The Forum > Article Comments > Australian pluralism and religion > Comments
Australian pluralism and religion : Comments
By Bruce Kaye, published 8/1/2009Religious bodies need to get their act together on the nature of Australian pluralism and its meaning today.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
"At Federation the constitution set out in Clause 116 some apparently clear guidelines on religion in public life, while retaining in the preamble a clear reference to God, as indeed did the oath of the current Governor-General.
The High Court interpretation of clause 116 has taken Australia in a different direction from the United States of America. Whereas the US tradition has moved to a doctrine of separation of church and state and a doctrine of non-entanglement, the Australian version has moved to a position of non-separation of church and state and a doctrine of equitable entanglement."
In the lines above there is a contradiction. There cannot be equitable entanglement along with a reference to God in the preamble. The religions of Australia include Buddhism which is a non-theistic religion. Therefore official mention of God puts Buddhism at a lower level. Equitable entanglement requires treating all religions the same.