Comments on: purity control http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/ a blog about things Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:23:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: National Day of Secularism « The Legal Soapbox http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7564 National Day of Secularism « The Legal Soapbox Sat, 26 May 2007 03:57:23 +0000 http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7564 [...] As Paul at A Roll of the Dice has pointed out, s 116 of the Australian Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. [...] […] As Paul at A Roll of the Dice has pointed out, s 116 of the Australian Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. […]

]]> By: Paul http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7460 Paul Thu, 24 May 2007 08:19:48 +0000 http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7460 Nice work, for thinking the ACT is a state you are sentenced to live in Canberra until dead from boredom. Can women have 'mateship', anyway? Because if not that might make answers (a) and (c) to question 15 incompatible. I mean, women don't call each other "mate", right? Maybe "mate" in the female sense is more along the lines of, "women are for making babies". Nice work, for thinking the ACT is a state you are sentenced to live in Canberra until dead from boredom.

Can women have ‘mateship’, anyway? Because if not that might make answers (a) and (c) to question 15 incompatible. I mean, women don’t call each other “mate”, right? Maybe “mate” in the female sense is more along the lines of, “women are for making babies”.

]]> By: Laura http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7273 Laura Tue, 22 May 2007 02:00:59 +0000 http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7273 Haha!! I, being slightly less informed than the author and aforementioned comment, got 19/20. To prove that idiots can do very well, I included Australian Capital TERRITORY, in my count of states. Go mateship! Haha!!

I, being slightly less informed than the author and aforementioned comment, got 19/20. To prove that idiots can do very well, I included Australian Capital TERRITORY, in my count of states.

Go mateship!

]]> By: erin http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7210 erin Mon, 21 May 2007 01:52:11 +0000 http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/05/21/purity-control/#comment-7210 I took the test last week, I scored 17/20 - YES! im dinky di (despite my vocal hatred of cricket). The questions I got wrong were question 5 (I chose c to be facetious), question 9 (I forgot about the queen!) and question 15 (I too went with secularism). I took the test last week, I scored 17/20 - YES! im dinky di (despite my vocal hatred of cricket).

The questions I got wrong were question 5 (I chose c to be facetious), question 9 (I forgot about the queen!) and question 15 (I too went with secularism).

]]>