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.