You will see how much Christians care when you see the numbers come up on the board, next Saturday. The screaming atheists, who have been pushing materialism relentlessly will have to answer the question, “ Was it wise to replace Rudd with Gillard.” We will know next Saturday, whether the great silent majority is prepared to sell its core values, for thirty pieces of silver.

In a way it no longer really matters who the elected King for a while is. The wheel has turned, and within twelve months, we will know if the International Criminal Court really works, and the axis of evil, the great cartel made up of the legal profession, is sent back to its proper place in the netherworld.

Rudd did an enormous amount of good with his continuance of the thrust of reform started under Howard. This was supported by the opposition, and we have a huge amount of good legislation, that is there to be worked with. Labor has been so closely associated with organized crime, through its associations with lawyers, 30 of whom sit in the House of Representatives.

Cartel conduct now attracts a fine of ten million dollars. The cartel where God is replaced by a Judge, from Magistrates Court right up to the High Court, has now got a nemesis. The International Criminal Court singles out these wannabe Kings, and they will get special attention. The French Court, should become the Federal Supreme Court as required by S 71 Constitution, and should abolish its cartel behavior. It should stop being the oppressive extension of the Federal Government, and become a court again. It has not been treating people with equality since 1952.

Many people want a benevolent dictatorship. It is the norm in Europe, but we want only one dictator if we must have one, not nine. If we have to have a Caesar let him or her be a Christian. Abbott will probably win. The Christian vote, which used to be rusted onto the Liberals, will probably return to its usual place, after its experiment, with a Christian Labor Leader.

PTB
Atheists pushing materialism? Please explain how atheists are pushing materialism and why you think those with faith are separate from this push.

Most of our leaders in the West are recognised for their Christianity particularly where it has a strong hold in the US and I don't see any reduction of materialism thus far.

Atheists, like Christians, are not a homogenous group and to paint atheism as responsible for materialism is a disingenuous and prejudicial assertion.

What concerns me is the people who make these ridiculous statements actually know them to be false and yet continue with this rhetoric for a sense of a 'greater purpose'. No greater purpose was ever served by dishonesty and I think if Jesus/God existed as he is written about, would not support the villification of any group for that purpose.

I cannot fathom the inconsistencies of those Christians that will vote against Gillard because of her living arrangements being so scandalously sinful. Are they not aware that the opposition party, with strong support from their current leader, involved us in an unlawful invasion of a sovereign country (i.e. Iraq), killing thousands of innocent people, without adequate evidence to justify such action at all?

How can you focus on one very minor "sin" (in your opinion) of one group, while completely turning a blind eye to possibly one of the greatest sins perpetrated in the name of this country ever?

Or am I wrong; is living with someone outside of marriage worse in the eyes of your church than killing thousands of innocents? From my upbringing as a Catholic, going to church every Sunday and attending a Catholic school, I didn't get that impression. I did get the impression, though, that most Christians are completely hypocritical.

>>"Your last three definitions [of secularism] oppose the first three."<<
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:04:02 PM

Yes, but they are not my definitions, they belong to the www.ekklesia.co.uk article.

I like the first three for a society like Australia:

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,

The last three may have some role for religious entities that abuse or terrorise
.

Dear McReal,

Those are not your definitions, but they are good ones.

The last three apply not only to religious societies that terrorise but to nonreligious societies that also terrorise.

The enemy of reason is faith. Faith in a supernatural is only one subset of unreasoning faith. The faith in an ideology which rests on a belief in unprovable propositions also opposes reason.

One shouldn't even have faith in reason itself. The premisses which our reason is based on may be faulty. Our logic may be flawed. Our conclusions may not be applicable to the milieu we live in.

Doubt is a virtue. Faith is a vice.

I agree with many of the posters here, both Christian and not, that the article’s presumption that only Christians make decisions guided by ethics is both arrogant and offensive.

As a Christian, I’m also troubled by Justin’s presumption that there is a single appropriate Christian perspective on controversial political issues, and that he’s able to discern it without any difficulty.

Justin falls into the trap of many ideologues of assuming other must see the world just as they do. So Justin thinks that Christians must oppose economic rationalism because it is bad for the poor. But while I share Justin’s aim that economic policy should benefit the poor, the key question is WHETHER economic rationalism has been bad for the poor. I believe the evidence demonstrates that the growth policies of recent governments have benefitted poor and rich alike. So I support them.

Likewise, I agree that we should manage the environment responsibly, but probably differ substantially from Justin on what that means. Justin says that “serious environmental efforts [are being] hampered by deference to business interests.” But this is merely to assert an ideological presupposition, and gives no direction on whether, for example, the Greens were right to oppose the CPRS.

This article is a weak and shallow effort, and compares poorly with Mark Stephens’ much more nuanced and thoughtful piece the previous day:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10802

Mark recognises that sincere and ethical Christians might take opposing positions on political topics – just like everyone else. Justin would do well to ponder this:

“...many debates are not over the theoretical issue of values but the practical issue of which policy will best reflect those values. Do right-wingers actually despise the poor, or do they just believe that the promotion of the free-market will bring about greater prosperity for all, including the poor? Do left-wingers really want to stifle business activity through regulation, or do they just believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s wage and generous protections for the worker?”