Of course in truly secular politics there would be no room for abbots or bishops - it should be a cause of concern that there are no fewer than 3 Bishops in parliament. Whether or not that is an accurate guide could be doubtful - as there is only one Crook which does seem seem far fewer than one would expect.
As far as the comment is concerned that we should abolish the statement we acknowledge that we are on Aboriginal land is concerned I think that should be amended by adding the words 'but now it is ours so get used to it. That would be an accurate reflection of where politicians seem to stand on the issue of indigenous rights.

<< it should be a cause of concern that there are no fewer than 3 Bishops in parliament>>

Aye laddie but yee cannae go by named alone. A bishop by tuther name be still a bishop.They need not wear liturgical garments to believe themselves able to deliver infallible encyclicals. I be told that many are to be found wearin green –and in them colors their be not just bishops, but a good many aspiring cardinals & popes too.

well observed SPQR, - it seems there is no shortage of folk willing to issue the odd Papal bull - lets just send them all to Pamplona

I find the honourable somewhat offensive.

It does seem a bit shallow to have the Emily's list feminist dominators saying the Lord's prayer (actually it was the prayer taught to the disciples). It seems even hypocritical to have such haters and destructers of normal families to go through the motions. It just shows how far we have slid as a nation. Noticed however on 9/11 even some of the Democrats rushed back to God albeit for 2 minutes. Many of our pollies seem more comfortable with smoking cermonies and anything that would not challenge their morality and remind them that one day they will face their Maker. That way they can impose and legislate their godless dogmas with no conscience. I hope they find His mercy beforehand. Thankfully we still have a few pollies willing to show a little decency and acknowledge their Maker. Even the Labour party has a few although they are usually silenced by the hoard.

I feel a little disturbed at some of the utterances made by our political representatives when it comes to religion.

Should we entrust the well-being of our nation to people whose judgement may potentially be clouded by random irrational thoughts?

For example, when a Senator insists that the world is only 8,000 years old does he examine legislation critically or through some sort of personal sectarian filter? Does he act in the interests of his constituents or in a way that may get him personal "brownie points" toward his own eternal salvation?

When a US President says that God literally told him to attack another country is this a display of sound judgement? In other circumstances he would be a candidate for committal.

Now they have a candidate who believes that he will get his own planet to rule when he dies where he will live forever as some sort of demiGod.

I have no problem with following hollow ritual such as the Usher of the Black Rod and so on, but a line must be drawn somewhere to separate personal beliefs/prejudices from what is in the best interests of the entire country.