Making both the structure and trappings of government truly secular is the best way to ensure everybody has real religious freedom, which entails not merely an absence of persecution, but also full inclusion.

I'm a pretty committed atheist, which, since "The God Delusion" made the bestseller list, everybody seems to think is the equivalent of being anti-religious.  But I'm not. I studied religion at university because I'm fascinated by it, and despite all my scepticism, I honestly believe that religious faith and structure contributes very positively to most societies most of the time.

Nearly everybody on the planet has some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.  Even people who go to great lengths to deny they are religious, when pressed for the specifics of their belief system will normally reveal some leaning that disqualifies them as an atheist, which by my definition is not just somebody who doesn't believe in any particular religion, but someone who is also both a monist and materialist.

To demonstrate, let's imagine we conducted a worldwide poll on the question, "do you believe in at least one of the following: a God, Gods, an afterlife, or the soul"? then global public opinion would concur in saying I was wrong.

If we conducted a poll that got any more specific, then there'd be hardly any consensus on anything, and of course it is these differences which can ignite wily passions.

As I am so spectacularly outnumbered, I've tried to consider that I might be wrong, and concluded I'm not. However, along the way I've developed a much more inclusive attitude toward religion and spirituality.

So, I'm a friendly atheist. I'm all for freedom of religious expression. What I am quite annoying and uptight about is secularism.

Mark Metherell published a short piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 26^th October 2008 which drew my attention to the fact that apparently someone had the good sense to suggest we remove the recital of the Lord's prayer from the opening of Parliament; in response to which Rudd and Turnbull have shown a united front in opposition. 

Metherell's article said that, "The Lord's Prayer is a longstanding Parliamentary tradition and The Prime Minister believes it should continue".

He quotes Mr Turnbull as saying, "Opening the Australian Parliament each day with the Lord's Prayer is an important reminder of our shared humanity and a reference to the words of our constitution when humbly relying on the blessing of almighty God we established the Commonwealth of Australia over 100 years ago".

and,

"The Lord's Prayer has a very important place in the conduct of the parliamentary program...it provides a non-partisan reaffirmation of our commitment to the common good for the people of Australia."

Frankly, I expected more from both of them.

Neither of these men are parochial types. I think they both probably realise that reciting the Lord's Prayer is not a symbol of non-partisanship for all Australians. It would only be a symbol of non-partisanship if everybody was either a Catholic or a Protestant.

Australia's religiosity is much more rich and diverse than that.

I understand that traditions are comforting. Even with a complete lack of belief, a Catholic funeral service still has the power to bring me great consolation: it provides a familiar way to ritualise grief. It's comforting to me because I was raised in that tradition, the symbols are unlikely to bear the same emotional weight for someone from a different heritage.

Continuing to open Parliament with the Lord's prayer subtly reinforces a tribalism which I feel is really restrictive to Australia's ability to produce more truly representative government.

Yes, it's a longstanding, well-established tradition: so was denying Aborigines the vote until a few decades ago. Being part of the establishment doesn't bear any weight upon the argument the tradition should be continued.

Of course, it is correct that the current tradition is linked to our heritage as part of the Commonwealth. Might I add, not just our heritage but, also our present day system. This is actually the one reason that makes sense to me as to why it should stay (for the moment); as long as the head of The Church of England remains our head of state it would be churlish to remove their prayer from parliamentary ceremony.

Both Rudd & Turnbull have been pretty candid about their own personal religious beliefs, so it is tempting to accuse them of being influenced by them; but I'm not convinced that's the motivation for either of them. Instead I suspect that their shared commitment to retain the institution of the Lord's Prayer has more to do with them both coming from the same place as politicians rather than as Christians.

Remember, most of the world disagrees with my basic starting point on this one. I feel pretty confident this is one of those issues where most voters couldn't care less - but if push came to shove would be in favour of keeping it, a sizeable minority would be passionately in favour of keeping it, and then there are a handful of people like myself who feel strongly about removing it.

For my ilk, it's not a burning issue, but I'm sure it is for many in the camp that want to keep it. So, playing by numbers, there's no question which side to take.

The ideal of opening each sitting of parliament with a non-partisan statement of belief in a higher purpose or goal, and a moment of reflection upon the seriousness and solemn responsibility of the task ahead is a good one. I'd like to suggest we replace the Lord's prayer with just such a statement. In order to be meaningful to all Australians it will need to be inclusive.

Any suggestions?