Francis. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution specifies that:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I would have thought that was sufficient for separation of the Church and State..

Froggie, look again....it's what the Commonwealth may not do. It says absolutely nothing about the Church not doing anything. Where does it say that the Church may not influence the State nor have a voice in the state? I repeat, the doctrine of separation of Church and State was to protect non-Anglicans or any group at the mercy of big brother where big brother might be Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist , Humanist, Secularist etc etc. It does not state that Church and State are mutually exclusive. The sepaartion of Church and State is to protect Church, not to protect the State.

Philo, and DB,
The Babylonian Talmud
Translated by Michael L. Rodkinson.is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm#t01
Some could do well to read it themselves. Well done.

Numbat...the Jesus I love was born in Bethlahem is the son of God, the Messiah, who was crucified by religious bigots so why do you say he is a murdering, robbing lying Prophet, maybe it is beacause you are a basket case, you need to read the Bible before you make outragious statements, My advice to you join the Middle East Forum you will be able to compete with other bigots who belong to your God Club, are you sure you are not worshiping a antichrist disguised as God because that would explain your bigotry, you spit on the face of christ on the cross, you should be ashamed of yourself, mangotreeone

Mike M, I have a close lady friend who's just left Morocco, where she lived married to a Moroccan diplomat. When in Morocco, she lived in a sealed enclave, couldn't go anywhere unless accompanied. Being a white non muslim women, she had less barriers then her muslim lady friends, but was till very restricted.

They had a wedding recently, two services, two receptions and two after parties. Men at one, women at the other. The women have no real rights, even though they are supposed to. They follow a sharia law that gives men full control and the final say. So its irrelevant what the government does, its sharia that they adhere to. The men also have the right to hit their women and have extra wifes and as many mistresses as they like. The men have the right to kill their women if they so much as look or talk to another man unless accompanied.

She is trying to get a share of their estate. But because he refuses to accept court papers, theres nothing she can do. Its his right to refuse a women, so he's above the law. She says living in Europe is getting very scary, but is stuck there, she gets visits from his brother, or his cousins checking on what she is doing. So I must say that any form of law that equates to a religious moral, action, or philosophy, is the first step to total suppression and social destruction as we know it.

Its irrelevant as to whose god faction is the worst, its what the whole belief system actually does that counts. But then I doubt theres any god fearing religious, that can see past the mirror in their head and see beyond the reflection of themselves, at the reality that surrounds them.

It amazes me that god followers reject what their belief really is, yet constantly try to enforce the opposite of what they preach. Trying to live like it was thousands of years ago and live by those standards, sure says a lot about the intelligence of monotheists

mangotreeone1,

It is clear that the prophet to which numbat is referring is Muhammad.

It is fruitless come at others on the forum with things you know not to be true - just as you stated I have a 'hatred for all Muslims', which you know not to be true.

mangotreeone1, if you cannot engage the content of other's posts in a proper and respectable fashion, then I suggest you go play in the sandpit.

mangotreeone1, as I posted above, when Muslims state to a young Australian girl, as stated in court documents, "you deserve to be raped because you are Australian" it is clear who the racist ones are - I am NOT racist for posting it - and mangotreeone1, you SHOULD be more interested in the Muslim racists who stated this in a rape of a young girl, and less interested in myself for having posted it...

It is clear, mangotreeone1, that YOU are racist for not speaking out against the racist rape of a young Australian girl, who was raped, “… because [she] is Australian”, but you speak out against myself merely because I posted what other racist Muslims stated in a rape…

SHAME, mangotreeone1, SHAME SHAME SHAME