Australian Prime Minister Refuses To Pretend Belief in God

While both Democratic and Republican politicians have continued to campaign on faith-based politics, Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard has declared that she will not pretend to believe in God to appease religious voters.

Gillard insisted “I am not going to pretend a faith I don’t feel. I am what I am and people will judge that. . . . 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.”

Another change is that Gillard has a “first partner”: Tim Mathieson.

Source: ABC.

78 thoughts on “Australian Prime Minister Refuses To Pretend Belief in God”

  1. justmeint–

    I don’t see anything arrogant about Gillard’s statement. It shows she has enough respect for her constituents to tell them the truth–and not what she thinks most of them would like to hear. What I believe is the height of arrogance is the “holier than thou” folks who have the the attitude that they are the only people who worship in the “true” religion, who know the pathway to heaven, and who close their minds to discoveries in science because they’ve read the Bible and already “know it all.”

  2. ‘”…to openly declare that she knows God – but she doesn’t need Him.” But then again it begs asking if The Prime Minister personally KNOWS GOD or just ‘about’ Him’?’

    justmeint, I so resonated with what you said right up until
    ‘For a ruling political leader to declare publicly….’

    I interpreted her much differently. What I heard was that while she had been through the imposed religeous curriculum (like many of us), at the end of the day, upon graduation and stepping up to the world stage, she was not going to be dishonest about her faith. Can’t say much more than that about her belief system, HER faith, she didn’t put that forth. But she is apparently not willing to impose a dishonesty upon us and for that I find her refreshing.

  3. The arrogant person ‘knows’ they are correct; ‘knows’ their opinions and views are the truth. They need no assistance from others; it is the other who needs assistance and direction from them.

    Those to whom much has been given sometimes suffer from arrogance; or rather the people around them suffer.

    Arrogance is doubly a pity, because the talents of the arrogant serve primarily themselves. The arrogant assumes their views and opinions are The Truth. In arrogance, natural confidence goes sadly awry.

    For a ruling political leader to declare publicly, that whilst they greatly respect other people’s religious views, they do not believe in God – even though “I grew up in the Christian church, a Christian background. I won prizes for catechism, for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition, but I’ve made decisions in my adult life about my own views”, seems terribly arrogant indeed.

    Terribly arrogant and sad of Miss Gillard (Australia’s first female Prime Minister) to openly declare that she knows God – but she doesn’t need Him. But then again it begs asking if The Prime Minister personally KNOWS GOD or just ‘about’ Him’?

  4. Oy here goes, unknown, unknowns responding to known, unknown.
    Or as my Sicilian friends would say, are you wit me?

    Thanks for the honest reply. I agree with you freedom of speech exists here like no other place. This oasis is attributable directly to the magnetism of our host JT. The protection of civil liberties is the responsibility of everyone, so you’re here doing your part I get it.

    More than once you mention the word “elites,” wanting access to, engaging them directly. You don’t define “elites” for me, but I’ll hazard a guess and say there aren’t any “elites” posting here. There are people who in the past have voted for Republican, Independent and Democratic candidates for elected offices and have been disappointed with the results. Disappointed when their candidate won and didn’t go on to fulfill their oath of office.

    Tootie you mention defending liberty, common ground to all conscientious people who post here, whether Canadian, British, German, Australian or American. (Whoops I made a list, who did I leave out? Texans too.)

    For me this blawg is a grand classroom if you will. The instructors are very reliable and meticulous with their ideas and words. Looking back at the exchange today regarding scientific method the facts were laid bare. Set out for all to see, examine and accept or dispute. The issue Tootie is you refuse to acknowledge the facts when presented. You’re getting energy back from these truly intelligent people but what are you doing with it? Are you persuaded, by their argument? Do they change your thought process? Can you accept the facts? If not can you counter with a response to persuade them to accept your position? Sometimes we hear “Then we agree to disagree on this point,” and people move on. An expression I enjoy from Vince Treacy, who after exhibiting yeoman’s effort refuting hundreds of posts regarding President Obama’s birth, proclaimed simply
    “The truth shall be known at Res ipsa loquitur.”
    Tootie you do possess wisdom. So for what it’s worth hit the reset button here. Sharpen up your listening and analytic skills. Let go of the chip on your shoulder about leftist elites, (whatever that maybe). I’m not making any attempt to muzzle you. On the contrary this oasis is expandable to accommodate every perspective.

    Oh and as far as BIL goes, I trust him like oxygen.

  5. FFLEO,
    Almost missed your post back there. Eric Bogle wrote both of those songs, though I prefer the McDermott version and some others. Green Fields of France is a great song.

    This post sadly turned into a Tootie troll-fest.

    The price of freedom is often stupidity.

  6. Elaine:

    I answered your question and then told you what I thought and why.

  7. And your opinions of the Chinese? Simply shows your ignorance of their culture and history.

  8. Tootie, I sure don’t agree with most of what you say but Bravo for hanging in there and being courageous about saying it.

    “Why did Jefferson attend Chapel IN the House of Representatives if what you say about separation of church and state is true?”

    Separation of Church and State does not mean you cannot be religious if you are a Statesman…most Statesmen are (I think…)it means having an awareness of the difference between state issues and personal belief systems and having the strength to not impose ones religious beliefs on others through votes or actions as a representative and member of a Free Peoples who espouse the right to Freedom of Religeon that we, as a Nation, say we do.

    I believe it is about governing with integrity.

    (and just for the record…I’m a working stiff too…)

  9. Tootles,

    Comparing theocratic homophobic zealous bigots such as yourself (as demonstrated by your posts) to Neanderthals (which you don’t believe in as you don’t believe in evolution as evidenced by your posts) is a slur against Neanderthals.

    As to the cost of stupidity, you not being paid to spread your hateful nonsense is only an economic cost. The true cost is the detriment to society your kind of retrograde thought induces.

    And that spinning sound is Jefferson rolling in his grave at your boastful comparison of you to him.

    “The clergy … believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800.

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1782), p. 286.

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

    “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.

    “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.

    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    And last, but perhaps most relevant for a theocrat such as yourself . . .

    “I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” – Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

    Jefferson would have liked you less than I do, Tootles.

    As evidenced by his writings as contrasted with the nonsense you so freely spew here on a regular basis.

  10. ChaZ

    Okay, I’ve never been accused of being an atheist. That smarts. LOL

  11. Pete:

    China put itself behind in science because of its cultural revolution (which stymied research). Marxism always does that. They are catching up (in part through spying) juust like the Ruskies did and apparently still do.

    My comments are nothing against the amazing intellect of the Chinese people, but against their self-inflicted ban on creativity via the abolition of liberty.

    Here is a net for you to skim the pool.——-O

  12. Slart:

    Also, Jefferson mistrusted the Catholic church in particular and thought they have corrupted the New Testament (which they had) and thus made it untrustworthy. That is why he left out the miracles and just copied down the gospels (the government called it the Jefferson Bible, Jefferson never did).

    He considered the miracles a hoax by the Catholics akin to frauds like indulgences, rosary beads, and other various superstitions which were never part of the early church practices which Jefferson likely knew about.

    I cannot blame Jefferson for distrusting the Catholics in that regard.

    The influence of Deism in America is hardly to be mentioned. Its influence is a fantasy and fiction spread by Christophobes. It was mainly a European thing. Maybe 3 of the 55 signers, at most were, Deists.

    It was nearly inconsequential among the framers and virtually ignored by the people.

    America has been a Christian land (just ask a Muslim) for centuries, though not a Christian government.

  13. Slart:

    You appear to be confused.

    Why did Jefferson attend Chapel IN the House of Representatives if what you say about separation of church and state is true?

    Was he an idiot and you just suddenly found out about it and needed to inform me of my error?
    (I realize that loc ‘interprets’ the meaning of history for us by calling the title of their article:


    That title is nonsense. Oh gosh. Jefferson must have been a narrow-minded bigot just like me.

    I’m in such good company.

  14. Buddha: The Chinese (Asians overall) have a higher IQ than Caucasians (most western peoples). So, they do science very well and did it long ago, but that is not the issue.

    The issue is how science (industry and art) became be more free, liberated, expressed, and transported throughout the world and who were the agents of that liberation. The agents were the western and Christian peoples and their culture. Culture is everything. These are ideas I got from an atheist named Friedrich Hayek in his book called The Fatal Conceit; so if you want to be Christohopbic and deny the greatness produced by western civilization (including the discovery of liberty), then take the word of an atheist who ran from Hilter and won a Nobel Peace Prize for Freedom (Hayek).

    Christian lands created the best environment for science, art, and industry to thrive.

    And, of course, in my opinion, God blessed them thereto.

  15. Woots:

    If I wrote a post with the word rape mentioned 11 times in it, would I be a rapist too?

    What are you blathering about?

  16. CCD:

    How kind of you to inquire of me.

    According to Buhhda Is Laughing, I’m more a knuckle-dragging neanderthal with not so much gray matter. And so, if BIL is right about that, then I doubt anyone would hire me to frequent a distinguished blog such as this and attempt to blend in. If you mean I am here undermining or sabotage things, I certainly hope not, that is not my intention. And I don’t intend to embarrass Mr. Turley. I would be very sad if I did.

    But republicans are pretty dumb and it wouldn’t surprise me if they hired stupid people thinking they were smart, then sent them over here to take a stab at being intelligent and distinguished.

    No one pays me to post here or anywhere else, my stupidity is completely unsolicited.

    I’m just a regular lady from a blue collar background who discovered the internet. I also love to express myself. So what appears to perhaps be a scheme to embarrass the elites is likely just the out-workings of an undereducated and gabby housewife. No fancy college degrees here. No wealth. Nothing. Just postings in-between being the chief cook and bottle washer.

    I come to this site for several reasons. One is because freedom of speech exists here like no other place that I know of on the internet. It is a rare find–a jewel in the crown of all that is good on the super-highway. I am most grateful to Mr. Turley for this and he is greatly to be praised. I would be very angry with myself if I hurt him in any way by posting here. I also want access to the elites who keep us commoners at a very long distance. I want to engage them.

    I love my country and hope to keep her safe. I want my offspring to remain free. Liberty means just about everything to me and wherever I go on the internet, I am standing up to defend it (but I subscribe to a notion called an ordered liberty and do distinguish between liberty and lisense). Liberty is, though, a very unpopular stand these days.

    I want to be heard no matter how embarrassing it is (because of my bad education) to post here. And no matter how vicious people are to me it is a small price to pay.

    What is more disruptive or embarrassing. A half-way decent person with bad grammar and some dumb or unpopular ideas or a brilliant and clever writer spewing venom and cruelties personally at fellow writers here on the blog?

    Sadly, it seems to me that the many here prefer the venomous spewers who make cruel personal attacks. I’m not saying they should be silenced. No, never. I’m merely pointing out those who one would consider “educated” prefer the vicious and cruel, but well spoken, blog member. I have yet to see any well educated people here suggest that the venomous spewers are disrupting the distinguished atmosphere around here.

    So much for being well educated.

    I believe it is the distinguished people around us: people with fancy degrees, and people with power and wealth who have brought America to the terrible place we find her. Many are lawless and treasonous; from the White House on down. If these smart, distinguished, credentialed, usually polite, well-dressed, and powerful folks can make such a horrible mess of things, then there doesn’t seem to me to be any reason whatsoever for crude commoners not to speak up and say a thing-or-two-or-three even if it ruffles the feathers of the alleged genteel classes or disrupts their “intellectual” proceedings.

    Shakespeare was smart. He catered to the smartest and the least smartest classes of mankind: Kings and commoners. I put Turley into Shakespeare’s class. He appeals to both, but his Kings haven’t figured it out yet. They play the barbarians and don’t know it.

    Little is left to lose now as we stand on the brink of a Marxist totalitarian police-state brought on by both major political parties. It seems to me that at this late hour, everyone needs to be heard from, including the rabble like me.

    I believe the late Professor Christopher Lasch had it right. He said it is the elites who are now revolting (when it is usually the masses who do).

    “The Revolt of the Elites” is the title of his last book (published posthumously in 1995). The title was selected with José Ortega y Gasset’s “The Revolt of the Masses” in mind.

    Lasch believed that U.S. elites were overthrowing this country, culture, and civilization in much the same way that the masses usually do (with a sort of unthinking abandon).

    Lasch writes:

    “Once it was the ‘revolt of the masses’ that was held to threaten social order and the civilizing traditions of Western culture. In our time, however, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses. This remarkable turn of events confounds our expectations about the course of history and calls long established assumptions into question…Today it is elites, however–those who control the international flow of money and information [the media], preside over philanthropic foundations and institutions of higher learning, manage the instruments of cultural production and thus set the terms of public debate–that have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West.” pg 25-6

    It is usually the masses, or the lower classes, who do this. But now it operates out of the White House, Congress, Harvard, and Columbia. It seems that it is the crude rabble which is trying to hold the center together.

    Of the liberals Lasch writes (quite prophetically, I think):

    “Upper-middle-class liberals, with their inability to grasp the importance of class difference in shaping attitudes toward life, fail to reckon with the class dimension of their obsession with health and moral uplift. They find it hard to understand why their hygienic conception of life fails to command universal enthusiasm. They have mounted a crusade to sanitize American society…to censor everything from pornography [?] to ‘hate speech’, and at the same time, incongruously, to extend the range of personal choice in matters where most people feel the need of solid moral guidelines. When confronted with resistance to these initiatives, THEY BETRAY THE VENOMOUS HATRED that lies not far beneath the smiling face of upper–middle-class benevolence…[think Al Gore, Obama, George Bush]. pg 28 My emphasis.

    I actually hate coming to a blog like this because it exposes my very bad education. If I stayed away and didn’t write here, I wouldn’t be so continually reminded of my own intellectual failings. But, it also should be obvious to those who possess wisdom (a thing with is different from knowledge) that I have a bad education and what I am is what happens when a somewhat concerned but poorly educated person speaks.

    If I’m as stupid as they say what excuse do the Harvard grads have for destroying a magnificent civilization? Isn’t THAT kinda of stupid?

    Leftist snobs act like disadvantaged or poor people are these mystical ethereal creatures who naturally ooze virtue because they are poor or disadvantaged. They speak without having to talk and if they do (out of the eye-shot or eye-shot of their overlords) they are never to use bad grammar, wear awful clothing, or act awkwardly among powerful. Only they, the bright and wise elites, can best represent what the disadvantaged think, feel, do, and say.

    The disadvantaged for these folks are like figurines that sit on a shelf. They are kept in their place, left untouched except to relieve of dirt, expected to bring personal meaning only to the observer, and are never expected to cause a disturbance.

    The disadvantaged must shut up and post elsewhere so as not to disrupt the decorum of those who don’t necessarily have more important things to say but who certainly say them better.

    I guess this warped view by the elites is somewhat reflected in this idea by Dostoevsky (I never read his books):

    “…the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.”

    The leftist elites love the poor and disadvantaged, but hate them individually. When the elites come up against the disadvantaged on their own playing field, they run them over. That much I have learned from BEING disadvantaged off and on throughout my life and still a member of the working class.

    Speaking of which, if you know of anyone who would pay me for posting, please send them my way.


  17. ‘Tootie 1, July 1, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Woost: What is your point?’
    That you are so full of hate it is distorting the world. another recent post you made had 11 usages of the word ‘hate’ in 3 or 4 paragraphs. Nevermind my point, what’s your goal? You aren’t brain-dead, what you said the other day about Jefferson was bright, an argument could be made. You also said this;

    Noah Webster wrote (in support of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment as we now know it):

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”

    The idea here is that the military is something different than the militia and the militia was something to DEFEND against the federal army (military). ‘

    That made me think. You are a smart person, find a new set of spectacles…

Comments are closed.