I guess for me the difference is between scripture and practice. I find it very sad that people are so convinced they are right that they would kill people who no longer believe the wat they do.

gw

David,

I don't know what planet you are living on but it's not Planet Earth. You're full of theory only. Where is this make believe government which follows the New Testament? What country does it govern? You are dreaming if you think Christian extremists won't kill people just because the New Testament says they shouldn't. Go and tell those fine Christians at the Ku Klux Klan that the Bible says they should like black people. Or those righteous Christians planning to bomb Abortion Clinics that Jesus said it was a no no. Go tell the pious Christians who beat up and murder Gay men that the New Testament says they should love Gays.

You can prove anything you want using Bibical scriptures or Koranic verses. There are Bibical scriptures that suggest the world is round and others that it is flat. So which is it? Flat or round? Extremists follow the scriptures they like and ignore the others. It has always been the case. The only way to save us from these nuts is to do what we have successfully done in the West, and that is ban religious laws.

When you have time perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all on the New Testament virtues of Slavery. Why doesn't the New Testament condemn slavery. And perhaps you like what method of execution Jesus would use on Gays. Would Jesus stone them or behead them.

And as for your suggestion that the Bible isn't violent and only the Koran is, that a joke. Tell that to the thousands of Jews who were murdered over the centuries by Christians because they read in the New Testament that the Jews killed Christ.

No nation exists that follows your version of the New Testament and no nation ever has. So if you want to have a discussion, let's talk about the real world not some theoretical Utopia which has never existed.

hi all,
deary me, well aside from all the wonderful theology:
which by the way, most people have no idea of...grin

in australia, basically you can go to jail for

1. physical abuse
2. emotional abuse
3. murder

now I guess, that we are lucky, with our gov laws, so far:

many people down the years have worked hard for these,
and given of their time and their lives

........

as a wee thought, just check out the millionares, and how many,
are in cities in EVERY country.... its a real eye opener

I think australians appreciate our basic laws, and luckily
I think we also have a fair judgement and view, of religious
organisations on the whole

this is about human rights laws, human beings have a right
NOT to live in fear,

the sooner some of these countries that have little pol pots,
ripping the country dry

get themselves a fair and reasonable tax paying gov
the better

JHH

Unfortunately we do not have total segregation of church and state in Australia or America. Yes we do not let priests stand for parliament, But Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are both practising catholics, also Kevin Andrews who was very vocal in getting the Euthanasia laws overturned in the Northern Territory. Not to mention the family first party. Why are these religious believers not banned from standing for parliament.

Bush refuses on religious grounds to end the life of a brain dead girl who has lain in a bed for twenty years while at the same time he thinks nothing of taking hundreds of lives in war. He also closed down a family planning clinic in a third world country when he thought the contraceptive pill might cause instant abortion. This is also based on his religous beliefs.

How are you ever going to ban religious fanatics from standing for parliament as long as they are not officially priests if you allow these people to be in parliament.

Sharkfin,

I think you misunderstand what I mean by a separation between Church and State. There never has been and there will be a total separation of Church and State in Democracies. That is not the intent of the law. You can't ban people who have strong religious beliefs from running for office in a Democracy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with politicians having strong religious beliefs or no beliefs at all. That's not what it is about.

The separation of Church and State means a religious leader like a Pope or Anatollah cannot run the country. Also, and most importantly, it is up to Parliament/Congress and the secular Courts, not the Churches, to decide if a law can stand or not. George Bush or Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd could try to pass a religious law, but ultimately for the law to stand it would have to survive a challenge in the High Court and have the support of Parliament. The Church or Religious Police, etc can propose any law they like but they never have the final say on whether or not the law stands.

Hey David,

Where are you hiding Jachin? ( I Kings 7:21 )