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...