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?