Potentially true davidf, for theist and non-theist alike.

In that sense we are all truly and equally in the dark. :)

Dr Justin you write

'Those asylum seekers who have managed to arrive in Australia are denied adequate access to essential services, all in the name of not making it too easy to come here. This is not how we should be treating other human beings, made in the image of God. That all major political groups should be advocating further aggressive approaches to limiting the arrival of asylum seekers is distressing and embarrassing, and certainly makes voting decisions difficult for many Christians.'

I suggest you open your eyes around the world and see their are millions who are living in poverty and war torn countries that would love to come to Australia but can't afford to pay people smugglers. I suggest you visit detention centres like Lenora in WA and see that they are actually treated far better than many of our pensioners who can't afford to heat their homes.

It seems to me your concerns are far more political and philosophical than based in faith. Why do you suggest we should be 'embarassed'. Should we we embarassed by racist countries like India or China? or by the corrupt incompetent UN or by Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Iraq?

You seem to ignore that many people have lost their lives due to the 'compassionate' invitation sent out by the Gillard/Rudd government to come here 3 years ago.

The many Christians I know are concerned about this election. They would prefer a pm they can look to as an example. Certainly someone living in one of sinful relations does not fit that bill,

"Sinful relations?"

You think a de facto relationship is sinful, runner, well, there's a Christian perspective for you.

How about giving us your opinion on the "sinful" actions of Christians all over the globe who've abused children, and done everything they could to deny and hide that abuse?

As has been said before, Christians should address the "sinful" within their own community before they start judging those outside it in those terms. As things are, Christians seem strangely silent on judging the actions of their own, and as willing as ever to judge the actions of those outside their "faith."

Christians have a huge amount to answer for and I don't see many of them protesting what their churches have done and allowed to be done. Yet there's no shortage of them prescribing morality for the rest of us.

"Give us a reason to be excited about turning out to the polling booths later this month".

Do only Christians need a reason to be excited?

The great majority of Australians are wisely not religious. They are not excited about this election either, just one more group with little interest in the result. How about Muslims. Are they excited? Or Buddhist or Hindus?

What is there to be excited about? Perhaps from a secular viewpoint, one of the contenders is an atheist and that's a real plus. But she is untrustworthy, hollow and turning your back to her is a big risk. As well, she is controlled by the Melbourne Jewry and they definitely aren't Christian.

From a Roman Catholic viewpoint, the other contender, along with his front benchers, is hopelessly enmeshhed in the teachings of Rome, the home of the German Pope who refused today to accept the resignations of some of his clergy for their failure to action paedophilia in their jurisdictions in Ireland.

He exudes subservient Christianity from every pore.

So out of these two misfits. Which one makes Christians 'excited'?

What we really deserve to be able to consider as candidates after 222 years of settlement is a social drinking football fan, who once was gay, has a dash of aboriginal ancestry, who went to a Catholic Primary School but got out before the brain was saturated with heaven and hell, was once a unionist but now is a small business owner, wants to believe in something besides Soccer, AFL, ARL or the Bledisloe Cup, loves his children dearly, does unpaid work for secular charities but who gives donations to the Salvation Army in the shopping centres, was educated in a government high school, went on to University but dropped out after two years, lives in a small suburban house with his family, a dog and a cat, walks little old ladies across the road and finally, feeds native birds. He / she would be described as being "a good Australian" whose parents were migrants.

Now even Christians could get 'excited' over electing someone like that

Briar Rose

I would not expect an atheist to make any reasonable moral judgement. Generally they just want to justify their own behaviour and then demand others agree with them. Often just like yourself they are also very intolerant . This article is actually about the Christian vote in case you did not notice.

You seem fixed on child molestation. Yes along with doctors, artist, football players, politicians, teachers, judges their have also been priests, pastors, muftis, fundie athiests who have committed these horrendeous crimes. I am glad your moral compass reaches far enough to at least acknowledge some right and wrong. No doubt the secular support of the perverted porn industry is and will continue to add to the number of victims.

runner wrote: "I would not expect an atheist to make any reasonable moral judgement"
That's a ridiculous statement coming from a god botherer, and demonstrates perfectly the attitude of all you holier than thou zealots who believe you hold absolute moral authority as mandated by their respective imaginary friends.
What makes you so great? Next to nothing I'd wager.

"Generally they just want to justify their own behaviour and then demand others agree with them."
Another statement which would be funny, were it not so hypocritical. Isn't that exactly what Christians & Muslims do, just with a much larger superiority complex, often accompanied by extreme violence and utter intolerance toward any position but theirs? Crusades and the Spanish inquisition for example.

Religions (especially Christianity) have caused untold misery for millions over many generations, which in most people's eyes precludes them from any kind of monopoly on morals (think Islamic extremism, which is a direct result of repeated violent Christian incursions into their affairs).

In my view religion is for the weak, who are too scared of life, death and everything in between to go it alone, and just go along with what their parents taught them with little independent analysis or thought.
It's that, or they are people who just need a reason to think they are better than everyone else, such as yourself.

This is the reason kings with religious leaders standing behind them confirming their "mandate from heaven", have succeeded in sending young men to die at war for personal gratification and/or financial gain since time immemorial.

Sorry, but your claim of moral superiority is laughable, especially when one considers the disgusting historical reality of the Christian "faith".

Total hypocrisy, but nothing more than one would expect from a god botherer.