Rechts conveniently passes on his/her dogmas. he/she can't even see that killing the unborn by the truckload is outright evil. He/she also ignores the fruit of atheism as seen by Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Again he/she demonstrated how flawed the moral relativists arguements are. Certainly you demonstrate no reasonable moral compass especially when blinded by self righteousness. Then again for someone who does not believe in absolutes even truth is a very loose word. Make as many excuses as you like Rechts but they look pathetic.

runner,

you fail to see that pol pot, mao, stalin etc didn't use their religion (in this case atheism) as a justification for their atrocities. Atrocities carried out in the name of various versions of "God" number in the millions.

And I don't see non-religious groups protecting the child molesters in their ranks, like we have seen from the Catholic Church and other religious outfits. (Sporting codes count as a religion, don't they?)

Briar Rose is quite correct in calling for you to worry about the sins of your own brethren before pointing the finger at the rest of us. Start by actually following the teachings of Jesus, which seem to play second fiddle to the dogma of the church when it comes to so many Christians I meet.

You could start by turning the other cheek.

TrashcanMan

The article is actually about Christians and their vote. I make a comment that most Christians I know would like a role model for a PM. I point out that Ms Gillard is far from that. Secularist obviously make their judgements from a completely different moral or amoral base. (Many of them hate Abbot simply because of his faith (of which I don't share).

Worrying about the sins of my own brethren as you put it is a completely different matter as to my democratic right to assess who I will vote for. This forum is called online opinion in case you did not know. It is not just for secularist to promote their faith. The simple fact is that no one is righteous apart from Christ. That should not however silence people from calling evil evil and good good. I make the point that in my eyes and the eyes of many Christians we would prefer a pm who promotes and models the family unit rather than just shacking up with whoever. I am sure any reasonable person would like to have someone leading this country who acknowledges that adultery is wrong and that children need a committed loving mum and dad. Briar Rose along with Rechts just demonstrate how self righteous many secularist are. Unfortunately their morality base comes from worn out tired flawed secular dogma for people who can't think to well

Runner,

I've read many of your posts in this forum; they all share a common theme. That is, a consistent condemnation of secularism. What stands out, however, is that you don't actually understand what the word means, which makes it very difficult for you to understand the points made by others around you. Secularism is hardly a faith, as you put it, it is an ideology shared by religious and non-religious alike. Secularism does not address the existence or non-existence of a god, it addresses the right of all people to have their own beliefs in fact.

In my previous post, I was merely addressing the irrational attack you had made on others in the forum; you claim moral superiority to everyone here, in the same action acting in complete contradiction to the primary teaching of Jesus, that is: "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself".

To be honest, I don't believe your comments very often reflect the true ideology taught by Jesus at all. For example, think about the teaching of the "good Samaritan", then consider your opinion on boat people. Remember, the point of that story was that Samaritans were a race despised by Jews, so it's a story about racism, not just about helping others as so many modern Christians reduce it to.

As far as secularism goes, I like the following discussion from http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/SecularismReligion

>>"Secularism has been variously defined as

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,
* opposition to religious or spiritual influences,
* a regime of religious regulation, and
* eliminating religion from politics and society.

"The first three are what could be described as 'pluralist' conceptions, the latter three 'eliminative'.

"Yet self-proclaimed proponents and opponents of secularity are often unclear about the distinction between these competing meanings, their relation to different claims about post/secularization (the shift from primarily associational faith-based societies to technical post- or a-religious ones), and the possibility of new horizons and approaches.

"... conscious attempts are needed to engage thinking people of both non-religious and varying religious persuasions in considering models of secular/religious life which may be received as an invitation rather than a threat, as plural rather than monolithic, as inclusive rather than exclusive, and which move from 'thin' to 'thick' descriptions of "the good" as part of a rigorous but respectful conversation between different traditions of reasoning.

" ... take the debate about the role of beliefs (religious and non-religious) within 'secular life' in a positive, practical and more nuanced direction. This should include a solid theological / philosophical / sociological input, and a re-examination of the place of distinctive 'communities of conviction' within the wider public sphere." <<

I would contend very few people in "western" countries in favour of *secularism* advocate the eliminative three(opposition to religious or spiritual influences; a regime of religious regulation; or eliminating religion from politics and society.)

Thanks Justin for initiating an interesting discussion.

I think the dilemma faced by voters today is that under the present commonwealth constitution, elections are predicated on a system of representative democracy that has unfortunately given way (in practical terms) to a system of party politics. Instead of regular meaningful engagement with an elected representative from one's electorate I see voters struggling to identify a party that espouses and upholds their values. No one party has a monopoly on the best policies. Therefore being in a situation of having to choose one party over another will of course leave a voter feeling trapped because they're precluded from showing support for the preferred policies of the party they didn't vote for and stuck feeling they've shown support for the dud policies of the party they did vote for. I am confident we would see a greater level of engagement and democratic participation if local members were less bound to a party and more free to truly represent those in their electorate. Voters need to regularly and meaningfully engage with their local member to restore representational accountability into the relationship between the elected representative and those they are elected to represent. This is not done by once every 3 years trying to identify which party leader (who most likely is not your local member) stands for what you believe in. Every day between election days is just as important for democratic participation as an election day.