Dear Lexi,

You are right about article 109. I am wrong.

However, I don't think the chaplaincy program was set up by an act of parliament. I think it was an administrative act which was not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.

The national chaplaincy program was a copy of the one that had been set up by the Queensland government by Kevin Rudd when Wayne Goss was premier.

Dear David F.,

Thank You.

As far as the Chaplaincy program is concerned here's
the latest news:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/laws-for-chaplains-to-pass-this-week-20120625-20y8d.html?skin=text-only

Posted by david f, Monday, 25 June 2012 11:36:13 AM

" ... I disagree. Australia has neither freedom of religion or secular government ... "

It has a limited form of "freedom of religion" limited by state and federal law to the extent of any inconsistency.

*Lexi* (haven't you run away already?) has already been told why thhe Australian guvment cannot be considered secular, including but not limited to, its pathetic muttering of the dead Lord's prayer.

..

" ... For one thing the Constitution of Australia does not apply to state law. ... "

That appears to be a misunderstanding on your part *DavidF* The Con is partly a founding document, but one that could always be over ridden by another act of the pom parliament as evidenced by the Australia Act - which incidentally removed the provision from the Con judicial section on appeals to the Head of State in Council without a referendum. Thereafter, the Con specifically states what types of laws may be made by a state, and what kind of laws may be made by the commonwealth. Thus, not only does the Con apply to state law, but it does in fact define its jurisdiction.

..

Religious laws do have status if the law of a state or the commonwealth is one spawned of religious ideal. Thereafter, and as an example, one may be legally divorced, but they does not prevent you being excluded from a religious organisation such as Islam on the grounds that the husband did not give his wife his permission. Likewise, one may be excluded from the catholic community if they do not approve of your divorce, thus, to say as *Lexi* does that religious laws have no legal status is not entirely correct.

..

The marriage act is not part of the constitution but rather is a type of law that falls into a particular jurisdiction as defined by the Con.

Posted by Josephus, Monday, 25 June 2012 1:32:40 PM

" ... They do and will sue Churches if the Church refuse access to positions of ministry within the Church, or if homosexuality is identified as sin against God. Equally Priests who practise homosexual acts with minors or within the members of the Church must be excluded from ministry within the Church. ... "

As usual you do not know what you are talking about, and are clearly none too bright.

In the first instance, as of yet the tin pot law has not been changed to remove it's discrimination against gay people and until such time as a new law or modification of the existing one gets up it remains unknown.

That is not to say that the potential for suing the churches is not there, but it depends entirely on what form the new law takes.

However, given assurances to date from most of the politicians, it is highly unlikely to take a form that insists that all religions must put aside their own beliefs and marry gay people, but is much more likely to allow for civil weddings and willing religions to do so only.

Of course, any law is subject to potential re-interpretation and re-defining by the courts, and as politicians often cock things up with poor legal drafting for arguments sake, it is conceivable, if albeit unlikely, that a potential to sue could eventuate as a consequence.

..

Now, despite the teachings of the church of the rock spider, pedophilia is pedophilia and not a homosexual act. For example, bent priests have been known not only to get up little boys, but also little girls and maybe even the old chopper sow out the back.

DreamOn,
Please explain the difference of a young priest committing anal sex with a 14 year old boy and an 18 year old if both do not resist at the time?

Dear DreamOn,

No I haven't left yet - (not bored yet) and I
certainly won't now that you've come
on board - you lovely man.

Dear Josephus,

Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages
nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in
private whatever their inclinations, which are
none of your business.

As for the sexual abuse of
children by the clergy - start your own thread
on this topic - don't try to de-rail this one.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different topics.