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?