As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my concern is first of all what is constitutionally applicable.
.
Howard, Rudd and other politicians are on the Christian bandwagon when it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia but are the right?
.
Consider this;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
.
States have their legislative powers to deal with religion where they see a need for this. The Commonwealth of Australia specifically was denied this legislative powers.
As such, I hold that the funding of any religion being directly or indirectly, including tax concessions/tax exemptions is unconstitutional. We should more worryy about having to make up the shortfal in taxation for the monies lost in unconstitutional tax-deductions/tax-exemptions!
.
As I published in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, "the Australian way of life" is that every person can practice his/her customs, religion, etc provided it is within relevant legal provisions. See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As such anyone who offend any law, under the excuse of religious customs, etc, simply would face sanctions under criminal law and it is not for us as Australians to become vigilantes against people merely because of their religious conduct and customs where they are acting within the confines of the law.
.
Those who are interested about what is being done wrong, and so in particularly by the politicians may wish to read up at my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH.
.
Basically let politicians really earn the monies they are being paid and we all will get a lot more peace and we can truly accept that we finally might be in good hands!
.

Gerrit... I appreciate your thorough research on this matter, but can you provide both sides of the historical coin ?

You have provided one part, which seems to be a 'reaction' against the suggestion that our country is Christian based, now.. can you show the part of the speech to which this person has reacted ?

Can you show evidence which will inform us about the 'prevailing political mood' re this question, rather than one single reaction against?

Thanx

Any links to sources will be appreciated.

Geritt...I read some of your blog, and came up with this:

Clause 109-A state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Actually, this is one of the most dangerous statements in our constitution.
I feel it is also evidence of the 'Christian' mindset of most of the founding fathers. Why ? simple. They clearly did not have in their minds the free exercise of a religion which would execute any follower who abandoned that faith. (Apostasy in Islam)

If the free exercise of any religion allowed for conduct which is out of our existing moral framework, and our legal framework, then, this suggests that either our moral or legal framework is unconstitutional because that framework prohibits the free exercise of Sharia law.

Do you see the problm here ?

In retrospect, we must also ask how, given your suggestion that the pre-amble might refer to 'any' Deity rather than the 'Heavenly Father' concept of Christianity, our parliament opens to this day with "Our Father, who art in Heaven".

Clearly, this custom, is a carry over from the prevailing mood and spiritual framework of our founding fathers, and reflects their own terms of reference for such statements as 116 and the preamble.

"Relying on the blessing of Almighty (the Christian) God"

How can parliament NOT make laws which hinder the free exercise of a religion which would seek to remove that very parliament and replace it with a Caliph and Sharia law?

It is therefore reasonable and in my view constitutional, to actually make laws which HINDER the free exercise of those elements of any religion which seek to undermine the religious freedom of others, or the integrity of the state itself.

David,

My blog has set out a lot of the material but my published books contain all relevant details. It would be impossible to put it all condensed in a post.

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
.
Meaning, that the Federal Parliament can legislate as to matters such as to outlaw certain practices provided it is done without being a religious overtone.
.
For example, It could legislate that all armed service personal must be clean-shaven because of needing to have proper protection using a gasmask. This would in itself be lawful, even so it may be deemed by certain religious followers to interfere with their religious practices not to shave a beard. If however, the Federal Parliament were to legislate that all Commonwealth public servants have to be clean shaven (OK exclude women-SMILE) then more then likely the Courts were to hold this to be unconstitutional because it may be directed against religious practices as it does not really serve any purpose otherwise, unlike soldiers safety using a gasmask for example.
As for the clause 109A regarding States that was not proceeded with and so States still can have the legislative powers to legislate as they like as to religious practices. It is only the commonwealth that cannot do so.
As for the opening of the House with a prayer, my blog shows some comments about this. I view this is and remains to be unconstitutional, as it offend Section 106 as to force non religious or people of different religions to follow the Christian religious conduct.

Free exercise of religious conduct/tradition is permitted for so long it doesn't conflict with statued law of State and/or Commonwealth, albeit the commonwealth law cannot be religious directed!

GERRIT...that was a good quote,and did fill in some gaps.

So, this would lead you to affirm that 'sedition' being outlawed, would cover any seditious aspects of particular religions, rather than outlawing the religion itself.

Ok..fair enough, but I still see a weakness there, and here it is.

"Mecca/Medina" phases. Muslims understand that during Mohammad's time in Mecca, prior to his running for his life to Mecca, he had no power, and very little influence. But once (in Medina) he gained this, things changed dramatically. He used that power for the advancement of his religion. Only then, did the true COLORS of the religion-which were always there, come to the fore.
He then began writing letters to world leaders, stating:

"If you embrace Islam, you and your property will be safe" which is clearly a not so veiled 'THREAT'.

That practice would be obviously seditious, but what was its foundation ? how could such a threat be made ? aah..only after what Muslims will describe as a "Period of consolidation and personal Jihad, building up the community in readiness for the 'Medina' phase.
Such things are found in text books studied by Muslim students in Victoria and were presented as evidence in the 2 Dannies trial.

All I'm saying, is that its not as simple as outlawing 'practices' rather than a religion or ideology, because to neglect the ultimate goal of a particular ideology, whether it be Marxism, National Socialism or Islam is to do so to our peril however well intended the constitutional fathers may have been.

Our laws are based around the divine one whether we like it or not.
This is also based into our Parliament.
Kevin Andrews, Tony Abbott, John Howard Kevin Rudd do not hide the fact that they are devout Christians. This is their belief and good luck to them. Family close to me my offspring are Latter Day Saints this is their belief and we should all respect that.
Personally my belief is that you have not commenced your life until this superstition or man made mythology is no longer in your life it is like trying to give up smoking. It is in your own interest to try and shake the habit. Religion should not interfere in politics it clouds the real issues. Why is the Howard Government selling uranium to India ? The reason is because the majority in India is not Islamic.
The Howard Government has shown blatant hipocrisy by supplying uranium to a country that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. Religion should not be relevant in Parliament it is much fairer, safer and sensible to be a secular society to support all Australians no matter what belief they have.

Bronco Lane, my issue is that were are not a Christian based society in the commonwealth of Australia and as such neither Christians, Muslims or any other religious group can claim to be allowed to dictate others. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution were very concerned that this had happening in the USA and hence Section 116 was inserted to seek to avoid the same to occur here.
We must accept all people, regardless of their religious following as being equal. We shall not accept any religion to seek to dominate anyone not belonging to that religion.
.
As for the uranium sale to India, I view that in particular where there is about a Federal election being held it was plain stupidity for the Federal Government to make such a decision unless it was for political purposes to seek to use it for election purposes. After all, how on earth can a Federal Government in its dying days of being in power lump any coming Government with such agreement?
And, Pakistan is rightfully complaining as it may upset the balance in power there. The last thing we want is that high-grade-uranium from Australia is ending up in India’s nuclear weapons and their low graded uranium used in nuclear power stations. There will be no control as to the Government of India not, so to say, switching uranium for that purpose and letting us know that the uranium coming from Australia is used for nuclear reactors in power stations when it is not.
.
Indeed, why is it that Israel, India and Pakistan at all should be provided with uranium when they are beyond checking? There is all this talk about taking action against Iran, while I do not view the risk of nuclear weapons in the hands of India, Israel and Pakistan is any less dangerous.
.
My view is that we must keep religion out of politics and deal with every country on basis of national security and world security and not measure the countries religion as some yard-stick to approve or disapprove of it having nuclear weapons.

David,
Let me explain it further.

The Framers of the Constitution made clear that if any religious practice was to involve cruelty that is an offence under State laws then the State Government could take appropriate action.
As such, if a religion were to promote violence then the State Government can deal with this under relevant laws existing.
If a religion promotes a refusal to vote in elections, then the State Government can legislate that this be permitted but the Federal Government cannot do so! Hence, Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to exclude religious objectors was successfully challenged by me in Court that this must also include secular objections, as the USA Supreme Court made this clear. They have a simular constitutional provisions.
However, if a religious practice were to offend federal law, then the commonwealth would have every right to pursue criminal charges against that person before the relevant State Court. The Commonwealth itself is actually constitutionally prohibited to deal with breaches of law by a citizen before its own Federal Courts! See my blog for further details.
While the Family court of Australia does at times deal with religious matter it is in fact unconstitutional as is this Court in itself. The Family court of Western Australia, being a State Court is the only valid Court, as are magistrates Court in the States dealing with Family law matters, but it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to dictate how those State courts shall conduct their proceedings. It would be impossible for me to set it all out in this posting, hence my various books set this and numerous other constitutional matters out in greater details.