What an intelligent, well-written and argued article. Meg Wallace, by employing Rawls' theoretical framework, provides a robust intellectual structure for the sorts of ideas that we ethical but non-religious types have about the relationships between politics and religion in Australian society.

Unfortunately, I fear that her arguments will sail way above the heads of our most vociferous resident godbotherers at OLO.

A very touchy topic indeed.
But then I much prefer a Christian politics inspired by Boenhoffer to that inspired by the sado-masochistic Opus Dei which influences much of right wing Christian politics.

instructive article. bonhoeffer was not a saint, it turns out, and i think we will discover the same about rudd. pretty safe prediction, about any human being.

these sorts of articles always end too soon. they always stop before talking about 'how'. natural enough, the writer generally has no idea how to do anything easy, much less bring truth and justice to the multitudes. that's genuinely hard as the multitudes don't have much interest in big questions and commonly confuse 't and j' with 'what i want/think'.

CJ....ur a classic :) "We ethical but non religious types" :) "ETHICAL" ?

Puh-lease don't give me the raw prawn cobber.. you insult people with a refinement only matched by Shakespeare :)

Just goes to confirm another of my long running addages.. "people see the world in terms of their own presuppositions" so..if you believe you are ethical, but regularly insult people.. I guess your 'ethics' includes 'refined, well honed insults' 0_-

Not that they bother me... but it seems funny to see you writing about 'self righteousness' like that.. me ? aaha.. you know it. .I'm a dirty rotten sinner, saved by grace... and I still stumble and crash at times.

You remind me of those PC people who honestly believe you can pick up a turd by the clean end *grin*

TOPIC... quite right.. it isn't a Church... next ?

THE BIGGEST DANGER in the current religious and culture wars comes from the "right" wing religionists because to one degree or another (and even to an absolute degree) they presume that they possess the one true faith/way/revelation.
This applies to the "right" wherever they are culturally and geographically.

And of course the two institutions which claim to possess the one true way/truth/revelation and therefore "gods" mandate to convert all of humankind to their one true way, are the monstrous momotheisms---namely Islam and Christianity (particularly the misnamed "catholic" version and its "magisterium").

Any religious insitution that claims such a mandate has effectively DECLARED WAR on all other religions and their cultural expressions. And will, given half the chance, use whatever means necessary to achieve their goal of universal conversion/conquest.

These two would be world conquering grotesque-isms are now gearing up for the "final" showdown to determine who will rule the world. If this grotesque drama is allowed to follow its pattern(ing) to its inevitable ("logical") conclusion, then Humankind, and indeed, all of Earthkind, will most probably be destroyed.

It is a PATTERN of conflict which has the immense force of centuries behind it--a terrible almost unstoppable momentum.

As does the drive to total power and control of the Western "cultural" project.

Parliament developed over the past five hundred years to protect Commoners from Monarchy and the excesses of the so called Nobility and Upper Classes. In Britian there is still a peer distinction between Lords and Commoners - people have a caste, almost. Now Monarchy is not a threat, rather religion-in-politics and the politicians themselves, including (1) the restrictions of a pertuated two party system, (2)the danager of dynastic democracies, as in India, Indonesia, even the US developing here and the politicians just doing their own thing until a month before the election.

Politicians have become a threat to the extent, that it is they whom hold power, have limited hearing to jumping when it comes to listening to public opinion. Labor-Liberal; is cosy arrangement: But, that said, the Pollies "do" to listen the Churches and Mercantile Powers [SMEs and major industry].

Moreover, these previledged religious and commercial parties, whom theoretically are NOT constituents have greater access to the "corridors of power" than a working class voter [who is a constituent] with a problem that needs to be addressed and progressed to Parliament by his/her local member.

Moreover, the Churches and Business realise the above, so the situation becomes more established day-by-day. Both nuture it well to their advantage. Churches and Business know they have a fast lane to power. The pulpit and the cheque book, respectively, have enhance symbiotic relations. The three are as if three electric wires all carrying current -intertwined- with none the Earth. The role of Earth feeling the affects of this consortium felt by We, The People.

Mr Rudd declares himself as a Christian leading up to the election. Now the author wants him to keep his mouth shut in order not to offend a 'non Christian'. Does she believe in democracy or that only people repeating the secular humanist mantras are fit for Prime Ministership. You can be reasonably confident that most Aussies (Christian or non Christian) don't want to abide by the UN laws and treaties she quotes.

The writer misses the mark by a country mile. Rudd is a right wing agent of the capitalists, a creature the rich have promoted and elevated into place. It is no secret that Rudds me-tooism politics consisted of everything Howard stood for and at times Rudd was pushing the political climate further to the right. In many instances Rudd was attacking Howard from the far right. He has continued on with Howards capitalist agenda and is being groomed to carry out the biggest attacks on workers in history. The public purse is still being looted daily along with vital social social services including handing over the electricity infrastructure to his cronies to bring in big charges. How can one person own the electrical infrastructure for Sydney?
The Rudd government is carrying on putting the boot into the disabled, as well as, the ongoing destruction of the public hospital and Medicare system. People are still dying including children for lack of access to public hospital operations and specialist staff. Ambulances still have to ferry serious and emergency cases around the hospitals at night denied service. There is no ongoing new hospitals being built for large new suburbs, instead private ambulances are having to ferry emergencies long distances. The majority of children are still being denied the proper education they are entitled too after their parents have paid taxes for two to three times over. Rudd has no intentions of bringing back the public dental system, which even in its best days was minimal. Rudd supports the degrading and debasing of society to the hilt.

Boazy: "quite right.. it isn't a Church... next ?"

runner: "Does she believe in democracy or that only people repeating the secular humanist mantras are fit for Prime Ministership. "

Like I said, way over the heads of our most vociferous resident godbotherers. Indeed, there's little evidence that either of these two read beyond the article's title.

Boazy: "I guess your 'ethics' includes 'refined, well honed insults' "

Indeed they do, where necessary and appropriate. However, unlike your own ethics, mine don't include telling porkies, beating children, vilifying homosexuals, stirring up xenophobic hatred, etc etc.

Thanks for the comparison with Shakespeare though - a true compliment, but scarcely deserved. I'm surprised that you've actually read anything by him - or, as with this article, is it true that you haven't read much beyond the titles of his works?

Obviously Rudd's god does not inspire him with any sort of moral or strength if the Japanese Snub of Australian territory is anything to go by. I find his weakness with the matter of Japanes Pirates un-nerving , especially inlight of the weakness the Japanese Government has demonstrated by harbouring the pirate fleet.

One would expect that a true believer in a god capable of parting oceans would have the confidence to do the right thing and serve Australian justice on the Japanese whalers so that they will never see Japan again. Instead we get for all the superstitious rhetoric , obviously no trust in the god that is supposed to guide him and a nation bows to criminals.

Labour should have found somebody who worships Neptune , then we wouldnt have two shameful nations serving pirates and the pollution created by the offerings would be less destructive than the Japanese pirate fleet.

Thanks Meg, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and agree with it's direction.I also believe that we need to discover the means whereby the major issues can be resolved. I believe the first small step should be to cease the practice of reciting the 'Lords Prayer'at the commencement of parliamentary sittings.
Lets face it; apart from the sectarian 'christian' connotation, the practice is an exercise in hyocricy.
If there was to be such an event as some divine intervention, the place would collapse at the first lying utterance.

Don't they start parliament with the Parliamentary prayers?

And isn't one of the prayers the Lord's Prayer?

And if it is... Can anyone show me where they uphold it? I mean I would hardly think "thy will" is being done "they lie, curse, attack"...

Also our constitution says

Section 116 - Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

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.

So are they breaking the constitution by setting prayers as part of process in the standing orders? Now I know technically a standing order isn't a law but we sure are cutting things mighty close.

Tradition is one thing but this is applying Christian prayer to our parliaments and what's worse they say it then totally ignore it... Why bother?

It is noteworthy that Rudd spoke to honour Deitrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who was executed for his anti-Nazi activities whilst NSW Premier, Morris Iemma plans to honour, the German theologian Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, who took a very different choice to Bonhoeffer, preferring to join the Hitler Youth.

Ratzinger and his church's views on stem cell research, population control and human sexuality have not been in the public interest. The current Spanish Government has successfully challenged the ultra-conservative views of the church in the face of vehement opposition by the Pope. Other countries have not been so strong. For example, the Pope's religious dogma has blunted public health campaigns for aids prevention through use of condoms in many of the pandemic countries. Similarly, Muslim leaders in Northern Nigeria, fearful of a conspiracy to steralise Muslim men,stopped polio vaccination, thwarting its eradication and facilitating further outbreaks.

Why should governments provide massive tax-payer assistance to host the Pope's World Youth Day spectacular at the Radwick Racecourse?

Religion has been an opiate for too long in world history. Most wars can be traced to religious differences. It is refreshing to see just how many Australians identified their beliefs in the last Census as 'no religion.' More Australians are regarding 'faith in God' as delusional - evidence lacking for God's existance everywhere or anywhere.

As civilisations improve their knowledge about 'why things happen', there comes the realisation that the answers to the big questions in life can only be found in the study of science and ethics. Old Holy books are a leap back to a time when fear and superstition reigned supreme whilst contemporary religions such as scientology are little more than scams that prey on gullible people.

Will we ever see the day when our political leaders cease and desist from funding school chaplains, religious schools, church commercial enterprises and places of worship through government grants and tax exemptions?

Megan Wallace writes:
'But simultaneously, and confusingly, Rudd does go on to say that a Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates “must be argued, and weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular policy”.'
Obviously Megan equates Christianity with black and white fundamentalism. Think again. There is no contradiction here if you're willing to let go of that prejudice.
She also offers the ideas of John Rawls as an alternative to 'ideology'. How is Rawls' 'theory' not 'ideology'? And why should we accept one ideology rather than another, especially when it claims not to be an ideology at all (which strikes me as dishonest and therefore not believable)?

‘Runner’ misunderstands me by claiming I want Rudd ‘to keep his mouth shut in order not to offend a 'non Christian'.. I am not offended, and as I do believe in democracy I believe he has every right to express his views, as do I. Are you sure most Aussies do not want human rights, humanitarian activities?

Maracas.Opinionated2: Agreed. Whilst some people say the prayer is just a formality and doesn’t mean anything, why say it? Politicians must either believe the words they say or not. If so, they are declaring their wish for overthrow of the goveernment in faovur of a theocracy, if not, they are being deceitful (politicians deceitful??). Either way, prayers have no place in Parliament.

David3: Firstly, my name is Meg, not Megan. Secondly, what I am suggesting is that there are particular principles underlying a liberal democracy (call it an ideology or whatever). The point is that the principles Rawls seeks for underlying a true liberal democracy concern political principles that all can agree on (such as human rights, rule of law, parliamentary democracy. If these principles are based on a commitment to liberal democracy, not a particular religious or other personal belief, they would seem to best allow freedom for every individual to follow the comprehensive diverse non-political ideology of their choice, while allowing for others to do the same. This way, neither Christianity or any other religious ideology should be imposed on society by government.

How interesting that both liberals and some Lutherans want to confine Christianity to the realm of 'personal morality' or 'personal belief'. So, religion must never result in political action! This is the sort of Christian passivity towards the state that Bonhoeffer was criticising. He did not want theocracy but Christian social action (Rudd's stance).

Bonhoeffer was saying that the 'two kingdom' doctrine excused Lutheran clerics from criticising the Nazi regime. It encouraged the view that the secular law was an instrument of divine government (being 'the kingdom of the sword'), along with the Church, 'the kingdom of the cross,' being the realm of grace (divine gift/presence).

Also, most of the author's analysis conceals the prejudice that Christianity is anti-human rights and oppressive. Not so.

Finally, the traditional view is that there are not many Gods but one God--so early on Christianity adopted Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of God because they were universal, not being confined to the text of scripture alone.

First, sorry about the name Meg. Secondly, let me begin by quoting you once again: 'The point is that the principles Rawls seeks for underlying a true liberal democracy concern political principles that all can agree on (such as human rights, rule of law, parliamentary democracy).' I'm sure that not 'all' can or do agree on them. So what happens to those who do not in a 'liberal democracy'?
'If these principles are based on a commitment to liberal democracy...' ahh, there's the rub! The unquestionable dogma of the day is that 'liberal democracy' is the obvious and best system of government; and the inevitable definition of the human person as an 'individual' coupled with freedom being a simple matter of individual choice quickly follow: '...they would seem to best allow freedom for every individual to follow the comprehensive diverse non-political ideology of their choice, while allowing for others to do the same' But only as long as they also subscribe to the trinity of dogmas: 'liberal democracy', person='individual' and freedom='individual choice'. Alas there are those of us who do not subscribe to this orthodoxy. But then we obviously are not included in the 'all' your talking about Meg -- which means we must be the invisible 'non-persons' in your 'liberal democracy'. How 'liberal' and 'democratic' is that?

This `Parliament is not a Church' debate is an artefact of the Protestant divine command theory of morality. Following Rawls, Meg regards "personal beliefs" as inherently diverse, as if my God hands down one lot and your God hands down another, so we need to work on a minimalist public sphere where we can deal with one another without jihad.

That's a bad idea because it doesn't allow the state to tackle anything morally substantive, e.g. to promote every child's right to education. Rawls chooses just one fragment of common ethics, viz, "justice and fairness" as allowable in the public sphere, without giving any coherent reason why only that part is allowed.

Naturally I recommend my recent edited book Life to the Full: Rights and Social Justice in Australia
http://connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.phpmain_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=42
as a summary of the opposite view - that there are lots of positive natural rights of people that the State has a duty to support.

Many of the contra responses to Meg Wallace's article are graphic examples as to why the functioning of Parliament should not be governed or influenced by religious beliefs (churches) of any particular persuasion.We do not need to belong to a 'godfearing / loving community to possess moral ethics.

In my view, those responses that call on a'god'as the basis of their submission fail to present a compelling argument on the premise of the very existence of a 'god'.
Mankind invented gods because of their inability to explain their existence and present day sects merely continue to perpetuate the myth.

Most descend into sectarian rhetoric and semantic obfuscation.

I still think Meg's article beats them all.
Onya Meg.

I fail to understand why John Rawls' Theory of Justice should be seen as incompatible with a Christian world view, be it Bonhoefer's or Rudd's. Certainly the pope does not think so, as the following quote from his cancelled (because of a lack of the "prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome" as the Vatican officials put it) lecture at the La Sapienza University of Rome illustrates (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#2):

>I would like to describe briefly how John Rawls, while denying that comprehensive religious doctrines have the character of "public" reason, nonetheless at least sees their "non-public" reason as one which cannot simply be dismissed by those who maintain a rigidly secularized rationality.

Rawls perceives a criterion of this reasonableness among other things in the fact that such doctrines derive from a responsible and well thought-out tradition in which, over lengthy periods, satisfactory arguments have been developed in support of the doctrines concerned.

The important thing in this assertion, it seems to me, is the acknowledgment that down through the centuries, experience and demonstration - the historical source of human wisdom - are also a sign of its reasonableness and enduring significance.

Faced with an a-historical form of reason that seeks to establish itself exclusively in terms of a-historical rationality, humanity's wisdom - the wisdom of the great religious traditions - should be valued as a heritage that cannot be cast with impunity into the dustbin of the history of ideas.

... The Pope speaks as the representative of a community of believers in which a particular wisdom about life has evolved in the course of the centuries of its existence. He speaks as the representative of a community that preserves within itself a treasury of ethical knowledge and experience important for all humanity:  in this sense, he speaks as the representative of a form of ethical reasoning. <

This article appears to be balanced but it's an attack on Kevin Rudd, on Rudd's spiritual beliefs. The real issue is the difference of beliefs of Rudd's and Wallace.

To me UN organisations, and human rights is a new atheistic religion. which in my opinion does definitely much more bad than good.

What is justice according to new UN human rights religion?
What are human rights?

There is no problem for Christians to define "love". There is no such word in UN religion.

New religion declares that all children have rights to have health care. This is absolutely meaningless and very wrong idea. It allow those children to actually be neglected. There is nobody responsible for that child according.

Christianity explains: Love your neighbour, and love your enemy... this is opposite from an abstract philosophy that a child deserve care. There is nobody to take care, nobody to have a duty, and "right" become just utopian theory.

In practice the new religion is being pushed into our society weather we want or not, the medical system look much more like in example below.

One person is a heavy smoker (smokes everything), drinker, junk food eater, and in generally care less about own health.

In another family, all working hard, all care for health they cannot afford to have an organic healthy food nor sport activities due to an effect of new religion, everybody must contribute so much for medicare system.

The careless man is taken by ambulance for drug overdose and gets priority care in hospital. Others who tried to care for their health cannot have such care because the one who does not care took priority.

Perhaps selective faith allow us avoid fanatism.

Our courts ruled by UN international court, are almost exactly antijustice. This is a result of rejecting Christian rules of justice. How can you what you call unjust, replace with something truly unjust?
Let's leave our beliefs alone, they follow us to our offices. Let's focus on merits of our decisions and dids. So we must do what is rational.