Comments on: Faith and Politics. Part 2.

By: Garth

Garth — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:06:48 +0000

I have been appalled at the rise and rise of political correctness in the UK which has resulted in Islam being a protected religion and Christianity being villified and essentially aboloished from the public arena.

It is a growing issue in Australia that cannot be ignored. Secular humanism, apostasy and political correctness are all threats and need to be recognised and treated as such, in our prayers and in our actions.

My hat off to you, Bill, for being a strong voice against all three. We all need to be more like you in standing up and voicing our concerns, campainging and voting as such. May God bless you and your family.

Garth Penglase

By: Frank Gashumba

Frank Gashumba — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:18:21 +0000

I think that, as Ewan McDonald seems to be saying, because theological liberalism begins by denying or diluting the authority of Scripture, it represents a direction towards apostasy and of course should be recognised as headed in the wrong direction. Ergo, the “Religious Right”, its policies, approach and emphases are objectively more Christian than that of the apostatysing “Religious Left”.

I mean, I was reading Kevin Rudd’s position elaborated in the current Monthly magazine, and, as you mentioned yourself, Bill, while he was repeatedly wgoing on about standing up for the most weak and vulnerable, he conspicuously left out any mention of the plight of foetuses — by far the weakest and most vulnerable members of society!

Clearly such people can’t be taken seriously, for by their fruits ye shall know them. The Religious Left simply represents baptised socialism, who amend the seventh commandment to read, “Thou shalt not steal — except by majority vote!”

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne

By: Ewan

Ewan — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:55 +0000

Agreed Bill. Actually there is another religion that is oppressing religious freedom (especially if one happens to be a conservative Christian), and is attempting to coerce everyone to follow its religious model whether they like it or not, and that of course, is secular humanism!

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:28:34 +0000

Thanks Ewan

Yes I was afraid a short article dealing with a complex issue might result in a certain lack of clarity.

Yes, I favour the religious model if it means seeking to bring religious influence to bear by the normal democratic means. Religious folk have as much right as anyone else to do just that.

If the religious model means a theocracy where there is no religious freedom, and if it means coercing everyone to follow one religious model whether they like it or not, and if it means there is no division between the political sphere and the religious sphere, (classic Christianity has always insisted there should be), then I am not in favour of it.

Of course to my way of thinking, that sort of threat does not come from Christianity today, not even the religious right, but from radical Islam, which desires to implement sharia law for everyone, which allows for no sacred-secular distinction whatsoever, and which has no concept of freedom of conscience.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Ewan McDonald

Ewan McDonald — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:40:25 +0000

Of the three models concerning how believers should relate to the “public arena, politics, and society”, I would rule out the “naked public square” model on the grounds that it is mythical. It is simply not possible to keep religion out of politics because everyone has a religious bias, even the atheist.

From a practical Christian perspective, I would favour a combination of the other two models. As a supporter of democracy I favour the “civic square” model, but would consider it my Christian duty to lobby for “specifically biblical values [to] inform and direct the political process” as in the “religious square” model. Where do I fit in here, Bill?

Another difference between Bill and the religious left is that Bill is concerned that his views “will somehow approximate the absolutes of Scripture”. This is no concern of the religious left many of whom even deny that there is such a thing as “absolutes of Scripture”!

I also observe that those on the religious left tend to be theologically more liberal than those on the religious right. This fact in and of itself is enough to satisfy me as to the merits of the religious right/left spectrum. Theological liberalism begins with denying the authority of Scripture and the progression of such tends towards apostasy.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria