Quite a good article. I note Bronwyn's use of the term "racist" when applied to Muslims (she at least, qualifies it using "ethnic"), but is questioning the actions and utterances of Muslims "racist"? Is Islam a race?

While the Left may not be in direct cahoots with conservative Muslims, they have pandered to them for years, no doubt in the hope of electoral support (remember Keating and Hilali?). The recently unseated "Red Ken" of London has many Muslim friends, including blatant homophobics and suicide bombing supporters. It's a paradox for a centrist like me.

I do question whether Islam is compatible with secular democracies, especially given how few Islamic nations practice democracy in any meaningful way. Iran picks and choses candidates, Indonesia pays only lip service to religious freedom, and Malaysia actively discriminates against non-Muslims through its Bumiputra policy.

While Bronwyn is correct in saying that Islam is far from homegeneous, it is very different to Christianity in that Islam is in itself a political system as "God makes laws, not humans". Whether or not this was the case with Christianity 600 years ago is totally irelevant. The world is a very different place, now, with nations having the capabilty of wiping another off the map in minutes because they dislike the religion of the other, as is the case with Iran vis a vis Israel.

There are very few schools of Islamic thought (and certainly not the 4 or 5 major ones) which in any way suggest women should have equal rights to men, for instance. Is this not an immediate impediment to participation in secular democracy? On top of that are Muslim stances on gays, mixing of the sexes, entertainment, rational discussion, freedom of the press and education etc.

viking13 says:

"The recently unseated "Red Ken" of London has many Muslim friends, including blatant homophobics and suicide bombing supporters. It's a paradox for a centrist like me."

First, he moved away from any actions or philosophy that could be described as leftist some time ago, so Red Ken is a misnomer. He is a centrist.

Second it is absolute rubbish to suggest Ken has friends who support suicide bombers. His actions after the 7 July bombings in London show a man of courage with real compassion for the victims of this outrage. Why does the truth disappear up the orifice of the right when they talk about the Left or what they think is the Left?

Third, speaking of homophobics, ever been to a catholic mass or high Anglican mass?

Why single out Islamic homophobia as compared to that of Jensen or Pell? And Rudd and Nelson in their irrational fear of gay marriage are just as homophobic.

There is no 'concrete' interpretation of Christianity, Islam or Secularism.

I see the views of those holding to their version of secularism in this thread as coming into direct conflict with democracy. In a liberal democracy, religious and non-religious people are free to vote for whatever they wish, with no restriction imposed by the ideology of secularism or religion. The only constraint on democratically elected leaders is the rule of law and a constitution that emphasises individual rights and freedoms.

Those who don't wish the will of the majority to reign solely on the grounds that their agenda may be influenced by religious values that they are opposed to are not defenders of freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

paulr, you raise an important point, but it has nothing to do with religion versus secularism, or what you regard as naive views of either.

there is always tension between the principle of democracy, and the protection of the minority against the majority. that is why most democracies have a bill of rights or some equivalent.

you can argue that such protections of the minority are undemocratic. but it is fatuous to simply claim that "people are free to vote for whatever they wish", as if there are not difficult issues here.

The IQ2 debate…worrying? The ability of the audience to be swayed was indicative of the debator’s skill, not the proposition.

A small diversion: Take a quick peek at the mathematical concept of pareto efficiency.

Pareto improvement results the movement from one allocation to another where at least one individual is better off without being detrimental to any other.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency :

“A simple example is the distribution of a pie among three people who each want as much of the pie as they can get. The most equitable distribution would assign one third to each person. However the assignment of, say, a half section to each of two individuals and none to the third is also Pareto optimal despite not being equitable, because none of the recipients is left worse off than before (when none had pie); An example of a Pareto inefficient distribution of the pie would be allocation of a quarter of the pie to each of the three, with the remainder discarded, as welfare can be increased without reducing the welfare of any individual (e.g. just give the quarter pie to someone).
…Pareto efficiency only serves to uphold the status quo, not result in equitable distribution or a socially optimal outcome.”

How does the tax system provide pareto efficiency for the welfare economy? What will the impact of taking away tax relief of an NFP providing a free service to the community, be?

If the NFP is involved in the provision of social services to the disadvantaged, and is unable to continue, then government will need to step in, raising taxes to meet the cost. Alternatively, society could accept the loss of their safety net.

Containing the black market on the other hand, will produce optimum pareto improvement for the law-abiding – in the form of additional income via taxes – while reducing the pareto efficiency of crime.

Thanks for reading! ... I'm sure most realise that the EB or the profiteers of Mercy Ministries are not representative of Christian ministry...

Ms Winter, Islam and Christianity get the same tax breaks but the buck stops there. Your real motivation here is to undermine the role of the Church by using Islam to discredit Christianity.

Separating Christianity from the State is a difficult task because the Judeo-Christian ethic is intimately fused with dominant culture and legitimized by majority vote in a country that has compulsory voting (the secularists would remove that too, weighing in favour of our basic right NOT to vote).

Bushbred: paulr is right. Support for “Christian conservatism” does not come from left, right or center. Christians, guided by their conscience, are free to vote however they please. “Right” is a political term describing increased state intervention in society. Right wing politics is incompatible with Christianity, as it represents the failure of individuals to recognize God’s dominion. Secularism IS atheism, eg. The Greens.

Christianity does not have an agenda to take over the nation, to infiltrate the halls of power or to push a “radical” Christian agenda onto the political platform. However, while legislators increasingly favour the lobbyists and minority interests, Christians fight for the protection of our freedoms of assembly, publication and speech and the preservation of our institutions.

Public education? Scripture in public schools is only possible with parental consent. There is no compulsion. Neutrality can only be achieved by taking away freedom of choice.

Separating Islam from our liberal democratic State is different. Elements of the sharia system have only recently started to creep in, a process that is facilitated by the ideas of tolerance and fairplay. The tension for Muslims as they rub up against our institutions is evident in their constant demand for concessions: the disproportionate voice of the ANIC, the undue influence of Hanan Dover and the rush by Australian politicians to appease the Muslim voice.

On Keysar Trad: Another name for a system where majority decisions are not binding on the minority is….anarchy.

Shakira Hussein (anarkali): you are cowered into not speaking out against your leaders because (1) you are a woman (2) they have Qu’ranic authority. How is this OUR fault again?