I guess the article and postings all go to illustrate the wisdom of separating Church and State. In my view politicans are there to deliver decisions for the "common good" not to impose their personal morality. Christian politicans need to be clear on their role. Society regulates many activities that Christians find morally repugnant - legal drugs, the sex industry, pornography, gambling, pregnancy termination, etc.

While not necessarily accepting or endorsing a particular behaviour Christians politicans particularly since the 60's have realised they are regulating to contain the excesses of society. Lately political leaders on both sides seem to want to change the equation because of the perception that Australian society is becoming more conservative - certainly they are becoming narrower in their concerns - mortgage, family, kids education, safety, health.

In spite of the growing antagonism towards anyone who has a firm belief in anything; somewhere, sometime there must be some standards set by someone. Christians say that standard is set externally. If there is not some standard, who can proclaim that murder is wrong or pedeophilia or rape or fraud or genocide? On the other hand is there anyone or any society that accepts these crimes? Without a system of rules and deterants only Might would be right. Without some standard why shouldn't I be free to choose. If same-sex marriage was accepted why shouldn't I be able to marry my sister - what's makes the situation different? Why should there be laws against insider trading? etc

We are moral beings whether or not they are Christian morals or some personal construct that is the product of family, education, experience, philosophy and sometimes we fail to keep it or we have to change it to excuse or justify our behaviour.

Most of us agree on the basics for society. Its a question of finding the 'common good' and the establishing the balance that gives the individual the moral freedom of choice without them being labeled a criminal or society becoming libertine. With freedom must come responsibility.

Religion and politics don't mix and shouldn't be mixed.

Politics relies on compromise to work and religion does not allow for this.

Take GWB's personal dilemma during his early months of office.
There was a man charged with blowing up an abortion clinic and killing a couple of people.
He fled to Ireland and the USA had to request his extradition back home to face charges.
Because the murder was carried out in a State that enforces the death penalty, Bush had to decide whether to sign the extradition papers to bring the accused back home to face almost certain death, or appease his fundamentalist supporters and allow him to go free.

A problem like this would not generally occur in a non-secular State.

Further (as illustrated by some of the posts above), religion enforces a "them and us" mentality and is, by definition, exclusive and intolerant of the needs of unbelievers, despite any intentions or lip-service to the contrary.

The more devout and self-righteous, the less tolerant and compassionate people become.

Don't worry though Kevin, Jesus would be more likely to vote Labor than Liberal and probably wouldn't buy T3 shares either.

Rudd is weak on homosexuality. If he is a Christian he should be CONDEMNING IT. The Bible is very clear on men who have sexual relations with other men (Leviticus 87:78). It declares the act a crime punishable by death. It's all very well to talk about the poor and oppressed but Jesus said their will always be poor people. He didn't say anything about homosexuality because he lied in a time before the depraved decided to speak out about their 'opression'. Rudd is not a christian. He is a socialist who is trying to get christians to vote for him by guilt-tripping them about homeless people and infidel refugees. It's time to smell the roast ham everyone. The end is near.

What does Leviticus say about roast ham, Andrew?

Pigster

Get it right it was Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. Better not be wearing poly cotton jocks either.

Sorry Boazy I know this is your area of expertise, just couldn't help myself.

Kevin Rudd has been "booted" from Question time, maybe God is listening to Mr Piggy.

Just can't work out the point of the article. So Kevin Rudd isn't ideal? Imagine the conservative uproar if he said Labour would formalise samesex marriages