Australian prime minister Julia Gillard, a professed atheist, recently stated she respects the Church, in response to an archbishop’s suggesting Christians might not vote for her on August 21. But does one’s religious background affect voters in Australia?
Australia, being a more secularized place than the United States, but not as much as the United Kingdom, generally is less inclined to consider a person’s religious background to be a significant or essential factor in elections. Whilst calling oneself an ‘atheist’ in the United States would be considered to be political suicide, in Australia, it may come as a surprise to some, but would be welcomed and even praised in some quarters.
As to whether the prime minister’s personal beliefs will have any effect her political decisions, I’m skeptical of the common and widespread assumption that one’s personal beliefs are merely ‘private’ and have no public consequences. Our beliefs are always personal, but never private.
Patrick Langrell, director of young-adult outreach for the Catholic archdiocese of New York, is originally from Australia.
July 30th, 2010 | 1:27 pm
Given the choice, I would vote for a conservative, pro-life atheist (yes they exist) over a liberal, practicing Catholic (no explanation needed) anytime.
July 30th, 2010 | 11:30 pm
It is interesting to note that when commenting on Kevin Rudd’s trip to hospital, the PM said, ‘‘we’re all hoping, wishing, praying for a speedy recovery’’ (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/blow-to-labor-as-abbott-surges-20100730-10zxm.html).
July 31st, 2010 | 7:22 pm
Gillard’s fully pro-abortion, but then again so are a majority of Australian voters, and even most conservative MPs (a majority of the Liberals and a substantial number of the Nationals. Liberals = Bush Senior, Nationals = Bush Junior).
David Burchell, a sensible left-winger, analysed in “The Australian” a few weeks ago why Gillard wasn’t getting up the nose of religious voters (as distinct from conservative voters, but the two groups are less closely synonymous in Australia than the US). He noted that Gillard (a) spoke with respect of her Welsh Baptist upbringing, even reminiscing fondly about winning Scripture prize at Sunday school – ie, no Dawkins-style rantings about “child abuse”, (b) stressed that she admired Christian ethical teachings (well, not on abortion, of course, but again, no “religion poisons EVERYTHING” hostility), and (c) said that she “found a different path” because as an adult she realised she didn’t agree with Christianity’s metaphysical claims.
As Burchell noted, this last point appeals to many low-church Protestants because they particularly dislike “hypocrisy” or “outward displays of religion” by people who don’t really have personal faith. They want the wolves out of the fold ASAP, and give apostates like Gillard points for honesty, as opposed to staying a nominal member and subtly tilting the church in a liberal direction. [My paraphrase]
One can imagine CS Lewis agreeing with them that someone who doesn’t believe Jesus was God incarnate is not a Christian, and is better of saying so explicitly, rather than watering him down as a “great teacher”.
Finally, Gillard is not personally abrasive (to swinging voters) and certainly isn’t hated by them unlike, say, Paul Keating was. Apart from the nickname “Woody Woodpecker” (ouch!) she is regarded neutrally and warily. She has moved to the right on certain issues popular with the majority – asylum-seekers and gay marriage – and so is now less Pelosi than Hillary.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact