Buddhist democracy, Christian democracy, Hindu democracy, Jewish democracy and Muslim democracy are all oxymorons. Democracy requires that the state neither represses nor favours any religion. Separation of religion and state are essential to democracy.

In Australia there should be no chaplains in the public schools nor government subsidies for religious schools.

Religion should be free to point out flaws in government, and government should have no business with religion.

When John Howard announced his support for the GST a letter from the Catholic bishops was expected since the GST is a regressive tax impacting most heavily on the poor. The Catholic Church in Australia has a history of supporting social justice which requires considering the interests of the poor. However, the Catholic Church also gets a subsidy from the government to support its school system. John Howard announced that there would be an additional $400,000,000 granted to Catholic schools, and the expected bishop’s letter was not forthcoming.

Israel can be a Jewish state or it can be a democratic state. It cannot be a Jewish democratic state.

u can be sure Alan would lose his uni job if he ever wrote something positive about Israel. How blind and dumbed down are our academics today. There are a few exceptions thankfully.

“Buddhist democracy, Christian democracy, Hindu democracy, Jewish democracy and Muslim democracy are all oxymorons. Democracy requires that the state neither represses nor favours any religion. Separation of religion and state are essential to democracy.”

“Israel can be a Jewish state or it can be a democratic state. It cannot be a Jewish democratic state.”

Absolute bulldust. Mere personal opinion with no basis in fact or law.

The Baptist mister, Roger Williams, was the first person to use the expression, separation of church and state.

From Barry’s “Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul”:

"The Bay's leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God's laws, and to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls in Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God's law. His views were not fully formed-how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation-but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God's law. Hence, he concluded that a society built on the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best only lead to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship "stinks in God's nostrils." At worst it would lead to a corruption not of the state which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state's errors. His understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call "Soul Libertie." pp. 3-4.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States.

In the United States it is illegal to give tax money to church schools or to have chaplains in the public schools.

David f on a continuous campaign to expand the Overton window...the banishing of religious influence from society.
Could I say F off David, and collect your gay friends on the way out!

I'm not sure but Massachussets is the absolute last place I would be using as reference for anything.
They were possibly the first state to legalise queers and all that they stand for.
If this is put up as a shining example of the separation of church and state, all who agree are beyond redemption or worse.
I was not around when the Australian constitution was drawn up, but I will say without fear of being challenged that NO-ONE ever intended for queers to be given a free pass as they have been.
Massachussets was one of the first and almost as soon as the law was passed we began seeing police getting called out to homes where all kinds of attacks and violence started becoming the norm between queer partners.
Not to mention suicides and the list went on and on.
So it would seem that things are not as rosy in queersville as the looneys and everyone else thought they would be.

//I'm not sure but Massachussets is the absolute last place I would be using as reference for anything.
They were possibly the first state to legalise queers and all that they stand for.//

So we shouldn't have separation of church and state because Massachusetts may (or the logical corollary, may not) have been the first state to decriminalise homosexuality (for the record, they weren't)?

O.... kay.

Are you familiar with the concept of a non-sequitur? You do realise that in order to persuade people that the separation of church and state is a bad thing, you have to make at least a token effort to explain why it is bad?

It's not sufficient to point to states that embrace the separation of church and state and say 'look, they have bad laws, so it must be a bad idea, QED'. Because one can just as easily turn around and point to countries where church and state aren't separate and point out that they have worse laws (Saudi Arabia, anyone?). States are always going to enact bad laws, but most of them having nothing to do with the separation of church and state. The White Australia Policy is a good example: bad law, but since it was racially based it had nothing to do with the separation of church and state, and is therefore not a cogent argument against it.

In order to demonstrate that separation of church and state is a bad thing you'll need to use an example of a law enacted on that principle, such as France's hijab ban or the ban on government schools promoting any particular religion, then explain why we should regard those sort of laws - and by extension the separation of church and state - as undesirable.

Massachusetts did not have separation of church and state until 1833, possibly the last state in the USA having the separation.

https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3331

“… When Massachusetts finally established its Constitution in 1780, changes in society and popular thought spurred great debate among the people of Massachusetts. Mandatory taxation in support of community churches, religious requirements of government officials, and mandatory attendance of religious instruction were among the most fervently debated topics. Even after the creation of the Constitution, the people of Massachusetts continually forced the legislation to look closely at the rigid laws concerning religious obligation. Court cases and petitions requiring interpretation of these laws flooded the General and Supreme courts. However, true change did not occur until 1833, more than fifty years later. The final blows to the Constitution in favor of the elimination of religion were fierce and unstoppable in the end. By the time Massachusetts removed religion from its Constitution, Massachusetts was far behind other state and federal laws. Many other states had removed the religious clauses from their laws and the federal government had refused to include one in its Constitution of 1787. Life and culture in Massachusetts had changed. Religious tolerance was no longer the question of the day but rather the demand of the people. Massachusetts could no longer ignore that demand. In order to secure peace within its own realm, Massachusetts had to relieve the people of the burden of established religion. Massachusetts’ founders believed every person should live a God-centered, governmentally controlled life, however, after two centuries, the people of Massachusetts learned that the government could not make that decision for the individual.”

Separation of state and church was necessary for religious tolerance and freedom of religion

Toni, so Australia being founded on and still is, (in law) a christian country, I would contend that it would be a far better place if we lived under, oh I don't know, say the law of God as prescribed in the Bible, for example.
I am not a practicing christian so I'm not pushing the Bible.
What I am suggesting is that as in most religions, their 'Bible' already has the rules and in some ways the laws by which to live.
This is not to say the Bibles of various religions are always right, such as some of the more questionable teachings of the quoran, in reference to the killing of the infidels,and so many anti social teachings.
So it is that society has drifted from a cohesive and socially tolerant one to a adversarial, self centred and anti-social one.
The Muslim religion is such a religion.
You must become one (a Muslim)and you must never leave as you will be killed.

People who advocate living by the Bible may not be aware of the questionable passages in the Bible. For example:

Numbers 15:32-36 New King James Version (NKJV)

Penalty for Violating the Sabbath

32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

I think it’s a bit unreasonable to kill somebody for violating the Sabbath. Do you kill a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jew for violating the Sabbath because Saturday is their Sabbath rather than Sunday?

The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. Christians could fight for the Confederacy during the Civil War as they relied on the fact the Bible accepted slavery.

I haven’t compared the Bible and the Koran so I don’t know which has the more questionable passages, but I think the laws of Australia are fairer and less questionable than either the Bible or the Koran.

//This is not to say the Bibles of various religions are always right, such as some of the more questionable teachings of the quoran, in reference to the killing of the infidels,and so many anti social teachings.//

Yeah, you're not making a real good case for a theocracy there, are you ALTRAV?

yeah we know David f you see yourself smarter than Jesus Christ. Pity you fail the character and judgenment test miserably. No wonder with such a lack of moral basis you can't discern between Mohammed and Jesus Christ.

Dear runner,

I don't know whether I am more or less intelligent than Jesus Christ. The things that he was supposed to have said and done were written down a number of years after he died. I don't know whether he really existed or was just a figment of someone's imagination. Some of the things that Jesus was supposed to have said were questionable.

Jesus supposedly said Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Whether Jesus existed and whether I am more or less intelligent than he was if he existed I can't know. However, if he said what he was quoted as saying he was not a good person demanding than he be loved more than a mother, father, son or daughter. I would certainly never demand that of anybody as it is an unreasonable demand. If he said I know I am a much more decent person than Jesus.

My point has just be proven by you David f. It can only be total ignorance or deceit that leads one to the conclusion that Jesus Christ might not of existed. Usually the kind of people who deny a baby born with a penis is a boy. And you claim to be rational! psss

Dear runner,

Once people believed Thor, Jupiter, Apollo and a lot of other gods existed. Now people realise they existed only in people's imagination. There simply is no reliable documentary evidence that Jesus or God exists or existed. I think they exist only in your imagination. The fact that many believe is not proof. Muslims believe that Mohammed was a great guy. You believe differently. There is documentary evidence that Mohammed existed although many of the stories about him were made up. You have your beliefs. You find comfort in them. Muslims have their beliefs and find comfort in them. I can see no reason that I should believe in any religion.

You have questioned my character and judgment since I don't believe what you believe. A Muslim told me I was going to hell because I didn't believe what he believed. He was a blond, Germanic looking Moroccan. At one time in the past his ancestors must have become Muslims as the religion didn't exist at one time. At one time in the past your ancestors must have become Christians as the religion didn't exist at one time. Religions come and go.

If you have descendants you can't know what they will believe or not believe. I have descendants, and the same goes for me.

Obviously, sense is not required for superstition & politics.

'I can see no reason that I should believe in any religion.'

you have little 'reason' David f. The denial of a Creator, the abundant evidence that Jesus Christ existed and your moral conscience all point to the obvious. Your denial and repeated dogmas can't and won't change the truth. Hopefully you will be smart enough one day to swallow your pride and open your eyes.

Guys OK, I have misquoted myself.
In my haste to suggest an independent source of rules for mankind to live by in harmony, I should have said the 'Ten Commandments'.
I appologise, as I clearly do not subscribe to the various Bibles myself, simply because they are flawed in their attempt to sway people.
And I must concede that I too have had grave concerns about the teachings of ALL religions as I know religion was used to 'control' people by the use of fear.
The Ten Commandments are much less ambiguous and thereby simpler to negotiate.
I'm not sure, but in reading these holy books, I found too many contradictions and extreme practices or demands asked of followers, that are not acceptable or even legal in today's world.
The Bible has too many contradictory statements.
On the other side Muslims are beholding to a cruel and sadistic set of rules that absolutely do not fit in with today's social demands.
As much as Muslims want the rest of the world to accept their teachings and dogma, unless they curb aggression towards non-believers, or edit their 'Bible' by removing any passages that are anti-social, they will not achieve that social cohesion or acceptance they seek.
Currently they do not seek our approval but instead demand our submission or be killed.
This is at the core of them being rejected.
I do not wish to quote the obvious but, we cannot ignore the fact that we have a group or 'religion' that advocates violence or worse within our very midst.
Who, amongst us can tell us which ones are the ones we need to be wary of.
THEY have warned us, so don't be dismissive.
BTW, I can't think of another religion we have allowed into Australia that has caused such turmoil, fear and angst amongst the rest of the country as Muslims have.
This fact alone should be a warning to us all.

Dear ALTRAV,

Re Muslim violence, Christian Germans, not Muslims, slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews. As far as I know no Muslim violence has equaled that. Christian violence - two World Wars, imperialism, Crusades, Inquisition, slave trade, slavery, Wars of Reformation, etc . I’m afraid of Christian and Muslim violence. They imitate each other.

No law states Australia is a Christian country. The Australian Constitution mentions God but doesn’t mention any particular religion.
The Ten Commandments are not a reliable behavior guide. First five are all about God. That excludes those who do not accept a god. The laws of Australia are a better guide.

Arthur Hugh Clough wrote a humorous poem on the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be Worshipped, except the currency.
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse.
At church on Sunday to attend
Will serve to keep the world thy friend.
Honour thy parents; that is, all
From whom advancement may befall.
Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive.
Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it.
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it’s so lucrative to cheat.
Bear not false witness, let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly.
Thou shalt not covet, but tradition
Approves all forms of competition.

Dear runner,

I must follow the dictates of my conscience, and I assume you follow yours. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good he doesn’t need Jesus. Jesus is unnecessary, but Batman needs Robin.

To me you seem very like the Muslims. They feel everyone should follow their religion, and you seem to feel everyone should follow yours. I feel neither is necessary, and we all would better off with no religions. Just treat other people decently without any mumbojumbo or superstition.

You can go on about the Creator, Jesus and other nonsense, but if you’re not kind and loving it means nothing.

David f, it may come as a surprise to you but even though there MAY have been? christian involvement in the gassing of the Jews, nothing is recorded about the fact that it was the Jews who were behind it.
There is evidence that Hitler was the product of one of the Rothschilds raping an ancestor.
He was then groomed by them, as they look after their own, and voila', we suddenly have this dictator who comes out of nowhere to 'rule the world'.
As for most of the wars and some of those you speak of, the Rothschilds are directly responsible for them by backing or financing them.
And I mean, they lent money to both sides, as they were accustomed to doing, thereby hedging their investments.
Either way they won.
In reference to your suggestion, 'no law states Australia is a Christian country', nor did I suggest it, but we have been settled and run under the christian mantra since occupation.
Even though England split from the Catholic church back in ole' Henry the eight's days, it adopted the bible as it's own, with obvious changes, such as divorce.
So not only were we settled and remained a Christian based country, by choice, not by force, but, we are the product of church and state governance, which is not so far removed from the Muslim ideology and beliefs.
My reference to law is that if you have had anything to do with the courts, the reference to God and religious terms are practiced throughout.
Not that it is a law passed by parliament.
The Ten Commandments?
I would only suggest that by following those ten rules we would all be better off.
Even if you sidestep the reference to God.
Laws enacted by parliament are not workable.
They are akin to giving a child the keys to the sweets cupboard.
They do not instill discipline and maturity, but self indulgence and a sense of entitlement by some and rejection and derision by the rest.
This 'Democracy' does not work for all of the people all of the time.

Dear ALTRAV,

It does not come as a surprise to me to hear the Jews backed Hitler. It is common hate propaganda to blame the Jews or Rothschilds representing the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. I suspect that you have been exposed to Jew-hating propaganda and have believed it. You are not alone.

It is standard practice for demagogues and hate mongers to blame scapegoats for the ills of the world. Hitler did it. Now that Hitler has gone the hate mongers blame the Jews for Hitler.

Muslims, Jews, Baha’I and Christians all believe in God. In the courts one does not have to swear an oath to God. One can affirm that one is telling the truth, and testimony is allowed.

Christianity has a great influence in Australian culture, but Australia is a secular country under English common law and laws passed by the legislature. English common law is based on precedent. It is not based on the Bible or on Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

The laws enacted by parliament and English common law are the laws we live by – not the Bible. No government works for all the people all of the time. No government is perfect. However, there was a time in European where governments were dominated by the Christian religion. That time was called the Dark Ages. We are no longer in the Dark Ages.
The historic period in which we left the Dark Ages is called the Age of Enlightenment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

“The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[4][5] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know".”

//There is evidence that Hitler was the product of one of the Rothschilds raping an ancestor.
He was then groomed by them, as they look after their own, and voila', we suddenly have this dictator who comes out of nowhere to 'rule the world'.//

Source?

Toni, GOOGLE, WICKI, and more.
I do not bother to note authors or titles because if someone as 'common' as me can find these facts, other more adept people can find even more.
But they exist.
If one rebukes these facts, it does not change the facts.
It actually changes nothing other than someone refusing to believe what is presented.
We don't know what is true and what is not, so we can only repeat what we are told.
Some of these historical data have a summary of the family tree leading to them there are such discussions and examples about Hitler as well.
It gives a person by person breakdown as to how and where he came from along with his time in isolation only to emerge ready to take his, so called, right full place as leader of Germany with plans to overthrow the world and fulfill one of the Illuminati's core agenda.
World Dominance.

//with plans to overthrow the world and fulfill one of the Illuminati's core agenda.//

XD

The Illuminati? Oh sweet jesus, that's priceless. Are you a flat-earther too?

Tin-foil hats on folks, we've strayed into the weird bit of the internet.

Alon Ben-Meir read this.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5321972,00.htm

'You can go on about the Creator, Jesus and other nonsense, but if you’re not kind and loving it means nothing.'

yes David f it would be a toss up between Islam and the god deniers who are the most hateful and unloving. I think they even make the Catholic church look good.

SF, sorry, tried to find your link, but to no avail.
I only got as far as the ynet site but could go no further.
What are you eluding to with your comment and reference to the site you mention?
I am interested in understanding your post.

Dear runner,

What do you have against the Catholic Church?