True Howard is partial in what he uses and when but so is labour!

The name of the game is winning and if a moral quote serves use it if critical divert attention or deny, quoting of course relevant authority. Such authority can usually be found though searching the Bible can be tedious and searching the legal literature certainly is!

Labour was on the back foot over the Iraq venture and was somewhat subdued in opposing, and anyway most Australians emotionally anyway see the USA connection as necessary and protective.

At the time the evidence for denial of the UN was masked by the media hype, none the less a return to ‘might is right’ was seen by a number of lawyers. The rest of us probable more emotional under the use of fear rather than fact as a driver, not uncommon in politics.

So if you want the high ground you must tell the whole story not politically cherry pick!

Peter I can't help feeling your voice has been muted since joining a political party. Your music was upfront, what about ceasing financial support for all things religious, we could start with schools.
While watching parliamentary broadcasts I choke with the hypocritical reciting of the lords prayer, and what about the presence of the church in the front row when Horta was inaugurated after the prime minister was outed "because he was educated in a country known to be socialist"

How much involvement did the church have? After my reading seems to me he was doing an admirable job in building an economy in spite of Australia's greed and need to control all things gaseous.

I miss the political the sense in your music.

fluff

I am only one of those ordinary citizen that provide the backbone to our society.
There is no fuzziness about where the demarcation lines are, they are quite simple to me.The fundamental difference is our democratic values versus religious values.
Our elected representatives have every right to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves but it should never be forgotten that they do represent the cross section of the community that elected them.
They have a moral obligation to represent the diversity of their electorate including people that have no religious affinity.
It is presumptuous to believe that any religious philosophy has the monopoly of being right.
Some politicians make a lot of fuss about our so-called Judeo-Christian values.The fundamental values have become an excuse to re write History and proclaim the superiority of these values.
It is only our democratic values that permit the explosion of American type of evangelical missionaries promulgating the gloom of a decadent society if Judeo-Christian values are not adhered to.
Perhaps the best example of a " decadent society " could be taken from a country that does actually separate Church from State.
France is not doing better than anyone else but it certainly is not doing worse.
It is about time that politicians that wear their democratic values under their sleeves roll them up.
Ordinary people like myself are ready to back them.

Nobby

Dear Peter

I admire the clarity with which you have pointed out the failings of the Howard regime in its two-faced conditional acceptance of conservative church dogma when it suits.

I note that even pacificts have had to embrace violence and that raises its own questions about slavish reliance on churchy dogmatic approaches to problems best tackled with secular objectives.

I hope your voice is heard in many forums and your call to balance is appreciated and endorsed by a thinking electorate.

I take it Peter has no hassle with people wearing their secular religous values or non values on their sleeves. Wake up, people believing in God can not and will not put their Creator in one compartment of their lives while those who don't believe in God and in fact want to play God are not ashamed to promote their values.

Peter you avoid moral issues such as the murder of approximately 80000 unborn babies in our nation each year and then want to get on some high horse about the morality of keeping someone locked up who trained with the Taliban and was prepared to fight against Australian soldiers. You speak about the war in Iraq knowing quite well that Mr Beazley would of also sent troops in also.

Much of your party agrues about the separation of church and state and then you speak about what Australia's Christian response should be. You, Mr Rudd and many in the Coalition who name the name of Christ certainly send out a lot of mixed messages

Pete, if I were you I'd concentrate on understanding the complex issue of how to vote.

Fancy that, no prosectution. It must be nice being above the law. I bet the great unwashed wished that they could get a free pass instead of being fined.

Peter,
Sage thinks she's our little conscience, sadly she is always "half" correct. Sage has an eyesight impediment, she is unable to see the big picture.

Both Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd think that moral rules, derived at secondhand from their God, are a useful base for formulating policy. That’s a mistake. It obscures the real driving forces in international relations.

George Bush and his cronies decided to invade Iraq to “stabilise” U.S energy sources. Moral justification came later to rally the support of the population. WMDs have proven to be threadbare and, if saving people from cruelty was ever the real reason we would have been involved previously in a multitude of wars throughout the world.

Individuals do act from their own moral beliefs, often at great cost to themselves, but put them into boardrooms or government and morals will be overwhelmed by dollars.

Until recently, there has been little if any “fuzziness” about the separation of church and state since at least since the demise of the DLP. Most Australians have always accepted, indeed demanded, that the two be kept separate. Now, however, with Muslims gaining influence (through Government cowardice, vote-buying and a cosy arrangement with the PM’s Muslim “advisors”) we are seeing fundamentalist Christians getting in on the act to “combat” Islam, and John Howard wanting religion back in schools.

Religion should be a personal matter; there is no place for it in politics – particularly in a country like Australia, which could hardly be called a “religious” country. Howard is wrong, Muslims are wrong, and so are aggressive fundamentalist and left-wing Christians.

Garrett is also wrong. He rightly points to what he sees as Government hypocrisy, but religion should have nothing to do with illegal entry and David Hicks either. If an individual’s religious beliefs dictate that he or she feel contrition or sorrow about either matters, that’s the individual’s business, and they can vote accordingly. Politicians should – and do – respond to whatever will get them elected. If enough voters act on their religious convictions, they will get what they want in the same way that if enough atheists vote according to their convictions, will get what they want.

Democracy is about individuals voting for what they want, and it has nothing at all to do with religion: unless enough voters decide it has. We know the dangers of Islam, and we are beginning to see the dangers of Christian churches that have failed miserably in their “core business” now trying to appear relevant by sticking their noses into politics

The sad thing about politicians and fundamentalists who orchestrate war is that they never have to go there. They don't have to see the misery of the children on both sides. They don't have to see the desperation of those caught in the crossfire. They don't have to be overwhelmed by the daily stench of death, day after day, while the war rhetoric goes on and on.

Note the irony of "the Twilight Zone", how accurate were they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBnFzF7m4k&mode=related&search=

To build peace we build a civilized strategy of diplomacy: if it is not too late.

Why on earth would the church wave their crosses on the graves of so many dead kids at a time when a majority of people are disgusted with the whole thing?

I thought this post was confusing until I read the original at the Eureka street link. The original article is about the role of Christianity in war and peace.

To respond to some of the posts:
1)The canon of the bible is a vast work (2400 pages in my edition) and written over about 1000 years.

2)There are probably as many definitions of Christian values as there are Christians.

3)The bible often has precise instructions on issues relevant at the time of writing, such as the rules for priests and offerings.

4)Cherry picking rules and values is common. Smiting someone who touched a pig is generally rejected, the ban on murder is accepted.

5)On more contemporary issues it silent and we interpret it for our selves and as so aptly illustrated by runner this often leads to no end of disagreement.

6)In keeping with our times people are leaving the collective bargaining of the organised churches in droves and are making individual deals with God.

7)Imho religion is a private believe that should not be forced upon others. Government however is about compromise to make a workable society. Many Christian values fall within the compromise, some lie on the edges and others are out. We live in a democracy so we can (and do) lobby our politicians to decide what is in and out.

8)Politicians recognizing that Christians are a large demographic in their electorate will use the term "Christian Values" when it suits them. As their is no precise definition of Christian values they can't be held accountable about using the term and some will even pretend that their opponents do not have Christian values.

9)The term separation of church and state is often bandied about. It doesn't mean that all politicians should be atheist nor that they are not allowed to pray in office buildings nor that people should not be allowed to wear crucifixes, turbans or head scarves in public. It simply means that their is no state religion and that, say, Anglican bishops are not automatically members of the senate.

Gusi... excellent post.

Leigh.. your first paragraph is very perceptive, but not the full story. Not all Fundies are ‘hyper’ :) nor are they Fred Phelps clones.

Howards ‘selectivity’ in Christian principles. In one way, we can blame or praise the very democratic principle we live under for this. If he was NOT selective, but embraced them all, he would be open to the charge of 'Theocracy'.

Being selective (but can anyone tell me which specific ‘Christian’ principles he is selecting ?) is quite ok in that it is seeking to represent the cross section of the community in a balanced way. (aside from the basic philosophical approach of each party)

Before we become too panicky about ‘Christian Principles’ lets please remember there are basically only 2.

1/ Love God with all our hearts
2/ Love our neighbour as ourselves.

Regarding the first, the most any government can do, is provide an environment conducive to the ability to enjoy religious freedom. “Belief” can never be enforced.

LORDS PRAYER, PARLIAMENT and HYPROCRISY.

The Lords Prayer is reflective of the Christian cultural heritage of our founding fathers.

All it is doing is asking for

-our daily provision (who has issues with this ?)
-forgiveness (who does not need this ?)
-Thy Kingdom come (in hearts rather than laws)
-Your will be done (as above)
-keep us from temptation. (not a bad thought)

Preamble to Constitution “Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” (The Judao-Christian understanding of God)

Peters questions ‘What is Christian about...Hicks etc’ are irrelevant. We are NOT a Theocracy. we are a DEMocracy and the government is doing what it judges best for the country in terms of Romans 13 (please read it)

Anyone who thinks that simply because we have invited a host of migrants from non Christian backgrounds to dwell here, this is now a reason to suddenly deny our cultural/religious underpinnings should seriously reflect on what truly matters to people. People without a cultural foundation are vulnerable to self extinction.

It's always nice to have both religious and political beliefs mesh. However it has always been understood that religion would be a silent partner and not seek to dominate the actual course of government.
Having a restrained religious input to our democracy has been successful for most of recent history even including the migration of other peoples and different religions. Where things start to go wrong is when differing religious ideologies take it as a "right" to impose their dogma and religious laws on society or demand the "right" to place their religious Law above the laws of the land.
For every war of territory or political ideology there is also a simultaneous battle of social and religious ideologies.
What makes today different for us in this age old battle of ideas, is that not in recorded history but rather in living memory such battles or conflicts of political and religious and social ideology have never collided as with the migration of Islam into our societies and the imposition of their culture, religion, and laws. And that the openness of democracy would be the avenue down which the destroyers would march.
Much of the so called Christian invasion of government is down to the multiculturalist rhetoric and the inability of these supporters to observe the political/religious realities of the world around them. Judeo-Christian Churches and believers are not going to go willingly into that dark night no matter what the socialist promote. Judeo-Christian history has a record of earlier battles with the expansionism of Islam. Their wins and their losses, and the fight ahead if freedom and democracy are to survive. There is no democracy under Islam and that is "the" threat to "our" society. The Christian right will step down their aggressiveness when they see some definitive action from their government and their judiciary. Don't blame the bee stinger for what the bee did.
"I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". - Thomas Jefferson

Starting the selection from half way through Peter Garrett's address produces a messy discussion of the role of religion in politics in place of the original's support for peace making, save for those situations where war is just. Still, since that is what is posted, I'd like to comment.

The limits to the role of religion that mark the separation of religion and politics, I think, are two. First, the state does not support any religion. In particular, it does not require that people adopt the religion. The principle became accepted after the failure of the religious wars that followed the reformation. It became clear that people could not be forced to adopt or to abandon a religious view and that making martyrs is counter-productive. there followed arguments (e.g. those of john Locke) about rights to freedom of religious belief.

Second, the state does not adopt a policy or enact a law merely because a religious authority, written or otherwise, supports it. Rather, people are expected to examine and argue for moral (including political) views on their merits. Since Christians can't agree on what books are to be included in the Bible, or which books were really written by St. Paul, or what is to be said about the profoundly immoral God that he depicts, or of the limits of interpretation, that view has become quite widely accepted. (There are similar variations of views within Islam, Judaism and Confucianism too.)

Religious motivation to political action does not infringe these principles per se. And I'd rather have someone seeking to imitate the God who sacrificed himself for the sake of his enemies than the appeals to self interest that aare supposed to motivate Australian voters.

May I please make my position a little clearer.

Our society has pretty well made up its mind that people may believe what they will as long as it does not transgress to the point of opposing democracy. By preaching or supporting one belief over another is not democratic govt. Demanding one pray before receiving food or any other social service defies democracy. The monetary support for a religeos belief in a democratic society is happening in most democracies today. In Australia the demands for further support will never stop once granted, that support transpires into legitmacy for support and then?

It started with support for religeous schools, became legit when state schools could not cope with the advent of the "baby boomers". After the world war money was passed to schools on the basis of educating the boom in the youth of the population. It of course should have had a "sunset" clause, until the state whose constitutional role is that of education, was able resume its role.
To its credit the catholic church educated those of the lower income spectrum. When on a good thing "stick to it" money bled to it being undemocratic to give to one school and not another. Then it became legit for wealthy people to demand value for their tax.

There must come a challenge to this thinking, now is the time! A democratic govt funding religious education disguised as counceling is another wedge. Off to the high court, I sincerely hope someone has the fortitude to standup for the democratic idea of NO religion in our government, keeping it in the home and hobby space where it belongs.
No one should have to fight wars promoted by archbishops cardinals and their ilk. I wish the pope would stay where he belongs, in the vatican from where in history he has caused enough grief.
fluff

Peter,

What you call "Christian" is really, Morality. Have you read Lawrence Kohlberg? Churches and Politicians fight for the law and order spot. Real moralists are a more evolved animal. Read Maslow.

Morality? What do you call a self-actualised and honest politician? ... A fabrication.

Incidently, Peter, Christians are a group of Jews whom overcame Hadrian's excile of the Jews to Pella, by refuting their core religion and incorporating Gentiles, so they could workship and tradional Holy sites disallowed to orthodox Jews. The other Jesus people went off to Syria and wrote the Gnostic gospels. Two later converged and argued. The latter lost in 325 CE.

Morality? In my view,the Churches and Politicians are pretty much
down there with lawyers. Herein, please save us from John Smith MP LLB ThD ;-). Could one imagine it?

Howard, Garrtt and Rudd are using christianity the way it was designed - as a tool of government (or opposition) to emotively manipulate the loyalty of populations.

This has nothing to do with the spirituality of Jesus Christ and the Palestinian land rights movement of his time.

Since the emporer Constantine, christianity has provided a universal (or "catholic") morality that entrenches the psychological power of the imperial military state and economy.

people like Garrett and Rudd who think they are somehow closer to the essence of christianity are just deluded ideologues grasping for subliminal credibility, just like John Howard.

Garrett's tokenistic appeal to "turn the other cheek" is a cheap and meaningless platitude when taken out of the context of the earth based spirituality and sociology of Jesus and applied to colonial consciousness and society.

The ancient spirituality of the Aborigines, sustained for millenia by the one true and universal god, the same one that sustained the ancient hebrews, is where we should be turning for spiritual guidance, not some dead book promoted by tyrants.

Garrett has become very wishy washy and almost silent on Aboriginal affairs since he became a politician, indicating his heart's shift away from this ancient spirituality towards colonial state morality and its factional dictates.

When Garrett can publically proclaim Aboriginal demands (like he used to) louder than the demands of the ALP then we will see the spirit move again in his life. Until then he is just another colonial preacher/politician appealing to foreign illusions - just like john howard.

when the rich young ruler asked "what must I do to enter the kingdom of god?" jesus replied "sell all you have and give it to the poor". When this attitude can be reflected in ALP or coalition policy then their christianity will have relevence to both Jesus and our historical circumstance. Until then it is just a cheap colonial con job, left or right.

Peter Garrett, where’s your voice on the big things that really matter – our bloody environmental predicament?

Water, clean and renewable energy, population growth, sustainability…

I’ve said a number of times on this forum that there is a gaping hole in our political spectrum that Labor should be jumping right into. If they did, they would appeal to a very large and rapidly increasing section of the populace – the section that cares deeply about our environment, quality of life and future viability.

If Labor did this, they would be setting themselves up as a very different entity to the Libs, instead of being a poorer shadow of them, which is never going to win them power.

This change in direction would not be at odds the Labor’s grass roots or basic philosophies.

And who better to lead the way than you!!

Peter,

If you are going to continue your sweeping, vote pulling political rhetoric on subjects such as religion and Iraq please break the ALP mold and offer viable solutions or alternatives.

Factual debate is required as opposed to the antithesis on all Govt decisions or policies. I have no doubt that the reason the US is in Iraq is to secure oil and influence OPEC. Strategically, Aust involvement within the coalition is to ensure our economic future and national security. However operationally,Aust Forces contribute to the security and stabilisation effort under the legitimacy and mandate of Iraq's democtarically elected Govt(the people). Therefore, what effect would your policy have on the people of Iraq? What effect would it have on Aust/US alliance and trade, hence Australia's strategic paradigm of economic prosperity and security? Aust is not part of the UN security council, it has an alien voice in APEC and is a distant cousin of the EU - so how does the ALP intend to unilaterally manage these effects?

If we were to take your 'chrisitian' path of a just war, pull out of Iraq and break our US alliance how would the ALP raise the billions required to cover the security gap left by the dissolution of the US security pact? How would Aust cover the economic downturn caused by peak oil, loss of trade agreements with the US and it's allies (such as Japan); and the OPEC maffia?

Ultimately we have all seen how well collective security works under the increasingly incongruous UN. The Balkans, Rwanda, Somolia and now the Sudan are just to name a few(million). Will your plan add Persia to that list?

Obviously, you have taken a leaf out of the Rudd and co. chrisitan vote scheme for the next federal election. Perhaps you and Rudd could concentrate on these alternative strategies instead of 'chrisitan vote pulling'. Our strategic paradigm is far from perfect, but it is realistic. Hanging our strateic futute and national security on idealism, christianity and NGOs is eventually doomed by its very principle - human nature.