runner started this thread with the statement that:

"... I have no doubt that private
philosophy determines public policy."

runner, in a post on Friday, 30 July 2010 at 10:00:30 AM, just after 'half time' in the thread, admitted that:

"... The inference and heading that
Gillard slept her way to the top was wrong."

So what are we left with to moralize about? The already well known propensity of the vast majority of persons to fall short of some ideal standard, in many cases one that they themselves may have set or accepted as applying to themselves? 'Sin' is an archery term: its literal meaning is 'to fall short (of some target)'. "For all have .....". Interpersonal relationships in general, and intimate ones especially, can be profoundly difficult to negotiate for those directly involved or affected. How much more so for anyone outside of that situation to validly comment upon them.

It all brings to mind certain 'upholders of the law' from long ago and far away, who, having caught a woman in the very act of adultery, hauled her up before a certain teacher, and, setting the scene, laid down what the law prescribed as the penalty, and then proceeded to DEMAND TO KNOW where that teacher stood on the issue. (Where was the man involved, given she was 'caught in the act', one wonders? Double standards involved, or an ulterior purpose held by those 'upholders of the law'?)

The teacher involved knelt down and wrote in the sand. "That one of you that is without sin shall cast the first stone". Eventually the blood-lusting mob melted away.

Recognise him runner?

Your frequent 'high minded', brutal, and short forays into discussions seem in many cases to be of the nature of a thread hijack, hence my attempt to shock you into recognition of what you were attempting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3810#93353

Since this is your thread to divert if you wish, and given you acknowledge your topic title's inference to be wrong, I'll ask you why John the Baptist lost his head. I demand to know!

Dear Graham Y.,

I have to Thank You for keeping us
all revved, even when we stall.
So, Mwah, mwah, to you !

Dear runner,

I finally managed to get hold of a copy of
"The Australian Woman's Weekly," August 2010
issue, which apparently caused you to make
all these assumptions about our current PM.

Frankly, I don't get it!

In the article to which you referred earlier,
it quite clearly states, "The state of Craig
Emerson's marriage at the time, specifically
whether he WAS separated or otherwise estranged
from his wife PRIOR to starting the relationship
with Julia, is NOT KNOWN..."

You it seems are condemning the PM for something
that is NOT KNOWN. You are judging her on unknown
facts and making your own assumptions about her.

I don't believe that many people would do that!
In fact, I don't believe that many people would
even care. After all the current PM is not preaching
her life choices as a model for other people.
It's her life, she's made her choices, she doesn't
regret her choices, nor is she urging anybody to
mimic them. In this country we don't look to our
political leaders to model lifestyle choices for us.
We have our values and our commonsense and we don't
judge our leaders by what they may or may not have
done in their private lives years ago.

Well said Graham. I think we have all adequately established that one doesn't have to be Christian or without sin, to successfully lead a country.

Is there ANYONE who doesn't have something in their past that they don't feel proud of?
Think of that famous Catholic president John.F.Kennedy who apparently had no trouble at all having numerous affairs while he ran America!

What really annoyed me in the W.A. papers over the past few days is Archbishop Hickey suggesting that an unmarried, childless, atheist woman should not be supported as a Prime Minister, but that we should all look to the 'good Catholic' Tony Abbott as the perfect subject.

That's a bit rich coming from a leader of unmarried, childless men who also would therefore not understand the families of our society.
Was the Archbishop suggesting that only Christian, married fathers should run our country?

That is a kick in the guts for the many others (male and female) in our society who are single, childless and don't worship the Christian God isn't it?

GrahamY please check for facts and see what I wrote

'If you were to read on Graham you will see that David was dethroned from his kingship by his own son as a result of his behaviour. David came to his senses and repented knowing that he was not worthy to receive his kingship back. One of the things that made him great was his willing to repent when he knew he had done wrong.'

David lost his kingship to his son Absalom as a direct result of his sin. One consequence was that Absalom slept in public with some of David's concubines. Sexual sin certainly did have dire consequences on David and it did cost him his leadership for a period of time. It also resulted in much family bitterness. After that he regained his kingship reluctantly as he wished that it was himself who was killed and not his son. You really have not read the entire story or you would see this clearly.

Jesus lineage included Rahab the prostitute and many flawed characters. That just proves how badly we need God's grace. No one including myself disputes that.

It is very hard for any claimed atheist to repent when they don't even believe in the God they have offended against. They may be sorry for consequences but spiritually have no idea. That is why their personal philosophy will play out in public policy whether abortion pornography or any other moral issue. That is the point.

Foxy

You sum up what the intention of the discussion here was

'In fact, I don't believe that many people would
even care. After all the current PM is not preaching
her life choices as a model for other people.
It's her life, she's made her choices, she doesn't
regret her choices, nor is she urging anybody to
mimic them. In this country we don't look to our
political leaders to model lifestyle choices for us.'

You obviously believe private lives of pollies don't influence their public performance or policy making. I would like to believe that with you but fail to see how it can't. Do you think if a revelation came out tomorrow that Tony Abbot was cheating on his wife that it would affect the polls? Or would people say that is his business? What if Bob Brown attended an evangelical church and enjoyed it. Would the Greens supporters say that is his private business. I think not.

If I shared your belief I might not bother commenting on politics at all.

Forrest Gump

Your point is fair enough. My condemnation of child abuse is the extraordinary imbalance of the media where the Catholic church is castigated at every Opportunity . I have made it clear a number of times I am no fan of the Catholic church however the imbalance is incredible. I think if you read a number of my posts you would find I have always maintained that all child abuse is abominable and should be dealt with equally.

John the Baptist lost his head for telling King Herod he was committing wickedness for sleeping with his brother's wife. I am not sure what point you are making here.