I thought that today I was witnessing a miracle. I read the first two paragraphs of a Sellick article and agreed with him.

But the amazement was not to last. It descended into the same old Sellick dribble. We get the politicians we deserve. But to blame it on the same old arguments about God is ridiculous.

‘It is not the role of the church to govern but to generate people who can govern.’ So it is not the church that should be the government, but people trained by the church.

This would be a return to the days of the burning when ‘the church’ found a person guilty of heresy but passed the ‘heretic’ to the secular authorities for sentencing. The last thing Australia needs is a ‘Christian, shadow government lurking in the dark manipulating a supposedly religiously independent government.

Do we not have sufficient examples with some (I said some) Islamic states where the government is a religious government? The West managed to escape that trap some years ago and any attempt to return to such a situation needs to be resisted if democracy is to have any meaning.

If you must have a religion that is your choice. Provided it is practiced behind closed doors between consenting adults I won’t try to stop you. But to try to impose your religion on government, by the front door or the back door, is not acceptable.

If the state of Australian political awareness is to improve we need a populations that can think, not just follow the Sellick way of blind dogma.

"...but it is about public leaders acting out of the wisdom that the church engenders..."

Let me repeat the question I always ask when I hear that religion teaches 'other ways of knowing': knowing WHAT? What is this mysterious wisdom, Peter? Can it be written down and conveyed to us miserable atheists or do we just have to take it on trust? And if it can, then why do we need religion any more? After all, we have the wisdom.

Seriously, I defy you to list even one generally-accepted proposition which has been obtained from over five thousand years of religion. Again, just what the hell is this 'wisdom' supposed to be?

Two things concern me about this article and discussion.

The first is the assertion that "[Gillard's] atheism signals that she is closed to the alternative society that the church represents". I'm not sure that I have interpreted this correctly, so help me out here if I'm wrong, Sells. It seems that you're saying that, by being an atheist, Gillard has closed her mind to the opportunities and possibilities of Christianity. I'm not sure that this follows logically: I make no secret of the fact that I am a practising Catholic, but my mind is not closed to the wisdom, opportunities presented by other religions and non-religious beliefs. Next to my Bible and Catechism on my bookcase stand copies of the Koran, the Dhammapadda and The Origin of the Species, as well as numerous science texts. I think I am an open-minded and rational Catholic, and there is such a thing as an open-minded and rational atheist as well. The respect with which Gillard talks of Christians certainly indicates to me that her mind is not closed to the alternative society of the church. Rather, she stands outside that society and can observe it more objectively than insiders. She can take what is good from it and criticise the bad without fear of reprisal or, worse still, eternal damnation.

The second is the recurrence (in the discussion) of accusations of "backstabbing". I find these frustrating. Gillard didn't steal Rudd's job. She presented herself as an alternative leader and a challenge was launched. Knowing that he was unsupported, Rudd declined to contest. Without this challenge, we would have been left with a Labor leader whose party had no faith in him and a Liberal leader who barely garnered the support of 50% of his party when he, too, challenged his predecessor. If their own parties don't support them, what hope do they have in the electorate? At least Labor is now coming to the election with a leader they support, and one who may well be better at the job than her predecessor.

Otokonoko

'She presented herself as an alternative leader and a challenge was launched. Knowing that he was unsupported,'

After repeatedly saying she was not going to contend (even up to 24 hours before) I think you are twisting the truth.

Both the major parties have moved toward the centre because that’s where the votes are. Consequently we thus embrace middle class Australia. This essentially highlights our problem. The consumer driven class that renders upon the altars of materialism. And who are the kings which placate and drink of the middle class offering? Our politicians. Until us as a nation can place our value for life beyond gold, then we are destined to stumble. It’s quite simple; if the church struggles for impact then a toll must be paid by community. Unfortunately Peter got it right.

"am not overly concerned about Julia Gillard’s atheism, I am sure we share disbelief in the same god".

Very wry!

Thanks Peter

I'd hardly say I am twisting the truth, runner. Unless you were present during the discussions that preceded the leadership challenge, you have no way of knowing what Gillard's intentions were at that time. Perhaps she (along with the party) was threatened. Perhaps she was bribed. Perhaps they donned purple robes, sacrificed a goat to the moon goddess and chanted "the time has come" until the moon set. The reality is, you don't know and neither do I. All sources seem to confirm that she was reluctant to challenge and, in a party as leaky as the ALP, it is quite a surprise that an apparently conniving and deceitful backstabber could hide her plans while garnering such support.

At the end of the day, though, all of this is irrelevant. As I said, she proposed a leadership ballot, Rudd consented then pulled out of the running. Rudd's colleagues had no confidence in him. They had confidence in Julia Gillard. Had a ballot taken place, it is very likely that Rudd would have been ousted and Gillard voted into his place.

If we, the voters of Australia, have no confidence in Gillard but have confidence in Tony Abbott, does that make him a backstabber for taking the job of PM in her place?