marriage"equality" survey, Australia.

by zeb 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  smiddy3

  My understanding has always been Adults in Australia are required by law to have your name on the Electoral role and to not do so is a criminal offence which could land you in trouble.

  And I believe this was the position of the WT in giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar obeying the law of the land however voting for another Government was when you obeyed God as ruler and not men.

  "You can`t serve two masters"

  So long as your name is on the Electoral role and as a JW you refuse to vote because of your religious beliefs you were never fined it is a legitimate reason for not voting.

  For over 33 years as a JW I never voted and gave my reasons for not doing so and was never prosecuted.
• 

  shepherdless

  Yes Smiddy, you are right. I have never heard of a prosecution, though.

  I know JWs who have lived in Aust for decades, and never intend to return to their country of origin, but just have "permanent residency", specifically to avoid compulsory voting. Of course others do what you did; wait for the $20 fine to come in the mail and write back saying they didn't vote on religious grounds.

  They are pretty lenient on withdrawing fines. I remember reading in a newspaper about a voter in (I think) Qld, who successfully got the fine waived with the excuse that he was on the run from Police on polling day, and was not able to get to a polling booth.
• 

  jwleaks

  30 years ago, in an Australian congregation I was in, the elders presented to the congregation a choice of two types of floor coverings for the kingdom hall. After much discussion the body of elders put the decision to the congregation for "a vote". Hardly anyone voted for either floor covering. Why? JW's do not vote.
• 

  jwleaks

  FYI - Australian Senator Derryn Hinch has never voted in his entire life (73 years) not even for himself.
• 

  Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

  @shepherdless Actually, this year I DID get fined - AND penalized additionally - for not voting. Apparently when I submitted my "Christian neutrality" reason back when the election first came knocking, it got knocked back. And I wasn't alerted. Instead I got hit with the first late fee penalty. So I wrote my appeal (despite having since awakened from when I first wrote in my reasons for not voting). Aaaaaand I found out it got knocked back AGAIN. Maybe my apostasy came through in my handwriting? I called up the State Debt Recovery and my options were: a) pay the fine + penalty and pay an additional fee to take the matter to court to try and lift the fine payment, or b) pay the fine + penalty. I chose b.

  
  
• 

  NJ501

  I haven't heard anything announced at the KH about the voting. My dad took my form though and chucked it in the fire. His reasoning is that we dont get involved in the controversies of the world.
• 

  stuckinarut2

  It felt genuinely great to have a say...one that was not prescribed for me by the society.
• 

  snugglebunny

  So-called "equality" isn't the same thing as freedom. IMHO, the whole marriage equality thang is just a government sop to those who can't tell the difference. You don't have to be free to be equal.
• 

  smiddy3

  Regarding the "voting" position of JW`s ,I have been associated with a number of KH`s in my 33 years as an active JW and on a number of occasions witnesses were required to vote on something to do with the congregation.

  One classic time was when the Cong.was voting to have the meetings on a Sunday morning or afternoon .This vote was always done on the service meeting .On three occasions the vote went against what the BOE wanted by one or two votes ,the next SM I couldn`t attend however the vote went in favour of the afternoon meeting which is what the BOE wanted ,their were no more votes about this after that.

  I should have woken up then .
• 

  fulltimestudent

  This exercise by the federal government may be interesting in the future. Why? Because the current form of democracy in use, is to choose between one of a number of oligarchies that could form a government. But the resulting government will often act in a way that is against the will of the majority (w.hich has other issues, but that's for another time).

  Before John Howard obeyed our current hegemon and joined in the second Iraq war, there were huge mass demonstrations against being involved in the war. I went to one in Sydney. the enormous crowd filled most of the streets between George St. and Hyde Park and Martin Place to Liverpool St. But Howard took no notice of the people's wishes.

  In the future, surely, they must allow the people to express their opinion.

  Its called Participatory Democracy, as against Representational Democracy.

  Do you think that's going to happen?