The simple FACT is.....

Politics is a reflection of the values candidates (and therefore their supporters) stand for.

The 'flavor' of our political environment will always be (and should be) dynamic...in flux..

Yabby said:

The question for me
is how far religious ideology should be allowed to influence
members of Govt, in their decisionmaking for the rest of us.

And for me, as a member of this great democracy and a Christian, the question is.. the same, but substitute "Secular/Atheist" for "Religious Ideology" in Yabbys question.

Yabbs... please note your important words "Be allowed" ? whoah ! Are we talking Gulags for those pesky uppity Christians who don't know their place ? :) but.. see below

Yes, lets have transparency, and to the extent that it does not threaten our morality and freedom, sure let's 'include'.... but responsibly. To me that word 'responsibly' has definite ethical/moral/social and political overtones. Such is life. Hence my statement 'in flux'.

I agree that Government should not make any law 'proscribing' a particular Christian denomination as 'the way' but at the same time, I have even MORE reservations about a government that was open to the facilitation of pressures to "re-brand" the social texture of this country in terms of 'tolerance' of a few billion dollars of Oil money being used to build a massive mosque next to St Pauls Cathedral which dwarfs it, specifically to send a message of 'dhimmification' to the community and the world.

To be blunt, I would not allow ANY major move like that by any non Christian religion to alter the fundamental historical cultural posture of this country. To do so would alienate the majority of people and feed Ethno Religious strife of unimaginable proportions.
(Lambing Flat?)

We only need look at the UK to see how oil money is being used to "Islamize" England by stealth. If it were not for the very nature of Political Economic Islam, and the increasingly shrill cries of "Turn England into an Islamic State" FROM the Islamic community, I would worry a lot less. Ultra modern Mosque for 40,000 People?

In the NSW Parliaqment the two most trusted politicians by both sides of government are the Rev Fred Nile and the Rev Dr Gordon Moyes. Why? Because they are unbiased and balanced in their approach. They lead most of the Public inquiries into assumed failures by the State. Neither are lawyers but are diverse in experience with issues of care for people.

In the recent intention of the sale of the Snowy Scheme [Public inquiry headed by Rev Dr Gordon Moyes] though the Greens actively opposed the sale they voted against a proposal to hold a referendum before such public assets be sold.

Again in the Lane Cove tunnel [inquiry headed by Rev Fred Nile] Fred proposed that no changes be made to Epping Highway before the tunnel was opened to acess if Epping Highway could be reduced because of traffic reductions; the Greens voted against such a proposal. The three lanes will be reduced to one and one bus lane. Who is showing care for the will of the people? Who has their own agenda for bus only roads or are assisting the Private Developers for huge windfall of profits.

Yes Yabby I was most concerned to hear that the Federal government had funded 30 abortion counselling services that were tied back indirectly to the Catholic Church. I was most disturbed to hear the experiences of young women who had rung for help. These women all reported high levels of emotional abuse at a time of personal crisis.
How dare God botherers interfere in other people's fertility.

More insidious is Tony Abbott's insistence that abortion counselling and abortion be identified by an easily recognisable item number so that anyone looking at the medicare database can quickly identify every wicked woman in Australia.

This will be a real worry with the development of the Smart Card which will store all sorts of information about the card holder. Imagine the slatternly slobs in Centrelink being able to view your medical history. It's bad enough that they give the wrong information then pursue individuals like the hounds from hell to repay overpayments [that were their mistake in the first place] but to be able to pass moral judgement over their clientele. Oops customers. I don't think so!

How terrible it is that a political [philosophical / idiology / religion] system has personal values imposed as laws!

Could you please define what is meant by the word politics?

The thing is Philo, we live in a rational world. If you say go to
court, to prove your case you need evidence for instance.
Thats the reality.

The problem with religion is that it tells us to forget about the
rational, to have faith in whatever supernatural claims are made
by that particular religion. The supernatural claims differ between
religions, but none of them have any substantiated evidence for
their claims.

When people with supernatural beliefs, suggest that I forget the
rational and have faith in their claims, to then follow laws
based on those claims, I will protest loudly!

For a society to function, we need freedom of religion, to protect
the religious, but also freedom from religion, to protect the non
religious.

Just as you don't want Islamic law imposed on you, I don't want
Catholic law to be imposed on me. Both Catholics and Muslims should
be free to practise their religions, but should respect the rights
of others, who think its all hogwash. Any other society will not
be a tolerant society and without tolerance there will be nothing
but warfare within society.

Yappy,

Consistency isn't your strong point, is it? You support a secular Australia, don't like religious tyrannies, are against Christian (esp Catholic) states and abhor Islamic ones. Yet you're more than happy with the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine.