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

Free exercise does not include the freedom to break 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 instiance 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?