Recent polling suggests that WA is getting much better for the ALP. The resolution of the mining tax and the ALP’s attempts to smooth over the asylum seeker issue are probably part of the reason for this. I think it’s also partly that WA, being quite conservative, likes to vote for the government.
But of course, there’s always the God question:
Mr Randall, who has held the seat since 2001, said the campaign was always going to be hard fought right up until polling day, given that both candidates had a high profile.
He said the asylum seeker issue continued to be the loudest in Canning, but added another “sleeper” – Ms Gillard’s atheism.
“There’s a large religious community across the seat and what I’ve heard is that there is concern about an atheist prime minister,” he said.
Here’s some audio from @latikambourke (who I think is doing a fantastic job of covering the election trail).
Mr Randall….”and what I’ve heard is that there is concern about an atheist prime minister,” he said.”
Funny about that, I’ve heard that there is concern about those people, such as Mr. Randall, who needlessly intrude the personal beliefs of others into the election.
Randall seems to be somewhat out of contact. Its not that ling since the Hawke years, and the electorate had no problems putting him back in again and again, despite his self-declared agnosticism. On Randall’s logic, the self-same Protestant fundy Xtan communities would have problems electing a Catholic as PM, yet they’ve done it again and again (Scullin, Chifley, Keating eg.)
This is a disgraceful beat up, on a par with the very erstwhile Liberal candiadate for Chifley (NSW) attempting to smear a Labor opponent because he’s a non-practising Muslim. The electorate couldn’t care less that Julia Gillard is an atheist, only that she provides good governance, or, at least, better governance than Tony Abbott.
“There’s a large religious community across the seat and what I’ve heard is that there is concern about an atheist prime minister,” [Randall] said.
Joan of Arc also heard voices. And look what happened to her political career.
“Joan of Arc also heard voices. And look what happened to her political career”
Darn! There goes my political career.
I’ll take up sheep dog trials instead.
Ah, but Joan of Arc was a saint. (And Catholic medievalist consider the whole episode a real can of worms.)
She may have become a saint but she left this world as a cinder.
One presumes that Mr Randall would prefer to be a sitting member than a candidate for martyrdom.
Katz @ 6,
Burnt offerings.
Hmmm. I do believe there was a certain ALP candidate who recently attacked Abbott for his religious views and made some pretty insensitive comments which have been condemned by mental health people.
Is it okay to attack Abbott because he is religious but not okay to talk about Gillard and her beliefs. If religion is not an issue with Gillard it should not be for Abbott. The left can’t have it both ways.
She won a kingdom, Katz. Don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it.
Like Kevin Rudd, Joan of Arc was deserted by her allies after she had won her country.
Difference is, Kevin Rudd heard only his own voice.
Ah, religious nutters of the world unite! I mean don’t you just hate Christians! Here in Europe, I’m surrounded by them and it doesn’t mean a thing to a single one of them– pagan’s originally– but they see it as a critical part of their cultural inheritance. They’re not even waiting to hear voices in their heads, too busy talking on their mobile phones. It’s like how Madonna used to wear a cross because she was Italian, until she got interested in Kabbala. I guess Kabbala is more American these days? What a joke!
Wow. Calling me of 2006, I didn’t think I’d ever consider those two as inhabiting two halves of an analogy. But since we’re doing metaphor: We’ve been overpowered by the first wave of shock troops, we only await the revisionists to do the mopping up. Dust off, Latho One, dust off!
Gillard is an atheist. She has no religious beliefs.
Silkworm, if someone is an atheist they have a belief. They believe there is no God. My point is that some on the left want to attack Abbott because he is religious but then will complain if someone comments on Gillard and her beliefs. The left has never been known for its consistency and this is another example.
If Gillard’s beliefs on religion were given even half as much attention as Abbott’s beliefs then the left would be up in arms.
Rubbish. Atheism is not a belief that there is no god. It is a lack of belief that there is a god. A couple of weeks ago Gillard simply stated she does not believe in a god or God, so stop playing silly Christian word games.
Ummmm Spana Abbott’s religious neuroses may well influence him to use the power of the state to implement certain measures that will infringe on the rights of Australians. But an absence of ideology never inspired anyone to impose their opinions on other people.
Silkworm, who is playing word games? The Merriam Webster dictionary defines atheist as “one who believes that there is no deity”. Anyway, I am sure there are in fact other atheists who match your definition so I see no reason to enter into an ongoing dispute over it. Definitions do vary and I would imagine both definitions would suit at times.
The definition does not distract from my main point.
Hi Ken,
I would imagine persecution of religion and religious groups in the USSR would be an example of persecution of religious by the non religious. I think your assessment of those with no belief never imosing their opinions on others is a little too kind.
Secondly, people who have religious views and those who don’t are both influenced by their beliefs. So what. In a democracy people of all beliefs may run for office and attempt to put their beliefs into action. Anyway, Abbott is not running on a religious platform! We can have a debate about whether those resulting policies are good or not but there should not be an issue if a person is motivated by their religious beliefs.
Oh, this is a hoary old chestnut.
I believe there is no god. I have no evidence for that. As they say, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. It is a somewhat complex matter of observation and anthropological knowledge of how and when the concept of “god” was created and evolved by human beings.
Theists have a tougher task.
1. Not only are they compelled to demonstrate how gods created humans, but also they are compelled to explain why humans didn’t hit upon this “truth” until long after it was accomplished.
2. But also they are compelled to explain why their version of god(s) is the right one and all of the others are incorrect, heretical, and perhaps damnable.
Clearly this process is much different from the process required of atheists. Therefore, atheism isn’t simply one of many variants of theism or deism.
Spana I’m not sure what you mean by ‘running on a religious platform’. If we have learnt one thing about Australian politicians over recent decades it’s to judge them by their actions and not by their promises.
To argue that ‘there should not be an issue if a person is motivated by their religious beliefs’ is nonsense, with respect. It’s akin to arguing that it should not be an issue if a person is motivated by hatred of Asians, or faith in communism. If a person is motivated by their religious beliefs it will be highly relevant to examine those beliefs and decide what practical actions they might cause. However it’s absurd to suggest that someone is motivated by an absence of belief … unless it motivated them to remove the ridiculous tax exemptions that churches enjoy, which I would heartily applaud.
It was Abbott’s religious beliefs that motivated him to appear at a Lutheran primary school and announce a tax rebate on private school fees. Now, Gillard may be an atheist, but it has nothing to do with her continuation of Howard’s funding formula that gives disproportionately more to private schools.
Hi Ken,
I totally agree that we should examine what beliefs people have but the fact that someone is religious in itself should not be an issue deserving condemnation. Yet Abbott is attacked for being religious, for having Catholic beliefs. If you don’t agree with the practical policies of the man or any other person fine, debate him, fight against the policy or whatever.
Some people even go so far as to say that politicians should not be influenced by their religious beliefs. Sections of the left seem to forget the fact that figures like Gahdhi and Martin Luther King were religious men. Religion has motivted many to do good things (and bad) but the secular left only get worked up when their actions don’t agree with the left. So we will hear people complain about religion when it comes to opposing abortion but no criticism was heard when the Pope opposed the Iraq war.
Absence of belief does motivate some people. There are atheists who want all aspects of religious practice and symbols banned from public life and religious schools closed down. An atheist viewpoint can influence policy if you are talkng about religious schools (or tax!).
Spana, a few days ago you divulged to us where you stand on abortion. It’s with deeply conservative Catholics like Tony Abbott. That’s not a debate you want to have with feminists here. (I count myself as a male feminist.)
Re religion in the political debate. I love this disendorsed Liberal Party Xtan Fundy from Chifley, NSW. In one fell swoop he has guaranteed the Muslim vote for Labor/Greens for a generation. Sure, his paranoid anti-Islamic statements may not have much impact in safe metropolitan Labor seats, but – News Flash to the Liberals – Muslims live all around Australia, and some of them live in some marginal seats. In all likelihood those Muslims will now vote something other than Coalition, preobably Labor, even if they hadn’t intended to do so beforehand.
Own goal, Tones, despite your swift and admirable disowning of him.
Also, though I doubt we’ll hear much of it in the media, the Chifley ex-Liberal (who is apparently now going to be kicxked out of the party, ran the risk of opening up that mighty can of worms that is the Xtan Fundy/Opus Dei influence in the NSW Libewral Party, which has already lost them one state election. The thought that these fundamentalist Neanderthals have their eyes on influence in the Federal Libs cannot be a pleasant aspect for Abbott. This is something the Libs really want to keep the lid on because they know from experience it goes down very badly in the electorate. And I don’t think that attitude of voters is restricted to NSW.
More on this Liberal Party nutter.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/how-did-david-barker-become-a-liberal-candidate-20100726-10rqy.html
“I am not animal. I am a Liberal candidate.”
For people who want to do some intellectual heavy lifting, here’s Habermas on “Religion in the Public Sphere”.
The Klingons at one time had gods, but according to legend, the gods were slain by the Klingon warriors they had created (led by Kortar, the first Klingon) as “they were more trouble than they were worth.”
Silkworm said:
It is in my opinion. That is how I self-describe. We had this one out a few weeks back over at the LP home …
Some who call themselves atheists make this claim. I’d call them agnostics. It is arguable either way, but I regard my interpretation as tidier. Shrugging your shoulders on the question and going with intellectual parsimony is legitimate but it is clearly a different position from outright rejection of the possibility of god, and much closer to what most call agnosticism.
I’m sure we all remember how un-influenced Smuggles was by his religious beliefs when he was Health Minister.
Or else there’s no shrugging of the shoulders at all, but rather a very carefully considered intellectual position, based pretty much on what Katz described above: a strong conviction that there is probably no god, but acknowledging the lack of proof either way, and being rigorous about one’s epistemology.
Agnostics are atheists because they are not theists.
There’s a big difference between someone being “not religious” (Gillard’s self-description) and someone being anti-religious. Spana equating not-religious with anti-religious in terms of beliefs impacting on policy is the real stretch here.
As an atheist I’d put my belief that “there is no god” on a par with any other certainty – ie it’s certain as much as anything can be. Less certain than that is being an agnostic as far as I am concerned.
re ‘not religious’ in some ways that is how I would describe myself – the religious attitude just isn’t in me, I don’t think of it at all, but I was brought up in a religious society so, like racism and sexism, it is bound to be in there somewhere.
However my children are definitely ‘without religion’. Which is great.
re religion and votes – I doubt there is much in it – one of my closest friends is a devout Catholic and far to the left of Labor
FWIW, my mum is absolutely flummoxed by Gillard’s atheism. She thought Julia was a very intelligent and sensible person but since God’s existence is proved by even the most cursory examination of the world around us, the only reasonable conclusion is that Gillard must be among the most deliberately ignorant people to walk the earth. (Or she’s possessed by demons – that was an unspoken possibility, but I think mum always goes for ignorance over malice.) For the first time in decades (at least) she doesn’t know who she’s going to vote for. Obviously, I suggested she should vote for me, being the local candidate (for local people), but she politely moved on to another subject.
d