Nice article but the thing is, while ever the secular minded folks want publicly funded health, education, etc. Christians are going to have a say in how they're funded because they pay income tax, GST, etc. The idea that Christians should be taxed but have no say in how its spend is probably beyond socialism.

Brian might want to shut his eyes to his Creator, Lawmaker and Lifegiver but to have the title 'Director of Plain Reason' is idiotic. If he can't see that sodomy is unhealthy, that children do best with a loving dad and mum and that he is not here by chance then reason is totally absent for Brian's life. A new poll would also find that the vast majority of Aussies don't want anymore Islamic immigration. Brian gets to get a vote on changing normal marriage and is still complianing. Go figure!

I'm not sure how effective any constitutional change would be Brian, even if you could persuade the Australian people to accept one?

There's no way to know what a candidate's real and deep seated beliefs are, given the capacity of politicians to be deeply disingenuous, whenever politically convenient? Yet still bring their core beliefs with them?

And on occasion allow deeply held personal conviction or the evocations of the party to overrule the will of the people or indeed even that of their electorate, given there's no will or appetite to actually set them aside for the term of office/electoral representation. The job description!

Perhaps the way to resolve much of the dilemma you present in your argument Brian, is to limit the number of terms any individual can serve? Which in turn could limit the far too generous retirement entitlements of these ultra privileged teeth gnashers?

Which would mean folks who deliberately misinform the people of their core beliefs are eventually moved on? Preferably before they form like minded cliques that exercise counterproductive control or a progress halting veto?
Rhrosty.

"A survey showed that 78 percent ticked the box saying that religion should be separated from the business of government"

At a guess, 90% plus would be opposed to the military, generals, becoming involved in politics too. Where generals start advising policy it will always end in tears.

For that reason alone it is understandable why there is a groundswell of public opinion and starting from members of the ADF, past and present, against 'that' General who has become a human headline and front for the entitled, self-serving educated middle class feminists and Emily's Listers, who are used to rolling in the trough of taxpayers money.

What about an article on the political tradition of the necessary separation of the military and politics in democratic countries?

Nothing new about this. Who who made up the 22%? Muslims? Most Australians are frightened of and suspicious of Christianity, which, like it or not, is OUR religion. Our very way of life is based on Christianity; without it, we have a vacuum waiting to be filled by Islam.

"Same-sex marriage and voluntary euthanasia are just two that have been interminably blocked on religious grounds"...Nonsense Brian. I have just attended a Conference opposing euthanasia and the lead speaker/activist opponent of euthanasia was an atheist ! Likewise Same Sex Marriage is opposed by homosexuals themselves...Italian fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana for one...or I should say two! Leading opponents of SSM in France were homosexuals ..who generally don't believe in marriage or monogamy anyhow! The issue of abortion is another example where religion is not an issue. Science is. As any first year medical student will be taught, human life begins at fertilization. So the taking of a human life, an innocent one at that, without trial or jury, is the issue with which legislators have to grapple. No need for any politician to have to argue that on religious grounds. And it's mischievous to raise the hoary old chestnut of the "separation of Church and State" principle which was never about the Church interfering in politics. It was an American concept about the keeping the State's nose out of the Church. But we keep hearing that is is about the Church interfering in the State! A clever ploy for bigots I suppose.

Hi RUNNER...

I'm an atheist, but one doesn't need to be either religious or a Christian to know that sodomy is 'unhealthy' as you correctly put it. And children do need a loving mother and a father to have the best chance of developing into a decent human being - I can speak with some authority about that fact. Restricting further Islamic immigration to me, is just straight out common sense in my opinion.

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

This petticoat General has again embarrassed himself with his public denunciation of members of the ADF, to a point where he's just added a further justification as to why this whole 'Australian of the Year' should be immediately discontinued. After all it's just a further vehicle for the 'politically correct' to convey another fatuous regulation for conformity by the masses?

I enjoyed the article but it didn't make the case for me that indeed the intent of the writers of the constitution was that the commonwealth should keep state and church entirely separate, or at least separate to the extent that Brain expresses it.

Given (as Brian tells us) that the High court on 2 occasions has been unable to find that the commonwealth is making religious rules or observances to the extent that same becomes a breach of section 116, then I assume that we are to conclude that the writers of this section of the constitution did a very poor job in expressing their intent (given that the current guvment has instituted and maintains this repugnant little chaplaincy program (who have the nerve to beg for voluntary contributions from parents to propagate their clap trap)

Consequently, Brian expresses the view that a quick alteration is in order such that the original intent is honoured. I don't know that he is not correct, and of course, if he is, then what he suggests is consistent with best practice as often times when the interpretation is unclear, then the decision maker/s will seek other materials as guidance as to what it is that the legislators were trying to express. And yes, often the crap that is served up by the legislators is as clear as mud requiring judge made law to set things straight.

I would like to see Brian make a stronger case regarding the intent of the original writers.

As for Sodomy being unhealthy, well, is it if one wears a condom and uses lube?

It's not a sexual practice that I have ever indulged in but I had a mate who was a guy and heterosexual, but he far preferred the exhaust pipe to the standard intake.

Far greater stimulation and excitation in his opinion .. but alas, he is no longer with us on account of a heart attack too young.

..

As for the 1 mum and 1 dad is best hoo har, do please spare us another regurgitation as it is long since refuted.

How many kids die every day for the lack of one decent parent? F.me Jesus, surely to Christ you people can recognise and admit that it is better to have one good parent than none?

Even two of the same gender is better than none and arguably better than just one?

And what about those who have one parent who is abusive in some way? Those kids for sure are at least for a time better off with just one decent parent.

..

Having said that, I know that I "jostle" with my wife for time with the nipper. There are things that I want to "share/empart" to my child that I think are important and that I believe that she does not get from her mum. We have two very different experience and skill sets, but I cannot conclude that in this society that two complimentary skill sets can not also come from two same sex partners.

Conversely, thinking about Islamic Indonesia where mums are generally relegated to the kitchen for the most part (at least in the rural areas that I am familiar with) and where it is dad who has the trade skills and who goes out to work, if a kid is brought up with only a mum (which is not uncommon in my experience) the deficiencies in this area are recognised and compensated for by the male child spending more time with male cousins, uncles and grand pa.

Runner's diatribe heaping odium on a progressive society where those who might be "different" are accorded the same rights as those who are "normal, is symptomatic of the irrational fear engendered in the faithful by suspicion and prejudice. I speak from direct family experience of a member who is healthily hetero, in command of an intelligence above average and who nonetheless has carried a congenital birth defect that is immediately apparent. He has been self-employed most of his working life because of the attitude of people like runner.....irrational fear, suspicion and prejudice.

Creator, Lawmaker and Lifegiver? Homosexuality figures prominently, especially in Earth's mammals. While it may be argued by the faithful that ".....sodomy is unhealthy, that children do best with a loving dad and mum...." it serves runner's sour and prudish personality to ignore the fact that, properly defined, sodomy is commonly practised by mums and dads, especially among the younger generations, oral, anal and vaginal sex and two out of the three are non-procreative!

Even for runner the fatuous assertion that if Brian's [?] life was not contrived by an invisible alchemist then reason is totally absent from his life stretches the ridiculous into the sublime. His parents, probably intentionally decided that a new life in the family would increase their happiness factor. NO MAGIC NECESSARY. "They did what comes natchurly" to paraphrase Irving Berlin. So mark my words, runner, you shriveled twerp, call down the rage of the heavens upon my refusal to relinquish intellectual independence. I'll always take up the gauntlet against intellectual slavery. You and your ilk insult all that is admirable in humankind by your very existence.

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
- Thomas Brackett Reed

Posted by Pogi, Thursday, 4 February 2016 5:13:22 AM

" ... I'll always take up the gauntlet against intellectual slavery. You and your ilk insult all that is admirable in humankind by your very existence.

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge," Thomas Brackett Reed. ... "

*Pogi* what a most excellent piece of WordSmithing. Well done. Bravo!

..

Yes, and what do we have today that brings "joy" to "us?" Well, some of the Churches (I did not hear which) will extend "Sanctuary" as required to Asylum Seekers.

(naturally follows after some hospitals refused to discharge some Asylum seeker patients)

(to which I would add a "Religious Duty" not to legitimise by vote any party that continues to insist that the only way we can keep our borders secure is by continuing to abuse Human Rights and The Rights of the Children.)

1. Chain of Command -> 2. Illegal Orders Unbecoming of the Service.

..

Diplomatically approached, I cannot see that the region would not support an orderly and humane round up to ensure safe passage for temporary protection in onshore "hand crafted" special economic zones. .. The prospects for real but relatively safe training are huge. .. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that everyone has a living wage, low stress, financial security solution. .. Australia has a huge G.D.P. relative to others and only 25 million people to look after. .. Stand independently and willingly embrace your international responsibilities.

Pogi

'So mark my words, runner, you shriveled twerp, call down the rage of the heavens upon my refusal to relinquish intellectual independence'

your so called intellectual independence is about as intellectual and independent as a primary school student. You are one brainwashed cookie.

Pogi: 'So mark my words, runner, you shriveled twerp, call down the rage of the heavens upon my refusal to relinquish intellectual independence'

runner: "your so called intellectual independence is about as intellectual and independent as a primary school student. You are one brainwashed cookie."

I yield to runner's scintillating eloquence and unerring relevance. Note good Reader how he strikes at the very heart of the matter and in righteous dudgeon names the culprits........primary school students!! May I observe that we are in the company of great courage, a standard-bearer deserving the tribute of a supple knee from those of us fortunate enough to bask in the light of the Presence!

After careful reflection, I divine that this noblest of characters is not too keen on cookies [biscuits] either.

DreamOn, I thank you for your kind words. T.B.Reed is not one that leaps to mind when one calls up names of U.S. political heroes. I recommend that interested readers research him via Google. In a milieu renowned for a poverty of advancement and development in government, Reed is a true hero.

"The greatest threat to human intellectual independence comes not from the evangelising zealot or the smug self-assurance of a bishop but from the indifference of the lazy cynic. This individual is the true intellectal coward. He doesn't trust himself to make the right decision"..........Pogi

Doubt this a minor addition or amendment to Section 116.

IF passed is likely to redefine Australia as a secular nation with serious consequences.

High Court will soon enough be making judgments to uphold secular values over religious values.

Activities in many areas mostly depend upon religious organisations and associations, these once largely privately funded due tax deductions soon enough will be stripped of taxation benefits.

Then other legal exemptions, eventually restricting activities with even religious cosmetic covers.

Is Australia really secular, or ethical, enough to replace what will be rejected for being religious - without civil disturbance ?

.

Polpak writes: "Is Australia really secular, or ethical, enough to replace what will be rejected for being religious - without civil disturbance ?"

If we examine the historical aspects raised by this question we become aware of the dreadful conflicts that arose over the burgeoning christian heretical sects that vied with each other for pre-eminence until, after a millennium of blood-letting and the most brutal of oppression, roman catholicism finally raised its standard on the mountains of stinking corpses, triumphant and casting its gaze about for victims upon which it might exact divine revenge.

So, polpak, are you in fear of another millennium of the same if public expressions of religious attachment give way to expressions of a secularist, gnostic or atheistic allegiance?

Perhaps you might answer one question for us: When have you witnessed entire cities and nations being aroused to paroxysms of hate and brutality by appeals to secularist, gnostic or atheistic ideals? It's true that christianity even boasts about it and lauds the bloodiest genocidal expressions of faith from earliest times in its holy book, the bible.

I can assure you that should your prospective "civil disturbance" eventuate then its source can be confidently predicted. It will spring from the defence of entrenched privilege and political power.

it would not be the first time that the christian church used total war as a means of reasserting power.