Buddhist democracy, Christian democracy, Hindu democracy, Jewish democracy and Muslim democracy are all oxymorons. Democracy requires that the state neither represses nor favours any religion. Separation of religion and state are essential to democracy.

In Australia there should be no chaplains in the public schools nor government subsidies for religious schools.

Religion should be free to point out flaws in government, and government should have no business with religion.

When John Howard announced his support for the GST a letter from the Catholic bishops was expected since the GST is a regressive tax impacting most heavily on the poor. The Catholic Church in Australia has a history of supporting social justice which requires considering the interests of the poor. However, the Catholic Church also gets a subsidy from the government to support its school system. John Howard announced that there would be an additional $400,000,000 granted to Catholic schools, and the expected bishop’s letter was not forthcoming.

Israel can be a Jewish state or it can be a democratic state. It cannot be a Jewish democratic state.

u can be sure Alan would lose his uni job if he ever wrote something positive about Israel. How blind and dumbed down are our academics today. There are a few exceptions thankfully.

“Buddhist democracy, Christian democracy, Hindu democracy, Jewish democracy and Muslim democracy are all oxymorons. Democracy requires that the state neither represses nor favours any religion. Separation of religion and state are essential to democracy.”

“Israel can be a Jewish state or it can be a democratic state. It cannot be a Jewish democratic state.”

Absolute bulldust. Mere personal opinion with no basis in fact or law.

The Baptist mister, Roger Williams, was the first person to use the expression, separation of church and state.

From Barry’s “Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul”:

"The Bay's leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God's laws, and to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls in Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God's law. His views were not fully formed-how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation-but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God's law. Hence, he concluded that a society built on the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best only lead to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship "stinks in God's nostrils." At worst it would lead to a corruption not of the state which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state's errors. His understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call "Soul Libertie." pp. 3-4.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States.

In the United States it is illegal to give tax money to church schools or to have chaplains in the public schools.

David f on a continuous campaign to expand the Overton window...the banishing of religious influence from society.
Could I say F off David, and collect your gay friends on the way out!

I'm not sure but Massachussets is the absolute last place I would be using as reference for anything.
They were possibly the first state to legalise queers and all that they stand for.
If this is put up as a shining example of the separation of church and state, all who agree are beyond redemption or worse.
I was not around when the Australian constitution was drawn up, but I will say without fear of being challenged that NO-ONE ever intended for queers to be given a free pass as they have been.
Massachussets was one of the first and almost as soon as the law was passed we began seeing police getting called out to homes where all kinds of attacks and violence started becoming the norm between queer partners.
Not to mention suicides and the list went on and on.
So it would seem that things are not as rosy in queersville as the looneys and everyone else thought they would be.