King Hazza

I think Sells is confusing atheists with non-Christians with his comments regarding idolatry. Atheists do not worship idols or anything, being non-religious and all. Duh!

And yes, the thought that political leaders must be indoctrinated into any religion before governing the country is a scary thought. And we may just end up with precisely that; a Prime Minister who is against fertility control, euthanasia, sex before marriage (if you are female), indefinite mandatory detention for men, women and children, diminished rights for workers, low taxes for wealthy, continuation of chaplains in secular schools, government subsidising of private schools and the list goes on.

End of politics? Beginning of theocracy no matter how Sells likes to dress it up.

The way I see it is that we've had Christianity for two thousand years & Islam for just as long. Look at the state we're in. Could it really be much worse if we gave Atheism a go ? After all, isn't atheism the most logical of all ? Being atheist would then give people the opportunity to have religion as a hobby instead of being the soul-destroying dictatorship that is religion.
I mean wouldn't reality be far more effective than superstition as a basis to make decisions on ?

King Hazza,

Don’t get too hooked up on Sharia law; it has no influence on the real and current dangers of Islam to the West. Nobody except the Archbishop of Canterbury has even suggested that Sharia law could ever have a part in a democratic society. Any discussion of Sharia law is a waste of time as it involves only Muslims in Muslim countries; it is their problem. Our problem is keeping Muslims out of the West

Muslims might always be ‘non-entities’ in politics, but you are overlooking the fact that Islam does not hold with democracy: the Koran is the guiding light; there is no place for democracy.

So, obviously, Muslims in the West are not going to involve themselves in politics unless they have adopted democratic principles and gone against the world of Allah. And even this could be a blind, as they use subterfuge to get their way. They hate democracy, so they will continue to attack it from outside and by stealth as they do now, with all of the violence encouraged by the Koran.

As for not bringing up the threat of Islam on ‘immigration threads’, I and others bring it up all the time. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve opposed ALL Muslim immigration. There is no such thing as moderate Islam, and Sharia law has nothing to do with the threat to the West.

They have to take us over before they impose Sharia law. Our concern should be to keep Islam out of the West ‘in toto’. Our moronic politicians have allowed Muslim immigrants in, and we now have about 300,000 of them loudly opposing our culture. They don’t even have to infiltrate quietly. They are brought here by people supposed to be representing us to abuse us and make use of the freedoms we allow, even though their intent is to wipe out those freedoms. They certainly believe that we are weak enough to allow them to do it, even if you don’t, KH.

Indeed Severin and individual. The only criteria politicians should be measuring their policies and morals to is logic. Not trying to correspond policy to the set menu of the Church they come from. How analyzing the issue logically- and notions of justice and rights based on such, would fail compared to Sells' alternative is something we won't likely find an answer (and definitely not in this thread).

Leigh:
Not wanting to expand into what is an immigration subject in a thread about religion IN government, you will find that:
1- the 300K is simply anyone in Australia that wrote "Muslim" on their ballot. This alone is a very loose definition that includes anyone who is actually an atheist or non-religious person of Muslim descent that felt "Muslim" is probably the most appropriate ethnic label for themselves, a person from a country whose people overall don't give a toss about religion and live exactly like Westerners (Albania, West-Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia).
2- 300K, is among the smallest denomination in the country and SHRINKING in proportion to population total. Check some pop stat differences of even the last few years.
3- immigration criteria that disqualifies any notion of overly-conservative Islamic leanings, and 'decadent' adverts of our country, mixed with our clear stance of who we don't welcome (just like in most European countries) has gone far to dissuade such characters from wanting to get in- compare the rates of boat arrivals POST-Rudd against those PRE-Howard's pacific solution.
4- Look at Europe, rates of Islamic Extremism now as opposed to last decade- know most of those countries are dictating standards of what they will NOT tolerate (with some far-right parties getting a strong base), the extremists aren't so brave (nor willing to go near there) anymore.

Anyway, I hope that this gives a better perspective of the situation, or we could start a new thread, and we can return to the topic at hand (not that I think anyone here could really mind us diverting Sells' vital topic of double-speak).

Dear Sells,

"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."

Would you say Isabella & Ferdinand and/or Ivan the Terrible belived themselves in Christ? I am yet to see an atheist kiss a copy of The Selfish Gene (Dawkins) but have seen Christians kissing icons all across Russia. A skeptic like me (and my counsin atheists) think more freely about what is served up to them. Most have not hardened themselves; rather, they have objectively weighed-up the facts presented to them. One the other hand, Nicaen mould Christians do gave adequate weight to the histographies leadng to the first century; and, the evolution of Chtistianity, after Christ's alleged death. Some Dead Scroll documents could point to a non-divine Jewish Messiah, rather a divine Christian Messiah. Conflicts like this give skeptics and atheists reason to pause, yet, Christians would remain entangled in their scheme of things regardless. Herein, in History, civilizations that maintain the status quo tend to decline. Politically in the long run, not the best approach.

Should you reply, please excuse my delay in also responding. Very busy

Dear Peter,

Excuse my typing. My fingers and mind are too often out-of-phase
:-).I meant to say above that Nicaean Christians do not give adequate attention to the first century situation.

Libertianism would have small, bland Government, not only small, separted churches. Community, equality and the pursuit of happiness require, institutions in small measure.

In Europe, there is currently a battle between Church and State, over Belgium police siezing Church documents, to catch Christian clergy paedophiles. The Pope is livid that Secular Law is being imposed over Canon Law. From my perspective, it is the State (politicians, police, police), protecting children from wayward clergy. Could you image the vile situation that would exist, if these clergy were held unaccountable to the leglisature of elected representatives?