Abbott is right on this matter. Religious faith is a personal matter. Of course, strong faith inevitably shapes one's view on a whole range of issues. So does a belief in socialism or liberalism. The problem arises if a political leader's actions are based on the text s/he believes in - whether that be the Bible, the Koran or even Che Guevara's greatest hits. Ours is a democracy and political decisions are based on the will of the people, not some ancient text. Politics is not, and should never be, a tool for evangelism. So, the issue on abortion, for example, is not whether Abbott (or anyone else in politics) supports it or opposes it. It is whether they think the state should intervene on the basis of a religious belief. My understanding is that Abbott opposes abortion yet, as Minister for Health, did not seek to impose that on the community through law. Compare that with those who claim people should have a right to circumsize their kids or bar marriage outside their faith because of some passage in an ancient text. Being a secular state doesn't mean religion is banned!

Rudd, on the other hand, does use his religion for political gain - as a kind of fashion accessory. He has crossed that secular line, albeit by a small step, whereas Abbott has not.

I think the more important question here is who gives rats?

Once again Thank You OLO. This is a subject that will probably decide the next Federal Election, just as it decided the last one. The central theme is Tony Abbott has a Christian faith, despite taking a University Brainwashing Course and getting an LLB, and becoming a Rhodes Scholar. There is no monopoly on thinking Christians by either the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches, and men and women have unique thinking processes, and have plenty to contribute to Australian Political Life.

So far most of the usual suspects are silent. During the past month I have had two major experiences. The first was obtaining a copy of the Australian Style Manual where the Australian Government gives guidance to authors editors and printers. Authors should include authorities, because on Page 300 it speaks of a Royal Identifier. It stops short of saying that a Royal Identifier should be affixed to every Act of Parliament put forth by any Legislature, but the Australian Courts Act 1828 says just that. That is published under a Royal Identifier, just as the Australian Constitution was in England in 1900, but not in Australia today.

The second major experience was discovering a Royal Identifier on a copy of the Holy Bible. The Cambridge University Press is the publisher under Royal Letters Patent of the Authorised King James Version. They range in price from $35 to $1,200 as befits a document that is the foundation of all our laws. It makes Church into a Law School, because as Archbishop Jensen said, any law in conflict with the Holy Bible is illegal.

The word Commonwealth comes out of it where it is used in Ephesians 2 Verse 12, and the requirement in S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 that all laws and ordinances be registered in a Supreme Court is evidence that Christianity is central to good government. The Supreme Court used to be the court of the supreme being, to Christians this is Almighty God. To Muslims it is Allah. And the procedures prescribed by the Holy Bible should be the process followed by every Supreme Court

Geoff's absolutely right.

I very much want to know who I'm REALLY voting for- especially whatever theological quirks they have- as Australia is finding out the hard way with Rudd.

Although remember that this is Australia- if everyone knew what REALLY went through the heads of half of our crooked pollies we'd probably have half of them give up and retire on the spot!

Abbott is now controlling a party and therefore a future government which will go out of its way to implement all the archaic teachings and the dogma of the Roman Church, steeped in the middle ages but which has gone from strength to strength due to the failure of secular governments to separate the activities of weekend religion from the task of governments, representing the great majority of peoples.
His agenda comes from his mindset as a committed Catholic and all that means, totally subservient to the church and not an original idea to be found anywhere that has not had the imprimatur of the Pell's of this world.
We demonstrate against one Islamic school but accept 36 Catholic schools and colleges in Canberra alone, the ownership of three hospitals, 80% of social clubs, golf courses, Rugby clubs, Cruise boats and at the present time trying to force the ACT government to sell them the only palliative care centre in the city as well. This is just one city. Is this what religion is all about in 2009, tax-free to boot? This is Abbott's home base.
It is about power and control and that's the environment that controls the thinking of 50% of the front bench of the loyal opposition (loyal to whom, one should ask) and might I add, the same percentage of the current Federal government.
We promote multiculturalism yet encourage all religions to offer and promote religious education through religious controlled primary and secondary schools and colleges, further dividing the objects and ideals we had in the early days of this country, united then through a struggle just to make a living but feeling part of one country, Australia, not a separate set of cliques with their own separate philosophies which now control their lives and certainly control their thinking. All we like sheep is apt.
Any person, who promotes the kind of thinking that allows the likes of Abbott to influence government and keep us in the dark ages, is a traitor to the progressive ideals of this country, whatever political colour they may be

If the breathless anti-Catholic ranting of Ulis and rexw is a fair indication of the calm, rational approach that atheism is claimed to bring to important national issues, it would be hard to find a better argument for having more practising Christians involved in the political process. Christians, at least, are taught to be truthful, and not give gratuitous offence purely for the childish pleasure it may bring.
It is nothing less than the truth to state that Australia owes its democratic system to the Christian beliefs of those who founded it, and it is therefore the ultimate absurdity to claim that Christians should now be excluded from the democratic process. It's also worth noting that our hospitals and our entire education system owe their existence to the Christian (principally Catholic) churches.
We have some wonderful examples of countries run by intelligent, rational atheists - China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, and there are no boatloads of refugees fleeing our Christian democratic way of life to live there. Nobody ever got shot fleeing east across the Berlin Wall to live in an atheist paradise.
Ulis, you stand the truth on its head when you state that "untold millions" are dying of AIDS in Africa because of Catholic teachings. The spread of HIV-AIDS in Africa and elsewhere is a direct consequence of a promiscuous lifestyle which the Catholic Church has consistently condemned. If you live by those teachings, you have virtually nothing to fear from HIV-AIDS, and if you need the protection of condoms, you have already turned your back on the moral question, and are hardly likely to listen to the Church's view on the issue. Uganda has achieved a dramatic reduction in HIV-AIDS infections as a consequence of the Catholic Church's promotion of a responsible monogamous sexual lifestyle, while other African countries, awash with condoms, have failed miserably.