There's a lot of anti-religious sentiment here, both in the article and comments, which is fine - its a free country, people can think & believe what they like.

I do think though that Brian has crossed a line here. When he was talking about Kevin Andrews imposing his personal beliefs on legislation I totally agreed with him. I'd agree with a similar analysis of Tony Abbott's actions. Not so when Brian starts slamming religion in general and Christianity in particular. He's accusing religious people of trying to force their beliefs on others, yet in his derision he's showing no tolerance of his own - it seems to me that he's doing exactly the same thing.

Also, I can't count the number of times I've heard an evolutionist throw scorn on "creation science", and maybe it is justified. Never yet though have I seen published anywhere a comprehensive scientific demolition of creation science's ideas. Brian seems so concerned with sticking to the facts, so he should provide some references.

Brian implies (correctly) that if religion gains acceptance in a government, then it will enshrine its beliefs in law and "penalties for heresy handed down by the courts will eventually follow". From what he's said though, if he were in power we'd soon have penalties for religious belief being handed down by the courts.

Aime, to tar all of religion as "the most destructive pestilence of all" is also a one-sided and extreme viewpoint. It ignores the great good that churches have done in creating charities, social services & overseas aid organisations. As much as I hate to play the "Hitler card", it also ignores the fact that the Nazi genocides were a logical expression of evolutionary eugenics doctrine. Sure a lot of wrongs have been done in the name of God, but a lot of wrongs are done that aren't in the name of God too.

We all have different beliefs & viewpoints. Can't we all just get along?

runner, you have made that claim regarding schools time and time again, and each time I've pointed out that it's false and outlined why.

Parents aren't sending their kids to religious schools because there is a desire for religious values.

As I pointed out to you last time and the time before, the recent census shows a marked decline in the number of people identifying as a religion, or as a christian.

I am one example of a person who ended up attending a private christian school for my last two years of schooling - not because my family desired the christian parts, but because private schools get better funding, and due to the nature of private education it is likely more private schools are run by religious groups.

It isn't about the education being better because it's christian - it's about the christian education being better because it gets more money. Ironically, that's a distinctly unchristian state of affairs.

Try to register that this time.

Why is it fair to allow the theory of evolution to be studied at schools and not creation science? Why should students NOT be allowed to make an informed choice? If they are not allowed to do so they are just being indoctrinated. Students should be allowed to make an informed decision not a biased one. Evoloution is only a theory, an unproven theory. Rather than bothering about whether or not creation science should be taught you should be looking around for evidence to support the theory! Only if it really is true should be taught as fact! And if it is a theory it is wrong to disallow other "theories" from being taught.

Depisis you ask

'How has 'secular humanism' failed society? Secular humanism has led man to believe that he is the master of his/her own destiny (become or are gods). It has led to moral relativism that has rubbished absolutes put in place by God to give the human race dignity and protection. Secular humanism has taught that we are just another species of animal which leads to people acting like animals.

TRTL
You are usually honest with your arguements however you must or should know that per head of population private schools receive a lot less funding than State schools. The productivity commission has found that it costs the Government around $10000 per year for a student attending a public school as opposed to around $6000 per year for a private school. The difference is that parents are willing to pay fees and volunteer time and labour to a much larger degree than State schools. Kids attending private schools are a far less burden on the tax system. The funding is not the problem with the State system, it is its philosophical base.

Calling TV and radio reporters

What I would most like is for a media person to ask the PM and Rudd whether thay actually believe in a supernatural being, and if so whether this being will be consulted about political decisions.

You won't do so because all you fearless reporters are just too timid

calling Merry

why not teach tooth fairy theory while you are at it. This has more devout followers than creationism!!

AIME all those categories of 'religious' people are quite true.

But you left off the list a very important one.

"Those who's hearts are touched by the message of love and forgivness, and on that basis repent of their sin, and embrace Christ as Savior"

Now.. the article headline was:

We vote for people to represent us - not to represent the Lord.

THE REAL TRUTH.
1/ The community is made up of a variety of mindsets, including Christian.
2/ Christians vote.
3/ They are entitled to the democratic process as much as anyone.
4/ They/we will vote for those who we believe will best reflect the values we stand for.

welcome to democracy.

the idea of our parliament not representing 'The Lord' is shallow, artificial and totally misunderstands the concept of democracy. It also seeks to 'de-humanize' Christians and religious people in general.
The most the author can rightly way is "We (our mob.. our way of thinking, our pressure group, my family etc) don't vote for Christian values" FULL STOP. If others DO...then 'get over it' as they say.

Now..finally the 'silly ritual' of the Lords prayer.. is not silly to many of us. In fact taking just the nominal religion census based statistics I'd reckon its not 'silly' to around 68% of the population.

So..if I might say rather stridently and passionately WHO THE HECK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? to suggest the 'we' in that headline is anything but a small minority?

Sure...lets abandon the silly rituals and have nihilism as the basis for our legistlature... read Neitczhe and Satre to see where that would lead.