askbucko,

<<The 'preamble' is not an operational section of the Constitution. The reference to Almighty God was included by Protestant groups from the states, prior to the passing of the Act. It was approved by the National Australasian Convention, which met from 1897 to 1898, which you will know was prior to the enactment.>>

Nevertheless, the Judeo-Christian Almighty God provides the foundation for a moral Australian society. We are not a secular society.

Even ABC News, Brisbane, Qld (The Drum) in an opinion piece admitted: “The Westminster system of government and much of common law, inherited by Australia, can only be understood in the context of Christian values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It's no accident that parliaments around Australia begin with the Lord's Prayer”, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-29/donnelly-the-bible-deserves-a-place-in-the-national-curriculum/3750156

I suggest you read Augusto Zimmermann's article, 'CONSTITUTING A ‘CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH’: CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF AUSTRALIA’S CONSTITUTIONALISM' from The West Australian Jurist.

It stated: "This reception of Christian legal principles was perhaps best encapsulated in Justice Hargraves’s famous comment for the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Ex Parte Thackeray(1874): 'We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” . . . this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by Coke and Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law....'

"Christianity’s embedment in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the court in Thackeray.The pronouncement exemplifies the judicial recognition of the Christian heritage of the common law. The court took the major step of declaring the supremacy of Christian legal principles—namely, that the divine or revealed law is applicable, and superior, to colonial laws –and that ‘all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation’, are applicable, and superior, to colonial laws", http://www.murdoch.edu.au/School-of-Law/_document/WA-jurist-documents/2014/Zimmermann---A-Christian-Commonwealth2

Poor old Kevin Andrews will never be allowed to forget his trashing of the right to die. What is forgotten is the fact that a majority of politicians voted for his bill, and no-one has tried to redeem euthanasia. It's been a dead issue for years.

Aspley,

<<Whose God? Christian , Muslim, Jewish or just the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... or none of the above. May I chose...... ?>>

This comment demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge concerning the First Fleet in 1788 and the evangelical Anglican chaplain on board. He and his wife planted the first Bible-based Anglican Church in Sydney, http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/religion/display/98704-reverend-richard-johnson

Your throw-away lines indicate your disrespect for the Almighty Lord God of Christianity who was here for the founding of Western society.

'Whose God ?

Christian , Muslim , Jewish or just the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... or none of the above .

May I chose...... ?

I suggest the One you will answer to Aspley. You know the One that the regressives detest.

There is a life beyond this one and every person living on earth has an allotted time. All the gold in the world would buy a second more.

I mean, you could have the finest doctors, the very best medicine and avoid convid-19. Then have out of nowhere, a heart attack, just drop dead? Seemingly young and healthy?

Nobody needs assisted suicide! Just a pistol and one round of ammo!

What then? Do we put the manufacturer of the pistol on trial and find him/it/her culpable?

Or if one takes Nembutal? Can we hold the drug manufacturer liable/apply the same test, given a speedy, painless death is achieved at both occasions and by our own hand!

As it would be if we stepped off a tall building and smacked the concrete, head first! Should we sue the Architect?

Nembutal is far more sanitary! And the only difference! There's a cadaver each time!

Control freaks want to decide for you and sometimes they do when as many as a dozen doses of morphine are injected one after the other, the pain is gone but we lose the patient!

These same control freaks don't want you to own a gun, given you just might kill yourself with it?

But wax lyrical about their obsession, assisted suicide. And you just as dead either way! Eat your gun, or get an armful of Nembutal.

We rant on about killing sick folk while withholding a proven if prohibited remedy! After all, were we allowed miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213. most of the annual trillions big pharma earns from palliative medicine, would dry up!

Now we can't allow that can we or indeed, something more efficacious replacing highly toxic sub-lethal chemo! And let's not forget how many billions these " medicines" earn for big pharma!

If we are given a choice and there is that choice! To kill or cure? Which option should we choose?

Because, at the end of the day that's what we are choosing along with the burial of doctors/hospital's mistakes? I chose the withheld/prohibited cure! Alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213!
Alan B.

'There is a life beyond this one and every person living on earth has an allotted time. All the gold in the world would buy a second more. '

yeah we can at least agree on that Alan.