Aug 9, 2010

Jesus weeps for Gillard the hypocrite

Jesus wept! Julia Gillard’s main media event on Sunday was previewed by the ABC at breakfast time as the announcement of more chaplains for state schools during campaigning in Darwi

Ben Sandilands

Editor of Plane Talking

Jesus wept! Julia Gillard’s main media event on Sunday was previewed by the ABC at breakfast time as the announcement of more chaplains for state schools during campaigning in Darwin.

Why isn’t Gillard promising more Asian language teachers, or science teachers, instead of more priests or preachers?

What has happened to the secular values of the Australian constitution?

If Australians wish their children to have a religious education, whether Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or Jeddi, they can enrol them at a religious school, except for the last group of course.

Why in a society struggling to remain scientifically literate, do we need government to spent on priests in public schools?

And why is Labor, and the Coalition, pandering to sects that don’t believe in voting or paying taxes, and whose premises include the exclusion from God’s love (from whichever God) of those who don’t subscribe to their particular set of fairy tales.

How dare Gillard in particular even contemplate men who don’t sleep with women or who treat them with contempt, as being authorities on family values or morality or appropriate persons for advising teenagers.

Why is she funding the exposure of school children to this humbug?

The hypocrisy of Gillard pushing the religion button yesterday might remind many voters of the contemptible insincerity of Kevin Rudd’s posing for interviews beside the priest who-never-talked outside church in Canberra most Sundays as a sort of picture association with sanctity.

It was another example of Labor campaigners imitating the faith based strategies that pervade American business and politics. Rule 1 in the US is to engage in Grand Theft Jesus. The Jesus-roots-for-my-football team, my company, my guns, and my right to blow up and maim huge numbers of innocent people in the wrong countries type of levers because heck, Jesus pulls power and wealth.

Why is a non believer like Gillard doing such stuff?

I never expected to see this in modern Labor, even though my father used to take me to hear Eddie Ward and Herb Evatt talk at campaign meetings as well as to speeches by Bob Menzies, in order to show me aspects of life in Australia in the 50s most schoolkids didn’t get to experience. The wildest political meeting I can remember, the one that began to approach the sense of physical harm you’d get watching Jimmy Sharman’s boxing troupe close enough to cop a flying tooth, was ‘Ming the Merciless’ versus the working class heroes when he choose to make a speech in the Paddington Town Hall.  In a Paddington that was then a picturesque and often brutal slum, that was brave. Those were politically passionate times that have been sterilized out of existence by opinion polling and risk averse party bosses on both sides.

As an old Australian I miss Menzies. He had one characteristic that eludes Gillard and Abbott, in that he was an inclusive political leader. Labor was still uncomfortable with New Australians, or ‘reffos and dagos’ when Menzies was recognising them as hard working and fortuitously harder to organise additions to the national work force.

Unlike Gillard and Abbott, who on analysis are constantly identifying minorities in our society and campaigning against them indirectly if not directly.

Neither are inclusive in their campaigning. They exclude rather than embrace. They have to put a fence around the most basic of gay and lesbian rights, the recognition of love in a loving and faithful relationship. They paternalise indigenous Australians. They press the religion button whenever possible, one that comes with multiple sub texts about Muslims, Buddhists and non-believers. Neither candidate  is worth a cracker in dealing with climate change or ensuring that Australia participates in the race to perfect viable replacement sources of energy to fossil carbon releasing fuels.

Both seems content for Australia to continue to be a client of innovation in other societies, rather than an originator of new technology and processes by which it might thus gain new sources of  national wealth.

They are tired, visionless and heartless, and in the case of matters religious, Gillard is insincere and Abbott is sincerely obsessive.

Is it too much to ask of Gillard and Abbott, that they reaffirm the secular equity of Australian  laws and institutions, and out of respect to the those who want a choice in the type of government we vote for, offer us a Labor that will be an inspiring party of progress and reform, and a Liberal alternative that will  be a government of enlightened and all inclusive conservative values?

That would be a contest to make us think, rather than despair.


Leave a comment

25 thoughts on “Jesus weeps for Gillard the hypocrite

  1. dandare

    Grr. If they have a candidate where you vote then vote for the Secular Party. If not then I would vote for the Greens candidate ahead of the other two.

  2. AR

    The Labor party in the 1950/60s succumbed to state funding of church (then a euphemism for ‘catholic’) schools, despite being founded by escapee irish/brit dissidents & non conformists.
    How sad that it is still deemed necessary to pander to religion which now includes some of the craziest doctrines to survive the Stone Age, mostly held by those who wouldn’t vote Labor anyway.

  3. SBH

    well on that basis why not say islamo/christian values? It would be as meaningless as judeo/christian or christian/hindu or any other combination of irrational beliefs

    Still facts and analysis have never been your strong point.

    always amusing they way the rabbit eared right uses progressive as a perjorative.

  4. JamesK

    You are a progressive lefty so don’t fret acronymal-SB.

    I know your type can’t understand.

    But I also just can’t live my life unceasingly making allowances for chumps.

    Now …. that’s is progressive.

    Look here’s a reference from that infamous lefty font of knowledge Wikipedia just to get you started along the knowledge super-(well…it would have to be)-highway…..

  5. cud chewer

    As a kid I avoided “religious instruction” because of sensible parents, which meant a period in the library. I didn’t mind that at all. Thing is there were no other alternatives for the few parents who were willing to stare down the system and not have their kids indoctrinated.

    Except, for one period where I accidentally ended up in the “religious instruction” class .. at lest for a few minutes (just poor timing) and I can remember sitting on the floor with this so called “chaplain” saying things to make kids fearful and confused. I distinctly remember the feeling of being violated. Anyhow I quickly buggered off. But it scared the crap out of me for the rest of the day.

    What I’d like to know is.. how much of this is determined but secrete lobbying.. and how much is the determination of a good portion of the Labor caucus (the Liberal one is no better) to push such policies. I remember on qanda Julia when asked about gay marriage really had no answer but to say “thats our policy, its not my call, sorry”..

    And.. why can’t the press use its skills to find out which of the Labor caucus.. heck.. which politicians in general are individually, personally, pushing the wowsers agenda on us?

  6. SBH

    Jimmy there is no such thing as judeo christian values any more than there can be one category of religio/scientific value. They diverge fundamentaly.

    Lovely to see you back by the way, I though the election may be taking up all your time.

  7. SBH

    Biasdetector it is a credit that those men (for they all were) recognised the imposition of religion was odious and forbade it. As a result we have a pluralist society which comprises many religions. Why we persist with the anachronism of the anglican version of the lord’s prayer is beyond me.

  8. JamesK

    The preamble to the Australian Constitution says “humbly relying upon the blessings of Almighty God”.

    This is not a partisan religious state but it’s values are most definitely Judeo-Christian.

    They are equally humanitarian but again essentially from the same Judeo-Christian tradition.

    There is separation of the powers of church and state.

    So what is Ben Sandilands point?

    Is he like the utterly repulsive aggressive secularists such as Richard Dawkins who has all the zealotry of the worst of the fundamentalist religionists of all persuasions and for the same reason?

    I do like his inclusivity word.
    What political persuasion and which immigrant groups have most failed on that particular point?

    What immigrant group are not nationalistic per se but have a force of bigotry all of their very own?

    What immigrant group resists the laws of the land they immigrate to and want their own laws?

    There are always those minority sanctimonious enough to believe that our traditions are something to be ashamed of. So its ok to mutilate infant girls as long as the medical profession do it in a ‘culturally sensitive’ manner as ‘progressive’ apologists suggest?
    It’s ok to have women trailing their menfolk on our streets their faces covered?

    We have two good leaders of our respective main parties but that elite and sanctimonious minority rail on that our leaders should demonstrate some inane ‘progressive’ ideology although their is no inherent intelligent argument behind such progressive thought and nor does such ‘thought’ reflect the overwhelming views of the people in what is supposedly a democracy.

  9. lindsayb

    BIASDETECTOR: I am sure you would be feeling persecuted if our parliament included practices from any of the other great religions of the world as part of their daily activities, so I don’t know why you are so proud of them reciting the lord’s prayer. 99% of people on the planet practice the faith of their parents, so it is purely an accident of birth that you are Christian. There is no guarantee that Christianity will continue to be the majority religion in Australia, so it would be wise for all Christians to push for an ethical secular system of government to be enshrined in legislation and practice before this happens. Our aim should be for a government that treats all people equally, and demands tolerance of others beliefs from all citizens. The only people this would not be acceptable to are the ignorant, intolerant and bigoted.

  10. Venise Alstergren

    BIASDETECTOR: Ah, so you have a special relationship with Christ? Forgive my ignorance, but wasn’t Christ foisted on an unsuspecting planet as being the son of god?

    So by saying, “”If only you could experience a little of a fulfilling relationship with Christ.”” You infer that you have a nice two way dialogue with god. How dare you be so presumptuous.

  11. Robert Tobin

    Who wrote “Jesus wept”? Jesus, if there ever was one died 2,000 years ago. I am a bedraggled refugee from the “Holy” Heretical Roman Catholic Church, now a PROUD ATHEIST. Australia is NOT a Christian Nation, was not founded on Christian values. Julia Gillard has a RIGHT to be Atheist.

    On account of the bigotry shown by the Christian lobbyists. this is the first time in my life I will vote Labor. We do not want Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott as PM. This will put the country under the control of Abbott’s Puppet Master George Cardinal Pell and the Roman Cathoic Church.

  12. biasdetector

    Our constitution was founded by people of Christian faith, the lord’s prayer is read out on a frequent basis in parliament.
    I feel deeply sorry for you guys, we are really missing out.
    If only you could experience a little of a fulfulling relationship with Christ

  13. Rorschach

    I blogged on this here the other day, I really really do not see why she is pandering to those idiots.Does she honestly believe $200 million, or whatever amount of money, will ever satisfy them, or make any of these clowns vote Labor ? It is very disappointing.

  14. lindsayb

    Hear Hear!
    I think the “More Priests in State Schools” has killed what little hope I had that Ms Gillard would be different from the rest, and lead us all into a new era of hope and reason.
    It looks like the only choice for the Rational in our nation is between the Greens and the Sex Party.

  15. portia

    Is it customary for all schools to have acccess to student counsellors? Shouldn’t the proposed school chaplin be the equivalent of an army or hospital padre? Children in crisis need ready access to emotional support, and the role of chaplin is not to evangelize per se.As school attendance is compuslory, the children would be able to build up confidence with an on-the-spot helper.

  16. oldskool


    I never said I would vote for either of them!

    The Greens are the only party I could vote for (maybe the Secular Party) which is sad, considering my Grandfather made the pigrimage to the tree of knowledge, and I have always thought of myself as a ‘light on the hill’ laborite.

  17. Benedict Pope

    Gillard is as shallow a politician as they come. Her ‘atheism’ was a facade to remove herself from the Rudd connection to churchgate comments, and his love of the ACL and school chaplains.

    But now she has had to comply with the ACL demands, and eat a *hit sandwich, probably as part of the Rudd deal to come and help her out.

    Now we see her falling back on being a Baptist-atheist, as if anyone would believe that.

    What total rot!

    The cost of these people is horrendous, and they are not ‘priests’ by any stretch of the imagination, at least within public schools, but unqualified, untrained, non-professionals described by the Australian Psychological Society in quite damning terms here:

    There is only one way out of this, a successful challenge via the High Court, which is underway here:

    See who the legal team is… and consider sending this fellow’s solicitors trust fund a few dollars to save our secular public schools from ATO funding of religion.

  18. Veronica Guy

    This is the most depressing news I have come across today. I thought when Gillard declared herself a non believer that Australia might finally start to come of age.

    Now her back-pedal to garner the religious vote because she’s fearful of losing the election means that $222 million gets spent uselessly on not needed hangers-on to the public purse when that money could have been spent on teachers and educational infrastructure.

    What she has done is to confirm (with financial largesse – taxpayers’ money) that Australia won’t attempt to shore up against the burgeoning push to un-reason that seems to be heralding the beginning of a new dark age.

    What she has done is to confirm that religious input into the fabric of our society via legal, health, educational and legislative interference is alive and well and about to increase its previously slipping foothold. To actively embrace a backwards looking world view encompassing superstition, fantasy and pathological lies is outrageous.

    In this the 21st century that we should pander to what many call The Age of Unreason is appalling. The most cynical and hypocritical political behaviour I have seen for a long while is being compounded by more of the same.

    As an old Australian you miss Menzies Ben. I despair and as an old Australian I don’t think I will bother coming back to my birth country. Not that it is getting any better anywhere else on this globe.

    Science is fighting for funding, science education is being dumbed down, and logic and reason aren’t even in the educational curricula. We should be drawing our modern societies away from religious nut jobbery and curtailing the privilege previously afforded them. Yet here we are encouraging them.

    To Scott: Freedom to practice religion is not the same as entrenched religite values in state run, secular educational institutions or, for that matter, anywhere else in our society. Sect. 16 of the Constitution may be weak but it exists.

    Aristotle said: “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” Sometimes even those corners are cut with misplaced cynicism.

    It all starts to look like a failed experiment to me. How ineffably sad this all is.

  19. Venise Alstergren

    Ben: You are wonderful! Thank you so very much for pointing out the hypocrisy of our political leaders. Not to mention the depths they will go to to win votes.

    It is beyond sick that four to five thousand years ago man’s fears and superstitions were added to by his inventing of religion. The deadly trio clubbed together to form a basis of what, and despite all of our knowledge gained, should have become an ever better world of educated people. People who knew that morality was a natural state of man and not something invented. People wise enough to be set free of venal priests and held in thrall to post-Stone-age fairy stories.

    Why then are the deadly trio fear, superstition, and religion still doing their poisonous work? Partly because the average person is so stupid that they allow themselves to believe in their own fear and superstitions-thus allowing the cancer of religion to reign supreme. Another whopping great part comes from these same mentally constipated morons sending their children to be brain-washed into their parents’ beliefs at special schools for religion.

    Where, if a child is very unlucky he may have been born into a sect which believes the world is flat, that Charles Darwin didn’t know what he was talking about, and that Einstein was the owner of the local Deli. And that women were inherently happy to be treated as animals.

    It would be an intolerable situation if the religions concerned just stuck to de-educating their believers’ children. But, is this all what happens? Not a bit of it.

    Thanks to the apathy of the taxpayer and the belief in the same childish fairy-tales of our parliamentarians-the beliefs they share with the morons. We find that we, the taxpayers are forced to shell out money to support these institutions of mental degradation and infant brain-washing.

    What is needed to join in this tax-funded gang bang? Absolutely nothing, beyond calling yourself a religion and claiming to be on the inside running with a mysterious gentleman who appears to live somewhere up above Uranus, or beyond.

    The years have rolled around and finally the land of Oz is being ruled by a woman who is an atheist. For one brief moment I thought this country had grown up. That unlike our cousins in the USA we didn’t have to proclaim that we believed in these would-be sacred shibboleths.

    So what happens then? Our atheist leader, does what all the other religious-minded creeps before her have done.

    She promises more tax-payers money to support religious schools. Ha!

    Dear Julia Gillard,

    I wouldn’t vote for you if your knickers were on fire.

    Any more than I would vote for the Jesuit-trained, would have been Catholic priest, Tony Abbott who runs a political party, laughingly referred to as the Liberals, which is even lower on the scale of evolution-not quite as low as the National Party, but few things are-than the Labor Party.

    It is my devout prayer that the whole damn lot of you contract a very nasty form of social disease. Thus rendering all of you to be social outcasts. Certainly not to be voted for.

  20. Ben Sandilands


    Freedom to practice religion is indeed of critical importance.

    Freedom to use religion to avoid taxation or the responsibility of voting or to seek to suppress science, medicine and equality in law is however abhorrent, comments which I would apply to the followers of non-Christian faiths.

    We need a commitment in our society that religious freedom cannot exceed the bounds of civil and criminal law, otherwise we swing open the door to inequality or exceptionalism in the application of the law based on the faith of various sections of our society.

  21. harrybelbarry

    Old skool, there is a third party that you can use to send a message to your cut-out party. VOTE GREENS FIRST then LIB/LAB , that way they don’t get the $2+ a vote to waste on ADS telling you how bad the other party is. Remember they don’t get truck loads of cash from Big Coal, Gas ,Ore ,Tobacco, Booze etc etc and have about $150,000 all up. Whats a ad worth ? a full page ? TV ? Donate your vote money to them, it might help your grandkids.

  22. Scott

    The reason why Gillard is doing this is to shore up the religious vote. She needs to do it, otherwise the outer suburbs (which seems to be where a lot of the pentecostal churches are set up) will swing to the Libs.
    For a lot of people, religion is an important issue. I think people seem to forget this, especially on crikey.
    As for this statement:-

    “What has happened to the secular values of the Australian constitution?”

    Well, all you need to do is look at the first couple of lines of the preamble to know that it has never been secular. Also freedom to practice religion is one of the few explicitly mentioned rights protected by the constitution.

  23. gregb

    Onya, Ben!

  24. oldskool

    For this, and all the other reasons that have been expressed on this site, this is truly the most crushing election that I have been privy to. Both sides are in a race to the bottom of populism- Gillard may say she is an atheist, but demonstrates none of the traits of one, and Abbott is nothing but an opportunist, and yet one of these two paper cut-outs will hold the highest office of our land.

  25. Gibbot

    Thank you Ben. I’m glad someone finally said it.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details