It might be helpful to readers to note the distinction in practice given between religion and church, and be able to define conscience.

@Suseonline: Australia already has a seperation of Church and state. So I just have to assume what you mean by 'silly prayers' is a complete extirpation of all Christianity from public life: a radically secularist established quasi-church. Quasi because, although Dawkins is trying to start of Church of atheism, atheism generally denies it is a belief at all! (you've heard it said “I just believe in one less god than you” http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/against-terminological-mischief-negative-atheism-and-negative-nominalism.html), so wouldn't rise to the level of a church - but it would mean the establishment of an athiest conscience, the privatisation of competing beliefs by law. This is 'religious' establishment not neutrality. In other words a person in Parliament may not affirm the Christian conscience - 'silly prayers' are your words. And the Christian tradition by default must go, simply because some feel alienated from it who happen to be walking around today. You may want all this but at least be honest and understand it is not 'tolerant'.

The state does not coerce Christianity, Australians are not compelled to go to Mass as we are to pay 40% in income taxes, be conscripted in national defence possibly, or as Swedes are required - to fund their established church.

What we do find worldwide are massacres of Christians. What we do find are quite aggressive laws attacking freedom of conscience at home like Tasmania's attempted abortion law that would have criminalised a doctor's refusal to *simply* refer a patient for an abortion, to the tune of $65,000. Basically the state would be saying the direct killing of a little baby MUST be participated in, or lose your career. Same-sex marriage has very grave consequences for religious freedom similarly and so is intoxicatingly attractive to central government.

I'm a Christian and have experienced this from the inside, needless to say I don't trust your blithe assurances Suseonline

If the religious lost tax exemption status does that mean they could get more involved in politics....could they directly fund and promote candidates that represent their interests....I wonder.

Martin " Basically the state would be saying the direct killing of a little baby MUST be participated in, or lose your career. Same-sex marriage has very grave consequences for religious freedom similarly and so is intoxicatingly attractive to central government. "

Martin, I was a Christian at one time, and so also have experienced believing in invisible gods in the sky. However, I grew out of that.

What rubbish are you on about when discussing legal abortion?
I have worked in both Private and public hospitals. No one will ever be 'forced' to participate in abortions.
To be absolutely sure you won't have anything to do with abortions, a medical professional could work at a Catholic owned hospital in any case.

I never wanted anything to do with male circumcision after the first time I held down a screaming baby while a doctor cut off some foreskin because the baby was Jewish, and no one ever made me do it again.

What grave consequences for religious freedom will Gay marriage cause?
You and other opponents of Gay marriage never have to have anything to do with it, so how will it affect you or any other religious person?

I look forward to the inevitable proper separation of religion and politics.
You can choose to follow your religion and god, just as anyone else can choose not to.
That is called democracy...

I'm not really sure that there is an issue with separation of church and state in either NZ or Australia. s116 of the Australian constitution has not been interpreted in the same manner as the US constitution. But Despite this, I would argue that religion is far more prominent in US politics than it is in Australian politics. Like many atheists I do not like chaplains in schools and I do not like the influence of religion in law making. However, there are many things I don't like the government doing, such as prohibiting psychoactive drugs, allowing abortion, waging war on Arabs and Afghans and restricting peoples ability to earn a living by preventing them carrying on certain occupations without registration (i.e painting). It doesn't mean we need constitutional reform though. The answer already lies in our democratic system. Lobby the government. Vote for parties that support your views. Complain to schools that hire chaplains and demand they have nothing to do with your child. Start petitions and write letters to the editor.
NZ is one of the best countries in the world to live in and yet has no constitution. Zimbabwe on the other had does. Goes to show how useful constitutions are.

Separation of church and state is a requisite for freedom of religion, for the prevention of oppressing one religion by another using the state-mechanism.

In this shocking verdict, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/jehovahs-witness-loses-bid-to-refuse-blood/4985476
the values of one religion were used to trample ruthlessly on the devotees of another.

Where else but from Christianity could the judges obtain that perverted idea of "The sanctity of life"? What but the ideas of certain well-established churches presumably grants them the power to define "life" in a way that prefers biology over spirit?

While the big churches can be trusted to be able to defend their followers (including by getting their members into politics), the smaller ones are left helpless, as well as individuals who hold their private religions.

---

Now as for the Fijian formula, it is in the right direction, but still biased against religious freedom:

It states for example that "Religious belief is personal": sounds great, doesn't it? but belief is a but a small element of religion - religion is first and foremost PRACTICE, well beyond thinking this or that to be so!

Then comes the punch-line: "no person shall assert any religious belief as a legal reason to disregard this Constitution or any other law". In other words, go believe what you like, we don't care (as if we can read your thoughts anyway), but when it comes to the actual practice, our law may still override your religion (even when your religious-practice hurts nobody else).

Thus the Fijian constitution gently and implicitly fails to support religious freedoms - the freedom to practice one's religion (with the sole provision that nobody else is unwillingly hurt as a result). So long as the state can forbid religious practices, no separation of church and state truly exists.

guilt free baby murder, gw religion, perverted marriage are all results of seared secular conscience. Some are very slow to learn.