excellent article thanx very much. nice to see Immanuel get a mention, and good to see the blatant, two faced lies of wingnut, brandrudd, icehockey and god botherers of all kinds called out for what they are.

Amen.

I had the misfortune to be tuned to Radio National when Joe's rambling personal apologia was broadcast. Joe is right up there with the mad priest, and goody - goody Rudd.
The only skill necessary to the advancement of professed religious politicians such as this sad trio is that of coping with cognitive dissonance - a skill possessed pretty well across the board in Australian parliaments as well as all church hierarchies
An avowed christian work associate of mine once told me, when I asked him how his christian convictions allowed him to act in a certain way, that 'I hang my convictions on the hook with my hat in the morning'.
Says it all.

Things changed greatly for the better when Western society separated the State and Religion. Lets keep it that way.

Unfortunately Daviy, the separation of religion and state has always been muddy. In recent times the god bothering pollies are selling out Australian values of decency and pluralism in search of the swinging voter who will return them to power.

For how long has it been politically mandatory to attend church? Worse, they are pandering to the likes of Hillsong whose fundamentalist teachings inspire hatred and intolerance. How? A liberal sampling of my interpretation of Hillsong's thinking:

Homosexuals are evil and to be cured. They should never be allowed to marry.
Muslims should be left to sink in rotting boats in international waters, palmed off to other countries or detained indefinitely (while the vast majority who fly in and overstay their visas never become political cannon fodder).
Just say 'no'.

Humanitarianism is common to all beliefs. There's something awful and wrong about losing this by interpreting the tenets of faith as weapons of discrimination.

I cannot honestly believe that our Government is truly secular when I witness the weekly pilgrimage of our politicians to confess their sins and sing the praises before submitting to a sermon.
Then at the commencement of a parliamentary sittings,recite the Christian, Lords Prayer; Hypocritically I might add as they proceed to abuse and denigrate each other in an unchristian way as they heap scorn on vulnerable refugees and Asylum Seekers and continue to enact laws inflicting more pain and suffering on Indigenous people.

Who would you rather have in control of your destiny:

- Someone who makes rational decisions based on logic and evidence?

- Someone who does what they think their Sky Daddy wants them to do?

The further and the quicker we separate religious delusions from the exercise of political power the happier and safer we will all be.

Baxter Sin
I agree. The Born Again Mr Bush swapping Jim Beam for Evangelical Christianity as his drug of choice and using 'God' to return to the dark ages with torture, special rendition and Guantanamo Bay. It is so easy to backslide.
At least we have a model move away from in those Islamic countries that have not separated State and Religion at any level. Turkey seems to be leading the way in separating State and Religion in an Islamic state. I hope this is the way forward.
Any Politian of any religion that seeks to combine the two is bad news. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and so on show us what happens when Politics and religion are mixed.
This is without mention the religious factors involved in our treatment of refugees, Aboriginal Australians and many more minority groups.
Religion needs to be confined behind the closed doors of religious buildings and as an act between consenting adults.
That does not necessarily mean that I do not believe in God, only that those who falsely claim to be the arbitrators of God's will on earth have no place in running our society.

Let me get this straight.

Ms Wilson purports to expect religious folk to be kind to their fellow humans? Religious folk who are politicians to boot!

Ms. Wilson, you need to go back on your meds.

Jennifer,
this is a subject very close to my heart, in fact I'm a little miffed that you've beat me to it; I've been posting elsewhere on precisely this point. Whatever premises governments base themselves on constitutionally, these have to be observed practically if citizens are to cleave to them. Religions have had their day, and their prelates and oligarchies have shown themselves to be consummate hypocrites--as have the flocks that they shepherded. The commandments are routinely observed in the breach. On the other hand, secular institutions have no better record.
I believe out principles should be based on reason and humanism, but enlightened ideals have to be observed first by governments!! Only then is the government in a position to exact justice--by first exemplifying it! The human race is full of inspirational rhetoric, but in practice we are vicious hypocrites.

Oh I see its okay for the evolutionary based gw religious politicians to fly around in their private jets preaching restraint to others. Whilst Hockey's views on Scripture are heretical and non sensical it is a pathetic attempt to paint him as uncompassionate as the leftist views have led to more drownings over the last couple of months than at any other time. The compassionate secularist religion takes the self righteous stand that they are the compassionate ones but in Jennifer's own words 'the disconnect' between what they preach and do is far removed.

Hockey along with Rudd does Christians no favours by claiming to follow Christ and then visiting strip clubs, abusing staff, speaking with foul mouths and being gullible or deceitful enough to carry on about man made global warming.. Their actions align a lot closer to the secularist than they do Christ. Unfortunately Politicians on both sides today say anything to get elected. I actually have more respect for the go hating Greens who don't try and hide their paganism than I do pretenders. Both Labour and Liberal and National have those.

Kant (and his dromedaries), however, is decidedly not the way to go, at least not writ large. We have to walk before we can run, and let Kant and co precede us.
One has to be cryptic from time to time.
These comments at least make sense to me.

Jon J nailed the issue for me:
"Who would you rather have in control of your destiny:

- Someone who makes rational decisions based on logic and evidence?

- Someone who does what they think their Sky Daddy wants them to do?

The further and the quicker we separate religious delusions from the exercise of political power the happier and safer we will all be."
-
-
-
AMEN!

Politicians acting un-Christian? Bring it on!
I'd rather the nation were NOT held hostage to any theological thinking- conservative OR liberal.
Instead, we could have a secular government that governs with LOGIC for the public benefit!
Crazy thought.

Personally, I'd like to see a clear separation between Church (by which I mean all Religion) and State in Australia. However, I think we're going to have to wait until we grow up enough as a nation and declare our Independence before that State transpires.

We need to remove any consideration of "God" in our legislature and its deliberations.

Mind you, I won't be holding my breath.

Nature abhors a vacuum, is a fundamental tenet of science. In the same type of situation when the Church abdicates its responsibilities, the State steps in to its place. Unfortunately in Australia fundamental doctrinal differences between a large number of Christians of one denomination, and a timid-ness on the part of another large congregation, has led to the near demise of both. This is demonstrated by the lack of numbers in their large and beautiful churches, except on major occasions like Christmas and Easter.

On the other hand, churches like Hillsong, which teach the principles of good government through the Holy Bible, are packed and envy drives much of the criticism of that Church. As an attendee at both an Anglican Church and Hillsong, I have been unable to detect any difference in the message derived from the Holy Bible in either. The Word, at Hillsong is delivered with somewhat more imagination, and they subscribe to the Bible based understanding of equality of the sexes. I caused quite a stir in the Anglican Church when I suggested that some of the excellent women involved in that Church be given equality of opportunity.

Latham proved that a person must be a Christian, to be able to gain the trust of the majority of Australians. Joe has probably worked that out too, but Malcolm is a bit slow. He is a bit like Beasley whose middle name was Christian, a bit coy about his Christianity. Now if they were honest, and an honest politician is an oxymoron, they would take McClelland to task about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They would insist that it really was enacted in 1981 by Fraser, and confirmed in 1986, by the Hawke Government, and understand that it is in fact the embodiment of the principles of the New Testament.

In particular it enacts as law the principle that all persons, men and women are equal before the law. The Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted in 1995 that failure to apply that principle will result in seventeen years imprisonment. The AFP should enforce it

Quite right, runner & peter the believer, but everybody has forgotten there are other religions besides Christianity. Many allegedly secular political movements have been promoted in a similar manner and evangelised through a corrupt, compliant, mass media.

Witness the fervent, dogmatic demonization of all nonbelievers in radical/extremist/red/green/left politics or femanazism. Compere a Hitler rally, to a Stalin rally, to north Korean games, to a bra burning femanazi street march or the spin doctoring press conferences by red/green/labour coalition aparatchiks about the Economic Treason Scheme & the Creating Poverty Ruthlessly Scheme. The repetition of dogma, propaganda and lies, relentlessly drilling it into everybody over & over & over again, the same old lies/statistics. I defy anybody to explain even one difference in technique.

On the other hand there actions, outcomes and behaviour do in fact, match perfectly with devil worship in its purest form. Maybe these are the end of days and these terrorists are the false prophets predicted in revelations?

To me Jennifer's piece is more than the individuals' adherence to 'Religious doctrine', the implications are both cynical if not potentially sinister.

If one accepts “there is no such thing as a free lunch” the implications become clearer.. My experience with some 'religious' politicians is that they regard their churches part of a mutual power exercise. Not dissimilar to the labor members and individual unions. Both have welded on supporters whose demands are predictable and 'manageable'.

In return the churches view the politician as 'their' insurance to the levers of power.

I have seen those same priests rale against the sins of an opposing candidate but neglect to mention their candidate is guilty of the same and more. Then instruct their flocks to support various conservative candidates.

In one area a particular a religious denomination have financially supported etc candidates resulting in 4 out of 11 councillors, the mayor and the federal member coming from the same congregations. Two others were another denomination but were supported by developers linked to those the original congregation.
There is a further link to the origins of Family First .

Having lost the last Council election they now have one council member who always votes in the minority, Two state reps and a federal rep .

PS One member refused to publicly denounce a miracle cancer cure marketed by members of his home congregation (on Caveat emptor).

These two congregations make up 7% ish of the area's population.
How come the bias? Key party branch member's religious affiliations.

Getting this information out near impossible (law suits, media commercial obligations etc.)

Rudd is straddling both groups and has taken some conservative members to his camp. Hence the differences between his and the conservatives in many key areas is... well... nuanced at best indistinguishable at worse. Who knows, it could be coincidental and Hockey/ Abbot aren't setting them selves as a possible PM. Then again, I did write a book about tooth fairies.

Examinator,

Take a deep breath.

I agree with your last post. You are obviously an unwitting agent of a nefarious Zionist conspiracy.

At Churches all over Australia people are expressing concern at the possibility that Kevin can sign a binding treaty to cost Australians seven billion dollars a year. Joe and Tony profess to be Christians as does KR, however they are without exception accepting that the Parliament of the Commonwealth can authorize a major constitutional change without a referendum, probably because the corruption of Australia’s judicial system is complete. They probably accept this because lawyers, the professions of Joe Penny Peter and Tony, have let the Commonwealth get away with the Australia Act 1986, which effected a major constitutional change without the required referendum under S 128 Constitution.

Just because Malcolm, Penny and Ian ( McFarlane) hammer out a deal, to give authority to Kevin to sign this treaty, Kevin still will not have authority to sign, because Parliament in Australia with our written Constitution is not Supreme, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is and Her Supreme Court the High Court, must enroll such a treaty before it can become law. The Governor -General cannot assent to such a Bill, unless she is satisfied that it has been supported by a referendum, and must use her reserve powers, under S 58 Constitution to reserve the Bill for Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

Australia is a signatory to Interpol. Its Australian Federal Police is a party to its protocols, and the Criminal Code Act 1995 has adequate protections for the Constitution, and the Crown on their badge, is evidence of their power, which is equal to and co-existent with the powers of the Governor General that are granted by S 61 Constitution. One of Interpol’s duties is to stop corruption, and now that The Honourable Brendan O’Connor has promised not to interfere politically with the Australian Federal Police, it can insist on proper procedures before any Bill is passed into law.

The Australian Federal Police can insist that overheated and emotionally misguided politicians, accept that the rule of law is paramount in Australia, and that the proper protocols to protect make and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth are followed. We must trust them.

On yers Jennifer....poor old 'secular Joe', hasn't got a pair of synaptic gaps to spark between.... and clearly his speech , apart from being 'tosh', was an attempt to stop people questioning him any further on his 'faith'.

As Harris et al., say, once you declare you have 'faith', that is supposed to prevent any further nasty questions on your behaviour... 'It's his 'faith', you see'.... "but he has his 'faith', so that explains all".

Do read this open letter to Secular Joe at the Australian Secular Lobby web site:
http://www.australiansecularlobby.com/PDFs/2009-11-11_ASL_Joe_Hockey.pdf

If Jennifer was to turn her attentions to the 'charlatans', as the High Court warned us all against when it comes to allowing 'religious freedom', within the new 'Rudd Chaplaincy Paradigm', that would make for interesting reading.

I see Jennifer is skilled in 'child abuse' matters. Nothing could be so close to 'child abuse' as that which Rudd promotes for public schools through his continued impostion of school chaplains within them.... while happily sending his own oik to a private school to escape the rabble of the "working class" in Canberra.

Why do people not question what goes on in public schools?

It's simple really, like Joe Hockey, and all those other luminaries Jennifer mentions, the school chaplains are known to have 'faith', and are therefore beyond questioning...ever.

But what if Rudd stopped and did question what he was doing?

Would that be a denial of his 'faith', or would he be upholding it?

What would Jesus have done? Lied and fibbed, and acted like a charlatan, or questioned and demanded answers?

Maybe Peter The Believer knows the answer to that one?

The true believers in what.
Religion would have to be the worlds worst fraud, and they have been allowed to get away with it.
There is no heaven and there is no hell, it's all a con.
It's forced upon kids as soon as they are born, they don't get any say in what religion they want to be, or even at all.
Science keeps proving there was no single creator, and yet religion survives.
The world would be a much calmer place without religion.
It will probably cause the demise of the world. In the name of god ovcause.

Almost fell off my chair.
On TV.
Tony Abbot said "scientologists are a load of nutters".

The scientologists are shrewd business people; they've followed the scent of Vatican gold and all the wealth of all the other hateful religions that parasitise the public purse and pilfer from the nutters they patronise. I would rather have the scietologists than the ratbag religios; the former are only on the nose because they beautifully parody conventional religions. Give me a scientologist Chaplain in my kids' primary school any day over the benighted brethren of fundamentalist churches. You've got to wonder, when a mob like the scientologists, whose underlying tenets are mostly reasonable, at least by comparison (if cynical in their intent), are decried nutters. Simultaneously the God bothers propound all sorts of utter garbage about virgin births, walking on water, resurrections, six day creations, and all the other crap. The vast majority don't bat an eyelid at all this---but the scientologists are nutters!
Uh huh...
At least Scientologists charge an up front fee for their services; the other religions filch the money from their followers via manipulation and scare tactics, working symbiotically with governments.
Hockey is of course merely grooming himself and courting the popular vote---he's on a winning ticket I'd say!

Squeers, dangerous territory when you start heaping mild praise onto religious outriders.

Would you equally praise the Exclusive Brethren, John Howard's chums, who are also 'good at business', and welcome them as a school chaplain?

Or that cult that Chris Masters looked at in Brisbane?

There has to be a clear line demarked here auld chum... religion... and no religion... there are no 'partial pregnancies' on offer.

A touch of the Bush absolutes are required here.

I do agree, Bluecross, 'twasn't "mild praise", but heavy satire. Schools should of course be purged of all frock-coated frauds and ferragos; make them pariahs all in school zones. Chaplains are the ecclesiastical equivalents of "toolies"--a menace to the vulnerable developing mind; an unctuous and opportunistic presence praying on the credulity of children. Avast ye serpents! Get thee hence!

I heard the interview referred to. I was delighted when Fran Kelly asked Joe Hockey a question about God and Joe began his reply with "Kevin Rudd....." Of course, he went on to rubbish Rudd but I was laughing too much to hear what he said !!

An interesting and amusing discussion.

The Blue Cross - are you unfamiliar with the notion of 'being damned by faint praise'?

It can be a very useful rhetorical device...

Jennifer, thank you for a very well written and thought provoking article.

I remember reading that the two main threats to the wellbeing of the world are TV and Testosterone. I think they both have some effect which prevents people using their own brain and relying on someone else to use their brain to make the decisions that govern our lives.

Throughout history I think that more people have been killed in the name of God (who preached against violence in the new testament) than have been killed for any other reason.

There is no doubt that sending christian soldiers to attack muslim countries is not good for anyone and throughout history does not have a good success rate. We seem to learn little from past mistakes.

This christmas will be the ninety fifth anniversary of an event where the peace part of religion did have a win. In one section of the WW1 trenches the Scots, French and German soldiers celebrated christmas together and brought the war to a halt in thier section of the front.
They discovered that they all wanted to be home with their famililies rather than trying to kill people they did't know. It took the good christian generals a few months to get them back on track after christmas.

Sorry for this rambling post but there is a lot to think about when one has to do the thinking using ones own brain.

Oh noooooo Peace, not that auld hoary tale AGAIN?

Now, please analyise your post.

A win for the peace part of religion eh?

There was a great Steptoe and Son programme on just this story, tears and a thought provoked 'arold as his dad told how they played soccer together in no mans land.

When they got back to the trenches 'dad' shot his new mate Fritz.... oh yes, a real win indeed.

And of course, the court martials, executions of footsloggers for not fighting, all supported by the chaplains at the edge of the shooting.

Piffle, 'Peace' absolute piffle.

No one should have any fear of a “True Believer”. It is the pseudo Christians, the ones who pay lip service to Christianity, but in truth bat for the other side who are the real menace.

Any “True Believer” who has regularly attended either the Anglican Church or any of the charismatic Churches that accurately teach the Gospels, for at least three years, would know that Almighty God makes no mistakes. They would also know that all Judges and Magistrates in Australia today are pagan, and that the annual parade of hypocrites, where the legal profession goes to Church, or Synagogue, at the start of the Law Year, in every capital city and many provincial cities, is a charade.

The Holy Romans have a huge number of sincere and honest members, but they have a few absolutely dishonest and totally corrupt members like Father Frank Brennan, and the Attorney General who have been in denial of the enactment by the Christian Parliament of the Commonwealth of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A person has to be a fool to deny this enactments existence. It is clearly to be found in a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . It is Schedule 2, and only a Jesuit priest could publicly deny its existence, and a poor uneducated Attorney General, advised by imbeciles, is about the only person who feels able to blatantly lie to a member of Parliament about it.

A real Christian, is a threat to no one except the Baal worshippers, who currently rule Australia. These Baalists who insist that they are treated as Gods, and kowtowed to like a Japanese Emperor, rule us from every Court in Australia, and no true believer should be under any illusions about that. Until the Judges and Magistrates of Australia become true believers, unable to morally sit and judge their fellow Australians, except with the consent of a committee of 12 grass roots members of society, in a fair open and public meeting, we will get no justice or good government

I say PtB, this is a bit rum auld chap:

"The Holy Romans have a huge number of sincere and honest members, but they have a few absolutely dishonest and totally corrupt members like Father Frank Brennan, and the Attorney General..."

I'd be on the watch for a law suit if you keep that tone up.

'Misguided', maybe.... 'wrong and muddled headed' perhaps... 'well- meaning' if you want to really patronise them both... 'Jesuit' if you really want to be rude...

A feature of any morally complete man, is his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, and an absense of fear. Lawsuits are but one of the tools used by people to intimidate and subjugate, other individuals.

We should have nothing to fear from a lawsuit, if we hold our views honestly, and there was still a venue in which our views could be debated, with a fair and public hearing by a competent independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Criminal Code Act 1995 defines dishonesty, in S 130.3 and S 130.4 reserves the question of honesty for the trier of fact. That means that if a person is accused of being dishonest, he or she is entitled to expect that a jury will determine whether he or she is a liar.

The passage quoted above, is lifted verbatim from the Covenant’s Article 14. It also states that all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. Currently serious criminals get juries as of right, civil and minor offenders don’t. Even criminals are sorted into two classes. The first class are those whose crimes are so minimal, that they are not given jury trials as of right, but must submit to a local priest appointed by the State called a Magistrate. Really serious criminals, get a jury trial as of right, but in reality only get a half a dose of justice, because the State Priest steps in then after conviction and imposes the penalty.

This offends the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because under Christian Law, both sentencing and guilt were the prerogative of a jury. This is represented by S 14 of the Magna Carta, an Act that was still in force in Australia in 1900, when the Judicature was enacted into the Constitution. A copy may be found here.
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=466

When the true believers become truly believers, then the moral and ethical code represented by the Covenant, which virtually codifies the New Testament of the Holy Bible will be recognized, accepted and enforced, and freedom will reign supreme