Well done Bill Muehlenberg.
You know the Bible speaks of differing world views. The Apostle Paul pleads with Christians regarding this with the question, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" Ms. Maddox's world view is that of Athens. She is very worldly in her views and if one were to adopt her views you would not be able to tell the difference between religion and secularism. She will no doubt be very surprised when she does meet her Creator face to face.

Wow. I wonder how many of Bill's godbothering fan club have actually read Marion Maddox's book, in order that they can so enthusiastically agree with his pathetic assessment of it. The irony is that I'm another who is now motivated by Muehlenburg's tripe to buy the book and read it, while one can be quite sure that Bill's sheeple haven't and won't.

Howard, Costello, Abbott, Anderson - each of them has played the Christian Right card to their electoral benefit. Meanwhile, they slavishly toady to the holy roller-dominated US oil imperialists, in the hope of a few crumbs from the royal table.

Bring on the anti-Christ. Please.

Morgan

Well its not too difficult to tell where many of the replies to Bill's book review are coming from, in fact you'd hardly have to read the book to tell where it lines up by those leaping to defend it.

Many of those in defence of Bill's right to comment seem to be arguing for the freedom of speech, even the freedom to write a book review at all and those critical of Bill seem to, like Maddok et al, seem to be arguing that anyone who disagrees with them has no right to participate in free speech, democracy or the Australian way of life.

So who then condemns themselves by their own bias, bigoted and isolationist views? Again the radical lefties think they have the right to rule the world and crush anyone who disagrees with them ... when will they learn?

Traditionally we consider Australia to have a Judeo-Christian heritage, in fact its laws and traditions are Christian by background so it is not unusual that the radical minority (or is that whineority?) will bemoan the ever harsh reality that the democratic decision of the people has been to choose certain values?

Maddok might not like democracy or its outcomes, but both she and her followers should remember that no one is forcing them to stay here, oh that's right, she's already left!

I whole heartedly agree with Peter Howard in regards to the point that a book review is written from the interpretation of the reviewer. The reviewer should have the freedom to comment on a book as they perceive it from their perspective. They are not only commenting on the substance of the material but also the manner in which it is presented and is totally subjective and reflects their view. The writer also writes a book which is freely written according to their own viewpoint and beliefs.
Rather than bagging either person why not become informed by actually reading the book as well as the review so that an informed comment on the bias or truth of both the writer and reviewer may be given. It's important to note that the way you perceive the writings doesn't equal absolute truth after all it is only your opinion and who are you?
It is an interesting nature of human behaviour that the natural bias of the individual almost consistently expresses itself in belittling or defaming the person with an opposing point of view. Why not be totally honest and just disagree without attempting to label or denegrade another individually view.

I haven't read the book so I can't make an informed comment on Maddox's views. I can make a reasonably informed comment about some of Muehlenburg's views expounded here.

I think he is right to say that:

"According to Maddox, the religious right is a nefarious, organised and monolithic threat that must be guarded against. But is it? Hardly, from where I sit. And do Christians of the right have some influence in the public arena and in public affairs? Of course. But so do religious lefties, secularists and atheists."

After all, the gay and lesbian movement, which Muehlenburg opposes, has made tremendous gains and the likes of the Australian Family Association have only won some battles against it.

But what is particularly hilarious is Muehlenburg's assertion of a "radical homosexual agenda". It's like people such as myself have a piece of paper on the fridge held up by a magnet which says "gay things to do today".

Anyway, thanks Bill for the review. You made it sound fascinating. I'll go off and buy the book as it may help me make my radical homosexual agenda for world domination become a reality. Then watch out!

Havent read the book 'god under howard' yet, but notice by the jaring criticisms, aimed as though from a gun sight toward Muehlenburgs review; that probably not many of the review critics have bothered to read the Bible (in context to its intended meaning, to its intended hearer.) Perhaps (Mr /Mrs Lefty trendy,) you will then have the right to criticise the majority of us who are found amoung the conservative or the Christian (the greatest allies to democracy in Australia; the foundations of the political arena that gives you the freedom to have your view), even though you yourselves are amoung the minority, loud though you be.
Its easy to see where your going with this. Remove God and cosequence from the social conscience and you are free to do as you please for youself, regardless of how you will affect anyone else; unencumbered by the sobering reality that one day you will be held to account and the consequences thereof.
Cant wait to read this book and confirm my suspicions that the left will always be the haters of free speech, especially when it encroachs on their "not so hidden" agendas!