The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The whale in the bay of Australian politics > Comments

The whale in the bay of Australian politics : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 4/10/2010

There is no constitutional separation of church and state in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Whale? No such luck, its a beached school of rotting carcases! But it is supported, as you point out, by a an alleged "school" of LLBs whom are all responsible for arguments in support of myths. These myths being religion's god(s) and race, both emperor's new clothes ensconced in Australia's constitution and propped up by LLBs.

If there is to be no government support for religion, what is a religion? I would argue for a science based case to provide primary sources for their "holy" texts. No primary source? Not a religion. This in much the same manner that since Watson and Crick we have had evidence the myth of race. Simply, humanity is the biological isolate.

We have had evidence based medicine for some time now, how about an evidence based constitution? Otherwise our entire legal profession has no basis in either fact or its professed "law."
Posted by SapperK9, Monday, 4 October 2010 10:48:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article. Being an atheist I have to wonder what the governments are up to putting chaplains in public schools. Of course we hear the cry 'they are not teaching anything of a religious nature, just counselling'. Then' I beg the question are they counsellors or chaplains? If they are there only to counsel, then employ fully trained counsellors. Too expensive I suppose. That would be the bottom line.

I have a great deal of angst about giving untold money to so called religious orders, unless they completely comply with what 'a church' should be.Even then I have doubts about giving taxpayers money to churches of any description. But the 'so called' churches which are really cults obviously should not be receiving any money from the taxpayers.
Posted by RaeBee, Monday, 4 October 2010 11:39:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ignorance is astounding in some quarters. Firstly, Australia has no separation of church and state. Secondly, America has no separation of church and state either and people who say otherwise haven’t read the First Amendment
Posted by History Buff, Monday, 4 October 2010 1:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Over and above what they make from schooling, “God knows what Australia’s charities and religious groups do with their tax-free earnings”; a $70 billions gift from the government year after year , wrote Adele Ferguson on BRW, 24-30 March 2005.

And God doesn’t spill the beans!
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 4 October 2010 1:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Constitution

Of the Lawyers

By the Lawyers

For the Lawyers
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 4 October 2010 1:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> ""America has no separation of church and state either and people who say otherwise haven’t read the First Amendment""
Posted by History Buff, Monday, 4 October 2010 1:08:52 PM

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements ... that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit
1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or
2) the preference of one religion over another.

The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

....

The Aust Psycholgical Association has a view the govt is liable for the preponderance of chaplains in schools over qualified councillors.

http://www.psychology.org.au/news/media_releases/10aug2010/

The catholic Church is crowing over the ""state education minister Verity Firth's "guarantee ... to the future access of major faiths and denominations to students in State schools" "".

http://cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=23532

The preponderance of politicians who are Catholic and lawyers seems disproportion.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 4 October 2010 6:08:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy