Dear Fester,

«My considerations of this question are its legality and appropriateness in a democratic institution.»

There is nothing democratic about that institution. It does not represent the people who live here, never did. There is no reason to question its legality because it is them who make their own laws.

«As it happens I would not be crestfallen if both the prayer and acknowledgement of country were dispensed with and replaced with an acknowledgement of all people responsible for the nation we inhabit.»

This whole "nation" thing is their own propaganda, there is no such thing, there are just people who inhabit this continent who are their victims. I would not be crestfallen if the earth opened up and swallowed this whole gang, then they can do or not do, say or not say whatever they like down in hell.

«welcome to country/acknowledgement of country is commonplace in a great many public and private organisations across Australia.»

Yes, I noticed that, including where the one who announces it feels coerced and only says it because s/he is afraid of the consequences if they didn't.

Green activist Jonathan Doig paid to view and direct child abuse material in the Philippines.

A former Greens candidate has been jailed for paying a poor child in the Philippines to create her own child abuse material for him over video calls.

"It’s not every day that a major European political party has to apologize for having supported paedophilia, but two weeks ago, the German Green Party had to do just that. For the past year and a half, investigators commissioned by the party have been probing its past associations with pro-paedophilia groups, and their report has been shocking to many Germans. It found that the German “pedosexual movement,” which advocated the legalization of “consensual” sex between adults and children, found a surprisingly warm reception in the party in the 1980s. "

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think it a very complicated and inaccurate exercise to define one person, let alone a group of people. I feel that people like ttbn don't appreciate that the great privilege of this site is to learn how others think about various subjects and so reflect on one's own opinions.

You seem very annoyed with things. A nice starting point is to be able to define what you can change and what you cannot.

Dear Fester,

Thank you for your insight and care.

«You seem very annoyed with things.»

I am not annoyed with things - I am annoyed with myself that I found it appealing to be born into this world and at this very era.

«A nice starting point is to be able to define what you can change and what you cannot.»

I do not expect to change this world, because to change it into something higher would be like changing a school into a university. We come here to learn, at the level we are, then eventually we graduate and others come in over and over and study the same curriculum. If primary schools were teaching at university level, then how would the little kids ever learn?

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« The only other issues I could think of are the wording of the preamble "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God", and whether 116, while applying to legislation passed by the parliament, would apply to the rules and procedures of the parliament itself.

I suspect that if reading the Lord's Prayer were unconstitutional then an astute lawyer might have spotted it a long time ago. »
.

The question of the constitutionality of reading prayers at parliamentary and local government meetings has been debated among lawyers and politicians ever since the prayers were introduced shortly after federation, in response to a highly aggressive petition campaign organised by Protestant church leaders.

The first prayer was the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer which the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne immediately contested as "distinctly Protestant".

The second prayer calls on God:

« … to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia » – a modified version of "A prayer for the High Court of Parliament" from the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer.

It presents Australia's federal MPs as servants of the Christian God, working for his glory.

As I pointed out in a previous post on this thread, this is somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 2016 census showed that 30% of Australians have no religion; 22% are Catholic and Only 13.3% of Australians are Anglican.

When prayers were introduced into federal parliament, most politicians took the view that standing orders were not laws and so were not subject to the constitutional prohibition on religious observances.

But it is interesting to note that in the UK a classic text on the law and usages of the British parliament describes standing orders as a species of law.

The High Court of Australia has never ruled on this issue and I, personally, think it should.

As a matter of fact, I just wrote to the mayor of Adelaide suggesting she set the wheels in motion.

.

Dear Banjo,

Good for you and my apologies for my ignorance on this subject. I would think an acknowledgement of the contribution of all citizens to the nation we live in rather than a prayer or special acknowledgement of indigenous citizens, something I see as divisive and harmful, more appropriate.