Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[QuantumJG]

Well after hearing that Gillard is an athiest the media has jumped on this and according to the popularity poll, it has gone against her. I personally find it offensive that people don't want someone to be Prime Minister just because they are an athiest.

More importantly are we a minority who is truely despised?

I thought this was a country where you could believe in whatever you wanted? They are fine with Scientology being situated here but an athiest for a Prime Minister is wrong?  

[IntoTheNewWorld]

my opinion of her just went up.

[ninwa]

I love that she's an atheist and proud of it. It's a breath of fresh air after the Rudd and Abbott double whammy.

I think she put it better than anyone else I've ever read:

"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."

I disagree with the third option in the poll - I think it's necessarily relevant to politics. I think religious belief (consciously or not) influences the decisions of any person, politician or not. For example, I believe Rudd's religious background was a direct cause of his refusal to legalise gay marriage.

[Russ]

^^
Yes, that. I'm not deeply religious but I don't particularly care about her and won't judge her based on her (lack of) beliefs and as she says, she extends me the same courtesy. Her being an atheist doesn't change my opinion of her, which wasn't particularly high to start with anyway, unless it becomes a part of her political campaign.

[Yitzi_K]

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with fixed morals.

[ninwa]

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.

Yes, strip clubs are so wholesome.

As is pedophilia.

You go religion! Yay for teaching the right lessons!

[Yitzi_K]

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.

Yes, strip clubs are so wholesome.

I was wondering who would be the first to bring up that total non-argument.

Never did I say that religious people stick to the morals they subscribe to, which is of course a shame.

But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with, and I'd rather not have a prime minister who can be so described.

[QuantumJG]

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.

This is the most bigoted response I have ever heard.

Athiests follow the law like everyone else so to say athiests are immoral is extremely prejudiced.

I'm sick of people doing things that are wrong and saying well it's part of my religion so I'm immune. Whether it's stoning someone and saying 'my religion tells me it must be done' or having sexual inequality because 'it's part of my religion'.

Scientists are scrutinized with any theory, yet if it was a theory with religion to back it up it becomes 100% accepted.

I'm really starting to question whether god created humans or whether humans created god. The biggest problem is that brute force is used to silence anyone who asks this question.

[andy456]

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with morals.

I find this absolutely absurd.... I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals. I am able to tell the difference between good and bad.
I actually find it quite offensive that you say that because she doesnt have a religion she has no fixed morals.

[polky]

You can't assume that someone who is an atheist does not have morals, or that his/her morals are any more or less fixed than that of a religious follower.  Morality - a sense of what is right and wrong - can exist outside of religion, as can commitment to these principles.

[Russ]

I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals.

Why are they "fixed" if you don't have a divine mandate that defines them?

But to be honest, it is really irrelevant what her personal morality is as long as it doesn't bleed into her political decisions. If the labour party produces policy that is going to benefit the country then I have no issue with whether the individuals responsible are religious or not.

[ninwa]

But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with

Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...

If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either

• intellectually challenged; or
• inherently not a good person.

And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either

• stupid; or
• a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".

Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.

[Yitzi_K]

Think about it:

200 years ago, racism was culturally and morally acceptable in some parts of the world. Today, that view has changed.

Who's to say that in 200 years from now, things that we currently deem unacceptable, will be accepted? You cannot possibly say, with any degree of certainty, that in 200 years pedophilia will not be accepted by scoiety.

 Morals change over time, they always have and they always will, whereas religion (the true one at least) does not and will not change. Hence, I feel that a prime minister who does not subscribe to any religion, and whose morals are thus only those of contemporary society, is not a good thing.

I find this absolutely absurd.... I do not have a religion yet I have fixed morals. I am able to tell the difference between good and bad.
I actually find it quite offensive that you say that because she doesnt have a religion she has no fixed morals.

But morals change, as does the defenition of 'good' and 'bad' over time. Additionally, 'good' and 'bad' mean completely different things to different people. You claim to know what is good and what is bad, but I garauntee that there exists others wih a completely different concept of good and bad. Without a supreme moral authority dictating the meaning of 'good' and 'bad', they are purely arbitrarily defined.

[iamdan08]

I'd like to think that I'm good, not because of any religion or law, but because i genuinely want to be good and it is apart of who i am.  I'd like to think most people are like this, and is something innate that we have evolved to develop as a social being, and not some law (both religious and "mortal") we blindly follow for fear of punishment. I'd vote for someone who is honest about their beliefs over someone who is blindly and without question following some religious law, rather than doing what they personally believe is right.

[Yitzi_K]

But an irreligious person has no fixed morals to begin with

Hey, okay, that's just your opinion. And mine goes something like...

If you need a storybook to help you differentiate between what's right or wrong, then you are either

• intellectually challenged; or
• inherently not a good person.

And if you follow a storybook which says it is right to, just as one example among hundreds, kill a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, then you are really either

• stupid; or
• a shit person who wants to justify their evil actions with "God's word".

Agree to disagree, eh. We've already done the god/religion debate to death, anyway.

The Bible is far from a storybook, but anyway.

And I would say, if you have no authority but your own 'intellectualism' dictating what is right and what is wrong, then the definitions of right and wrong will change over time.

Also, there is no law in the Bible that says a non-virgin is to be killed on her wedding night. I encourage you to study the first chapter of Tractate Ketubot if you really want to understand the commandment to which you are referring. Unless you have done, there is no way you can understand it, so you should refrain from using it a tool to bash the Bible.