Once again.. I am interested in serious answers.. and this does constitute research.. not for any particular academic exercise, but primarily regarding self-informing.

Gerit should be able to offer some rich pickings here for sure.

Section 116 of the Australian federal 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.. for a body which owes it's existence to an Act of Parliament..
such as say Melbourne University which is based on the

Melbourne University Act 1958
http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/154b86eb077c3a83ca25706900160dbd/$FILE/58-6405a061.pdf

...one would expect a high degree of compliance with the constitution in the area of separation of Religion and State..no?

So.. if HillSong and associated Assemblies of God Churches, requested a "Chapel" to be built on Melbourne University land, for the exclusive use of the HillSong denomination members and the exclusion of all others, which included Pin coded key pass entry to the facility, I would expect a bit of chirping and muttering from non HillSong denominations about 'discrimination' and section 116 of the constitution.

If a Government enacted body, makes a 'law'(albeit a locally applicable 'rule' for that institution alone) which promotes one 'religion' over others, and 'hinders' others from access to that facility... are they infringing the constitution?

If so, what legal avenues would be open to members of other denominations to address this?

-Injunction?
-Law suit?
-Public protest?
-All of the above?

Dear Polycarp,

Why do you do this?

I thought that you were better than this?

I'm most disappointed in you.

Foxy: << Why do you do this?

I thought that you were better than this? >>

No, he's not. This is just another Boazycrap troll.

Please do not feed.

Here is something about Hillsong.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hillsongs-true-believers/2004/11/06/1099547435083.html

-=-=-=
"Dr Max Wallace, author of The Purple Economy, which investigates the business of churches, says "[Australian] citizens are underwriting the churches". "But," he adds, "what we are getting is a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency and no obligation to do any charitable work." He says Hillsong has charitable programs "but we have no way of reconciling their income with their charitable work".

The full church accounts are not publicly available. Hillsong, along with all churches in Australia, does not pay tax and does not have to file its accounts with the Australian Taxation Office."

...

"The church is known not just for its style of Christian worship, but for its links to the burgeoning political influence of the "religious right" through politicians associated with it.

The Liberal Party's Louise Markus, a Hillsong church member, won the seat of Greenway,.........two Family First Senate candidates, Joan Woods and Ivan Herald, who failed to win Senate seats, were featured in Hillsong's latest glossy circular, with members being asked to pray for them."
=-=-=-=

These people want an Australian theocracy and are being manipulated politically with the cozy entry:

-=-=-
"The Anglican Bishop of Western Sydney, Bishop Ivan Lee, says the style of worship is "very positive, very contemporary and very accessible to Australians who are no longer churched""
=-=-=

Polycarp,

I suspect you may be talking of chalk and cheese with respect to this matter.

Section 116 of the Constitution states that the COMMONWEALTH shall not make any law for establishing etc.

The Melbourne University Act 1958, if I am not mistaken, is a State Act.

Your expectation expressed in the statement "...one would expect a high degree of compliance with the constitution in the area of separation of Religion and State..no?" is thus based upon a false premise. In the immediate sense that false premise being that the Commonwealth has any power to legislate with respect to such matters, which indeed it does not, as Section 116 makes so very clear.

In a more general sense, your false premise is an expectation that in the area of what you describe as that of 'separation of Religion and State' that this concept is in any way enshrined in law at State level. I think the consensus is that it is not.

In 1900, any State of Australia enacting legislation favouring any particular religion? Unthinkable! Un-Australian!

Step back Polycarp! It is a booby trap! A goad. A provocation.

Consider.

Section 116 of the Constitution was a proposed subject of alteration in one of the four 1988 referenda, referenda defeated with the lowest 'Yes' vote in the history of Federation. The 1988 proposals were an all but verbatim rehash of proposals put to the people at the 1944 Constitution Alteration (Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) referendum, and likewise decisively rejected. The 1944 proposal itself was in turn a reflection of powers that were sought by a process that sought to evade the referendum requirement in the form of the proposed Commonwealth Powers Act of 1942.

In 1942 hardly a muslim to be seen in Australia, but the same legislative program being pursued. Today the notional heirs to the 1942 legislators don't have the Japanese as a distraction, they have Islamic migrants instead.

I commend to you the last paragraph of this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120646

Again, consider.

Hold your fire!

Foxy and CJ, I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.

Isn't it perfectly fair and reasonable to address points of law, the constitution, religion, etc on this forum?

Dear Ludwig,

I suggest that you read my post on the
following thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1917...

Ludwig: << I'm not sure what you are objecting to here >>

What we're objecting to is Boazycrap returning to precisely the same Islamophobic topic that he first had a go at two months ago, when he was still BOAZ_David. In fact, it was the very same topic that apparently caused him to spit the dummy and morph into Polycarp.

It's a troll because he's copped a caning for it previously, and now he's regurgitated it as a sock puppet.

Thanks for taking the trouble to dig that out, Foxy. Boazycrap's got a hide like a rhinoceros, hasn't he?

Discrimination is invalid if you are provoke it! Now! That's not true, but the 2000 year old broken record is chiming out and the mexican stand-off will be the only result.
Mr carp! I can see you are trying very hard to return order from a land slide of the majority. May I suggest a more equilibrium approach to the fundamentals of debating.

EVO

(Provoking) Making people bite!

Without Mr carp, What would CJ do with himself! You and boz/carp just need each other! Don't ya! lol.

Iam sure good old friends comes into place.

This is the fun and excitement that makes this site great!

Keep it at home.

The road of life is a long way.

All the best.

EVO

Forrest, Ludwig.. well done mates.

To the subject.

FORREST.. let's take an example. "The Marriage Act".. the States cannot legislate differently from the commonwealth on the issue of age of marriage. It is 18 or 16 with the permission of a magistrate... Australia wide.

The constitution, and particularly section 116, was enacted for the whole of Australia. All States are subject to it, no?

While it is true that States are free to legislate.. they are not free as far as I understand to do so outside the framework on which the nation is established.

The 'Religion' question was historically connected to the RC/protestant/Anglican politics of the UK. In reality it mean't 'denomination'....

If it proved true that the constitution does not hold sway over such matters of a 'Hillsong Prayer centre' at a State university, then surely anti discrimination laws would ?

STEEL.. I am not trying to make a value judgement on HillSong specifically, and please don't use this as an opportunity to just sling mud at them.. if you wish, create a 'Throw mud at Hillsong' thread and go to your hearts content :)

What are your thoughts (legality) of a dedicated 'Hillsong'..or.. "Anglican" "only" prayer centre at a University?

Melbourne University has 'Trinity College' built with an Anglican Background.. by an Act of Parliament... so it might be argued that this violates the constitution as I'm arguing.... but see this:

http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/about/index/uni_calendar

Although an Anglican foundation, the College has always freely admitted non-Anglicans to membership and applies no religious test. Parliament expressly confirmed this policy in the Trinity College Act 1927. The College was incorporated by Parliament through the Trinity College Act 1979.

COMMENT:
Due to it not being 'exclusive' and also not being 'religious' only.. it is not in violation.

My concern is where a religious body seeks EXCLUSIVE use and seeks to exclude 'non-them', based on their religious orientation. i.e.. they seek to make a 'religious test'..which is unconstitutional.

PS. Trinity was established in 1877...but FEDERATION (and our constitution) was 1901 :)

Section 109 of the Constitution says:

109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Thus... I feel this supports the view that the States cannot make any law at variance with the federal constitution?

Well, Polycarp, despite the warning that it was a booby trap, you have insisted upon picking it up.

If you don't mind, I'll just move away a little bit, in case it goes off while we're talking. That's assuming it's explosive in nature: it might just as easily be coated with anthrax powder, or be releasing nerve gas, figuratively speaking. Just stand still and listen, and you might get out of this.

Where to begin?

First, what is essentially a 'Technical Support' question: what we may well have here, is a failure to communicate. In the fifth post to this thread, I gave an intra-Forum link. Whenever I post such a link I shortly thereafter check that it is working correctly. When I did that in this case, the link would not load up - it just took forever, until in the end I just closed the tab without it having opened. Were you able to open it?

Similarly, in the seventh post in this thread Foxy posted an intra-Forum link. Same story. Would not open, at least for me. There was no problem moving around within the Forum, however, at around the same time. I could go back to the index page, and open other topics, without difficulty, so it was not the internet that was slow, or the OLO site congested.

Anybody else experiencing this problem on this thread?

Polycarp, as there is only so much that the word limit will allow to be explained at one time, let me just observe in relation to your question, that "The constitution, and particularly section 116, was enacted for the whole of Australia. All States are subject to it, no?", that it is primarily the COMMONWEALTH that is subject to the Constitution.

You say "PS. Trinity was established in 1877...but FEDERATION (and our constitution) was 1901 :)", thereby showing you know the Constitution, and Federation, are not the framework of our nation. The Constitution, super-structural in nature, is now part of the ship of state, but not of the hull.

Now, the link?

Hi Forest

I am more than a little intrigued by your rather obscure posts.... and am, on the basis of some past demonstrations of excellence of knowledge on your part, most curious about your fuller meaning.

I accessed the links..both yours and Foxy's, and yours.. a little cloudy still.. I think I have a hint of meaning "If there is a crisis, use it for political advantage" or.. "if there is no crisis.. create one...then use it etc"

Foxys reference was not helpful, as it focused our attention on one specific location, rather than the principle which we should in reality be attending to.

Referring to an old post covering a specific issue, did not in anyway invalidate or undermine the constitutional/legal issue at stake for both that and this post.
All that happened.. was CJ and his fellow sharks just thought they would have a feeding frenzy and tear up a chunk of Tuna, but in the process can only level 'accusations' but no actual intellectual contribution or argument for or against.

EVO.. well said :

AGENDA.
1/ DISCRIMINATION: All public educational institutions to be discrimination free.
(no discriminatory rules which exclude students from any facility, be they Christian or otherwise)
2/ MIGRATION: Australia to revisit it's signatory status on any U.N. convention which would prevent us acting in our national and security interest and add appropriate exemptions which will allow us to discriminate on 'Creed' when that creed is seditious or against our national interest. (There is no barrier even with the 'racial discrimination' convention now for doing this)
3/ UN HUMAN RIGHTS Convention. We must add (if not there) a proviso that regarding 'creed' we reserve the right to reject any creed which is against out national interest or security.

Boazycarp

Is this your true objective?

"Last year when the Federal government announced $8-million in funding for a new Islamic Study Centre based at Melbourne University, Parliamentary Secretary, Andrew Robb predicted the centre would produce a new generation of moderate home-grown imams. But the new Director of the Centre, Professor Abdullah Saeed, says the centre won't be training imams at all. In fact Melbourne University's strict secular charter prevents it even offering theology degrees.

Professor Saeed has there been some misunderstanding?

Abdullah Saeed: As I understand it, the Federal government is putting the $8-million to develop a high quality Islamic Studies program based at several universities in Australia. Well as far as training of imams is concerned, that may well be perhaps a by-product of this whole exercise, but the primary objective of the funding is to develop an Islamic Studies program that is available to Muslim and non-Muslim students. Of course Muslim students who want to be trained as religious leaders, community leaders, can enrol in the program and follow the program. But the program is open to Muslim and non-Muslim students."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1842107.htm

Hey, look people - it's yet another Boaz "hypothetical".

I downloaded the Melbourne University Act, and went through it in its entirety.

Nothing at all that indicates a departure from the Constitution.

So, what is it about?

Boaz (I refuse to call him Polycarp, it only feeds his ego) would like us to believe that the following is a problem of some sort:

>>if [enter religion of your choice here], requested a "Chapel" to be built on Melbourne University land, for the exclusive use of [that religion's] members and the exclusion of all others, which included Pin coded key pass entry to the facility, I would expect a bit of chirping and muttering from [other religious] denominations about 'discrimination' and section 116 of the constitution.<<

Where this argument - that this represents some kind of constitutional issue - falls down, of course, is that Section 116 of the Constitution has not been in any way violated.

Allocating space for religious observance does not represent the making a law for establishing any religion. It does not impose any religious observance. It does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion. And it certainly does not define a religious test as a qualification for holding office.

The only logical conclusion therefore is that it is the precursor of a classic Boaz whack-a-mozzie diatribe.

I wait, with bated breath.

Dear Forrest,

If you're still having trouble opening
up the site I quoted try googling:

forum - online opinion - discussion=1917 - Multi faith

Things should become clearer to you as to why CJ and
I are objecting to this thread. The issues are the
same and the topic has already been flogged to death.
It's merely being dressed up in a different format here
to continue with the same old rhetoric.

It's not a question of "honest discussion," but one
of bias.

Polycarp,

Cutting to the chase the Melbourne University Act is a state act not a Federal Act. You are referring to a restriction in the Commonwealth Constitution. Even the wording of the provision makes the issue clear:

"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."

It states "The Commonwealth shall not" not "The State shall not".

Thus even if your lateral thinking had legs the legislation it relies upon could not support it.

I'm not going to be monitoring this thread so don't bother asking me any further questions. I am hopeful that you now understand.

Hi Pericles... well, glad you have the time to peruse these various documents in full.. this is one of the advantages of a degree of 'adversarial' nature in this forum.

I totally respect your energy and dilligence, while I disagree with your conclusion.

Fractelle.. a kind word to you would also be in order... for your own work in unveiling that 'Islamic Studies' area.. and I would be quick to assert that such a thing is inDEED unconstitutional.. because the commonwealth has deliberately provided funding to promote a particular religion. That will now go into the 'mix'. (and agenda)

I suspect the Commonwealth though in this case is not trying to promote a religion as much as 'tame' one by having more control. This does not alter the legality or ill thereof.

Back 2 Pericles. The arguments used in the USA to separate State from Church fit like a glove to this situation.
I find myself.. that the constitution is breached because:

a) The States are subject to the commonwealth section 106
b) Thus, providing exclusive space for one religion is in reality doing the very thing prohitited. The difference between 'making a law' and 'providing funding for' are ?

You see... what the Government/Education system 'does'.. has been effectively argued in the USA Supreme court to be tantamount to making a 'law' or at least 'promoting a religion'...

Prayer in Government Schools?
Churches in Government Schools built with public money on crown land?
I say 'crown' land because each State has a governor under the governor General, under the Monarch/Crown.

If you don't see a problem here then I suggest bias is at work :)

Boazycarp

If you find funding for Islamic Studies unconstitutional at a secular university (studies which would increase understanding and knowledge and is open to all), then funding for chaplains in secular and private schools would also be discriminatory.

Using your logic of course.

You should know by now Boaz that I am not easily intimidated.

>>If you don't see a problem here then I suggest bias is at work<<

What bias might that be, Boaz?

Against the Commonwealth, perhaps? Or against religion?

I still disagree with your argument.

>>providing exclusive space for one religion is in reality doing the very thing prohitited. The difference between 'making a law' and 'providing funding for' are?<<

Significant.

On the one hand, we have the constitution:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion"

It is crystal clear that the allocation of space within the confines of a University campus for the purpose of providing a gathering point for individuals who share a particular religion, does not fall into the category "establishing any religion".

For one thing, the religion, obviously, has already been established.

So there is no "providing funds for the establishment of a religion" involved here.

What you are proposing, of course, is Boaz' law:

"Neither the Commonwealth nor the State Government (nor, presumably, the local council?) shall provide a single dollar that might be construed as being of assistance to Muslims - er, sorry, scratch that - absolutely any religious group at all"

I'm afraid that one will not pass muster as an interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how hard you might pull and tug.

You're flogging an extremely dead horse here, Boaz. The Constitution is not at issue here, merely your own fear and loathing of Muslims.

Pericles>"And it certainly does not define a religious test as a qualification for holding office."

... What would?

-=-=-=
The church is known not just for its style of Christian worship, but for its links to the burgeoning political influence of the "religious right" through politicians associated with it.

The Liberal Party's Louise Markus, a Hillsong church member, won the seat of Greenway,.........two Family First Senate candidates, Joan Woods and Ivan Herald, who failed to win Senate seats, were featured in Hillsong's latest glossy circular, with members being asked to pray for them."

=-=-=-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hillsongs-true-believers/2004/11/06/1099547435083.html

Horror! Horror! that Christians should run for Parliament. Our constitution does not say you have to be an earth worshiping lesbian to be considered for election. You guys are pathetic to say the least.

Dear runner,

To the best of my knowledge all of our PM's
were Christians and so are many of our
Members of Parliament. Did you know that
they have a prayer said before each sitting
to which all members attend?

As fors -

"Earth-Loving Lesbian?"

Is that the best insult you can come up with?

There are worst things one can be...

That's a great point, Foxy. All of our leaders and representatives are Christian and all of them attend prayer before parliament. Can you imagine that Australia is still a secular country and yet the Australian gay population are unable to marry.

Dear Steel,

I'm sure that I don't have to remind you
that all Australians are free to follow any
religion they choose, so long as its
practices do not break any Australian law.
Australians are also free not to follow
a religion.

As for Gay marriages, you'd have to take
that cause up with your MP.

Foxy

Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Bob Brown, Malcolm Turnbull Christians? You could not possibly believe Christians would support legislating and encouraging the killing the unborn. You seem to have a view that wide is the gate that leads to heaven and narrow is the gate that leads to hell.

Polycarp,

Again, where to begin. Let's use as a starting point this paragraph from my first post in this thread.

"In 1942 hardly a muslim to be seen in Australia, but the same legislative program being pursued. Today the notional heirs to the 1942 legislators don't have the Japanese as a distraction, they have Islamic migrants instead."

The first point I am trying to make is that advancement of Islamic influence, albeit with government funding, proper or improper, is not in itself the objective of what appears to be a very long term project to fundamentally alter the polity of Australia.

Whatever the true nature of the influence that seeks to so alter the Australian polity, it has to be accepted that for now just over a century it has been unable to achieve that change via the mechanism of lawfully changing the Constitution. So a different approach has been called for.

That approach has been to have State governments legislate in a manner utterly out of character with the historical attitudes of the vast majority of Australians with respect to tolerance, organised religion, and their historically enshrined rights. The interests behind this whole program doubtless hope an unholy unpopular hash will be made of the whole of Australian society. The promotion of a sort of undeclared civil war, if you want to put it that way. The intent being that, to end it all, the people will approve or at least accept, sweeping wholesale change to our system of governance. Such change would certainly involve the abandonment of the present Section 116 or anything remotely resembling it.

Now the perspective of just one century is not good enough to allow the present Australian community to comprehend just how, and why, and to what extent, this nation is an object of extreme envy. Some might think the year 1521 to be a good starting point, others might prefer 1494, but I think we have to go back to the year 1373.

At issue throughout has been the matter of what was eventually to become European settlement in Australia.

Dear runner,

You're wrong. My view is that you go to
heaven for the weather, and to hell for
the company.

Just kidding.

Seriously though, as I've said in
previous posts, and to quote Father
James Kavanaugh, "I don't fear hell
because I can't fathom it. I don't
seek heaven because it offers no
image I can grasp. I only struggle
to find myself, to love my fellow
men, and to hope that in this way I
am truly loving God..."

I don't want to discuss this issue
with you anymore however, because I
don't want us to derail this thread.

Foxy

I respect you not wanting to derail this thread but I do find it interesting that you and others are more than happy to allow the likes of Steel and others to go on their self righteous God and Christian bashing rants no matter what the topic.

How amusing to read the last comment from runner, who feels no compunction in engaging in repetitive "self righteous God(bothering) and Christian (preaching) rants no matter what the topic".

Do you clowns ever look in the mirror?

In 1373 a treaty of alliance was made between King Edward III of England and King Ferdinand and Queen Eleanor of Portugal.

This treaty was subsequently renewed as the Treaty of Windsor in 1386 on the marriage of King John I of Portugal to Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster: it is the oldest still current treaty in the world.

John and Philippa had a son, Henry. Although Henry never went to sea, he was to become known to history as Henry the Navigator, this grandson of 'time honoured Lancaster'. Henry's times ushered in the period of Portugal's great oceanic voyages of discovery.

The year 1494 brought the Treaty of Tordesillas, a papal dispensation whereby new discoveries were to be split between Portugal and Spain. As yet there was no anti-meridional dividing line established on the opposite side of the globe to the Tordesillas line. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

1521 saw the Portuguese navigator Cristovao de Mendonca make a voyage of exploration far to the east, during which he lost two of his three ships, mapped a then unknown coastline, and more than likely spent a season whaling in Pelorus Jack's old stamping ground, carefully eradicating any evidence of anything that would identify his activities as being Portuguese when he left. Rivalry between Portugal and Spain over new discoveries was intense at this time, and Cristovao had his orders. It was a standing requirement of the Portuguese Court that all such discoveries be shrouded with secrecy.

On this voyage he picked up, off the bottom of a bay on the coasts he had mapped, a stone that was to eventually become known as the Braganza, but which had, for the same reason as the eradication of evidence of the whaling, to remain hidden from public view for another 271 years until 'found' in Brazil. It had come from soon to be 'Spanish' land. Thought to be a diamond, it was the biggest in the world. It was more likely a Killiecrankie diamond, a topaz. From Flinders Island.

Dear runner,

I can't possibly respond to each and every
post, nor do I want to. We're all selective
in this area.

I'm sure that you realize, some posts
don't merit a response, because you know
it's not going to achieve anything.

CJ Morgan

I make no apology for trying to view things from a biblical perspective. You however make no apology from looking at things from a secular perspective. You would do well to accept your own sarcasm (i.e look in the mirror).

Even back in 1521 it was really all about oil.

The return of Cristovao de Mendonca from his voyage with a cargo of whale oil (near worth its weight in gold in those times), knowledge as to the location of a new whaling ground close to a shore, not to mention the 'Braganza', much more than compensated for the loss of two ships. He subsequently was appointed Governor of the Portuguese colony of Goa, in India.

The year 1529 saw the establishment of the anti-meridional line to that of Tordesillas as an outcome of the Treaty of Saragossa between Portugal and Spain, negotiated under continuing papal suzerainty. This line was intended to settle claims in relation to discoveries of new lands in what we now refer to as the 'Far East'. It is the green line on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spain_and_Portugal.png

Interesting, how the Papacy had no qualms about dividing up the then unknown world, as if it had supreme overlordship of dominion.

The beginning of the year 1755 saw both Portugal and Spain with empires, but with their glory days behind them, particularly so in Portugal's case. It was old King George's day, and Britain, now master of longitude and ruling the waves in place of Portugal, was re-arming for the Seven Years War against, among others, the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War ) On 17 June of that year one Able Seaman James Cook joined the Royal Navy, to be very rapidly promoted to Master's Mate.

On 1 November 1755 an earthquake, of similar size to that causing the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, occurred in the Atlantic near Lisbon. The coast of Portugal was devastated. In Lisbon the royal archives disappeared together with detailed historical records of explorations by Vasco da Gama and other early navigators.

The end of the Seven Years' War in 1763 saw Britain established as the dominant colonial power in the world.

1766 saw Lt James Cook appointed Captain of HM Bark Endeavour.

Well Well

I would have to say to all those here who are adding there little peice the following.

If you go to the parliament home site and do a search for constitutional debates you may learn something.

As i have, I take the saying from the matrix

THERE IS NO SPOON.

So remove spoon and place in laws, any laws and to be constitutional they must adhere to the Australian Constitution dated 6 July 1900.

One also must not forget section 128 regarding constitutional changes with a referendum.

And dont forget when federation came the states could no longer change constitutions without a referendum.

So for me there are no laws.

It would appear that Cristovao de Mendonca's charts and records of his 1521 expedition had been conveyed, perhaps as a consequence of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, or perhaps with that event merely providing a good covering story, to Portugal's old ally, Britain, some time before 1766.

When Cook set out in 1768 on his south seas exploration, it is highly probable that he had Mendonca's charts and records. Interesting how an island just off the coast near where the state boundaries of NSW and Victoria meet the sea is known as Gabo Island. 'Gabo' being Portuguese for 'cape', and a very distinctive cape existing adjacent to that island.

Cook's landfall in 1770 being made significantly to the north of Gabo Island avoided any necessary implication that Britain had had Portuguese help in finding New Zealand and, subsequently, the east coast of Australia. That may have been diplomatically desirable, as otherwise Portugal could have been seen to have assisted her ally, Britain, in being able to claim land that, by the terms of the Treaty of Saragossa 'belonged' to Portugal's larger neighbour, Spain.

Ties of blood, and the Treaty of Windsor, with Britain proved stronger than ties of catholicism and loyalty to the papacy for Portugal. The suzerainty of the papacy with respect to this 'discovery' had been dismissively snubbed by Britain by what Cook did next. He only claimed the eastern part of Australia west to approximately the anti-meridional line of the Treaty of Saragossa! Doing so avoided any hint of a diplomatic slight to Portugal, Britains oldest ally, with respect to the western part of the Australian continent, still conceivably notionally Portugal's 'area of interest'.

Portugal had unobtrusively given away Spanish land to Britain, and perhaps worse, in the eyes of some, removed that land from the sphere of potential papal influence. Britain cared nothing for Rome.

Other things had also happened in 1521. Martin Luther had nailed 95 theses to a cathedral door. The Reformation once started was effectively secured by England's Henry VIII, "Rome's" Defender of the Faith!

haven't you noticed? you can talk all want, but you can do nothing.

citizens of democracy, talk, decide, and pass referenda establishing the laws and plans and policies of their society.

subjects of her majesty just talk. the talk is barren.

Demos,
Yes I agree, what we really need is Citizen Iniated Referenda but that won't happen because it means the politicians would loose some of their power.

Going to the war in Iraq would have been a good thing to vote on and I would love to have a vote on selling off the electricity system in NSW. It would be good to have a say on how much immigration and if we should reintroduce the death penalty for heinous crimes.

That would be true democracy.

As the author of a best-selling book attacking Martin Luther and supporting the Roman Catholic church, in 1521 Henry VIII had been given the title 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope. The Papacy saw Henry as "its" man.

Henry VIII was very much his own man, with a lineage stretching back further than that which the Papacy could claim.

Then Henry turned.

Rome never forgave it.

The thing that was so unforgivable was that Henry had broken Rome's monopoly of, or perhaps more correctly suppresion of, the scriptures. Not that he had done much to encourage translation and printing, but he effectively created a market for bibles printed in English. His 'chained bible' edict required the provision of a copy in every church throughout the realm. The funding of this to be split 50/50 between the pastor and his congregation.

Worse than that, this was done on an island notoriously difficult to invade.

Henry had laid the foundation for mass literacy, relatively speaking, amongst the English populace. It was a very significant step toward the fulfilment of William Tyndale's solemn pledge "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope". So, by and large, in Britain it pretty much proved to be over the next three centuries.

By the latter half of the nineteenth century, Roman Catholicism, and the Papacy as its centre of power and influence, was pretty much on the skids. The world map of its nominal adherency was pretty much the map of world poverty and governmental corruption. The more widespread and genuine the adherency, the deeper the poverty, and the greater the civic corruption.

This was all Britain's fault, of course. Rome had come to truly hate the crown of St Edward!

By the 1880s, the Papacy had had an idea. Embracing freedom of access to the bible had worked for Henry VIII. If you can't lick 'em, join 'em! A Papal Encyclical, On the Study of Holy Scripture, soon followed.

SANCTUM PROFUMO ERRATUM

(Holy Smoke, an Error!)

Whereas We have formerly discoursed, in the 32nd post to this thread, upon the voyaging of our Portuguese adherent Cristovao de Mendonca in the Year of Grace 1521 to as then unknown lands, and said:

"..., mapped a then unknown coastline, and more than likely spent a season whaling in Pelorus Jack's old stamping ground."

what might, but for Our infallibility, be said to be an error has been promulgated.

Truly, it is a confusion of pelagic proportions. We have mixed our cetaceans! The cetacean in Our mind at the time of Our first writing was really 'Old Tom', an Orca (killer whale) that once lived in the sea near Eden, near to which place is another called Bitangabbie Bay, on the coast of Magnum Terra Australis Espiritum Sanctum.

'Pelorus Jack' having been a dolphin that formerly lived in Cook Strait, that body of water between the northern island of Novae Zealandiea and Shebangabang, that land on the other side of the said Strait, and being in no way meant as the proper subject of Our earlier discourse.

The doubly confusing thing being that Cristovao, or at least one of his three ships, did sail at that time upon the seas that surround Shebangabang, but took no whales there.

Forrest

These Encyclicals of old Leo XIII get to one, don't they?

The Papal Encyclical 'Providentissimus Deus' (On the Study of Holy Scripture) dated November 18, 1893 could be taken as an apparent indicator of a change in direction on the part of the Vatican. The change being in the direction of apparent agreement to co-exist with the outworkings of the Reformation, perhaps particularly those that had manifested throughout the dominion of the English-speaking peoples.

That encyclical could almost be taken as hinting at scripture being recognised as authoritative!

Given the slow speed of change within the institution of Roman Catholicism, it would have to be assumed that if there had been in fact any change, it would have to have been contemplated and examined over quite some time prior to the issue of such an encyclical, and have been tailored to be consistent with Vatican policy in other areas.

Perhaps a good cross check for evidence confirming real change would be to examine Vatican policy with respect to Church - State relationships.

The view of the Vatican, speaking with respect to the relationship of Church to State in Portugal in 1886, was expressed very clearly in the Papal Encyclical 'Pergrata' (On the Church in Portugal). It stated, inter alia, "The state must always be governed under the leadership and guidance of this same religion. If this is done wisely, then the government will conform to the genius, the character, and the will of the people. For the Catholic faith is the legitimate religion of Portugal. Therefore it is entirely fitting that it be defended by the protection of the law and the authority of the state officials, and that its safety, continuance, and honor be publicly assured. Let its freedom and action legitimately lie in the political as well as ecclesiastical Power."

And if that is not clear enough, this: "..... [Portuguese] ecclesiastical authorities should realize that the rulers of the state can and ought to trust them; nor should the ecclesiastical rulers accept a cause, such as retaining laws, which the interests of the Church do not want retained."

One would imagine this view applied to Portuguese (or Spanish) possessions.

By the latter half of the 19th century, Britain's empire was at its zenith, and the United States (the 'English', as the Amish call them) was a latent world power in its own right. Britain's Australian colonies (now encompassing the entire continent once notionally divided between Portugal and Spain), collectively, by the 1890s enjoyed, per capita, the highest material standard of living in the world. Overall, Henry the 8th's legacy seemed to have stood the English-speaking peoples in good stead. There was effective separation of Church from State throughout, and democracy had become established as the natural political condition.

The same century saw Spain's empire fragment, anti-clericalism rise in France, Italy, and Portugal, and Prussia shade Austria. Pretty much all that the Vatican could look forward to being able to count upon as a power base was its Swiss Guards! Britain would have to be slowed down, somehow, or taken over, if the Holy See was to merely survive, let alone ever again wield the temporal power it had before the Reformation.

What to do?

Accepting the reality of democracy as the natural political condition of the English-speaking peoples meant that the Vatican had to either obtain the support of an existing political party popular enough to win government, or sponsor the creation and growth of a new one malleable to Vatican desires that could one day do so, if it wished to exercise the degree of political control it clearly felt was its due. In a British Dominion it would have been unlikely that the first option would have been achievable, or even the second if its sponsorship or favourable disposition with respect to Rome was to be openly known or provable.

Throughout the latter decades of the 1900s, promotion of the adoption of a new representational vehicle to be superimposed upon the pre-existing representational structure in Australia was either a heaven-sent opportunity for Rome, or a stroke of genius, depending on its true origins.

Federation!

One government to influence in place of six!

Party time!

FOXY and RUNNER.. please read Forests most informative posts.

Good Grief Forrest.... I've just read all your lengthy and informative posts and my jaw is still dangling :)

Great effort mate..and kind thanx for the educational experience.

Now.. if I can summ it up... your saying that the Vatican is behind a lot of or all/most of the political changes which we are seeing?

Now.. I've read enough 'conspiracy' theory books to be able to tell woffle from history, and your posts seem to have reasonable credibility.

There is a point of course where one begins to argue more from silence than confirmable information..and that's where my eyes tend to glaze over...haven't reached that point yet.

But the fact that you linked your position to so much history and so far back.. makes me hope you are always on 'my' side :)

You must be either a history buff and a mainlining wiki addict or a professor of something eh :)

If you see the Vatican behind a lot of this, it does not mean we cannot fight it with means at our disposal.

I am increasingly (if that be possible) concerned about where certain elements in our community wish to take us.
This applies equally to various religious based cultures.
-Islam
-Sikhism
-Hinduism

Today.. it is "If we cannot wear our Kirpan it is discrimination"
Tomorrow it is "We don't like the character being portrayed thus in that movie..CHANGE the script"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Sikhs_force_change_in_Akshay_starrer/articleshow/3124902.cms

Today it is "But you believe in diversity don't you? so we can hold our prayers in this public place"
Tomorrow it is "We now want to broadcast our call to prayer 5 times a day from every local mosque"

Forest.. join my team :) I hereby appoint you 'History Expert'.

In Melbourne?

P.S. to Forest.. we CAN make a difference mate.. we surely can.

But one must be 'smart' about how one does it :)

Maximize Impact with minimal effort... I call it Political Aikido....

If you don't quite get what I mean.. ponder this video and you will see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5dDwzwb3-8

Polycarp,

You say:

"Now.. if I can summ it up... your saying that the Vatican is behind a lot of or all/most of the political changes which we are seeing?"

No.

What I am saying is that the Vatican is saying the Vatican is behind ..... etc. Its all in the encyclicals.

Natural persons have heirs, to whom they bequeath a heritage, be it rich or poor, according to how they have been able to utilize what they themselves inherited, and so it continues into the future.

By contrast 'the Vatican' over time has been, and at any given time is, an entity comprised of persons in mandatory denial of their true nature, who have no heirs of their own. Their children are their dogmas; their heritage one of control and the same dogmas. In circumstances where they have insufficient obedient adherents to be able to dictate affairs of state in a democracy, they must resort to deception in order to exert the political influence they feel is their entitlement.

By the very nature of democracy, the obtaining of influence by deception must centre around the advancement of deceptive candidacy and/or the undetected manipulation of the mechanics of the electoral process.

The reason we are seeing all/most of the political changes we now do is because we, the entire Australian community, have remained unaware of the mechanism(s) by which a genuine electoral 'No' can be, and has been, changed into an apparent electoral 'Yes'. And I mean long term. Line on line. Here a little, there a little. Over more than a century.

Now as to my being any sort of 'history expert', I can only commend the answer of the author (of Shogun, Tai-pan, etc.) James Clavell to the question "How do you get all the historical background for your novels in more detail than many historians?":

"I read the same books they do."

Coming from another direction, you may find the comments on this article relevant if you have not seen them already. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725&page=0

Polycarp,

Isn't there some Forum rule about not diverting a discussion from the General Discussion area of the Forum to the Article Discussions?

Have a look at this new article: 'Holy victuals bitter sweet for Great Southern Land' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7854&page=0

Has part of the content of this thread been gazumped, or what?

Or has a hit been scored in the magazine?

Sorry about the delay in making my serial posts, but the next ones require the utmost precision in expression, and the words have not yet come.

But I think they soon might.

The existence of democracy implies that there must be, periodically, elections.

In Australia, from 1856, the mechanics of elections came to be influenced by a new development: the Australian, or secret, ballot. It was developed by Henry Samuel Chapman, the barrister that had won the acquittals of the Eureka 'rebels' two years earlier. It was to eventually spread, in one form or another, to most other democracies.

If there was one thing the Vatican understood, by virtue of hundreds of years accumulated experience at running an extremely centralised system of control, it was the value of secrecy. And it would have been privvy to many secrets of the world around it via the confessional, a one way street for information of potential use in furthering the interests of the Church, even if direct action was eventually taken at one or more removes therefrom, and the literality of the confidences were seemingly not breached. Promotion and preservation of the 'benefit of clergy', for those who effectively became accomplices after the fact through hearing some confessions, was a core interest of the Vatican.

As it so happened, the latter decades of the 19th century saw the formation of a new political force: labour, or social democratic, parties. These parties had obviously and genuinely believable entirely secular origins, and potentially wide appeal to voters. Again, so far as Vatican interests were concerned, a heaven-sent opportunity or a stroke of genius, depending upon the true origin of the impetus that established those political movements.

The secret ballot facilitated the holding of free elections: the right of choice amongst candidates for any elected office without the elector being exposed to coercion or retribution on the part of any candidate or pressure group. If the integrity of the secret ballot was maintained, it certainly delivered these benefits.

By the same token, if the integrity of the secret ballot could once be breached, by its very nature it more or less ensured that any abuse perpetrated would likely remain undetected, but even if discovered, that the perpetrators of those abuses would almost certainly remain unidentifiable.

Hi Forest.. Ok.. interesting information but the last post about the integrity of the secret ballot is getting into rather speculative territory which does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

If you are suggesting that 'ballot outcomes/boxes are rigged' then please say so.. that we can have something definite to grasp.

The origins of social democratic parties.. now that's a different story, and I don't know much about that field..have not read much, but... I take the obvious point that IF they were begun with Vatican sting pulling behind the scenes..and indirect vatical control by their influence on large numbers of Catholic voters.. well you would need to show some very tangible evidence of this.

In the mean time.. please apply your broad thinking to the 'Some dog owners' thread :