speech-to-un-general-assembly-on-jerusalem/
Thank you, Mr. President.
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.
I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it’s important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.
But we’ll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it’s position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
Malcolm Turnbull says Australian’s Voted Yes for Love
The nation as a whole has spoken – it was a comprehensive win for the yes vote in the same-sex marriage survey.
And the yes vote was strongly endorsed by West Australians.
More than 1.25 million people voted from WA, with a yes vote of 63.7 per cent – the third strongest vote behind the ACT and Victoria.
The WA voting turnout was strong, particularly given it was a voluntary survey – 78.4 per cent of eligible voters had their say in the West..
Hundreds of West Australians gathered in public places such as the Northbridge Piazza to watch as the Australian Bureau of Statistics delivered the results.
There was nothing but joy at the results, with tears and hugs all around as the comprehensive yes win became apparent.
THE RESULTS
Participation rate by age and sex1)https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate
Full table of results2)https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate
Electorate
State
Yes %
No %
Non-responding %
Participating %
Banks
NSW
44.9
55.1
19.9
80.1
Barton
NSW
43.6
56.4
22
78
Bennelong
NSW
49.8
50.2
18.8
81.2
Berowra
NSW
54.6
45.4
15.3
84.7
Blaxland
NSW
26.1
73.9
24.8
75.2
Bradfield
NSW
60.6
39.4
16.3
83.7
Calare
NSW
60.2
39.8
21.9
78.1
Chifley
NSW
41.3
58.7
26.1
73.9
Cook
NSW
55
45
17.8
82.2
Cowper
NSW
60
40
20.8
79.2
Cunningham
NSW
65.7
34.3
18.1
81.9
Dobell
NSW
65.7
34.3
21.1
78.9
Eden-Monaro
NSW
64.9
35.1
20
80
Farrer
NSW
55.2
44.8
22.6
77.4
Fowler
NSW
36.3
63.7
27.6
72.4
Gilmore
NSW
62
38
19.4
80.6
Grayndler
NSW
79.9
20.1
14.9
85.1
Greenway
NSW
46.4
53.6
23.5
76.5
Hughes
NSW
58.4
41.6
16.2
83.8
Hume
NSW
58.6
41.4
21.1
78.9
Hunter
NSW
64.4
35.6
21.5
78.5
Kingsford Smith
NSW
64.1
35.9
20.3
79.7
Lindsay
NSW
56.2
43.8
23.5
76.5
Lyne
NSW
55.3
44.7
18.7
81.3
Macarthur
NSW
52.1
47.9
24.6
75.4
Mackellar
NSW
68
32
16
84
Macquarie
NSW
63.9
36.1
17.3
82.7
McMahon
NSW
35.1
64.9
22.2
77.8
Mitchell
NSW
49.1
50.9
18.4
81.6
Newcastle
NSW
74.8
25.2
17.3
82.7
New England
NSW
52.5
47.5
23.1
76.9
North Sydney
NSW
71.8
28.2
16.2
83.8
Page
NSW
59.7
40.3
21.4
78.6
Parkes
NSW
52.7
47.3
27.4
72.6
Parramatta
NSW
38.4
61.6
25.2
74.8
Paterson
NSW
65.5
34.5
20.6
79.4
Reid
NSW
52.7
47.3
22.3
77.7
Richmond
NSW
67.9
32.1
19.7
80.3
Riverina
NSW
54.6
45.4
22.8
77.2
Robertson
NSW
65.7
34.3
18.6
81.4
Shortland
NSW
67.7
32.3
17.5
82.5
Sydney
NSW
83.7
16.3
19.5
80.5
Warringah
NSW
75
25
16.1
83.9
Watson
NSW
30.4
69.6
23
77
Wentworth
NSW
80.8
19.2
17.4
82.6
Werriwa
NSW
36.3
63.7
25.9
74.1
Whitlam
NSW
62.3
37.7
19.9
80.1
Aston
VIC
62
38
18.4
81.6
Ballarat
VIC
70.5
29.5
18.3
81.7
Batman
VIC
71.2
28.8
16.1
83.9
Bendigo
VIC
68.7
31.3
17.3
82.7
Bruce
VIC
46.9
53.1
22.3
77.7
Calwell
VIC
43.2
56.8
21.1
78.9
Casey
VIC
68.1
31.9
16
84
Chisholm
VIC
61.6
38.4
17.6
82.4
Corangamite
VIC
71.6
28.4
14.9
85.1
Corio
VIC
67.7
32.3
16.4
83.6
Deakin
VIC
65.7
34.3
15.4
84.6
Dunkley
VIC
72
28
18.1
81.9
Flinders
VIC
70
30
17.9
82.1
Gellibrand
VIC
68.1
31.9
17.8
82.2
Gippsland
VIC
60.2
39.8
19.3
80.7
Goldstein
VIC
76.3
23.7
14
86
Gorton
VIC
53.3
46.7
22.7
77.3
Higgins
VIC
78.3
21.7
15.6
84.4
Holt
VIC
50.7
49.3
23.2
76.8
Hotham
VIC
59.6
40.4
19.6
80.4
Indi
VIC
63.1
36.9
17.9
82.1
Isaacs
VIC
65.3
34.7
19.2
80.8
Jagajaga
VIC
73.5
26.5
14.7
85.3
Kooyong
VIC
73.7
26.3
14
86
Lalor
VIC
56.8
43.2
23
77
La Trobe
VIC
67.5
32.5
17.1
82.9
Mallee
VIC
54.3
45.7
21.2
78.8
Maribyrnong
VIC
59.9
40.1
21
79
McEwen
VIC
65.4
34.6
19.3
80.7
McMillan
VIC
62.7
37.3
18.6
81.4
Melbourne
VIC
83.7
16.3
17.2
82.8
Melbourne Ports
VIC
82
18
17.8
82.2
Menzies
VIC
57
43
15.9
84.1
Murray
VIC
57.6
42.4
20.4
79.6
Scullin
VIC
53.4
46.6
20.1
79.9
Wannon
VIC
61
39
18.6
81.4
Wills
VIC
70
30
17.1
82.9
Blair
QLD
60
40
23.3
76.7
Bonner
QLD
62
38
17.6
82.4
Bowman
QLD
62.1
37.9
18.6
81.4
Brisbane
QLD
79.5
20.5
18.4
81.6
Capricornia
QLD
54.1
45.9
25.2
74.8
Dawson
QLD
55.1
44.9
25.8
74.2
Dickson
QLD
65.2
34.8
18.2
81.8
Fadden
QLD
61.8
38.2
23.7
76.3
Fairfax
QLD
64.3
35.7
19
81
Fisher
QLD
62.8
37.2
19.1
80.9
Flynn
QLD
51.5
48.5
24.4
75.6
Forde
QLD
60.5
39.5
23.9
76.1
Griffith
QLD
76.6
23.4
18.2
81.8
Groom
QLD
49.2
50.8
20
80
Herbert
QLD
62.8
37.2
27.9
72.1
Hinkler
QLD
50.7
49.3
21.8
78.2
Kennedy
QLD
46.7
53.3
29.5
70.5
Leichhardt
QLD
63.4
36.6
32.2
67.8
Lilley
QLD
67.7
32.3
18.6
81.4
Longman
QLD
60.4
39.6
22.2
77.8
Maranoa
QLD
43.9
56.1
21.8
78.2
McPherson
QLD
65.5
34.5
21.9
78.1
Moncrieff
QLD
63.8
36.2
24.1
75.9
Moreton
QLD
60.9
39.1
20.4
79.6
Oxley
QLD
60.3
39.7
23.9
76.1
Petrie
QLD
61.6
38.4
21.3
78.7
Rankin
QLD
54.6
45.4
25.5
74.5
Ryan
QLD
72.7
27.3
15.3
84.7
Wide Bay
QLD
55.6
44.4
20.5
79.5
Wright
QLD
56.8
43.2
21
79
Adelaide
SA
70.1
29.9
18.6
81.4
Barker
SA
52.3
47.7
23
77
Boothby
SA
68.5
31.5
15.7
84.3
Grey
SA
53.3
46.7
24.8
75.2
Hindmarsh
SA
63.3
36.7
18.3
81.7
Kingston
SA
68.1
31.9
19.3
80.7
Makin
SA
60.4
39.6
20.5
79.5
Mayo
SA
64.7
35.3
16.2
83.8
Port Adelaide
SA
61.3
38.7
23.7
76.3
Sturt
SA
61.6
38.4
18.6
81.4
Wakefield
SA
61
39
24.3
75.7
Brand
WA
67.1
32.9
24
76
Burt
WA
57
43
23.8
76.2
Canning
WA
60.2
39.8
21.5
78.5
Cowan
WA
58.8
41.2
22
78
Curtin
WA
72.2
27.8
16
84
Durack
WA
59.2
40.8
32.1
67.9
Forrest
WA
63.8
36.2
21.1
78.9
Fremantle
WA
70.1
29.9
19.4
80.6
Hasluck
WA
62.4
37.6
20.3
79.7
Moore
WA
68
32
16.8
83.2
O’Connor
WA
56.2
43.8
24.3
75.7
Pearce
WA
63.9
36.1
23.7
76.3
Perth
WA
71.5
28.5
19.5
80.5
Stirling
WA
61.1
38.9
21.6
78.4
Swan
WA
64.7
35.3
22.3
77.7
Tangney
WA
61.6
38.4
16
84
Bass
TAS
61.7
38.3
20.8
79.2
Braddon
TAS
54
46
24
76
Denison
TAS
73.8
26.2
17.6
82.4
Franklin
TAS
68.8
31.2
17.3
82.7
Lyons
TAS
58.7
41.3
21.9
78.1
Lingiari
NT
54.5
45.5
49.9
50.1
Solomon
NT
65.3
34.7
33.2
66.8
Canberra
ACT
74.1
25.9
16.8
83.2
Fenner
ACT
74
26
18.4
81.6
Original Source 01: Date-stamped: 2017, November, 15. | Time-stamped: 7:01 AM | Author: Chris Leitch | Article Link:PerthNow | Article Title: Same-sex marriage: How Perth, WA voted.
Original Source 02:Date-stamped: 2017, November, 15 | Time-stamped: 10.45 AEDT | Article Link:theguardian.com | Article Title: Full results of Australia's vote for same-sex marriage, electorate by electorate – interactive
Malcolm Turnbull has warned far-reaching religious protections that are discriminatory would “have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament” as the Coalition grapples with division over how changes to the Marriage Act should look if the Yes vote succeeds in the postal survey.
The Prime Minister said amendments could be passed by any MP in the free vote but cautioned he would not support changing laws to increase discrimination, as some fear would happen if parliament passed a bill drafted by Liberal senator James Paterson.
Senator Paterson’s bill would extend religious protections to allow businesses that provide services to weddings the right to refuse service to gay couples.
Mr Turnbull said MPs would be free to move “any amendments they want” to a private-members bill that enters the parliament to change the Marriage Act.
“I don’t believe Australians would welcome, and certainly the government would not countenance the making legal discrimination that is unlawful today,” Mr Turnbull said.
“The fact is that assuming there is a Yes vote tomorrow — the pollsters will really be rocked if there isn’t — but assuming there is there will be a private-member’s bill and amendments could be moved and if people want to move an amendment of that kind, well they can.
“I think it would have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament, but as far as the government is concerned, we are keeping our promise.”
He said the conservative push for extensive religious protections did not mean his authority was undermined.
“It is under my prime ministership that all Australians have been given a say on this issue and if the answer is Yes then, as I promised, there will be a free vote and that means that you will have members of my party taking different views to members of the same party and ditto on the Labor side. That is what a free vote means,” he said.
Divorce ‘teachings protected’
Attorney-General George Brandis says the protection of religious freedom does not include “other interests” as he warned against creating a “new form of discrimination”.
“When we talk about the protection of religious freedom, we are talking about the protection of religious freedom, not other interests,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.
“We are certainly not going to remove one form of discrimination and at the same time instate a new form of discrimination.
“You can protect religious freedoms ads — our law does — without creating a new form of discrimination.”
It comes as conservative cabinet minister Mathias Cormann said Dean Smith’s bill was a “good starting point” but further religious protections needed to be added.
Senator Brandis noted divorce had always against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
“I’m a member of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has always said it will not remarry divorced couples,” he said.
“Nobody has ever said that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be allowed to teach that according to Catholic doctrine and teaching that it won’t remarry divorced couples in a Catholic Church, so there is no inhibition on churches at the moment in teaching what their view, according to what their faith and doctrine of marriage means.
Date-stamped: 2017, November, 14. | Time-stamped: 9:26 am | Author: Greg Brown | Article Title: Same-sex marriage: discriminatory bill won’t get through, Malcolm Turnbull says | Article Link: theaustralian.com.au
What the government does not want you to know… THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: 1: There will be no such thing as NATURAL PARENT but LEGAL PARENTS as defined by Government, thereby removing all rights and authority of “BIOLOGICAL PARENTS” ie all parental rights will be taken away by the Government and placed in the hands of “The Law” which is set by the ruling Government
Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque on Gay Marriage
Posted by Coalition 4 Marriage on September 15, 2017
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today admitted the Australian people will not know the detail of any final legislation to change the Marriage Act before casting their votes in the plebiscite.
The Australian reports the Prime Minister foreshadowed a lengthy parliamentary debate that would involve numerous as-yet-unseen amendments. In a stunning admission today Prime Minister Turnbull said the government had no control over the legislative process in the Senate.
The Prime Minister said:
“Private members will get a bill to protect religious freedoms and there could be an amendment here and an amendment there, a debate about this and a debate about that… No doubt it will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”
Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton said this was an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister.
“The Prime Minister has confirmed the Australian people are being asked to sign a blank cheque,”
“The Prime Minister has said he does not know the detail of the bill. He has said he does not control the legislative process. He has said that Australians will not know what protections the legislation will or will not contain.
“It’s regrettable that the dynamics in the Senate are such that members of the Government can’t even be relied on to produce a bill that protects parents’ rights, free speech and freedom of religion.
“Given the fact the Prime Minister couldn’t even convince the parliament to hold a plebiscite on marriage in the first place, how can the Australian people have confidence the parliament will ‘get it right’ on protections for parents, speech and faith?
“I say to all Australians – if you don’t know, vote ‘no’,” he concluded.
A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage will give Politicians a Blank Cheque.
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, September 15. | Author: Coalition 4 Marriage | Article Title: PRIME MINISTER ADMITS AUSTRALIANS ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHEQUE ON GAY MARRIAGE Article Link: coalitionformarriage.com.au
PROFESSOR DAVID FLINT: A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Will Give Politicians a Blank Cheque
Professor David Flint says politicians have hardly earned our confidence, so why are we now trusting them to change the constitution without telling us what exactly they plan to do?
Like Professor Flint, Alan Jones was a one of a small number of media commentators recommending a No vote on whether Australia should be a republic in 1999.
This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.
The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These included marriage.
Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.
Thousands of demonstrators took part in a same-sex marriage rally in Sydney last weekend. Picture: AFP
This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.
In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.
And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.
To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.
The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.
The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.
The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into emperor-dictators.
Why won’t Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reveal his hand concerning what happens if a Yes vote gets up? Picture: Kym Smith
Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.
The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of traditional marriage.
We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to legitimise polygamous marriages, demeaning seriously women’s rights.
This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, including underage and arranged marriages.
Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.
The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of traditional marriage.
clip
If there is a Yes vote, we have no guarantee that our existing freedoms of speech and religion will be maintained. The bullying and fake news by some of the self-selected leaders of a community, one which seems to only exist in a never-ending series of initials, should put everyone on guard.
There is nothing to stop the introduction of same-sex marriage being used, as it has been in other countries, to step up filling our schools with campaigns to encourage so-called gender fluidity and enforce the access by both sexes to lavatories, showers and change rooms. There is nothing to stop some schools and other charitable institutions being forced to close down and teachers and people generally being gagged.
All of this would have been avoided if the details and consequences of the proposed change were on the table before the people vote, as the Constitution clearly requires.
There was no reason why a proper referendum could not have been called to coincide with the next federal election. Instead we are being asked to vote Yes and give a blank heque to, of all people, the politicians.
David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, campaigned for the No case in 1999
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017 September 12. | Time-stamped: 10:00 pm | Author: The Daily Telegraph | Article Title: DAVID FLINT: A YES VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHEQUE | Article Link: dailytelegraph.com.au
The views and opinions expressed in all posted article are those of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or of the owners/administrators of where this article is shared online. Claims made in this piece are based on the original author’s own opinion and not stated as evidence or fact.
