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