the problem is that many people are christians so no matter what the constitution says about being secular - christians will be elected. that is democracy. banning christians from becoming politicians or voting would not work so there will always be that christian undercurrent. that is what this country's laws are based on and that is fine.

t.u.s.

I don't have any problems with Christians (or Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Rosicrucians, Calithumpians, Whatever) being elected to our parliaments, so long as they don't subvert that democratic privilege in order to favour their own theocratic purposes. As Nobby correctly points out, ours is a secular State that is governed within the constraints of a Constitution that doesn't support any religious faith. Section 116 reads:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

I only begin to have a problem with godbotherers when they seek to invade my social space by arrogantly, ignorantly and persistently asserting that it is their right to attempt to force their views on all the rest of us. For example, the holy rollers who infest these forums openly assert that it is legitimate to subvert our democratic processes in order to promote their own particular religious positions. Call me hypersensitive if you like, but I find that logic very scary - particularly if it is one shared by members of our legislatures.

The separation of the Church and the State was achieved by our dominant culture centuries ago, at the cost of great bloodshed and social upheaval. I for one do not welcome any steps at all back in that direction.

Happy Easter ;)

Morgan

It is interesting to note the differing styles in the above comments. There are those who appear to have a genuine interest in the topic and who offer constructive comment on the review itself. These make worthwhile reading - whatever their stance.

There are those who appear outraged that Bill Muhlenbergs has dared to write a review that isn't 'objective'... and I find that Bizarre. With such a blatently non-objective book at the heart of this forum do they honestly expect people to 'sit on the fence' in their comment? The Author certainly didn't so why should Bill M? As I said before Bill Muhlenberg is completely entitled to his opinion - and I happen to agree with it.

Which brings me to the third category of comment... It is interesting to note the intensity of personal attacks, name calling, sarcasm and undisguised venom in many of the comments. It is also no surprise to see which side they are all coming from. Is this a forum to attack Bill Muhlenberg - or any other individual for that matter or is it a forum for intelligent people to air their views on a book in a mature and constructive manner?

I may be a Godbotherer - perhaps even a holy-roller... (As a result, I'm also a man with a guaranteed future and a magnificent inheritance.) I'm not, however, about to call anyone who disagrees with me Spritually Ignorant, Religeously Cold or any other childish name. Perhaps those who disagree with Bill M should focus on the topic as opposed to the person. Show a little maturity please.

While we may not like the way Howard runs the Country and his personal views,(the root of the argument here) we should respect the position that he fills and the others voicing their opinions(well done PH for pointing that out). If you don't like there stance vote against Howard/Costello at the next election.
Hebron

Team !
a foxtel poll showed that 73% of voters regard the religious aspect of Easter Important. I would have a pretty high confidence level that this would translate across the population, but admittedly, I could be wrong.

Morgan, the section of the Constitution you quoted is fine. But like the US consitution, historical CONTEXT is more than a little bit important in understanding its INTENTION. Given that in those days, the term 'religion' probably meant 'Catholic as opposed to Protestant' (and its various traditions) the intention may have been to avoid the establishment of one or the other as the state religion, bearing in mind that in the back of the memories of most of the English, Scottish,Irish settlers were images of some heavy duty problems and persecutions and wars between the said traditions/faiths.

The important point u seem to be MISSING :) capitals so it gets your attention, is that we are a "democracy". We have political parties where the 'left' ALWAYS tries to impose its view of industrial relations and so does the 'right'- note, the word is IMPOSE by law !
Do u think it gives me any joy to think I might have to go thru the process of 1/ warning, 2/counselling,3/ re-training, warning blah blah to some dill brain who is wrecking my business because the simply want to rort the system and milk my business of every bit of bludge they can get from it ? Now that is LABOR'S industrial relations. So, I will vote, to CHANGE THAT to a more realistic and just system. I will IMPOSE it thru the democratic process if I'm given the chance.
But what do 'we' godbotherers really WANT ? thats the issue. If we say we don't want abortion, u probably dont care UNTIL we say 'Because God values life'. Ah.. THEN u say we are 'imposing CHRISTIAN values on u. Well, like we have Labor, Lib, Dem and Green, we ALSO have 'Christians' among those groups, and we will use our democratic right :) So, please stop being to 'anti-christian' or Christian-a-phobic :)

Bill Muehlenburg has given us an excellent review of a very unpleasant book.