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.