I guess I find it a fascinating question because, if the answer is ‘yes’ (and I think it probably is), that runs quite contrary to the current obsession with science and truth and makes story-telling and art-play far more important.

Dogs have been
important members of human communities for centuries. Some communities eat them and others are repulsed by this. I wonder how they are differ from other domestic animals.

Where are the Christian politicians who care for humanity rather than their own personal ambitions and pension?

By narrowing the gap between scientific understanding and spiritual understanding, we get closer to god.

Because this is bizarre!

Every day the world grows smaller. Slowly but steadily, it’s becoming easier to exchange opinions, ideas, and culture. Sure, there’s a strong argument for identity, economic growth, and security, but perhaps it is equally as important to recognise that we are all humans on the same team. Especially in light of the recent refugee crisis, are borders becoming redundant, and is the idea of a country really necessary?

I asked this question because nothing seems to actually change or progress. For example, why are we asking how to legalise same-sex marriage? Shouldn’t we be asking how do we redefine marriage? Or how can a legal framework be less discriminatory? I am asking because I care, and you should too. We can make a difference, we just have to stop doing things in the way they have always been done!

My son wants the right to equal time with his children. The Family Court seems to favour women.

This question is important because it reflects on the debates, thoughts and conversations that occur across Australian society, which influences public opinion and government policy. It is particularly important when we consider ideas about social progress and human advancement.

?

I have many relatives and friends who have died from tobacco related illnesses. We should all care about this. Tobacco is different even from other ‘vices’ (including alcohol) in that it has no health benefit even at low doses. Selling tobacco with its known problems is a ‘dangerous act that knowingly puts the health of others at risk’. These are two important manslaughter criteria. Is the absence of ‘intent to kill’ enough to exclude it?