Originally Posted by JoeBloggs80 (Post 8667003)

Because religion by its very nature results in narrow thinking.

Originally Posted by JoeBloggs80 (Post 8667003)

Politicians with religious beliefs can, and do, persue actions and pass bills which forsake the good of their country in favour of following their own religious doctrine.

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 8667022)

Yup. I think you only have to look at Stephen Conroy and the proposed internet filter to see that. This has become his own personal christian based anti pornography, anti Google crusade, driven by a very small Christian minority that he happens to support.

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 8667040)

No - I don't think they should be. We live in a so called secular society where religion and the state are supposedly kept separate.

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667058)

OK. It's interesting for somebody like myself to wonder if the religious really do sit down and think "what would God do here" and if they really do make decisions based on that.
I would like to think politicians wouldn't base policy on that, but who's to know.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667103)

Different religions view God differently, and some religions don't believe in God (or gods) as such. I imagine it would be quite difficult to wonder something like that, unless you're being specific with "religious" and "God".

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667112)

only AFL is better than NRL. :D

Originally Posted by roaringmouse (Post 8667098)

Not all Christians agree with the proposed internet filter, it's far to easy to generalise this as a "Christian supported" proposal. The problem is that many people (both Christian and "other") are not aware that child porn traffic is apparently more likely on peer-to-peer than WWW, and so the internet filter will have very little effect.

So you would want to get rid of 5 of the public holidays in Australia then? And you think ANZAC Day has to change, with public commemorations becoming "non-religious"?

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 8667120)

No, far from it - Secularism isn't about killing off religion and all it's artifacts, such as feasts, celebrations and such, it is about keeping religious dogma out of political decision making

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667112)

I suppose I'm thinking about Christian religions. As I said earlier, personally I have no issues with any politician being a practising Catholic/Jew/Whatever and truly don't understand why people get bent out of shape about it.

As you pointed out in the previous post, ANY belief is likely to colour your thinking, even if its only AFL is better than NRL. :D

Originally Posted by JoeBloggs80 (Post 8667155)

Extreme and unshakable beliefs of any nature are dangerous.

I guess I'm not so much anti-religion as pro-free thinking and open mindedness.

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus (Post 8667161)

Just like the Rev Ian Paisley ! :)

Originally Posted by Seneca21 (Post 8667060)

I don't object to gay marriage, and this is something I say out of genuine belief and certainly not simply to be part of the herd. I would play devil's advocate for a moment and ask you why gay and lesbian people would want to be part of an institution that has been for heterosexual couples for centuries? If they live together and are not in open relationships then they are married, for all intents and purposes. Why must their union be called "marriage" for them to be happy? Etc.

Originally Posted by IvanM (Post 8667107)

Internet filtering is something done by North Korea, China, Iran - So does that mean Christians are reds?

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 8667040)

No - I don't think they should be. We live in a so called secular society where religion and the state are supposedly kept separate. Though laws are often derived from religious teachings - theft, murder etc, these are also things that carry a particular benefit for society as a whole.

However, when we start to see religious dogma creep into politics, it invariably leaves one group or another at a disadvantage, and is invariably restrictive in some way.

A good example of this is gay marriage/civil unions. Both KRudd and Abbot said that the union of marriage is sacred and must only be between a man and a woman (because it says so in the bible). So this religious dogma leaves many gay and lesbian couples disadvantaged when compared to straight couples. Yet, the anti-discrimination legislation clearly state that nothing available to one citizen should be denied another. Unless they happen to be gay and want to have their partnership formally and legally recognised obviously.

Gillard represents the best possibility for recognition of gay partnerships that has come along in a very long time. I'm not gay myself, but I respect people who are, and believe that they should have the same opportunities available to them as I do. Sadly religious dogma doesn't feel the same way.


S

Originally Posted by keel (Post 8667505)

I don't see how a non hetro can be disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by IvanM (Post 8667603)

There are benefits, safeguards and laws married couples can call upon.


Gay marriage is not.