Dear David,

Yes, I agree on both counts - thank you!

---

BTW, I had a funny thought:
Section 116 of the Australian constitution only speaks of religion, not of fake imitations, so when a church falsely claims (either maliciously or mistakenly, both all too common) that its practices constitute a religion, nothing in the constitution prevents the state from supporting it, mandating its practices; or alternately, banning them.

Example 1:
Q. "How come the law forces me to sacrifice my first-born to Moloch, isn't this against the constitution?"
A. "No, 116 does not apply because Moloch-worship is not a true religion!"

Example 2:
Q. "Can Australia criminalise Buddhist practices?"
A. "Yes, Buddhism recognises no God, so we do not consider it a religion"

Example 3:
Q. "Can the law protect young people from the horrors of Scientology"
A. "No, we have no means to prove that scientology is not a religion"

Another funny thought: if some decent behaviour (say giving one's seat to the elderly, planting trees for the environment or the prohibition on bribes) also happens to be a religious observance of some religion, then Section 116 as written, prohibits the state from enforcing it!

First a ridiculous grandiose presumption as if human politicians are capable of judging spiritual matters, arbitrating as if they were prophets which practices lead towards or away from God, then a sloppy statement that prevents government from making good laws - allowing only bad ones... Has anyone ever proof-read this constitution? It would be better this idiotic and embarrassing Section never existed.

David,

No democracy is perfect, but there hasn't yet been a viable alternative.

Dear shadowminister,

Since I never maintained that any democracy is perfect I don't know the relevance of your statement. It is possible that a well-managed authoritarian government could be better than a poorly managed democracy. In elections in the United States because of the electoral college the results are that the popular vote for president may be different from the electoral college results. In Australia the prime minister is determined by the number of seats held by the party rather than by the majority of the voters. Would a dictator preferred by a majority necessarily be worse than a democratic leader elected by a minority?