Quote:

The Prime Minister's new parliamentary secretary, Ed Husic, has been subjected to a torrent of racial abuse online for being sworn in to his position with a Koran. Mr Husic became Australia's first Muslim frontbencher on Monday when he was appointed to Kevin Rudd's new-look ministry as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband. "This is a wonderful day for multiculturalism, and everything it stands for in our country," Governor-General Quentin Bryce told Mr Husic during the swearing-in ceremony in Canberra on Monday. Ed Husic, with the copy of the Koran with which he was sworn in as a parliamentary secretary. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen However, after receiving dozens of messages of congratulations on his Facebook page, the comments quickly turned to disgust and outrage that he chose to be sworn in on the Muslim holy book. Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional. "Our allegiance should have been to Queen and Country first Ed. That means saying the oath on the holy bible not the Koran.... Shame, Shame, Shame," posted one user, Ross Peace. "I am so disappointed in this government that they don't have the spine to stand up for the Australian way of life." Another user, Therese Pearce, said she was "disgusted and embarrassed" for the Australian people. "Hell i might just have to use snow white and the 7 dwarfs next time i take the oath for australia," she posted. One user, Anna Dean, claimed his decision to be sworn in on the Koran undermined "our culture and country and constitution in this way". Another user, Carrie Forrest, accused him of disregarding Australia's constitution and pushing for sharia law. Mr Husic has previously said that he is a moderate Muslim who does not involve himself heavily with most of the religious customs and behaviours of the faith. Asked about his religion in 2010, he told the ABC: "If someone asks me, 'Are you Muslim?' I say yes. And then if someone says, 'Well do you pray and go to a mosque and do all the other things that are associated with the faith?' I say no. "I often get told that I describe myself as non-practising when in actual fact I don't go round saying that. Like I just say 'I'm Muslim'." Mr Husic, 43, the son of Bosnian Muslim migrants, became the first Muslim to be elected to parliament when he won his western Sydney seat of Chifley in the 2010 election. Fairfax Media is seeking comment from Mr Husic.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/shame-shame-shame-australias-first-muslim-frontbencher-abused-for-taking-oath-on-koran-20130702-2p8l2.html

Its ceremonious clap trap who really cares ?

Not sure how it will play out, I prefer everyone does not advertise their religion in any way but these BS doctrines seem to insist on it.

Also prefer the constitution does not recognise religion or the queen for that matter.

I think it will be a storm in a tea cup.

"Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional."


Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons.

"unconstitutional"   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:13am:

"Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::)

dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either.

Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:19am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this?

I find it odd as well, but you'd think either Husic and/or the GG would've had legal advice prior to the swearing in ceremony, eh?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? I find it odd as well, but you'd think either Husic and/or the GG would've had legal advice prior to the swearing in ceremony, eh?

I doubt they stopped wetting themselves with excitement long enough to ask anybody if it was ok.


A great day for Australia to take one more step away from being Australia.

Armchair_Politician

Yes it does seem odd that they would expose themselves but the ALP is 100% government on the fly, Rudd fell down on details and delivery this time around he has a L-Plate ministry.

I still think its a non-issue and needs to be treated as such ...... if he swore on a bible his fellow radical ragheads would be out for his blood.

There is no place for any religion in Australia in my view, of any type.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:19am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this?

1. Yes you can.

2. Yes, it's not unconstitutional.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:19am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this?

The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  Perhaps there is an Oaths Act in the ACT which might apply?

It would be kind of pointless to make him swear on a bible if he doesn't believe in it now wouldn't it?

You don't swear on the bible top please others!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? I find it odd as well, but you'd think either Husic and/or the GG would've had legal advice prior to the swearing in ceremony, eh?

you'd like to think so but it still seems odd.  REmember Obama was sworn in TWICE because the Judge messed it up first time? well he THINKS he messed it up and he wasnt really sure. So no, I am not at all sure they got it right.

.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:36am:

The Constitution will be silent on the matter.

No, it's not silent.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html

No mention of the Bible or any religion.

And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:36am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  Perhaps there is an Oaths Act in the ACT which might apply?

It's always good to actually check these things.  ;D




Part 5 Manner of taking oaths and
making affirmations
17 Oath or affirmation by spoken words or other means
(1) A person taking an oath shall, if the person is physically capable of doing so, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is
taken—
(a) hold in his or her hand the Bible, the New Testament or the Old Testament; and
(b) at the same time, say the words of the oath.


A person making an affirmation shall, if the person is physically capable of doing so, in the presence of the person before whom the affirmation is made, say the words of the affirmation.


http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1984-79/current/pdf/1984-79.pdf

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:36am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  Perhaps there is an Oaths Act in the ACT which might apply?

That was my question. I am unsure of the law on this matter and its applicability.  It does however seem a pointlessly controversial thing to do when he isnt even a practising muslim

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:40am:

It would be kind of pointless to make him swear on a bible if he doesn't believe in it now wouldn't it? You don't swear on the bible top please others!

We are also a predominantly Christian country, so one would expect that observance of religious traditions, etc with regard to our parliament would include aspects related to the Christian religion, not Muslim.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:44am:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:46am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:40am: It would be kind of pointless to make him swear on a bible if he doesn't believe in it now wouldn't it? You don't swear on the bible top please others! We are also a predominantly Christian country, so one would expect that observance of religious traditions, etc with regard to our parliament would include aspects related to the Christian religion, not Muslim.

we don't swear on the bible because of 'traditions', although granted it has become a tradition .... people were originally asked to swear on the bible because they believed they would be less inclined to lie or act inappropriately if doing so meant they were sinning .... to ask a Muslim to swear on a bible has as much 'deterrent' factor as asking me to swear on a Koran, I'll do it if it makes you happy, but it means nothing to me.

John, there is a typo in your signature comment: "To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets". It should read:


"To pay that $96 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets"

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:44am: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D

Then, what I said is correct.  It seems it is silent on the matter of a Bible, which was the point under discussion.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:44am: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D

It's not silent in regard to taking an oath.

"The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  Perhaps there is an Oaths Act in the ACT which might apply?"

"OATH"  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html

No need for dictionaries.

::)

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:44am: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D Then, what I said is correct.  It seems it is silent on the matter of a Bible, which was the point under discussion.

OK then.  Yes, it is silent on the issue of the Bible.

But not silent on 'oaths' (I was talking about oaths).

Bottom line: it's not unconstitutional.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:54am:

John, there is a typo in your signature comment: "To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets". It should read: "To pay that $96 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets"

good luck with that. .....

In Qld, an oath must be taken with hand on Bible, and that is probably the case in the ACT.

BUT......the bloke would have made an affirmation, and no Bible is required.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:02pm:

In Qld, an oath must be taken with hand on Bible, and that is probably the case in the ACT.

When you say "in QLD", are you talking about parliament, or QLD in general?

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:44am: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D Then, what I said is correct.  It seems it is silent on the matter of a Bible, which was the point under discussion.

And I answered that in a previous post, under the oaths and affirmations act of the ACT. which is NOT silent on the matter.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:55am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:44am: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. I think you may want to check a dictionary for the definition of silent.  ;D Then, what I said is correct.  It seems it is silent on the matter of a Bible, which was the point under discussion. And I answered that in a previous post, under the oaths and affirmations act of the ACT. which is NOT silent on the matter.

"The Constitution will be silent on the matter."

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:54am:

John, there is a typo in your signature comment: "To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets". It should read: "To pay that $96 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets"

LOL... wait for his reply.  he believes that the debt was $56B not $96B. He is full of such contradictions!

[url][/url]
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:44am:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:36am: The Constitution will be silent on the matter.  No, it's not silent. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html No mention of the Bible or any religion. And courts allow people to use the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible:

The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.[44]

In September 2010, Ed Husic, Member for Chifley (NSW), became the first Muslim to be sworn into the federal parliament. The Age reported that:

For the first time an MP, Labor’s Ed Husic, took the oath while holding a Koran rather than a Bible. The Koran belonged to his parents, immigrants from Bosnia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations

All of this matters because ...?  Just another day in insignificance whinger land?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: In Qld, an oath must be taken with hand on Bible, and that is probably the case in the ACT. When you say "in QLD", are you talking about parliament, or QLD in general?

In general, but that would apply in Parliament.

What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional?

What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:40pm:

What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional? What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.

She took an Affirmation if my memory serves correctly.

In any case, those starting the headlines didn't realise Husic was previously sworn in using the Koran when he first joined Parl't in 2010 ??????  What's new??? (apart from the position into which he's now been sworn)

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:40pm:

What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional? What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.

Why are you the only person replying who has never heard of an affirmation, which we have all acknowledged, but determine was not applicable in this case as opposed to the previous PM.

Thanks for coming.

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.


The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.

But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

Quote:

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else,

For an Oath....it seems, yes a Bible is meant to be involved.

For an Affirmation.......(just as effective and 'legal' as an oath).....no Bible needed.  You can hold whatever you want in your hand.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Quote: The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, For an Oath....it seems, yes a Bible is meant to be involved. For an Affirmation.......(just as effective and 'legal' as an oath).....no Bible needed.  You can hold whatever you want in your hand.

Yes you can hold anything you want in you hand during and affirmation but you cannot swear upon that object during your affirmation.

If you are going to swear and oath in must be on the bible according to the act and if you are going to affirm you must affirm and not swear on anything.


You cannot ask to affirm and then demand to affirm on say the Origin of the Species, even thought you are a rabid atheist. I actually asked to swear on a dictionary once, instead of a bible; oddly enough this request was denied.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

Did you read alinta's post #28??

Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible:
The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.[44]

In September 2010, Ed Husic, Member for Chifley (NSW), became the first Muslim to be sworn into the federal parliament. The Age reported that:

For the first time an MP, Labor’s Ed Husic, took the oath while holding a Koran rather than a Bible. The Koran belonged to his parents, immigrants from Bosnia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

;)

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

It's not the relevant piece of legislation.......

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.

That's not Commonwealth Legislation.

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:20pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era. It's not the relevant piece of legislation.......

Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

No - The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is NOT pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else.

You are misrepresenting it by selectively quoting from it.  If you bothered to read further to Section 21:

Alternative form and manner for oath
Subject to sections 6A and 15 but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a person who is required or permitted to take an oath states, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is to be taken, that an oath taken in a form and manner other than the form and manner specified in this Act would be binding on him or her, the oath may be taken in that form and manner.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1984-79/current/pdf/1984-79.pdf

Quote:

Yes you can hold anything you want in you hand during and affirmation but you cannot swear upon that object during your affirmation.

The word 'swear' is not part of an affirmation.


Quote:

If you are going to swear and oath in must be on the bible according to the act and if you are going to affirm you must affirm and not swear on anything.

Correct. (Or whatever other religious book floats your boat.)



Quote:

You cannot ask to affirm and then demand to affirm on say the Origin of the Species, even thought you are a rabid atheist.

Incorrect.  In an affirmation, you can hold your appendage if that pleases you.


Quote:

I actually asked to swear on a dictionary once, instead of a bible; oddly enough this request was denied.

You are one confused puppy, aren't you!

:D

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm:

You are misrepresenting it by selectively quoting from it.

The single biggest problem when interpreting law: reading one section out of context.

I have to deal with crap like this on a daily basis.

If one wants to be absolutely certain of what a particular section in a piece of legislation means, it's always best to read the entire Act.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Quote: Yes you can hold anything you want in you hand during and affirmation but you cannot swear upon that object during your affirmation. The word 'swear' is not part of an affirmation. [quote]If you are going to swear and oath in must be on the bible according to the act and if you are going to affirm you must affirm and not swear on anything.

Correct.



Quote:

You cannot ask to affirm and then demand to affirm on say the Origin of the Species, even thought you are a rabid atheist.

Incorrect.  In an affirmation, you can hold your appendage if that pleases you.


Quote:

I actually asked to swear on a dictionary once, instead of a bible; oddly enough this request was denied.

You are one confused puppy, aren't you!

:D[/quote]


Is english not your first language?


Because the confusion seems to be yours.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:20pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era. It's not the relevant piece of legislation....... Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it.

derives from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:40am:

It would be kind of pointless to make him swear on a bible if he doesn't believe in it now wouldn't it? You don't swear on the bible top please others!

did juliar swear on it.. she doesnt believe in it either remember?

it is JUST a book... made with paper.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm:

No - The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is NOT pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else. You are misrepresenting it by selectively quoting from it.  If you bothered to read further to Section 21: Alternative form and manner for oath Subject to sections 6A and 15 but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a person who is required or permitted to take an oath states, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is to be taken, that an oath taken in a form and manner other than the form and manner specified in this Act would be binding on him or her, the oath may be taken in that form and manner. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1984-79/current/pdf/1984-79.pdf

And how does 6A oaths and affirmations of ACT legislative members and Section 15 oaths and affirmations of incompetent persons apply in the case of this particular situation.

BTW I did read section 21, just couldn't figure out how it applied, but im sure you will tell me.


Or didn't your read sections 6A and 15?

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:35pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:20pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era. It's not the relevant piece of legislation....... Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it. derives from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Derives from?

How about you post the link that you read so we may verify your conclusions.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:13am: "Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional." Yep, Australia does have its fair share of morons. "unconstitutional"   ::) dont be too quick to say that.  While I agree it is a little bit hysterical, you cannot swear on any book other than the Bible when taking oaths.  You can make an affirmation if you wish but using the Koran actually may be unconstitutional.  If it does not apply in court I doubt it is legal here either. Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? 1. Yes you can. 2. Yes, it's not unconstitutional.

Yes, of course it should be legal for moslems to take an oath in our parliaments and in our courts, on a book which declares;            :P

".......Jews......and the Christians......Allah's Curse be on them....."
Muhsin Khan
http://quran.com/9/30


It is a disgrace.

Will you never learn ?

He's a Muslim for goodness sake I'm fine with him swearing on the Koran, his religious book.  Even if he isn't a devout Muslim.

Most ALP members just affirm, no swearing on a bible or other religious book.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:54am: John, there is a typo in your signature comment: "To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets". It should read: "To pay that $96 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets" LOL... wait for his reply.  he believes that the debt was $56B not $96B. He is full of such contradictions!

what are you waiting for, my reply was 5 posts above your comment dopey .... not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Never mind, you do still qualify as a tool

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:35pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:20pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era. It's not the relevant piece of legislation....... Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it. derives from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act Derives from? How about you post the link that you read so we may verify your conclusions.

I posted it twice already.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:35pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:20pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:48pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:38pm: I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc. Your not promising any old one but God. Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss? I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that? try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!! anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is. Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened. The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era. It's not the relevant piece of legislation....... Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it. derives from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act Derives from? How about you post the link that you read so we may verify your conclusions.

1.Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

Section 42
Oath of Affirmation or Allegiance

Every Senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.

2. Schedule......Gregg has already posted the link that states the wording

3. Then read the link I've already posted
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations

Voila!!!!

Let me put this matter to rest. Husic is a traditional muslim and as such he is my enemy. As everyone knows I am a New Age Muslim so I speak with authority and knowledge on this matter. Husic is being unIslamic.


Quote:

Question: Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government? Summary Answer: Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching.  Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well.  The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule.  Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims.  The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy.  This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule. Additional Notes: In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion.  It cannot be to a kafir country.  As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his homeland?" Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot." A CAIR executive director (in the United States) recently said, "if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land." http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/014-loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.htm

Husic cannot swear allegiance to the Crown because the head of the Crown is the Queen who is also head of the Church of England.

Husic's first and only fealty is to Islan and allah.  You kafirs need to wake up.

salad in wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Let me put this matter torest. Husic is a traditional muslim and as such he is my enemy. As everyone knows I am a New Age Muslim so I speak with authority and knowledge on this matter. Husic is being unIslamic. Quote: Question: Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government? Summary Answer: 6 Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching.  Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well.  The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule.  Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims.  The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy.  This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule. Additional Notes: In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion.  It cannot be to a kafir country.  As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his homeland?" Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot." A CAIR executive director (in the United States) recently said, "if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land." http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/014-loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.htm Husic cannot swear allegiance to the Crown because the head of the Crown is the Queen who is also head of the Church of England. Husic's first and only fealty is to Islan and allah.  You kafirs need to wake up.

oh noes!!!!! Wont somebody think of the children?????

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 3:28pm:

I posted it twice already.

Do you have multiple log ons, cause Im pretty sure I was talking to Alinta



And without a condescending gif I find myself ignoring your words.

Really...who cares what a bunch of bible bashers think. A person could swear on "Andy Pandy Goes Troppo" and it would have as much meaning as the bible.

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 3:30pm:

1.Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Section 42 Oath of Affirmation or Allegiance Every Senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution. 2. Schedule......Gregg has already posted the link that states the wording 3. Then read the link I've already posted http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations Voila!!!!

Not that I don't trust you people, but I don't trust you people and if you have evidence that nullifies mine, I do like to give it a look over myself.

So I thank you for posting the correction.  :)


Addendum: even though it is more policy than legislation; which is why they tend to do what ever the frig they want.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 4:19pm:

Really...who cares what a bunch of bible bashers think. A person could swear on "Andy Pandy Goes Troppo" and it would have as much meaning as the bible.

For all practical purposes, you are right, but the OP thought otherwise.  Dumb.  Not sure what the outcome they reckoned would be.  At worst, he gets re-annointed as a Minister.

Lots of bruhaha over SFA.

Bump one.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 3:28pm: I posted it twice already. Do you have multiple log ons, cause Im pretty sure I was talking to Alinta And without a condescending gif I find myself ignoring your words.

Yes, I know you weren't talking to me.

However, I was trying to help you (and Alinta) out by letting you know that I had already posted the link, thus there was no need for Alinta to post it again.

The information you were relying on was irrelevant: it is not from a Commonwealth Act.

This is what's relevant:

"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SCHEDULE

"OATH

"I, A.B. , do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD!

"AFFIRMATION

"I, A.B. , do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

"(NOTE:  The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time. )"

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/sch1.html

Not an unconstitutional act.

The first one...the start.

There will likely be many more.

Then....well you know what.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 2:27pm: No - The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is NOT pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else. You are misrepresenting it by selectively quoting from it.  If you bothered to read further to Section 21: Alternative form and manner for oath Subject to sections 6A and 15 but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a person who is required or permitted to take an oath states, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is to be taken, that an oath taken in a form and manner other than the form and manner specified in this Act would be binding on him or her, the oath may be taken in that form and manner. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1984-79/current/pdf/1984-79.pdf And how does 6A oaths and affirmations of ACT legislative members and Section 15 oaths and affirmations of incompetent persons apply in the case of this particular situation. BTW I did read section 21, just couldn't figure out how it applied, but im sure you will tell me. Or didn't your read sections 6A and 15?

Oh dear.

Let me try to explain this for you as simply as I can.

Section 6A says that a person must take an oath or affirmation of Office. THe oath or affirmation must be in the form specified in schedule 1 of the Act

Section 17 describes how the the oath is to be taken and, part 1 of section 17 states the oath is to be taken while holding either the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament.

Section 21 - subject to sections 6A and 17 - goes onto state that the oath may also be taken in an alternative manner to that prescribed in section 17 - AND THAT OATH IS BINDING.

where a person who is required or permitted to take an oath states, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is to be taken, that an oath taken in a form and manner other than the form and manner specified in this Act would be binding on him or her, the oath may be taken in that form and manner

It isn't rocket science

You were wrong when you wrote that "The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is  pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else."

You were 100% wrong.

The ACT Act SPECIFICALLY states in section 21 that an oath may be taken in an ALTNERTATIVE manner and form other than that specified elsewhere in the Act.

Thus it begins.

red baron wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Thus it begins.

And no one is thinking of the children.

Who cares?  Ed Husic is an Aussie.
He was born here. His migrant parents are probably so very proud,  So they should be. He probably should have joined the Liberals but .....  ;)

Neferti wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:30pm:

Who cares?

So far, narrow-minded bigots harbouring irrational fear.

Hockey is a Lebbo/Aussie but I dont see the Neo Cons having a problem with his Arab Terrorist heritage

I do not recall any big media issue made at the time Husic was sworn in on the Koran back in 2010....

ANYONE?????? 

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:03pm:

I do not recall any big media issue made at the time Husic was sworn in on the Koran back in 2010.... ANYONE??????

The Libs are suddenly a tad more desperate

adelcrow wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 7:03pm: I do not recall any big media issue made at the time Husic was sworn in on the Koran back in 2010.... ANYONE??????  The Libs are suddenly a tad more desperate

Bingo!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:09pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 7:07pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 7:03pm: I do not recall any big media issue made at the time Husic was sworn in on the Koran back in 2010.... ANYONE??????  The Libs are suddenly a tad more desperate Bingo!

If yes.....counterproductive (imo) to make an issue out of a non issue...BAD BAD strategy

The frenzy of feral abuse and accusations are only going to get worse the more desperate they get so I reckon this is nothing compared to whats coming.

bambu wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

The first one...the start. There will likely be many more. Then....well you know what.

Yep! today was the beginning of the end oflife as we know it, from now on we'll have be-headings in parliament, stonings in recess and burqas on the female members.....no Christmas, no Easter, no grog, the Koran in schools.....yes, the swearing in on that 'other' holy book was just the start.

Not to mention pork, no more bacon for the fat cats in the cafeteria.

If Ed Husic wants to be sworn in on a Koran, then good for him. If it's constitutional and doesn't break any laws then so be it. Just so long as he does his best in his role, that's the only thing that should really matter.

And let's not forget what Kevvie thinks. He makes no room for the alleged religion of islam in his view of ALP thinking:


Quote:

Rudd first Monthly essay, Faith In Politics, illuminated the politician’s religious beliefs, one of his key inspirational figures, and how Christian faith, especially the ‘muscular Christianity’ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, can positively influence questions of state and society. Rudd even goes so far as to conflate Christian and Labor values. Chifley’s phrase, ‘light on the hill’, we learn is borrowed from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. ‘A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.’ The choice of Bonhoeffer does seem an extreme Christian example for Australian politics on which to test itself. (Bonhoeffer was murdered by the Nazis for his association with a group plotting Hitler's assassination.) Rudd says that the ‘intensity of Bonhoeffer’s gaze’ is needed to enable Australian churches to be able to speak ‘truthfully, prophetically and incisively in defiance of the superficiality of formal debate in contemporary Western politics.’

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:19am:

Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this?

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations#_Toc358025337
Section 42 of the Constitution states:

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.[38]

The Schedule to the Constitution contains the wording of the oath and affirmation:

Oath

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God!

Affirmation

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.[39]

NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.[40]

...

Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department (in 1962) has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible:

The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:19am: Does anyone have some actual legal/constitutional information about this? http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/OathsAffirmations#_Toc358025337 Section 42 of the Constitution states: Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.[38] The Schedule to the Constitution contains the wording of the oath and affirmation: Oath I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God! Affirmation I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.[39] NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.[40] ... Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department (in 1962) has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible: The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.

http://thefitnesstutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Edited-Caveman-cartoon.jpg



::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Interesting. Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. Which of course it now is. this is exactly the type of subtle undermining of our cultural traditions that is ocurring, of course Hasic knows he will get away with it, there are any amount of Muslim and other apologists slapping themselves on the back for supporting "diversity" while effectively helping 5th columnists like Hasic white ant the foundations of our culture and traditions.

Quote:

Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void.

So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really?

:D

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D

I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran?

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran?

because she s not JUST the head of a church, she is also the head of the Commonwealth

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran?

What should a Muslim use?

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:34pm:

ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use?

what else? they must swear an oath to the head of the Taliban

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:34pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use? what else? they must swear an oath to the head of the Taliban

The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:36pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:34pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use? what else? they must swear an oath to the head of the Taliban The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.

I understand that Alinta, my last comment was tongue in cheek.

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:43pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:36pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:34pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use? what else? they must swear an oath to the head of the Taliban The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not. I understand that Alinta, my last comment was tongue in cheek.

hahaha......I should have looked more closely at who was posting each comment in the discussion!!!!!!!!!

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:48pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:43pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:36pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:34pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use? what else? they must swear an oath to the head of the Taliban The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not. I understand that Alinta, my last comment was tongue in cheek. hahaha......I should have looked more closely at who was posting each comment in the discussion!!!!!!!!!

all good. ;)

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:34pm:

ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use?

Nothing. The Koran is incompatible with the Christian church. You gullible fools arent even questioning it.

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:33pm:

because she s not JUST the head of a church, she is also the head of the Commonwealth

God comes above state, dont you think? Hasic as a Muislim would certainly beleive this.

This image perfectly illustrates the thought process Rudd underwent when he insanely abolished the Pacific Solution.

http://thefitnesstutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Edited-Caveman-cartoon.jpg

http://sarah.theworkexperiment.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mountain-or-molehill-350x280.jpg

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:33pm: because she s not JUST the head of a church, she is also the head of the Commonwealth God comes above state, dont you think? Hasic as a Muislim would certainly beleive this.

not at all .... if you want to place some pretend figure ahead of state, go for it ....

besides, we weren't rating the importance of the rankings, you asked why he would make an oath to the queen, I gave you a reason.

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:34pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:32pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:26pm: Quote: Since the Queen is the head of the Church of england and any member of Parliament is making an oath of alleigance to the Queen then why on earth would a person use a Koran when doing so, unless of course , it is the intent to make that oath null and void. So, you are telling me that a Muslim cannot affirm allegiance to the Queen?  Really? :D I didnt say he couldnt, what I am asking is why would a Muslim swear an oath of alleigance on a Koran to the head of the Christian church? You can argue that Australia is a secular state but if so, why use the Koran? What should a Muslim use? Nothing. The Koran is incompatible with the Christian church. You gullible fools arent even questioning it.

Yes.  He's not being sworn into the Christian Church though.

Using the Koran to be sworn into Parliament is not unconstitutional.

End of story.