× At Times

Trauma in Religion

Abstract

Hijacked

Copyright

Contact

Contact

Educating and Informing the Community of a Secular Survivor experience.

#TraumaTheory Chapter 159

... shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion


UPDATE: Sunday, July 22, 2018 2:02:56 PM

Take away the last avenue for the Catholic Church to remain a law unto itself by amending s116 of the Australian constitution

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"

Free exercise does not include the freedom to break or manipulate the laws of the country.

Breaking or forming the laws of the country as a means of covering up child sex crimes of clergy whilst simultaneously advising and lobbying governments on matters of law, equality, morality and the human rights of women and children is an act of subversion against the nation and the people of Australia

.

The assumption that all religions are without flaws (require no oversight) can not be applied given that there can be national security issues

In January 1941, acting pursuant to the National Security (Subversive Organisations) Regulations 1940,[2] the Government of Australia declared Jehovah's Witnesses to be "prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth"

An issue becomes a national interest when dealing with a subversive organisation

The question that may need to be asked is did the cover up as shown by the royal commission and subsequent cases subvert or attempt to subvert or undermine the power and authority of any Australian government institutions? If the answer were to be Yes then they potentially could be outlawed under the same laws as the Jehovahs

My line of thinking has been an institution would commonly be seen as a moral danger when a measurable percentage (1%) of its leadership have been found to have engaged in the covering up of sex crimes against children committed by fellow clergy.

In the Catholic instance the Royal Commission found in hundreds of Catholic institutions had a measurable percentage of rapist clergy in excess of 6% and in instances higher than 60%. The fact that more than 60,000 children were found to have been sexually abused with more than 60% of those in Catholic institutions it requires more than a leap of faith to see this organisation anything other than of moral danger and a menace to society and that would be the first of many obvious attempts to subvert the course of justice in Australia. The act of defending the Church in defiance of the law or the intention of the law is there and must have taken place on many occasions (became commonplace - as a part of a Christian culture.

Was the intention of 116 one that would permit the takeover of the day to day management and operation of the country by a single religion such as Christianity and did it intend that a single religion should usurp the role of moral authority and ethical advisory while moving rapist clergy from parish to parish and denying the right to justice of survivors who attempted to come forward under the protection of the laws of Australia. They were hijacked right back to their abusers and the only legislation that has the ability to achieve that is the free exercise clause in s116.

An institution would commonly be seen as a moral danger when a measurable percentage (1%) of its leadership have been found to have engaged in the covering up of sex crimes against children committed by fellow clergy.

In the Catholic instance the Royal Commission found in hundreds of Catholic institutions had a measurable percentage of rapist clergy in excess of 6% and in instances higher than 60%. The fact that more than 60,000 children were found to have been sexually abused with more than 60% of those in Catholic institutions it requires more than a leap of faith to see this organisation anything other than of moral danger and a menace to society.

Did the cover up as shown by the royal commission and subsequent cases subvert or attempt to subvert or undermine the power and authority of any Australian government institutions or does this show that there were countless acts that had the intent to pervert the course of justice across the country when it came to the sexual abuse of children by clergy?

Given that section 116 excludes the Catholic religion from all or any forms of law, regulation covering equality, justice and human rights without suitable moral and ethical requirements let alone the need for evidence and oversight is an abrogation of the ethical responsibility of every Australian and every Australian politician.

Gone are the days of the Catholic Church being a law unto itself? Those days are still here with s116

Take away the last avenue for the Catholic Church to remain a law unto itself by amending s116 of the Australian constitution.

In Krygger and Williams the court stated "the doing of acts which are done in the practise of religion. To require a man to do a thing which has nothing at all to do with religion is not prohibiting him from a free exercise of religion. It may be that a law requiring a man to do an act which his religion forbids would be objectionable on moral grounds, but it does not come within the prohibition of sec. 116, and the justification for a refusal to obey a law of that kind must be found elsewhere.". This indicates that the authority is there should the court be requested to define it.

Sec. 116 of the Constitution provides that "the Commonwealth shall not make any law for . . . prohibiting the free exercise of any religion " - that is, prohibiting the practice of religion - the doing of acts which are done in the practise of religion. Krygger and Williams [How is the doing of the acts of child rape when carried out by the religious as though it were a right of theirs to rape women and children as that may help the cleric on his journey to heaven or sainthood.]

No one can doubt that the defence of his country is almost, if not quite, the first duty of a citizen, and there is no room for doubt that the legislature has power to enact laws to provide for making citizens competent for that duty. Krygger and Williams

To require a man to do a thing which has nothing at all to do with religion is not prohibiting him from a free exercise of religion. It may be that a law requiring a man to do an act which his religion forbids would be objectionable on moral grounds, but it does not come within the prohibition of s 116. Krygger and Williams

End of this Article - dont forget to donate so we can keep on with education to protect children - hope you benefitted from reading this n

I stopped believing in supreme beings when I was 4 years old and I understand now that the support I received from my mother and Herbert Kemp had a major impact on my ability to survive where others were driven to withdraw, comply or to suicide as a result of the ownership and control battle with the Catholic Church and resulting shunning and assasination of every aspect of character they experienced when they responded to being abused and trapped within a persecuting human suffering human sacrifice based God cult.
JohnB 7/24/2018 7:44:24 AM


#TraumaTheory Chapter 159 - ... shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

Human rights are not and can never be respected while a child or adult's life is trapped by the claimed will or word of an unaccountable blackmailing God.

"The Christian religion creates an environment where the child must bend and fold to the experience, the child must distort and fracture its own personality simply so that it may continue to survive in the environment in which it finds itself" JohnB


The most successful mammals will be those that bring safe and supportive communities together based on the best evidence, the best science and the best understanding of what it means to be human instead of the current what it means to be God's obedient servant..