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.