One of the criticisms of the Howard government was that it blurred the lines between church and state. I wonder how its critics will react to the apparent decision by the current PM to lobby the Pope to make Mary McKillop a saint? http://tinyurl.com/lfd9c8

I've linked to a Catholic news site because their report seems to understand the proprieties a but better than the PM and the Australian media. They also put in a sharp dig about Rudd being an "Anglican". The PM describes himself as a Catholic, but obviously some Catholics have different ideas.

I also notice that while he is overseas he will do some lobbying on global warming. http://tinyurl.com/nk7lqd

Agreed Graham. The canonization of saints should not be the business of governments. The article you linked stated the PM had promised to raise this issue with the Pope on behalf of two Catholic nuns rather than as a particular personal goal, however it does blur the line between Religion and Government responsibilities. Let's not go down the path of the US.

Howard was also irresponsible when he introduced the School Chaplaincy Program and Rudd for maintaining the program.

Introducing a Christian program into the public school system and then promoting secularism, multi-culturalism and democracy is hypocritical for both governments.

As for global warming, that is the job of the PM to try to influence for positive change on environmental issues. To ensure Australia is not negatively affected by emissions targets which, per the article by Michelle Grattan, the Opposition supports in its revised form.

As we only produce about 1% of overall emissions it would be futile for Australia to take on this challenge alone and think our small contribution will have any impact globally.

Personally, I think it is evidence that our Prime Minister is prepared to say exactly what people want to hear, and to not worry whether it is inconsistent with i) facts or ii) anything that he has said before.

He was elected pretty much on the "I'm not John Howard" ticket, where the electorate was invited to compare his boyish, guileless looks with a brooding and shifty suburban solicitor. And as we know, it worked.

What annoys me is that we - collectively - thought for a moment that he might not also be a bog-standard politician, adept in the arts of dissembling and ingratiation that that breed seem to have learned from used car salesmen.

There is no chance at all that his "intervention" will advance the cause of Mary McKillop's journey towards sainthood. In much the same way that he has no chance at all to influence the direction of climate change policy.

And he is fully aware of this.

Still, he will get the votes of two nuns. And potentially could stop the leakage of green supporters.

Which is all that he appears to care about.

Separation of Church and State? Irrelevant. It's the politics, stupid.

Dear Graham,

I'm not at all surprised at the PM's
lobbying for Mary McKillop to be made
a saint.

Personally, I don't believe that politics
and religion should mix - yet they do.
In practice, civic affairs and religion
have been closely intertwined. For example,
religion plays a part in oaths of office,
court-room procedures, even the sitting of
Parliament begins with the Lord's Prayer.
The Scouts give a "God and country,"
pledge that implies, to say the least, a
compatability of interest between the two.

Political leaders have always paid lip-service
to religious belief. These sentiments are not
allied to any specific faith or political
program; they are sufficiently broad to be
acceptable to almost everyone.

On climate change - world experts are looking
to Australia to be among the first to set the
example. According to one British world expert,
4 countries have already made commitments -
and Australia has no reason to claim that they
would be the first - as the Opposition claims.

Australia has always shown to be backward in
accepting a lead in global decisions always
leaving it to the US or Britain to make a move.
Internationally Australia has a reputation of
being years behind world leading nations.

Climate change will affect Australia more by
the nature of its location on the globe -
being predominantly an isolated dry and
desolate continent, surrounded by
oceans and close to Antarctica.

It's our PM's responsibility to the Nation and
its people to be among the first to undertake
responsible action on climate change, otherwise
Australia may be the first to suffer the most.

Rudd is a religious man and a champion in hypocricy not only as PM and leader of ALP but also as a religious person.
Few years before Pope said that anglican church is not a real church and its followers will go to the hell, I do not know if between them will be Rudd or not.
I will not be surprised if one day I will see the Anglican Rud as a Catholic Crusader next to Blair.
These things can happen with millionaire leaders of the labours!
Do not forget that catholics are much more than Anglicans in australia and the distance between them increases very fast, as cotholic church is against condom, pils, abortion etc.
Rud is not only a champion in hypocricy but he is a smart politician, sure smarter than Howard!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Rudd thought that the GG was good enough to lobby for a spot on the UN security council, but only Rudd is good enough for the Pope, it seems.

He made a grave error (if anyone cares about it, that is) in using the 'apolitical' GG to do government business, and he is making a fool of himself lobbying the Pope to get a 'saint' for Australia. The idea of sainthood in this day and age is absurd.

However, there is not much sense in saying that politics and religion do not mix. Our society is based on Christian values and, while I am agnostic myself, I would prefer our way than any of the others.

We have seen what happens to Western society in the UK, where the old values have been undermined by the weakness of the C of E, multiculturalism and 'rights' legislation which has seen cultural relativism leading to minorities losing respect for the majority culture.

And, remember, we are having a religious war waged against (whether or not we are religious)by Islamists whose religion is indistinguishable from their poltics.