Planetary Civilization Ressurection

Posts tagged: constitution

Nick Xenophon Scientology Attack Motives Political Pursuit Of Religion

Nick Xenophon; The Australian Nov 21 2009 Nick Xenophon The Political Pursuit Of Religion Nick Xenophon “The good senator [ Nick Xenophon ] should pause and reflect on his closing statement: our elected representatives are not above the law and they have no right to use parliament to pursue religious organisations contrary to section 116 of the Australian Constitution.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-pursuit-of-religion/story-e6frg6zo-1225800617136

Australian Constitution – Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/text/116.shtml

Scientology is a worldwide religious movement with more than 8,000 Churches, Missions and groups in 165 countries. The Church and its members dedicate their time and resources to numerous humanitarian programs that Scientology has become known for around the world, including combating drug abuse, immorality, illiteracy and human rights violations.

Our aim is also to support education of the right to one’s own sanity, and to protect humanity from psychiatric abuse and drugging.

Speculation into Senator Nick Xenophon’s motives in launching an attack against The Church of Scientology backed by several traitors expunged by the Church fuels speculation that the Anonymous hate group that attacked Prime Minister Rudd’s website and The Church of Scientology websites could have infiltrated the informants now in Nick Xenophon’s sphere of influence unbeknown to him. Read More … PM Rudd and Scientology

It is speculated that psychiatric interests who promote the sale of mind & brain psychiatric drugs on behalf of drug companies could also be linked to the Anonymous Group as both attack Scientology. Drug companies who maintain their products are able to treat the so-called “chemical imbalance in the brain” are philosophically opposed to Scientology. Drug companies are engaged in a massive drive world wide to medicate unborn children through their pregnant mothers and push for governments to allow the “screening” of pregnant women. Also mind, brain and psychiatric interests that promote the de-bunked ADHD syndrome in children are in opposition to Scientology.

Nick Xenophon Scientology Attack Motives Political Pursuit Of Religion

The Australian Nov 21 2009 The Political Pursuit Of Religion: “The Prime Minister’s [ Kevin Rudd ] intervention raised my eyebrows. So I revisited the 1983 judgment of the High Court in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Payroll Tax (Victoria).”

The question as to whether Scientology is a religion was settled in the 1983 case. Scientology is a religion and its practice is protected under section 116 of the Constitution. The Church of Scientology is entitled to the same tax exemptions enjoyed by all religions, not the least Rudd’s Anglicans and my Lutherans.

There is nothing the government or the parliament [ including Nick Xenophon ] can do to withdraw the Church of Scientology’s status as a religion. Under our constitutional structure, it is the High Court that has the function of ruling whether Scientology is a religion and this it has done.

In their joint judgment, former chief justices Anthony Mason and Gerard Brennan made clear the inappropriateness of political leaders [ Rudd, Xenophon ] interfering with religious freedom: “Under our law, the state has no prophetic role in relation to religious belief; the state can neither declare supernatural truth nor determine the paths through which the human mind must search in a quest for supernatural truth.”

As to whether the teachings of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard make for a compelling religion or not, justices Mason and Brennan were clearly not credulous while maintaining a scrupulous objectivity, when they explained: “Yet charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers.”