Most of the Posts reveal a reticence to reveal the PM's religion , namely Thug-ism .

'Most of the Posts reveal a reticence to reveal the PM's religion , namely Thug-ism '

actually Garum it is feminism which contains thug-ism.

Applied ethics and Real (non-utopian) Politics for Real People
http://www.dabase.org/p9rightness.htm
http://www.ispeace723.org
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Once again we see the old argument that morality is the product of religious belief.

Is this the same morality that once permitted and even encouraged slavery and witch burning?

Do I think "I'd like to bash that old lady and take her purse but I won't - only because God does not want me to" or do I just instinctively know that it is the wrong thing to do?

Religion itself is totally amoral - in the end it is ultimately only about the self and not the general good of all, despite how it is marketed.

Morality is a mutually agreed set of social values that adapts and changes over time, in accordance with the requirements of society.

It does not come from "on high".

The last time it was tried as a system of government was a period known as the Dark Ages where the torture and victimisation of non-believers was accepted as normal practice.

Section 116 of the Constitution says "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". So, WTF. Why are we having this conversation?

There is an inviolable principle of our secular democratic social system, which is due separation of Church and State. On that basis, individual personal beliefs should not have undue influence on the decision-making of our politicians. Not always an easy tightrope to walk, perhaps, but this is what the reasoning, rational constituency expects.

In spite of heavy lobbying from various religious groups, our government, and the majority of our politicians, tend to conform very reasonably with this expectation; a non-conformist minority largely being members representing a particular religious constituency.

Certainly there are some federal policies which may be seen as favouring a particular religious point of view, but these are generally in continuation of an existing understanding and historical 'tradition'. Change is still possible.

Julia is a lawyer and a pragmatist, but she also has a heart (though she does well keeping it in check, most of the time), and, more importantly for her, she has learned the trick of sensing the sentiments of the majority of both her party and her constituents on major issues, and in identifying a policy 'plum' ripe for the picking - such as the NDIS.

Tony Abbott may have a particular viewpoint on gay marriage, a matter of 'conscience', but he is not alone in his conviction, with support from both religious and non-religious constituents - very much a 'tied' issue.

Another tenet is that we elect politicians to 'govern' in our national interest - and 'boat people' is a national issue, and one must temper 'compassion' with practicality. Neither God nor Man has elected us to save the world, nor to undo all the ills done in the name of greed or 'progress'. An 'overloaded ship' will sink, in spite of best 'intentions'.

The Golden Rule comes from Confucianism, not Christianity, and morality is not innate, but must be learned - and is somewhat variable according to context and culture. Law may be legislated; morality must be 'cultivated'.