I do believe Boazy that the "founding fathers" as you put them made no mistake when they said religion but not specifying which one. This would be because those of the Muslim faith and of Buddhist (Chinese) have been a part of the cultural landscape for a long time, even before Federation.

The chinese have been a major part of our pearl industry and early gold mining history and they don't call the 'Ghan railway that for nothing you know.

But this part intrigued me:
"4/ Expressions of cultural difference should be managed, supervised and controlled such that they will not lead to outbursts of anti Australian sentiment. This could include:
a) Size and locations of houses of worship of non Christian traditions.
b) Numbers they are allowed to cater for.
c) Prohibition of ethnically based cultural societies (including 'English, Scottish, Irish)"

The more I thought about it, the more I thought it sounded like a Fascist manifesto. Seriously, any understanding of what the constitution was supposed to protect has totally passed you by. I suggest that you really think about what you are saying before you type it. Pericles is right, you are just a rabble rouser, but I do take heart in fact that if it weren't for the internet, then you you would never be listened to. You aren't an Al-qaeda troll are you? It all fits, the intimate knowledge of the Quran, the idiotic things said seemingly in support of christianity, which aren't very christian at all. Its all either very clever or very stupid, I can't tell yet.

The foundation of this country was on the premise of defending the country from the "yellow peril" and at the same time, some how upholding the virtues of a modern democracy. Founders such as Deakin (from the white Australia movement: ANA) and Parkes (well known megalomaniac) were not ashamed at all about their racist agendas.

Their only criticism came from the United Kingdom, which was more reserved about grotesque boldness in disharmony within the Empire; this is, between all races.

We missed having a Bill of Rights by virtue that the Tasmanian Premier missed the founding conference as he had a fever. He wanted a United States of Australia with a Bill of Rights. This would have given freedom of religion as well as the separation of religion and state. We were left with a compromise with Parkes and Deakin dominating the foundation.

Of course we need a Bill of Rights or a Charter of Rights. It is just a matter of completing the business of Federation, which was never sufficiently resolved.

Also David, you can never assume that a religion is necessarily imported. If we grow as insane as America, and Australia is following this insanity to the book, you will probably see a number of new religions sprout from within this country.

Like in America, you will see people worshipping nuclear bombs as sacred (I'm not even being satirical here), and Raolians who are waiting for the grey aliens from outer space to land. They even built a multi-million dollar landing pad for their convenience. This is not dissimilar to the Cargo Cult.

When you play with the constitution, you are not looking at the next decade or two; you have to look forward to a hundred years or so for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. The forefathers did their best, but all we have to do is complete the task. We don't need to take away religious freedom; we need to have it in writing, just in case.

Aime... I recognize your personal struggle, but if I may, it seems you began with your conclusion and ended up there also :) in spite of your obvious wide reading. I'm encouraged that you looked closely enough at Buddhism to realize is isn't a religion.. well done.

I can't dissuade you in my own strength, I can only pray, and seek the Lord about opening your heart further. I recommend a reading of Marks Gospel (for brevity/action movie style) and Matthews for detailed teaching, Lukes for connection to history and Johns for the deeper elements of compassion and love in the relationship between the believer and Christ.

Bugsy, yes I can see why my 'presciption' might be termed 'fascist' but I always thought fascism was more connected notions of racial superiority,purity and supremacy like Aryans etc.. I don't hold such views. I do hold very much to the idea of a 'dominant' or prevailing cultural situation, but that is only linked to race in a 'coincidence of history' rather than doctrinal way.

The reality is, I was simply relating the restrictions outlined in the Charter of Omar for "dhimmi's" i.e. Christians/Jews under Muslim rule, and putting that into a modern context.
You have now given me joy by recognizing that Islam is in fact Fascism :)

A healthy Church is one which lives by its creeds, and has the authority (by living its creeds) to be Salt and Light to any form of government or economic structure.

"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18.36

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" said Paul (Phil 3:20)

Because we (the Church) are not linked to earthtly movements for power, (in terms of the fundamentals of the Christian faith) we can stand back and criticise, encourage, advise, rebuke etc..in Gods name

Saintly.... your noting of the British concerns for Australia being linked to their basic self interest of keeping a lid on things in the Empire is astute. Yes, they cared little for the future of Australia, and more for their own money making/power expanding opportunities.

The British didn't care about the massive influx of Chinese to Australia, in fact they opposed any stop due to treaties they worked out with the Chinese ..probably due to guilt over the oppressive opium wars. Again.. its all national self interest at work.

Isaiah the prophet would have torn the British government to shreds over their dealing with China and then with Australia.
(read Isaiah 1)

Cheers boaz thanks for clearing that up.

Well spotted Bugsy.

>>The more I thought about it, the more I thought it sounded like a Fascist manifesto<<

Regrettably, Boaz takes this type of observation as a compliment.

Mind you, my mind is still boggling at this example of his chutzpah:

saintfletcher wrote:

>>The foundation of this country was on the premise of defending the country from the "yellow peril" and at the same time, some how upholding the virtues of a modern democracy. Founders such as Deakin (from the white Australia movement: ANA) and Parkes (well known megalomaniac) were not ashamed at all about their racist agendas. Their only criticism came from the United Kingdom, which was more reserved about grotesque boldness in disharmony within the Empire; this is, between all races<<

To which Boaz responds:

>>Saintly.... your noting of the British concerns for Australia being linked to their basic self interest of keeping a lid on things in the Empire is astute<<

Classic!