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.