Why I am for Human Rights - but against a Bill of Rights.

[eclipsenow]

I believe in human rights - as we are made in the image of God - and our primary ethic is to love God with all our heart and soul and might and strength, and love our neighbour as ourselves.

But I think human rights are best protected by a minimalist set of rights that guarantees the democratic process continues. Then nimble democratic processes in parliament can respond better than a dusty old parchment interpreted by equally dusty old judges. Let me explain.

1. A Bill of Rights can be waffly words stuck in an ivory tower - and is not specific or real!
2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights. The risk is that a dusty old parchment is interpreted to mean the wrong things in specific instances. Basically - every extra “Right” written into a Bill of Rights could potentially apply to unanticipated areas of social policy. It could slow down a democratic response to a challenge or crisis in specific policies in the real world.
3. Australians have just enough rights in the Constitution to guarantee democracy – and trust democratic debate to handle the rest.
4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!
5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
6. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

For example, a “right to privacy” is a concept that Australian’s generally take for granted. Life here is pretty much like life in the USA - but is actually better in certain instances. A “right to privacy” sounds fine - until it protects drunks on our roads and puts us vastly more danger of having our families wiped out by a drunk driver! Now imagine society has a huge debate over whether or not police should have the right to RBT - Random Breath Testing. The idea is that without any indication of bad driving or due concerns, police can set up random testing stations, wave drivers over, ask them to count to ten across an alcohol sensor - and test you! At random. A large number of people might agree - and campaign for it. But they’re prevented by “THE PARCHMENT” that says it is forbidden. This thing was written hundreds of years before the motor car was even invented!

Now imagine a majority REALLY want RBT. The Judges are helpless - “THE PARCHMENT” is clear. But Big Alcohol are funding all the political parties to favour them and get involved in the stacking of the Supreme Court. By its very nature, constitutional reform is slow and tardy. Society cannot be prevented from the harm that is drink driving. Ironically, the “Right to Privacy” ends up infringing on my most basic right of all - my “Right to Life.”

But in Australia we do not have a “Bill of Rights” in the Federal government. We have a few basic rights in our Constitution - and that’s the way I like it! We have the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

That’s it. Pretty minimalist hey?

What it means is that questions of privacy can be sorted through the democratic arguments of the day. The government can hold an enquiry - and the public submit thoughts and arguments from their different disciplines. The media gets involved. And we vote.

Australia decided decades ago that RBT was vastly better than protecting drunk drivers. In practice, deaths to DUI are now 8 TIMES lower. Being pulled over for RBT less than once a year is worth being 8 times safer from drunk drivers killing me and my family.

A parliament acting in accordance with the wishes of the people and the latest social policy and best science can! Legislation is just profoundly better and more nimble to meet the needs of the day compared to changing a Bill of Rights!

EG: Australia had an awful mass shooting at Port Arthur. The government passed tough gun control laws straight away! Huge categories of firearms were suddenly illegal. They ran an amnesty and firearm buyback scheme to encourage owners to hand in now illegal firearms. We have not had a mass shooting of that scale since. Try doing that in America!

Conditions and technologies change. Back when America's founding fathers talked about a well organised militia having the right to firearms they were talking about muskets in a mostly walking transport system, not teenagers with automatic rifles able to flee a scene in a 4 wheel drive!

For more on this - here's my blog page.

Human Rights

On this page:- A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real! A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, but we want democratic debate to …

eclipsenow.wordpress.com

Here's the Australian ABC podcast - "Don't leave us with the bill."

ABC Radio National

Radio National goes beyond the news headlines to examine a diverse range of topics, including arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How does one derive the idea that God gave us human rights from Christianity?

 

[Palmfever]

How does one derive the idea that God gave us human rights from Christianity?

Yeah, I haven't found God given rights in scripture. I see He gives us the option but never the right to do wrong.

 

[eclipsenow]

How does one derive the idea that God gave us human rights from Christianity?

Try this article.

The Christian Roots of Human Rights

Did the "Enlightenment" give us the concept of human dignity and equality? One historian suggests that those ideas have much deeper Christian roots.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Try this article.

The Christian Roots of Human Rights

Did the "Enlightenment" give us the concept of human dignity and equality? One historian suggests that those ideas have much deeper Christian roots.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

No I'm not reading the article. Do you believe the Bible and Christianity advocates equality between people?

I will note that human dignity does not require a belief in equality.

 

[Richard T]

I believe in human rights - as we are made in the image of God - and our primary ethic is to love God with all our heart and soul and might and strength, and love our neighbour as ourselves.

But I think human rights are best protected by a minimalist set of rights that guarantees the democratic process continues. Then nimble democratic processes in parliament can respond better than a dusty old parchment interpreted by equally dusty old judges. Let me explain.

1. A Bill of Rights can be waffly words stuck in an ivory tower - and is not specific or real!
2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights. The risk is that a dusty old parchment is interpreted to mean the wrong things in specific instances. Basically - every extra “Right” written into a Bill of Rights could potentially apply to unanticipated areas of social policy. It could slow down a democratic response to a challenge or crisis in specific policies in the real world.
3. Australians have just enough rights in the Constitution to guarantee democracy – and trust democratic debate to handle the rest.
4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!
5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
6. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

For example, a “right to privacy” is a concept that Australian’s generally take for granted. Life here is pretty much like life in the USA - but is actually better in certain instances. A “right to privacy” sounds fine - until it protects drunks on our roads and puts us vastly more danger of having our families wiped out by a drunk driver! Now imagine society has a huge debate over whether or not police should have the right to RBT - Random Breath Testing. The idea is that without any indication of bad driving or due concerns, police can set up random testing stations, wave drivers over, ask them to count to ten across an alcohol sensor - and test you! At random. A large number of people might agree - and campaign for it. But they’re prevented by “THE PARCHMENT” that says it is forbidden. This thing was written hundreds of years before the motor car was even invented!

Now imagine a majority REALLY want RBT. The Judges are helpless - “THE PARCHMENT” is clear. But Big Alcohol are funding all the political parties to favour them and get involved in the stacking of the Supreme Court. By its very nature, constitutional reform is slow and tardy. Society cannot be prevented from the harm that is drink driving. Ironically, the “Right to Privacy” ends up infringing on my most basic right of all - my “Right to Life.”

But in Australia we do not have a “Bill of Rights” in the Federal government. We have a few basic rights in our Constitution - and that’s the way I like it! We have the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

That’s it. Pretty minimalist hey?

What it means is that questions of privacy can be sorted through the democratic arguments of the day. The government can hold an enquiry - and the public submit thoughts and arguments from their different disciplines. The media gets involved. And we vote.

Australia decided decades ago that RBT was vastly better than protecting drunk drivers. In practice, deaths to DUI are now 8 TIMES lower. Being pulled over for RBT less than once a year is worth being 8 times safer from drunk drivers killing me and my family.

A parliament acting in accordance with the wishes of the people and the latest social policy and best science can! Legislation is just profoundly better and more nimble to meet the needs of the day compared to changing a Bill of Rights!

EG: Australia had an awful mass shooting at Port Arthur. The government passed tough gun control laws straight away! Huge categories of firearms were suddenly illegal. They ran an amnesty and firearm buyback scheme to encourage owners to hand in now illegal firearms. We have not had a mass shooting of that scale since. Try doing that in America!

Conditions and technologies change. Back when America's founding fathers talked about a well organised militia having the right to firearms they were talking about muskets in a mostly walking transport system, not teenagers with automatic rifles able to flee a scene in a 4 wheel drive!

For more on this - here's my blog page.

Human Rights

On this page:- A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real! A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, but we want democratic debate to …

eclipsenow.wordpress.com

Here's the Australian ABC podcast - "Don't leave us with the bill."

ABC Radio National

Radio National goes beyond the news headlines to examine a diverse range of topics, including arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics.

www.abc.net.au

I sure am glad we have the right to free speech, to assemble, and to exercise religion just to name a few. Seems those rights are timeless, though not absolute. Speeding is the number one cause of accidents in Australia, Distracted driving too. I think we should install jammer signals in all cars so no one can text or call. (saracasm) Understanding Road Safety Statistics - Road Sense Australia
Another article says DUI rates went from .3% of people stopped in 2019 to .05 in 2021. NRMA report highlights drink driving complacency
So a 66% increase in those two years in spite of 3 million random stops. guess there are other variables that should be considered in a complete analysis. America allows checkpoints in some states but mostly police concentrate on observation. I suppose you could install breathalyzer on all cars though, but why not speed limit governors, so that you can not go over the speed limit? Technology can do lots of things and many of the things are negative, In America for instance some cities use facial recognition in liquor stores. We should make the data public too so pastors and employers can monitor alcohols use.

Of course those are extreme measures but that is the point, intrusive government often has been shown to be abusive. In the USA for instance if you carry too much cash and they find it then you likely will not get it back. Civil forfeiture. We introduced no knock warrants for violent criminals and that has resulted in getting innocents killed when the police have the wrong house. Somewhere you have to have limits but most Americans like Benjamin Franklin's quote:

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”​

In general we have been losing rights though as the reinterpretations get stricter and stricter. The problem is not a legal one though, it is a lack of morals and religion. Soon the loss of rights will include the antichrist policy of forbidding buying and selling of anything by those who do not have the mark. That in itself is a great argument for stable, solid and unchanging rights. Sadly we do not have enough of the basics, but we have all the new rights for perversions and certain kinds of ideology. One thing I have learned is that there is no "universal set" of human rights. Sovereignty of a nation often should decide but common sense should prevail. If Australians are happy with their rights that is great. I know i am for the most part happy with the rights of Americans, though of course there were some abuses in the past. The abuse usually comes from not applying rights equally, not from having them there in the first place.

 

[eclipsenow]

No I'm not reading the article. Do you believe the Bible and Christianity advocates equality between people?

Pretty much, yeah - but I'm talking about 'human rights' - not equality and I'm not sure why you introduced that?

Galatians 3​

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

Maybe there's some baggage you are bringing to the phrase 'human rights'? Someone posted above 'the right to do evil'? I'm pretty sure human rights legislation is an attempt to curb that evil - even if in practice it can lead to exactly that.

But of course - then we get into separation of church and state and what we can reasonably expect to achieve through the law. That's a whole other thing. I'm just talking about the attempt to value human dignity shaping how we do things as a society.

It's an old debate - with an even older history. This is a great resource for exploring how Christianity has shaped western culture.

Christian Revolution

Undeceptions Episode 45: What is the Christian Revolution? Tom Holland reckons Christianity gave us many of the ideals we hold so dear.

undeceptions.com

 

[eleos1954]

I believe in human rights - as we are made in the image of God - and our primary ethic is to love God with all our heart and soul and might and strength, and love our neighbour as ourselves.

But I think human rights are best protected by a minimalist set of rights that guarantees the democratic process continues. Then nimble democratic processes in parliament can respond better than a dusty old parchment interpreted by equally dusty old judges. Let me explain.

1. A Bill of Rights can be waffly words stuck in an ivory tower - and is not specific or real!
2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights. The risk is that a dusty old parchment is interpreted to mean the wrong things in specific instances. Basically - every extra “Right” written into a Bill of Rights could potentially apply to unanticipated areas of social policy. It could slow down a democratic response to a challenge or crisis in specific policies in the real world.
3. Australians have just enough rights in the Constitution to guarantee democracy – and trust democratic debate to handle the rest.
4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!
5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
6. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

For example, a “right to privacy” is a concept that Australian’s generally take for granted. Life here is pretty much like life in the USA - but is actually better in certain instances. A “right to privacy” sounds fine - until it protects drunks on our roads and puts us vastly more danger of having our families wiped out by a drunk driver! Now imagine society has a huge debate over whether or not police should have the right to RBT - Random Breath Testing. The idea is that without any indication of bad driving or due concerns, police can set up random testing stations, wave drivers over, ask them to count to ten across an alcohol sensor - and test you! At random. A large number of people might agree - and campaign for it. But they’re prevented by “THE PARCHMENT” that says it is forbidden. This thing was written hundreds of years before the motor car was even invented!

Now imagine a majority REALLY want RBT. The Judges are helpless - “THE PARCHMENT” is clear. But Big Alcohol are funding all the political parties to favour them and get involved in the stacking of the Supreme Court. By its very nature, constitutional reform is slow and tardy. Society cannot be prevented from the harm that is drink driving. Ironically, the “Right to Privacy” ends up infringing on my most basic right of all - my “Right to Life.”

But in Australia we do not have a “Bill of Rights” in the Federal government. We have a few basic rights in our Constitution - and that’s the way I like it! We have the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

That’s it. Pretty minimalist hey?

What it means is that questions of privacy can be sorted through the democratic arguments of the day. The government can hold an enquiry - and the public submit thoughts and arguments from their different disciplines. The media gets involved. And we vote.

Australia decided decades ago that RBT was vastly better than protecting drunk drivers. In practice, deaths to DUI are now 8 TIMES lower. Being pulled over for RBT less than once a year is worth being 8 times safer from drunk drivers killing me and my family.

A parliament acting in accordance with the wishes of the people and the latest social policy and best science can! Legislation is just profoundly better and more nimble to meet the needs of the day compared to changing a Bill of Rights!

EG: Australia had an awful mass shooting at Port Arthur. The government passed tough gun control laws straight away! Huge categories of firearms were suddenly illegal. They ran an amnesty and firearm buyback scheme to encourage owners to hand in now illegal firearms. We have not had a mass shooting of that scale since. Try doing that in America!

Conditions and technologies change. Back when America's founding fathers talked about a well organised militia having the right to firearms they were talking about muskets in a mostly walking transport system, not teenagers with automatic rifles able to flee a scene in a 4 wheel drive!

For more on this - here's my blog page.

Human Rights

On this page:- A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real! A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, but we want democratic debate to …

eclipsenow.wordpress.com

Here's the Australian ABC podcast - "Don't leave us with the bill."

ABC Radio National

Radio National goes beyond the news headlines to examine a diverse range of topics, including arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics.

www.abc.net.au

Our rights come from God .... not man. Man's "rights" are faulty.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Pretty much, yeah - but I'm talking about 'human rights' - not equality and I'm not sure why you introduced that?

Galatians 3​

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

Maybe there's some baggage you are bringing to the phrase 'human rights'? Someone posted above 'the right to do evil'? I'm pretty sure human rights legislation is an attempt to curb that evil - even if in practice it can lead to exactly that.

But of course - then we get into separation of church and state and what we can reasonably expect to achieve through the law. That's a whole other thing. I'm just talking about the attempt to value human dignity shaping how we do things as a society.

It's an old debate - with an even older history. This is a great resource for exploring how Christianity has shaped western culture.

Christian Revolution

Undeceptions Episode 45: What is the Christian Revolution? Tom Holland reckons Christianity gave us many of the ideals we hold so dear.

undeceptions.com

I got equality from the article you suggested. Which brings up equality as a primary Christian virtue. Do you not believe in equality?

Does Galatians 3 describe human rights or that which comes with being in Christ? Does Galatians 3 apply to the non-Christian in a Christian society?

Christianity has shaped western culture but that doesn't mean all outgrowths of Western culture are Christian. Would for instance Saint Paul approve of modern human rights which suggests one has to bake a cake in celebration of LGBT if demanded? Probably not. Or what about the right to marry whomever one wants to? Such concepts are foreign to Christianity.

 

[eclipsenow]

Our rights come from God .... not man. Man's "rights" are faulty.

Of course - but as Romans 13 shows - government are there to prevent us falling into chaos.
And in democracies - we get to shape that somewhat.
We have an obligation to think through how best to do that.
(Not all of us - both those more academically inclined Christians gifted to care about such matters that is.)

 

[eclipsenow]

I got equality from the article you suggested. Which brings up equality as a primary Christian virtue. Do you not believe in equality?

I think my quoting Galatians 3 answered this?

Does Galatians 3 describe human rights or that which comes with being in Christ? Does Galatians 3 apply to the non-Christian in a Christian society?

Of course not - but it's describing the goal of everyone united in Christ. That's the way it should be - and the destination in the Kingdom of God. That's what we should have in mind when we have conflict in the church.

Christianity has shaped western culture but that doesn't mean all outgrowths of Western culture are Christian.

Of course.

Would for instance Saint Paul approve of modern human rights which suggests one has to bake a cake in celebration of LGBT if demanded?

Ah, but now we get into separation of church and state. So human beings have incredible value in God's eyes - and we should view them ALL as potential brothers and sisters in God's family, potential heirs with us of God's kingdom, potential fellow citizens in the New World. We should be kind as we explain the gospel. Does Paul say we should judge those outside the church? Or does he just instruct us to share the gospel in gentleness?

Does Jesus say his kingdom is of this world?

Probably not. Or what about the right to marry whomever one wants to? Such concepts are foreign to Christianity.

I know passionate gospel ministers who just did not care that much if Australia passed SSM (Same Sex Marriage) legislation. Why? Because they're not Christians in the first place. As long as our religious freedom bills clarified that Christian ministers did not have to perform gay marriage services - does it really impact us?

Remember C S Lewis saying something along the lines of the most political thing we could ever do is share the gospel and see the Lord convert our neighbours and friends?

How's that going to happen if we're trying to Sharia-Law away their 'right' to have gay marriage? But if we instead share the gospel and that changes their mind about such matters - we all win.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think my quoting Galatians 3 answered this?


Of course not - but it's describing the goal of everyone united in Christ. That's the way it should be - and the destination in the Kingdom of God. That's what we should have in mind when we have conflict in the church.


Of course.


Ah, but now we get into separation of church and state. So human beings have incredible value in God's eyes - and we should view them ALL as potential brothers and sisters in God's family, potential heirs with us of God's kingdom, potential fellow citizens in the New World. We should be kind as we explain the gospel. Does Paul say we should judge those outside the church? Or does he just instruct us to share the gospel in gentleness?

Does Jesus say his kingdom is of this world?


I know passionate gospel ministers who just did not care that much if Australia passed SSM (Same Sex Marriage) legislation. Why? Because they're not Christians in the first place. As long as our religious freedom bills clarified that Christian ministers did not have to perform gay marriage services - does it really impact us?

Remember C S Lewis saying something along the lines of the most political thing we could ever do is share the gospel and see the Lord convert our neighbours and friends?

How's that going to happen if we're trying to Sharia-Law away their 'right' to have gay marriage? But if we instead share the gospel and that changes their mind about such matters - we all win.

You mention Christian Sharia. You do recognize that the consequence of your own belief is that Christians are essentially the dhimmis of any non Christian government or community right? I simply don't think we as Christians have to surrender all power to non Christians.

Thankfully most Christians throughout history didn't think like you.

 

[Arcangl86]

I believe in human rights - as we are made in the image of God - and our primary ethic is to love God with all our heart and soul and might and strength, and love our neighbour as ourselves.

But I think human rights are best protected by a minimalist set of rights that guarantees the democratic process continues. Then nimble democratic processes in parliament can respond better than a dusty old parchment interpreted by equally dusty old judges. Let me explain.

1. A Bill of Rights can be waffly words stuck in an ivory tower - and is not specific or real!

Bills of RIght are usually issued in specific historical circumstances and address specific concerns of the time.

1. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights.

It's possible to have both a bill of rights and an elected judiciary.

1. The risk is that a dusty old parchment is interpreted to mean the wrong things in specific instances. Basically - every extra “Right” written into a Bill of Rights could potentially apply to unanticipated areas of social policy. It could slow down a democratic response to a challenge or crisis in specific policies in the real world.

Considering the rights generally covered by bills of rights are those considered particularly important or vulnerable to infringement, having a slightly longer process is not necessarily a bad thing.

1. Australians have just enough rights in the Constitution to guarantee democracy – and trust democratic debate to handle the rest.

That's your belief, but some of the rights have been found to be implied in the COnstitution and a judge can just as easily take them away like the right to political speech.

1. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!

What? Bills of Rights are not etched into steel. They can be amended and changed. In some cases, they are simple legislation that can be changed like any law. In some cases, they are part of the Constitution and can be amended the same way as that document. You can run into issues in cases where the Constitution is difficult to amend, but that's not universal.

1. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that it protects minorities or individuals against an unjust majority.

1. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

I find it hard to believe that a lack of a bill of rights prevents that. Many of the heavily politicized cases in the US don't have anything to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I grant that many do, but it's not exclusive. As long as judges have the power to interpret legislation, the courts will become politicized.

For example, a “right to privacy” is a concept that Australian’s generally take for granted. Life here is pretty much like life in the USA - but is actually better in certain instances. A “right to privacy” sounds fine - until it protects drunks on our roads and puts us vastly more danger of having our families wiped out by a drunk driver! Now imagine society has a huge debate over whether or not police should have the right to RBT - Random Breath Testing. The idea is that without any indication of bad driving or due concerns, police can set up random testing stations, wave drivers over, ask them to count to ten across an alcohol sensor - and test you! At random. A large number of people might agree - and campaign for it.

But they’re prevented by “THE PARCHMENT” that says it is forbidden. This thing was written hundreds of years before the motor car was even invented!

And "THE PARCHMENT" can be amended if it's truly getting in the way of the desires of the people.

Now imagine a majority REALLY want RBT. The Judges are helpless - “THE PARCHMENT” is clear. But Big Alcohol are funding all the political parties to favour them and get involved in the stacking of the Supreme Court. By its very nature, constitutional reform is slow and tardy.

If this is a serious issue, one would think that it would continue to be an issue during the time it takes to pass an amendment.

Society cannot be prevented from the harm that is drink driving. Ironically, the “Right to Privacy” ends up infringing on my most basic right of all - my “Right to Life.”

A Bill of Rights works by limiting the government. So unless there are government officers on the job drinking and driving and they run you down, your "Right to Life" has not been infringed upon.

But in Australia we do not have a “Bill of Rights” in the Federal government. We have a few basic rights in our Constitution - and that’s the way I like it! We have the right to vote (Section 41),

Your High Court has ruled that Section 41 does not grant a right to vote. And incidentally, even if it did, it would only apply to federal elections. States can still restrict the franchise. A Bill of Rights applies to the whole country.

protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)),

Once again, it only applied to the Commonwealth Parliament. There is the additional issue that "just terms" and "property" are left undefined in the Constitution and as such need to be determined by the unelected judges you are so concerned about.

the right to a trial by jury (Section 80),

Once again trial by jury is restricted to Commonwealth crimes, not state ones. So any state can act differently if their own constitution allowed for it.

freedom of religion (Section 116)

Same fundamental issue as above.

and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

My understanding is that this right in practice very difficult to define or protect.

That’s it. Pretty minimalist hey?

Yes, and most of those rights differ depending on what state or territory you happen to live in. One of the points of a bill of rights is that it applies to everybody equally, not depending on where they live.

What it means is that questions of privacy can be sorted through the democratic arguments of the day. The government can hold an enquiry - and the public submit thoughts and arguments from their different disciplines. The media gets involved. And we vote.

And one form that vote can take is an amendment to the Bill of Rights allowing for what you want to do.

Australia decided decades ago that RBT was vastly better than protecting drunk drivers. In practice, deaths to DUI are now 8 TIMES lower. Being pulled over for RBT less than once a year is worth being 8 times safer from drunk drivers killing me and my family.

A parliament acting in accordance with the wishes of the people and the latest social policy and best science can! Legislation is just profoundly better and more nimble to meet the needs of the day compared to changing a Bill of Rights!

EG: Australia had an awful mass shooting at Port Arthur. The government passed tough gun control laws straight away! Huge categories of firearms were suddenly illegal. They ran an amnesty and firearm buyback scheme to encourage owners to hand in now illegal firearms. We have not had a mass shooting of that scale since. Try doing that in America!

That has more to do with political culture than the 2nd amendment. In Australia, you were able to get all the states to agree to enact the same laws involving guns. That would never work here because of how regional gun politics is.

Conditions and technologies change. Back when America's founding fathers talked about a well organised militia having the right to firearms they were talking about muskets in a mostly walking transport system, not teenagers with automatic rifles able to flee a scene in a 4 wheel drive!

And that doesn't really matter. The issue that many have with the Second Amendment is its reinterpretation to impart an individual right. Much greater restrictions would be allowed if it was considered a corporate right as it was intended to.

For more on this - here's my blog page.

Human Rights

On this page:- A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real! A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, but we want democratic debate to …

eclipsenow.wordpress.com

Here's the Australian ABC podcast - "Don't leave us with the bill."

ABC Radio National

Radio National goes beyond the news headlines to examine a diverse range of topics, including arts and culture, business and current affairs, health, science and technology, Indigenous culture and issues, and religion and ethics.

www.abc.net.au

 

[eclipsenow]

You mention Christian Sharia. You do recognize that the consequence of your own belief is that Christians are essentially the dhimmis of any non Christian government or community right? I simply don't think we as Christians have to surrender all power to non Christians.

Thankfully most Christians throughout history didn't think like you.

Well - Augustine's City of God shows that some of the great Christian thinkers of the past saw the Lord's kingdom as spiritual and future and eternal and incorruptible, and were fairly flexible in terms of human governance which is worldly and now and fleeting and fallible.
But then we entered the age of the "Right of Kings" - how did that work out for us?
This Australian historian argues that democracy as we practice it now was highly influenced by the Christian ideas of the fallenness of mankind, and some of the more democratic practices in some of our churches.

This podcast interviews Michael Jensen about his book on Christians thinking through politics. Podcast episode 120: The politics of the gospel with Michael Jensen - Centre for Christian Living
Here’s a review of the book: (I haven’t read it yet - but it will soon be on my shelf.)
—-

“Michael writes to help Christian rediscover “a truly Christ-centred vision for human politics”. The heart of that vision is based around a careful study of Romans 12-15, calling Christians to be who they are as the church: “subjects of the Lord Jesus and citizens of the kingdom of heaven”. The aim is that this perspective will help Christians to navigate the alienation and anxiety that dominate contemporary debates, providing a fresh way to think about contemporary politics.​

​

Michael distinguishes ‘Politics 1.0’, the politics of this world (where temporary, earthly kingdoms exist within the present age), from ‘Politics 2.0’, “where Jesus Christ reigns in the Kingdom of God” (which exists here and now within the church, but will continue into the world to come when Christ returns). The book argues that ‘Politics 1.0’ has its place, but also its limitations.​

​

‘Politics 2.0’, meanwhile, is distinguished by three points (drawn from Romans 12-15):​

​

- Jesus is Lord; no other ruler is Lord​

- Worshipping Jesus is a political statement because he is Lord​

- Jesus is a crucified Lord who rules his kingdom by humble service.​

​

The book calls on Christians to rethink what politics is: it is not wrong to be involved in the ‘party politics’ of this world, but this kind of politics has its limits. Our focus should be on ‘Politics 2.0’—namely, “living together as the people of God as we worship and revere Jesus Christ as Lord, and call others to join us”.​

Subjects and Citizens

A call to rethink our understanding of politics in light of the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord.

matthiasmedia.com.au

Another classic is :-

https://www.amazon.com.au/Jesus-Powers-Totalitarian-Dysfunctional-Democracies-ebook/dp/B0CMHH4C3T

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well - Augustine's City of God shows that some of the great Christian thinkers of the past saw the Lord's kingdom as spiritual and future and eternal and incorruptible, and were fairly flexible in terms of human governance which is worldly and now and fleeting and fallible.
But then we entered the age of the "Right of Kings" - how did that work out for us?
This Australian historian argues that democracy as we practice it now was highly influenced by the Christian ideas of the fallenness of mankind, and some of the more democratic practices in some of our churches.

View attachment 352215

This podcast interviews Michael Jensen about his book on Christians thinking through politics. Podcast episode 120: The politics of the gospel with Michael Jensen - Centre for Christian Living
Here’s a review of the book: (I haven’t read it yet - but it will soon be on my shelf.)
—-

“Michael writes to help Christian rediscover “a truly Christ-centred vision for human politics”. The heart of that vision is based around a careful study of Romans 12-15, calling Christians to be who they are as the church: “subjects of the Lord Jesus and citizens of the kingdom of heaven”. The aim is that this perspective will help Christians to navigate the alienation and anxiety that dominate contemporary debates, providing a fresh way to think about contemporary politics.​

​

Michael distinguishes ‘Politics 1.0’, the politics of this world (where temporary, earthly kingdoms exist within the present age), from ‘Politics 2.0’, “where Jesus Christ reigns in the Kingdom of God” (which exists here and now within the church, but will continue into the world to come when Christ returns). The book argues that ‘Politics 1.0’ has its place, but also its limitations.​

​

‘Politics 2.0’, meanwhile, is distinguished by three points (drawn from Romans 12-15):​

​

- Jesus is Lord; no other ruler is Lord​

- Worshipping Jesus is a political statement because he is Lord​

- Jesus is a crucified Lord who rules his kingdom by humble service.​

​

The book calls on Christians to rethink what politics is: it is not wrong to be involved in the ‘party politics’ of this world, but this kind of politics has its limits. Our focus should be on ‘Politics 2.0’—namely, “living together as the people of God as we worship and revere Jesus Christ as Lord, and call others to join us”.​

Subjects and Citizens

A call to rethink our understanding of politics in light of the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord.

matthiasmedia.com.au

Another classic is :-

https://www.amazon.com.au/Jesus-Powers-Totalitarian-Dysfunctional-Democracies-ebook/dp/B0CMHH4C3T

In the age of Kings we saw the expansion of Christianity on a level unprecedented. In the age of democracy we have only seen it's decline.

Remind me why we should want to be powerless subjects with no control over where we live? Why should any Christian care about the modern secular democracies?

 

[eclipsenow]

Bills of RIght are usually issued in specific historical circumstances and address specific concerns of the time.

Agreed - which is why we've got to tread lightly because we do not know what future generations might be facing. A minimalist code of rights in the constitution is probably better.

It's possible to have both a bill of rights and an elected judiciary.

OK - if you're Bolivia.

Considering the rights generally covered by bills of rights are those considered particularly important or vulnerable to infringement, having a slightly longer process is not necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed - if they're the most MINIMALIST rights that guarantee the democratic process continues and freedom of religion. Anything outside of that should be by the democracy of the day.l

That's your belief, but some of the rights have been found to be implied in the COnstitution and a judge can just as easily take them away like the right to political speech.

Example?

What? Bills of Rights are not etched into steel. They can be amended and changed. In some cases, they are simple legislation that can be changed like any law.

If it's simple legislation of the day - then they're not in the bill. Only the Supreme Court has that power.

In some cases, they are part of the Constitution and can be amended the same way as that document.

Australia has had a total of 44 nation-wide referendums since 1901, some of which have been held at the same time with a number of different questions being asked. Eight of these have been successful.

Only 8 out of 44.

You can run into issues in cases where the Constitution is difficult to amend, but that's not universal.

In many older countries with older democratic processes - the Constitutional reform process is by political parties only - not initiated by say citizen petition.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that it protects minorities or individuals against an unjust majority.

Or it protests the interests of the gun lobby rather than society.

I find it hard to believe that a lack of a bill of rights prevents that.

Believe it! I don't know who our High Court judges are. They are appointed by the Governor General - a position I do not vote for.

Therefore - I can tell you honestly - I have NEVER thought of voting for someone because they might swing something in the High Court. Because it's just not possible in my system!

I grant that many do, but it's not exclusive. As long as judges have the power to interpret legislation, the courts will become politicized.

EG: I know of MANY American Christians who did not like Trump at all as a President representing America - but voted for him because he would stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

And "THE PARCHMENT" can be amended if it's truly getting in the way of the desires of the people.

Try telling the parents and partners of the 30,000 Americans killed by gun murders each year.

We had one bad massacre and banned a whole bunch of guns.
Try looking at our mass shootings now! To adjust for population - just divide American mass shootings by 13 and compare your results with Australia's! List of mass shootings in Australia - Wikipedia

If this is a serious issue, one would think that it would continue to be an issue during the time it takes to pass an amendment.

Yep - how long has America had a higher murder rate than other G7 countries?

G7: murder rate by country | Statista

The United States had, by far, the highest homicide rate of the G7 countries between 2000 and 2021.

www.statista.com

A Bill of Rights works by limiting the government. So unless there are government officers on the job drinking and driving and they run you down, your "Right to Life" has not been infringed upon.

Ah - but my fellow citizens 'right' to privacy means - if it's interpreted the wrong way by unelected judges - that they have ENORMOUS power over my life. The "Right to privacy" means my fellow citizens who are over confident in their drink-driving ability get drunk, drive home, and kill my family on the way. The year we introduced RBT drink driving fatalities demonstrably, historically, actually-in-the-real world dropped to 1/8th the deaths before.

Let alone the fact that America loses maybe a small civil-war's worth of civilians every decade just to the glory of the second amendment and gun lobby!

Your High Court has ruled that Section 41 does not grant a right to vote.

Interesting - it looks like the wiki needs updating. Section 41 of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia

It does not include the High Court's rulings in 2013. It's interesting that though some legal debate has been had over Section 41 - recent case law in the High Court has corrected that! I'm going to have to show my nephew the wiki on this - as that is AMAZING and needs correcting!

Relevant Constitutional provisions and case law were summarised by the High Court as follows in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2013] HCA 58:​

​

In Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, it was said that the concept of representative government in a democracy signifies government by the people through their representatives: in constitutional terms, a sovereign power residing in the people, exercised by the representatives. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation confirmed that the implied freedom of political communication is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government for which the Constitution provides. The Constitution does so by directing that the members of the two Houses of Parliament shall be directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and States. Sections 7 and 24 and related sections of the Constitution are therefore to be seen as protecting the freedom of political communication in order that people are able to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. In Lange, it was also said that the freedom of political communication is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of the system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.​

The Court in Unions NSW also observed:​

​

In a passage from Archibald Cox's text [The Court and the Constitution (1987) at 212], to which Mason CJ referred in ACTV[, it was said that: "Only by uninhibited publication can the flow of information be secured and the people informed ... Only by freedom of speech ... and of association can people build and assert political power".​

Right to take part in public affairs, voting rights and access to public service

Learn about human rights in relation to voting in democratically held elections by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the people.

humanrights.gov.au

The rest of your questions about how the Australian system were technically interesting and I'll raise them with my nephew who is studying law - but are not really relevant to the basic points I've raised above.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the age of Kings we saw the expansion of Christianity on a level unprecedented. In the age of democracy we have only seen it's decline.

No.
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
James Madison Against Religious Assessments

It is a mistake to confuse official religion with Christianity. You can force kids to pray in school, but it won't make them Christians.