"Wisdom in the Judeo-Christian tradition is found in the person who knows how to “do life” in various circumstances, because they have humbly committed themselves to understanding the created, ordered world that God has placed us in."

Which of the following religiously-motivated acts consists of displaying Judeo-Christian wisdom, I wonder:

Institutionalised paedophilia, mutilating the genitals of baby boys, kidnapping children to serve in one's personal army, denying human rights to gays and women, forcibly evicting settlers from their homes?

It is no coincidence that religious belief and lower IQ goes together. If you want 'wisdom' you will have to look elsewhere.

It continues to amaze me that given Christianity's record, these people still feel they have some right to make recommendations to the rest of the world.

I'm talking about the recent record, such as the sexual abuse of children, and the denial and concealment of that abuse by church authorities. I'm talking about the hostility towards women, and gays and lesbians. I'm talking about Christians' inability to get on with one another, let alone those of us who don't share their superstitions. I'm talking about the Christian insistence that everyone who is not Christian is somehow second class.

Christianity has no credibility left. I don't know what on earth it's got to do with Jesus Christ.

Attend to your own back yards, Christians, and then let's talk again.

"Wisdom in the Judeo-Christian tradition is found in the person who knows how to “do life” in various circumstances, because they have humbly committed themselves to understanding the created, ordered world that God has placed us in."

"The created ordered world that God has placed us in"??

Sorry, which world is that again?

Must be the next one.

Considering that only 64% of Australians are Christian (with 10% encompassing every religious minority, and the remainder (25%) being atheists or not affiliated with any religion); and OF those Christians, barely any attend Church on a weekly, or even monthly basis, and thus would likely be secular themselves, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on "The Christian Vote" being a vote-spinner.
This isn't the USA with a gigantic conservative Baptist minority, and as most votes or policies that would single out "Christians" from another demographic tend to be broadly unpopular (anti-abortion, funding for private schools, euthanasia) it would be detrimental.
The only thing endorsing "Christianity" seems to woo secular voters is have an anti-Islamic ring to it.

Oh and I like the part "Do Pro-Life people REALLY only care about Abortion and Euthanasia, or do they sincerely care about all life/death issues?"
Nope- just abortion and euthanasia; sometimes Asylum seekers due to specific verses compelling them to it: plenty of commentators in the USA, and here (Tony Abbott being a noticable one) have shown considerable hostility to either free medicare/public funding for hospitals, James Hardy compensation, stem-cell research, and welfare handouts respectively.

It won't be the Christian votes that really helps, but so much the fact that nobody wants to (or realizes they can) vote for another party than the Libs or Labor.

""In 2007, Australians didn’t know about the GFC. In 2000, Americans didn’t know about September 11. What the “Christian vote” ought to be about is “wise” government, in the biblical sense of wisdom. Wisdom in the Judeo-Christian tradition is found in the person who knows how to “do life” in various circumstances, because they have humbly committed themselves to understanding the created, ordered world that God has placed us in.""

Some Americans did know Sept 11 was "on the cards". The consequences of world-wide economic and fiscal policies after Sept 11 made the bubbles that made the GFC likely.

The rest of your paragraph sound like an appeal for a God to finally provide a crystal ball for Christians (perhaps a Christal Ball ??, or would that be a Christus Ball or a Chrestus Ball or both depending on the vagaries of the contemporary Jewish historians after the times of Christ and Jesus).

I bet "the whole process can be agonising."

if a 'general wisdom about the world.' is who I should be voting for then I won't be voting for anyone on offer. Nor would it be the Pope, Rabi whoever or Ayatollah whatever.

Yes the Christian vote is quite complex.

But Wisdom barely enters the picture in what Mark and the Centre for Public Christianity are advocating as religion.

They are appealing to their mommy-daddy tribal deity to look after them.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

Plus the religion that they advocate is a entirely one-dimensional as this reference points out

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx

The Centre for Public Christianity uses a lot of resources promoting the "historical Jesus", and the primacy of "Gods" word as written in the Bible.

This essay gives a completely different Understanding of the origins of the Bible and Christianity altogether. The Bible was essentially a political document put together by the church "fathers" to consolidate their power and privileges. It has been used thus ever since---ask all the inevitable countless millions of victms.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

Plus this essay describes what is necessary for the world-wide transformation of human culture.

http://www.beezone.com/up/necessityforglobalunity.html

There seems to be something of a disconnect here.

The entire article could have been written without using the word "Christian" at all

"...the difficulty of applying one’s values to any political platform... many debates are not over the theoretical issue of values but the practical issue of which policy will best reflect those values... election campaigns appear to bring out the worst in all of us... voting should move beyond slogans to real debate and consideration of issues... election policies are only one part of government."

A form of verbal conjuring trick. Look, over here, nothing up my sleeve...

There is absolutely no doubt that different policy statements are made in order to schmooze different groups of the population, Christians most definitely included. This is the pre-election equivalent of identifying the right kind of bright shiny objects to attract the attention of a magpie.

Writing an article that says "don't worry, we Christians aren't so gullible as to fall for that trick", simply tells us how gullible Christians think we are.

Thanks to Mark Stephens for a thoughtful and reflective article.

He echoes many of the sentiments expressed by John Dickson in his recent article in the SMH- another good one.

Trave - I agree. Thank you Mark for a modest and thoughtful account of how Christians engage with the political process. God doesn’t hand out “how to vote” cards, and we should be wary of any religious organisation that purports to do so on His behalf. There is also a very real danger that we as Christians conflate our political and religious values and assume divine endorsement of our political predispositions – as your examples of free markets and unions illustrate well.

That said, I am concerned at a tendency in both the church and secular society to try to separate religious and secular values and diminish the legitimacy of faith as a basis for social action. By all means, let’s separate the state and religions and ensure we have no established religion. But faith is (among other things) a call to act in the world, and in the small-“p” sense Christians must always be to some degree political

I've been a Christian almost all my life, and I think the prejudice against, and stereotypes of Christians need be subjected to scrutiny.

I urge people in this thread who want to propagate Christian stereotypes here to check my articles at On Line Opinion and see if 'the stereotype fits'.

Religion has historically been abused by some of the most powerful as a pretext to develop cultural and political power bases, and to instigate fear and hatred in fueling power struggles - in their most extreme form wars.

But this has nothing to do with the message of Jesus. And even then there are churches who themselves need rescuing from literalism - when Christ would have us look deeper.

But all in all, I think those who heed Christ's message are peacemakers; are careful about judging others; believe in charity and compassion. There are even resonances with the work of Karl Marx - No Kidding - and if you don't believe me check the URL below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

sincerely,

Tristan

The Politics does become complicated in a world of compromise. What so many Christians are blind to is the pathetically flawed faith of the secularist. This includes unscientific faith in evolution as a fact. The end result is foolish people who don't believe they will one day be held accountable for their greed, immorality, baby killing, homosexuality and general ignorance of evil. The self righteous often embrace the environmental religion which again uses pseudo science to promote its validity. Thankfully their are one or two pollies still willing to call evil evil even if it costs them votes.

Runner
Almost all of the world's recognised biological scientists, plus the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches (and probably other churches as well – I haven't had time to check), together with heaps of prominent Christian writers, now agree that the theory of evolution by natural selection is now established just as strongly as other familiar theories recognised as scientific facts and that the theory of creationism is no longer tenable. Why, exactly, do you think you know better than that lot?

runner,

The non-religious don't have "faith" - they don't need it. They judge using reason. Belief in evolution is not an act of faith, it is an act of reason.
The religious are forced to employ faith because they have no other way of sustaining their belief.

My issue with Christianity is that it is being used as a "get out of jail free" card to justify *any* behaviour.
From "God hates Fags" all the way to mushy Left sentiment, you can use Jesus for just about anything. Pity more Christians don't understand just how anti-establishment Jesus was! Also "Turn the other cheek" is anathema to most Christian creeds.
"Faith" it seems can excuse any level of ignorance (Hi runner!) to the degree that I wouldn't be surprised if there were Christian Flat Earth societies! Really sad that folks are trying to undermine one of the most beautiful and well established theories in science (evolution), and to do it they resort to misinformation, "us and them" branding and peddling outright lies. Jesus would not approve!
The saddest thing is how faith is used to "steer" ignorant, almost primitive peoples into evil acts. The use of the Christian vote by GW Bush was a good recent example: Who cares if he lied to justify a war that killed millions? He was a "good Christian" so that's better than some dodgy educated Democrat!
Thankfully here in Australia the Dark Ages variety of Christian has had it's day since Howard passed on from power. "Christian" schools are still a a worry as they are allowed to teach manufactured "doubt" about established knowledge, which I equate to (more) child abuse. Funny to see the angst about Muslims though: Don't they realise they *all* look silly in the modern context?

re: Poirot 'The non-religious don't have "faith" - they don't need it. They judge using reason.'

If you just think about this, I'm sure you'll agree it is at least an overstatement. Faith is an absolutely unavoidable part of human life. Take politics, our context here, as an example. There is no point voting for anyone if you don't have some degree of faith, i.e. trust, that they will govern well. We aren't merely deciding on what proposed policy we prefer, because there are real live people, and all sorts of other uncertainties in the mix. Can I trust what they say, or rather, can I trust them? Obviously reason has some place in this type of decision, but in all forms of relationships there is a point past which reason alone cannot take you. We must decide that some others are trustworthy (a decision that can only ever be suggested, not demanded by the evidence), and then trust them, that is, have faith in them.

People of religious faith have decided that some object of faith is trustworthy, and have placed their faith in that object as a result. They may be misguided, misled, or just plain wrong about what they trust. Or they may not. But either way they are not exercising a faculty alien to the rest of humanity.

Claiming that one can live life by reason alone demonstrates either a lack of thoughtful examination or wilful self-deception.

GlenC

Truth has never been decided upon the majority vote, Many scientist believed the aboriginals were the missing link not to long back. Any honest look at the ever changing theory of evolution is still very much faith based. Many biologist (although in a small minority) are creationist. Those that claim that the theory of evolution comes from reason are either naive or dishonest. To believe the big bang is nothing short of ludicrous. The non religous often have more faith than believers. Like many others they go to their graves full of self righteousness instead of those who have been given righteousness from the One who rose from the dead.

Why do I know better. Simple observation of creation speaks clearly of a Creator. Your faith leads you to another conclusion but don't be so arrogant as to call it true science. It is a joke and any thinking person not blinded by dogma knows it.

runner,

(I repeat) Belief in evolution is "not" an act of faith - it is an act of reason.
Faith is belief founded on the rejection of reason.

runner

Soon after the initial theory of Evolution was put forward simultaneously by Darwin and Alfred Wallace in the late 1850s, there have a number of highly significant discoveries in a number of disciplines.

The classical work on hereditary by Austrian Monk Gregor Mendel published in German later in the mid-1860s was re-discovered and publicised 30-40 years later, and Mendel's primary tenets about the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent organisms to their offspring "were integrated with the chromosome theory of inheritance by Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1915; they became the core of classical genetics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

In the 1930s and 1940s "the modern synthesis" combined Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Subsequent microscopic work, especially to elucidate the molecular nature of chromosomes - DNA - and other work, in areas as diverse as palaeontology to artificial animal breeding, have verified Evolution and its mechanisms into fact
.

msjane,
Sorry - a little tardy in getting back to you as I missed your reply.

Yes, I agree that you have reasonably argued that my reference to faith in general was an overstatement - it is part of the human condition...perhaps I should have used the term "religious faith".

Runner> "Simple observation of creation speaks clearly of a Creator. Your faith leads you to another conclusion but don't be so arrogant as to call it true science. It is a joke and any thinking person not blinded by dogma knows it."

Even if this showed that the views of scientists were as nothing compared with the views of the faithists who cling desperately to Creationism, which it doesn't, you still haven't explained why the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal churches are just as pathetic and wrong as the scientists you dismiss so easily. Tell us, please: how did the major churches prove to be just as wrong as the scientists? Please also tell us the views of your own church on evolution and creationism.

The Catholic church strongly supports Evolutionary Theory as the tools by which God works

Yet another bleat about 'the Xtian vote'... too much!

Stop being so incestuous and start to think about being a human first please.

Who cares about 'the xtian vote' except that it brings outdated, outmoded, back-woods 'thinking' with it?

If we had 'Islamic' thinking driving policy we'd all be enjoying Sharia Law in no time... so lets start now to prevent that sort of lowgrade outcome, by not thinking in terms of 'Christian outcomes', 'Christian laws' or 'Christian policies'...and let's start demanding well thought through 'policy' and 'laws'.

We might all be a lot freer if we put 'organised religion' back where it belongs... under a rock, where Peter found it.