HIGH COURT TURNED CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE FROM A SHIELD INTO A SWORD

DOGS LETTER TO WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN 30 Sept.. 200

Dear Sir/Madam,

David de Carvalho’s letter (Weekend Australian 28/29 Sept.2002) reveals an overwhelming failure to understand the true position of secularists, religious freedom, church/state separation, and civil libertarians in Australia.

In the DOGS High Court case (1981), we attempted to defend religious freedom by advocating a position of church/state separation as intended by the Founding Fathers . We failed.

The major churches, through their church schools, the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments combined to convince the High Court judges – with the notable exception of Justice Lionel Murphy- that it was okay to give billions of taxpayers money per annum to religious organisations.

Readers should realise that logically, if governments can assist religion, then they also have every right to hinder it. The mistake is to concede that a government can involve itself in religion in any way. Religionists are now reaping what they have sowed.

Secularists with whom I have campaigned believe in the separation of church and state. In Australia one should not equate secularists with civil libertarians. The major civil libertarians and their organisations in this country did not and are not about defending church state separation, the basis of religious freedom. They are too infected by church school graduates and supporters.

Australia will one day, in the near future, realise that church schools are a cancer in the democratic body politic. The High Court in the DOGS case turned a constitutional protection in Section 116 from a shield into a sword.

Yours sincerely,

R. NILSEN

PRESIDENT DOGS

CO-ORDINATOR DOGS HIGH COURT CHALLENGE