Australia has an Atheist P.M. once more!
Just after Christmas 2009, the Sydney Morning Herald said this:
Several Labor politicians said they were ”non-practising”, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said through a spokeswoman that she was a ”non-practising Baptist” and “not religious”.
This refreshing grasp on reality contrasts sharply with her predecessor’s active infantile theologically induced INSANITY, and the current opposition leader’s utterly profound barking-mad god-soaked brain-damaged lunacy.
Most folks appear to be celebrating that she is female, whereas I prefer to celebrate the fact that she appears to be a grown-up.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Michael Kingsford Gray on June 25, 2010 at 4:56 pm, and is filed under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |











about 1 year ago
“Bob Hawke is no longer alone.”
Don’t forget that Gough is an atheist.
about 1 year ago
Thanks for the tip, but I had not forgotten about Gough vs God.
But Gough was not quite as proud and vocal an atheist as Robert J.
Bill Hayden is also a pronounced atheist, which must have made his GGship rather strained, given that his immediate boss is the head of a major religion, and supposedly appointed by some god or other!
about 1 year ago
I heard RJL Hawke was an agnostic. Although one may say there is little practical difference if both agnostics and atheists live their lives without religion – also known as “functionally atheist”.
Anyway, back to Gough. There’s a story I read about him, one of many, and I found a copy in the May 31, 2007 Junior School Edition of the Pembroke School “Thursday Times”. Thank you Google. The story goes as follows:
Gough Whitlam and Francis James, later to become nationally known as an eminent journalist who was imprisoned by the Chinese for three years for alleged espionage, were fellow students at Canberra Grammar in the 1920s and were competitors for a prize in Christian Doctrine. In 1934 Canon Edwards, principal of the school, called both of them into his office after the papers had been marked.
“Whitlam, James, I have the final results for the Christian Doctrine prize, but before I release them I thought I should tell you of a decision I’ve made.” Both students were attentive.
“Whitlam, you received 92 %. Your paper was a magnificent forensic effort, splendidly written. James, I gave you 87 %, also very well written but not as good as Whitlam’s. However, having regard for all the relevant circumstances, I have decided to award the prize to you James, and not you Whitlam. I thought that you, Whitlam, would like to know the reason why.”
Gough never one to take injustice lying down, said, “Yes, I would”
“The reason is,” replied Canon Edwards, “that James believes it and you, Whitlam, do not!”
From “Almost the complete Gough” by Barry Cohen.
Ref: http://www.pembroke.sa.edu.au/siteFiles/jstt31may.pdf
As for Bob Hawke, when interviewed by Andrew Denton he said:
“BOB HAWKE: It started when I went to India in 19 end of 52. I went as a delegate to World Christian Youth Conference there and there were all these poverty stricken kids at the gate of this palatial place where we were feeding our face and I just had this struck by this enormous sense of irrelevance of religion to the needs of people and it started to unwind from that point but I’ve not become an atheist, I am an agnostic. I mean I just don’t know and I don’t think one should spend too much time thinking about it m simply because there are so much to be done now in the here and now.”
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2301431.htm
Also:
http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Robert_(Bob)_James_Lee_Hawke
“Until I get some evidence one way or the other which is compelling to me, I’m going to have to remain an agnostic…”
I hope that more and more frequently the world’s religions will be asked to provide some evidence to justify their claims and doctrines.
about 1 year ago
Good research there, sir!
I must say that my off-the-cuff comment was based entirely on my personal collective memories of RJH before, during, and after Bob’s lengthy turn at this country’s helm.
As Robert was a Rhodes’ scholar, he must(?) know the correct definition of ‘agnostic’, one would think, so I should probably take his word for it.