'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