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.