Dear Foxy,

«what this discussion is about - is what decisions the government will make regarding religious schools - and that we don't yet know.»

I was not aware that this is a gambling site (or else I wouldn't be here): gamblers wait passively, hoping for this or that horse, or this or that team to win. Here, I naively thought, we express our views on how things ought to be, rather than just wait and see how they turn out.

If your intention for this discussion was only to place bets on the legislation outcome, then why haven't you stated so from the beginning?

Foxy,

You said,

"Our laws are those enacted by the Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. We do not have a
separate stream of law derived from religious sources
that competes with or supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society."

then you said,

"As for laws regarding the Indigenous People?
Courts deal with these matters on a case by case bases -
not all courts comply - and our laws are generally ones
that do take precedence"

If you believe that our laws GENERALLY take precedence, but not at all times, then you are contradicting yourself and the laws of some Indigenous people can take precedence over Australian law in some circumstances.

Yuyutsu,

The title of this discussion should have given you
a clue. However, I did explain in my opening post
that I was interested in what posters thought
about the pending government decision - whose
outcomes we don't yet know as it has not been discussed
in Cabinet and is based on the recommendations of the
Ruddock Review - which we also don't know what that
contains.

I think that we've discussed things rather well here -
all things considered. However as I said - what the final
outcome will be - we don't yet know. All this may have
been a storm in a teacup as has been pointed out.

If you feel that you've entered this discussion by mistake
and under a false impression of some kind - then with all
due respect - I suggest that you leave immediately and not
waste any more time here. And in the future I would also
suggest that you ask all the relevant questions prior to
enter any discussion - so that you would not be mislead.
I did not intend to mislead anyone.

Dear Foxy,

Your reply still leaves me confused: sorry for not having asked it on the first page, but can you please tell me whether your intention was to discuss here what religious schools ought to be allowed or disallowed to do, or to only discuss the party-politics around it (which I personally could not care less about)?

Thank you in advance.

Yuyutsu,

Of course my intention was to discuss the rights of
religious schools in our secular state. I thought
that was fairly clear.

Is MIse,

I did say that regarding Indigenous People - common
law cases are dealt with on a case by case basis.
The outcomes still remain in the hands of our courts
and our judicial system.

Dear Foxy,

«Of course my intention was to discuss the rights of religious schools in our secular state»

Then why did you scold me, saying: "However, what this discussion is about - is what decisions the government will make regarding religious schools - and that we don't yet know.", when I discussed what these very rights ought to be?

What I get from your comment is that you only want to discuss what the government will eventually decide, rather than what it ought to decide.