In my view the Prime Minister has shown her secular ethics in such matters as the coming National Disability Insurance scheme and her efforts to see that the less well off in Australian society get a better deal than they did in the Howard era.

Julia Gillard has done that in the era of an economic collapse caused by the failure of the neo-liberal administrations of western governments led by George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, all proclaimed Christians, to control private bank debt creation.

Steve Keen's Debtwatch site (article 28/12) shows that the ratio of private debt to GDP grew alarmingly in the twelve years of the Howard Government. That growth priced many young families out of the housing market, a situation aggravated by the First Home Buyer's Scheme.

At the same time Howard/Costello sold our valuable assets to the big end of town to make their budget look good. Do you really believe we have benefited from the sale of those assets?

Wall Street speculation, and banking fraudsters, produced the GFC and it took the efforts of Wayne Swan, Lindsey Tanner, Julia Gillard, under Kevin Rudd to minimize the effect of that crisis on the Australian scene. Three of those four are more guided by secular ethics than they are guided by religion.

They rescued the Australian Banks from collapse on or about 16 September, 2008. Maybe the government should have taken them over then because the banks are still trying to behave as they did in the Howard era.

Financial institutions are a service and such service costs should always be kept to a minimum as the institutions are a parasites on the body of real productive industry and the general population.

Do you think Mike Smith of ANZ makes decisions that are worth $4,040 per hour (assuming he works 50 hours per week for fifty weeks of the year)? If you think he is worth that then, what in your opinion, is a heart or brain surgeon worth, of the people who develop vaccines?

>>More specifically, the Prime Minister's unwillingness or inability to articulate an alternative moral model to Christianity … led to a perception amongst voters that these are purely pragmatic political choices by the Prime Minister and are largely devoid of moral content. >>

That perception is unquestionably correct.

>>… the Catholic Opposition Leader whose Christian views seem embarrassingly devoid of compassion.>>

I don't think Abbott's views are devoid of compassion at all. I think they're often wrong-headed but that's a different matter.

Full disclosure:

I have a slight, a VERY slight, preference for the Libs winning the next election. However I would not celebrate if they won and I would not mourn if they lost.

In fact by and large I don’t think it makes much difference which side wins. The rhetoric and atmospherics may be very different but on substantive policy issues there is little to distinguish the ALP from the Libs.

I'm inclined to think the Libs may be marginally more competent than the ALP but I'm prepared for the possibility of being proved wrong.

Strange article.... Bit like complaining that the Heads of the Anglican or Catholic Churches in Australia have not enunciated a clear political and economic vision for Oz. Though not claiming to be a religious person, I would daresay that Gillard manifests a spiritual quality that so often failed to be seen in past prime ministers. Where was Howard's 'christianity' during the Tampa affair? Where is Abbot's 'catholicism" in dealing with innocent refugees on Nauru and Manus Island?

Yet even "Christian Schools Australia" acknowledges that Gillard's "vision is compelling, personal, detailed and inclusive. There are many points where the Gillard vision coincides with the vision of Christian schools in modern Australia: the belief that education transforms lives and, hence, communities. The view that quality educational opportunities must be available to all, which she sees as a moral imperative".

http://csa.edu.au/blogs/staff/745-a-compelling-vision-for-change

Another site summarises her in this way: "She has a strong vision of what this nation can become, and the physical and emotional strength and determination to achieve it. She is not without fault, not without error, but what she presents, far from warranting all the nastiness and vitriol that is heaped upon her by the Coalition and the media every day, and now the public through poor polling, deserves our admiration and support. She stands for making Australian a still greater nation". How about, if we just stand back and actually try to give her a "fair go..."

But, I guess we see what we want to see, and it is so easy to wear those judgmental blinkers...

Yuri

>"Julia Gillard's appointment as Prime Minister heralded an end to a sustained period of Christian leadership by her predecessors."

True. Christianity replaced by the Green Religion.

There is little in the history of civilisations to suggest that religion and morality are related, especially when it comes to nations and their heads. Indeed, the converse is demonstrably true.

The qualities which I would like to see in national leaders, but which are generally absent include: humility, generosity, compassion, empathy, altruism, fairness, honesty, openness, being a good listener and being a good communicator.

Irrelevancies include skin colour, eyeware design, gender, sexual preferences, country of birth, first language and dog ownership, to name a few.

Religion or the lack of it are totally irrelevant.

It's hard to know what different writers mean by "Christian ethics" when even such basic rules as the so-called golden rule — do unto others… — were taught and observed in cultures that preceded the crucifixion by thousands of years. There is also considerable evidence that many, maybe most of the "rules" that members of societies develop for their own governance are common across all social groupings, irrespective of their ethnicity, culture or religion. Perhaps certain specific injunctions such as don't have sex with people of the same sex or don't value the life of a pregnant woman over that of her foetus no matter how immature and far removed from yet having a life it is, are more religious, more Christian, than those "rules" which most societies develop for themselves without religious input. But it's not easy to think of lots of others.

This article to me offers a very good reason for the surgical removal of belly buttons at birth. It would perhaps allow some people to meditate on something of value.

Yuri I dont know what media you use, but there has never been a politician so heavily supported by our ABC, or most of the rest of the media.

Give the lady a fair go! God help us. She was given every opportunity by every one I know. The fact that she blew it on less than a week shows what a lying, conniving bit of trash she is.

I have never been able to understand how anyone could possibly believe in a god, however if I thought the difference in behaviour & ethics between Howard & Gillard stems from a belief in god, I would be instantly converted.

Gillard has her own brand of irrational belief -- belief in her own destiny as a leader who can outdo Rudd by snatching victory out of a desperate crisis. And this has led her into ever-more desperate attempts to manufacture crises -- real or imaginary -- for the sole purpose of snatching us out of.

'the greatest moral challenge of the century ' not the killing of the unborn babies, not the hijacking by the homosexual lobby, not the rise of Islam, not the godless immoral doctrination of the secularist, not the lies of Dawkins, Hitchens promoted by the National Broadcaster but man made climate change. What an absolute joke and this from a 'Christian' PM. The author has a lot of work to do is he is to undertand anything about Christians and belief systems.

I think we are about to have a Royal Commission into Christian ethics? Can we get back to you on this?

Applied "Christian" ethics 101 as recorded in the historical record.
By their blood-soaked "fruits" you will surely know them!
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

I may be missing something but I thought I voted for a politician to represent me in our Government, not for someone to look after my spiritual needs. Being a Christian is not a requisite for Prime Minister. Compassion is seen to be a Christian trait and yet the Catholic Church and Mr Abbott have shown poor taste when victimising asylum seekers aka 'boat people'. It is M/s Gillard who is championing the poor and the disabled, she is trying to give everyone a 'fair go' in the education field ... do you need more to see how she is probably more of a Christian than some practicing Christians??

Going to Macdonalds' doesn't make you a hamburger just as going to Church doesn't make you a Christian.

Yuri. By way of a 'fair go', would that include her fair go for MrThompson,
A fair go for Mr Slippe, a fair go for ms Crossing, a fair go for numerous skilled and experienced aboriginal politicians?

The PM has all the morality of 'the Prince' as described by Machiavelli.

Peter Lange nails it with her enforced conversion to Gaiaism.

Whilst not wishing to appear as 'direct' as Hasbeen, this really is quite a naval gazing exercise. It is, however, a bit of fluffy light relief from the usual fare of climate and suchlike debate. I am more used to the cut, thrust and parry of the likes of Rhrosty, Poirot, Warmair et al. C'mon guys, give this some oomph. ;)

What are Christian values?
Do we take them from the old testament or the new testament?
Where in the new testament does it say it is okay to kill others or to send soldiers to kill others?

I see little difference in the way that different prime ministers have treated those who are less fortunate than Australian citizens.

Interesting to have this pointed out, but I'd suggest the appeal to christianity in Australian politics is rather more expedient.

I base this mainly on my view that John Howard didn't actually believe in anything except social research showing the polls' projected reaction to certain policy decisions. What he did was that he played the numbers game for the length of his political career, and in so doing espoused any belief/position/system of ethics that he thought would prove to be the most popular amongst voters. It took Australia 12 years to cotton onto the fact that he was nothing but an empty vessel and turf him out, but by that time he had comprehensively transformed the way that politics is done in Australia.

Kevin Rudd may have seemed like a blessed antidote to this automative way of thinking, but under the prevailing conditions the vaguaries of his personality proved too destabilising and he didn't last, quite predictably in hindsight..

Julia Gillard has subsequently re-adopted the Howard methodology, hence her "lies" about the carbon tax, but has also shown her extraordinary moral fortitude to work behind the scenes to achieve the passing of some very useful measures such as the NDIS - measures which Australians realise are sorely needed, both for utilitarian purposes and to revitalise the focus on those areas of life that are more important than the economy. Unfortunately though the polling shows she simply can't even have a hope of sinning by taking this approach in a consistent way, an so instead of striking out and being the leader she could have been she has bottled it in key areas like her position on asylum seeker - and as a result will likely cause those foolish swinging voters to bring in an Abbott government.

And then we'll find out just how bad religious politics can be.

Er, here we see a rare example of the freudian slip in written form - that should say "winning"n not "sinning";-)

If you call killing people indirectly by John Howard in Iraq his Christian values are no different to Julia Gillards Atheism killing people in Afghanistan, all these so called leaders are no different from one to the other. John Howard should be up on War Crimes for his involvement in Iraq.

I think the healthy Australian voter tradition of cynicism about politicians is far preferable to any expectation that politicians should be guided by consistent humanist or religeous platforms.

Basically its better for us voters (as against academics) to judge political decisions on a case by case basis.

In a nutshell vote them out when they become too corrupt, complacent and full of themselves

- in order to keep the bastards honest.

Most of the Posts reveal a reticence to reveal the PM's religion , namely Thug-ism .

'Most of the Posts reveal a reticence to reveal the PM's religion , namely Thug-ism '

actually Garum it is feminism which contains thug-ism.

Applied ethics and Real (non-utopian) Politics for Real People
http://www.dabase.org/p9rightness.htm
http://www.ispeace723.org
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Once again we see the old argument that morality is the product of religious belief.

Is this the same morality that once permitted and even encouraged slavery and witch burning?

Do I think "I'd like to bash that old lady and take her purse but I won't - only because God does not want me to" or do I just instinctively know that it is the wrong thing to do?

Religion itself is totally amoral - in the end it is ultimately only about the self and not the general good of all, despite how it is marketed.

Morality is a mutually agreed set of social values that adapts and changes over time, in accordance with the requirements of society.

It does not come from "on high".

The last time it was tried as a system of government was a period known as the Dark Ages where the torture and victimisation of non-believers was accepted as normal practice.

Section 116 of the Constitution says "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". So, WTF. Why are we having this conversation?

There is an inviolable principle of our secular democratic social system, which is due separation of Church and State. On that basis, individual personal beliefs should not have undue influence on the decision-making of our politicians. Not always an easy tightrope to walk, perhaps, but this is what the reasoning, rational constituency expects.

In spite of heavy lobbying from various religious groups, our government, and the majority of our politicians, tend to conform very reasonably with this expectation; a non-conformist minority largely being members representing a particular religious constituency.

Certainly there are some federal policies which may be seen as favouring a particular religious point of view, but these are generally in continuation of an existing understanding and historical 'tradition'. Change is still possible.

Julia is a lawyer and a pragmatist, but she also has a heart (though she does well keeping it in check, most of the time), and, more importantly for her, she has learned the trick of sensing the sentiments of the majority of both her party and her constituents on major issues, and in identifying a policy 'plum' ripe for the picking - such as the NDIS.

Tony Abbott may have a particular viewpoint on gay marriage, a matter of 'conscience', but he is not alone in his conviction, with support from both religious and non-religious constituents - very much a 'tied' issue.

Another tenet is that we elect politicians to 'govern' in our national interest - and 'boat people' is a national issue, and one must temper 'compassion' with practicality. Neither God nor Man has elected us to save the world, nor to undo all the ills done in the name of greed or 'progress'. An 'overloaded ship' will sink, in spite of best 'intentions'.

The Golden Rule comes from Confucianism, not Christianity, and morality is not innate, but must be learned - and is somewhat variable according to context and culture. Law may be legislated; morality must be 'cultivated'.

'Section 116 of the Constitution says "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". So, WTF. Why are we having this conversation? '

oh so a future PM could be into bestiality and then should not determine whether that person if fit to lead the nation. When are people going to wake up to the fact that private philosophy and lifestyle does affect public policy. Look at the current handbag brigade in Canberra now if you don't believe it.

"...a model of robust ethical values based on godless morality."
What godless morality? After all, it's an atheist philosopher that's loudly and proudly proclaiming that under atheism, there is no basis for any morality whatsoever:
"In fact, I have given up morality altogether!....In a word, this philosopher has long been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t.....The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality."
(http://philosophynow.org/issues/80/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_I)

"The last time it was tried as a system of government was a period known as the Dark Ages where the torture and victimisation of non-believers was accepted as normal practice."
Funny thing, I could have sworn torture, victimisation and also executions of non-believers (of atheism/secularism/communism) were also the usual practice of the anti-religious French Revolution and the more recent communist countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

runner said
"... oh so a future PM could be into bestiality and then should not determine whether that person if fit to lead the nation. ... "

correct me if I am wrong, but I thought bestiality was a crime applying to all people, Christians or not.

While the Prime Minister has failed to explain her opposition to same-sex marriage it is according to Labor insiders a genuinely held belief. This is of course puzzling to many people as she is an athiest and openly lives with a partner she is not married to. She was raised a Baptist which holds very conservative views on this issue and while she has parted ways with the faith that is not to say her personal beliefs have not been influenced by it.