Pericles thank you for your comment.

The limited posting would not allow me to extensively set it out but consider for example the following;

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

The USA has a simular prohibition as we have, and they have in fact extensive court judgments on records which also makes clear that funding for a religious school offends the prohibition of religion being established or otherwise free exercise, as the judges made clear that the funding of a religious school would in fact deny free exercise of non religious schools as there would be a religious discrimination, etc.
And, when I appealed my convictions for FAILING TO VOTE successfully on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria I relied upon extensive quotations of US judgments to set it all out. None of it was challenged by the lawyers for the Federal Government!

Tax deductions are in fact the same as spending money and where a taxation legislation provide for tax deduction then technically it is an Appropriation Bill. Just that this is ignored.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear while gradual taxation pending level of income would be permissible as long as all persons within the Commonwealth of Australia would pay the same taxation as any other person having the same income.
Now, when Peter Reith, the former telecommunication Minister has a huge superannuation payout as well as about $250.000.00 tax free income, as I understand it to be, being High Commissioner to London, then we the taxpayers are having to make up for what he fails to pay in taxes. The parliament has no constitutional powers to allow anyone to have a tax-free income unless it applies throughout the Commonwealth for all persons having the same level of income

Hi All,

Islam and Christianity are completely different faiths. We worship a different God.

Let me explain.

You see the point of separation is at the very beginning – back to Adam and Eve…

The two faiths view that episode differently. In Christianity we know that A&E disobeyed God therefore were justly punished by God – ending their intimate relationship in the Garden of Eden. Christians call that The Fall or Original Sin – meaning the separation of man from God.

So Sin entered the world with Adam who was once “sinless” when created by God – a necessary state for a relationship with God.

Because the God of The Bible is Holy; He detests “sin”. Sin and God cannot co-exist.

Not so with the God of Islam. Allah does not mind sin to co-exist with him. As a matter of fact the Qur’an states that Allah causes his subjects to sin; He is the source of sin.

In the Qur’an Muslims are told that they will enter paradise with their sins. (And we all know the depiction of paradise in the Qur’an).

In the Qur’an, the A&E episode has been conveniently and utterly transformed to do away with the concept of Original Sin and the need for a Redeemer, Jesus.

In the Qur’an A&E have been pardoned by Allah. (No need for Jesus)

Unlike the God of the Bible who guarantees salvation in His Son Jesus – Allah is uncommitted to save his people. No guarantee of salvation in Islam (or any other faith system).

No salvation outside Jesus.

Jesus is also dubbed the second Adam. As sin entered the world with the first Adam ; the way out is provided by the second Adam, Jesus. Even though Jesus was not created like Adam – being Himself God The Son – He was born without sin "Holy".

Christianity and Islam are two parallel faiths. One is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

Even though Islam makes it look like they are both similar. The differences are enormous and vastly outweigh the similarities.

A very interesting insight into the development process that preceded the finalization of the Constitution Mr Schorel-Hlavka.

Presumably, despite Mr Barton's contention in this particular exchange, his position was not accepted. Otherwise, they would surely have inserted clauses into the final document that supported the point made during the 1898 debate.

In default of this, the comment remains an expression of intent only. After all, if we took every statement that politicians make on the floor of the House as having standing in law, there wouldn't need to be a written constitution at all. It would be anarchy.

Nevertheless, an interesting observation, if only to point out the value of precision in legal documents.

And coach, you do come out with some ridiculous claims.

>>Christianity and Islam are two parallel faiths. One is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true<<

This is not supported by logic. It is like saying that Boeuf en Croute and Boeuf Bourguignon are parallel dishes, only one of which can be "true".

Even if you had the same dish prepared by different chefs (which would be an even closer analogy), there is no basis for describing one as true and the other false.

Christianity and Islam are two preparations of the same dish - monotheistic religion. The fact that you believe in one and not the other does not automatically make the other false.

In fact, since you are (I suspect) a mere mortal, you are as fallible as any other mortal in your judgement of what is "true" and "false".

Wouldn't you agree?

Pericles,

I value your response and it is true a lot is stated by members of parliament and they are overruled. Likewise by judges who are defeated in their decisions by a majority, however, what Edmund Barton was making clear was that even without Section 116 there was a total prohibition upon the parliament to make any kind of legislation in regard of religion. The reason Section 116 was inserted was because of the Preamble being amended then to insert a reference to the Almighty, and certain Delegates held this to be very dangerous as it might purport that the entire Constitution therefore was on a religious basis, hence Section 116 was inserted to make it abundantly clear that there was absolutely no power to legislate upon religious basis.
However, section 116 can be ignored altogether as without it the Parliament lacks the power to legislate as to religion as none of the powers existing in the Constitution permits it to do so.
Still, by hindsight it was better they did put in Section 116 as with the WorkChoices legislation it shows that the parliament will engineer any backdoor way to try to get legislative power where it has none.
The quotation that I provided merely was a direct king-hit, so to say, as in regard of religious funding, and as the USA courts made clear many Churches used the religious school funding for Churches and hence unconstitutional to provide such funding, but ample of other material is on records regarding it.
One of my books, INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation, due to be published in the next few days, sets out what the Framers of the Constitution stated about Industrial Relations but that the High Court of Australia kept out of its judgment as otherwise it would have defeated its judgment.
To me, if it aint constitutionally permissible then the People (by way of referendum) and not the Courts should have the final say if the Constitution should be amended!
My blog at http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH. and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Pericles,

To an atheist of course it’s all the same. Monotheism, Polytheism, belief in anything or anyone is fine – as long as they don't impose it on others. All religions lead to the same delusional end.

So what difference would it make if one ate at MacDonald’s tomorrow or had French cuisine? It’s all a beef feed ... is what I hear you say in your analogy.

Comparing Christianity with Islam is not like comparing same with same. It is more like trying to compare apples with stones (not oranges).

Only a belief in (the real) Jesus (Christianity) is guarantee of “salvation”. No other religion can claim to do the same.

The test of any religion is who they say Jesus is or is not.

Islam mentions Jesus but portrays him as a mere prophet, impotent of salvation. Islam denies Jesus’ saving power.

BTW Islam has a different concept of sin, God, prayer, humanity, freedom, gender equality, heaven, hell … From beginning to end it is different to Christianity.

But Islam presents itself as the last revelation from God, a better, more true, more precise. And that is the danger facing those who believe it.

To us believers, “knowing the truth” is literally a matter of life and death. Catching the right train (religion) to eternity is critical to get there.

Life beyond the grave is real. The Bible proves it. Jesus proves it. The martyrs who witnessed his resurrection proved it; preferring horrible death then renouncing what they knew was the truth. And they still do.

Back to my point. When (not if) one thing is true, any contrary notion must be not true, simply false, a counterfeit – not also true like you suggest.

Not believing or mocking both cannot make both true, or both untrue.

But don't worry my dear friend who is a sinner like the rest of us, in dire need of salvation – but fully denying it – enjoy the rest of your time on earth... like muslims that's all you will ever have.

Coach,

You Quote:
“In the Qur’an Muslims are told that they will enter paradise with their sins”
So obviously you don’t understand or ever studied Islam. Your statement is incorrect, a Muslim can’t go to heaven until he/ she genuinely repent all their sins (not keep redoing them and repent on weekends), their debt is cleared and any wrong doing against others are corrected. In our faith a believer can only enter heaven once he paid all his debts (frowning upon someone is a debt as per).

True and false statements apply to mathematics but not in the spiritual world. As Pericles said, its like saying apples and oranges each have its admirers.

You also quoted:
"Islam mentions Jesus as a mere prophet"

a. In Islam all prophets are 'mere mortals' including Mohamed pbuh.
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran 33 times while Mohamed (pbut) only 4 times. There is a wisdom there for us, Muslims, that all prophets are just 'messengers'no holiness to any of them.

b. If you actually read the Bible çarefully Jesus refers to himself as a prophet and all his followers and entourage treat him as such.
Jesus divinity is 4th century philosophised theology. This is why you have Christian unitarians: those who read the bible and didnot conclude that Jesus = God.

Peace,