Australian Politics Forum - Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #75 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:17pm 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.
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

Ex Dame Pansi

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24168

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #76 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 8:09pm

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.

Back to top

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26137 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #77 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 8:20pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

salad in

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5941

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #78 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 8:29pm

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.’

Back to top

The ALP, the progressive party, the party of ideas, the workers' friend, is the only Australian political party to roast four young Australians in roof cavities. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #79 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11pm

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_L...
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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38820
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #80 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:14pm

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

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_L...
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.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #81 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:20pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38820
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #82 - 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?

Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #83 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:32pm

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?

Cheesy

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74932
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #84 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:33pm

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

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?

Cheesy

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

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: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #85 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:34pm

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

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?

Cheesy

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74932
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #86 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:36pm

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

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

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?

Cheesy

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

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #87 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:43pm

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

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

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

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?

Cheesy

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74932
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #88 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:48pm

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

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

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

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

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?

Cheesy

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #89 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53pm

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Cheesy

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!!!!!!!!!

Back to top

IP Logged