' I still don't think it is a duty of the state to interfere with a citizen's right to choose to die if their suffering is too great to bear.'

you really are naive or a deceiver bucko. You know the type that argued abortion was all about the poor 14 year old girl who was raped and that no doctor or system would either abuse their power. Now about 100000 a year unborn murdered with Hollywood deviants celebrating the killing. Everywhere else where killing the elderly was on 'compassionate' ground the system has been misused. I am sure we can kill all sorts of people on 'compassionate ' grounds. But yeah, those who hold to godless secular dogmas are the 'compassionate' ones.

Runner, you are a duffer. You should read more closely, and you should consider whether you have evidence for your outrageous claims.

"You know the type that argued abortion was all about the poor 14 year old girl who was raped and that no doctor or system would either abuse their power. Now about 100000 a year unborn murdered with Hollywood deviants celebrating the killing."
It was never about the 14 year old only; it was about the rights of women to choose.
"Everywhere else where killing the elderly was on 'compassionate' ground the system has been misused. I am sure we can kill all sorts of people on 'compassionate ' grounds."
Where are people being killed on compassionate grounds? In every jurisdiction where assisted euthanasia is allowed, it is always the decision of the person, never relatives, or officials, or politicians.
If you can show one instance of forced mercy killing, anywhere in the world, I will bare my backside in Bourke St.
So, wake up to yourself. Stop making up dumb lies. And stick to the point.
Oh, finally. I'm not sure why I have to continue explaining this, but here goes: Godless and secular do not have the same meaning. I have explained the difference in the article. If you don't like my explanation, read a dictionary. Or better still, buy one. Then you might understand more of the words you mis-use.

If Godless and secular are not meant as the same thing, then why was the article complaining about politicians claiming to be Christians?

The context of the article make it the same in this instance. Separation of church and state is one thing. Removal of church is another. It seems like too many people aren't happy unless Christians give up their faith completely and neither act on it, nor depend on it in their everyday decisions. It's because of that type of secularism and atheism that drive home for me that Christians should not compromise in their faith. Not when they are in a political office, not in a business position, nor in any other position.

Instead if you believe in God let that belief be known through your actions, and if a politician goes to church then let that influence be a positive influence on their policies.

.

On 27 June 2018, the Australian Senate instructed the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure to investigate and report on a proposal to replace the requirement for a prayer with an “invitation to prayer or reflection”.

Senator Richard Di Natale on behalf of the Australian Greens declared :

« We are doing this because we live in a country where there is a clear separation between church and state. We live in a country of many different faiths—in fact, a country where many people have no faith—and a modern Australian parliament should reflect that. We do say that there should be some opportunity for reflection or, indeed, prayer, if people feel that way, and that is why we would like to see a minute at the start of each day in this place being offered for that reason »

The Catholic Women’s League Australian Inc added :

« We also recognise that in an increasingly secular society not all Australian citizens chose to pray. Such an amendment recognises the diversity in spiritual and religious beliefs and is a positive development. Therefore a space for them to reflect is important too, and provides an opportunity of mindfulness for every person engaged in Parliamentary work »

The Council of Australian Humanist Societies noted :

« The current prayer is unrepresentative of the diversity of beliefs of the Australian community that MPs are elected to represent »

The Committee investigated and concluded as follows :

« The submissions put to the committee on this occasion, and the views of committee members and their colleagues, suggest that opinions about the prayer are not significantly different in 2018 than during the 1997 inquiry, nor indeed than when the prayer was first adopted.

« The committee does not consider, on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations, that there is a momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted »

Here are two research papers on the issue :

http://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/05_About_Parliament/52_Sen/524_Research_and_education/Other_Publications/Prayers_in_the_Senate.pdf?la=en&hash=205242465FF457C3EC0B9350B97AA3F6A26898DD

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/pubs/pops/pop51/puig.pdf

.

My favorite quote ever when religious types start quoting their sacred text in order to justify their particular stand:

"I found it impossible to believe that a stranger, coming to the bible for the first time, would receive from it any clear idea of what Christ or Christianity stood for - so varied and self-contradictory are its messages and parables - and yet I was able to recognise the sources of all the different Christianities which 20 centuries have produced. Christ the King for the imperial churches; suffering for the Middle Ages; quietness and humility for those who find that path to God; a note of radical protest for the revolutionaries; the Apocalypse for the apocalyptic. In recent years, when the western world has made almost an alternative religion of personal relationships, we have emphasized, with justification, but more than any age before us - that the message of the gospels is Love. If our countries move gradually into a Socialist form of society, we shall hear rather more - again with justification - that the central theme of Christianity is sharing. This is not a cynical point, nor would such a development be cynicism on the part of Christians. To be able to adapt is strength in a religion as much as in a species. It is something which 2,000 years of Christianity have amply proved."

From "The Christians" by Bamber Gascoigne (The book first published in 1977 following from the BBC Television series of the same name which traced the history of the christian religion from the death of Christ to the present time.)

In my (humble) opinion, this says it all. For centuries, Christians have been able to justify their position by cherry picking quotes from their sacred text and ignoring all the others. That's hypocrisy for you with a capital "H".

Aries54,

<<My favorite quote ever when religious types start quoting their sacred text in order to justify their particular stand: "I found it impossible to believe that a stranger, coming to the bible for the first time, would receive from it any clear idea of what Christ or Christianity stood for - so varied and self-contradictory are its messages and parables - and yet I was able to recognise the sources of all the different Christianities which 20 centuries have produced.>>

Of course it would be your 'favorite quote' as you demonstrate you don't have a clue about interpreting the Book of God (the Bible) which demonstrates evil human nature. Psalm 143:2 puts it well, 'Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you'.

<<In my (humble) opinion, this says it all. For centuries, Christians have been able to justify their position by cherry picking quotes from their sacred text and ignoring all the others. That's hypocrisy for you with a capital "H".>>

And what did you do? You cherry picked your 'favorite quote' to slam Christianity. Who is the one committing hypocrisy with a capital H?