I was shocked to realise that both houses of parliament still ask the Christian god for a blessing and recite the lords prayer before each sitting.

It's the most alarming juxtaposition - reciting ancient incantations before deciding how best to employ 21st century military technology...

There is no link between our system of government and constitutional support for separation of church and state. As your article admits, separation of church and state was read into the American constitution by the courts.

For my part it seems to me that if a majority of the founding fathers had wanted separation of church and state in the constitution, they would have put it there. It's also doubtful that Jefferson or Madison realized they were amending the constitution when they wrote the letters that became the basis for the courts' later decision.

Trying to frame the possible upcoming republic debate as necessarily a referendum on separation of church and state as well is disingenuous, not to mention liable to derail the process as well.

I think the goal of the establishment clause is egalitarian - no one should be advantaged or favoured by the government on the basis of beliefs - or more importantly no one should be disadvantaged on that basis.

As a person of faith I find separation of church and state is often an initiative of militant atheists aiming to effectively nullify the establishment clause and establish atheism.

That is, the government discriminates against e.g. religious schools on the basis of belief. Why is offering funding for independent schools of any faith or none problematic? Unless you're a hardline atheist who believes that religion may only be practiced between consenting adults, if at all.

Can't we all just get along? :)

peace,

james

A good, succinct article from Max Wallace. The fact that the current Constitution fails to separate explicitly the church and state is yet another good reason to ditch it in favour of one which establishes Australia as an independent republic, rather than as as vassal client of the English constutional monarchy.

It would also provide a constitutional means for refusing taxpayer funding of religious schools and festivals, among other things.

I'm a atheist myself and I really don't think there is to much of a issue here. Yes I would rather not see our governments prayer before each sitting, but if you look closely more and more are doing what most agnostics and atheist do and respectfully not join in.

"In true black letter legalese, the constitutional prohibition against an establishment of a church as the official state religion in Australia does not mean separation of church and state: it means there is a prohibition against the establishment of an official state religion"

I think the important point here is not what the legalese says but what the practice out comes are. We here is Australia don't have a problem with religion. Most of us judge people on their actions not their beliefs. The US has the opposite, as seen as one of the smear campaigns against Obama is that he might be Muslim. So much for no religious test… and yes I understand there is nothing in the constitution stopping him, but it comes to show that a large portion of the US doesn’t like that idea. To me Australian are far more respectful of their constitutional goals in this area then the Yanks.

Organised religion is dieing and it should be allowed to die in its own bed. It doesn't need to be put to death by over excited Secularist. The only small threat I see here is by the movement by some of the remaining religious folk towards some of the US imported protestant cults.

jamesf

"Why is offering funding for independent schools of any faith or none problematic?"

Using taxpayers' money to fund schools that promote the dubious teachings of many religions and sects is extremely problematic for many Australians.

Kenny

"Organised religion is dieing and it should be allowed to die in its own bed. It doesn't need to be put to death by over excited Secularist."

Not only is organized religion far from being in its death throes, but sects and cults too are now being funded with taxpayer money and increasingly given a cloak of respectability their wacky and often-dangerous belief systems don't warrant at all.

Max

Just read a review on your book 'The Purple Economy'. Why don't you write an article for OLO on some of the points you've raised there? The fact that in excess of 500 million dollars of annual tax concessions are granted to religions, sects and cults in Australia, which must then be made up out of the pockets of all taxpayers, might attract attention more readily than a drier constitutional argument.

I am becoming so bored by these interminable articles anticipating an Australian republic, when the decisive issue is NEVER raised! The issue, of course, is what we think of our politicians. No thought is given to the enormous pleasure so many people had in seeing Gough Whitlam dismissed by Her Majesty's representative, and their belief that the monarchy is worth retaining just for that one thing.

I remember some years ago when a friend was very annoyed at the arrogance of Keating, and remarked "what a pity Keating was not dismissed by Kerr". I had the pleasure of replying "But he was!" Keating was Minister for Northern Australia (for three weeks), and was dismissed on 11/11//75 along wiht the rest of Whitlam's ministry. According to a book written by Fred Daly, Whitlam passed Keating on his way back form Yarralumla, and said "You've been sacked." Keating's immortal reply was "What have I done?"

Again, when politicians were compared some years ago to used-car salesmen, the salesmen complained at the invidious comparison, and they had to be compared to snake-oil salesmen.

At the moment we have a very useful guide to politician's ethics each time a new parliament is opened, when all members swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. We are able to judge who is being truthful, honest and sincere, and who is lying in his teeth. This would be deeply missed.

The best comment on the republic I ever heard came from a Broken Hill miner in 1993 when Keating was PM and Hewson Opposition leader.

He said: "I'd have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Until action is taken to address these attitudes in the people that have to approve any change, particularly by making changes that will enable the people to enact changes in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political, legal and business elite (as happened recently in Ireland), we will continue as loyal subjects for many years yet.