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.