No chance of a Muslim takeover in the future Leigh, sorry to burst your bubble. As it is, there are too few fundamentalist Shariahites who would want to go anywhere near our country now that we've made it clear as day that they're not welcome (same as most of Europe). Even before the Pacific solution we recieved a trickle that simply did not shift the balance of population. Our politicians will never again risk lending an ear to Shariah-lobbyists knowing it is electoral suicide (unlike the Keating days of distorting Aussie laws to help Hilali, when nobody was paying attention).

So, now we've established that fundamentalist Muslims are, and will always be a non-entity in politics (the way it should be), is to point out that fundamentalist Christians are the opposite.
Nobody likes fundamentalist Muslims- much worse than fundy Christians- but when one is an active nuissance, and the other a non-entity that could only dream of being a nuissance, most people are focused on the nuissance.

Get it now?

Besides, why are you asking us here? Why not in the immigration threads? For that matter, why doesn't anyone bring up Shariah Islam in those threads, but only these ones?

K Hazza & Leigh

>> Besides, why are you asking us here? Why not in the immigration threads? For that matter, why doesn't anyone bring up Shariah Islam in those threads, but only these ones? <<

Good question, Peter Sellick was not discussing Sharia Law in his latest diatribe at all, only that the "role" of the (Christian) church is to not to "govern but to generate people who can govern."

crabsy,

There are a couple of things I would like to say about your post. The first is to recognise the background radiation of Christianity in the life of the West. While many may hate the church they unconsciously adopt the outlook of the church. I think this is the case with Julia Gillard. However, I think that the background radiation, while forming our society in uncountable ways, may not produce the fullness of insight that the church has to offer. Worship is important because it shapes the person. Even to admit that one is a sinner is transformative, and to confess that sin and be forgiven each Sunday produces an iterative change.

The issue of secular ethics misses the point of church. As I have said before, the church does not primarily present an ethical system, nor does it present a right form of government. Rather it nurtures individuals in “being” that is not beholden to ideology or to any systems of the world. Those who become “in Christ” will act out of who they have become. It is not the case that they will have a superior ethical insight. But they will see the fragility of the human position and may sacrifice themselves in order than a good for another may come. We all struggle with how to live our lives, that is true of proclaimed Christians and proclaimed atheists. To my mind the atheists are more prone to idolatry because they have not been trained to be free of it.

The reason for the end of politics is that there are few men and women of real faith who trust in their own formation in Christ to carry the day. It is a kind of idolatry to trust in the focus groups, the advertising agencies and the party machine to win the election. But once one has gone through that door, as a political party, there seems no way back. What we are left with is a cynical exercise that aims at winning on the terms of worldy power. That is why politics has withered.

Peter Sellick

King Hazza:>> The point is that there are simply too few Shariah-endeared fruitcakes in any Western Country- and zero in government (except the UK)<<

You have not got a clue KH, that is evident from the dismissive way you throw in "(except the UK)" as if it was pre ordained to happen or there was a history of Sharia advocates in the British Parliament. You watch the Labor party rail for "community self determination" in social ethnic issues when the lobby grows.

Peter, thanks for your considered explanation of your view. I think I’m in sympathy with the essence of it, but need to mull over some details. Perhaps I’ll respond again when I’ve done that. Anyway, thanks for the stimulating article.

Correct Severin, hopefully this will put the thread back on track (with the rather dubious topic of a government beholden to church doctrine is "secular" solely because the member isn't actually EMPLOYED by the Church.

SonofGloin- simple answer is Baron Nazir Ahmed among the House of Lords (otherwise a "Senate" in a more democratic country) managed to convince (with open threats) the government to block a politician from the Netherlands holding anti-Islamic views (although his media presentations focus solely on conservative practices, as opposed to a BNP-type statement). It would be reasonable to my "(except UK)" statement.

Sells, your argument is so dodgy it would be better to say that if the entire statement were reverted to its opposite, it would then be entirely true. Stating that atheists are more likely to idolize (a complete lie) because they aren't idolizing JESUS makes me wonder why you aren't a politician yourself- you've worked on the spin.