Dr Kang states: "In the 21st century, let’s make laws that promote the responsible care of children and young people (such as laws that prohibit potential abuses of power for the gratification of adults) and that nurture the safe and healthy development of the individual’s sexuality, in all its glorious variety."

It would appear that "Responsible care of children" combined with "all it's glorious variety" equates to 'do whatever you like' (as long as you are not an adult with power over a child) and severely restricts a society's ability to "nurture the safe and healthy development of the individual’s sexuality" by even suggesting any guideline or form of prohibition.

If sex keeps being promoted as a natural recreational activity (like smoking pot & drinking alcohol to excess) then don't expect too much of anyone taking on the challenge of raising a family in a society of academics operating in a moral vacuum. Pure science is the 21st Century's "Puritan notion of right and wrong!"

"While societies must adopt moral positions on a variety of human behaviours - such as violence, the abuse of children, the exploitation of minority populations - what informs our moral position on adolescent sexuality? Should there be an “age of consent”? And if so, does it serve a moral, or some other, purpose?"

Was that a real question?

Having an age of consent is particularly useful for prosecuting paedophiles etc. It is quite difficult to see how one can arrest predators without having certain issues properly defined.

The police find 'age of consent' legislation rather useful. Countries such as Canada with low ages of consent tend to attract more sex tourists than countries with higher values.

"The World Health Organisation found that across Europe and the UK, comprehensive programs (including sex education, access to services, youth development, family outreach, and an open and positive attitude towards sexual health and relationships) were more effective in reducing teenage pregnancy rates."

That will certainly be news to experts in the UK. They have record levels of both teenage pregnancy and child exploitation. Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the very highest in Europe.

In the UK, the Govt. have advised training girls to do oral sex instead. British schools are often highly sexualized places. The presumption or alleged strategy, is that the girl students will do oral sex for the boy students and not get pregnant etc.

The problem with that is that 14 year olds often want to get pregnant and some have several children before they are 16. Some British girls have even sought medical assistance in getting pregnant. If they can have sex, they feel they can be mothers etc.

Cadiz, a lot of the issues you raise might be better addressed by a sliding scale of allowable maximum difference in age between people involved in sexual activity. There is a big difference between a 15 and 16 year old exploring together and a 40 year old with the 15 year old.

No easy answers but the current approach seems to be really silly and not work anyway. If we are trying to protect kids from older predators then that is what we should do, not lay a legal minefield at the feet of kids exploring sexuality.

The age of consent is only ever relevant when one of the parties is an adult. No one seriously refutes the phenomenon of adolescent sexual curiosity - and while i agree with some of the points raised in this article, there's a certain subtefuge there that makes me feel uncomfortable. Freedom of sexuality is a great thing, but society dictates that sex is an expression of love - which does confuse the issue for kids when they are responding merely to biological urges. To relax our attitudes about that in western civilization is frought with danger. Teach kids about their biological urges, and their sexuality and teach them to respect those things and wait until they are of an age to emotionally deal with them. I agree the puritan and moralistic point of view is a narrow one, but one has to take into account the society we live in and be realistic about that. So while morals shouldn't dictate, emotions and self respect still do - so for that reason we have to tread very responsibly.

Is there an objective standard of morality by which we can determine the rightness and wrongness of things, or is it all relative and subjective?

I work for an anti-trafficking NGO and it is very difficult to get some of the most dreadful crimes out of my head. The 'puritan' reforms complained of by the article's author were instigated by the Salvation Army because of child sexual slavery.

This is what I know.

A brothel in London, Prague, Budapest, which uses children might have a thousand customers and none will call the police. The same statistic works for Canada, USA, etc. When I meet Salvation Army people I thank them for their example.

The Salvation Army of today are abolitionists with the same mission. In 1885, the age of consent for a girl was 13 years and there were brothels in London that catered for men who liked very young girls.

Those who bought and those who sold saw little wrong with taking the virginity of a child. Today it is not so very different, I can relate to the 19th century campaign. The author's article made me feel uncomfortable.

Cadiz, the points you make are obviously very compelling, in as much as no reasonalbe person could defend the kind of sexual abuse that you describe. You seem to be missing the two main points of the article however:

1) That while it is important to protect young people from sexual predation or abuse, it is not helpful to create (and in some cases enforce) legislation that will outloaw the kind of sexual experimentation that young teenagers have always dabbled in. This sort of experimentation carries its own risks, obviously, but the law is hardly the appropriate mechanism for addressing these risks. Laws such as those in Victoria and the ACT attempt to take this concern into account, and the author praises that effort.

2) For the emotional well-being of homosexual young people, it is important that differences in the age of consent for straight and gay sexual practices be abolished. As long as sensible laws regarding the age of consent, sexual predation, and abuse are correctly enforced, one cannot argue that laws regarding the homosexual age of consent will put young people at risk. The only remaining reason for such laws stems from religious or personal moral beliefs, and these cannot be the sole basis of legislation.

This is a most distressing article because it represents the complete medicalization of sexual ethics. Health and safety are deemed to be the only issues involved apart from protecting the weak against the strong. Any hint that a morality based on a religious tradition may have something to say is dismissed out of hand. The writer isolates sexual behaviour from the complex issues of courtship and the establishment of life-long, family rearing relationships and from any transcendent purpose in life other than to be able to do what is safe. Sex education will not fill the void that is left.

What is the "age of consent" supposed to be about - I would suggest it is that moment in time when a person is deemed sufficiently mature to make complex decisions for themselves. In this matter I would suggest age of consent could, on the basis of rational and mature cognitive development range from anywhere between 12 and 30, depending on the gender and attitude of the individual. Thus we have then the question of where do we draw the line for the "age of consent".
If we are to draw a line (and I feel we must) I find consistency demands we apply that standard universally, thus homosexual "age of consent" be the same as hetro-sexual "age of consent". Anything else is plain "silly".

I further consider the ability to exercise a decision to imbibe in alchohol a rational decision in which some are capable exercising proper attitudes from the age of 12 and other, incapable of moderation at any age.

Likewise smoking - stupid at any age - yet consent at 18 years.

Voting - this is an important one - should the age of consent maybe coincide with the age of majority ?

Such a notion embraces "sense" to me, empowering someone with sovereignty over themselves and "release" from "parential authority" should sort out plainly, who can decide for themselves and who needs protecting from their own bad choices - which is what the age of consent should really be about -
The protection of juveniles, not only from the predatory advances and influences of adults but from the dangers of their own immaturity.

Well done Melissa a very clear well presented article. Sell's don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes. That is the whole point of the separation of church and state. If you whish to teach your children that sex before marriage is bad then go for it but you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people. Government should only be concerned about the health aspects of this issue.

Kenny, I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just expressing what I think is a well foundered opinion in the spirit of democracy. Mellissa has expressed her opinion from a medical point of view, should we insist on a separation of medicine and state so that her opinion is inadmissable as you think mine should be? Surely you must admit that there are various positions from which we can come at this question, Melissa has expressed an opinion from a medical point of view which is valid, it is just not as comprehensive as she seems to assume.

Melissa,

Wrong. Sorry. Kids, like us, need the security of 'life/road rules'They do not need to feel they are exactly as current society portrays them - commodities with a really short use-by date. They need to understand just how unique and special and spiritually great they are. They need to understand how to make their present family, friend, community, relationships work. Ideally this is passed on to them by role-modelling from parents and 'significant others' - mainly through mutual respect, mutual admiration, mutual giving and taking. I'm not talking about 'la la land' in strongly recommending a push by 'adults' for greater role modelling of more effective ways to conduct themselves in society and in their own communities. Currently the lore of the jungle sprouts loudly and clearly, get what you can , when you can , and don't give a @@@@ about anyone else or the consequences. This 'me me me' approach encourages a selfish, consumerist mentality to living - relationships with people, and our environment. Devastation has been the result.

But hey Melissa what does it matter - go ahead and promote a 'free for all - if you have an itch - scratch it' approach to life. Tonight's news revealed the cost to the Government for domestic violence on women aged from 15 yrs to 44 yrs , at approximately $4billion annually. Something isn't working in the current relationship behaviour patterns. Yet you advocate more of the same - more selfishness - more free for all.

Kids do need guidance Melissa - boundaries - knowledge and understanding of what it takes to make relationships work - they're hard Melissa - they take time - love - selflessness - give and take. Flitting from one 'person' to another is not the answer.

Deep contentment from loving relationships takes effort and time. Don't trivialise relationship building Melissa. Families are the engine of society. Children are suffering so much because of 'consumerist' approaches to relationships. Multiple 'dads' and 'mums' really cuts them up. Families need a lot of support and time and love.

J. Sheehan

>>"Sell's don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."<<

Come again! Did I just read what I thought I read?

Tell me, do you think murder (at least post-natal) is immoral? Do you think rape is immoral? Do you think theft (except by majority vote, of course) is immoral? Do you think assault is immoral?

If government's primary responsibility isn't "enforcing moral codes", then what on earth is it there for?

Is this the calibre of thinking this forum can muster?

Sheenajay
Your post would be the most heartfelt post I have read, but you can feel assured that many of the things that we presently have within our society were not always there, and can be changed, and there are many who are now trying to change these systems.

Men who are interested in sex with children and juveniles do travel in very large numbers to countries that have legalized the activity. Commercial child exploitation is more prevalent in jurisdictions with same age criteria for heterosexual and homosexual experiences.

The 'public sex' lobby in western societies is promoted by advocates who rely upon the NAMBLA philosophy for ideological legitimacy.

Society has to make choices about who it protects and it has to send a clear message to the people who want to harm those warranting protection. These days, men who want to use children for sex, are often publicly active and political.

Paedophilia is typically dressed up (these days) as an exercise in child sexual liberation from the unwanted attentions of sentimental lobbyists repressively imprisoned in the late 19th century. The NAMBLA philosophy seeks to eradicate moral certainty.

Objective standards of morality can be betrayed without much thought for the wider impact.

The gay lobby were the driving engine behind the Prostitution Reform Bill in New Zealand. The NZ Govt. appointed them as the arbitrators of what compromises were possible.

When offered the chance to drive a wedge between the 'Christian' moralists and the secular child protection lobby, the NZ Govt. merely had to concede that the prostitution reform legislation had to allow for

(1) Consent

(2) Prohibition on child exploitation in commercial premises

The consent issue was to the fore because many of the 'prostitutes' in the premises (in NZ) did not speak a word of English and were unable to 'voice' consent.

The NZ govt. did not think that was important. Their position was that they 'gave consent' by being on or in the premises.

Privately the NZ police allowed us to understand that the gay lobby had their hooks into the NZ labour party and the child protection movement could hope for nothing.

When pro-protection lobbyists tried to outlaw the use of children in lap-dancing clubs as part of the prostitution reform legislation, they were advised that the NZ Govt. would resist them to the bitter end.

Which is what they did. Lap-dancing was to be excluded because of various 'added value' activities to be promoted at brothels.

That amounted to everything from the sale of human breast milk to the use of Asian girls in pseudo child sex performances etc.

It was thought too difficult to address the one without limiting the commercial aspects of the other.

The NZ govt. were aware that children were being used in sex clubs. The Govt. priority was to keep those events secret in order to get the legislation on the books.

Kenny, where u are 'coming from' is becoming clearer by the day .. or am I misreading you ? Your repeated vitriolic attacks on the 'moralisic christians' and your lavish unbounded praise on the author of this article, are quite revealing.
I'm reminded of the words of one of the Huxleys who promoted Darwinian evolution "I dont WANT to believe in God, I have my own moral agenda" (words to that effect)

If Melissa was a man I'm sure she would be at the coal face of the Nambla apologist team, perhaps her work will be seen by them anyway as 'cutting edge breakthrough and timely academic honesty'.

Melissa seems to have swallowed hook line and sinker the Western concept of 'total individuality' which is surprising for a Chinese girl who theoretically should have a VERY strong sense of kinship bond and cultural connection based on her own heritage.

She touched on a couple of important issues, that of unforseen pregnancy raising inheritance and succession problems. All this is saying is that we are NOT isolated individuals ! We are intimately connected to others in many important ways. So perhaps the focus on individual sexual freedom is in error ?

Cadiz, you showed the 'dirty' side of this coin, by illustrating how commercial interests will take up any perceived opportunity to turn sexual permisiveness into dollars and cents, and how governments will manipulate information for this purpose as well. The legalilzation of brothels was PORTRAYED to us as 'bringing an unenforcable illegal practice under government regulation' and taming it. Yet statistics and reports I've seen show MORE illegal brothels now than prior to their legalization. As soon as u have an age of consent, it will be the 'rule which was meant to be broken' by the forces of darkness. So its better to make an age which we feel is socially sensible, and that will only happen thru democratic action.

Call my view 'puritan' or 'religious wowserism', but I'll call the pressure to become more permissive 'abject degeneracy' if the shoe fits, wear it.

I think that sex should be illegal for all people, except for married Christian heterosexuals over the age of 21, who only use the missionary position and for the purposes of reproduction. Sex for pleasure should be banned completely, as should any form of eroticism.

Transgressors should be locked up in gaols, where they can happily engage in homosexual acts with older prisoners until they are released back into society - oh hang on, that's what we do to young offenders now anyway... but at least we could ensure they'd be over 21 by the time they got out.

There, that would solve all of our problems, wouldn't it?

Morganzola” I think that sex should be illegal for all people, except for
1 married
2 Christian
3 heterosexuals
4 over the age of 21
5 who only use the missionary position and
6 for the purposes of reproduction.
7 Sex for pleasure should be banned completely,
8 as should any form of eroticism.”

I guess I would be condemned on 6 or the 8 points (assuming fundamentalists are not the ones who determine who is Christian and who is not and me being “heterosexual” I get a free pass).

I realise you posted this with "sarcasm aforemost". However, it would run not too far from what “fundamentalists” would inflict upon us in the name of their interpretation of religious / legal belief.

There is only one criteria in this which matters in people exercising personal choice –

are those people “old enough” to understand and exercise consent, free of intimidation and coercion?

As to the religious zealots – their opinion and interference is neither needed, required or welcome.
For all people "choice" in options of intimacy is as imprtoant as choice in religious beliefs, choice in suffrage and for women, choice in the matter of abortion.

Govts not properly legislating for morality.

Which is why we have 'harm reduction' advocates teaching 8 year old girls to say 'condom please' in English, German and Japanese. My own experience for what it is worth, is that pimps make very poor health care practitioners. It is not really about 'sex before marriage', it is often about people trying to get the NAMBLA philosophy into legislation. Govts are generally expected to put people in prison to enforce moral codes against one thing or another.

Heroin
Sex with animals
Child pornography
Rape
Homicide
Public sex
Spreading HIV deliberately
Selling alcohol to children
Underage sex (*)

You name it and one can often go to prison for it. Ultimately the moral code has to be fixed at a age in the case of sex and children. It (*) will usually have a number, 16, 18, or 21 and the number depends on the place. Countries which have consent ages of 12, 14 etc. tend to attract a lot of paedophiles and sex tourists. The reason for that is they prefer not to go to prison. That brings me back to very young girls learning basic 'condom please' phrases in German, English and Japanese. Sex tourists want to have sex with young boys and girls - why make it legal?

Well said Cadiz

For Col and Morgan, for goodness sake u guys, that list was not just a straw man it was a proverbial BONFIRE.
Where in the WORLD are u guys getting your information from about what christians believe about sex ?
Just because Fred Nile may once have suggested that some kinds of sexual activity are 'not acceptable' does not make him the Pope :) NOR does it make him RIGHT.
My Bible says pretty much zero about what a married man and woman can or cannot do in the privacy of their bedrooms. (or kitchen ? :)
It lays down principles about love, caring and self sacrifice.
The closest it comes is to refer to 'conjugal rights' and 'don't deny each other' but as for the fine print, well, 'have fun' is all I can say, but not fun which would place any barrier between you and God, and that is something each individual has to work out.

Hows about we make a deal. MOrgan, before you go foaming at the mouth about every bad thing u've ever heard about Christian behavior on 60 minutes :) try reading THE BIBLE on the relevant subject area.

Oh, just one point which cropped up in another thread, about 'God in the old testament sanctioning the taking of young virgins as sex toys after killing their relatives', umm that is actually quite incorrect.
Captive females were to be treated according to the Law, and such treatment (while VERY different from our politically 'correct' (cough) cultural view) is still quite humane given the circumstances of the ERA.
I suppose I have less trouble with these kinds of issues, because I've lived among(and married into) a people who did face the same kind of 'kill or be killed' "raid or be raided' "subjegate or be subjugated" situation, and I have to say that the Old testament came alive as never before when I was confronted with it in real life.

Boaz wrote: "Hows about we make a deal. MOrgan, before you go foaming at the mouth about every bad thing u've ever heard about Christian behavior on 60 minutes :) try reading THE BIBLE on the relevant subject area."

No deal, Bozo. While, as I've said before, the Bible is right up there with the Iliad, Mahabharata, even The Lord of the Rings, there's only so many times I can read that anthology of Semitic goat-herders' myths and legends. Personally I preferred The Da Vinci Code, which dealt with much of the same material but doesn't pretend to be anything other than fiction.

And I don't watch "60 Minutes" - perhaps because my bulldust meter is more sensitive than yours.

Happy Compassion Day :)

Morgan

I read Dr Kang's article and was utterly depressed by what I read. For her to couple support for laws that promote the responsible care of children and young people with the nurture of "the safe and healthy development of the individual's sexuality (and I presume she meant these same children and young people) in all its glorious variety" beggars belief. I notice she dislikes Christian, particularly puritan notions of right and wrong. I wonder what she knows about them - if as much as Morgan and Col Rouge then God help the society she is trying to fashion! I suggest Dr Kang actually checked out what former generations who embraced Christianity (including its puritan) forms said and achieved and then compare with today's highly dysfunctional society. I suspect future generations will be very harsh on this current self absorbed, self serving generation, and one thing is for sure, there will be a lot less of them with current birth-rates and not only that but the religious will form a much higher proportion, because they actually love children and nurture them in good and godly ways.

Thank you Reality Check, Sells, J Sheehan and Cadiz – spot on.

Like Boaz David I find it hard to take Col Rouge and Morgan seriously.

They apparently think and certainly want others to believe, Christians think sex should be illegal for all people, except for
1. married - this is true, we do think this
2. Christian - but this is rubbish, though not to say that we wouldn't like all people to be christian
3. heterosexuals - this also is true, well done Col Rouge and Morgan, you have got 2 out of 8 correct
but all of the following is complete rubbish
4. over the age of 21
5. who only use the missionary position and
6. for the purposes of reproduction.
7. Sex for pleasure should be banned completely,
8. as should any form of eroticism.”

Mind you, we do believe sex (hopefully within a stable and loving marriage relationship) is for bringing the next generation into the world.

On a cultural note:

Dr Kang has opened a very dangerous can of worms here. To be brutally honest, a pubescent girl, can cope with very early marraige and sexual relations and child bearing IF, and its a HUGE "IF" all the other social and cultural supports were in place, and in balance.
(such as close by extended family)

This might surprise some of my brethren (me saying this) but I'm very aware of how this works from my own wifes culture, so I don't speak from ignorance.
The danger and problem for us, is that our age of concent is selected, to achieve specific social goals, within OUR culture and to mess with it, could produce incalculable damage to many precious lives. We are not Indian, nor Chinese, nor Mexican- we are mainly Europeans of Judao Christian background and heritage and we have a pretty strong emphasis on idividuality. For these reasons, our age of consent is part of our cultural and social balance which is needed to maintain stability and harmony.

MOrgan, and Col, 'right up there' eh ? :) Fancy that, well thats what they said about various passages in the Old Testament which mentioned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and others, UNTIL, archeology uncovered them or references to them in cuniform tablets etc. Reading Genesis, one is struck by the amazing way that the various races are quite well explained in the Mesopotamean area, from Individual, to Family to Tribe and City states etc. If only you guys had the right equipment (attitude) to 'mine' the gold which resides there. Pretty well all of the 'questions/accusations' which are habitually regurgitated here would be answered.

As for me, I still appreciate the give and take, even if some express dissatisfaction with our foundation position.

I guess we will have to pray on eh :)

Where do I start?

Kang says concerns about "adolescent sexuality are predominantly moralistic and a legacy of Christian, particularly puritan, notions of right and wrong." Quite true.

She asks: "what informs our moral position on adolescent sexuality? Should there be an “age of consent”? And if so, does it serve a moral, or some other, purpose?"

Christians don't have a problem answering this question, but I wonder what Kang's answer is...

Kang asks: "How well do these laws reflect our current understanding of adolescent sexuality?" Who's understanding are we talking about? No doubt they reflect the understanding of the materialists and secular humanists, but why should we accept their understanding as correct - especially because, since they had the laws changed to reflect their worldview we have a huge increase in child abuse and sexual crime, teenage pregnancy, AIDS and other STIs.

Why do we have age of consent laws? Because children and adolescents - despite their claims to knowing everything - are not mature enough to consider the broad range of possible consequences, and because they are far too easily manipulated by adults.

She says: "In countries where there is an openness towards addressing sexuality and easier access to health information and services, adolescent pregnancy rates are lower."

Countries like Australia, England, New Zealand, USA, Canada? Then why has teenage pregnancy risen dramatically in all these countries since the sexual revolution? Wake up and smell the coffee Melissa!

She says re homosexual sex "it’s time that all sexualities are acknowledged and accepted, with laws designed to protect and promote wellbeing of all, rather than punishing a completely normal minority."

Why should homosexuality be accepted? Especially since it is an extremely unhealthy practice and can hardly be called normal given that less than 3% of the population engage in it.

And Melissa, Romeo and Juliet allowed their passionate desires to consume them - so much so that they committed suicide...

Kenny,

You said: "don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."

Really? I cannot think of any legislation whatsoever that does not involve morality! Even something as innocuous as the budget has a moral dimension eg. should we put more money into defence or health?

Kenny contimues: "That is the whole point of the separation of church and state."

The "separation of church and state" is actually an American concept at it does not mean what you think it does anyway. It means that the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church (eg. Church of England, Vatican etc).

s 116 of the Constitution says:
"116. 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."

There is nothing here about not legislating morality.

Kenny adds: "you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people."

Just listen to yourself Kenny! "You should not"...
You are forcing YOUR moral code on me by saying that I should not force my moral code on others.

Again, like all moral relativists, you end up contradicting yourself and start speaking nonsense.

I ask: Why shouldn't I be allowed to force my moral code on others?

Kenny,

You said: "don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."

Really? I cannot think of any legislation whatsoever that does not involve morality! Even something as innocuous as the budget has a moral dimension eg. should we put more money into defence or health?

Kenny contimues: "That is the whole point of the separation of church and state."

The "separation of church and state" is actually an American concept at it does not mean what you think it does anyway. It means that the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church (eg. Church of England, Vatican etc).

s 116 of the Constitution says:
"116. 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."

There is nothing here about not legislating morality.

Kenny adds: "you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people."

Just listen to yourself Kenny! "You should not"...
You are forcing YOUR moral code on me by saying that I should not force my moral code on others.

Again, like all moral relativists, you end up contradicting yourself and start speaking nonsense.

I ask: Why shouldn't I be allowed to force my moral code on others?

In any case, there is a much better article on this topic by Alison Campbell Rate at:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3099
Given that she actually cousels young people in such predicaments, she actually knows what she is talking about.

To Kenny:

You are correct to say that "separation of church and state" is an American concept. However, it means much more than the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church like the Church of England.

There were two interpetations of the First Amendment's establishment clause which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the Republican-Democrat Party interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit all government authority, including advisory authority, over the duty which we owe to the Creator.

Timothy Pitkin, Laban Wheaton and the Federalist Party held that the establishment clause was intended merely to prevent the establishment by law of a National Church, such as the Church of England.

During the Early Years of the American Republic (1788 to 1861) it was James Madison's interpretation that prevailed in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause. In 1878, in the first case, governed by the two religion clauses of the First Amendment, to reach the U. S. Supreme Court, it adopted James Madison's view that religion was the duty which we owe to the Creator and is totaly exempt from the cognizance of the government.

Fred

What does the word "religion" mean in Section 116 of Chapter V. of the Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act?

"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."

Fred
Dallas Texas USA

Dear Fred

your historical insights on the background to the constitution and accuracy make you a well suited candidate for OLO participation :)

WELCOME.

Join in more discussions please, and your valuable information on such things as the constitution will be helpful in clarifying some very muddy waters on that score.

Cheers