The Author said:

<At the same time there is evidence of a systematic agenda among conservative Christians to emulate their American counterparts by imposing their views on the body politic>

This requires some examination.

1/ This is a democracy.
2/ For every issue where it is claimed 'Christians want to 'impose' their will, it can equally be said that they are in reality, democratically opposing the IMPOSITION of secular or other ideas on them.

Who are the 'American Counterparts' ? The religious spectrum in the USA is quite broad and mixed. I would prefer the author used at least one specific example to illustrate his point.

One classic sentence is this:

"Australia is NOW a multi faith (or no faith) society"

Is that so ? why is it 'NOW'? .....what occurred between 'then' and 'now' to make it so ? Is this not evidence that changes brought in due to Al Grasby and his gang of culture thieves, of his slanderous and culturally genocidal...

"It would mean there was a secret master race that considered themselves pure Australians...It would be worse than the Third Reich."
(Al Grasby)

..were aimed at destruction of Australian identity ?

In my opinion YES. I wonder if anyone was PAYING Mr Grasby to say things like this ? or in who's interests such statements were made ? "Follow the money"

But if it was reasonable at one time to say "Australia is basically a Christian country" then it is reasonable to challenge the idea that now "Australia is now a multi faith country" or.. at least to challenge those forces (like Grasby) who tried to change it.

Personally, with todays headline of the assassination of Maronite Christian leader Pierre Gemayel, I have no desire whatsoever to live in a 'Multi faith' country if that is the result. (Remember John Newman, Donald Mckay, the mad mufti) I'm sure Mrs Mckay is 'happy' about Mr Grasbys spin on things.

CONCLUSION. It is just as valid to work towards a 'monocultural' Australia as it was to make it 'multi'cultural.

Poor David, Trying to turn the clock back to some imagined state of purity.
The fact of the matter is that we live in a muliticultural world and there is nothing whatsoever anyone can do about it.
There have of course been various historical attempts to produce a mono-cultural society. The genocide against the native-americans in the USA, the many anti Jewish pogroms in christian Europe, the "religious" wars of post reformation Europe, "christian" South Africa via Apartheid, fascist Germany (get rid of ALL the deviants),all communist countries to one degree or another, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Ruwanda genocide, the white Australia policy, the Klu Klux Klan in America etc etc etc. There are also many right wing groups throughout the world trying to "re-establish" their monocultural "paradise". The aryan nation white supremacists movement in the USA being a notable example.
I would suggest that David fits very squarely within this ignoble "cleansing" paradigm.
Multiculturalism is also the inevitable result of globalization which again is a process that cant be stopped.In some sense you could say that globalisation began when Constantine become a christian which then set in train a process whereby christianity became an integral part of the drive to total power and control at the root of the entire western "cultural" project.
In effect then we have no choice but to do the necessary work of understanding our own cultural and religious provincialism. And of course the dreaded "other".

Politics will always have overtones and undertones of religion behind it. Sometimes overt. Sometimes subtle.

Many thousands of Australians have developed a secular morality, based on what we deemto be best for society, what is fair to all, what tends to develop social cohesion and stability.

Many thousands of others use their preferred faith, and this is valid but tends to be abrasively exclusive of the diversity of other faiths. Tends to, though some religious adherents do have a much more mature outlook on the diversity of opinion that is needed to drive society's ethics.

Whether we develop our notions of morality and ethics from religious iedeology or from secular reasoning, all people will want to influence the body politic. In that sense, it is not possible to separate church from religion. As a boy in school in the late 60s I remember well when a Catholic DLP senator came to my high school arguing the case for war in Vietnam.

We should not question the right of religious groups to exert persuasion on politics, but we do now have a problem in that extremist versions of Muslim and Christian faiths are having disproportionate influence.

The onus should be on moderates of all faiths to counter this alarming and dangerous trend. And on all of us to not allow politicans to take advantage of this expremist divide to their own perceived political advantage.

Ho Hum - There is one mono culture that has been highly successful. Its Japan. One of the highest GDP per capita in the world, lowest crime rate in the developed world and probably the entire world. If only Australia took a leaf or 2 out of Japans immigration book…..

I would suggest that Japan is not a successful culture.There are enormous psychic pressures to conform. Wishing no disrespect it is very much like a huge colony of ants. A consumer driven rat race waiting to explode. Who really sets the rules & agenda? There are many dark undercurrents in the collective pysche.
There is enormous disaffection amongst young people and an incredible mindless one-dimensional consumer "culture". It is also totally dependent on the outside world for its economic survial. As is all of Europe. What will happen when hard times inevitably come!

There is a need for an ongoing debate on values and for values education in schools. Spirituality is a necessary part of that, but organised religion is not.

The organised religions and especially those with hierarchies of clerics have shown that ultimately the good of the church comes before the good of the 'flock' and religious beliefs are continually adjusted to ensure that is so. Islam is the same, the bigoted old Sheik recently put the 'frighteners' into his flock to ensure he still had them in check and under his control.

Religions attract bigots, some of them

Many Australians have not forgotten the Catholic controlled Democratic Labor Party and the National Civic Council. The recent actions of that Crazy Monk, Tony Abbott, in railroading the cervical cancer vaccination for girls was reminiscent of the time Rome used to pull the strings as the real power broker behind the DLP.

I suspect that the author knows full well why religions are distrusted in politics in Australia - it is because their own lack of ethics and morals detracts from their credibility. Simply put, they should put their own houses in order and that cannot be achieved through superficial renovation.

EasyTimes

Japan's GDP per capita is 20th in the world, Australia is 19th (2005 figures).

Back on topic - I hope this does not become an anti-islam, anti-immigration topic.

It is perfectly OK for our politicians to have religious views in fact a diversity of views should be encouraged. If our politicians were honest enough to tell us ALL of their views before an election we would have no need for conscience votes, then we could be sure that whatever laws are enacted are close to the will of the people.

Sadly many politician hide some of their views to avoid alienating "glued on voters" and we have the sham of conscience votes.

Please all people beg, buy or steal a copy of Dawkins “The God Delusion”.
Find access to a computer and look at one of his citations number 99 I think. Web does not recognise his citation but going to Skeptic 3 4 1995 with a search engine and then finding the reluctant www.Irainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html under Hartung’s name
You will find the argument that Christianity is a result of Paul who took the Jewish God to the gentiles. Hartung says “Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs”
Scholarship should allow these pieces to be accessed and then the subsequent search for rebuttal. In the process something of religion and politics and human nature may be gleaned even if disagreeably. The question of in and out groups has a lot to say about humans and the role of religion.

Boaz - you say that these christians are effectively reacting against the imposition of secular values in government, correct?

Here's my issue - secularism is a state without religion - in government, I heartily believe the only way forward is to have an establishment void of religion, because the moment you allow one (even if it is the majority faith) religion to have its influence officially recognised, you are headed down a slippery slope.

If we were to have a majority christian party, then we'll need minority parties for other religions.

Once you start having religious parties, pray tell, aside from the brand of god, how is it different to the politics of places such as Iraq, where Sunni and Shia vie for seats? Where votes are along religious lines, not on policy?

Will we have an Anglican party? perhaps a catholic party, and a good deal of protestants. Maybe the odd mormon, and a minority Seventh Day Adventist party.
The votes garnered by these parties... would they be for the right reasons?

You can say you're resisting secularism, but that goes hand in hand with imposing a religious form. Yeah, secularism's being imposed, but with ideology being such a grey area, secularism is the closest thing we have to neutral.

Now you can argue that secularism is tied to liberalism and the decline of values, but that doesn't have to be the case. If the majority genuinely wants to take Australia to a conservative place, then that's democracy - but don't use that as a trojan horse to proselytise our government.

"In times of grave global uncertainty is there a constructive role for religion to promote compassion, peace and hope for future generations?"
Yes always, as long as it is promoting compassion, peace and hope, and not hate, war and pessimism, those things we don't need promoted.

"Is religion’s role merely nurturing conscience in the political individual or should religious institutions and leaders act on the political stage in their own right?"
I'd say either or, as long as secularism is maintained in government and law. And by that i mean the idea of not favouring a particular religion but at the same time not excluding religious opinion altogether as i see that as a violation of the human right of freedom of religious choice and expression.

"Is there a preferred type of religious belief, practice or ethic which is inevitably aligned to a particular political philosophy?"
Not sure about that, but i do wonder if monotheistic dogmatic religions lean towards authoritarian philosophy, perhaps unwittingly.

Holland has imposed a state ban on all overt religious displays, including the wearing of Muslim veils & Christian crosses.

Such a move, in a world increasingly divided by religion rather than united by it, is inevitable.

The sooner we consider religion a personal exercise rather than as an issue of advocacy, the better.

BD let it go man - as your archetypical aussie - knee deep in immigrants I still have the remnants of my cultural identity branded into my cortex - so I can say with some comfort and indeed authority "she'll be right mate!" Let this misison against Islam go.

Or at the very least save it for an essay that deals with the issue

This guy was discussing the interface between religion and politics - he did, I concede refer to a multi faith tradition - as we have always had from the time of the First Fleet - Jews, Christians of all varieties came and banged heads with the indigenos peoples in more ways than one -

his phrase Australia is now - should have probably read is even more so a multi faith one - the change has been incremental since the flag was raised - hardly a revolution or conspiracy.

We probably havent added too much to the mix of late - I mean the Afghan camel dudes were here for years - so Islamism has been around - I would venture the three GREAT religions Christianity - in all its forms, Judasim and Islamism have been here in numbers for over two hundred years.

The authors assertion was the debate we confront is how religion and politics are best mix - not whether they should mix;

If you want to drag the debate down to the point where we haggle over WHICH religions we wish to engage in public discourse we will get no where - what about Hindus or Budhists?.

And lets be frank - Australia like most Christian nations and indeed people - pretend to be so.

Bennie makes a good point.

TOLERANCE of the "Nether" kind, has now led to BACKLASH of the Redneck kind... well actually it just government policy, rather than mobs in the streets, and that is how it should be. BUT... if the government did NOT act.. it would be mobs.

HO-HUM rebukes me (I hate that nick of yours I always have this vision of 'rolling eyes' when I read it :)
for 'longing for a day gone by' when in fact I'm writing a new chapter in the book. The "days" hohum thinks I long for had some serious deficiencies which I prefer to avoid.

TRTL makes an interesting point. But regarding a 'State Religion' and a predominant religion recognized by the state and reflected in some of its rituals are not the same thing.

Ultimately it boils down to the level of energy and passion that 'the people' have for their heritage. An example is the opening of Parliament with the Lords Prayer.. a distinctly "Christian" thing, but NOT a specific denominational thing, thus Catholic and Protestant alike can identify with it. But NOT Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's etc.. though to some of these it just does not matter because such things are not part of their own faiths.

I could never justify or even promote the Lords Prayer opening on 'Christian' grounds, there are none. I can only support it in a "cultural" way. Opening parliament with righteousness so a pack of sinners can discuss how to excercise 'greed' and self interest in the name of 'National Interest' is probably something God would frown upon.

So 'how' should religion and politics mix ? A hard one. For non Anglican Protestants it could only be discussed on a cultural level, for Catholics, and Protestants aah..thats different, history of England and Ireland come into play and the very nature of the traditions named.

Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)

BOAZ said:

CONCLUSION. It is just as valid to work towards a 'monocultural' Australia as it was to make it 'multi'cultural.

So im going to add my 2 bobs worth.

I know these are topics dear to Boaz, so I wont get rowdy mate. Actually I’ll probably be centrist. And to that end I note the new positions being taken up on ‘multiculti’ (saw that somewhere else).

This centrism, if that is what it is, could be a good thing for us. A shift from one angle to another. And if we embrace Our monoculture, then that is the best way to go. And I don’t see it interfering with Government, nor being ignorant of it. But what I would have a concern with, and ive mentioned it elsewhere, is monology.

So, if we have monoculturalism, will we have monology? I doubt it, the two don’t go together really, it would make for an odd mix in the social fabric. However, one could introduce the other, and that is where my concern lies. We must remain ever-vigilant against something which is not our own.

Now I can see Preston is a specialist in his field, and thus I am awarey of the discipline. The connection between Prestons position, and our social milieu, is one that should be carefully transversed.

I hope –Boaz- my indirectness does not mean anything.

cont:

This is where vigilance must be focused:
‘Balancing compassion and prudence, Brennan’s presentation is a strong defence of liberal democracy and the rule of law. In the process he explains his recent conversion to the cause of an Australian Bill of Rights because checks on the power of the state are no longer guaranteed.’

Any breach between egalitarianism and my rights must not be allowed to get out of hand. I’m not an advocate of a BoR. My evidence resides in the US.

I take issue with this, from Preston:
‘At the same time there is evidence of a systematic agenda among conservative Christians to emulate their American counterparts by imposing their views on the body politic’.

For various reasons and poles. Some phobic; others because I don’t agree with the ‘conservative’ label and its consequent implyment.

I could go on, and perhaps read others herein, but for now I hope this will suffice till perhaps next time.

Warnings about slippery slopes when allowing one religion or ideology to gain too much influence are all well and good but don't forget the other side of "Slippery Hill", the slippery slope of curtailing religious freedom. I don't think I need to illustrate where that can lead.

It may be a small patch of dry flat land but i think the best place to stand is the middle ground where there is a balance between one and the other, where there is freedom of religious expression in politics but also safeguards against the descrimination that could result if one were to obtain more influence.
Perhaps that is an arguement for a Bill of Rights although i haven't really made up my mind on that one yet.

What I do know is that as soon as you try to limit in some way a voice in the political forum because their ideas and opinions are rooted in an established religion or other ideology, which some above appear to support, you no longer have democracy, you have something else (atheocracy? seculocracy?).

I read in a devotional today of an ex Prime Minister of England (William Gladstone) who said 'I have known 95 great men in my time. And of these 87 were followers of the Bible. President John Quincy Adams declared: The Bible is the book above all others, to read at all ages, and in all conditions in life.' Friends no matter how hard you try you will never be able to take God or His Word out of the world He created. Friends this generation will pass and come up with different theories but God's Word will remain forever. Securalism (paganism dressed up) is the new kid on the block and won't last. It might win a few battles but will never win the war. This has already been won by Jesus Christ. One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess He is Lord. Have a great day folk.

Good article, reaffirming my personal view that dinner party etiquette is a good model for more general social interaction :)

As for this:

"Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)"

That's the kind of utterance that induces momentary embarassed silence at a decent table, invariably attenuated rapidly by a witty anecdote, or idle speculation about the cricket :) Civilised people know how to do this - in fact, I dare say that it's part of our culture.

So by all means keep it up, Uncle Boazy. Australian cultural values provide for the tolerance of eccentric ideas, particularly among religious folk. That is why the idea of a 'multi-faith, no-faith' society seems to me to fit the society that generates such disparate characters as you and me.

Our vibrant Australian culture has always been irreverently secular, despite the efforts of various generations of 'god-botherers' to instil guilt and wowserism into the cultural mix.

We need religion in politics like we need more rules in cricket. Heaven forbid :)

runner
Please don't banter about the word pagan or paganism. It is a derogatory pronouncement, like the word mushrik, of any other religion not being Abrahamic. Paganism is not a religion or a faith in itself nor does it represent a religion or a faith. There are many other religions in this world besides Judaism/Christianity/Islam and none are more or less.
Unless your advocating that the Abrahamic religions battle it out for rightious supremacy and the winner promises to forgo the politics and social manipulations the big three are currently involved in. In centuries past religion and politics worked as governing partners (somewhat) while(or where)the population was all of one. Today, not at all(most all), because we are not all of one nor do we intend to be. We're multicultural/multiethnic/multireligious/multipolitical and we will only come together if we can find social agreement. We are returning to tribalism. Not clans related by blood but, shared ideas. We are becoming a tribal world of ism's. We are now led by the all knowing truth of political correctness and the cultural and ethnic vote. There is no unified us.

Boaz_David, I regard myself as a secular moralist. My values come from lifelong thinking and experience. That does not put me above a religious devotee but nor does it mean my values leed to some sort of downward slippery slope.

Your aspersion on Bob Brown's values are your own invention. I am aware that Brown is very concerned about the effect of violent and other gratuitous entertainment on young people.

He has never advocated free heroin - but has advocated measures to help those addicted get off their addiction, including such things as free needle exchanges.

Debate those specific policy points rationally if you like, but please don't invent things to serve your own religious/political agendas.

As a secular I accept that religion can give people a tidy moral basis for living, but history shows that a religious-based morality leads to various forms of discrimination, intolerance and bigotry, and as a result, much warfare and bloodshed.

This is not to deny a value in religious thought, whether one gains their morality and ethical basis for living from religious or secular thought, we do ourselves a disservice if we put ourselves on a pedestal and shoot others down unthinkingly.

Runner: interesting you regard secularism as paganism dressed up. Many secularists feel the same way about monotheism - one god or many - it's still a believe beyond what is rational.

And I've got to agree with gecko's comments re bob brown.
You can disagree with him, but it's another thing to hold up an individual and chalk a whole ideology up to that person.

(Note, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with all of brown's politics either)

I could just as easily do the same for plenty of christians...

"Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)"

Porn
Free drugs
..and trees?

Awsome.

Trust you Spendo... :) you forgot to say (like in the Horror Movies) "I'm Baaa--aaack"....

Yes, I think I went a bit too far with the 'free' heroin... its more like my gracious corrector said.. injecting rooms.. but I'll need to update the policy on that.

But I'm right about the Trees :) Crumbs..I think a branch just fell on me !

Gadget... your quite right, the issue is close to my heart, but on 'mono-culture' I should point out that by this I don't mean an 'anglo saxon' 50s British culture, though by virtue of numbers this will probably head in that direction to a 'degree' no matter what.

I'm quite 'for' an osmosis style cultural absorption of the best things in the more recent migrant communities. All I'm really saying, is lets not further strengthen difference which alienates the majority and then places barriers to intermarraige.
Intermarraige is probably the fastest way to become that "Australian" of tomorrow.

Gecko... I take your point about secular moralist. But while I realize you can feel comfortable and even secure in this, I still feel that such a foundation is quite prone to all manner of philosophical influence over time. Sure.. you reflect... and live, and experience. But isn't it reasonable to assume that all of those things will in time modify your views about certain issues ?
Can I suggest you look at some anthropological articles on tribal cultures or traditional societies and even about Australia.. as I think this would provide benefit to one's outlook.

I prefer more of a rock solid foundation as I am always ranting about.
The reference point never changes, but the understanding and application may find stronger or weaker expression depending on external events.

Ahhh but Mr Boaz...

Your christian rock has changed greatly over time - indeed, few would believe the OT should be followed to the letter.
Few still cling to the no intercourse before marriage (I know there are plenty that do, but compare it to the number of christians who don't).
You can point out that many who don't adhere to the more traditional aspects of christianity aren't actually following it in the original 'spirit' as it were, but isn't this another example of change, of interpretation?

In any case, let's say you're right. I believe you yourself have pointed out that the problem with some followers of Islam is that they adhere too strictly to the Qu'ran. (If I'm wrong here, of course, feel free to correct me).
Aren't the more progressive muslim's, i.e. the ones who have a more liberal interpretation of the Qu'ran, the ones we're more keen to invite into our society?

How can it be good for christians to remain rigid, while bad for others?

I know you could point out the virtuosity of the bible here, but if you could explain it from a more relativistic standpoint I think you'll be more convincing for secular posters.

And lastly... perhaps it's a good thing that views can adapt over time.

Maybe the world is so screwed up because people are all convinced their way is right, and perhaps that's because they're not willing to let their beliefs evolve.

Boaz of Borneo: "Can I suggest you look at some anthropological articles on tribal cultures or traditional societies and even about Australia.. as I think this would provide benefit to one's outlook."

Can you cite a refereed anthropological article you've read that was written since, say, 1980? If you can, please indicate how it supports your decidedly peculiar views on race, culture, religion or politics.

C.J. The main work I constantly refer to regarding an Anthropological approach to culture and the impact of change for any period is this one. Not from 1980 on, but this article has been applied to modern business and education and for good reason.
Not to see it's wisdom re multiculturalism would be foolhardy.

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/steelAxes.pdf

There are insights in this article which relate to male identity, gender roles, cultural intrusion. Of high importance, it shows how seemingly 'minor' technology can have a huge (genocidal) impact on a community. Such must be the case to a point when 'diversity' is introduced to and emphasized in Australia ?

TRTL
Please read
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31
(the whole book.. 6 small chapters)
for a discussion of "Law" and "Grace".

Then Romans 8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&version=31

The 'Rock' is Christ. The relationship. Life in The Spirit.
The Mosaic "Law" had 2 aspects.
Eternal (10 Commandments) and 'Societal' for Israel while it fulfilled its pre-messianic destiny.
Paul argues in Romans 8 that the real Law is "Life in the Spirit"
See how he discusses the role of 'Law' in that section.

Never forget one thing. For Biblical Christians, Government can never legitimately be about 'Theocracy'. Catholics might dispute this.

In Islam, it is ALways about 'Theocracy'. Political,spiritual, social cultural. There can never be any other goal for Muslims.
The Quran is understood to be the only and eternal foundation of true society....and that is where it becomes worrisome. Surah 23:6 is a classic example of why.
http://www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/sura23.html
The issue of how 'literal' the Quran is to be regarded, brings you to the Sunni Vs Shia controversy. (read up :)

Boaz is what you say pure meaningless drivel or can you prove your god exists ? Because if you can not prove the god you speak for then clearly you have no justification for what you are saying, your claims are superstition dependent.

That aside, although in essence religion is a type of mental illness , that is spirituality is a form of paranoid delusion, ideologies of such are immoral in themselves. The so called teaching of Jesus is immoral because it is exclusionary. If Christians actually read their magical book instead of running around gibbering to phantoms and shadows they would realise this. Except many are so morally corrupt they can not see how a non superstitious person can act or think morally. Such morally corrupt people think they need a god or idol to keep them in line.

Being a purely exclusionary cult (what do christians believe happens to non-Christians?) politicians unless with great moral resolve to reject their own god will be corrupt because religion is corrupt. A politician who believes in jesus is imbued in such hatred of all those who do not worship god that he sinks as low as to believe they will burn in hell thus excluding nationals of their birthright to life and justice. This is why religion in politics always without exception leads to bloodshed and diaster.

West,

It is not necessary, possible, or perhaps even beneficial to prove or disprove whether god exists. Belief in god makes god real, and no-one's going to influence by rational argument a belief based on something not rational.

I think if we're going to dissect the benefits or otherwise of faith, we can start with some quantitative research. This link

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

is very revealing regards whether faith in developed nations is all it's cracked up to be. I recommend it to you, and, of course, to DB.

bennie September 11, the oklahoma bombing, banning of same sex marriage, the Klu Klux Klan, witch burning, Jones Town, Family first, Jesus camp, the inquistion, the bon fire of the vanities, African slavery are all the benefits of faith I am sure. The fact of the matter is I do not want anybodies superstition to impact on me or my family. If you claim god exists in public then you must prove that god to exist. If you do not then you are not being truthful in your claim. If you have no proof of your god that you can offer then obviously that god is your construct for the purpose to decieve other people. The worship of a god , any god is self obsession because the claimant speaks for god is speaking from the ego. You have just demonstrated this because you refuse to prove your god , you have no justification for your beliefs so you have no justification to subject others to your beliefs and your own god supports me because no god ever reacts to me but you react. It is your sensibilities that is offended by my rejection of your authority to dominate others. I am alarmed that you cannot see the violence in your words. I am alarmed that you cannot see the bald imorality in your words. I am alarmed that you speak for your god and do not let him speak. That shows your faith in god is bogus if you truley believed him to exist then you would have no need to do his bidding on his behalf.By speaking on behalf of a god you are telling me you are god. Your complete credibility relies 100% on your ability to prove to those who you are seeking to convince your cult and superstition are justified the existence of your god. Anything less is proving your god does not exist as you claim.

Umm, West, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Maybe you could read my post again. Or any of my previous posts on this topic. Or even the article I linked to.

Boaz: "The main work I constantly refer to regarding an Anthropological approach to culture and the impact of change for any period is this one. Not from 1980 on, but this article has been applied to modern business and education and for good reason.
Not to see it's wisdom re multiculturalism would be foolhardy."

I agree that Sharp's article is a good example of the structural-functionalist anthropology that was dominant half a century ago. However, I'm not all that surprised that you seem to be largely ignorant of the many critiques of that paradigm that have emerged in the intervening 50 or so years.

It's clear that you think that our society has been in decline since the second world war, but it's probably not all that clever a strategy to rely on superseded analytical frameworks in order to try and argue your case. It only weakens your argument and makes you appear ignorant and bigoted.

Bennie I apologise, I deleted a paragraph to lower the word count, lost with the paragraph was a reference to Boaz which I overlooked. Most of what I said was not meant to be directed to you.

The essential thing is that religion affects those who do not share their superstitions. Religion is only made public and attempted to be fused with politics when those with religious beliefs desire power over others. For this to be justified proof of god is absolutely necessary. The reason is because if a person is claiming a god to affect how others live and they have no proof of god before they start, they have no true knowledge of god to make any claim what so ever then what they are doing is conspiring to deceive others.

Another reason why proof is essential is because what Christians claim from their idol, magic, theology, even their concept of morality is irrational, unreasonable, illogical and nonsensical.

Evangelism is immoral because it is fraudulent. Even the belief in Christ is not based on knowledge and so is fraudulent and thus immoral. I have no misgivings for people deceiving themselves but the problem is many of these people are taking this deception from the privacy of their minds out to affect the general population. The alleged Jesus preached exclusionism and so his teachings are immoral. Christianity is a cult of immorality. Politics is bad enough without the injection of a greater evil.

Boaz: "Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)"

In the light of the hypocritical and creepy Exclusive Brethren's efforts to influence the Victorian election (http://www.theage.com.au/news/vicelection06news/radical-sect-attacks-greens/2006/11/23/1163871549994.html), it's instructive to re-read Boaz's strikingly similar disinformation above.

Boaz is a member of the 'Open Brethren', isn't he?

What's the difference between you and the "Exclusive Liars", Boazy? That you're allowed to vote and use computers, and they can't? You seem to have eerily similar ideas...

West, I tend to agree. Religion's fine, as long as it's kept to oneself.

I see no evidence organised religion makes for a better person, or even a better society.

gecko

You claim that "Many thousands of Australians have developed a secular morality, based on what we deemto be best for society, what is fair to all, what tends to develop social cohesion and stability."

1. Can you give us a ballpark of how "many" thousands? 2? 10? 100? 1000? And where do you get this data from?

2. What is a "secular" morality?

3. Do you really conceptualize morality as a matter of individual choice? If so how do you reconcile that with your claims that this alleged "secular morality" is channeled towards what is "best for society?

Steve Madden

It is impossible not to discuss Islam and immigration in any debate on multiculti. Especially given that multiculti is anathema to the Muslims.

Neokommie morality is a social construct. Morality is a social contract between members of society in order to facilitate social cohesion. Morality must also be positive if it is negative it is then evil. Christianity is immoral because it is exclusionary and the agenda of Christians is to control other peoples lives it is therefore negative. I understand Christianity claims moral superiority but this is nothing but sloganism and jingoism Christian history certainly discredits Christian argument. That Christians are wrong to claim their cult is the bed rock of morality is just a matter of course no Christian has proof of his god and therefore every claim he makes is completely baseless and false. As the cult has a deception imperative it is therefore self justified by untruths and so again immoral. A government must be transparent and working for all members of the state if not it is then immoral. For a Christian to be in parliment and then to let his superstition affect his actions he is being exclusionary towards members of the state and so immoral.

Isn't it funny that leftists protest when people of faith speak up and oppose their policies, but are very happy when clergy take a "social justice" leftist position. The rule seems to be that its Ok for religion and politics to mix as long as its leftist religion with leftist politics.

The burning question about "social justice" is that hardly anyone defines what they mean by the term. What does it mean? In practice it's used as a "motherhood" statement: you wouldn't want to oppose something that sounds so good would you? In reality, the left sees it as a justification for income redistribution, but is it just to take money from one class of people and give it to another class?

As the wikipedia article says:

"Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics. It can be argued that everyone wishes to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" itself tends to be used by those ideologies who believe that present day society is highly unjust - and these are usually left-wing ideologies, advocating a more extensive use of democracy and income redistribution, a more egalitarian society and either a mixed economy or a non-market-based economic model. The right-wing has its own conception of social justice, but generally believes that it is best achieved through embracing meritocracy, the operation of a free market, and the promotion of philanthropy and charity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Ho Hum, Israel's constitution is designed to produce a monocultural state.
The reason religion has no part to play in politics is that it is not susceptible to reason. When new facts emerge, new discoveries are made and new 'truths' appear, then the rational, secular person embraces these and changes his/her opinions and actions.
Religious zealots were still incinerating men for insisting the earth was a sphere long after the proof was established, and they are still persecuting gays, despite incontrovertible proof that sexual orientation is not a choice, but predetermined.
it is religious resistance to the idea that god will not stop humans from exterminating themselves and all life, that has prevented action to combat climate change.
Religion should be practised only by consenting adults in private.

Religion i.e. family first party has no place in politics, we don't want religion shoved down our throats. It is a free country, those of us who are religious don't need our politician to be so.

The problem of religious conflict in politics arose because secular politicians are listening to conflicting religions groups interefering in our assumed personal democratic spiritual rights of belief. Interferring in the personal attitudes of people's rights who wish to make a judgment on another's beliefs.

Secular politicians like Steve Bracks are enforcing their personal values on the State(his religion is: make-no-judgment-on-another-religion). Therefore enforce laws on, "What one can say". All in an attempt to pasify sharia law exponents, who want the State to uphold blasphemy laws with penalty.

The Bracks government is the prime example of stirring up the religious issue, by enforcing vilification laws formulated by the Muslim Cultural Centre - denying the right to criticise their point of view - Islam; all in the guise of tolerance. Tolerance means tolerating opposition which some atheists and Christians have done for 2,000 years, not enforcing silence on one's opponents which Islam has done for 1,400 years, by threat of death.

These laws will further be enforced by the recent election to the Victorian Labor Upper House of the sworn enemy of Westminster democracy, Muslim Khalil Eideh who holds dual citizenship with and upholds sworn allegiance to Syria a nation that funds Jihadist terrorism.

The Christian Right who has been rather indifferent to politics has arisen because there now resides a real threat to our freedom of expression and democracy. The freedom of the people espoused by Reformed Christianity faces an internal enemy. It threatens to overthrow our very way of life, not by a war of agression but by entering our Governments.

Religion / philosophy = a view of social laws on how people are to be governed. The contrast to secular is spiritual - not religion; as spiritual people also have secular needs.

Though Atheism denies the spiritual it is another form of religion / philosophy it's not a synomym for secular. Secular deals with the natural material world, spiritual deals the emotions the mind, beliefs and attitudes. Governments should deal with shared secular needs, it is the personal right of every individual to seek the spiritual.

Philo atheists are simply people who do not believe in fairytales, people who are not superstitious. Atheism is not a religion. To say atheism is a religion is nonsense and shows how people are susceptible to misinformation. Religion is the superstitious belief of a magic super-being(s) who control physicality using magic often evoked by spells such as ritual. An atheist just does not believe in myth and superstition. It seems as if Christians are aware that their superstition is demeaning and so try and drag the well balanced down to their level.

As far as Christianity being a tolerant cult, that is nonsense. Christianity has had a violent and prejudiced history; vindictiveness is the only true Christian value. Even the alleged teaching of the biblical character of Christ was bigoted. Alas for the propagandists Christianity is as insidious as Islam. As a non-superstitious person I can tell no difference between the two it is like a pair of twins fighting.

As a club let Moslems and Christians have their silly laws within their own institutions as long as they don’t break any secular laws. It is purely immoral to allow Moslems and Christians affect the lives of Australians. Christianity and Islam are not the only superstitious cults, they are behaving like a coupler of spoiled brats.

You cannot separate the Christian right from the rest of the cult . The Christian right are the truest forms of Christianity , Christianity is a cu8lt based on exclusionism ,intolerance and bigotry , if a member of the cult is not of the above they are not true Christians as they are not following Christs ideology. Christianity is a Dark Age cult the so called right is the articulation of the ideology. Remember nobody has met god, they all make him up, they all got a lot to say about something that in all reality does not exist. Spiritual freedom is fine as long as you keep it to your self. In the end when a person speaks of god they are really speaking about their ego.

Really, Philo,
atheism is neither a philosophy nor a religion, it is merely an intellectual standpoint that requires evidence of the senses and scientific proof of assertions before they are believed. No more and no less. Atheism espouses no particular ethical standpoint, although, in my experience, most atheists are humanists and much gentler, kinder and more concerned for the welfare of their fellow humans than the devoutly religious people I've had the misfortune to meet. But that’s merely my experience and I make no generalisation.

West,
I well regonise atheists of which you are one are negative people to those that uphold holy values of character. Atheists philosophy is anything is Ok, as there are no absolutes, no accountability to anyone greater than oneself.

The philosophy of atheism is equally influencing decision in politics, just as much as any other world view. Atheism, of which you constantly espouse influences your decision on how people are to be governed in society just as much as any other world view. You obviously uphold there is no perfection of character attitudes and behaviour which Christ upheld, and which true followers of Christ should endeavour to admire and live.

God is not some remote being, which you seem to imagine Christians believe in. God is the spiritual dynamic revealed in Creation, human perfection, and ultimate history; The perfection of rightness, of truth and wisdom. God is the spirit that identifies the perfect, the right [the holy].

The basis of our Westminster society was formed with the admiration of such hope by prayers said in our governments at every session, few atheists have founded a workable society. Russian Communism failed because it was soley based in atheism, and failed to admire personal holiness. Our society will equally fail as we ignore personal holiness. The strength of a society is not its laws enforced by governments but how people live in holiness.

Philo obviously you have no concept of what atheism is and what reality is. “God is not some remote being, which you seem to imagine Christians believe in. God is the spiritual dynamic revealed in Creation, human perfection, and ultimate history; the perfection of rightness, of truth and wisdom. God is the spirit that identifies the perfect, the right [the holy].” That statement of yours requires proof of god; it is an intimate claim of your idol you can only make if you have prior proof. Of course you don’t because it is your fantasy - you made it up.

Christianity, Islam ect is nothing other than a glorified game of dungeons and dragons, nothing more. Religion is an indulgence in immature game playing. What is not understood by the immature or the “spiritual” as this brand of immaturity is politically correctly called is that others do not want to play childish games such as Christianity and Islam.

To need to believe in a higher power to make one-self behave is also a symptom of immaturity. Seriously Philo I don’t car if adults play with balls, or electric train sets, computer games or dolls or play the dungeons and dragons that is called Christianity as long as it does not bother other people. Clearly the dark age nonsense that is called Christianity or Islam is becoming a pest, a nuisance and Christians and Moslems have become the skinheads of the new millennium. My advice is to grow up, take responsibility for yourselves, if you can’t do that just keep your silly games to yourselves.

If superstition such as the belief in god gets to the point where you think has a place in politics I suggest seek psychiatric help because obviously you are taking a childish game far too seriously

"Atheists philosophy is anything is Ok, as there are no absolutes, no accountability to anyone greater than oneself."

Git yer hand off it Philo. Atheism simply posits there is no supernatural God. Distinction between right & wrong does not depend on faith in dogma.

Put it this way. How do you know everything the bible (for example) tells you is 'good'? Is it OK to subjugate women? Commit genocide? One would hope your moral compass is more accurate than that.

Thank God for men of conscience such as John Howard and Kevin Rudd who hold a deep respect for human life. They test legislation against the intention of life itself as purposed by our Designer.

West, you cannot face the reality of God so you reduce the possiility in your mind by negatism and ridicule. A sign of immature thinking, rather than thinking the position of others and understanding from where their thoughts come. Obviously you do not have a secure world view to present the positive of your position, just immature ridicule.

Yeah, right on Philo,
thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, David hicks locked up without charge for five years, children locked up in Australian detention centres, Lies about children being thrown overboard, lies about aborigines wanting to take over the back yards of othe Australians, lies about same-sex couples wanting to destroy the fabric of Australian marriage, Lies about bribing Saddam Hussein, lies about the effects of contraception pills, ... that's a great moral guy your John Howard. We need more of that type...
Go join the Brethren and pray for rapture.

Reality of God Philo? You must be joking , you have no previous proof of god before you claimed its reality. Religion and spirituality are dungeons and dragons, god believers are just childish minds clinging on to teddy bears. Fetishising personality into stuffed cloth and button eyes. God belongs in the toy box not in politics. Leave reality for the real world and god for the play ground.

West,
Your childish insults identify your lack of intelligence to engage in mature debate. Go play! You have been braiwashed in negativism and insults - typical drop-out uni student.

In the future if you wish to engage in adult debate put a positive case foward for your position.

I find unity, design and purpose in the universe, the product of one mind. My God is revealed in right living that brings praise and admiration of social perfection. Revealed in character, attitudes, behaviour, wisdom, that is expressed in his creation. Man has the capacity to abuse the nature of any of these as revealed in perfection and the curses resultant of selfishness, egocentric greed and irresponsible indulgence will ultimately destroy.

Philo I do not wish to insult Christians, Star Trek or Harry Potter fans. The fact remains whether discussing Christianity or Star wars or others of the same ilk it is no more than childish self indulgence. Immaturity is part of this society wether it is obsession with fictional occult characters such as Jesus or a girly crush on Brad Pitt. Who cares as long as it does not interfere with other people’s lives? Whatever you say does not change the fact that Christianity is a game liken to dungeons and dragons. The only difference is dungeons and dragons players do not seek to interfere with other people’s lives. Christians wrongfully seek to interfere with other peoples lives. To imagine for a second that others would be childish enough to need or believe in a god is itself an articulation of immaturity because it is symptomatic of self obsession. To be self obsessed to the point to use god as a justification just on ones say so is also immaturity. God does not exist , no claim of god is based on any truth, any experience of god. All claims of god are based on the ego , an ego that has constructed a game character as is with dungeons and dragons. People have a place in politics and that is what secular politics is. God is just a figment of the imagination to allow people to escape taking responsibility for their own choices, another dimension of immaturity that is Christianity. Again I say leave politics to the grown ups, keep god in the toy box. If I offend Christians and Muslims then I suggest they grow up. Shocking as it is to god believers there is a real universe outside of their heads and they are NOT the centre of the universe. Your belief in god is your problem Philo, it is not anybody else’s. It is immature to think we should accept your fantasy on your say so alone. Children also go through your denial when older children realise Santa Claus does not exist.

I meant to ask, Philo, which of the 20,000 or so gods that humans have worshipped over the millennia, do you worship?
We are not too different - I have sinply rejected one more god than you.

All the above post to this thread are very good reasons for keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion. Oil and water.

In case you had not noticed LAW is based in a set of values / morals defining what is good or bad within the society. The fact that we view all men as equal, and judged by the same standard upheld by the State no matter their status - is a Christian view. This view has permeated Western thinking and makes for an equal society. Moral values are based in religious tenets, that make a society function practcally.

Who makes laws regarding human behaviour - Governments. By whose standards do they apply laws? We have persons lobbying Governments to decriminalise drugs; by whose standards do they then apply the law? If you believe every person has a purpose and a high calling, then Governments have a responsibility to assist persons to achieve that purpose. If you believe we are merely an accident of evolution then purpose is a myth. Since Christians seek to have a society free of the harmful effects of toxic substances to human health and wellbeing, then we act through the police force to rid the society of these abusive substances.

Philo you can not defend your fantasy based superstition on history. It was the enlightenement that developed the concept of equality. The enlightenement was in response to those solid Christian ideals , sexism, racism, corruption and violence. If you want a good illustration of what Christianity is by what it does you should read animal farm. Christianity is a purely negative superstition as it is a superstition based on exclusionism. The tolerance you seem to be trying to illustate as part of the cult of Jesus is only the tolerance that has been forced upon Christians by a more enlightened and secular world. Left to its own devices Christianity is a cruel, corrupt and destructive cult. The occult fiction collection - the bible is self damning in this regard. The occult charcter of Jesus preached exclusionism. The character of god a loathing monster of destruction.
Yourself demonstrates this by the fact you have to resort to dishonesty to defend your superstition a superstition you would not have to defend if you kept it to yourself and not tried to interfere with the lives of others with.

So true, West. So sadly true.
As for equality.... who are the only people demanding homosexuality be condemned? What government-sponsored tax-exempt corporate giants are fighting tooth and nail to prevent gays being treated equally before the law?
The monotheistic cults of Judaism, Mohammedanism and Christianity.

West,
Where in the teachings of The New Testament; the basis of Christian teaching and ideals, do you find encouragement of the behaviour you describe in your post? "The enlightenement was in response to those solid Christian ideals, sexism, racism, corruption and violence."

The enlightenment of history happened to be a return to the true tennets of Christian attitudes and practises. Read your history, Christian faith is not what the oppression of a Roman Church practised. It is the Christian revival of the reformation of the Church that brought social change to society. Return to formal education, nursing care, printing press, freedom to slaves, elecric wheel, pasteurisation to name a few were all as a result of Reformed Christians overcoming Romanism oppression and social hardship. The enlightenment was not atheism, it was a return to the truth of Christ teachings.

Your understanding of what is solid Christian ideals indicates you ignorant attitude, not an understanding of the facts.

What has atheism done in politics in the last 200 years? It has given us the Socialist Republic of the USSR where 40,000,000 Christians were put to death for practising their faith. Were 8,000,000 died in concentration camps in Siberia. What brought about the overthrow of this opressive regime? It was the revival of Christian values in their society, now taught in schools.

What has Socialist atheism done in China? Atheism is opressive and unenlightened darkness that murders its opponents. Millions have been put to death for the practise of their faith. It is the current revival and conversion to Christianity of the Chinese that is changing attitude within the society. Over 100,000 each week in China become Christians who are willing to suffer State persecution for Christ.

Atheism in politics is demonstrated to be the scourge of the 20th Century. We have in NSW parliament two Greens who are sworn members of the Communist Party and enemies of the practise of Christianity in the State and in politics. Yes West, atheism in politics is your new enlightenment - like hell!

Philo clearly you have no knowledge of history whatsoever. The Enlightenment was motivated by the desire to return to the high civilisation of the Roman Empire as Christianity had brought Europe into intellectual, cultural, technological and moral stagnation and often regression.
The New Testament is fiction on par with Harry Potter it has no relevance to reality. To believe in magic such as walking on water, raising the dead , resurrection is completely ridiculous. What credibility can a person have who is foolish enough to believe in such childish fiction? Worst still there are those who for what ever malicious intent seek to convince others that the bible has occult value. That is to say that it is inspired by a god that they most conveniently speak for and that the Bible itself is a book of magic , that it is a guide , something akin to the book on charmed. In the Bible Jesus committed a terrorist attack on the temple clearly it would have had to have been an extraordinarily massive attack to justify him being brought in front of Pilate and Herod instead of a legal court. Especially sensitive because Pilate did not report Jesus to Rome and Herods meticulous public servants also recorded no Jesus and no incident.
Here we have a fantasy figure –Jesus who has inspired Christian violence over the centuries. Christianity the occult belief in the fictional character of Jesus has inspired Christian dishonesty over the centuries. A Jesus that stole slogans and so called teachings from eastern esoterics inspiring Christian culture theft such as xmas and easter over the centuries.
The last 200 years have turned around the effects of Christianity, poverty which was actively created by the church so as to claim piety through helping the poor it created has turned around. Science has given us medicine, regulation and steps towards income equality and fairness, technology and safe building. Whereas Christianity is a cult of intolerance and hatred attacking homosexuals and un-ritualised marriage, the hatred and subjugation of women the enlightenment has driven us toward acceptance rather than tolerance.

Communism was a Christian invention of Protestant origin, hot on the tail of Martin Luther. The idea of the early communists was to live as Jesus taught. Stalin himself was a clergy man and modelled his power on that of the Church. Without the occult of Christ Stalinism would never have occurred. What have Christians achieved? Christians hate and have no respect for gays and seek to ban gay marriage to make a negative impact on the life of gays. Christians hate and disrespect women, Christians believe it is for Christians to decide for women how they should treat their body. Christians engaged in slavery, bleeding Africa of its most precious resource. Only in the early 20th century did some churches admit non-whites are human. Christians colonised the world spreading disease and bloodshed, polluting the atmosphere with the burning corpses of South and North American, African and Asian Children, Women, sword in one hand, bible in the other. Christians brought the Pagans of Europe to Genocide, Persecuted other types of Christians (more Christians were fed to the lions in the late Roman games by Christian Authorities than were executed under non-Christian Rome). Witch burning is still called for by Christians, homicide through exorcism still goes on, the teaching of pure fabricated lies such as intelligent design occurs, cover up of child abuse in churches continues. Christians advocate beating children. Corruption such as nepotism and simonism occurs by Christians in government and managerial positions and allowing jobs or promotion only to Christians. Church groups defrauding tax payers through taking government grants to take for themselves continues. The inquisition only stopped in the recent past only because it was made to stop by secularists. The bonfires of the vanities, the never ending parade of religious wars. Christian terrorism in Ireland, Serbia and the U.S (for some Timothy McVeigh has become a Christian hero).

Christianity inevitably leads to persecution. Christianity is a divisive and violent superstition based philosophy. How could it not be? Jesus himself based on the Character of Chrisos a military deity, Jehova an invention of a bloody Hebrew military coup.

West... I love you
I hope you belong to the Atheist foundation of Australia? Such intelligence as yours would be an asset.
Thanks to you too Philo, for using your silly gullibility and credulous belief in gods and demons to stimulate such genius in West..

The Christianity West condemnes, is not Christianity at all, it is Roman imperialism that called itself Christian. As far as communism as practised by the USSR and China, Cuba, North Korea etc, it outlaws the practise of reliion as it is based in atheism. Socialism as an economic system has been practised by several societies and some Christian, however they never murdered religious dissidents, as did Atheistic socialism as the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba.

I have lived through, read and talked to people from those regimes and know the persecution they suffered. Your knowledge of history is influenced by your atheistic bigotry and closed mind to the reality of others.

Philo exclusionism and persecution are core Christian values. Communism has evolved from Christianity, In the occult book called the Bible Jesus preaches Communism, Jesus preachyes the exclusionism of the majority of religions, the exclusion of the majority of people who has ever vexisted and will exist. Christian nations have always banned other religions, Jews were not allowed in certain cities and countries ande were barbarically persecuted. Pagans and wiccans and atheists were cruelly persecuted by Christians. When ever did an atheist torture and burn a mourning mother of a dead baby because to mourn is to go against gods will? When has an Atheist beaten his child to death when he has found out his child is Christian? This is the values you chose to adopt when you decided to adopt the superstitious cult of Christianity. Jesusmania is your childish game , your dungeons and dragons , not ours. Keep god in the toy box because there is not much in this world that is more dangerous than the belief in god.

West,
Your failure to read or understand the teachings of Christ places you among the uninformed and ignorant. I do not wish to carry this conversation any further because you choose to selectively identify acts done by some who do not act according to the true teachings of Christ. Evaluate their actions against the attitudes and behaviour of Christ. Bertrand Russell though an atheist upheld that every child should be taught the teachings of Christ. Read his book on why I am not a Christian.

Communism is not at issue here, atheism is. The issue is that when atheist rule then they are corrupted by power to supress belief and the free press. However atheists who have ruled nations in the last 200 years as my examples show, have been the most ruthless and cruel. That is why freedom of expression and democracy, the right to hold differing and conflicting opinion, is the most benificial form of Government. The Greens as they currently have stated are really the Communist Party in NSW who wish to abolish all schools except Public. They do not allow freedom of opinion that differs from theirs. If they ever got into power to form government secular atheism would be the State religion.

Philo you demonstrate the inherent dishonesty of Christians. You think because you believe in untruths then you can make any untrue argument and it will be accepted. It is you who are ignorant of atheism / secularism / realism. An atheist does not believe in myth, an agnostic is superstitious enough to think myth may be possible and better not discount myth in case discounting it brings bad luck. A religious person believes in myth.
Christianity is only a childish game akin to Dungeons and Dragons. Jesus is your dungeon master. They are not even the teachings of Christ but plagiarisms of other cults. The fetishised fictional occult character you refer to as Christ teaches exclusionism and bigotry two core values of Christianity which Christianity as a whole and devotees to the Christ idolatry demonstrate throughout history and in their daily lives.

Pinoche, Marcos ,Stalin, Peron, Nixon, Bush, are/were all Christians. Apartheid was conceived and lobbied for by clergy of the Dutch Reform church. Somalia and Rawanda too are and were religious conflicts. Even the Vietnamese conflict began between the Catholic minority and an endemic Buddhist nationalist movement. Japanese expansionism in the 1930’s and the Asian Pacific war was a product of Japanese believing they had a god given right.

You too believe you have a god given right to push your superstition and fetishised idolatry. The truth is you don’t because god does not exist. You don’t have a god given right. You would be completely honest and admit the concepts of god you hold are only that of your imagination. You would be that honest if you did not sense on some level that god does not exist. You know subconsciously know there is no god that’s why dishonesty is needed to defend god.

"Australia is NOW a multi faith (or no faith) society"

"It would mean there was a secret master race that considered themselves pure Australians...It would be worse than the Third Reich." (Al Grasby)

Yes! It shall be worse alright. The country of Australia has become part of the world's Ecumenical Movement which means:

This a wicked twentieth-century unity movement consisting of religious modernists and liberals. It is Satan's desire to unite the world so that all will be in subjection to the coming Antichrist (Rev. 13:3; 12:9); therefore, religious unity is considered a must. Most ecumenicals have no real convictions, and they generally deny the fundamentals of Christianity, the infallibility of Scripture, and the autonomy of local churches.

"were aimed at destruction of Australian identity ?"

What the Author is actually stating here, is that it will be destruction and chaos globally for all of mankind.

Philo I was mistaken; Jesus is not the dungeon master. Jesus is a character in a fiction. Clergy are the dungeon masters dictating the thoughts of the game players.

Glorybound I thank you for pointing out the destructive nature of worshipping Jesus as you demonstrate Christian ideology desires violence against peaceful secular nations.

Prophesising destruction of Australia because it is secular is a threat of violence against Australia because prophesising is egging on fellow Christians to carry it though. There is no Christ and therefore no anti Christ, there is no Satan other than psychotic delusion.
Prophesising destruction of Australia because its people are secular is a hate based threat.

The reason is because you are immature and a bad sport. I will use the example of soccer hooliganism as essentially you are demonstrating Christian hooliganism.

Soccer is a game. Soccer is not magic. If soccer did not exist the world would not be worst off. Christianity too is a game, is not magic and the world would not be worst of if it Christianity did not exist (evidence of history points to the world being a better place if Christianity did not exist).

Soccer in its intrinsic existence is a man competing to kick a ball through a rectangular space. Christianity in its intrinsic nature is people believing in a book and following rituals and worshipping idols of the imagination and of wood, stone or plastic.

In their intrinsic existence both soccer and Christianity are games of benign frivolity. Some people take the game too far. A team may lose the game and a fan chooses to be affected. God does not exist and a Christian chooses to be affected blaming other people’s denial of superstition for the absence of god. The soccer fan becomes violent at his perceived (as opposed to physical) loss. The Christian (and Muslim, re-suicide bombers) also becomes violent over his perceived loss (as opposed to physical loss).
In reality there is no loss other than the fan or worshipper loosing their mind over a self chosen hysteria.