Abbott? Probably less of a sham than Rudd and Bishop, a real believer unlike Howard, a 'convicted' person like Beazley was, and as much a sinner as anyone else is/can be.

His ideology finds a prop within the Vatican, and that in turn justifies his actions, even though as a Liberal he seems very unVatican-like in his (dis)regard of the working classes.

Obviously, many find him and his brand of toxic politics attractive, even many from the working class who like to 'cringe before the rich man's frown' and undermine their own standing along with others.

Not much sign of the 'Love of Jesus' flowing from this political animal, from where I sit.

And reason is replaced by a religious fervour which is infiltrating our education system and our understanding of the world around us.

In the New York Times:

"The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

Yet they are also capitalizing on rising public resistance in some quarters to accepting the science of global warming, particularly among political conservatives who oppose efforts to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases.

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”...

... " For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds. "

"“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” he said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?em

Where are the brave secular politicians?

Incredible stuff...

"Where are the brave secular politicians?"... there are none in Canberra or the states/territories, none at all that are prepared to do or say anything to challenge the hegemony of Rudd, and his new chums in the 'faith' robes.

But where specifically are they?

At the Australian Prayer Network meetings, at Hillsong, in the Cathedrals, poncing around outside churches if there is a camera to be seen, and bowing their heads, not in shame, but in the parliamentary prayer sessions, boosting the nonsense about chaplains, hobnobbing with Cardinals and Bishops, and hiding from and denying the existence of about 30% of the Australian population, and growing.

All the while, they collectively fail to demonstrate a single act of compassion or connection to any understanding of, say, such tales as The Good Samaritan, or the 'tipping of the tables', preferring instead to bolster their own expenses, super, hand-outs and after-politics-jobs while supporting the tax rorters, dodgers and the unbridled greed of the 'free marketeers'.

The show on Monday night QANDA
So we know what you three think . How about some others?
I had hoped someone might have focused in on a few onotological bits .

Like when the grand promoter of reasonableness refused to answer the Muslims big and sound question about the value of words without a sense of God in the picture . Even Tony Jones had to reign in the diatribe of verbosity that came forth as a response.
Jones making the simple but important point that " sacrifice" is noble - isn't it? Your word is bigger and more nasty than my word?
Come on you others in the background --what are we talking about here, when we dig below the surface?
The elephants in the room don't agree that Dawkins can so easily dismiss the people who sit in the pews and clap (clearly atheistic worldview leaders in our century)
Squeers, I don't accept that aetheists believe in nothing in particular and that gives them freedom to believe in whatever they choose ( where 's our psych person to comment ) - to suggest so means thay may rank lower than Flanders in the woosy and unthinking stakes .

TBC

sorry to drag you back a bit but the interview on 4BC, it could have meant meant a multitude of variations on a theme.
It doesn't mean that Rudd is any more a standard pejorative 'creationist' (i.e. that he want to install 'intelligent design'(sic).

Words take on new meanings in the context of this topic(atheist is another) and need clear definition defining.

Rudd clearly believes that somewhere way back before the "big bang", believes in a God. That doesn't mean he doesn't accept the current science. And as stated earlier, if that's what floats his canoe, that's fine, that's his personal view.
A bit like he supports the Lions...I don't so what.
I fail to see how this matters a squidley hop to politics etc.

Religion isn't the cause of problem, any more than a gun is violent. It's the intelligence of the brain at the trigger end, that makes the difference i.e. it would be churlish/arrogant of me to criticise my 85yo mum who is a fundy. It keeps her happy and she does no one harm,
nor she doesn't expect or want the laws to reflect her beliefs.

There are a multitude of degrees/options, before Rudd reaches Fielding or Abbott's confusion of religion and politics.

The problem I have with your arguing style(in fact most peoples arguments), is that you argue by extremes, you are either a deluded fundy or you are atheist, there seems no sense of proportion, an exceedingly dubious premise.

IMO Dawkins is at the extreme far end of the spectrum with his views of religion. He confuses religion as the cause, not maybe just correlation or a sort.
I would argue that his isn't a true scientist because he presupposes an absolute conclusion without definitive proof. I agree the evidence stack up in his favour but he can't prove god emphatically doesn't exist therefore it's simply his version of faith that makes up the difference.

Hanrahan
I'd love to contribute to OLO more but it already exacts too much time that I ought to be spending on other things.
I only watched Q&A yesterday and was, frankly, embarrassed for most of the panellists; I shouldn't have been a bit surprised if Dawkins had walked out.
You must appreciate that one doesn't just blurt out throw away lines on subjects like ontology; my position is that religious/mystical naval-gazing is narcissistic at worst and escapist at best. We live in a material world with real and enormous problems that God's not going to fix! Indeed the God fixation sublimates human energy away from these dire material concerns, effectively cocooning the believer in a personalised fantasy far removed from the real conditions of his her life. There seems to be no limit to the human capacity for self-deception and my atheism is simply unsubscription to any belief system that "embroiders" idly on the mystery of our given ontology. And that's what religion is: embroidery. I'm as fascinated with the mystery of life as anyone else, but I'm more concerned with the here and now. I don't believe we need religion as a moral guide either; fairy tales to live our lives by and rationalise every unspeakable act; that's the history of religion. It seems to me that what we need are ethical standards that are actually observed, first by governments as exemplars and then by society, and this is never going to work in a laissez faire world.
Religion should not be patronised in any way shape or form by government; there should be a clear separation between church and state, including fiscally--no tax-payer funding for religion.
And just as political advertising should be banned, along with alcohol and junk food, so should religious advertising. We have to start taking responsibility for our real impact in a real world. People should take their religion, in moderation, during their private time, once the work of keeping their house in order is done.
The only hope for the human race, in my view, is a rise of ethical atheism!