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!!