It will be interesting to read the report and see how many people were actually consulted, the type of question(s) they were asked and what their background was.

Presumably the report will be released for public perusal.

I suspect the survey was one of those where the outcome was known beforehand.

I'm not sure what James Marape is up to either. Is he solidifying his support among the churches or does he genuinely believe the imposition of Christian values can solve PNG's many problems?

The notion that PNG should declare itself a Christian state is an appalling mistake.

It is both irrelevant and a specious argument that 70% of those consulted supported the proposed change given that almost all of them will have been Christians.

I doubt that adherents to Islam or Ba'hai or Buddhism, let alone Animists or Atheists, would have the same view but they are few and the Christians are many.

History shows unequivocally that the Western world was riven by religious disputation and violence for centuries. The casualties of religious conflict number in the millions. The 30 Years War (1618-1648) alone cost at least eight million lives.

It makes no sense at all to create a situation where one religion amongst many is singled out to be constitutionally recognised.

Regardless of Constitutional Law Reform Commission's intent, this instantly delegitimises other faiths, making them of lesser status and significance and, by implication, unpatriotic or incorrect.

Similarly, inserting God into the constitution is just as sensible as inserting the Tooth Fairy. There is exactly the same evidence for the existence of both, being none whatsoever.

Christianity, whatever its supposed virtues and whatever the good works done in its name, is a religion that arose in the Middle East starting life as an heretical sect of Judaism.

Quite why it should be embedded in PNG's constitution, or any other country's for that matter, is quite beyond me.

Nothing good can come of this move. At best, no harm will be done and life will go on as before.

More likely, it will become the justification to preference Christianity above all other faiths, especially when it comes time to hand out government largesse.

Also, there is every reason to believe it will lead to attempts to change the law in other ways on the grounds they may conflict with various conceptions of Christian theology.

There is a long history of Christian activists seeking to interfere with the sexual, reproductive and intellectual rights of people.

These include the outright banning of films or books that are deemed to be theologically offensive, the persecution of minorities (especially gay and lesbian people and Jews); and trenchant opposition to things like birth control and assisted dying legislation.

At worst, this change will become a justification for religious fanatics who believe that Christianity should be the only religion allowed in PNG and demand that adherents other faiths be compelled to follow the 'true faith'.

History suggests that this is not a fanciful idea.

Religions of all kinds have bred countless generations of rigid, intolerant and fanatical followers who are more than willing to inflict their version of a religiously virtuous life upon others.

What is currently going on in Afghanistan is merely one example of this, others being Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and, to some extent at least, Israel.

Even the USA is greatly afflicted by religious fundamentalism.

As I am an atheist, people might suppose I would say this but that doesn't make me wrong.

History offers little comfort that the things I have mentioned cannot or will not occur in our supposedly more enlightened age.

My guess is that Christianity will continue to be the dominant religion in PNG far into the future, thus rendering the proposed amendment to the constitution unnecessary and redundant by any reasonable measure.