Julia Gillard has stated her position on religion, very clearly, and very reasonably.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-radio-blitz-on-life-and-politics-20100629-zggg.html

"Ms Gillard was asked whether she was worried about losing the Christian vote, given she does not believe in God and both Mr Rudd and John Howard, his predecessor as prime minister, had attracted support from churchgoers.

She explained she was raised in the Baptist tradition - even winning prizes for remembering Bible verses - but had since formed different views.

"I'm not going to pretend a faith I don't feel," she said.

"For people of faith I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."

Now, that can hardly be termed as being 'anti-religion', or 'pro-atheist' can it?

In fact, PM Gillard seems to have adopted a 'secular' position without any problem at all, acknowledging both her lack of 'faith', and the right of others to hold a 'faith' belief.

Hopefully, this will be an indicator of her move away from the anchor weight of religion-around-the-neck-of-national-politics.

Hooray for Julia.

The separation of religion and state is essential for peace, good order and a civilised society.

As soon as rulers start evoking "God" to justify their actions, we all know (or should know) the result............ brutal laws, unjust laws, war, violence and intolerance.

Thank God America is NOT under the strict control of the minority "guns for God" squad over there (but they still have a heavy influence). The American religious far right wing movement, which started in the late 1800s, would be a severe danger to world peace should they ever gain "real" control.

TBC,
I couldn't agree more. There is no place in politics for religion, indeed in public life generally or any state institutions--such as "State schools"! Hopefully Prime Minister Gillard will extend the courage of her convictions to reforming her avowedly cherished ideas of educational excellence. State schools have for far too long been a sanctuary for antediluvian religious (non)thinking that even the mainstream churches have largely outgrown. But of course the religious influence in schools is grossly eccentric from anything mainstream. Rather, schools are overrun with fanatical purveyors of biblical fundamentalism that, in an 'educational' setting, presents as an incongruous conflation with evidence based learning that children are left to unravel.
Religion is of course a staple of public life in countries like the US (actually, the pious US is unique in the West), and see how that prevailing influence pervades all other institutions and government policies as well (that's a thread in itself). Democratic secularism properly takes a benign position apropos the myriad competing belief systems, and unbelief, that invests multicultural society. Since, notwithstanding this diversity, such a society is based on reason first and impartiality second, it behoves wise government to be above doctrinal discourse and discord.
Perhaps, hopefully, with our first female PM (and it's about time!), we might see the beginnings of a proper separation of church and state, both in public life and institutional policy.

Benq says:

"As soon as rulers start evoking "God" to justify their actions, we all know (or should know) the result............ brutal laws, unjust laws, war, violence and intolerance."

Benny... have a read of Romans 13:1-7

Then show me how a Christian Prime minister would do anything other than what is found in that passage.

If they DID.. for example invoke God for an unjust territorial grab...then they would be rightly condemned by the Church.

It's really simple when you actually know the material.

Blessings.

"have a read of Romans 13:1-7"... absolute twaddle and self-perpetuating nonsense for most people today.

And while on the case, how come the church slips out of paying its dues to the ATO 13:6?

So, Adolf did no wrong, and it was wrong of others to oppose him, eh?

And of course, Saddam did no wrong either.... and neither did George Bush, Tony 'The Vatican' Blair, and J. Winston 'I really am a Christian' Howard were all just doing God's work, eh?

Votes and vengeance had nothing to do with it, nor oil? It was all Godswill, eh?

It's a bit like my Nepalese chum who never goes to the doctor because 'what will be, will be' and is predetermined and unchangeable.

Are you part of the ACL group of fundies by any chance AGIR?

Or just easily led?

You people take politician's speeches WAY to seriously. Nuff said.