Very few people in Australia would like to see Australia either become a theocracy or give no consideration to religious belief. I would like to see the Australian government neither promote nor suppress religion. Government should provide chaplains for those in the armed forces, in prisons or in other places where they do not have access to the services of their religion due to government action. Chaplains in parliament or public schools are unnecessary as politicians and students have access to religious services. I am against any religious teachings in public schools except for studies in comparative religion or a study of a religion that is not the student’s religion. I am against government funding of religious schools or exempting profit-making religious owned facilities from taxation. I favour recognizing the confidentiality of communications to clergy. Conscientious objection to military service should be granted to those judged sincere in their beliefs whether or not the belief is religiously based.

Where would you draw the line between religion and state?

Dear David,

In 1981 The High Court determined that there is in
fact no constitutional separation of church and state
in Australia.

We have a queen, who's the Head of the Church of England,
Our Governor-General swore allegiance to Her. Prior to the
current Governor-General we had one who was an ordained
minister.

We have government funding for religious schools. There are
religious references in statutory oaths and pledges.
We have parliamentary prayers. We have State support for religious
institutions and personel. There are tax advantages for
religious institutions. So, the separation of church and
state in this country is largely a myth.

Perhaps it would be wise for us to first become a Republic,
and then discuss the separation of church and state?

Because at the moment, constitutionally, separation does not exist.
And never will, for as long as the Queen (and Head of the
Church of England) remains as our country's Head of State.
Church and State will continue to be entwined.

davidf

'I am against any religious teachings in public schools except for studies in comparative religion or a study of a religion that is not the student’s religion.'

I am against money going into secular schools because they have produced heaps of bad fruit. It just so happens that numerous secular people agree with me or at least vote with their feet in sending their kids to religous schools.

Secularism is not neutral and holds as many dogmas if not more than most religions. Your suggestion that the Private schools not be funded when parents of these private schools heavily subsidies the dogmas of State schools is discriminatory.

You show how bigoted secular people can be in trying to deny children a decent education.

Runner wrote:

"You show how bigoted secular people can be in trying to deny children a decent education."

Dear Runner,

I want very much for children to have a decent education. The money spent funding the religious schools can go into the public system. If parents want their children to have a religious education they should not be able to use tax payer funds to do it.

In the United States racial segregation in the public schools was outlawed. Religious segregation is no better. Children mixing with children of different religious and cultural backgrounds will be likely to grow up less prejudiced. In 1952 the US desegegrated the schools. In 2008 a black president was elected in a mostly white country. The events are related.

To continue segregation private religious schools were set up in the US which were not tax funded. Christians were racial bigots in that case. The heaviest vote against Obama was in the US Bible belt. Christianity and bigotry have been partners in the US.

davidf

You fail to acknowledge that parents of private school students pay taxes as well as school fees. They in fact save Governments a lot of money. You also fail to acknowledge the failure of the secular system that has led multitudes of tax payers to exit their children due to the rotten fruit. Your accusation of Christians being racist bigots is incredibly naive. You obviously don't know what you are talking about or you have redefined the meaning. The vast majority of churches are filled with people from all nations who get along better than most. It is in your secular schools you are far more likely to find bigotry. You are either blind or dishonest.

Dear Runner,

I am neither blind nor dishonest. When the civil rights movement in the US got underway Martin Luther King Jr. noted that the most segregated hour in the United States was Sunday morning when white and black went to their separate churches. The African Methodist Episcopal church was founded for blacks because blacks were not allowed in white churches. The largest Protestant denomination in the US is the Southern Baptists. They split from the other Baptists before the Civil War because they were in favour of slavery. It is a fact that Christian religious school were set up to avoid mixing their children with black children after the US Supreme Court desegregated the schools. Although Christians have supported civil rights in the United States some at the cost of their lives more Christians have supported racial bigotry. It is also a fact that fundamentalist Christianity has supported racism. Runner, calling me names will not change the fact of massive Christian bigotry in the United States. I certainly wish it were not that way.

Dear Runner,

People with no children also pay taxes. We pay taxes to support the general good. People have the right not to use the public schools. However, I don't believe it is fair to have other people support them in that choice by their taxes.

I think a key, if not the key purpose of education, is to encourage people to think, ask questions and develop a love for learning. That can last one all one's life and make one's life a great joy. If people want religion that is their choice, but they should also know there are alternatives. I know old people who are at a loss because they have not developed the capacity to learn new things. My excellent education in the US public schools have given me that love, and I appreciate my education.

One big reason the public schools are not better in Australia is because money is taken away to support religious schools.

davidf
'One big reason the public schools are not better in Australia is because money is taken away to support religious schools.'

That statement is absolute rubbish. It is the same as saying the enormous issues among our aboriginal people is due to not enough money being thrown at the problems. The system is what is broken, not a lack of cash. The secular philosophy has been tried, tested and failed miserably. Many State schools are simply child minding places that are products of their own philosophies.

The simple fact is that if private schools did not exist the tax payer would be forking out a lot more than they do now. Parents work second jobs and pay taxes in order to give kids private schooling. Private schools have flourished because State schools have failed.

Your selective slant on private schooling history paints a dishonest picture. Here in Australia the aboriginals were often treated as second class citizens due to secular (evolutionary) teaching. Some 'enlightened' scientist even thought they had found the 'missing link'. No wonder their was so much racism with this sort of ignorance. Of course scientist soon had to change their dogmas but the damage had been done.

You will find that most hospitals and educational institutions were started by Christians. I know that this is an uncomfortable fact for you.

I acknowledge just like the secular world, different churches have displayed bigotry throughout history. Trying to pretend that somehow private schools encourage more bigotry than state schools is deceitful. With strong evolutionist such as Marx and Hitler (believing strongly in the survival of the fittest) it is a bit rich that you you select pieces of history to fit your dogmas.

From a medical perspective, the pope is clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur and they are a cult of personality. I don't think we need to go into this overly as most "reasonable" people accept this.

The problem with the expression of his delusions is that he has no respect for others, assumably becoz only he is right, as he is the one guided by the Divine?

So, what we have is an organisation that thinks it has the right to tell others whom they may Luv and partner and the nature of that partnership, and our beautiful woman apparently do not have the right to determine matters pertaining to their own bodies, as these too are somehow under the jurisdiction of the megalomaniac in Rome.

" ... Keep yr rosaries of OUR ovaries. ... "

U do know, don't u all, that some people will fight and kill over issues such as this?

I am firmly opposed to letting these sycophants anywhere near children.

How does it go? "We are so Holy, it can't be wrong, it feels good to me, surely the child will enjoy it too .. <SCRRREEEAAAAMMM> no, no, the child needs to disciplined, for it cannot be that we are wrong ... "

And he warns prez elect bazza we are told. For their cover ups of abuse they should be cast down, incarcerated and stripped of their assets.

yes i agree to religion in schools as i am aboriginal and converted to islam 8years ago.my eldest child was removed by wealfear 7years ago after they seen me keen on islamic studys.since my family have care of my child they(the goverment put layla in a catholic school wich left my child confused and she outright refused to pray and was suspended because she told them i am muslim ,and my mum covers.layla was then placed in a public school, and put her self in islamic scripture.and has a good understanding of the islamic faith.
let the children be children and if they love you thay will follow in your footsteps.kind regards nardia.

And what else do we hear from the Katolik?
OH yes, why the earth strains under the load of excess population, the moron says to the Euros, breed up. ..??..

And whilst some struggle under the burden of disease he says, no contraception.

"AIDS kills do'nt b silly, put a frangar on yr willy."

So many children starving and dieing, who could be preserved at a ratio of 10:1 at least 1st world prices to 3rd world, but no, dribble and idiocy.

And then, by co-incidence if nothing else, the Hahn Red Chinese barbecue a priest.

While I am not a fan of the pope at least he has the commonsense and basic scientific knowledge to know that an unborn baby should not be murdered. As for his problems with homosexual priests who molest boys he should of dealt with them a lot more severely a long time ago just like the secular united nations should of dealt with their child rapist a long time ago.

Nature "naturally" terminates some pregnancies as ur no doubt aware? If u claim "common sense & science" then u wld also no doubt b aware that there are many instances when the mother's life ought not b risked so the medical waste bucket it is. And of course, if its 2 b the bucket and if under a monthly age threshold, then some harvesting for science seems fine to me, providing strict public and peer transparency review mechanisms are in place.

It is ultimately in my view an issue of the RIGHT to choose of the individual concerned. It is not El Goddo i.m.o. who seeks to subvert and dominate the "I" of others, but rather the .. hmmm ... what's the word?

Homosexual? I think that wld not b an accurate reflection. Rather jumped up little cowards who have gone quite potty for lack of "normal" sexual release and turned into child rapists. I'm reasonably sure that yng girls do not escape their ministry either.

No, the gays in the church probably do a bit of poofing on the sly as is their right as mature consenting adults.

Whilst it is true that sex and drugs are out of control, particularly in the non religious schools, this to me is simply an issue of underfunding which leads to excessive class sizes, lack of security and not enuff teachers.

Yes, they deal prolifically in dexies, weed from their siblings etc etc and play freely with one another as they bodies bloom and mature. As a matter of sex education, I suspect that if certain STD's have become prolific it is becoz the kids don't have access to sanitation after their adventures and are sitting around going crusty thruout the day.

As an ex methodist school boy myself, I wld never as 1st option ever send a child under my care to a religious school. And note, we always most looked 4ward to socials with the catholic girls, as the repressed catholics were always much more interested in being liberated from bondage. Sweeet.

;-)

Dear David,
I will put a cat amongst your pigeons . A black christian was accepted into a northern American Baptist university and on sunday he went to the local baptist church for the morning service and the ushers removed him . Sitting on the gutter crying he asked "why Lord Why". And the Lord answered with these words." don't worry my child they threw me out also".
I do not think you have any idea Who or what a christian is . Our Lord said these words in the book of Matthew,speaking of the kingdom of God "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad way that leads to distruction, and there are many who go in by it". "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
So you can see from those words few find the way for only God gets you into his kingdom . Not going to church. not being a good boy and earning brownie points or trying to convince people for it is up to God. All we can do is stop running away, Turn back to God and seek him with all your heart for the rest is up to God.
My daughter teaches in a christian school and a % of the children are dropouts that other schools put in the too hard basket.
Where would you place these children and What is your experiancial qualifications.

David f

I note the details in your first post where I am reminded of a vigorous debate which took place in the 60's.

The details are hazy, however, it appears that recurrent government grants to private and religious based schools were about to cease or be drastically reduced.

A bi-partisan decision by outraged parents of all private school pupils threatened the government that on a specific Monday, every private school student in the state would arrive at a state school for tuition.

The debate fizzled out very quickly.

Cheers

*Dickie + Richie 10*

Consider this. Bible bashers of all varieties, whether they b Muslim, Hindu or otherwise have in my experience a number of things in common. Firstly, they are all quite convinced that only they have the "truth" and secondly have a propensity to want to tell other people what to do.

Now, if u personally want to have a God concept that's fine, but don't try and force yr views upon others and most especially not children, for verily they are not as yet sufficiently mature to make a reasonable determination for themselves.

Parents all want their kids to have the best and when funds are removed in toto from religious bigots and children are protected from simplistic myopic indoctrination then I am reasonably sure that the world will b a more harmonious place.

As for the political churches and their arguable aiding and albeting in breaches of the Genocide Convention Act and also their alleged cover up of sexual abuse, legally speaking, off with their heads.

Dream on Which part my post offended you, was it the part where I said the church in U S A can be racial, or was it that God still speaks to individuals, or quoting Jesus words or the fact that christian schools are often the only place of last resort for parents of children with behavioural problems . Please tell me or else I am at loss to understand what is ofensive .

"You will find that most hospitals and educational institutions were started by Christians. I know that this is an uncomfortable fact for you."

This is *not* a fact.

Hospitals were a product of the military and schools, of the industrial revolution.

That is not to deny the good work that has been done in both of these areas by the religious. - Which raises another problem continually present in this discussion - that of xians speaking as though xianity were synonymous with religion - whereas, of course, religion is much bigger than xianity.

The 'fact' is - if you wish to speak about facts - that there is not a single piece of evidence for the existence of even on god - let alone the hundreds claimed by various religions throughout history.

Another 'fact' is that the younger the mind, the more malleable - and vulnerable to manipulation - it is. Indoctrinating children into any religious belief is therefore one of the most unconscionable and insidiously pernicious things that can be done to them - and this is what most religious schools do, and in *facct* why they are established.

Quite regardless of who should provide funding for such institutions - and it should certainly not be the state - the reality is that they should not exist at all - they are a crime against children.

The human race - even in a form that we recognise as such - is now some thousands of years old. Religious belief is nothing more than primitive superstition and, as such, had an understandable role as human beings attempted to interpret their world and surroundings. Today, we can split the atom, know that even the hardest rock is essentially full of holes, and that 'heaven' isn't just above the clouds - as Yuri Gagarin said: "There isn't any god up here"

Let's grow up - it's long past time.

mikisdad,
Said, "Hospitals were a product of the military and schools, of the industrial revolution".

Florence Nightingale a devout Christian began the work of caring for the wounded. Though medical practise though primitive is as old as mankind. Originally schools were religious training in reading and interpreting religious test and have existed for thousands of years. The first printing press was made to print Bibles, and the first ipod was developed for the Bible Society to listen to religious text in many language. However every culture has educated their children in the values and principles of the culture. The basis of all culture is formulated upon religious principles, even secularism

>>The basis of all culture is formulated upon religious principles, even secularism<<

¿qué?

I must have been misusing the term all these years, if secularism is "formulated upon religious principles".

First of all, how do you "formulate" secularism?

It is of course true that without religion, the word would have no meaning, since it denotes an absence:

"1. Religious skepticism or indifference
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education." (Answers.com)

But the concept of formulating this view "upon religious principles" is stretching the language well past breaking point.

>>Florence Nightingale a devout Christian began the work of caring for the wounded.<<

"Began", Philo?

In what sense did Florence Nightingale - who was in fact more a hospital administrator than a nurse herself - "begin" the work of caring for the wounded?

Are you suggesting that before she arrived in Scutari, wounded soldiers were left unattended?

Make no mistake, she had a fine intelligence and was a caring person, but it would be wrong to attribute any of this to her Christianity.

>>Originally schools were religious training in reading and interpreting religious test (text?)<<

Don't think so.

Even the pupils at Woodlands Junior School knows better than that.

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/greece/schools.htm

>>The first printing press was made to print Bibles<<

Sorry, wrong again. Bi Sheng pioneered movable-type printing in China in the eleventh century, and certainly did not have Bibles in mind. Even the Gutenberg Bible was not the first book printed on the Gutenberg machine. It did not appear until 1454 or 1455, and Gutenberg had started printing around fifteen years earlier.

>>the first ipod was developed for the Bible Society to listen to religious text in many language<<

They really should tell this to Steve Jobs, as he is under the impression it was developed in his labs so that kids could play pop music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Rubinstein

Where do you get your information from Philo? Cornflake packets? Christmas crackers? The labels on communion wine?

I seem to recall one of the early tasks of the "euro" printing press was to print the Hexen Hammer (Witches Hammer) so that after the wretches in the vatican discovered actually women are often smarter than men and can be more than glorified cooking & _ucking machines, that all strong willed, free thinking women were hunted down and systematically tortured, slaughtered etc etc for which now the catholics pathetically try to deny responsibility.

As a favourite bi sexual friend of mine once said, u'll know the catholics have changed when they have a Blak female pope.

That was a very funny post from Philo - the claim about iPods in particular. I think Philo likes to use big words in order to try and impress people.

Somebody should tell him what they mean, but I suppose that'd spoil the fun.

... thanks Pericles, Dream On, and CJ Morgan ... you saved me te chore of having to respond to Philo's fantasies ... thank god there are some other rational beings out there - oh no, I can't can I? - Philo must have got to me - I forgot for a moment, there isn't one...

I note you falsely take me to task while mikisdad escapes censure.

I suggest you study Florence Nightingale and discover her motives based in her beliefs.

The motives for Education were the principles of Cultural and social survival - teach the children. Education is based in religious philosophy, that gives meaning to life and behaviour

I think the last few posters are becoming bogged down in a very very blurred set of issues.

The TOPIC as outlined by David F is this:

"Where would you draw the line?"

Very few people in Australia would like to see Australia either become a theocracy or give no consideration to religious belief. I would like to see the Australian government neither promote nor suppress religion.

That, I guess is David's line.

Sounds fair enough. But the dilemna here is also illustrated in the paragraph.

David does not want the state to 'promote' any religon. Good.. neither do I.

How does David feel about Mosques on State land?

For me..I'd draw the line at No State Land for ANY private (and definitely exclusive) religious structures.

I don't have a problem with the government providing a facility which is open to ALL people..including atheists, for reflection and meditation or prayer.

The issue of state financial assistance for private religous schools is one where the argument seems to be:

a)If the students were not in the private sector, the Government would still need to contribute/allow/budget for their educational cost.
b)Therefore.. it is not promoting a particular religion for them to make an equivalent contribution to the private schools, which they would be making anyway to the public educational budget.

IF....that is all that happens..I don't have a problem with that.. as it must be an even handed approach across all religious schools.

BUT..if the proportion of state funding for students in private religious schools is proportionately higher than that for a state education...then it is ethically wrong.

There will always be a dynamic cultural/electoral struggle (perhaps not even conscious) for a re-shaping of government policy toward a more secular or more religious position depending on the demographic/spiritual realities of the community.

But Poly, what's your position on Ipods? Secular technology or religious relic?

Dear Polycarp,

I oppose state land being used for a religious facility except for those in the armed forces or other government service where they cannot attend their ordinary religious services. I feel the same about mosques as I do about churches, synagogues or other religious edifices.

Polycarp wrote:

“a)If the students were not in the private sector, the Government would still need to contribute/allow/budget for their educational cost.
b)Therefore.. it is not promoting a particular religion for them to make an equivalent contribution to the private schools, which they would be making anyway to the public educational budget.”

David wrote:

I don’t see your logic. It’s not a matter of budget. In a private religious school the government is subsidizing religious indoctrination and is thereby promoting religion. Whether it is a particular religion or several is immaterial.

Polycarp wrote:

There will always be a dynamic cultural/electoral struggle (perhaps not even conscious) for a re-shaping of government policy toward a more secular or more religious position depending on the demographic/spiritual realities of the community.

David wrote:

The above is the reality and is well-expressed..

Private religious schools limit contact with students whose religious backgrounds are different. The hope is that students will not be exposed to other ideas and will be less likely to marry those who do not share their faith.

I see a virtue in students of different backgrounds mixing.

I think religious schools vary widely in quality of teaching and physical plant depending on whether a prosperous community such as the Anglican or a less prosperous community operates the school.

My wife went to St. Peters in Brisbane. She was upset when the headmaster advocated voting for John Howard since the school ‘urgently needs a new performance centre.”

When Howard introduced the GST he expected a bishop’s letter from the Catholic Church opposing it on the grounds that it is a regressive tax. He announced $400,000,000 additional for Catholic schools, and no letter was forthcoming.

The present system of funding allows the government to use school funding as an instrument of political influence.

Just out of interest, on whose land are existing churches built?

>>For me..I'd draw the line at No State Land for ANY private (and definitely exclusive) religious structures.<<

From my - admittedly limited - understanding of these matters, I thought that the land was granted to the Church by the Crown.

So if the idea is to ban all future grants of land for religious purposes, what should be done about those granted in the past?

Repossessed, perhaps?

Just tripped over a document that appears to bear out my theory.

>>WHEREAS by a deed of grant from the Crown numbered
12528 all that piece or parcel of land in the State, containing 1
ac, situated in the county of Stanley, parish of North Brisbane,
City of Brisbane, being allotment 1 of section 27A and more
particularly described in the said deed of grant, was granted to
John Douglas Richard Fitzgerald Phelan and the Reverend
Bowyer Edward Shaw and the survivors and survivor of them
and his heirs for ever upon trust for the appropriation thereof
for Church of England purposes and for no other purposes
whatsoever, which said land is now held under certificate of
title number 138235.<<

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/A/AllSaintsChA24.pdf

So, what's the story?

Presumably, given that the government needs to be seen to be scrupulously fair, we should encourage them to allow the erection of religious buildings to other faiths, until such time as there is an equal number of those as there are of of Church of England, Anglican, Roman Catholic etc...

Sound reasonable?

David..I can see your reasoning regarding the use of Tax dollars toward religious schools and 'indoctrination'..but I don't feel it holds weight because the policy is for ALL religious schools. The constitution only forbids the promotion of one over others from my reading.

The 400,000,000 for Catholic schools seems to me a bit of political convenience, and forms part of that dynamic struggle. When State and Church become co-dependant....that is a likely result.

Pericles:

Once land is given by the Crown.... it is given. It is no longer crown land no? If it remains crown land in the legal sense.. then I would oppose constructing church buildings on it.

However.. when land REMAINS crown land/State land and specific and exclusive religious buildings are erected on it.. that is where the line has been crossed in my view.

You probably have more exposure to the more organized and formal Anglican/Catholic traditions. They have been closely tied to the State over many years.
The Biblical idea of "Church" is a body of people..not a building.
Buildings for worship should always be built in privately owned land.. where that land is owned by a trust, not individuals.

In such a case there is never an issue of who's land it is..but obviously it is not 'state' land in the legal sense related to the point I raised.

Polycarp wrote:

David..I can see your reasoning regarding the use of Tax dollars toward religious schools and 'indoctrination'..but I don't feel it holds weight because the policy is for ALL religious schools. The constitution only forbids the promotion of one over others from my reading.

Dear Polycarp,

You could well be right. I am influenced by my American background in which the Supreme Court has been against government either promoting or suppressing religion.

Polycarp wrote:

"The Biblical idea of "Church" is a body of people..not a building."

The same word can be used for a physical structure or community of believers. However, since we have been discussing the building of an edifice on state land we are concerned with the former meaning.

You might have to explain this one a little more, Boaz, I'm feeling a little thick today.

>>Once land is given by the Crown.... it is given. It is no longer crown land no? If it remains crown land in the legal sense.. then I would oppose constructing church buildings on it.<<

There are really two parts to this comment of yours.

One is the "dog-in-the-manger" attitude, that says "what is done is done, now we can change the rules"

If it has been the custom in the past to allocate crown lands to religious groups for the purpose of constructing upon it a building to house worshippers, what is the logic behind ceasing this custom?

It wouldn't be (hushed whisper) because you don't want any mosques to be built, would it Boaz?

The second issue is that you misunderstand the underlying concept of the allocation.

The land is not "given", in the sense that you appear to use - there are restrictions. If, for example, it ceases to be used for the purpose for which it was allocated, it reverts to the Crown.

So, back to basics, I'm afraid.

If you object to the allocation of land today, to be used for religious purposes, would you also object to the continued use of previously, similarly allocated Crown land?

If not, on what grounds would you justify this contradictory position?

Pericles, I appear to have misunderstood your point.

I was assuming that the granting of crown land would be a grant of title.

I guess there is that type and also the type where it remains crown land, but can be used for a purpose permitted by the crown.

I've not yet gone into that in detail.

You don't need to use hushed whispers.. I am adamant.. that NO mosques should be built on State land. I don't worry so much about Churches in practice because they are not nursery's of of seditious ideas, nor are they likely to become so...but in PRINCIPLE.. Constantine showed where State/Church buddyship leads... and it was a downhill slide thereafter. So.. in principle.. it is far better to keep a TOTAL separation of Church dependance on, or State dependance on each other.

David F.. understood.

The issue of state financial assistance for private religous schools is one where the argument seems to be:

a)If the students were not in the private sector, the Government would still need to contribute/allow/budget for their educational cost.
b)Therefore.. it is not promoting a particular religion for them to make an equivalent contribution to the private schools, which they would be making anyway to the public educational budget.

... You miss the point - if the government funds private schools, it funds private agendas, in this case those of religious groups. It *is* therefore facilitating the promoting of those agendas - whether it does that for any group [which it doesn't] or not, is beside the point. Money diverted from the state system, also weakens that system so there is another reason that it shouldn't happen.

If the point of schooling is education [and I accept that that is debatable - socialisation is certainly more precisely what it achieves] then what we need is as objective and unbiased a system as possible. At present, that is what the state attempts to provide.

Those that are not satisfied with that schooling- and the notion that private schooling is somehow 'better' educationally is false - can currently use alternatives - but they should fund them.

Ideally, I would argue, it should not be possible for religious schooling to be inflicted on childdren at all - but that's another topic

Could someone explain to me how the crown became the state and was money exchanged or did the state just cancel the crown title .

Quite correct, Boaz.

>>Pericles, I appear to have misunderstood your point.<<

But now that you do understand it, it would be courteous if you attempted an answer to the question I posed:

>>If you object to the allocation of land today, to be used for religious purposes, would you also object to the continued use of previously, similarly allocated Crown land? If not, on what grounds would you justify this contradictory position?<<

You made your position clear, but failed to provide a reason.

>>I am adamant.. that NO mosques should be built on State land.<<

I have suggested, on numerous occasions and with reams of examples from your posts here, that this is nothing more than knee-jerk whack-a-mozzie prejudice against Muslims.

You inevitably complain that I am being unfair to you.

But once again, you have made a clear and unequivocal statement that you consider the religion of others to be somehow inferior to yours, and thus deserving of none of the favours and special treatment that governments have provided your lot, over the centuries.

You cannot, on the one hand, profess that you have "nothing against Muslims individually", but on the other deny them the opportunity to practise their religion under the same conditions that you feel entitled to.

Well, you can. But some unkind souls might then be able to draw unfavourable conclusions about whether you are being consistent in your application of logic.

Richie 10 wrote:

Could someone explain to me how the crown became the state and was money exchanged or did the state just cancel the crown title .

Dear Richie 10,

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole. Thus the 'bench' is not only what the judge sits on, but a word that also means our entire court system. In the prayer 'Give us this day our daily bread' bread represents all the food we eat. Since Australia is not a republic and the crown is the synecdoche for the government of the UK it is also the synecdoche for Australia.

Aaah.. ok Pericles I see the question now.

Intersting point. I suppose that at that time, given the colonial situation such grants form part of our historical tradition.

It seems to me that the allocation of land in your example is more a 'caviat' on land granted to a title. "No trees shall be cut down"...that kind of thing.

The land is granted to them..and their heirs forever.. with a purpose of it being used for Church of England purposes.

In that example, you can easily see what a bad precedent it is.

In my stance of opposition to such things, it does not mean it has never happened. At the time...1924..I doubt anyone would have questioned it as the Church and State were very close.

It would not bother me spiritually if the land was removed from perpetual trusteeship of the Anglican Church, though I'd feel a degree of sadness for the cultural pock mark it would make.

There is anothe aspect. I seriously doubt that it's status as a 'Church of England' use, would excluse non CofE people from visiting it.

My primary contention about the Mosque idea is that of it being discriminatory. But as a secondary point, I still feel that State land should not be used for private religious buildings.
Keep Church property and State property..separate.

" ... they are not nursery's of seditious ideas ... "

mmm .. SeditioN .. that's beautiful *bOAZy*
HaHaHa

I do find U often highly entertaining.
;-)

Why not take all the land back off them then and then re-distribute to all the different recognised denominations in Oz with an ongoing process of secular review?

Islam, like the footy & cricket stadiums are a great tool of pacification. U musn't in my view deny people to commune with their GoddO concept, or lack thereof for that matter as that is a sure prescription for social unrest and seriously pernicious.

I expect the likes of the red chinese will get theirs sooner or later because of this.

As for the so-called churches collusion with the crown in the forcible transference of children from one group to another in the instance of
"The Stolen Generation" and arguable breach of the
Genocide Convention Act,
legally speaking, off with their heads.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24675606-29277,00.html?from=public_rss