Thanks All for the link to the Babylonian Talmud online.

MikeM, because some Muslim countries are introducing reform to their Shari'ah laws; means the reformed edition is not strict Shari'ah. It is however indication of a modernisation reflecting universal values. Justice is universal, and a just law can be universally applied. Under strict Shari'ah it must not be questioned as unjust, it must be submitted to and applied no questions asked.

We certainly look for and welcome signs of the principles of universal justice in Muslim countries. To be able to stand back from the terror of the law and apply the two principles under which Christians should operate:

1. Love and be devoted in mind, body and spirit to worship the absolute purity of Holy character, the attitudes of mind, and actions that bless and enhance life and the sourse that inspires wisdom. This embodies the first and great commandment.
2. Love your enemy, your neighbour, as you love yourself. Forgive and take action to build relationships that are real and peaceful. This is the second commandment.

Laws are there for reference to those who violate socially accepted behaviours. Devoted love is the positive side of reaching purity of mind and relationships. Devotion and love is not bounded by laws otherwise it is not love or devotion, but submision and control.

Francis,

Separation of Church and State is not an American Concept. Oh no! It is much older than that, and as correctly pointed out by Froggie, is enshrined in our Constitution (Section 116).

Jesus himself started the debate. Mathew 22:21 has him saying "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and Render unto God the things that are God's".

This started a chain of events. At the Council of Nicea the problem was addressed by indeed separated the church and state. The Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, and Ceasar was the Emperial head. But eventually the Empire collapsed, and there were a number of squabbles between Kings (including Charlemagne) and Papacy.

In the 12 Century (I think - I'm working off memory here), Emporer Henry IV came to power as the Ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Unlike what the name suggests, this was actually a German based empire. In a struggle for supremacy between the Papal States (Pope Gregory VII) and the HRE which resulted in a war lasting 20 odd years, the HRE was fragmented and destroyed as a cohesive political entity. Hundreds of Principalities popped up under the local nobility. So to were the Italian Papal States, but the general winner of the Mathew 21:22 debate was the State.

Even figures like Napoleon, who crowned himself rather by snatching the crown from the Pope were addressing this very issue. Napoleon made a reference to Charlemagne as precedent.

What happened next is well known history. Bismark comes along, re-unifies the Holy Roman Empire and calls it Germany. It upset the European balance of power, a couple of wars with Austria and France, the WWI, which Germany loses. WWII is basically a continuation of WWI.

One might say that Jesus himself caused both world wars.

mangotreeone1: The post you addressed to boaz-david it seemed that you were a moslem talking of your moslem prophet jesus. I said that that being does not exist. If I made a mistake and you do look to the real Jesus as your Messiah then I humbly apologise. If you are actually a pagan with a pagan false jesus then my remarks stay. numbat

Francis. It's not very clear to me the point you were trying to make..

The Church may indeed influence the State, but not directly, unless a religious party were democratically elected. After all, politicians can be Christian, or members of other faiths. Disraeli, British PM in Victoria’s reign was a Jew. However, the days of Church leaders, such as Archbishops for example, directly having a say on what can or can’t be done in the secular world have been gone for some time. I think the last one who tried that was Thomas à Becket, and we all know what happened to him, don’t we?

While it is true there is no law that says that a Christian party can’t be involved in politics, in practice there are so many different denominations of Christians, and also so many other religions, that for example, a Baptist party trying to get elected would have a tough time of it.

Non-Baptist Christians probably wouldn’t vote for them, just as they would probably not vote for other denominations.

When you look at the rise of the religious right in American politics, in particular in the Republican Party, and hear the bigoted views of the people who make up this phenomenon, (Tim Lahaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other delusional fundamentalists) I think you would be very glad that they do not have executive power in the Government.

I would venture to suggest that they are equally as frightening as a possible Wahabist Islamic Party.

For myself, it would be good if the Human Race grew up a bit, stopped believing in mystic nonsense and fairy tales, and cast aside its security blanket. After all, as others have pointed out, religion is based a lot on striking fear into the hearts of the disbelievers. Coercion cannot be a good reason to believe.

Froggie & Narcissist,

The point is quite clear: the Constitution as Froggie quoted DOES NOT mention separation of Church and State. It merely says that the Commonwealth may not establish any religion as a state religion (unlike the UK) etc.....although the established Christian public holidays (Christmas & Good Friday) are possibly in conflict with the Constitution....(however, I wouldn't have a clue about that). The question thus arises: what is your understanding of "separation of Church and State"? I remember when Peter Hollingworth, an Anglican clergyman, was appointed GG the "separation of Church and State" mantra was trotted out by many......but what does it mean? The American version seems to mean that Christian symbols may not be displayed on public property (although other religion's symbols are OK) and that public monies may not be given to Church agencies (hospitals etc). If that's the case then, here in Australia, we DO NOT have separation of Church and State.

Froggie your final paragraph is just plain silly and would not require a great deal of intelligence to compose it. Besides, your mates Hitler, Stalin, MaoTse Tung and Pol Pot thought the same, and where did it get us?

Thanks for the comments in reply, and for Philo's elaboration.
Sharia law is not a monolith, just as Islam is not a monolith, and I think it is quite possible that Sharia can influence secular law in a positive way. I insist that Australian law remain secular, and so Sharia's claim to be of divine origin is to be rejected. But that does not ruling out it, or any other law claiming divine origin, from being examined to see if it can be a positive influence on secular Australian law.
The suggestion by the original author that Sharia will eventually be used to settle disputes between muslims in Australia I regard as very worrying. Secular Australian law has been, and is being, developed to resolve disputes between Australians, amongst other things. If some muslims want Sharia law to be used in Australia, then they can lobby to have it (or some parts of it) considered for inclusion in Australian law. But to wish to be outside Australian law is not an option. If Australian law wishes to adopt some principles or practices from Sharia (or other) laws, then so be it, but such laws would be subject to Australian law, and available to all Australians, not just muslims. And any such laws would be subject to the High Court, where their constitutionality could also be tested.
All Australians, muslims included, are to receive the protection of Australian law, as developed in Australia, and not subject to other laws.