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.

Dear TBC,

I'm going to sound like a broken record,
but I'll repeat Dennis Pryor's law of obfuscation
or "that wasn't what I said."

"All political statements whether by government
or opposition, must be worded so that the
opposite meaning can be extracted from them.
The hidden agenda of such a simple statement
as "we shall abolish poverty" reads as follows:
"We shall abolish poverty sometime in the future,
subject to the state of the economy, if the
Senate lets us, if we haven't got more important
things to do, if it suits the international bankers
and if there is no more important measure necessary
to win the next election..."

Julia's email will be full of attempts to convert her.

Unfortunately, it's true to say that religious belief has historical connections with war.
Most, if not all wars in fact. Even todays.

So i think that distance should exist between religious belief and the fingers
poised above the buttons of war in todays world.

After all, it is now almost impossible to deny the theory of evolution,
causing the question to arise " does a God actually exist ".

Julia is right to say that it's okay for people to have such beliefs,
( that's a civil liberties issue ) but I feel comforted
knowing that religion and Govt are separated
and living in their appropriate places.

I agree, TBC. It's refreshing to have a PM who's not captive to the influence of the odious ACL. Brigadier Jim must be spewing.

Next step: get rid of the Lord's Prayer from Parliament. After that, chaplains in schools, tax concessions for religious organisations, funding for religious schools etc etc.

But of course that's not going to happen, is it?

Foxy:
<The hidden agenda [is to] ... win the next election>

Dear Foxy,
if I may observe, since 'tis an old punching bag of mine; it is not the fault of the politicians that policy is subject to popular approval. The villain(s), s/he who must be obeyed, is the will of the people. The politicians must affect to do his/her bidding, though s/he knows't must needs be disingenuous.
Popular politics is the art of the impossible.
"I" sound like a broken record; our politicians are our "faithful" representatives.

TBC and CJ Morgan are right as far as I am concerned.
I too find Julia Gillard refreshing in her secular views and feel we will hopefully now keep religion and politics as far apart as possible.

With the now diverse religious and non-religious views of the many different politicians (and their constituents) in our country, there should not be a mandate on one belief alone- that of christianity.

Now I have just seen a disturbing news item on TV about our past tennis champion Margaret Court getting upset at Julia Gillard for 'not believing in God'!

It is none of her business what Julia's personal beliefs are.
Whether Julia believes in fairy tales or not will have no bearing on how she runs the Government.

suseonline - you do know that Margaret Court's a Pentecostal pastor, and who her father-in-law and brother-in-law were, don't you?

I don't think that she's exactly representative of your average voter ;)

Dear Squeers,

I wish that I could see things your way...
But at present I'm not sure what
I as a voter can really influence.

Politicians use polspeak - and how can you
tell what on earth they really mean? It seems
to me that polspeak's method is to express
everything so vaguely and densely that
polspeakers can extricate themsleves from
difficulties by claiming not to have said
what they did in fact say. Tony Abbott is
excellent at doing this. He learned it from
John Howard. Who would leave the announcement
to a public servant (Ministers announce only
good news themselves).

Thus if a Minister is asked by a journalist
if something is true. The polspeak answer would
be:

"The decision-making process with regard to this
matter is currently in place. It would be improper
for me at this point in time to pre-empt the
eventual outcome as a result of community
consultations, one way of another, of that ongoing
decision and consultative process."

Gillard speaking the truth?
Well, as we've seen by recent events the rate of
change of momentum in the speed of government business
is proportionate to the nearness of the next election.
She will say and do whatever is necessary to win the
next election - and that I guess is politics.

I totally support Julia's honesty on the subject but with my usual level of " wonder what the motive is"?
I am sure that Toni will play it subtly during the election to try and develop the christian vote.
As i have no television i see little of the commercial media and am unaware of how they are handling the situation. The good old ABC seem to be treating it as a non event on the radio. It certainly places her in an interesting position when it comes to the handling of RE in schools.

Yes CJ, I know Margaret Court founded the Victory Life Church in Perth.
I have had to suffer through some very angry pro-religious letters to the Editor of our local paper from her many times!

She would be shattered that an apparently 'godless' woman was now our Prime Minister, and will no doubt have plenty more to say on the subject.

I find it all quite amusing!

Foxy... are we at cross purposes perhaps?

The heading on the thread refers only to the PMs open and honest declaration of not believing in a god, and certainly not God, is all.

I don't think that can be twisted, changed, or be misrepresented by her or anyone else.

CJM... "Next step: get rid of the Lord's Prayer from Parliament. After that, chaplains in schools, tax concessions for religious organisations, funding for religious schools etc etc.".

The prayers can go anytime the MHRs decide to dump them, since they are there only by virtue of Standing Orders, and could go at the next sitting if they so decided, no 'laws' involved there.

Chaplains, yes, they should never have been there, but will Crean do what Gillard refused to?

That is a real test of Gillard's resolve to be different to Rudd, and independent from lobby groups, be they trades unions or General Jimbo and his Christian Stormtroopers.

Tax concessions, get your response in to Xenophons Senate Committee NOW... religious schools... hard luck, the High Court gave that away with the DOGS case and you can thank that auld fraud Whitlam for that, meshing religion and politics has cost this nation dearly as the result of his lust for power and Catholic votes.

Nairbe... the motive? To distance herself from Rudd and Howard's complicity in dogwhistling to the likes of the Senator 'Albert' Fielding's of this world...and maybe to rub Rudd's nose into his evangelical inclinations, punishment for telling everyone he was a Creationist and then denying it later...and for wasting yet another $50m of ATO funds on fake chaplains.

CJM... there is a letter a mate just sent to me, to the PM, here:
http://australiansecularlobby.com/2010-06-28_PM.html

"then they would be rightly condemned by the Church"

David you know full well that the church is not one body when it comes to speaking on political issues (or the behavior of christain politicians). Parts of the church might be critical of some christian politicians, others will be openly supportive and much will remain silent.

You have not even managed to condemn runner for his posts in the name of god on these threads. Ducking for cover with weak excuses of him expressing things differently.

Give us a break.

R0bert

The worry about the religious vote is not the worry. Too long the human race has had the god noose dictating our development and its about time Australia becomes a secular society, and by LAW, and a vote must be placed.

TTm

Boazy fact is far more leaders in the western world step up to the podium and profess love for a God they never believed in.
A far greater crime than being honest.
Yesterday the conservatives house wifes rang in to open line talk back on radio condemning her for? swearing an oath on the Bible!some thing she did not do.
But spin and lies has become the sharpest tool in such groups.

Hi 5 --> Hazza :) indeed mate!

TBC... you obviously don't know me.

Romans 13:1-7 was offered in response to an ATTACK by Benq on the Church and State.. do you expect me to respond with a quote from Bertrand Russell ?

The issue at stake regarding Taxes and the Church is more complex than your simplistic take on the matter.

If Churches engage in business enterprises which are aimed at making a real profit for individuals..I don't have a problem with that being taxed.

But just remember something..next time your son or daughter is strung out on drugs or alchohol that it's good to have a place such as the Salvation Army farm where they can go to recover and be supported at the same time. Who funds such places ? *think*.......

There is no monolithic way of operating among such establishments, and funding arrangements are probably as varying as the number of places, so there is no hard and fast rule. It depends entirely on the arrangement if any with Government, or not.

But I sense you are thinking more of 'income' derived from weekly offerings ? well..that is a DONATION.. freely given... not earned, and not in any way for 'profit', and those who are paid a wage from it, ARE TAXED. It's called 'income tax'... so if you wouldn't mind please step down from your secular pulpit of self-rightousness, and pick on some other mob or be more specific about which group and in what circumstances you do 'pick'.

But at least you did read the scripture...that can't be bad.

Hazza. Exactly. This is ridiculous.

What about her thoughts on politics?.

*waits for the media to ask her about being a republic*

"If Churches engage in business enterprises which are aimed at making a real profit for individuals..I don't have a problem with that being taxed."... sadly, the tax laws are designed to assist all religions avoid all tax responsibilities if they so choose...and they do.

This, of course, helps to undermine the free market, which you possibly support, as religious groups move into running shops and even solicitors offices these days.

This costs Australia billions of foregone taxes. More than Rudd doled out once in the GFC, evaporates every year, year after year, pushing up tax rates for 'the poor folk'.... the wealthy, of course, like the churches, evade taxes and fail to pay their way as suggested in the Biblical offerings you highlighted.

"But just remember something..next time your son or daughter is strung out on drugs or alchohol that it's good to have a place such as the Salvation Army farm where they can go to recover and be supported at the same time. Who funds such places ? *think*......."

It never pays to be smug, about how 'good' your children are, but at this stage of their lives, I doubt our troops will be 'strung out' as you suggest. However, that apart, I think I know what you mean, and having just been listening to some St. Vinnies chap on ABC RN talk about homeless people in Canberra I;d just say that the 'deserving poor' mentality that has people falling over themselves to support 'the good folk' who dole out subsidy to the economic system via charity also, all too frequently, are the ones who evade and avoid taxes, and get into blistering arguments about 'dole-bludgers' and 'high taxation'.

Hmmm.... funny, eh? A nation as rich as this one could support all its citizens and ensure everyone was as 'productive' as they could be, but 'charity' allows us to deny the realities of our economic system, and provides the wealthy with a massive subsidy, to fritter their wealth in self-satisfied, wasteful, consumerism.

Dr. Max Wallace, 'The Purple Economy' have a read.

Dear TBC,

The title of your thread is "Gillard speaks
the truth ..." I merely mentioned that most politicians
speak "polspeak." And with an election on the
horizon, and considering the facts of recent events
and the way in which she's risen to power, "truth,"
may not be as crystal clear as all that. She needs
to present a certain image wouldn't you say - in order
not to alienate more people than she already has?
After all she wants to appear focused, and knowing
what Australians want and need - right? Unlike her
predessor who had "lost his way." (mind you with her
full support at the time.) :-)

Not quite Foxy... the title is 'Gillard speaks the Truth', and do note the capitalised 't' in Truth... a hint of a joke there Foxy, since those who seek Truth within the Howard-Rudd paradigm tend to subscribe to the Truth in the Sky Man, like Rudd's good chums in the ACL.

I have no doubt that Gillard speaks your 'the truth' on as a regular basis as most politicians do, when it suits them.

Her tack record shows that in fact, with her terrible performance in education and IR, denying her supposed 'links' to unions by siding with 'the bosses'.

Gillard's sense of 'allegiance' is as flexible as she needs it to be, to be PM.

I know Tanner, someone who comes across as 'more honest' than many pollies, says he is leaving to save his family, but maybe he saw how awkward it will be to have been one of the architects of Rudd's failure as a PM, along with the entire Caucus, and decided he'd be better served by exiting now, rather than staying on, especially since there is now no chance of him becoming either Treasurer or PM.

I see no one has asked either Burke or Gillard what they mean by 'sustainable' in the rewording of Burke's portfolio. That will be a test of 'honesty' and truth. We may well find that Treasury 'projections' of 36m population will indeed be determined to be 'sustainable', once the election is over. The meat of a new thread there in fact.

Well guys (Al and Stg), my answer is pretty simple:
When a politician (more specifically a Labor or Liberal politician, probably many others) says a generalized "How I feel" stance it's usually rubbish.
If the politician says something but actually states a PLAN- or even describes said plan, THEN I get excited, because it means that THIS politician may actually mean it and intends to actually DO it.

For example, the Republic.
"I believe it is our destiny to be a Republic one day, although I have strong endorsement towards the Queen and a system that has served us well. I would equally support either the direct-election or the parliamentary-appointment model"
If it sounds familiar, it would be because it's the familiar "make a lazy generalized speech to sound non-denominational and all-encompassing to all voters" trick that Malcolm Turnbull used so well- to the point where he was categorized as a "Small L Liberal/moderate" when he never actually SAID anything more than similar to the above!

In practice, that's why the Bill of Rights was put to a committee under Frank Brennan- probably the least credible person and most definitely destined to fail to bring it out. Pro-Bill advocates would have assumed "Well it was only fair a "conservative" was put in charge to make it happen" and the process tried and failed fairly- the others just happy it died.

I concur TBC, Julia has yet to define what our government means by 'sustainable' and how this will be achieved. But it is early days.

Why do we care so much about what is really very personal about our PMs - whether they are religious or not is not as important as what they do for the electorate they serve.

The only instances where religion or non-religion may be of concern is if deeply entrenched dogma intefere with the rights of others in a secular democracy. This can happen with an atheist or a religious PM. We have already seen the bias and pressure from the ACL in the Chaplaincy program in publicly funded public schools.

Access to religion is already possible through one's Church or private school and in the home. However, freedom from religion in the public domain is not always assumed as a right.

Even religious PMs like Howard and Rudd understand the importance of separaration of state and religion albeit their own leanings influenced decisions about chaplaincy programs.

Whatever the leader, there should be a push for more participation and decision making from the electorate wherever possible via referendum. We have an election coming up why not use that to allow the electorate to make choices on a number of issues.

If we want separation of church from state, and rightfully so, then equally there should be a separation of Atheism from state. Load the joint up with agnostics.

Given that JG has openly declared her atheism, an pre election conversion could only attract scorn and damage her credibility. Restating her position is only restating the obvious.

StG
You mistake my meaning - separation of Church and State includes atheism, in the sense that one person's own dogma or lack of it, should not influence the rights of others to practice a faith within the law.

JG has stated she respects the rights of others and hopes they respect her own personal stance, as we should.

Agnostics would not necessarily do the job any better than a Christian, a Muslim or an Atheist.

I think Julia Gillard has this hot chilli quality about her which will help her withstand corporate controlled media running her down like they did with Rudd

Bob Hawke was/is 'agnostic'.

Even 'the bosses' thought he was OK.

The masses loved him.

Even the Roman Catholic trades unions loved him.

Australia did not suffer at all from his 'faith' position.

Hawke never sought to impose any hint of his agnosticism on us.

In this regard, I think Gillard will probably do the same.

Howard actively used 'religion' to impose his sense of 'Australian values' on us, ably assisted by swathes of the population and media, of course. It was a 'willing imposition' more than a coerced one... except for those who resent the overt role of religion in politics.

Rudd continued the Howard model, but magnified it with his own unctuous flourishes and his close friendship with the church.

With luck, Gillard's statements yesterday will free us from the underhand relationship with the church that has been cultivated since 1996 by the Commonwealth Government.

And let's not forget Kim Christian Beasley during his time as ALP leader, prior to Rudd.

Apart from being a very poor political leader, while still displaying many signs of being a pleasant person, Beasley was a determined Christian like Rudd, and happily went along with much of Howard's policies....along with the rest of his caucus camp followers.

Julia is about to deliver an increased majority, shadow minister is shuddering but its clearly true.
She will be much loved and respected on both sides of the house.
A defeated Liberal party and by then its new leader will pass a much reduced ETS.
She will be much more inclusive than Kevin, but in time fall to the same sword as him, to controlling too much self confidence and surrounding herself with yesterdays failures such as Creepy Crean.
Next ALP leader? Bill Shorten.

Come on Belly... you would suggest Bill wouldn't you?

Actually, he might well fit the PM template later...and appears preferable to Swan, who should never have been treasurer over Tanner.

I think you are a bit harsh on Crean though.

He should have been a better leader than Beasley but, as I recall, the media hoed into him for being the ACTU head honcho, and that was his card-marked.

He is rightwing enough to suit most voters who are not locked into the Menzian view of unions.

I think he was a bit indecisive in caucus too, but now I'm dragging the memory vaults, so that might not be correct.

Foxy referred to polspeak. When you can fake sincerity you have it made.

Foxy:
<Dear Squeers,

I wish that I could see things your way...>

Dear Foxy,
sorry been a while getting back to you. Busy week!
There's nothing enigmatic about the point I was making above. We live under a 'representative' democracy, although very few of us are accurately represented by the government, just as nobody fits a statistic such as that Australian families have on average 2.5 kids.
Our representatives are obliged to give their policies broad, rather than particular, appeal; that's why left and right both occupy the middle ground. That middle ground, or ideology, is completely removed from reality; it is of course a diverse pool of opinions, self-interest and belief systems that have to be catered to more or less. Very few, if any of these people are happy with government policy because it's trimmed to leave everyone dissatisfied but cajoled, to achieve the largest possible catch. The only way to change the pollies is to change the dominant ideology, or to 'atomise it,' thus I argue that politicians accurately reflect or 'represent' us en masse.
I've recently been reading the work of one Takis Fotopoulis and his idea, derived from the ancient Greeks (who else?), of 'inclusive' democracy, and the classical notion of 'paideia'--an education beginning in childhood that tutors a lifelong commitment to the ethical administration of the State, and to the individual's own character development. There's lots of material out there on this guy for anyone interested.
'Representative democracy' is a cop-out, as well as a failure if all our complaining is any indication. What we need is an 'inclusive democracy'; but crucially, it has to be predicated on a science and ideology of 'ethics' rather than self-interested economics.

Dear Squeers,

A science and ideology of ethics? That sounds to me as though one can generate an objective morality which would serve for all societies. The physical and biological sciences are independent of the societies that generate them. I don't believe ethical considerations can be.

eg. Peter Singer is a vegetarian and advocates that others become vegetarians. I believe his reasoning is sound for our society.

However, Inuit living in tribal conditions would starve.

The assumption that we can have a science of ethics depends on the assumption that all societies can be made enough alike so that the same ethical considerations apply to all of them. I think that is not a reasonble assumption.

Squeers, and others,

Sorry about this, Squeers.....
Welcome to my world, you are espousing similar theoretical concepts I have been advocating for years i.e. our version of "representative (?)" (sic) democracy is, in the vernacular, a crock of pre-composted horse deification. It may eventually grow good mushrooms when ripe, but good citizens? good government?). It is Messy and smelly, often more of a problem than solution.
NB Democracy is better than other forms of government but democracy can come in different forms. It is ours that is dysfunctional and illusionary.

BTW Ancient Greece was hardly a perfect role model. Their exclusions and ' roofing tile' negotiation techniques were a more than a little internecine (violent,corrupt and self interested) too.

I haven't run across the works you are quoting, more details please.

However, back to the topic .....JG speaking the truth? hmmmmm. If constantly with dogs without respite will have fleas/parasites sooner than later. (apologies to Ben Franklin).

I am sad for the country that our method of choosing preferred leaders
is based on superficiality (appearance) rather than substance.

We do get what we deserve, simply because we delude ourselves that the current system is/or can be made fair and/or inclusive....it isn't/can't and is becoming less so.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a solution,we simply haven't got the motivation *yet*.
Evolutionary genetics be damned (cop out)

davidf:
<The assumption that we can have a science of ethics depends on the assumption that all societies can be made enough alike so that the same ethical considerations apply to all of them. I think that is not a reasonble assumption.>

Dear davidf,
I'm not talking about universalism or some kind of dogmatic adherence to a set of ethical rules. It's horses for courses, but the idea is also aspirational in that personal and cultural ethics are seen as works in progress and never actually acheived. The notions of inclusivity and individual paideia (personal responsibility and development) would also guard against populist, or 'memetic,' movements that might otherwise instantiate an ideological bias. The idea then is for a democracy based on ethical/political inclusiveness, responsibility, engagement and aspiration, very much in the humanist vein of a Kantian morality, only without the need of metaphysics. Ethics in school (paideia) could lead to a lifelong commitment to individual ethical development. Neither does such an ethics have to be divorced from pragmatics, or dream of some silly utopia, but 'respond' ethically, sustainably and with dignity to the ongoing vicissitudes of the human condition.
What we have at the moment is unsustainable economic universalism based ultimately on an ideology of individual self-interest and international paranoia.

I am reminded of a story: A group of Bikies walk into a bar. They see a small man quietly having a beer on his own, and their leader walks up to him and tips his beer over. He says nothing but orders another beer. He has a sip and the same biker walks up and tips it over again. The man says nothing, and leaves the bar.

The biker says to the barman, “He does not seem to be much of a man!” The barman says, “He is not much of a truckie either, he has just run over a row of bikes.”

This is a bit like Julia. She left the legal profession after working for Slater and Gordon. She has reached the top in politics, but in neither law nor politics is she up to speed. A lawyer should know, although Jesus Christ did not like them very much, ( Luke 11: 46&52) the people forced the lawyers in England to adopt the New Testament as their Constitution.

The people did this because they saw the benefits of Democracy, and English Biblical Scholars, divined that the New Testament was God’s gift of democracy, to His followers. They made this binding law in 1295 in the Magna Carta, 715 years ago, and except for 11 years, when they had a Republic, the English have remained faithful to their Sovereign. The Office of Queen represents Almighty God. That is why Turnbull was unfit to be Prime Minister, and Julia is on a steep learning curve.

She is smart, savvy, and pragmatic. Her teachers of both Law and Religion, have breached their trust. Religion is good, sectarianism is destructive. It destroyed the ALP between 1949 and 1972. Whitlam united the ALP and drove out sectarianism. He won, but like all atheists, without a rudder he soon foundered.

We need to see if Julia is as honest as she is unbelieving. The black and white words in Ch III describing court, as a stand alone uncapitalised word are found 21 times. A court is the centrepiece of democracy, not a Parliament

very few people living in sin will ever admit a belief in God. Why should Ms Gillard be any different?

Suzie gain makes us laugh by her hypocrisy. She writes 'It is none of her business what Julia's personal beliefs are.'

When Abbot offers his daughters advice with a little bit of decency their was no cry from the left for people to myob. If Gillard does not want her personal beliefs known she should keep them to herself. I thought that would be obvious. Her unbelief in God might make the deniers a little more smug and at ease with sin but it won't stop them from facing their Maker when they die.

Dear Examinator,
I'm glad to hear we're singing the same tune, though it's still a rather lonely duet. The hardest thing in the world is to think outside cultural norms, or what Raymond Williams called the "structure of feeling" that imbues a cultural moment. The prevailing ideology is the discursive centre of gravity, or confluence from which denizens draw and confabulate their more or less homogeneous world-views; a kind of 'contemporary soup' whose vital ingredient (chestnuts) gives it it's compelling flavour (meaning).
Naturally, one provokes contempt and ridicule by questioning or trying to ignore this ready-made doxa that sneaks into and makes "sense" of our so-called intellectualising as easily as cliches can be strung together. I had an interest in writing fiction once and early on I was amazed, when critically reviewing what I'd written, and been pleased with, at finding it utterly derivative and formulaic. There's nothing new under the sun.
I certainly don't recommend Ancient Greek culture as a template, btw, but there are elements of it's intellectual tradition that far outstrip our own. Indeed, though we live in a post-neoclassical age, virtually all our cultural traditions have evolved from that extraordinary civilization. As I'm arguing, it's very hard (probably impossible) to think independently of the collective mind of our time and place, but that's the challenge.
Maybe if one or two Lemmings can pull-up and think it over, before we all go over the cliff, they might get a following!

Squeers,

I didn't respond sooner as your response moved a little further again from the headline topic and I didn't want to discourage other posters.

Much of what you say resonates in the broader general sense.

I do however, for conversation interest, have difficulty with some your reasoning and conclusions. but tends to IMO fall into the same problem of all philosophy and philosophic schools' thinking. i.e. it tends (tries) to describe TOE from a specific perspective.
Taking a subjective perspective as self-referential measuring point,
thus limiting reality by effective 'subjective absolutism'.
In short they tend to fail reaching or understate the importance of other contributive factors

Dear Examinator,
I appreciate the point you are making here. I can only assure you, however, that I very much doubt the concept of theories of everything, whatever they are applied to, indeed that my whole point and aim is to seek to take a "parallax view" of reality.

She does too (http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/im-not-pc-says-gillard-in-move-to-end-boats/story-e6frfllr-1225887560718)...

Ms Gillard, PM has supported former Prime Minister, John Howard's stance on asylum seekers....

Told ya

;)

We are after the voters who abandoned the ALP (or more precisely the week as p1ss group that were running after weepy-reds and mung-bean munching green-lefties) in favor of Hanson. The ACTUAL UNION MEMBERS from the REAL Unions are the ones we are after...

I strongly suspect the long-day of the PC, Super-Emotional, run-after-anyone who isn't Anglo-Celtic clowns is finally coming to an end. It had to happen, the massive increase in crime committed by 'ethnic' gangs, the pack-rapes, etc. have not been missed by the electorate.

The ALP has FINALLY listened to the Union Members, who couldn't give a rats what happens to asylum seekers who arrive illegally... Quite frankly, they despise people who take jobs from Australians, so neither asylum seekers or those on work-visas are safe.

Damn, despite being agnostic I have to say, thank GOD FOR THAT