Quite correct. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution certainly suggests that religious organisations should not receive funding for religious purposes.

Interesting, section 116 of the Constitution comes Tasmanian Attorney-General, Andrew Inglis Clark, who apparently introduced it *because* of his Unitarian religious convictions (who are very strong on the separation of Church and State as a means to protect religious freedom).

Once again s116 is bandied about as a salve for religion-haters to remove religion from society. It does not suggest that religious groups shouldn't get funding. It does not suggest that the Federal Government should not assist Chaplains in schools. It prevents 4 things: a state religion, compulsory religious observance, restrictions on religious freedom and religous tests to qualify for employment.

The very wording of the Preamble of the Constitution mentions the "blessing of Almighty God" which suggests that the Founding Fathers of our nation were religious and not afraid to express it.

I understand your point of view about Australian taxpayers paying for something they don't agree with. But that is just life. The Government is always going to spend the country's funds (to which you contribute) in a broad way that will not always make you happy. I disagree with abortion on demand and am left to regret that my tax contibutes to funding for abortion.

I guess we are on different sides of a few arguments, but both represented by the same Parliament. A Parliament, I might add, that was founded by people who were religious and still has many Members today who are religious.

I agree completely, as a Catholic I see no need for this service to be lumbered onto the taxpayer. I thought the Liberal Party was about choice. I choose to be a Catholic, I don't chose for anyone else to be.

This is a matter of personal choice, nothing at all to do with Government, in fact to me it breaches the separation of powers.

Dear Stop&Think,

I suggest you apply your own username.

Section 116 of the Constitution states: "116. 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."

Now if the Commonwealth is funding religious instruction and its finance is achieved through compulsory taxation that constitutes an imposition for religious observence.

Regards,

A regular church-going citizen.

Religious people pay taxes....so why shouldn't their taxes be used for chaplaincies as is the case with chaplains in the defence forces, the police services etc? Why should I have to fund abortions, secular hopelessness in government schools, the war in Iraq etc etc? What next, banning government funding of St Vincent de Paul, religious hospitals, police and defence force chalians etc?

I think it would be more appropriate to teach ethics and philosophy at schools. Religious
teaching should be taught outside the curriculum unless it is comparative religion.

Religion is better taught within the community to which a person belongs. There is also the risk that some teaching, such as creationism, would be at conflict with the educational environment.

If parents want their children to receive religious teaching, there are also religious schools, who receive tax funding, to which they can send their children.