If Australia were to become a republic, would we impose a Constitutional condition that the President of Australia MUST believe in a Christian god or MUST be head of a Christian church?
CHOGM debated the grossly discriminatory British Act of Settlement this week and agreed with a sensible proposal to eliminate gender bias in the succession to the throne and it also agreed that future monarchs may marry a catholic person if they so desire. I wonder why it has taken them nearly three centuries to rectify these gross injustices?
Not up for discussion was the worst discriminatory aspect of the British Act of Settlement - that because the monarch MUST be the nominal leader of the Church of England he/she MUST believe in god. These are two 'MUSTS' too many. How is it respectable for any Parliament in any country to legislate any person's belief? Why is it necessary for a Head of State to be the head of the Established Church. Why is there still an Established Church in Breat Britain?
Well done CHOGM for eliminating some of the discrimination - but the Monarch is still forced to "believe in god" whether he/she actually "believes" in it or not! It seems this might be acceptable to many in Britain but I don't think this sits well with the Australian way of life. Forcing "belief in god" onto people by gruesome torture and killing was a medieval European custom which Christianity has, fortunately, grown out of. Yet the fact remains that the Australian Head of State has this residual condition attached to his/her Constitutional 'employment contract.'
We don't impose this incomprehensible, yet mandatory, condition on our MPs, our Ministers or even the Queen's representatives in Australia: the Governor General and the six State Governors. We should not impose it on the Head of State.