[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What's wrong with "Merry Christmas"?

[Shaun Hately]

From: "susanmcgee48176" <Schlobin at aol.com>

> Yes, I think that the whole purpose of separation of church and
> state  (as envisoned by the founding fathers)...is that each person
> should have the opportunity to celebrate their religion undiluted in
> any way that they wish (as long as it's not harming others).

As long time readers of this list will know, I am somewhat obsessively 
interested in matters concerning education policy, both in my own country of 
Australia, and overseas.

Something that has occasionally come up in my studies of these subjects 
relates directly to some of the matters under discussion here.

The following quote should be familiar to most Americans, and to a lot of 
other people as well:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

This next quote is less likely to be familiar to many people:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or 
for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise 
of any religion"

That is the first part of Section 116 of the Constitution of the 
Commonwealth of Australia.

It's pretty similar - and deliberately so. Because Australia's 'founding 
fathers' looked at a number of different governmental systems in designing 
the one they wanted for this country - the British system was the primary 
model, but the US model was the second greatest influence, and this is one 
of the parts our founding fathers really thought America had got right, and 
so they decided to copy it. The language got changed a little, but the basic 
idea was the same.

The thing is, though, in the 107 years (tomorrow) since the Australian 
Constitution became active, both the United States' First Amendment, and 
Australia's Section 116 have been interpreted somewhat differently by the 
highest courts in the respective lands. Similar language, deliberately 
copied, has nonetheless produced a somewhat different idea of what applies 
and does not apply with regards to these provisions.

I think that is something that sometimes some people lose sight of. Whatever 
was intended originally, these things are interpreted - and they can be 
interpreted in different ways. I don't the Australian High Court is any 
smarter than the United States Supreme Court, or vice versa. But they've 
looked at these issues and come to somewhat different conclusions.

Just worth thinking about, whenever you consider these issues, I think.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia