The religion of Julia Gillard

[~candice~]

I think Ag might be the only other person interested in this, but oh well

http://cfsc.com.au/the-religion-of-julia-gillard/

[nebula]

There are good points made in there, nonetheless.

[ByFaithAlone]

I think Ag might be the only other person interested in this, but oh well

http://cfsc.com.au/the-religion-of-julia-gillard/

I am just so confused on the reasoning behind the author on so many levels.

First:

"Julia Gillard is a humanist. By general definition that means that for her, mankind is the centre of all things, and the God of the Bible is fundamentally excluded."

That "general definition" is incorrect. Humanists generally believe in the innate value of every individual. This is not a contradiction of the bible as God loves us each as individuals and we are expected to share such love with others. Although this says that humanists focus on human values or concerns, this in no way precludes God as a part of those concerns. In fact there are Christian humanists. According to wiki, "Christian humanism is the position that universal human dignity and individual freedom are essential and principal components of, or are at least compatible with, Christian doctrine and practice."

Secondly:

"To be consistent religiously, Julia Gillard would be an atheist, an evolutionist, a feminist, pro-abortion and a socialist."

Where in the world does this come from? Even given their definition they would be hard pressed to prove their claim that she has to be "an evolutionist, a feminist, pro-abortion and a socialist" as it could easily be argued that these in no way relate to their definition of humanist.

From there it gets even muddier. They claim that, "Consistent with her religion, Julia is a believer in Keynesian economics, meaning the belief that governments should spend up in a time of recession or economic decline to offset cuts in personal spending, even if it requires borrowing."

All I could do here was try not to cry. Keynesian economics, although a left-wing idea, is in no way socialism. Therefore, even if their previous link to socialism held up (which I would contend it does not), nothing in Keynesian economics specifically implies socialism. Instead it is an Interventionist system. Left wing, to be sure, but not socialism.

"Like her ideological soul-mate Barack Obama (with whom she has a lot in common) Julia believes in this sort of thing. It is an aspect of her religious faith to have a grand expectation of what governments can do, either domestically or in cooperation with others, when they get together and act to try and solve some international problem."

And this also annoyed me. I am not a huge fan of Obama but neither will I stand for those who use straw men to attack him for what he is not. Obama is a self-professing Christian and to specifically group him with atheistic humanists is merely a veiled insult against his beliefs which are between him and God.

So yeah... basically I noted several problems with the reasoning in that and here are a few informal logical fallacies they used:

Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of opponent's position twisting his words, or by means of [false] assumptions

Ex: Their definition of humanism, using Julia to apply a label to Obama

False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited

Ex: They argue socialism = Keynesian economics

Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

Ex: They argue Julia and Obama have similar economic ideology, therefore implying that they share religious or ideological ideas

More are there but those are just the ones that come to mind

[ByFaithAlone]

And this also annoyed me. I am not a huge fan of Obama but neither will I stand for those who use straw men to attack him for what he is not. Obama is a self-professing Christian and to specifically group him with atheistic humanists is merely a veiled insult against his beliefs which are between him and God.

100% false. When a person claims to be a Christian, we are instructed to measure what they say against what they do.

Ok... I know we have discussed this several times. No offense, but that really isn't the point of this thread and I will be getting back to you soon on the other one. I've just been kind of busy with finals. Now, in answer to your points. My point was that the article used a bad analogy between the woman Julia and the President. As I said, just because they share economic ideas in no way indicate his religious beliefs. As to his belief in God. And also, what do you mean by fruit? Do you want a list of good things he's done. That's easy enough to find. The service he has done. Again, easy. I am sorry that you seem to think he has done nothing noble or good in his life. And as to his self-professed faith, remember that, "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:13) and, "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9). I am sorry that you cannot seem to trust him. I cannot pretend that I like him as a politician. However, that does not lead my to discount what he says in regards to his personal religious beliefs. Is that naive? Perhaps. But I know that God will eventually judge all and it is not my place to condemn one who's thoughts I do not know and who has openly confessed belief in Christ.

[ByFaithAlone]

A list of "good things he's done," from your perspective would be both highly subjective and meaningless when viewed from a totally spiritual perspective. "Good" can have a myriad of different connotations depending upon who is giving the definition. In purely Christian terms, the only one giving the definition of "good" is God Himself and when held to those standards, Obama's actions as both a human being and a leader fail the godly definition of "good." This is the facet of the conversation you seem to be unable to either grasp or address. Just because you say he has done "good" does not actually mean he has done "good." Just because he gives lip service to being a Christian does not mean that he is one. In the very same passage in Matthew 7 about knowing a person's fruit, which you will not discuss, immediately after being told we will know people by their fruit, we are told that not all who cry "Lord, Lord!" are actually saved. Obama, Julia Gillard, etc., can cry at the top of their lungs that they are Christians, but we are told, directly, in spite of your assertions to not examine what a person says in light of what they do, that we are to examine a person more closely when they claim to be Christian to see if they actually are one or not. A person who claims to be a Christian is supposed to be scrutinized more closely by the body and, since they have proclaimed to be a believer, they are held to a higher standard of both moral behavior and responsibility. The claim, by you, that once they say they are Christian, that we should just blindly accept what they say and all criticism or scrutiny of their behavior is supposed to end at that point is totally bogus according to scriptural guidelines.

What standards of good would YOU use then? How would you define fruit? I'm sorry, but I feel really uncomfortable when people start claiming that someone is not bearing fruit, when they appear to be living a "good" life and have done many good things in this world. It almost seems like taking the judgement seat. I know this is not what you intend, but why exactly, are Obama's "good" deeds not examples of fruit?

He may say he is a person of strong faith and that he's Christian, but he does not proclaim Jesus as Lord, in fact, he has said on more than one occasion that he does not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation and he avoids talk about Jesus at all, so there are some severe problems with your use of Romans 10:9 especially when you use it out of context.

According to FOX Obama said: "Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God."

So Obama agrees that:

a. He is sinful

b. Jesus died for his sins

c. Salvation is by the grace of God

Sounds like the basic tenants of Christianity to me.

[ByFaithAlone]

Also, could we try to steer this conversation back towards the main issues. Those would be the article's assumptions and illogical style.

[ByFaithAlone]

Also, could we try to steer this conversation back towards the main issues. Those would be the article's assumptions and illogical style.

No, the main issue would be that Julia Gillard is a humanist. That is the issue of the thread, not what you thought about the article. Are you the OP? I found nothing wrong with the article. A humanist is also a secularist and any "religious" views they hold will take a far back seat to both their humanism and secularism because their world view will always come first and self will always come first. Any time that someone claims to be a Christian and then either does or supports something which God forbids or condemns, that person is acting outside of the faith they claim to hold.

I'm going to address the Obama section in a later post but since this was the main point of this thread I will address this first. The idea brought up by the article is the Gillard is a humanist. It goes on to argue that because she is a humanist she also supports a wide variety of other ideas which are generally connected to political liberalism such as Keynesian economics. This, in my opinion, is flawed logic especially considering Christians can be humanists as well. Calvin, Erasmus and Luther were all humanists as were many Reformation leaders. Sir Francis Bacon, a noted Christian scientist (Anglican) was also humanist. They go onto argue that humanism is a religion (incorrect... it is a philosophy) and that to be consistent she must be, "atheist, an evolutionist, a feminist, pro-abortion and a socialist."

Atheist - obviously wrong due to the existence of Christian humanists

Evolutionist - in no way relates to the philosophy of the innate value of every human being

Feminist - only in terms of desiring equal worth of both men and women of society but anything outside that is not demanded by the philosophy

Abortion - again unrelated, goes against the philosophy if a fetus is considered human life

Socialist - again, unrelated, philosophy only demands an innate value for every individual not total equality

Additionally, they make the completely unwarranted jump to Keynesian economics.

I'm sorry, but this article is flawed in so many ways and as your claim that "a humanist is also a secularist and any "religious" views they hold will take a far back seat to both their humanism and secularism because their world view will always come first and self will always come first" is not inherent with the philosophy, I took issue with it.

Now, Julia may be an atheist, etc. but claiming that all humanists must be like that, or that all who hold her political/economic views hold a similar philosophy is a bad analogy akin to making a strawman argument.

If I don't have time to post again before tomorrow, I just wanted to wish you a merry Christmas Cobalt. Despite all of our differences, we are both Christian and I recognize your good intentions even though I disagree at the most basic levels. God bless!

[Cajunluvie]

I see-

So, it is literally impossible for Gillard to be an atheist humanist?

[ByFaithAlone]

I'm going to address the Obama section in a later post but since this was the main point of this thread I will address this first. The idea brought up by the article is the Gillard is a humanist. It goes on to argue that because she is a humanist she also supports a wide variety of other ideas which are generally connected to political liberalism such as Keynesian economics. This, in my opinion, is flawed logic especially considering Christians can be humanists as well. Calvin, Erasmus and Luther were all humanists as were many Reformation leaders. Sir Francis Bacon, a noted Christian scientist (Anglican) was also humanist. They go onto argue that humanism is a religion (incorrect... it is a philosophy) and that to be consistent she must be, "atheist, an evolutionist, a feminist, pro-abortion and a socialist."

Some obvious problems here. Calvin had people burned at the stake because they did not believe his theology. So he is obviously not the pinnacle of Christianity that some people make him out to be. Erasmus was Catholic which is 10% Christianity and 90% pagan junk mixed all together in a misguided amalgam of codified do's and don't that get you to heaven instead of Christ. Luther was a big-time anti-semite. These are not good examples. I sincerely doubt that any of them would consider themselves humanists. These are labels tacked onto them after the fact and arbitrarily.

Humanism is a religion just as atheism and evolution are religions.

I was not implying that these men were perfect Christians or the best example of Christian love. After all, none of us are. However, would you deny that they are Christian? I personally would not. Especially not Bacon, who devoted his time to develop the scientific method and explore the world God made.

Humanism is not a religion. By its very definition, it is a philosophy which believes in the innate value of human lives. Atheism just means the lack of belief in God. I guess you might view it as a religion but most people would disagree with you. It is a lack of belief. Evolution is a scientific theory, completely areligious (not related to religion).

Atheist - obviously wrong due to the existence of Christian humanists

Evolutionist - in no way relates to the philosophy of the innate value of every human being

Feminist - only in terms of desiring equal worth of both men and women of society but anything outside that is not demanded by the philosophy

Abortion - again unrelated, goes against the philosophy if a fetus is considered human life

Socialist - again, unrelated, philosophy only demands an innate value for every individual not total equality

Additionally, they make the completely unwarranted jump to Keynesian economics.

Once again, you avoid the obvious. Just because a person says they are Christian does not mean they are. The majority of people who claim to be both Christian and humanist could not give you an adequate and simple explanation of what being a Christian actually is. Good examples such as Jim Wallis could not give you accurate and simple salvational theology with both hands and a bucket. Neither could anyone within the Emergent Church movement, because the world-friendly world view over-rides everything else. Christianity and Humanism are incompatible.

Please explain how exactly this addressed my point that humanism and all of this other ideas are mutually exclusive?

I'm sorry, but this article is flawed in so many ways and as your claim that "a humanist is also a secularist and any "religious" views they hold will take a far back seat to both their humanism and secularism because their world view will always come first and self will always come first" is not inherent with the philosophy, I took issue with it.

That is only your opinion. What you state as fact is actually only personal opinion. Please illustrate for me, biblically where adopting positions forbidden and condemned by God, such as abortion, homosexuality or socialism is allowable, for anyone who claims to be a Christian. Show it to me scripturally. Not with personal opinions or people who are supposedly both Christian and Humanist. Not because you read it was possible in some class on philosophy or on some website.

You are creating a straw man to deal with my argument without actually dealing with my argument. My argument pertaining to this article is that humanism is a mutually exclusive philosophy from atheism, socialism or evolution. If this point holds true, the article's logic that humanism automatically causes belief in socialism, evolution and atheism is flawed. As I said before, Julia may be an atheist, etc. but claiming that all humanists must be like that, or that all who hold her political/economic views hold a similar philosophy is a bad analogy akin to making a strawman argument.

[ByFaithAlone]

I see-

So, it is literally impossible for Gillard to be an atheist humanist?

No, that is not what I said. Specifically I said the terms are not necessarily inclusive. As I said before, Julia may be an atheist, etc. but claiming that all humanists must be like that, or that all who hold her political/economic views hold a similar philosophy is a bad analogy akin to making a strawman argument.