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.