Australian Politics Forum - Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26137
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #15 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:46am

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #16 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:48am

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74932
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #17 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:50am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26137 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #18 - 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"
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38820
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #19 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:55am

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

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

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.

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138739
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #20 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am

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

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

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.

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

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.

Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138739
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #21 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:59am

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74932
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #22 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:01pm

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. .....

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38820 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #23 - 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. BUT......the bloke would have made an affirmation, and no Bible is required.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138739 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #24 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #25 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138739
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #26 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:09pm

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

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

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

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

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 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. Grin

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."

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #27 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:13pm

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!

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #28 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:13pm

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

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.

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...

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #29 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:24pm All of this matters because ...? Just another day in insignificance whinger land?
Back to top	Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of. IP Logged