Character assassination and vilification of Christians in general, Dresdener? And you claim my post was an "outburst".

I haven't "assassinated" anybody's character. Rather, on another thread I've demonstrated, with evidence, how one particular fundamentalist Christian encouraged vigilantism including the bearing of arms at the time of the Cronulla riots. My comment about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd was an expression of my concern at their attempts to meddle in politics, rather than "vilification".

If you want examples of vilification and character assassination, this forum is replete with them in other threads. They are usually posted by Islamophobic, often Christian, correspondents about Muslims.

CJ Morgan said: "My comment about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd was an expression of my concern at their attempts to meddle in politics, rather than "vilification"."

The notion that people with religious views should not be involved in politics is discriminatory and anti-democratic. If certain Christian groups wish to 'meddle' in politics, that is their democratic right. Secularism means the separation of political and religious institutions, not a blanket ban on Christian participation in Australian democracy.

Attempting to legislate morality is foolhardy, but excluding certain groups and individuals from engaging in debate over the most important issues shaping our society is even more perilous.

Dresdener: "The notion that people with religious views should not be involved in politics is discriminatory and anti-democratic."

To return to the thread topic, no - it's when they unite together as a political bloc to try and impose their religious values that they become a problem.

From Dresdener's comment, I expect that s/he will defend the right of Muslims to form political "lobby" groups whose purpose is to impose Islamic values on the rest of us - because to do otherwise would be "discriminatory and anti-democratic".

Which is why I'm more worried about the Christian political activists than Muslims - they have the influence, the money and the numbers to be a political threat to non-Christians. Muslims don't - plain and simple.

"Which is why I'm more worried about the Christian political activists than Muslims - they have the influence, the money and the numbers to be a political threat to non-Christians. Muslims don't - plain and simple."

Good point! The question then arises, if tyranny by a religious
majority, should be acceptable. IMHO democracy is about freedom
of religion, but also freedom from religion. In other words,
Dresdener et al are free to live by their religious beliefs, but
have no right to impose them on me, or others who think its a heap
of gobbldygook. They clearly have no substantiated evidence to
support their claims, that would stand up in any court of law,
based on reason and evidence.

This is the point. Religion is and should be no more then a
lifestyle choice, voluntarily followed by those who believe.
Leave the rest of us out of it. Manipulation of the political
system to enforce religious tyranny, is simply not acceptable,
even though they keep trying.

Muslims gathering in a mosque listening to hate speech from a cleric is a recipe for violence and the root cause of many of the Islamic (Muslim) terrorism all over the world.

The opposite of Muslims is not Christians but non-Muslims. Thirty years ago, we seldom hear of Muslim terrorists, but today with oil money and encouragement from many Arab countries, Islam is showing its true colours as a religious-political system intolerant of any religion or system of governments not based on the Koran. Muslims are now fighting and killing Buddhists, Catholics, Christians, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Bah’ais, etc. in different parts of the world.

A few days ago, 100,000 Muslims gathered in Jakarta calling for Indonesia to be turned into an Islamic state and a revival of a world-wide caliphate. There were invited speakers from England and Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6942688.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6938513.stm

Abu Bakar Ba'asyir the spiritual master mind of the Bali bombing (killing 200 over people) was scheduled to attend the rally.

There are many Muslim sympathisers who are themselves Muslims or have Muslims spouse who would lull non-Muslims into a sense of stupor. This is what happened to Malaysia. When it gained independence from Britain, the coalition of political parties declared the country to be a secular state. But when the Muslim population grew and grew they now declare Malaysia to be an Islamic state.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C26%5Cstory_26-7-2007_pg4_13

This is similar to putting a frog into a pan of room temperature water and gradually heating the water. If done slowly, the frog will remain in the pan, eventually succumbing to the heat. The frog will die because it never senses the danger and remains “comfortable” while it is slowly boiled to death.

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my concern is first of all what is constitutionally applicable.
.
Howard, rudd and other politicians are on the Christian bandwagon when it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia but are the right?
.
.
Consider this;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.