Should Australia have an atheist PM, living on a de-facto basis, in the Lodge?
Julia Gillard is a self confessed atheist. She is also living with a bloke in a defacto relationship. If the ALP win the coming election, that's what Australia will have.
Is this demeaning of the position & The Lodge?
Are Australians silly enough to want this to happen?
- Anonymous10 years agoFavorite Answer
Hey mate , that poses an interesting question ...if we are unfortunate enough to have her elected as PM & she & her de facto move into the Lodge & Kirrabilli House , what happens if they split up....
can he then claim some sort of compensation from the commonwealth for duress , deprivation of lifestyle blah blah...
To my way of thinking it makes us look a laughing stock around the world that a PM in a supposedly Christian country that theoretically upholds the values & sanctity of marriage can flaunt her shallow life in front of us all ...
One word sums it up ...pathetic !
edit 1...So , as we are now a secular society where values all depend on our personal whims & fancies on any particular day I guess those of us with old fashioned values are supposed to roll over & accept the ' new order ' where the likes of Julia Gillard set standards at the lowest common denominator !
Well I for one refuse point blank to accept that we have to or should accept anything less than the highest standards , especially from our leaders ! If the rest of you are prepared to , that's your loss ....
edit 2..@Oz ..I am making no such inference ! Don't put words in my mouth ! I was making the point that I believe it's shameful that by HER lifestyle our nation's " leader "
gives currency to the argument that western society is decadent when we should expect our leaders to set moral examples that are beyond reproach....Source(s): J...
- 10 years ago
Just to stir the pot: Were she to marry wouldnt that be hypocrisy?
Im in a De facto relationship & I guess atheist, I dont 'follow' specific Church/ religion but I dont also rule out there being a God. I live life by my conscience and treat others how I would like to be treated. My worlds a pretty happy, balanced place.
I dont think her marital status is really a point for consideration other than the point raised about separation, however my minimal understanding of the law in such cases is theyre both tenants so theres no disputing ownership of the lodge, any monetary compensation would be at the expense of Ms Gillards income not an additional amount payed by the Govt so probably not of our concern.
I prefer to judge people on actions & no I dont particularly like her past political actions & inactions so I wont be voting for her or the Labor party in general.
NB: The person quoting child out of wedlock, paternity tests ordered by the child (now adult) showed that Mr Abbott was not his biological father.
- ?Lv 510 years ago
Get over it.
The PM should be elected based on political prowess and proposed policies. Her religion, marital status and gender are not relevant, and people like you need to stop discriminating against candidates based on these things.
- NeverLv 410 years ago
Personally, I don't like her or her choices but would I not vote for her because of them? No. If I thought she would do the job well I would put aside my personal opinions. Voting must be based on whole party policies otherwise it's just a personality contest.
Are Australians silly enough to vote on the leader and not the party as a whole? Yes.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BrookyLv 710 years ago
Your suggestion that Julia Gillard as PM would demean the position of PM because of her atheism and de facto relationship is disgraceful and un-Australian. This is a democratic nation where everyone is free to choose their religion (or lack of religion) and their lifestyle without right wingers demanding that they conform to the views of what is now a small minority of our society.
Many atheists are decent people and many christians are not. Julia Gillard is a decent person regardless of her views on religion.
Many people who live in de facto relationships are decent people and many married people are not. Julia Gillard is a decent person regardless of her marital status.
Julie Bishop lives with a bloke in a de facto relationship - I don't believe that makes her unsuitable to be Deputy Leader of the Opposition (i.e. the heir apparent to Abbot if he becomes PM), and neither should you. Or is is only because JG is on the other side of politics from you that you find her lifestyle so abhorrent?
Julia Gillard's carefully considered lack of belief in a god and her choice not to marry are her business and nobody else's and have absolutely zero to do with her ability to lead this nation.
And Aussie - just because Gillard's standards and values are different from yours doesn't make them wrong. She is completely happy for everyone to make their own religious and lifestyle choices but you demand that everyone adopts the same lifestyle and makes the same choices as you. That is the kind of evil, bigoted attitude that has caused wars over the centuries and continues to do so in the hot spots of the world and I know I'm not alone in saying that we don't need that kind of attitude in Australia.
- .Lv 610 years ago
personal life and beliefs dont have anything to do with politics
- CecilLv 710 years ago
Thankfully Australia is a secular country. Jullia Gillard, like the rest of us entitled to determine how she lives. Just like the rest of us she is entitled to hold bigoted, fundamentalist views if she wants. A high proportion of couples live in de facto relationships in Australia, many get married, eventually, others feel they are comfortable in a de facto relationship. The Prime Minister is a contemporary Australian her life is not particularly different to a lot of other Australians.
Im not sure why how someone lives would be demeaning to a building. The lodge is a house, nothing particularly special about it.
Australians have shown they are smart in their election decisions. They may end up not voting for the ALP but im pretty sure the majority will not be basing their decision on the private lives of the current PM and the Leader of the Opposition.
Fundamentalism, in what ever form is an evil. By all means hold onto your own bigoted views but dont try and make the rest of us live by your values.
- EcallocLv 510 years ago
What a stupid question, we are living in the 21st century. Get a grip there are more important things to worry about this. Hello most people live in a defacto relationship, how is this going to affect her job. Wake up and grow up, you old fart.
- BingaleeLv 710 years ago
I see the anti lib TDers are out in force today as usual when a question of this kind comes along.Well I agree with you Bob as well as Aussie & Donkey Dick.Gillard shows nothing but contempt toward our traditions & doesn't deserve the role she holds at present.Can you imagine the milage Americans & others will get from it should she win the elections.
BTW, Fruitsalad,Australia IS a Christian country.
- PCLv 710 years ago
A leader should lead by example!
So, will we be demolishing all places of worship amd all wedding reception centers.
- 10 years ago
So what if she's an atheist? The Australian Constitution prohibits religious tests for any office of the Commonwealth.
Aussie, it is nothing but sheer ignorance to say that we are a Christian country. We are, and have always been, a secular nation. There are millions of us who are not Christians, and millions who are not married. There is no legitimate reason why being Christian or married should affect the actions of a Prime Minister.
Aussie, there is no 'new order'. Secularism is entrenched in our Constitution. This is the only order there has ever been in Australia. If you cannot accept fundamental Australian values like freedom of religion and secular government, then perhaps you should go back where you came from. Your old world prejudices have no place here.Source(s): Section 116 of the Constitution: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."