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.