Although I am a non-believer, I was brought up in a Catholic household and believe that Christian morality has shaped my morality over most things - except with some considerations, for example I believe abortion is not wrong, but a personal choice - just as I believe taking part in warfare is a personal choice.
I am a strong believer in Labor philosophy, where we care for those weaker than ourselves by working together for common good.
Thus I can easily understand Julia Gillard's Labor beliefs coming from her Baptist background - one of the protest faiths of the poor English/Welsh.
2
Friday, 20 August 2010 08:02
Sheila Hale
Interesting! However people are not Christians because they have a Church name tag. Catholics are not Christians because their systems of belief are mutually exclusive. One a system of works which cannot save and the other by faith through God's grace plus nothing. The Bible clearly teaches God hates our own self-righteousness and there is nothing man can do to be saved. True Believers are only those who are born again in accordance with (John 3; Acts 2:v36-38; and Ephesians Ch 1). For this reason I cannot vote for the Libs.
3
Friday, 20 August 2010 13:17
Wayne Cartright
Well Julia Gillard may not be attracting Christian fundamentalist voters but she sure is permanently alienating those concerned with justice and humanity.
Personally being gay I take great exception to being told I am a second class citizen and then being told I will be funding other people's lifestyle choices. Under Labor I am told that I can't marry and therefore can't ensure my partner gets the pension from my superannuation that I PAID FOR. However I'm supposed to be some sort of money source for other people's children on this overpopulated planet.
No. I will not wear it. Labor has lost my vote this election, and they may never ever get it back.
Julia Gillard is an atheist. That means that she does not have the excuse of brain washing to explain her statements about marriage, so I want to know if she is just a hate filled homophobe, or simply so selfish that she is prepared to sell my life down the river to get elected. She and Labor are totally amoral.
I'm equally unimpressed with the use of other people (refugees) as pawns in this election, and I will defend those less fortunate than myself by voting any government who treats them inhumanly out.
I'm never going to forget this absolute betrayal by Labor and Sen. Penny Wong is a hypocrite and a traitor to her own kind.
4
Saturday, 21 August 2010 00:24
Don Maclean
I was a christian fundamentalist in my late teens, progressed through small "l" liberal christianity during my 20's, & eventually lost religion. So I have viewed Labor & Conservative politics from both sides of the religious divide. Even as a fundamentalist however I supported Labor because it stood for the ordinary working citizen (Christian socialism) rather than the priveleged. Perhaps most fundamentalists see themselves as "saved" & moving towards celestial priveleges in the hereafter, hence they support the party of privelege in the present?
Because both Labor and Coalition draw support from religious individuals (including some of their own MPs) who strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, neither is prepared to risk supporting gay marriage. The current election campaign has spotlighted the definition of marriage as an issue that requires ongoing debate and resolution - this is good! What extra benefits/obligations are conferred by marriage compared to de facto or civil unions? Should we redefine marriage in asexual terms and what would be the consequences? I feel for Wayne's sense of betrayal, but he needs to remember that both sides of politics have the same policy at this election, and feel gratified that the prominence given to this issue during the election will ramp up the debate as we move on (& assist those MPs working for change from within government).
5
Saturday, 21 August 2010 07:17
Lance
As an atheist I was extremely disappointed at Gillard's pledge to expand the School Chaplaincy Program, rather than putting the funds towards having qualified counsellors in schools.
6
Monday, 15 November 2010 14:14
Greg Croke
According to the table at the bottom of the article, I am statistically irrelevant - I belong to a category that doesn't exist! I am a Pentecostal Christian who currently attends a Churches of Christ congregation. I am also a member of the Australian Democrats. The percentage of either of those groups of Christians who voted Democrats was 0%!
On a more serious note, for me the most disappointing thing about the table, and the sentiments expressed in the article, is that it appears that too many Christians have not thought through where to send their vote anywhere near thoroughly enough. There are several possible explanations for why so many Christians are politically conservative, but invariably they show a lack of intellectual rigour - of analytical thought. Possibly they may be falling into the same trap the Church has historically fallen into, of thinking that their primary duty is to police people's personal moral conduct - tending to a focus primarily on sex. They have narrowed their concept of 'moral issues' to the point where it is about sex and not much else - playing right into the hands of the political Right. We need to do the exact opposite: define 'moral issues' as broadly as possible. Climate Change, Asylum Seekers and Poverty are MORAL concepts. If Christians did this they would find that the most Christian political parties are somewhere between the Centre and the moderate Left. The Democrats, followed by the Greens - and among the major parties, ALP (particularly the ALP Left) definitely ahead of either Coalition party - would thus fit the bill.
I am a strong believer in Labor philosophy, where we care for those weaker than ourselves by working together for common good.
Thus I can easily understand Julia Gillard's Labor beliefs coming from her Baptist background - one of the protest faiths of the poor English/Welsh.
Personally being gay I take great exception to being told I am a second class citizen and then being told I will be funding other people's lifestyle choices. Under Labor I am told that I can't marry and therefore can't ensure my partner gets the pension from my superannuation that I PAID FOR. However I'm supposed to be some sort of money source for other people's children on this overpopulated planet.
No. I will not wear it. Labor has lost my vote this election, and they may never ever get it back.
Julia Gillard is an atheist. That means that she does not have the excuse of brain washing to explain her statements about marriage, so I want to know if she is just a hate filled homophobe, or simply so selfish that she is prepared to sell my life down the river to get elected. She and Labor are totally amoral.
I'm equally unimpressed with the use of other people (refugees) as pawns in this election, and I will defend those less fortunate than myself by voting any government who treats them inhumanly out.
I'm never going to forget this absolute betrayal by Labor and Sen. Penny Wong is a hypocrite and a traitor to her own kind.
Because both Labor and Coalition draw support from religious individuals (including some of their own MPs) who strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, neither is prepared to risk supporting gay marriage. The current election campaign has spotlighted the definition of marriage as an issue that requires ongoing debate and resolution - this is good! What extra benefits/obligations are conferred by marriage compared to de facto or civil unions? Should we redefine marriage in asexual terms and what would be the consequences? I feel for Wayne's sense of betrayal, but he needs to remember that both sides of politics have the same policy at this election, and feel gratified that the prominence given to this issue during the election will ramp up the debate as we move on (& assist those MPs working for change from within government).
On a more serious note, for me the most disappointing thing about the table, and the sentiments expressed in the article, is that it appears that too many Christians have not thought through where to send their vote anywhere near thoroughly enough. There are several possible explanations for why so many Christians are politically conservative, but invariably they show a lack of intellectual rigour - of analytical thought. Possibly they may be falling into the same trap the Church has historically fallen into, of thinking that their primary duty is to police people's personal moral conduct - tending to a focus primarily on sex. They have narrowed their concept of 'moral issues' to the point where it is about sex and not much else - playing right into the hands of the political Right. We need to do the exact opposite: define 'moral issues' as broadly as possible. Climate Change, Asylum Seekers and Poverty are MORAL concepts. If Christians did this they would find that the most Christian political parties are somewhere between the Centre and the moderate Left. The Democrats, followed by the Greens - and among the major parties, ALP (particularly the ALP Left) definitely ahead of either Coalition party - would thus fit the bill.