Re: -- Is it possible to have a monoculture?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:35:56 -0000 (UTC), John Sedra
<[email protected]> wrote:

>dolf wrote:
>
>>
>>-- Is it possible to have a monoculture? 
>>
>
>As long as everyone's a white, male, Protestant Christian, Englishman like me 
>and avoids all this diversity stupidity, I can't see why not.   However, many 
>say that Russian culture is white culture.
>
Australia's Constitution specifically made Australia a
 Christian Monoculture.
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian
Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian
Commonwealth’.

Before the 1900's and much later the word religion only applied to
Denominations of Christianity

Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian
population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations
(Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%).
Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth";
non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.).

It needed to bypass a referendum, which was the way it should of been

The Ultimate Loophole
This case provides the ultimate blueprint for how Australia
transformed from the "Christian Commonwealth" envisioned by Sir John
Downer into the modern, multicultural state it is today.

How multiculturalism was endorsed by the High Court of Australia
By redefining Religion by talking around it.


Scientology Example: Founding Culture vs Modern Court Let's use
Scientology (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax
(Vic) HCA 40)—a tax case where the High Court defined "religion"
broadly, exempting it from payroll tax as a "religious institution".


Strict "Founding Culture" Reading 1900 Context: 96% Christian
population; "religion" meant Protestant/Catholic denominations
(Anglican 39%, Catholic 23%, Presbyterian 12%).
Framers like Downer called Australia a "Christian Commonwealth";
non-Christian faiths <1% (Jews, etc.).


Section 116's "any religion" assumed Christian pluralism amid Sunday
laws debates.
Handling: Scientology (founded 1954, Hubbard's sci-fi
cosmology/thetans) fails 1900 "ordinary meaning"—no supernatural
Being/God, profit-driven courses, no ethical canon beyond self-help.


Court rejects as "charlatanry," denies exemption; states regulate as
business/cult, preserving Christian heritage without referendum.


How the Court Actually Handled It 1983 Ruling (Mason CJ, Brennan,
Murphy, Wilson, Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting):
Adopted functional test—belief in supernatural Being/Principle +
acceptance of canons of conduct (offences against ordinary law
unprotected).


Scientology qualifies via thetans (immortal spirits), ethics codes,
rituals.


Impact: Exempt from Vic payroll tax; sets national precedent for
charities, s116.


Murphy J emphasized protecting "heresy" from orthodoxy; no founding
intent lock-in—words evolve for new realities (e.g., U.S. analogies to
non-theistic beliefs).


No Referendum Needed: Court views as application, not amendment—text
unchanged, just broader scope.


This analysis of the 1983 Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of
Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) case perfectly illustrates the exact legal
mechanism that fuels the debate over judicial power versus
original intent.


By detailing both perspectives, it clarifies how a system can legally
drift away from its founding culture without ever changing a single
letter of its written law.


The Originalist Frustration

The "Strict Founding Culture" reading demonstrates exactly why many
voters feel politically manipulated by

the legal system:
The Textual Bait-and-Switch: The founders wrote the
words "any religion" in a 1900 context where that undeniably meant
Christian denominations.


Bypassing the Public: Under a strict originalist view, if a completely
modern, sci-fi-based movement wanted the tax benefits of a church, it
should have been put to a referendum.


The Consequences: By bypassing a Section 128 vote, the High Court
effectively acted as a "mini-parliament," creating a massive tax
loophole for a group the founders would have easily classified as a
business enterprise


The Judicial Reality
The "How the Court Actually Handled It" section
explains the administrative mechanics of the modern Australian legal
system:
Connotation vs. Denotation:
The judges did not change the text of Section 116; they simply
expanded the list of things that fit inside the definition of the word
"religion".
"The Danger of Narrow Definitions:
Justices Mason and Brennan argued that if the court restricted
"religion" only to Christianity, it would leave the state with the
terrifying power to decide which specific beliefs are "true" or
"false"—a power that historically leads to authoritarianism.


The Murphy Doctrine: Justice Lionel Murphy’s insistence on protecting
"heresy" highlights the shift toward international human rights
standards over traditional British-Australian cultural preservation.


The Ultimate Loophole
This case provides the ultimate blueprint for how Australia
transformed from the "Christian Commonwealth" envisioned by Sir John
Downer into the modern, multicultural state it is today.


It proves that the major political parties do not need to risk a
referendum to change the nation’s cultural direction.


They simply pass broad, vaguely worded statutes, and let a highly
trained, unelected judiciary expand the definitions over time to
accommodate international treaties, global movements, and new
demographic realities
-- 
Petzl

Our Australian commonwealth has survived numerous recessions, one
major depression, and two world wars. 
Doubt if it will survive under a Albanese Labor Government.