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.