That's a great point, Foxy. All of our leaders and representatives are Christian and all of them attend prayer before parliament. Can you imagine that Australia is still a secular country and yet the Australian gay population are unable to marry.

Dear Steel,

I'm sure that I don't have to remind you
that all Australians are free to follow any
religion they choose, so long as its
practices do not break any Australian law.
Australians are also free not to follow
a religion.

As for Gay marriages, you'd have to take
that cause up with your MP.

Foxy

Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Bob Brown, Malcolm Turnbull Christians? You could not possibly believe Christians would support legislating and encouraging the killing the unborn. You seem to have a view that wide is the gate that leads to heaven and narrow is the gate that leads to hell.

Polycarp,

Again, where to begin. Let's use as a starting point this paragraph from my first post in this thread.

"In 1942 hardly a muslim to be seen in Australia, but the same legislative program being pursued. Today the notional heirs to the 1942 legislators don't have the Japanese as a distraction, they have Islamic migrants instead."

The first point I am trying to make is that advancement of Islamic influence, albeit with government funding, proper or improper, is not in itself the objective of what appears to be a very long term project to fundamentally alter the polity of Australia.

Whatever the true nature of the influence that seeks to so alter the Australian polity, it has to be accepted that for now just over a century it has been unable to achieve that change via the mechanism of lawfully changing the Constitution. So a different approach has been called for.

That approach has been to have State governments legislate in a manner utterly out of character with the historical attitudes of the vast majority of Australians with respect to tolerance, organised religion, and their historically enshrined rights. The interests behind this whole program doubtless hope an unholy unpopular hash will be made of the whole of Australian society. The promotion of a sort of undeclared civil war, if you want to put it that way. The intent being that, to end it all, the people will approve or at least accept, sweeping wholesale change to our system of governance. Such change would certainly involve the abandonment of the present Section 116 or anything remotely resembling it.

Now the perspective of just one century is not good enough to allow the present Australian community to comprehend just how, and why, and to what extent, this nation is an object of extreme envy. Some might think the year 1521 to be a good starting point, others might prefer 1494, but I think we have to go back to the year 1373.

At issue throughout has been the matter of what was eventually to become European settlement in Australia.

Dear runner,

You're wrong. My view is that you go to
heaven for the weather, and to hell for
the company.

Just kidding.

Seriously though, as I've said in
previous posts, and to quote Father
James Kavanaugh, "I don't fear hell
because I can't fathom it. I don't
seek heaven because it offers no
image I can grasp. I only struggle
to find myself, to love my fellow
men, and to hope that in this way I
am truly loving God..."

I don't want to discuss this issue
with you anymore however, because I
don't want us to derail this thread.

Foxy

I respect you not wanting to derail this thread but I do find it interesting that you and others are more than happy to allow the likes of Steel and others to go on their self righteous God and Christian bashing rants no matter what the topic.