"The professional religious educator does not assume any faith position on the part of the student, but rather seeks to inform the student about the different dimensions of religious faith."

Is this meant to include the information that none of it has any verifiable foundation in fact? Because any student capable of grasping that is soon going to ask why they are only meant to be informed about religion and not all the other equally well-supported fields such as astrology, phrenology, ESP and UFOlogy.

Religion is a historical and social phenomenon and as such can be taught in the context of history and social science. There is no more need to elevate it to the status of a special subject than there is to elevate dowsing or homeopathy to the same position.

A good thoughtful article, however we are protected in Australia by Sect. 116 of the constitution.

This section protects religion from the capricious acts of the parliament and equally the parliament and through them the people, from the capricious act of the theocracy, Surely one of the more sensible sections of our constitution stolen as it was from the US constitution by our founding fathers.

This is all very well, but a bit motherhood. The principles are too high-level to give decisive guidance on many of the more problematic or contentious issues affecting the boundary between church and state. I’d like some examples of how these guidelines would help to determine:

- Should a bishop be appointed governor general?
- Should Churches campaign on political and social issues such as the treatment of asylum seekers, gay marriage and abortion?
- Should religious sensitivities be protected by anti-hate-speech and similar laws?
- Should school chaplaincies be permitted in State schools and, if so, should Government fund them?
- Can religious schools and institutions refuse to hire employees not of their religion/denomination?
- Should a political leader consult their Archbishop on matters of policy?
- Should church schools receive government funding?
- How far should people complying with what they believe to be religious requirements be accommodated when these practices do not accord with common laws and customs (Sikhs wearing turbans not crash helmets, Muslim women in burkhas, Jews refusing to work on Saturdays, Christian nurses refusing to assist abortions...)

Of course, since christians will earnestly speak of their right hold and expound their beliefs, we will of course expect them to genuinely hold to them.

When christians refuse categorically to fight in wars or to accept potentially combatant roles, we will understand them finally to have grasped at least one supposedly vital commandment.

you know, the one that got abbreviated from what moses *really* meant:

Thou shalt not kill *unless* under orders, or out of plausibly deniable responsibility dodging, or because it's ok on account of their not *my* religion.

So many bibles leave out that *unless* bit......

Rusty

"*they're* not *my* religion", of course.

Rusty.

@peterfra

Not much of a protection, considering how narrowly it has been interpreted by the High Court (see the DOGS case in the 80s). I do agree that it's intention was to prevent the kind of religious overreach that we see in Australia. Edmond Barton campaigned hard to not have God mentioned at all the preamble and Constitution. In the end he wasn't entirely successful.

What troubles me more than The Lord's Prayer at the start of parliament, is the tax breaks that religious business and organisations receive. Sanitarium is the classic Australian case. If religious charities were required to at least make their finances public, then we could be somewhat sure they weren't using money to basically become rip people off. There are numerous cases of churches being given public land via peppercorn deals for the purpose of building places of worship, and then selling the land when the land value has increased. They generally don't pay any state or federal taxes on that kind of thing, yet make use of civil services like garbage collection.

The role of religion in public debate become especially difficult sometimes.

When church leaders advocate for sanctions against politicians of their faith who vote in a way that's inconsistent with the churches teachings. The logic makes sense but the practical aspects are troubling.

When a persons individual beliefs stand in the way of the rights of others such as the case of a catholic health minister using quite arbitrary powers to impose the outcomes of their faith on others.

There is a mix in there between principles and practice, the principles are very important but when taken to extremes undermine society as badly as trampling on those same principles.

R0bert

SilverInCanberra - a couple of comments.

In almost all council areas, Churches do pay for garbage collection. Not a big deal, but an important correction.

Having worked with people in the land development industry, they assure me that it is in their interest to have Churches established in their developments, as it attracts buyers. Indeed, they actively pursue Church organisations to get them in. Same with schools and other community organisations. While a very few may sell later, this is by far the exception to the rule.

It happens often enough that the Catholic church is one of the largest land owners in Australia.

auther/quote..""What are some of the implications of these principles?"'

freespeach must be attributable and able to be held to account
not for petty or transient reasons..or personalised assults

""it does seem that theistic references
within the Australian Constitution must be extremely questionable."'

they were the guidence underwhich they must be interpritated
we swear to tell the truth on a bible..or other holy text

[without that quasi 'authority'...
they are nought but self seving revenuers
taxing their trust[the people and THEIR estates]..into private fiefdoms..for the elite running the scam..

and despoiling that they cant further loot
plunder expolit or claim into their own exclusive trusts/treasuries

""official prayers within Parliament must be extremely problematic.""
if only they would stop calling our creator
the allmighty black rod

""It would be simple to replace the Lord's Prayer with a time of private reflection and private prayer,"'

lol
but not as impressive for the peons/serfs

heck judges could throw away their dresses..and wigs

could you stop thinking?
of course not

its why you were gifted to life
gifted education position faith and trust

""Do the above principles necessarily mean that the churches and church organizations ought not be involved in the running of schools?""

no
know we each have the right to believe
or disbeluieve..[both here and in the next life]

""The above principles will make compulsory attendance of worship within church schools problematic, at least on a regular basis""

cccrap...its our choice to listen
[our mind either hears or is listening to ourinner voice]

only those wanting to listen can hear..

and we avoid hearing the important things
the ones that give others equal right..as we would want ourselves.

to love neighbour
as thy loveth thyself

doing for others
not unto them

From some of the views expressed here regarding tax they are without foundation just mere assertions based in antagonist views of religion. These people are selfish who tax charities and volunteers and philanthropists for their giving to assist the needy. Church based businesses are charities serving the public, who pay full time staff award wages and taxes.

s.116 is a total farce, and there is no separation of church and state in this country, as explained by the High Court, as pointed out already.

If we are to become a republic though, we will have to have a very clear end to the over generous privilege granted to all religions.

Time for them to be taxed, pay rates, income tax and everything else that normal human bodies do.

Time for school chaplains in public schools to be chucked out.

Time for the various forms of Religious Intrusion (RI) to be dumped from school time and school property.

Time for a Scandinadian-Canadian model of teaching about religion, faith and philosophical approaches to life, all through school.

Time for private groups like the Australian Christian Lobby to be exposed for the fundie mob they are.

Seen this mob's 10 minute film?

The pathetic figure of our prime minister squirming in her seat while bull$-hittng about her love of the Salvo's while Wallace looks on wishing she'd shut up and get on the the answer she is still trying to think of through all her whittering, says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj2prVhnUdM&feature=youtu.be

She is a total fraud, incompetent, and stupid to boot.

Finally, here's Barney on what we do need:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/religion-ethics-may-be-in-new-curriculum-20111120-1npdz.html

What get's up the nose of the god deniers is that people are willing to support their faith even after having paid tax on their wages. The new athiest god deniers expect the Government to pay for their faith. At least the Government gets a return from the churches rather than the bile that comes from the god deniers.

runner, people pay tax on their wages but churches bleed the economy of a potential $30billion of untaxed income.

Churches need some 'pastoral care', that is, let them free in the same ATO pasture we all graze in, without any special deals.

I am reminded of the angst the trade unions went through as their privilege was closed down, the 'preference clause'.

Now they survive without it, and should they ever recruit anyone it could only be because that person/people have elected to join up.

So it should be with religions.

Join by all means, but pay your way and do not expect a special deal from the state.

Australia is, in many ways, the most fortunate of countries when it comes to religion in public life.
The general level of disinterest is in large part a great protection. No-one campaigns here based on their faith. No-one questions a candidate's faith. Matters of faith are intensely personal and here in Aus they are expected to stay that way - a wonderful system.
I would hate to see that change, where personal philosophy was suddenly dragged into the spotlight.
As for churches and their tax status, I believe firmly that churches should seperate their religious/charitable arms from their commercial arms (at least to the extent possible). The former should properly be tax exempt, the latter taxed the same as any other.

J S Mill you are right unlike the bigoted nonsence posted by The Blue Cross. My wife has worked for eight years for the Church and has paid tax on her wages without exemption. The employment is a not for profit service to the public and they pay GST and are accountable to the Government on service given and records kept.

The Church had to purchase the land and build the facilities.

eh bluey
i watched half ya vidio

intresting it was the salvo's
[who asked my wife and daughter to take a paycut of 20 % just recently]

religeon has become a scam
it is time..that scam was revealed

i fel sorry for those people good and true
who try hard to follow the way of christ...but the thing is xtian arnt christian anymore..[charity is a thing govt pays for..or the tax payer]...but basicly govt bying favour..to get a xtian brand on things

so all the god god people
think govt acts for god..not corperate excess
and bailout of the rich banking ursurors

anyhow
satan has a firm hold over chistians..
via their tax free child perversion institutions..

by their deeds stand they revealed and reviled
i turned the other cheek..7 times 70..then i stopped turning away

and decided to attack the head of the best
but the beast has too many heads

then its prioritising which head
[jesus made that cleasr]..the money changers

who by stealing govt banking institutions
[mint fed note printing etc cyber credit..
plus who get funds at what intrest rate].../have no achieved criminal total control over govts[all govts]..by making them pay ursury on their own money

thats why i invented the wikiseed/wikigeld
but im talking to the guilty and shameless..who are deaf
cause they thing the nmessiah bringing armogeddon..to be 'christ'

when we know the true christ has gone to the fathers house
in heabven..to build us all a room in our fathers house

hell is here
satanic demonic autocratz teqnoc-rats..beurorockrats..
parties and corperate bankers..run the place

we have foregone spiritual riches..
for materialised debt

to forgive them seems too hard
im willing to risk eternal dammnation..to keep the barsteward honest[oops that one failed too]..ok i give up

your forgiven
go..AND SIN NO MORE

[disclaimer notice..;to now sin..means
you will get forgiven again and again,,but in the end
you get to go to..that special room[in our fathers house]..where liars go]

each sin has its own room
just as each blessing..[dont curse your future life
by cursing materialsts]..that they do...they do..not you

The problem with wanting to do away with prayer is that to say we're not a Christian nation is akin to saying we're not an English speaking nation. To change the Constitution, preamble or prayer in Parliament isn't to leave some kind of phantasmal neutral space, as if forgoing English would usher in some transcendent mode of communication above language, rather you would have to promulgate Esperanto or Latin or Elvish or some other language considered superior.

So too with the attempt to excise Christianity from public life, the vacuum is filled by secular liberalism - a metaphysical position that requires argument to justify and is itself a tradition (a particularly unstable one as we are experiencing)and an incoherent one at that IMO.

Using multiculturalism won't work either if it is understood as being not multiethnism but grounded in cultural relativism, which says that Islamic culture or whatever is as equal as any other. Often multi-culti speak is used to undermine the West's traditions like our Christian one in order that a new one, secularism (liberalism) may dominate. What we find pretty quickly is that multi-culti speak is quickly abandoned once the job is done, for secularism really claims to be a supra tradition that rules from above relativising every other tradition but its own.

We need to think better about all, especially given that secularism (liberalism) really has no stable resources from which to secure things like freedom of speech, which is why it so quickly turns to human rights tribunals, media enquiries, and PC speech codes to support itself.

But I thank the author for his thoughts.

@Jon S.

James Madison wrote:

“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

The last line bears repeating: This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. That is the truth that the modern Constitutions and their Religion Clauses are intended to protect from the overweening ambitions of the modern state.

Now against historic Christianity and the Western tradition and the Framers of all the modern constitutions we have, if I can quote Jon S' words back to him with some modification:

"(Jon S'. metaphysical commitments) [are] a historical and social phenomenon [of historically minor and philosophically very contentious character claiming extremely limited allegiance over time] and as such can be taught in the context of history and social science [there have been some worthy atheists]. There is no more need to elevate it to the status of a special subject [that ought to trump the tradition of our entire civilisation] than there is to elevate dowsing or homeopathy to the same position."

Can we lift the level of discourse a bit Jon S.? Homeopathy? It belies a brittle nervousness you feel about your own beliefs.