Recently there have been stories about the Brethren Church in Australia involving itself in politics, including at the last federal election.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church however has denied involvement in election activities.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-21/exclusive-brethren-church-denies-harrasment-federal-election/107061934

The church itself has about 15,000 members across Australia - and the influence of such people, particularly across a marginal electorate could have serious consequences.

Some have classed the Brethren as a cult, leaving the movement and being split up in terms of families. As people they felt closed in, didn't agree with their policies and wanted their personal freedoms and values to be respected.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-19/leaving-the-plymouth-brethren-christian-church-in-australia/104323648

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ1a0pxyrJk

I am therefore concerned about religions getting involved in politics, trying to impose their values onto other people and impacting on the democratic process.

I am also wondering if getting involved in politics is what religions are actually for in real terms and what they are actually meant to be about. For example, does getting involved in politics go against the teachings of the bible or another holy book?

The short answer is no: religion as an institution should not be involved in politics. Islam is, of course, and who would want their politics decided like that!

It's been a long time since anything was heard about the Plymouth Brethren. There are only about 15,000 of them in Australia, so they don't have much influence.

They are total nutters, and the ABC must be very desperate for muck to even mention them. Anything to stir up shite.

There are many more dangerous characters than PB adherents; Albanese and his crew, for example, and Islam.

When has religion not been involved in politics? From the time of Christ and long before, church and state have been political. For centuries religious law has been just as binding as secular law, and just as punishable. I believe Jesus Christ was put to death, not for his religious views, but his affront to secular Roman law.

In Australia, politics has been heavily influenced by church. Post war the Catholic Church was the driving force behind the DLP which helped keep the Labor Party out of office for two decades. In recent times the Mad Monk PM relied on the advice of the paedophile cleric Archy Pell to run the country.

Don't forget America did not have a Catholic President until Kennady, about 200 years after Washington. Politically Catholics were on the nose, as it was believed that they held dangerous papalistic notions, and a Catholic President would be controlled by the Pope in Rome.

Religion has to be involved in politics because politics most definitely intends to be involved in religion.

Of course, it comes own to what you define as religion. Is Scientology a religion? Communism? Religions have to exist within the confines of the polity they are in and therefore have a vested interest in ensuring that that polity adopts polices that, at the very least, don't affect their ability to practice.

Generally the claims that religion should stay out of politics are made by people who simply want to silence all opposition to their views.

"paedophile cleric Archy Pell "

Not that the facts matter to Paul but Pell was found not guilty on all charges.

Personally, I would vote for god deniers to be excluded from politics. Now that every Government employee has to kiss the ring of those who butcher children, murder and celebrating unborn kids, have deviants sexualising kids in libraries, frighten the life out of kids with the global warming fraud, proclaiming a death cult is the religion of peace, listen to the rainbow serpent before mining, have the entire white male population demonised by witches you can easily see how dumb it is to reject truth only found in Jesus Christ.

Should ??

Hi runner,

YOU are certainly one hateful "christian". I don't know what fundo religious sect you belong to, but if all they preach is hate and damnation, I'm glad I'm not a member. Maybe you are Anglican, here in Brisbane the Dean of St John's Cathedral was found to be letting prostitutes into the place. So much for godliness!

"here in Brisbane the Dean of St John's Cathedral was found to be letting prostitutes into the place. So much for godliness!"

As usual, Paul either doesn't understand the truth or deliberately distorts it. !. They were OnlyFans creators 2. they were allowed into the church under false pretenses.

But even if what Paul said was true, and there has to be a first time for everything, the church was only following the teachings of Christ who said..."Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

Hi Trumpster,

Fine by me, they're all welcome in my opinion. All the Dean has to do is explain it to Jeremy, relatively young for an Arch Bishop, not that long in the job, who incidentally I've met, and seems rather progressive.

A question for YOU, and its came up in the Anglican Church, do you agree, progressive priests in some parishes, who don't have a problem with gay marriage, should be allowed by the Arch Bishop to "bless the union" within the church itself

"should be allowed by the Arch Bishop to "bless the union" within the church itself"

I couldn't care less.

Religion is acknowledged and controlled by the law.
Which means by the government of the day.
Which means on behalf of the people at large.
Religion itself cannot be a controlling force in government.
That would be absurd.
It would be the wrong way round.
Almost like 'the wrong trousers'.
I think this restraint should extend to those who plan to be members of parliament too.
When they say they intend to apply their religious beliefs in their work, they should not be eligible.
Keep religious fiction away from government.