Faith is fixed, meaning that it can fix the brain on one idea, even murder.

Reason is superior to faith, because it encourages you to search like a detective, often not even then believing, but to carry on enquiring - even as faithful Christians, St Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant gave support to.

It is not certain to what extent religion affects politicians’ views as much as the media wants us to accept. One does not need to be a religious to see that extracting a living infant out of its mother’s womb and murdering it… constitute a crime against humanity.

The marriage of politics and religion however is really interesting when “Caesar” is both the State and the Religion of the day. (Hence the Christian reformation).

This is why Islam and liberal democracy cannot co-exist. Judging from the recent escalation of attacks in Iraq – Islamists are prepared to go to any length to prevent Democracy taking precedent on the rulings of Allah..

Secularism is anathema in an Islamic State. Citizens are either Muslims or second-class kafirs (unbelievers).

The word “secular” does not exist in the Islamic lexicon. So what does an Islamic party in Australia really hoping to achieve if not replacing democracy with Islam ?

An Islamic party is the next nail in the coffin of our liberal democracy. Give Islam a little and before you know it it’s too late to retrieve our once free country.

There is no place for a Religious parties in Australian politics – being Christian or otherwise. (We) on the other hand need Christians in politics to protect our inherent Christian values on which our laws and society have been built.

To throw Christianity out of policy making is to create a moral and ethical vacuum that can be replaced temporarily by nothingness (Atheism, Humanism) but will soon be devoured by amorality (Islam). This is what is happening in most parts of Europe today.

Allah causes people to do good and to do evil; therefore Muslims have no moral control (law) over their actions. It’s all as Allah wishes and he (Allah) knows best, and he is the master of deception.

That explains why a terrorist is also a hero in Islam, a martyr for the cause of Allah. Killing innocent people is the sure ticket to paradise.

There are no moral consequences. How could Islam govern or even compete in our political systems?

Interesting and thoughtful piece, I think it brings out the subtleties of some of the issues very well.

As a Christian, I can’t and shouldn’t lay my faith perspectives aside when I enter the ballot box. But nor am I bound to accept the assumptions of those who would conflate their own political ideologies with the demands of their faith, whether the “family values” agenda of the right or the “social justice” agendas of the left

It is us Germanic barbarians who have forced Islamists to escape down into their own Dark Age, even after it was a wonderful union between Islam and Greek philosophy that enabled St Thomas Aquinas to spread the message lifting Christianity out of its own Dark Age. A message that was also wonderfully scientific, making us Westerners what we are today.

As an Iranian female Justice of the Peace mentioned a year or so ago. If only the barbarian West with its craving for Middle East oil and hegemonic global positioning, would leave the Middle East alone, its people would eventually form their own style of democracy.

Surely we can take lessons from Malaysia, Vietnam, and even possibly Indonesia, which in the long run with the help of India and China, might prove as good or even superior to our smart-a-se Western selves.

Tony_said:

1/ [The first is that most religions preach a world view that influences a way of living. This "way" tends to permeate a sincere believer's life, including their politics, either as citizen or politician.]

2/ [The second truth is that the point of religion is essentially different from that of politics.]

Amen Brutha! yes.. and I might emphasise that Tony_Coady is NOT an alias of BD, but he is on the same_page. There is a difference though, and that difference is my further emphasis on the actual nature and basis of the 'WAY' of Islam as it impacts the believing Muslim.

Tony says that 'way' permeates the believers life 'INCLUDING' politics. Islam is totally political by nature. To be Muslim is to be "Islamically Political".

The example and basis for that political 'way' is found in Mohammad's life.

"I have been commanded to FIGHT against people so long as they do not confess that there is no God but Allah". Hadith Muslim book 1 number 30 ...is a recurring theme in the Hadith Literature. It is so strong, and with so many different chains of narration that it must be recognized as a central aspect of true Islam.

It does not make a scrap of difference that various posters to this forum claim that such things are taken out of context (they are not) or that they are 'selective' (that they are). What matters is how they support the reality of early middle and late (current) Islam and how this is being translated into real world actions NOW.

CHRISTIANITY and POLITICS. "IF" the true and basic teachings of Christ are followed, and his wonderful example, the Church will NOT be a political organization, but it WILL have an impact on the choices governments make. It will be a prophetic voice calling people to account for their actions. Why ? check this out:

II Chron 12:1
After Rehoboam's position as king was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel [a] with him abandoned the law of the LORD.

I see a big slice of Australia right 'there'.

Coach qrote;

'To throw Christianity out of policy making is to create a moral and ethical vacuum that can be replaced temporarily by nothingness (Atheism, Humanism) but will soon be devoured by amorality (Islam).'

This statement is misguided for it presupposes that atheists and humanists are incapable of acting morally.

I would suggest that atheists and humanists can be far more humane than monotheists because they are not following religious dogma from the Bronze Age. Neither do atheists and humanists have to appease the whims of an angry 'sky-god' or follow bigoted 'holy' texts.

In fact, it is the morality of the monotheistic religions which exists in a 'vacuum' because it is founded on a non-existent 'sky-god'. On the other hand, the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method. Disciplines based on hard empirical evidence like neuroscience, evolutionary pyschology and sociology are always going to be of more value than the unfounded opinion of a religious guru from the Bronze Age or the hallucinagenic ponderings of an Arabian cave dweller.

By the way - John Howard's comment the other day that we should all 'pray for rain' is simply unacceptable for the head of a secular government. He should keep his religious opinions to himself.

Besides, what difference does praying for rain make? Its net effect will be exactly zero. Perhaps we should all hold hands and dance naked around a may-pole as well.

TR, fully support your reasoning re the above topic.

As having gained a political science degree, as well as a post-grad in the general social sciences in my retirement years, am still determined to stay a liberal Christian from confidence gained in the rather radical reasoning of the 17th century English philosopher, John Locke, who was the main one to inspire the Glorious Revolution of 1688, giving royalty only second place in British governing institutions.

Some extracts from Locke's autobiography-

'Much of Locke's work is characterised by opposition to authoritarianism..... Especially in politics, Locke wants us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply acccepting the opinions of the authorities..... The positive side of Locke's philosophy is that he believes that using reason to grasp the truth rather than faith, will optomise human flourishing both in material and spiritual welfare.

It is also very interesting that it was mainly the liberal rather radical theories of John Locke which many years later gave the spur for the American War of Independence.

TR

1) >>…atheists and humanists are incapable of acting morally...<<

What I said in my opening remark is that we all can arrive at a same decision but from different moral standards.

Example we could both vote against abortion. My moral reason is because a human being is created by God in His image and therefore that precious life is sacred and must be protected.

Your decision could be because of the economic burden imposed on Medicare, or the potential health danger to women’s fertility, or similar…

2) Therefore I disagree with your opinion that atheists and humanists can be far more humane than monotheists.

3) >>Neither do atheists and humanists have to appease the whims of an angry 'sky-god' or follow bigoted 'holy' texts.<<

Your opinion again. Nothing to do with the God I know and worship.

4) >>In fact, it is the morality of the monotheistic religions which exists in a 'vacuum' because it is founded on a non-existent 'sky-god'.<<

Not facts – just your opinion. Don’t judge others by what you don’t have or understand.

5) On the other hand, the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method.

Not so – science can only observe and explain what God has created long ago. According to your logic science has put stars in the sky and created the human body – because it can observe them.

6) John Howard's and 'pray for rain' comment.

I found that also unacceptable but for many other reasons. Prayer should be the first thing to do NOT an act of desperation when all other methods fail.

JH is now putting the blame on God instead of accepting his government's lack of action for the last decade or so.

JH as a self-proclaimed believer should have expected cynicism. Like you TR most equate prayer to wishful thinking or superstition… even well meaning politicians.

BTW – Christians have been praying for the water crisis and are still praying for farmers.

It’s all in God’s timing. So watch that space!

TR I too support your reasoning. It is not likely that a person who believes in God does not arrive at any moral conclusion without reference to that God and in particular in context of their particular branch or sect of their Faith. To suggest otherwise makes no logical sense whatsoever. Why believe at all if it is not going influence you?

For all people the questions on Why should I be good and How do I live a good life are intrinsically linked to what are their perceived consequences and rewards.

This is probably the main reason why Christians or Muslims find it hard to believe that atheists or humanists can be moral or indeed good. Because, why be good if you don't think anybody is watching you and make you pay?

It makes a discussion on some issues, such as, Abortion or Euthanasia between believers in God and non-believers a parallel discussion. There are no points intersecting.

This is why I prefer politicians to make a full and frank declaration on whether or not they believe in a God. That way I know how they are likely to vote on some issues on my behalf.

It frustrates me that a representative of mine could make legislative decisions that affect me on issues which I deem to be valid only to my personal spiritual and moral well-being.

TR
I agree, to say that atheists and humanists are incapable of acting morally is a little silly (although I don’t think that is quite what Coach said).

However, it is equally silly to then go on and say that ‘the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method’, as if people of faith can’t or don’t think scientifically.

Using good morals is not the monopoly of people of faith, and using good science is not the monopoly of atheists.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Do I need to show you a list of men of strong biblical faith who founded scientific disciples (e.g. Newton, Mendel, Pasteur …etc.)? You speak of neuroscience as if a person of faith couldn’t understand it. It may surprise some that the pioneer of MRI technology which studies the brain, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a biblical creationist.

Morals and science are both useful tools and anyone can use them. I could add faith to this list.

Now to define the word ‘secular’, I thought Coady in the article gave a pretty fair definition. But some here seem to confuse the idea of secular with the absence of religion, which is atheism. This is not what the word means. Atheism and Theism are on the same philosophical plane. To choose one is to relegate the other.

So if Howard says we should pray for rain, then some may be offended. But if he said, ‘we shouldn’t pray for rain because there is no God’, it would be the other side of the same coin, and a different group may be offended. So what is he to say? He may as well speak his conviction. So long as he doesn’t institute an official state religion, no one is any more for the worse.

Can they co-exist? The egg or the chicken fluff. Religion has been co existing with democracy since the times of ancient Greece. A more interesting picture is the number of countries that consider themselves democracies and the difference in the findings by Freedom House's Survey 2007. There is a big discrepancy between being free and not being freed by the exercise of democratic rule.

Mick V, from a social science point of view, it could be said you are showing the view that I tried to point out was the view of John Locke, a balanced mixture of Golden Greek reasoning and the theocratic view of St Thomas Aquinas.

It is interesting that because Aquinas is classed by historians as both the greatest of philosophers as well as the greatest doctor of theology, most Christian bishops seem to rather forget him when preparing a Sermon.

In fact it could be said that both Christian teachers and Islamics still show wooden-headedness when it comes to Greek reasoning, refusing now to admit that without it we would both be
still in the Dark Ages - modern Islamics certainly more brain-dead about it than we are.

The simple fact is that faith is always a danger if we don't use reason to prove it.

It is also so interesting that morals do not seem to count much to find the truth, especially as the womanising French monk, Peter Abelard, after attending a college in Moorish Spain, wrote a Script called The
Search for Enquiry, which in fact was the lesson about reason which influenced St Thomas Aquinas many years later.

Religion and politics should never be mixed.

Religion is based on the bible

god created heaven and earth.

god created adam and eve

obviously adam and eve had children then what

how can we expect people in politics to shove this down our mouths without knowing that all religion is perversion.

We have people who follow this thus must be perverts due to how this has had to happen.

this is why we dont have choice

euthanasia
abortion
stem cell research

Or is it we are supposed to bed our own families to keep this going, is this not gods way.

Oh well you all much prefer deciet, lies and corruption so you may as well keep it.

now should i care well what the hell

ex army

ill think about it.

when you all starting to respect yourselves then things will change

and no i wont pay you off
or pay your membership.

Last weeks episode of 'The Religion Report' (ABC radio) featured two pieces of classic monotheistic discrimination.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1894022.htm

First of all there was the report about a Hindu women in Malaysia who was fighting a custody battle for her children with the local Sharia court because her husband had converted to Islam. Because of husband's conversion her rights as a non-Muslim women had been negated by legislation that is pro-Islamic and sexist.

The second feature was the on going war within the Anglican Church about the ordination of women and why they are not worthy enough in the eyes of God to lead their community. Mind you, this is considerably better than most Jewish or Islamic societies where the debate hasn’t even began at all and women are completely off the map when in comes to religious leadership.

These two instances of monotheistic discrimination stand in stark contrast to secular morality that sees no natural barrier to women having equal rights/access to their children or leading out in the general community or becoming CEO’s, Presidents or Prime Ministers. However, we will never see a women Pope or Imam.

Then there is the problem of homosexuality within monotheism. In most Islamic societies homosexuals are ostracised and treated brutally. Many Christian denominations still 'disfellowship' their gay parishioners.

Yes coach, conventional Judaism, Christianity and Islam has turned discrimination into an institutionalised art form. This is why religion and politics should never be mixed. Religious dogma sanctioned by the clergy rarely learn from their mistakes and are glacially slow to institute necessary reform.

Mick V wrote;

'However, it is equally silly to then go on and say that ‘the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method’, as if people of faith can’t or don’t think scientifically.

Using good morals is not the monopoly of people of faith, and using good science is not the monopoly of atheists.'

I didn't say that monotheists can't think scientifically or rationally. But the mere fact that religious people do embrace science acts as a barrier against the discrimination, bigotry, and tribalism encouraged by the Torah, Bible and Koran.

When the Catholic Church had political power in Europe it carried out the Spanish Inquisition. When sceptics and free-thinkers finally challenged Catholic dogma in the 17th century its power slowly waned. Today the Pope no longer throws heretics into dungeons.

In modern times mad Islamic jihadists bomb and kill innocent civilians and Sydney Sheiks practice sexism because Islam has not yet had its own Enlightenment period. Hopefully one day Islam's own variety of rationalists will call into question Mohammad's violent and sexist ideology and dilute his religion to something more humane.

The prime minister urges us to pray for rain. Let us hope that he is our last scientifically illiterate PM. Miracles are impossible.

We know that every event has a cause and we know that nothing that happens violates the physical laws which we understand thoroughly and nothing that happens violates the laws of complexity which we will never understand as too many particles are involved [e.g. at what precise moment will the cloud above let down rain]. Nevertheless, they are laws as rock-solid as the physical laws. For example: every embryo if allowed to develop as it should [mother takes no drugs etc.] develops exactly along the same lines.

At the instant of creation all the energy which exists today was condensed almost to the size of a dimensionless point. Then it rapidly expanded [we will never know why] and as it did, the physical laws emerged to produce particles and then dictate how they related to one another. The important concept here is that of an expanding network of cause and effect where everything is linked to each other backwards in time.

We marvel at the success of this mechanism of inviolate interacting laws creating existence. At this instant we are on the surface of a an expanding network of cause and effect radiating outwards from time zero. The past has vanished but still sits there in the network as a type of virtual reality. The expanding surface of the network is always moving into the future. As this expansion can go only one way, the future also sits there in a type of virtual reality. The mechanism exists exactly as it is or there is no existence. All or nothing.

If there is a supernatural intelligence behind it all, then why would this intelligence stick a metaphorical finger into the mechanism in answer to a prayer and shatter the lot like a pinprick to a balloon

Faith is really a politically correct word for self obsession. The exception from normal self centeredness is that faith is superstitiously Justified. There has been no instance in history where the mix of religion and politics has not led to what may be described as an evil state. At its best faith is psychopathic , at worst it is murderous.

Wether a person who is suffering delusions of superstition and can control his/her delusions depends on the strength of character of the individual. If a politician allows his/her faith to interfere with decisions and moral judgements then they are of weak character and should not be in that job. Faith is a great corrupter, it would as if a soldier in charge of a weapon has no control over his anger.

Howard praying for rain is particularly worrying as the climate change which is causing the aridification of Australia was a strong model 15 years ago and Howard came into office 15 years after anthropogenically created climate change was a certainty. Yet after doing nothing and leading Australia to disaster , which is what this aridity is ( and acting with leadership in the begining of his first term may have lessened the imact of climate change as it is strengthening ) Howard turns to the mumbo Jumbo of superstition hoping to evoke magic from a god which has yet to actually exist. Howard should be stepping down and take responsibility for his great share of the blame for this disaster instead he hides behind superstition.

What next? Howard should try sacrificing chickens to the Loas, certainly Abbotts theocratic attempts have failed because sacrificing the rights women have over their own bodies were not enough for the saints.

I address this to coach and yvonne there is something highly suspiciouys about somebody who needs moral guidence from religion/faith. It means they do not know the difference between right and wrong , it means they must be told and led by somebody elses idea. Perhaps this is the reason why the Christian and Muslim religions have in real effect had evil histories. It is possibly why statistically serial killing and suicide bombing is so interrelated with religion. It is probably why religion was the inspiration for fascism and Stalinism.

Certainly those who are religious as a whole do not act morally although they are q1uick to claim they do. There is a lot of talking and very little talking. But religion is purity of selfishness , god a deification of the ego and the religious want to say "look at me I am really god and those who are not like me are bad".

In the New Testament the occult Jesus taught exclusionism, intolerance and arrogance which is immoral, the character of God himeslf never acted morally pragmatically reading the bible god is a terrible monster. It is ridiculous to imagine anybody could find moral guidence from the bible . In the real world obviously nobody does , yet claim they do , as they judge moral heirachy themselves.

Boaz yes you can use specific text from the Koran to attack the moral validity of Islam but the Bible commits the same crime.

All religion is wrong and groundless.

Tend to go your way, West, but am still a liberal Christian. Incidently, might refer you to John Locke, admired by most political scientists as an activist who still remained a declared Christian, despite his nominated cause of reason rather than religion ultimately triumphing in the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 which rendered political rationalism to first place forever in British justice, and Royalty to second place.

American law is also based on Lock's principles, or supposed to be. The President's ultimate authority, of course, is the problem, nowhere near fitting in to Locke's sense of genuine political rationalism or reason.

Note - Try Google for John Locke's background.

It's not religion that is at fault but, those who politicise it. Time to return to shamanism. I can well imagine many the Australians ancestral spirits rolling in their graves watching their progeny sell Australia out in the name of appeasement and socialism. Secularism is the new religion being politicised like Judaism in the name of the twelve tribes, Christianity in the name of Jesus, and Islam in the name of Mohammad. It can be argued by the God haters that man has done evil in the name of religion but, not as near as much as the evil done in the name of politics. Therefore using the famous OLO existential relativist twist, it is politics that is evil not religion. Religion has just been a victim of politics. And as a victim religion should be held in high esteem by all. Victim rules.

Thank you Acqvarivs and Mick V for trying to unhinge the discussion: it was getting very fixated. I might be in Bushbred's liberal Xian camp, hard to be sure. Anyhow, I think the evil we're all concerned about lives potentially in all of us, whatever camp we belong to. Most of us do a little evil, in our little way, while people with power do a lot unless they have some very powerful ideas that constrain them. I am yet to find a better scheme of thinking and behaving than in the role model provided by Jesus and in the "love your neighbour" commandment he left as a behavioural legacy. If he were not God, I'd still be impressed. I know there are other impressive characters in human history, but he will more than suffice for me.

If I were an atheist humanist, I'd be struggling to arrive at a comparable ethic. If I believed that human beings are the current chimp-upgrade, and nothing but the latest chimp-upgrade, I would struggle to find a reason to love them. If I used my senses, and judged the value of humans (and their claim to be loved and respected) for myself, I would love some but not all, and I would not love them equally because they don't appear equal. Now, I know that many atheist humanists actually are very ethical: I believe this is because they glean more than they see.

I believe a Xian Prime Minister (I mean, a Prime Minister who happens to be Xian) should, precisely because s/he is a Xian, not impose all manner of Xian dogma on the populace. I believe this would be un-Xian (as well as unpopular). It would be unloving. S/he would have to be very careful about deciding what to legislate and what to leave to the exercise of freedom.

Er, getting back to the beginning of this post...

Faith and politics as bedfellows. Sorry, I'm a high visual imager that feels uncomfortable watching that kind of stuff.

Intellect, in all its forms as seen here, is a great curse to the suppliers and to the recipients.

All you guys need to get a life. Get out there and actually do something instead of pontificating a lot of nonsense by tapping away at your computers in this tiny corner of the universe.

Your opinions probably count for something, but certainly not here in this wilderness of disorganised thought and endless waffle.

Yes, I agree. Not long ago we had a church and state; seperated by tradition and good reason. In the the late 1950's we had a political crises caused by religion intefering in politics. It tore australian social fabric apart and we are still experiencing the trauma of that collision.

Now, the neo christian nutters of the flock are working upon the above assumption and that we must compromise our our secular value's for their religious values. they seem to have forgotten that religion is a personal experience and not a group grope at whatever level.

I agree it has been a marriage of necesity but it needs to be broken. Religion back to the pulpits and mosques and government to the collective national interest

Ian mack - Thanks for tapping out that timely reminder to us all in your tiny corner of the Universe.

As a non-superstitious citizen a Prime Minister or minister who prays does not install confidence in me , I regard such delusion as not adequate to do a proper job. If he/she belongs to a religion then clearly the Prime Minister or minister is biased and therefore corrupt.

Regarding Jesus , Jesus in the New Testament is exclusionary and corrupt as the above. Jesus certainly is not a good example of a holder of moral values. Gandolf from Lord of the rings is a much more moralistic character than Jesus.

It is simply the arrogance of Christians to claim their idol is the quintessential bringer of morality. Certainly from the ethnic cleansing of pagans through witch burning and almost constant wars to banning gay marriage the Christian claim of a decent moral code is simply meaningless propaganda.

No doubt if a Jesus ever did exist and know body can truthfully say he ever did and that he was tried for a major crime that warranted crucifixion then the clue he is not some moral entity but a glamorised criminal in the tradition of Ned Kelly , Jessie James and Robin Hood , criminals which represented to a repressed peasant class symbols of subversion and thus their true brutal nature swept under the carpet. To claim the New Testament character of Jesus is moral is unfounded. Bottom line of his message actually its pauls message , Jesus conveniantly had never actually put pen to paper ) , those who do not submit to the superstition burn in hell destroying any moral claim by Christians.

If a politician prayed to Ned Kelly would that be acceptable?

I contend that to allow Christianity to infiltrate Australian politics will open the flood gates for despotism and the outcome will be this country will be ruled sharia law or the Christian equivalent.

Coady concludes that he sees no principled reason to restrict religious premises from a place in the arena of public reasoning.

I believe this is not much more than stating the obvious. What would be the alternative? We could try banning anyone who has a religious opinion form making a comment. Or perhaps ban them from holding office, or perhaps even ban religious people from voting.

If democracy means anything, it means everyone has a say, everyone has a vote. For all the people here who have expressed their dislike, even abhorrence, for anything religious, what do you propose to do about it?

Declare atheism the official state religion and say anyone holding a religious position insane and take away their vote? I think Russia and a few other countries did try that. You could use your one vote, your one say, to try and eradicate religion altogether. But I think that rather, you need to learn how to get along with these people because religion is not going o disappear in the near future.

As I said earlier, secular does not mean the absence of religion; it means not instituting one religion as the official state religion, even if that be atheism.

To West,

Secular does not mean atheist, and biased does not mean corrupt. Everyone has biases. You obviously do. The head of the Australian Football League used to play for one of the 16 clubs that he now presides over. This alone does not make him corrupt.

By corrupt I am saying deviation with bias toward a particular agenda. In the case of politics and religion the religious agenda is not to serve the best interests of the community but to serve the interests of the religion. This is exactly what is happening in the United States where democracy directly is threatened by religion.

It is no coincedence that in Australia as in the United States and Britain there are politicians who subscribes to the religious agenda and therefore has sacrificed the future welfare, security and prosperity of their people to satisfy the religious agenda of trust in a god which obviously does not exist and for the political agenda of religionism . That is to deny climate change and sit on their hands,in effect Nero fiddling as Rome burns.

Where is the democracy in the sacrifice of your children and grandchildren to environmental, economic and social collapse just to satisfy the self needs of individuals who because they can not cope with reality have to use the world to reinforce their escape into fantasy. Religion is just that an escape into fantasy , it is a game of dungeons and dragons. Religion is the servitude to the game rules , God and democracy are polar opposites, no theocratic system achieved the levels of inclusion and non violence that most secular states have.

If a person believes their god is absolute , the creator or owner of mankind then there is no room to tolerate in principle anybody else and any contrary knowledge.

Exactly how religious is some one who says, "pray for rain". I've heard it all my life but, I guess I needed a God hater of the nature of a rabid westie to point out such an innocent comment to be the unhinging of democracy and the institution of sharia...or something worse. Poor John Howard. I'll bet there are plenty of not so religious everyday folks in Australia praying for rain these days. I wonder if they are aware of their prayers being answered in the decline of democracy and the Australian way of life. God, I hope it never rains. If that happens the end will surely be near.

Mick V wrote;

'As I said earlier, secular does not mean the absence of religion; it means not instituting one religion as the official state religion, even if that be atheism.'

Very good comment Mick V. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Australian constitution;

'116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.'

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm

However, I think that the Australian people expect more from our politicians than making sure that the state does not establish any one religion.

We also expect our politicians not to expoit and abuse religion by using it to gain votes. Seeing Kevin Rudd on 'Compass' recently with Geraldine Doogue made me feel ill. Peter Costello's effort at Hillsong (?) during the last election was just as nauseating.

Of course, Rudd and Costello have every right to bring their Christian values to the Parliment floor and debate legislation according to their own world-view. But this is very different to having their religion shoved down our throats in an exhibition of insincerity and exploitation.

I agree, excellent comment Mick V.

Also inclined to agree with TR: while I'm roughly of the same believing ilk as Kevin Rudd and Peter Costello, I'm ready to object if they exploit their church attendance just because they've recently discovered that it might have some votes in it.

TR - No, this is definately your space in this tiny cyber corner of the universe (24/4). You are welcome to waste time here because it keeps you away from any real human exchange where opinions can be expressed face-to-face.

Please keep tapping away at that pc and stay away from the real world!

John Howard probably rolls endlessly at night worrying about the next election. But at least he doesn't have to worry about 'TR', because you are here in this intellectual wasteland and not in his face!

I only visit this site rarely, hoping to be surprised by some honest intellectual thought. No luck so far.

Talk is embarrassingly cheap.

Aqvarvis I am simply pointing out that in Howards case , not to single him out, has ignored Australias pollution problem , even to the point of denying climate change and then denying the links between atmospheric pollution and climate change and thus has contributed to the aridification of Southern Australia, has let the Murray Darling Basin collapse and South Western Australia salinify and western Queensland erode , instead he prays to a pretend god.

That aside Christianity is itself a form of violence , obviously Christians will deny this but I content that Howard as an example for instance did not apologise to Indigenous Australia , not because Howard is intrinsically evil as a person but because he is Christian. Christianity demands power over others , this includes never being able to meaningfully admit the ideology, dogma and values of Christianity are wrong. Christianity was the core ideolgy behind the stolen generation , it was the imputus and the reasoning for smashing Indigenous culture. Indigenous Australia was never a threat to the injected European culture which took over this continent. Indigenous culture however was a direct threat to Christian ideology , as long as alternatives exist monotheism is threatened. So like gays, the unwed , pagans , indigenous cultures in reach of missionaries, youth culture , free thought , now science and many more Christianity sets out to destroy and conquer to gain supremecy over all. Islam is doing the same thing in Islamic nations. When a Prime Minister is praying to his god he is rejecting the nation which does not accept his idol and so it is exclusionism a form of violence.

Howard by praying is beating the chest of christianity. Not to single out Howard , like most Christians I am sure he is ignorant of the violence he emits through such acts and as god is essentially the ego he would defend his actions as somehow universally valid

It is why Howard should leave his superstition at home, Howard as an example to be fair he has not been the most 'Rabid' Christian although the ugliness of Christian values and Judgement have swayed him from time to time.

I do expect worst from Rudd, he is out of the closet and the similarity of what he promises to the Liberal Party demonstrate that his Christian beliefs bond him to archaic ideals and will too translate into a violence of policy dictates no differe4nt than Howards.

If a politician belongs to a religious sect such as the Church of England , the Catholic church or Le Vay Satanism then it is a conflict of interest. I cannot see how it is different to belonging to a corporation or a national sports club which receives government grants.

Praying for rain. Howard has done nothing about Climate Change and the aridification of Southern Australia , the Murray Darling collapse, the salinification of the South West, the erosion of Western Queensland and the collapse of Biodiversity along the east coast. Climate Change was well understood by the time Hawke took office and so Howard cannot take the total blame for this countries woes. Australian Governments have been putting faith before fact for decades now we are at a cross roads in the slowing the damage caused by policies which have allowed this disater to happen we need politicians who will turn to tools and knowledge to begin repairing the damage. The shamanism and fancy dancing that praying for rain is is bad enough but keeping on the old ways in the hope that some magic deity will save the world is worst.

This is not 1307 this is 2007.

'I only visit this site rarely, hoping to be surprised by some honest intellectual thought. No luck so far.'

Well, obviously not that rarely Ian Mack. Neither have you crowded the forum with 'honest intellectual thought' of your own.

Go on, astound us all and write something constructive for a change. I dare you. I for one would love to be dazzled by your literary genius.

To West,
It is clear that you aren’t going to vote for John Howard this time. But you haven’t convinced me that a person is not worthy of election simply because of their faith. I think of the great leaders in our history who were people of sincere faith, such as Alfred Deakin, one of the founders of the Australian Constitution.

west, one would think by reading your posts that indeed it was 1307 and that scientist and psychologist had not already affirmed that a belief in a "God" or higher power was an integral part of the human psyche. The Greek concept of the self, encompassing the modern ideas of soul, self, and mind. That you chose to disbelieve and continuously devalue others for their faith in something greater than themselves is your prerogative, but it doesn't make you right even after 150 and more exactly replicated rantings. I think your obsession has become cancerous and has systemically by metastasis infected every thread you post to.
It's probably too late in the day to suggest medical attention. You have my deepest sympathy.

'I think of the great leaders in our history who were people of sincere faith, such as Alfred Deakin, one of the founders of the Australian Constitution.'

I'm not sure about the logic of this statement Mick V. In Alfred Deakin's day just about everyone was Christian. It is only recently that the percentage of atheists has climbed over 10%. It's a bit like saying look at the great historical leaders of Saudi Arabia, they were all sincere Muslims. Well yeah.

The fact that great men believe in religion doesn't make it right nor desirable. Once upon a time all men, good and bad, believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. This fact is still plainly wrong despite the best intentions of righteous men. In the same way there is no such thing as a literal 'Virgin Birth' despite what Howard, Rudd or Costello believe.

I think that the importance of religion is grossly overstated. In fact, religion will either have a neutral impact on a political leader, or turn him into an incompetant leader because some of his decisions will be based on the irrationality of faith.

More importantly I would like Mick V respond with a theological state which did not commit human rights abuses.

Aqvarvis , I do not believe in god or any creature of superstitious myth proof god is not part of the human psyche or are you saying I am not human because I dont believe in your god?

It is obvious to me the reason why religion is such a great direct threat to democracy and justice is because it is not self critical.

Faith and politics don't mix because politics inevitably leads to a corruption of faith. This statement nails it: "religion itself is likely to be profoundly distorted by politicising its message and mission". It is religion that suffers from the association. Politics is politics, it can get dirty.

I'm not one to subscribe to the idiocy that a politician should be an atheist, but there is practically no reason a politician should need to espouse their religious persuasion in public, except of course for petty political purposes.
Any voted-in representative who then bases their decisions on their own personal beliefs is failing in the duty of their office which is to represent the will of the people.

And another thing, God does not vote. Neither Labor, Liberal or any party can claim to be more "Christian" than others, or whatever other religious flavour they want to sprinkle on their policies. Howard, Costello, Abbott and Rudd, no matter what they claim, are actually following the doctrines of Liberal or Labor first and foremost. They are politicians before they are believers. If they weren't they'd be priests or ministers or something wouldn't they?

"Any voted-in representative who then bases their decisions on their own personal beliefs is failing in the duty of their office which is to represent the will of the people."

Is the Jist of what I have ben saying Donnie.

I believe anybody can believe what they like , although the religious do not respect this and expect everybody to follow their ideology. However to belong to a church is to belong to a business. Just as a politician belonging to any other other business is a conflict of interest so to is belonging to a religious sect and the politician should disconnect themselves from that organisation.
The excuse that sect consumers should be exempt because they are superstitious or have faith has no validity as the alchohol, pornography and gambling industries run to the same principles as religion with the same sorts of consumer needs bases and politicians intimately involved with those industries are not exempt.

I have not suggested a politician quit because he/she is superstitious / religious. I do not think a politician should quit if he/she is an alchoholic as long as it does not interfere with the job.

If Howard drank himself into a coma to cope with the drought I would have the same criticism as I do about prayer. Likewise there is nothing wrong with him praying or getting drunk after work at night. As a tax prayer mumbo jumbo is not what I pay for.

Donnie,
I hope that our elected leaders do more than just represent the will of the people. While this is of course important, there are some occasions when our leaders need the character to make tough decisions based on the circumstances and what their conscience tells them is right regardless of whether that will get them re-elected by their party or the electorate. I think I’m trying to say that I would vote for someone first for their character before their ability to toe the party line.

West asks,
Which theological state did not commit human rights abuses? (I presume he means theocratic state). I would ask him to name a nation state of any description which did not commit human rights abuses.

A further challenge – try naming a state with relatively few human rights abuses which didn’t first have a Christian church in every town or suburb.

TR
I’d like to challenge some of your logic. You said that we should bring in statistical considerations when considering the character of men that brought in the Australian Constitution. I don’t see how that changes anything.

By analogy, if I said that test pilots made good astronauts in the 1960s, you could counter by saying that mostly only test pilots were ever considered for the program. That does not discount the quality of the men that were chosen.

If anything, the statistics help my case. That many of our leaders associated with the Australian Constitution were Christian shows what men of faith are capable of. In general, where democracy has been most successful (i.e. Western Europe) is (just by co-incidence) places that first got a good soaking with Biblical teaching and knowledge.

Also, you claim the virgin birth didn’t happen. As for any historical claim, you can choose whether you believe it, but you can’t ‘prove’ an historical claim one way or the other - you can only witness it.

'In general, where democracy has been most successful (i.e. Western Europe) is (just by co-incidence) places that first got a good soaking with Biblical teaching and knowledge.'

No Mick V. Democracy has been most successful whenever secular rationalists and philosophers have been allowed to speak. It was men like Meslier, Nietzsche, Holbach and Feuerbach that finally broke the back of Catholicism in Europe and allowed real democracy to flourish.

However, in recent decades monotheism combined with the irrationality of fundamnetalism has made a spectacular come back. We have the violent lunacy of the Islamic world clashing with and the Evangelical stupidity of the Bush administration;

'Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power

US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

In this era of globalised monotheism gone bonkers there is only one thing to do. Atheists, agnostics and deists must keep hammering away at the Bible and the Koran and make sure that the Rabbis, Priests and Sheiks keep their grubby bloodstained hands off our precious freedoms.

The problem with people like John Howard and Tony Abbott is not that their religion gets in the way of their political judgement its more about their emotional need getting in the way of their politics. People resort to religion like they resort to drink and drugs because it is a set of behaviours which they indulge in when life gets too tough or too complex. They rationalise these behaviours by saying they are based on 'faith' or 'belief' whatever that means. It is just like the alcoholic who rationalises his drinking by saying he just enjoys a 'good time'. Religious rationalisations have been going on for centuries and have been enshrined into great documents and 'theologies'. You can even get degrees from very prestigious universities which have been deluded into thinking these rationalisations are on par with scientific analysis.

When politicians come to a cross-road like having to vote on the funding of abortions they are not struck with a moral dilemma or a rational one. They are struck with an emotional dilemma. They have to vote for the view which is held by everyone else who also uses religious behaviour to cope with life. They need to belong to that group just like the alcoholic needs to belong to his mates down the pub. It helps re-inforce the way they deal with life's problems.

When you belong to a religious group you have to more or less hold and demonstrate the same views as the group. If you waver then you risk your membership in the group and if you no longer have religion to prop you up you might be forced to face realities that you do not want to face. You cannot pick and choose which views you will subscribe to so when a politician is forced to choose between reason and his dependence on the group he will invariably pick the latter.

We would not tolerate politicians making important decisions whilst under the influence of alcohol and we should not tolerate politicians making decisions under the influence of the emotional blackmail of religious groups.

west, why? Are you saying those who believe in a power greater than themselves are less than human? Because if your position is that your a superior being for not believing than it's just ego and poor self image. In as much as I would suggest to a heavy religious ranter that his position of needing everyone to join his faith was down to poor personal self image and a needed ego boost. Religion no matter its name does no thing in itself. In broad terms religion is simply a methodology for dealing with the unknowable. It is mankind with a political agenda that takes religion or science or sociology or any other subject and manipulates it to effect a hold over the masses. Anybody who has ever read any of the Abrahamic religious texts knows much of it is social law. There is actually very little by word count in the Bible of Jesus and his ministry, most is social values and a written methodology for getting by with your neighbour. West, you blame religion for what man does when by rights your vitriol should be directed at the political animal and other social manipulators. Religion is constantly being pulled this way and that way by non believers or misbelievers justifying their imposed right to define what religion is in their attempt to use it to their own nefarious ends. American style televangelist come to my mind as an example of an unChristian and flagrantly wicked use of Christianity. But I would never blame Christianity for there being televangelist or sociology for the behavior of socialist or engineering for bent auto mechanics or the culinary arts for the monopoly of fast food restaurants

Mick V I apologise I did mean theocratic state. I think more relevant a question is to name a party which held power in a secular state which did not persecute non party adherents or commit human rights abuses to which the answer is a great many.

To ask the same question searching for a theocratic or religious based party in a secular state or in a theocratic state itself the answer is none.

To ask of a major religious sect , major enough to gain a level of power wether formally or informally the answer again not one has been able to exist without persecution or to preach the persecution of others many indeed persecute subsets of their own members.

Has every corporation been corrupted? The answer is no.

By nature religion is exclusionary and dishonest. Although religion claims moral substance the fact is it is an empty assertion. The very foundation of religion is baseless as no god comes before the claim of god. Religion is exclusionary because the ‘saved’ the ‘chosen’ are exclusive based on the notion that all others are evil/ bad.

Obviously where religion goes the inevitable outcome is persecution and human rights abuse and as history proves –conflict. The question regarding politicians is that when they have faith it means they also deem most of the community worthless and bad.

The other side of the coin is in Australia since there are politicians who obviously belong to the cult of Christianity is how many Christian based organisations have received federal grants and contracts compared to non-Christian organisations, considering only an extremely tiny minority of Australians do belong to a church? Name a religious organisation which receives gravy from tax payers which has no political agenda of its own?

Aqvarvis you are saying those who are superstitious are less human, I did not. I am saying those who can’t control their religious beliefs should not be in positions where they may cause harm.

It seems several here are writing from fear of religion. West speaks of religion as being ‘exclusionary’, ‘dishonest’ ‘business’ and ‘superstition’. Fear of religion is becoming more of a common trait as our culture drifts further away from Christian traditions. It’s largely fear of the unknown.

If I could put your minds a little at rest, religion is not some big hairy monster. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population have religious inclinations.

But guess what, religion is not one monolith. Read a little and you will find that different religions teach different things. One group teaches this, the other that, and another something else.

The real enemy is not ‘religion’; the enemy is bad religion. And this is why our constitution (see above) safeguards us from laws establishing religion. But it works both ways. Our constitution recognises and protects ‘good’ religion by safeguarding us from laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Secularism helps both ways, protecting people from a dominant religion but also protects the church from a dominant government.

The only question is how can people of differing faith views coexist in the one political climate? If we look into our recent history, Christianity, when not married to politics, has cohabited quite comfortably in the same neighbourhood, sometimes each having positive influence on the other.

Am I to conclude that it is a wild co-incidence that the best and most robust examples of democracy are in the same countries most influenced by protestant Christianity?

Even Feuerbach was influenced by the Bible. My understanding was that Feuerbach would have called himself a Christian. Despite having some interesting discussions with the Catholic Church, he read the Bible and believed it to be true.

We need not fear religion. As Aqvarivs said, ‘religion is simply a methodology for dealing with the unknowable.’ Science can only take us so far, being only capable of dealing with what we can see, touch and measure. Despite what the atheists claim, it can’t take us further than that. (Heaven help us if we get over-run by atheists’ superstition).

'The real enemy is not ‘religion’; the enemy is bad religion.'

This statement is on the right path Mick V but it needs to clarified further;

It should read;

'The real enemy is not 'religion'. The enemy is organised religion - particularly organised monotheistic religion.'

The reason that monotheistic religion is so dangerous is because it is founded on dogma. This encourages parochial and absolutist behaviour where scepticism and critical thought are discouraged.

Because of these characteristics monotheism has a strong tendency to bottom out as totalitarianism when it enters into the political domain as a theocracy. The idea of a secular state is to combat this eventuality.

At the moment in Iran we have a clear example of totalitarian behaviour by a theocratic government. The following cases of misogyny are for starters;

http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=136529&region=6

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/24/world/main2722122.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_2722122

A very interesting article, and perhaps an equally interesting discussion that I came across to only by accident: Having been away from Australia for seven years I did not look at articles listed under "Domestic politics". My own article about politics and religion (in Europe) was not only given a misleading and almost deriding title (Buttiglione - Lions 1: Christians nil) but was placed under "Religion and Spirituality". This made me assume that the administrator did not think the general problem of the relation between politics and religion was of interest to Australian OLO readers. So I tried to follow occasionally only articles and discussions listed in that category.

Now I am pleasantly surprised that I was wrong. I think my position, expressed in that more than two years old article, was not that much different from that of Tony Coady, though I am not a specialist as he obviously is. For instance, when he says "an anti-religious ideology of secularism must be distinguished from the commitment to secular space for politics" this is exactly what I meant when I emphasised that Buttiglione was a victim of secularism (in European politics) and not of a commitment to secular space for politics that is (or should be) acceptable to all. I think I learned a lot not only from the way Tony presents the problem, but also from the posts, especially those not emotionally loaded, one way or the other.

Mick V “Am I to conclude that it is a wild co-incidence that the best and most robust examples of democracy are in the same countries most influenced by protestant Christianity? “ Obviously not if you read history rather than Christian propaganda. Robust democracies such as Britain came about as a result from the horrors of puritan power. Germany another robust democracy owes its seeds of democracy to the end of the Calvinist persecution of the Lutheran majority. Germany’s current democracy was thrust upon it a little over 100 years later after the defeat of the Catholic political arm, the Fascists in 1945. Spain’s democracy began in the 1960s after the fascists lost Franco in 1975 after centuries of catholic rule. The French democracy began with the French revolution in which liberty was strongly an atheist cause. The robust democracies are those which have by experience learned that Christianity has no true moral grounding from which it can rule without rapidly sinking into despotism. Democracy and religion are polar opposites never comfortably co-existing.

I have not argued we ban religion. Religion is a game of dungeons and dragons, if we banned religion we would have to ban other fantasy pursuits. Benign faiths such as Star Treck , Dr Who and Star wars would unfairly be treated as those spiritual paths are not responsible for the horrors of more popular religions. Christians as do all major religions (with a few exceptions of a minority of Buddhist sects) have much to learn from what is the greater wisdom of the Treckies and Doctor Who-ists who keep their religion to themselves and do not set about to affect others with their beliefs.

People believe they are good people on the sole premise they loosely agree with the ascribed teaching of Jesus or Obi-Wan Kenobi. Political influence is the most effectual Christianity as an example is obviously nothing it claims to be; clearly by experience it is not good for the world.

To allow religion influence politics will destroy democracy resulting in an Australian Mussolini or Cromwell or most likely another Christian Taliban.

Mick V,
I've agreed with pretty much all your posts in this thread
In retrospect I realise this comment i made was a little over the top:
"Any voted-in representative who then bases their decisions on their own personal beliefs is failing in the duty of their office which is to represent the will of the people."
Personal beliefs of the representative have to come into governing to some extent, otherwise you may as well have a computing algorithm to decide things (I'm sure West would prefer this). So i modify my statement to - any voted-in representative who ignores the will of the people for their own personal beliefs is failing in their duty.

Donnie,
I think your self-correction is very much to the point. The craft of being a good politician in a democratic system is based on the ability to balance what he/she thinks is good for his/her constituency/country with what is seen as the will of these people. You are right that the politician who pays attention only to the latter could be replaced by a computing algorithm. Also, a politician who pays attention only to the former, and ignores the latter, might be good or bad, for his constituency/country (and praxis show that it is more often the latter), however such a politician does not fit into a democratic system.

It is on the side of what he/she thinks is good for the people he/she is supposed to represent that the politician's religious background - be it Christian, Muslim or atheist - shows its relevancy. However, the emphasis should be on the word 'background'. There are many factors that influence an individual's ideas about what is good for humanity - in general or for those the individual represents - a religious or "anti-religious" world view being only one of them. I think that e.g. in the case of a Christian politician, his/her decision-making should be influenced only by his/her conscience - which might be influenced by his/her adherence to a particular denomination - but never directly out of loyalty to that denomination. Of course, this is easier to say in theory than to act accordingly in a particular situation.

Donnie " Personal beliefs of the representative have to come into governing to some extent, otherwise you may as well have a computing algorithm to decide things " I dont agree with this but to me you have described the religious politician. If we take Gay rights , womens rights , the anti -environment movement , stem cell research , workers rights , abortion , values the religious politician is doing exactly that - using a computing algorithm to decide things based on his or her superstition. We can know how a religious politician is going to act , what he is going to say by the sect that he is in. It is no coincedence those politicians who bring their superstition/religion to work are extremely highly predictable and make very predictable decisions. All such decisions are obviously based on religious loyalty rather than reality. To use an example it is why Howard and Rudd both are not adaptable to a world beyond the 1930's and why Abbott invents darkage moral crisis to strengthen the power of his masters.

I think Georges assessment is closer to the truth, that a person's background is made up of multiple factors including their religious adherance, so that the religious politician and his decisions are not just defined by the "sect" that they belong to as West puts it.
John Howards decisions and views are not only based on his alleged Christianity but also on the schooling he received at Canterbury Boys’ High School, the fact his grandfather was a war vet, the fact he worked in a petrol station when he was young (kind of ironic), the fact he studied and practiced law.
Prediction, from a voters perspective, is a good thing to have in a politician, it means you can know what to expect from them in the future after the fact of casting your vote. I would say this is a very important factor in electing a trustworthy representative.

The strongest poison ever known
came from Caesars laurel crown.

William Blake

I do not see why trustworthiness cannot coexist with predictability. If a politician's world view, including stands on politically relevant moral issues, is well known - and the world view background of not only "religious politicians" can be known beforehand - and agrees with mine, then he/she is both predictable, and trustworthy for me provided he/she sticks to his/her proclaimed preferences. For instance, a Pro Life candidate who does not change his/her stand to suit the perceived majority is predictable and trustworthy for those who voted for him/her, the same as a principled Pro Choice candidate is both predictable and trustworthy for those who voted for him/her. I admit, this is not as obvious in case of more complicated moral (or e.g. economic) issues.

Has any one mentioned the massive pro-secularism march in Turkey recently?

'Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Hundreds of thousands of people have rallied in Istanbul in support of secularism in Turkey, amid a row over a vote for the country's next president.....

"Turkey is secular and will remain secular," shouted demonstrators from all over the country as they waved flags and pictures of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.

"We want neither Sharia, nor a coup, but a fully democratic Turkey," they added.....'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6604643.stm

Have we become too complacent in Australia because monotheism has been effectively controlled thus far? Indeed, we can give thanks to a long line of Australian politicians who have been intelligent enough to keep religion out of parlimentary debate for the most part.

Because secular Turks live in a country dominated by Sheiks and Imams they understand how quickly their freedoms can evaporate under an Islamic regime. They only need to look over their shoulder to the east to see how Islamic goverments easily slide into totalitarism.

The French philosopher Michel Onfray encapsulates the Islamic problem neatly;

'Muslim theocracy - like any other - presupposes an end to the separation between private belief and public practice....

At which point religion becomes the business of the state. Not of a restricted community, a limited group, but the whole of society. The extension of politics to the totality of the human sphere is the very definition of totalitarism. The state serves an idea - racial, fascist, Islamic, Christian etc - and family, work, privacy, school, barracks, hospital, newspaper or publishing, office, friendship, leisure, reading, sexuality, courts, sports, are all controlled by the dominant ideology. And thus Islamic family, Islamic work, Islamic privacy, Islamic school, and so on.'

'The Atheist Manifesto. The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam' (p 208)

TR has raised the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey. One thing that they show is the difference between Western (traditionally Christian) nations and Muslim countries, which highlights some of the differences between Christianity and Islam. Though they do have some similarities (belief in one God) there are obvious differences. Despite some wanting to paint them all with the same brush, religions are not all the same.

Christians, including Christ himself, suffered under Roman persecution. They were not welcome in Rome. Later, after Rome adopted Christianity as its faith, it was sacked by invading Goths and eventually crumbled. So early Christians did not identify themselves with the State but rather down played the concept of this present ‘world’ and recognised the city to come, with its foundations in heaven, as their true inheritance (as Coady alludes to in his article – ‘render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's’.)

On the other hand, Mohammed arrived as a conquering general. His rule required full submission from conquered territories. The political system which accompanies the Islamic faith sees no distinction in societal laws which apply to the whole state and those which only apply to the faithful. Islam by nature is more communal or societal.

In Christianity, the ‘kingdom of God is within you’; it is not a political kingdom. This focus is on your heart or your conscience. It highlights your personal accountability to God, which also elevates the value of your opinion, or your vote. This is why secularism and democracy sit so comfortably with, in fact why they developed within, the traditionally Christian countries.

What is happening in Turkey could not happen in Australia because of the wisdom in our Constitution.

Again the word theocracy is brought up. No one in this whole thread has supported the idea of theocracy, so I doubt we need worry that what is happening in Turkey may present itself here.

I think one important difference between Christianity and Islam is also in how they view martyrdom. A person becomes a Christian martyr, "immediately rewarded in heaven", if he/she is killed for being a Christian or for not wanting to renounce his/her faith. Those who died fighting as crusaders, "defending the faith", in "just wars", etc. might have been regarded as heroes but never as martyrs. And, of course a terrorist killer - suicide or not - is almost the opposite of what a Christian would call a martyr.

Christ is a character from a work of fiction, just like Dr Who and Darth Vader. Christians had been banned in Rome because various early Christian sects practiced quite horrific crimes.More Christians were persecuted once Christians gained power in Rome than ever before. The early Christian era was the golden age of lion feeding. Christianity is the only cult which has persecuted peoples of every continent. It is to be expected, Jesus and god in the old and New Testament was exclusionary thus persecutory, it follows that those who worship such idols such immorality will brush off on them.

Only Christians themselves say Christian(ity)s are good because again religion is ego based, it is self worship. The natural blindness of the cult of Christianity will not allow those who belong to the cult to admit this.

Christians are not interested in truth, knowledge, and the realities of the world. Religious beliefs are pure superstition; faith and spirituality are raw emotion, fact is irrelevant to them.

At this moment Australian women are being persecuted by the oxymoronic termed right to life movement. Christianity in Australia has not distanced itself from and rejected from the as it causes harm to women thus an evil movement of a profound degree,threatening our mothers, sisters , daughters, wives, partners, friends thus reinforcing the obvious, that Christianity has no real moral claims.

The oxymoronic termed right to life movement is a good example of this where truth and knowledge are viperously fought against by right to lifers who engage in social terrorism in order to gain control , gain power over women. The only reasoning offered is hysterical emotion with a total rejection of facts and truth. To date the movement has supported itself nefariously with a currency of lies. A politician pushing such a cause is in effect fighting against Australians and thus Australia, certainly not representing Australia.

There is no trust by citizens there is only trust by the minority of operatives that support the politician who will serve their interests, their agenda and their quest for power

It is obvious by the attitudes in this thread that Christians truley believe they have a right to rule over everybody. This is a shocking attitude no different than the Muslims who wish to enforce sharia law over Australians.

The sad thing that what is demonstrated by Christians here is no respect for other people , no empathy for others , no regard for non Christians. Just a brutal greed to control and exploit people.

Religion proves to be unwise , divorced from understanding , incapable of honesty. It is a self immersion into ones own emotional realm where reality and truth is extremely threatening.

Obviously in every case where religion and politics mix disaster follows. It is man who sits on thrones , not god , it is man who speaks for god , not god , it is man who thinks for god, not god. It is man who decides what is right and what is wrong , not god.

Those who believe in god , asserting god and gods laws are infact claiming they themselves are god. A politician who believes in god is stepping foward as god because gods rules that are implemented are infact the politicians generated ideas and ideals. The politician has no responsibility for his action as he is serving god. The millions upon millions of people killed by Christendom (and Islam) the ethnic cleansing which constantly reoccurs in the name of god throughout history is a direct consequence in the arrogance of believing god exists and believing one serves god.

West,
While I commend your passion for debate, I don’t know if this is the place for a fully blown discussion on abortion, as it may be a bit off the topic of this thread. Some say it is a moral issue, but I think every topic ever discussed in parliament revolves around moral principle.

You say you don’t want to ban religion, but you do seem to have little tolerance for it. If you want to get a real vision of what life is like in an aggressively atheist system, just go and visit Russia or Albania or another of these countries that spent most of last century trying to purge their societies of all things religious.

I don’t think we have to worry too much about a religious take over in our government, even if a few politicians occasionally feel free to speak their minds. No more than we have to fear an atheist takeover. Australians are usually a fairly tolerant lot.

TR,

You're still giving me stick (26 April 2007).

It's not my job to entertain you, or anyone else here, with my intellectual brilliance or lack of it.

My observations about the intellectual vacuum here annoyed you. But I did not mean to suggest I'm smarter than anyone - simply, I've got rather a good nose for BS.

Having said all that, I apologise to all and sundry if I've offended.

My basic point is that your comments are better aired in the mainstream of public opinion rather than here in the cloisters of this forum.

Ian Mack,

I am not understanding you. You say this website is a wasteland. Yet you keep coming back.

If you really want to join us, you are welcome.

Hi Mick V,

I suppose you have a point, although I haven't been here since April.

But there is a parallel. The Howard government has ruined this country over eleven years.

They have done so because the opposition has been so woeful. The opinions expressed here are lost on those nincompoops because they probably don't browse here.

So, by all means, tap away regardless.

All I'm asking is that you drop a cc to the pollies when you post here. Their addresses are mostly available on the net, even if they don't read all their emails or reply in every case!