Thursday, July 1, 2010

Holy Toledo. Or in this case Unholy Toledo.

Julia Gillard has actually come out and said that she is an Atheist (Shriek!). 

We thought she probably was - but very few Atheists in that sort of leadership position are so forthcoming - or are even asked the question. 
From the Sydney Morning Herald - concerning amongst other things an interview with Jon Faine:
“FAINE: Do you believe in God?
PM: No, I don't Jon, I'm not a religious person....but during my adult life I've, you know, found a different path,'' she declared. ''I'm, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs but they're not my beliefs.''
Even for a so-called secular society such as Australia this is fairly radical. 
This could not happen in the USA where it is impossible to gain high office - or indeed many elected offices at all - without being demonstrably a believer. 
As  I mentioned somewhere recently, even the Dog Catchers in some southern states will need to profess their devotion. Perhaps an election slogan ‘Ah ketch dawgs fo’ Jaysus’. 
Now there is no way of ever knowing how much of what these people say is true and probably atheists and agnostics in politics are as numerous as they are in the general population. 
I imagine that god does not talk to most of them like he did to George W Bush - and look what sound advice George was given for efforts in asking for guidance. 
‘Eye Rak? Ah don’t know where that is lord but ah will hammer the shee-it out of it if that is what you want.’
It says something about a society that you have to lie just to be eligible to be elected. But that’s America. They are different there. Just like Austrians are here - and the Australians are over there (or under there). 


  1. Good for her for not hedging. Though I'm still mourning the loss of her precious breeding window. Can you hear me rending garments?

    That recent somewhere you were ranting was my blog, btw. My husband and I were having a disagreement yesterday about who was more likely to get into office in the U.S., an athiest or an agnostic. He thought atheist (because they at least took a stand for something). I still disagree. I don't think an athiest will ever get into office here. An agnostic might (might) have a fighting chance. Though honestly, we'd probably elect a Scientologist first.

  2. You are right. An atheist would have no chance. But next election you can vote for Mitt Romney. Mormons are at least as wacky as Scientologists.

  3. Hero Richard Dawkins made a point in a lecture that it is impossible to have a President of USA who is both honest and intelligent. A candidate who is intelligent is not a believer (apparently there is a statisitcval correlation for this) so if he is intelligent he my tell lies, as you indicate yourself.

    Have a good trip.

  4. you are right. no one with that elevated a profile could ever say she (or he) is an atheist in the us. it would be an absolute scandal. the religious crazies would go head hunting immediately.

  5. My Fellow Merkins.... It's the same in Britain, they have to be openly Christian to get to the top - no one knows why

  6. Mitt Romney has one big problem: Erklärungsnot.
    He is still insisting that the health care reform plan he implemented in Massachusetts (and applauded by conservatives at the time!) is a good thing while Obama's plan, similar to his own, is "unconscionable abuse of power".

    Btw, from what I understand, here in Austria being an atheist is de rigueur if you are a member of one of the ruling parties (being "only" agnostic is not enough). And being anti-catholic is tops.

  7. Richard Dawkins is a truly great man and (apart from the Pope) has done more for atheism than any other person in history.

    And the religious fundamentalists in the USA take no prisoners!

    Yes - Britain is weird. Religious observance is on the decrease - but religious ostentation is increasing in politicians.

    Mitt will overcome this problem by telling us us a few more lies. This is one thing I really like about Austria.