On 9 Jun 2007 14:13:46 +1000, GB
kickindanuts.threefiddy.com>
wrote:
>Petzl
gmail.com> wrote in
>news:5apj631btbhf1574r4q0agolilelihgqsn@4ax.com: >> On 8 Jun 2007 21:44:24 +1000, GB
kickindanuts.threefiddy.com>
>> wrote:>>>Petzl
gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:r74i635gffulft0mi8nj8jkbhr3qt5eto4@ 4ax.com:>>>> No Australian is a Moslem, to be Australian according to our
>>>> constitution you have to be Christian otherwise you are only a
>>>> resident and have to be within our resident status "laws"
>>> I've read our Constitution once or twice and I must confess that
>>>I don't remember that part. Will you be so kind as to enlighten
>>>me as to exactly which section we're talking about please Pretzel.
>> It's not taught in school,
>
> That's fine, I went to law school to learn about the Constitution.
>Twice. So I don't have to rely on State public Schools and the Sydney
>Morning Herald. I also have a copy of that little blue book, I'm
>hoping to have Dennis Denuto autograph it for me one day.
>
>
>> but Australia's Constitutional Monarchy
>> places us under God - the Christian God, whose compound redemptive
>> Name is Lord Jesus Christ. Following the opening words of the Preamble
>> to our Constitution, "Whereas the people of...", comes the clause:
>> "...humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God..."
>
> Nice, but you'd do well to check what the Acts Interpretation Act
>and case law has to say about commentaries that do not form part
>of the actual act. Preambles can have some part to play in the
>process of interpretation where the Act itself is not clear. Our
>Constitution doesn't have a preamble. Little Johnny tried to put
>one in in 1999, complete with a reference to his god, and the
>Australian people rejected it out of hand.
>
>
>> This was no last-minute afterthought. Sir Henry Parkes the "Father of
>> Federation", was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of August 26,
>> 1885 as saying: "As we're a British people, we are pre-eminently a
>> Christian people - as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our
>> Constitution ... are based upon and interwoven with our Christian
>> belief, and as we're immensely in the majority, we have a fair claim
>> to be spoken of at all times with respect and deference..."
>
> There's plenty of respect and deference coded into the Constition
>as it is, thank-you-very-much. Your five words in a preambulatory
>note are not it.
>
> The week before last I attended a talk given by Mr Justice Michael
>Kirby. He knows a thing or two about Constitutional Law, what with
>his day job being a seat on the High Court and all. He made a point
>in his talk about the importance of applying law in a way that is
>consistent with the culture and expectations of the people of
>the time. He meant *this* time Pretzel, not a hundred years ago.
>
> Australia might well have been a christian nation back then, but it
>is not now, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are as many
>Jedi knights in modern Australia as there are christians. The ABS
>numbers on religous affiliation are interesting. If you look at the
>'name brand' christians like 'Anglican', 'Catholic', etc you get
>inaccurate numbers because people who haven't been near a church
>since their grandma's funeral when they were seven years old still
>tick a mainstream box anyway, so the numbers cannot possibly be
>accurate. I remember clearly the times when I was a little kid in
>the first couple of years of primary school. When teachers asked us
>what religion we were, most of us said "Church of England". None of
>us knew what that meant, but all the other kids said it and it
>seemed to be acceptable, so we followed. Look at numbers for the
>churches that people who are not directly involved don't even
>know are a church - the Salvos are a case in point - and you get
>numbers that are far smaller, but also far more valid.
>
> You can kid yourself that Australia is a christian nation if you
>like, and Little Johnny can write preambles with 2%% of the words
>making reference to christianity to satisfy the 2%% of citizens
>that are actual practicing christians if he likes, but you'd both
>be wrong. There *is* a bit in the Constition (not an imaginary one
>like that which you're relying on) that makes you both free to
>worship your respective gods if you so choose.
>
There has never been a referendum in Australia or any legislation that
stated that Australia was no longer a Christian nation. It certainly
started as one. Sixty-seven per cent (major Majority) of the
Australian population claim to be members of a Christian denomination.
Federal and State parliaments begin each day with Christian prayers,
as we do in this House.
If you are referring to "bit in the Constitution" being (now) S116 it
only applies to Christians as you said yourself it is common to refer
to "other religions" meaning other Faiths
Some people are under the impression that Australia is one-third
Christian, one-third Muslim and one-third Hindu or other religions.
That is not the case. Section 116 of the Australian Commonwealth
Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion. There has
been some confusion about the meaning of the word "religion". In the
1900s people believed that the Church of England was a religion, that
the Catholic faith was another religion and that the Baptists had yet
another religion. The word "religion" was used to describe each of
those beliefs. (as you acknowledge yourself)
>> The Editorial in the same paper, The Sydney Morning Herald, of April
>> 14, 1897, said: "No Christian could in conscience vote for a
>> Constitution Bill that did not recognise God..."
>
> This, in case you hadn't noticed, is Australia. The tabloids might
>control the British legal hierachy, but they don't control ours.
>
>
[S]
>[...]
> Then I'll go on to ask my original question again. Which bit of the
>Constitution of Australia (or any other law, I'm happy for you to
>justify your claims in any legitimate way that you choose) supports
>your claims regarding christianity, the ten commandments, and the
>bible. Show your working. Include a discussion of the tensions
>between the third commandment and section 116 of the Constitution.
>Your answer should resolve those tensions (or admit defeat, the
>choice is yours). If you can find law (statute or case) that supports
>your claim that the introductory comments to the Constitution
>are a part of the Constitution for interpretation porpoises, then
>I'd be pleased to see it.
>
The preamble by referring to our "Lord Jesus Christ" excludes those
cults that do not accept that Australia's one and only God. Most
certainly does not include Islam's Idol the moongod Allah
How can non-Christians "humbly rely on the blessing of Almighty God"
when they object to this fact
>> This should exclude non-Christians from political input.
>
> Again Pretzel, you're dreamin'. Please point out which part of
>
> "no religious test shall be required as a qualification
> for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth"
>
> it is that you're having difficulty with, and I'm sure that
>someone will try to help.
>
Only applies to Christians Non-Christians are not allowed to apply for
any "office" Law position Citizenship and so on (you know this though)
>> Clearly, those who now have most influence in this country
>> are people with no love for Jesus Christ, or the Holy Bible
>
> Bullshit. One of the very biggest threats to Australia right now
>is the hold that the christian right has on our Federal Government.
>The connections between the Government and the church are so
>dangerously strong that a small group of radicals centred on
>the Hillsong Church (aka Money Church) have far greater influence
>on the governance of this country than is safe, legal or just.
>
> What this government needs is a clean-out. Starting with Costello
>and his brother, and all the Hillsong execs that he's installed
>in various senior administrative roles - they all need to be run
>out of town. No person can hope to govern rationally or honestly
>when he is as strongly influenced by a religous organisation as
>is the current treasurer. God help us, pardon the pun, if that
>goon ever makes prime minister.
>
> On a different interpretation, it could be said of course that
>you're exactly right. I think that it *is* fair to say that there
>is no-one within the Federal Treasury, Tourism Australia, World
>Vision or the Hillsong Church that has any respect for Jesus
>Christ or the Holy Bible. They're too busy trying to line their
>own pockets to be bothered with pesky things like religion.
>
>
> Looking forward to your reply.
>
It again boils down to our Constitution since it's implementation has
not nor has it's meaning ever been changed (except for bringing Senate
voting in line with Parliaments)
Petzl
--
Australia's parliament needs to obey our Constitutions, the judiciary must apply the law
