8/14/2019 Chapter 000C- p2 Judeo-Christian

1/2

Page 1 of Chapter 000C INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 1

A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decisionISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

PLEASE NOTE: You may order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mailinspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian* Gary, what is your view about this Judeo-Christian thing?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, I am not some converted Jew, I have real Jewish blood flowing

through my veins, inherited from my ancestors but would like every one TO SHUT UP about

religion and accept the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution that they didnt want this

POLITICAL UNION, the Commonwealth of Australia to be torn with religious hatred.

Being it Muslims, atheist or whatever their social and other values are as much important to us inAustralia then that of Jews, Christians, etc. We do not, and this is what the Framers of theConstitution warned about, have this Commonwealth of Australia decent into some religious civil

war. There is absolutely no validity in seeking to argue that somehow Christian values are

overriding, as many non-Christians have contributed to this development of this continent and

none were rejected because of their values may have been non-Christian.

Lets make it clear, the value of a person is not and never should be measured in his/her religiousor non-religious lifestyle but rather in what the person stood for as a human being. As I have

already previously extensively canvassed this issue I do not propose to repeat all the same again.

Just that I will highlight some matters.

Why should a murdered who happen to have a religion that god forgive sins be better then a

non-religious person who does not commit such a crime?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21752187-2,00.html

TraditionImmigration minister Kevin Andrews said the test would force potential citizens to know

about Australias political system, Aboriginal history and that the nations values were

based on Judeo-Christian tradition.

"It's the sort of thing you would expect someone who goes through school in Australia

would know at the end of secondary school, and probably in some instances at the end ofprimary school," Mr Andrews told the Herald Sun.

One of the questions is likely to be: "Which city is the capital of Australia: Sydney,

Melbourne, Canberra or Hobart?"

Another is: "Which animals are on the coat of arms?" Among the possible answers is: "Lion

and unicorn".

The test will be based on a new resource book, The Australian Way of Life, being drawn up

by the Immigration Department.

The US Courts have extensive ruling on matters such as the one quoted below and the Framers of

the Constitution themselves also explained matters.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religionThe Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing anyreligion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious testshall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust

under the Commonwealth.

Hints for Religious Exemptions to ImmunizationPlease read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption

letter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

8/14/2019 Chapter 000C- p2 Judeo-Christian

2/2

Page 2 of Chapter 000C INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 2

A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decisionISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

PLEASE NOTE: You may order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mailinspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized

or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a

religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.And

Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You

are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submityour own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel

you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.

And

Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the lawor trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They arebetting on the fact that you don't know your rights.

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January

20, 1970, Decided June 15, 19701. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the

prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it beingclear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words

"by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal,organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.

2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is

contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whoseconscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are

based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include thosewhose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.

4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy ofexempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should

extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp.361-367.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;Mr. HIGGINS.-

I know that a great many people have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words inthe preamble of this Bill by men who know the course of the struggle in the United States, but who have not

told the people what the course of that struggle is, and what the motive for these words is. I think the people ofAustralia ought to have been told frankly when they were asked to sign these petitions what the history in the

United States has been on the subject, and the motive with which these words have been proposed. I think thepeople in Australia are as reverential as any people on the face of this earth, so I will make no opposition to the

insertion of seemly and suitable words, provided that it is made perfectly clear in the substantive part of theConstitution that we are not conferring on the Commonwealth a power to pass religious laws. I want to leave

that as a reserved power to the state, as it is now. Let the states have the power. I will not interfere with the

individual states in the power they have, but I want to make it clear that in inserting these religiouswords in the preamble of the Bill we are not by inference giving a power to impose on the Federation of

Australia any religious laws.And

Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to the

Constitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or anywhereelse.

Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God.

Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God.

The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think the honorable member is in order in making a speech.

Mr. HIGGINS.-I thank the honorable member for being disorderly under the circumstances. I think

there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I also see this, that the taking of an oath in a court of

justice or on taking office is quite a different thing from having in a well thought-out preamble to aConstitution any reference to religious belief.