Pedicles,
There are two keys here convention and by default. The issue argument is complex but much hinges on the “other” law that made by judicial interpretation, (involving precedents, convention etc.) If prayer were permitted it might be argued as setting a precedent and there by legal, and in “effect” a law. If the high court determined that the intent of the Constitution was Secular (not playing religious favourites). Then a constitution al Lawyer might also argue that the prayers of one religion in schools are a religiously prejudicial act against others therefore breaching the secular intent of section(s) of the constitution and other legislation. The only options would be to ensure equal time to all a practical impossibility.
As for an expensive High court challenge and the probable destabilizing effect it would have…. For a discretionary choice? That allows a minority dictate is W.O.E. and Money that could be used to address more practical issues.
I doubt that there is any misuse of the constitution in not supporting religion in public life for the above and many other reasons.
Foxy.
You are correct to a point but there are Secular options that are valid too as is an Affirmation in Court. Additionally most polis is prisoners of public appearance. In some seats what is an emotional issue may swing a seat. I know several MPs who have experienced the temporary “Canberra conversion”.
Pilo.
Not true! not all “Christian” flavours share the Lord Prayer, it is a New Testament inclusion.
My point was to point out how impractical equal time would be and what to do with non atheist Students?
Allowing Prayers into schools would be seen by some as backdoor prophesizing to the naïve. A breach of duty of care, family rights etc.
Finally Religion has never been nor should be viewed as a universal unifying factor. In fact more people have died and more division has been caused by trying to enforce this than any other single cause in history

Let me see if I understand you correctly here examinator.

>>The issue argument is complex but much hinges on the “other” law that made by judicial interpretation, (involving precedents, convention etc.) If prayer were permitted it might be argued as setting a precedent and there by legal, and in “effect” a law.<<

Let us start from a point that says that conducting a religious assembly in school is illegal.

A school conducts such an assembly.

In which universe can this be deemed a "precedent", and in which dimension in that universe can this precedent possibly become in "effect" (to use your signage) a law?

A parallel would be that I commit a burglary, and by committing it I set a precedent, and suddenly burglary becomes legal. I think not.

If we now turn our attention to the situation where conducting a religious assembly in school is deemed permissible, there can by definition be no problem.

The only situation left is that no-one has yet decided whether conducting a religious assembly is lawful or unlawful. In such situations, it is quite normal for some willing patsy to perform the act in question, and see how it plays out in court.

Our entire taxation system, for example, seems to work this way and this way alone - the law is unclear, someone treads the line, and the entire matter is thrashed out in the courts.

It's an imperfect system, of course, caused by badly drafted legislation. But one thing may be said for certain, and that is that in committing the act, a precedent is indeed established; but this precedent cannot be said to automatically cause the act concerned to suddenly become legal.

Which seems to be what all the fuss is about.

Or do I still miss the point?

As Foxy pointed out.... we do have a long standing 'convention' (Examinator) of prayers before parliament.

Bronwyn, of course what you say is quite true.. one can attend a Church school, but while that's true, I'm trying to dig around on this issue of separation of Church and State and seeking to demonstrate that there is no such thing at the constitutional level only a wall between particular denominations and Government.

I'd go further.. the closeness of faith and state has been mercilessly hijacked by a small number of people.. 10 familes to be exact, which took a case 'Engle vs Vitale' that pretty much decimated prayer in schools.
http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html

Pericles.. the point about parliament making laws to advance a particular religion was in a historical context of Protestant/Catholic struggle and it really meant 'denomination'...and of Christian only.

There is no need for a particular 'denominatonal' flavor to prayer in schools. The issues which divide (amicably in most cases) the various mainstream traditions are not such as to prevent easily agreed prayer in a school context.

I submit that it would be quite lawful and constitutional for a state school to 'choose' to have voluntary prayer at assemblies. By voluntary, I do mean 'not being required to participate at the heart or vocal level'.. presence would be required if the school authorities agreed along with the parents representative body.
I'm really saying "reverse the outcome of engle vs vitale"

The social impact after this case, is said to be very measurable by a number of indicators.
-Teen pregnancy
-STDs
both of which skyrocketed after this decision.. it has been graphed.

I find the arguments here increasingly impenetrable. I am either extremely stupid, or the discussion is being conducted at a level that goes 'way over my head.

Polycarp explains:

>>I'm really saying "reverse the outcome of engle vs vitale"<<

i.e. we should somehow preempt a situation in Australia where religious assemblies of any kind in schools were ruled to be specifically illegal.

My personal view is that prayer sessions, or religious assemblies of any kind, do not have an automatic right to be imposed upon a school. However, if there is a unanimous view that some time should be dedicated to such activities, I cannot see any particular harm in it.

It does take on a different perspective however when its imposition on the school day causes separation or alienation of some school attendees. Any activity that divides kids into groups of participants and non-participants has the potential to create unnecessary tensions, and when these tensions are of a religious nature, history tells us that it will probably end badly.

But to me the most disturbing element to Polycarp's post is the assumed corollary:

>>The social impact after this case, is said to be very measurable by a number of indicators. -Teen pregnancy -STDs both of which skyrocketed after this decision.. it has been graphed.<<

Quite frankly, I find the conclusion that the ruling in Engel vs Vitale resulted in "skyrocketing" incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs to be one of the most laughable statements yet posted on OLO.

Engel vs Vitale was ruled upon in 1962. As I recall, there were many other factors in play in that decade, far more influential on the teen psyche than a twenty-two word morning classroom ritual.

But it does at least serve to make extremely clear the perspective of the writer.

Pericles,
Yes you did miss my point. The over all points were:
The issue is too large and complex for 350 words. It requires several point of law to be run. It is difficult to know at which level of explanation to stop at in this environment. Especially when I’m a big picture thinker…not always good. Apologies.

When I initially said that it was a law by default I was speaking metaphorically.
I used the word both a legal sense (a decided by court PRINCIPLE of law not necessarily a comparable case.) and a common sense (That if we agree to one religious group then there is a logical base for the next group to claim access).

The Tax system is based on a law/ amendment to the tax act and regs then comes the objection, board review and sometimes a test case to clarify the law.
To go from the board review to the Supreme courts and then High court for appeal or of constitutional Law interpretation. Running a case here is very different than other courts.

The issue proposed by Polycarp assumes that a test case could get that far. First the case would need to address local state laws with a specific problem. If the case hung on his “Constitutional question” which I doubt that it could then and only then could the issue go to the High court who would make the determination.

His subsequent argument about only 10 people are to blame and 1 1962 US decision on the surface is ludicrous rather he clearly misunderstands the nature of the legal issue. The quantum leap to the consequences he claims is absurdly dogma based and devoid of any credibility.

Aust courts don’t necessarily follow decisions from US Court unless it on a principle of law and then it may need to be tested here.
Some old case law from England is applicable here.

I doubt that testing this law is either in the interest of the community and would survive the lower courts polycarp and ilk should worry more about his soul than everyone else’s

Dear Pericles

You said:

<However, if there is a unanimous view that some time should be dedicated to such activities,
I cannot see any particular harm in it.>

to which I reply.. "exactly" :)

Thats rather my point.

Examinator...

The issue of 'which religion' is more relevant than which denomination.. as
denomination would not really be much of an issue among Christians.
I suspect the only potential for assertiveness would come from
those of catholic tradition if they were in the mould of Webby et al.
"we are the only true Church" kind of thing.

The issue of 'which religion'...ahh.. now there we have a most interesting subject.
It touches on the history of the country.. and connects with the
idea of culture and identity as much as anything.
I don't hold the view that 'Human Rights' law does..
I am a 'cultural historicist' if there is such a thing.

For me, the only 'religion' admissable would be Christianity.
(a kind of pan mainstream denominational type)
But then, I wouldn't seek to push that too far, specially not
to the point of laws which seek to dictate belief.

In all honesty, I think we have passed the point of being able to
salvage any vestige of true 'Christian' identity in Australia.
We did once have that, even though not all would have confessed to
being Christian.
Now..I think we will have to just go down and down until we see our
true state and recognize our need of Grace..

Reference to the courts and the Engle vs Vitale case is just a
recognition on my part that national culture, can be impacted by
a very small tail trying to wag an exceedingly large dog.

On the 'measurable indicators' let me rephrase..
There is a noticable coincidence' between the rates of increases
and that decision.