I was shocked to realise that both houses of parliament still ask the Christian god for a blessing and recite the lords prayer before each sitting.

It's the most alarming juxtaposition - reciting ancient incantations before deciding how best to employ 21st century military technology...

There is no link between our system of government and constitutional support for separation of church and state. As your article admits, separation of church and state was read into the American constitution by the courts.

For my part it seems to me that if a majority of the founding fathers had wanted separation of church and state in the constitution, they would have put it there. It's also doubtful that Jefferson or Madison realized they were amending the constitution when they wrote the letters that became the basis for the courts' later decision.

Trying to frame the possible upcoming republic debate as necessarily a referendum on separation of church and state as well is disingenuous, not to mention liable to derail the process as well.

I think the goal of the establishment clause is egalitarian - no one should be advantaged or favoured by the government on the basis of beliefs - or more importantly no one should be disadvantaged on that basis.

As a person of faith I find separation of church and state is often an initiative of militant atheists aiming to effectively nullify the establishment clause and establish atheism.

That is, the government discriminates against e.g. religious schools on the basis of belief. Why is offering funding for independent schools of any faith or none problematic? Unless you're a hardline atheist who believes that religion may only be practiced between consenting adults, if at all.

Can't we all just get along? :)

peace,

james

A good, succinct article from Max Wallace. The fact that the current Constitution fails to separate explicitly the church and state is yet another good reason to ditch it in favour of one which establishes Australia as an independent republic, rather than as as vassal client of the English constutional monarchy.

It would also provide a constitutional means for refusing taxpayer funding of religious schools and festivals, among other things.

I'm a atheist myself and I really don't think there is to much of a issue here. Yes I would rather not see our governments prayer before each sitting, but if you look closely more and more are doing what most agnostics and atheist do and respectfully not join in.

"In true black letter legalese, the constitutional prohibition against an establishment of a church as the official state religion in Australia does not mean separation of church and state: it means there is a prohibition against the establishment of an official state religion"

I think the important point here is not what the legalese says but what the practice out comes are. We here is Australia don't have a problem with religion. Most of us judge people on their actions not their beliefs. The US has the opposite, as seen as one of the smear campaigns against Obama is that he might be Muslim. So much for no religious test… and yes I understand there is nothing in the constitution stopping him, but it comes to show that a large portion of the US doesn’t like that idea. To me Australian are far more respectful of their constitutional goals in this area then the Yanks.

Organised religion is dieing and it should be allowed to die in its own bed. It doesn't need to be put to death by over excited Secularist. The only small threat I see here is by the movement by some of the remaining religious folk towards some of the US imported protestant cults.

jamesf

"Why is offering funding for independent schools of any faith or none problematic?"

Using taxpayers' money to fund schools that promote the dubious teachings of many religions and sects is extremely problematic for many Australians.

Kenny

"Organised religion is dieing and it should be allowed to die in its own bed. It doesn't need to be put to death by over excited Secularist."

Not only is organized religion far from being in its death throes, but sects and cults too are now being funded with taxpayer money and increasingly given a cloak of respectability their wacky and often-dangerous belief systems don't warrant at all.

Max

Just read a review on your book 'The Purple Economy'. Why don't you write an article for OLO on some of the points you've raised there? The fact that in excess of 500 million dollars of annual tax concessions are granted to religions, sects and cults in Australia, which must then be made up out of the pockets of all taxpayers, might attract attention more readily than a drier constitutional argument.

I am becoming so bored by these interminable articles anticipating an Australian republic, when the decisive issue is NEVER raised! The issue, of course, is what we think of our politicians. No thought is given to the enormous pleasure so many people had in seeing Gough Whitlam dismissed by Her Majesty's representative, and their belief that the monarchy is worth retaining just for that one thing.

I remember some years ago when a friend was very annoyed at the arrogance of Keating, and remarked "what a pity Keating was not dismissed by Kerr". I had the pleasure of replying "But he was!" Keating was Minister for Northern Australia (for three weeks), and was dismissed on 11/11//75 along wiht the rest of Whitlam's ministry. According to a book written by Fred Daly, Whitlam passed Keating on his way back form Yarralumla, and said "You've been sacked." Keating's immortal reply was "What have I done?"

Again, when politicians were compared some years ago to used-car salesmen, the salesmen complained at the invidious comparison, and they had to be compared to snake-oil salesmen.

At the moment we have a very useful guide to politician's ethics each time a new parliament is opened, when all members swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. We are able to judge who is being truthful, honest and sincere, and who is lying in his teeth. This would be deeply missed.

The best comment on the republic I ever heard came from a Broken Hill miner in 1993 when Keating was PM and Hewson Opposition leader.

He said: "I'd have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Until action is taken to address these attitudes in the people that have to approve any change, particularly by making changes that will enable the people to enact changes in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political, legal and business elite (as happened recently in Ireland), we will continue as loyal subjects for many years yet.

For me personally, speaking as a Christian... I would be a bit sad to lose the Lords prayer at the opening of Paliament.

It is a link with our history and also an appeal for divine guidance, in harmony with the pre-amble to our constitution.

"Our Father.. in heaven, holy is your name" with such a framework, should we not also be like Him?

"May your kingdom come" in the hearts of people. Not "and we will impose it by hook, crook or cluster bomb"

It is not a selfish prayer "Give us this day our daily bread"

It is not an aggressive prayer "Lead us not into temptation"

It is a request for forgiveness "Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass/sin against us"

It is not about human glory "To you be the Glory, forever and ever"

But at the same time, I am aware of the danger of the State and Church being too close as history testifies.

The problem with complete separation between the Christian church and the State is that the State can then suddenly decide that Christians are "persona non grata" and unwelcome.

Hence..I think it will remain the case that Christians seek to have a say in the State.

plerdsus, if you enjoyed seeing the queen's man firing whitlam, imagine your pleasure at seeing whitlam fired by the citizens, through a recall referendum, as they recently did in california.

a nation that does not enjoy the recognition of legitimate government by the vast majority of the people will be riven by riots, rebellion, and crime. there are two ways to get that recognition of legitimacy:

democracy, where there is no government, but only an administration carrying out the will of the electorate.

and monarchy, where god has selected the nation's master, and that master appoints ministers in his service. it is worth remembering that a 'public servant' is not a servant of the public, but rather a servant of the crown in dealing with the public. parliament is not master of the state, as kerr and whitlam demonstrated. but parliament made itself master of the monarch, a different thing. see a history of the british civil war, and discover that having tried simple oligarchy as was the rule of parliament, the (upper) middle class found that a government whose legitimacy rested on the army soon became ruled by a general. so they created a puppet monarch, now reflected in the puppet gg's we laugh at today. they are a fig-leaf over the rule of parliament that is very handy for people who fear or despise democracy.

but this does create a problem: if the monarch is not established by god, whence comes legitimacy? the brits understand this, and q e is head of the church that in turn assures britain that god wants her there. handy, eh?

the bumpkins who wrote the oz constitution did a cut and paste of political thought of the time. there is no logic in it. "a bit of this, a bit of that" (but no democracy, we're british, after all.) consequently, ozzies remain subjects, not just in law, but mentally. ask them to become citizens and they recoil in horror, if indeed they understand the distinction.

As you can see in this thread and others religious moderates such as jamesf automatically use their 'moderate' voice to advocate for extreme religious policy (theocratic state) and side with their religious dominionists.

Those who know no history are bound to repeat it or words to that effect. The British monarchy was established not by God but, in the first instance, by force after the Wars of the Roses and subsequently by decisions of Parliament, both after the Cromwellian republic and at the time of the 'Glorious Revolution' though, in the latter case, the English Parliament didn't have a lot of choice.

The Australian constitution didn't enact the separation of church and state for three reasons: most of the members of the convention were Christians; ensuring no church could be established as the Australian church guarded against the possibility, however remote, that the Papists might one day establish the Catholic Church; and the constitution was intended to provide for the workings of the Australian Federation, which was by no means universally desired. Freedom of religion reflected a fairly sophisticated understanding of the variety of religious beliefs in contemporary Australian society, a variety clearly indicated in the debates over the nature of government education systems during the 1870s and 1880s.

"Can't we all just get along?" asks james

From http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard for just one week --

2008-09-15: Six children die in Afghanistan bombing.
2008-09-15: Twenty people die in Delhi bombing.
2008-09-15: Thirty Islamic militants killed in Pakistan.
2008-09-15: Australian four-year-old dies after mother refuses medical treatment on religious grounds.
2008-09-15: Twenty-one Indonesians die in Ramadan money stampede.
2008-09-17: Islamic creationist fraudster persuades Turkish courts to ban access to Dawkins website.
2008-09-19: 'Religious nutcase' art teacher makes US boy 'pray to Jesus' for wearing a heavy metal T-shirt.
2008-09-20: Sudanese Christian guerilla group kill one child, kidnap 50 others.

Obviously not.

Now, if we were all atheists...

Secularism has proven such a diaster that only the hard line socialist are left in denial. Even Ms Gillard supports private schools though it must eat her up knowing her own dogmas have failed. The best punishment for the Secularist is to leave them to their own devices. We have seen the fruit of the State school systems which are on the brink of collapse. Even many hard line secularist refuse to send their kids there. We have Docs taking away kids for getting well deserved smacks and giving them to druggies. We have seen Indigenous in loving foster homes given back to communities where they are repeatedly raped.

The separation of church and state might be good in theory but the separation of secularism and state would be far better in practice. God help us if or when the remaining few Politicians with a few moral convictions are squeezed out of Parliament. Could you imagine the Greens in power. The abnormal ones will be the mums and dads who want to do the right thing by their kids. We already have many of our politicians parading a false morality under the guise of environmentalism when they have not even got the decency to be faithful to their wives or husbands. The more secular influence we get the more of this crap we can expect.

The US is secular. England is secular. Australia is secular. Runner can you name one country you DO admire? Just one, so that the rest of us can get a fix on what the devil you're talking about.

Bennie

'Runner can you name one country you DO admire'

I admire Australia and the US because of the freedoms that we all have.Most of the freedoms were won by God fearing people not social engineers. What I dislike greatly is those freedoms being eroded by the social engineers (secularist) who have messed up their own lives and now want to preach to others. The idiocy of having a Health Minister who is pro abortion would be a good example of this.

Demos,

If a republic model came with recall and citizens initiative referendum, along the lines of the Swiss model, I would support it. However it would also need provisions that would prevent the High Court interpreting it out of existence, as they have done with section 41 of the Constitution.

If you have any knowledge of these things at all, you would know that Her Majesty does not rule by the Grace of God, but by the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1702, which conferred the crown on Electress Sophia of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being protestants. The last King of Great Britain to rule by the Grace of God was Charles I, and he lost his head over it.

You should also know that section 116 of our Constitution is almost a word for word copy of part of the first article in the US Bill of Rights. Our only problem is its interpretation by the High Court. This is why I oppose a Bill of Rights here; we can elect politicians, but not judges.

The sort of constitutional amendment I would like to see would be along these lines:

"The failure, in the opinion of the Governor-General, of any justice of the High Court to interpret this constitution in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words contained therein at the time of its adoption, shall constitute proved incapacity in the terms of section 72 of the constitution."

The Health Minister is not pro-abortion. She is for allowing people to choose for themselves.

You, obviously, are against people's right to choose for themselves.

Jon J

Great post!

runner

"We have seen the fruit of the State school systems which are on the brink of collapse. Even many hard line secularist refuse to send their kids there."

State school systems are nowhere near the brink of collapse. They have increasingly struggled to retain students since the advent of state-funded private schooling, but they've held their own amazingly well and provide much better value for the educational dollar than the private sector does.

Private schools vet potential students and only take in those they approve of, whereas state schools take in all students regardless of how many problems they might have and how many extra dollars they might require in additional support. Any perceived advantage in private schooling lies largely in the fact that these well-endowed private schools have over time creamed off the best students and left state schools to struggle on in a moreorless residual capacity. It has nothing whatever to do with the superiority of religion over secularism that you imply.

"We already have many of our politicians parading a false morality under the guise of environmentalism when they have not even got the decency to be faithful to their wives or husbands. The more secular influence we get the more of this crap we can expect."

Talking of 'crap'! What has 'environmentalism' got to do with the falling moral standards you are so pathetically panicked over?

You might feel safe in the belief that your god will save you from whatever catastrophe the planet might be headed for, but most of us would much prefer to put our trust in science and government, and hope that urgent priority is given to the 'environmentalism' you so ignorantly disparage.

Bronwyn: "Using taxpayers' money to fund schools that promote the dubious teachings of many religions and sects is extremely problematic for many Australians."

About 15% of Australians actually, assuming everyone who puts Atheist et al on the census is rabidly opposed to religious expression. Maybe a similar proportion of Christian Australians would consider using the machinery of the state to force their worldview on others too, but that doesn't make it acceptable or democratic.

Surely the enlightened, liberal, democratic thing to do is create a level playing field for all worldviews, prohibit the state from taking sides (by providing services without favouritism) and win hearts/minds through constructive debate - or at least refrain from attempts to dominate one another (or indoctrinate each other's children by force).

Steel: "As you can see in this thread and others religious moderates such as jamesf automatically use their 'moderate' voice to advocate for extreme religious policy (theocratic state) and side with their religious dominionists."

Actually, I'm completely opposed to theocracy and dominionism (even just for the church's sake), but that's prohibited by the establishment clause which I support. Max advocated a separation clause which gives state support to the atheist worldview but not the religious.

I'm also opposed to overlap between clergy and state officials, or religious ritual (e.g. prayer) and state occasions, to me they verge on establishment. However, I support state funding (equally for all worldviews) of values-inseparable services (education, health, aid/welfare etc).

Jon J: "Thirty Islamic militants killed in Pakistan, etc
...
Now, if we were all atheists..."

If we were all atheists, eh? Anyone can filter stories: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=821859.

It's a flimsy argument based on selectivity bias - and you know it. You ignore data against atheism or for religion (Mother Teresa, Ghandi, MLK, Mandela, Romero, the Acteal 45) and conclude that innately atheism is good and religion bad. A rationalist must concede it's an invalid, circular argument.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the French Revolution... help me out here? Just because atheists rarely have power doesn't mean none commit atrocities when they do.

james

james - for nearly a year I have had the following posted at the bottom of the Outrage Scoreboard:

"As far as I know there is no reliable record of a group of atheists all encouraging each other to commit violence, intolerance or foolishness, or claiming that their group values take precedence over individual decisions based on conscience, instinct and training. But if anyone can provide me with a reliable recent report of violence or stupidity committed by one or more atheists, then I will add it to this list."

I'm still waiting. Meanwhile the list of violence and folly committed in the name of religion has reached 188 items in just over ten months. And these are only the items that make it into the national or international media.

How many atheists have let their children die because they thought they knew better than doctors? How many atheists have killed other people's children because they believed the wrong things? Don't quote me psychopaths from sixty years ago -- these things are happening NOW, and religion is behind them. One Finnish atheist - fair enough, I'll add it to the list. But the balance is still way down.

Separation of church and state is the first step towards educating people out of their bloodthirsty superstitions. How can you make anyone listen to reason if they think their Invisible Friend is the ruler of the Universe?

monarchies have established churches, because monarchs rule by the will of god. no established church, no mandate of heaven. that's why qe2 is head of the anglican church, to make sure god gets it right in issuing his mandate.

democracies have no government, but have clerks to carry out the will of the electorate. no need for any church at all, much less established.

poor old oz is neither one nor the other. parliament rules in reality, although kerr showed what the actual law was. since then, the pollies have demanded submission as a condition of office from the stooges in the gg mansion.

this is a very important question which ozzians are quite unprepared to deal with, having a forelock tugging character from britain, but so distant that the local gentry have been able to supplant the brits as master of the nation. the only good bet about where oz is heading is that ordinary ozzies won't get much of a say.

Max is quite right to raise his points and it really does matter about some form of separation between Church and State.

Here in Qld, where everyone believes that our public school system is secular, as it is in every other state and territory, the truth is...it is not.

Our public schools are being rapidly taken over by evangelical Pentecostals, with the full support of Bligh, the premier, and Welford, the 'education' minister.

There are no bars to teaching ID in science. There are no bars on teaching the Bible in English as a great literary work, or in history (SOSE) as a true story of the world.

Why?

Because in 1910 we had a referendum to introduce religious instruction (RI) and...wait for it... Bible reading, into our once secular schools.

In order to do this, the word 'secular' was expunged from the 1875 Education Act and 100 years later we still suffer the consequences.

See this web page and download the pdf of the 1875 and 1910 Ed Act here:http://www.thefourthr.info/

Odd isn't it, that Julie Bishop told us how state schools were moral vacuums because they were secular bastions of 'devil worship'.

Well, maybe in NSW but not here.

In fact, the only schools that are required to be secular in Qld are the nine schools registered under the Qld Grammar Schools Act, of 1860.

Again, how odd that people panic over 'secular' public schools and rush their 'kiddies' to these haughty establishments... when they are the secular schools, and Qld state ones are riddled with low grade religion.

Qld... the smart state.

Jon J there's no correlation between what people say on their census and how they view state funding of religious activity. I read many letters to the editor during WYD from believers not a little embarrassed at the largesse of the government towards the planet's richest organisation.

A separation clause gives dominance to precisely no-one, atheist or otherwise; there is no basis for saying it promotes abstention from religion. The state believes faith is a personal matter and such a clause reinforces this. Anything otherwise engenders a perception of favouritism. There are many thousands - six billion if you count the non-organised - religions and there's no way to give them all equal treatment.

Given progress made by religious loonies in other countries, both advanced and not, it might be a good idea to nip state-funded proselytising in the bud.

Would like to comment, but as only happily attended a little bush school, might offend with some rude remarks.

Cheers, BB, WA.