BTC

There you go again with the extreme examples.(which just happens to be wrong).
Many Christian denominations regard the Bible as god inspired writing, guidelines. Not necessarily to be worshiped chapter and verse.
I think you'll find most Christians in the west are special event, nominal Christians.
Christians and most religions allow for a range and depth of observances.
My mum's case *was* relevant in that even she as as a fundy draws the line at religious interference in Government.

The point TBC that being a Christian doesn't= being an extremist fundy.

Dawkins approach is to have the whole world *believe* the same as he does, no god, which he can't *absolutely* prove.

Even the crusades had little to do with god as such it was more the power or the pope and riches. A bit like saying the Spanish were there to save souls, they wanted the gold, plunder.
Clearly Religion was the means not the cause.

BTW being pregnant is a physical thing being Christian isn't.

Could it possibly be that Rudd was political speaking in that the was being inclusive of believers other religions. Nothing he said means he wants to bring in intelligent design or even believes in any of it.

Dawkins and ilk assume that if you're Christian one MUST see Christianity/religion in extreme fundamentalist perspective therefore you need re-education to his views. Which is simply the other extreme.

In distribution terms he's say 15, I'd be 35, mum would 75, and jihadists would be 99.

NB 2SD either way are considered in the normal range (of opinions)

let me also make the point Balance(sic) isn't objective.
in the above distribution example a 1 Versus 100 doesn't give you and objective discussion what you get is two extremes having their non-representative rant.
Oppositional debates achieve little i.e. look at "Question time" the truth is usually the first victim. Battles of attrition are no substitute for the reasoned objectivity

Examinator... there you go again.... you are right and everyone not agreeing with you is wrong.

"There you go again with the extreme examples.(which just happens to be wrong)."

I re-read... only one example, the extreme bias in that national rag, The Oz....which, of course, is not 'balance' at all, my point first time around.

"Many Christian denominations regard the Bible as god inspired writing, guidelines. Not necessarily to be worshiped chapter and verse."

Err... pardon? Not accepting God's writing as 'the' way to behave? Just, umm, 'guidelines' are they? Take it or leave it?

Fine, then let's not have such a fuss made about it being so pure and correct thanks.

But this line, true as it may be, is the clincher, "I think you'll find most Christians in the west are special event, nominal Christians".

Fine again. Then it means just about nothing, so should not have any special status in our community, but it does, because a very noisy minority demands their voice is heard, at our expense, and they also demand the right to infiltrate the minds of our children, and demand that we 'tolerate' them all the while.

"Even the crusades had little to do with god as such it was more the power or the pope and riches"... very little done by churches has anything to do with God, and most has to do with power and riches.

Even when they run school'breakfast clubs' they use the time to evangelise, and worm their way into the lives of the 'unchurched'.

"BTW being pregnant is a physical thing being Christian isn't", maybe you don't deal with fundies? They live for Jesus. Did you watch that 4 Corners on Scientology? These people were pregnant with lurv... yes, seems the wrong sort, but there you go, that's what religion can do for you.

"Could it possibly be that Rudd was political speaking in that the was being inclusive of believers other religions. Nothing he said means he wants to bring in intelligent design or even believes in any of it"... he was dog whistling, for votes.

Examinator

Maybe Rudd was "dog-whistling" for votes, maybe not. But he still continues the Howard tradition of prayer before parliament - this in no way counts as separation of church and state and is very divisive.

And I still want to know what the non-Christian pollies do while prayer-time is going on? Is it like at school, where you just hang around doing nothing?

This is what a 'moderate' Christian PM does? Would hate to see what a more orthodox one would do. Abbott anyone?

As for Dawkins, have read him, listened to him and watched him - no way does he present as extreme as any religious fundamentalist. To claim that he wants everyone to believe as he does is nonsense. Dawkins wants freedom from religion - religion out of politics, out of schools and held accountable like every other organisation.

Dear TBC,

I'm glad that you agree that the panel
on "Q and A," were somehow lacking in
qualities that would have made for a
lively discussion with Dawkins.

It's not a matter of "Tsk, Tsk,"
But a matter of - "zzzzzzzzzzzz's!"

Dr Paul Collins, who wrote
the book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?" would be a better choice then
George Pell. Then there's -
Geraldine Doogue, Phillip Adams,
Robert Manne, David Marr, Andrew Bolt, all - might have
made things a bit more interesting.

Dear Severin,

This may be of some interest:

http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/index.php?topic_ids=6

Party Policies on Prayer in Parliament.

Compare Party Responses.

Foxy... indeed, ZZZZZZZZZZs win the day as far as Q&A goes, and not just this one, they are all a bit ho-hum these days.

The fate of popular TV rather than any fiendish plot, I imagine/hope.

Yes again, Paul Collins, the reprobate ex-priest with something worth saying, but I'd rather see a goons alley as suggested, to show the popular TV show watchers just who represents Jesus on Earth.

They might start to be a little more critical... unless the ABC only has far-left greenie commos watching it, as according to the Truly Enlightened, like Chris Pyne.

I'm fed up with The Doogue, she's one of those gushing two-bob each way mob, and the others are not God botherers...we need the cream of that crew to show us 'the way'.

Marr? Yes, I'd stick him in but have him opposed by Pearson- they seem to hate each other. Maybe Shanahan, the female version, just for a larf, and Bathesby, the Qld Vatican Archbish, who could be human but for the constraints imposed by Rome, opposed by the meddlesome priest Kennedy, from the Qld church that might actually pass muster as a useful social machine...or maybe Father Bob, the Denton sidekick.

Be great to see him make a fool of Pell on TV...I'd even contribute to his super fund when he got pensioned off.