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.