Theocrazy

A quick one - due to an article on Barney Zwartz's blog on The Age website about a proposal to allow limited sharia law for mediations between muslims - all voluntary and subject to Australian law at all times (apparently).
Provoked some hearty discussion, most of it ill-informed and of the bad-rant-variety - y'know, racist, xenophobic stuff (not like the good-rant-variety: "Here's why you're wrong and I'm right (add gag)").
Anyhoo, when a bloke called Harry stated the following:

"Our constitution made Australia a Christian Theocracy (in fact). Moslem's in Australia have been saved, in this life only, because of our Christian culture and Heritage. Like it or lump it their fleeing the horror of Islam, arriving in Australia literaly means Moslems have been saved by Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings Australia has followed.
We are a Christian nation', 'Christian culture' with to which newcomers should conform, while enjoying freedom for their own beliefs."
All sic as.

The rilestar can't let that slide:

"I know I shouldn't bite when crazy people say crazy stuff, but Harry from Sydney's comment that Australia is, constitutionally, a Christian Theocracy, needs some rebutting: the constitution says quite the opposite, and preserves the secular nature of Government - section 116: "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."
The original white settlers of Australia may have been Christian themselves (although I know that at least one of my convict ancestors was Jewish), but that doesn't mean it's a theocracy run by religious nutjobs in accordance with the Christian Bible (Kevin Rudd notwithstanding) or that everyone who subsequently comes here has to be Christian, just as everyone who has arrived since 1788 doesn't have to be a convict or a prison-guard.
Newcomers should only conform to our rule of law, not to any particular religion or culture (especially Harry's) - culture naturally evolves anyway, and every individual has the potential to change our culture, whether they were born here or not. I was brought up a devout Catholic but have rationally chosen to be an atheist (or Pastafarian, according to the latest census). And now I'm commenting on a blog!
And speaking of the rule of law, I agree with Godot that taxpayers of other/no religions should not have to pay for setting up these types of tribunals that may entrench discrimination on the basis of a certain person's reading of 1400 year old texts.
But apart from that, why the hell not?"

Why the HELL not, indeed.