Religious epithets like the “mad monk” and “captain Catholic” are routinely applied - usually as negatives - to Tony Abbott in coverage of the alternative Prime Minister. So we wanted to find out if they resonated with voters.

Tony Abbott as a trainee priest at St Patrick's seminary / File

A Punch poll of 100 voters across Sydney found that Labor and Green voters despise the way Abbott injects religion into his political campaign and policy. On the other hand, Liberal voters respect Abbott as a ‘conviction politician’ who is firm on his beliefs.

But critically for the electoral arithmetic the poll also found undecided voters don’t care about religion and politics. You can see some of the responses in the video below, but here’s what else we found.

As a reflection of what people know about Abbott’s religious beliefs, without prompting, the word ‘Catholic’ came up 38 times. People also frequently associated the words Christian, religious, family man and narrow-minded with the Opposition Leader.

The Punch survey found people’s views on Abbott’s religious beliefs were polarised. People either liked them, or hated them.

When you delve deeper about Tony Abbott and religion – many people quip the line that he is a “religious extremist”. Take for example Wanda from Potts Point, she labels him “a right wing, Opus Dei Catholic, in bed with George Pell – not literally though of course… (laughs)”.  Tony Abbott is not a member of Opus Dei.

A repeated complaint respondents raised was a belief about Abbott mixing religion and politics in a way Australians disapprove of. This was raised by Ariella, from Picton – who said, “Being overly religious in his campaign, makes me think he’s less likely to be on the ball with political issues.”

But both Wanda and Ariella are ardent Green supporters and would never vote Liberal anyway.

A total of 11 people out of 100 said Abbott’s views on other social issues such as gay marriage, climate change and inequality against women were a negative. With the exception of two, these were all committed Labor or Greens voters.

Those who supported Abbott’s views found he was strong in sticking to his beliefs. Ji, from North Rocks said he was “A devout Catholic who’d stand firm on issues against abortion, morality, gay marriages and euthanasia.”

Nigel, from Adelaide described Abbott as a “family person”, though his support for WorkChoices and contraception seemed to contradict his Catholic beliefs. Both would vote for Liberal in the next election.

Others who support Abbott were not concerned about his religious beliefs; rather other factors such as Stephen, from Leumeah who said, “Kevin Rudd wants to censor the internet, and Abbott doesn’t.” Or Steve, from Castle Hill, “I care about jobs, not religion”.

23 people surveyed did not feel they knew anything on Tony Abbott’s views on religion. Many were more concerned with other aspects such as the economy, as Bruce, from Yennora points out, “I don’t care about his views on religion. I care about the Financial Budget”. Others such as Thuy, from Canley Heights points out, “I couldn’t care less – I just vote what my family votes”.

This highlights not only Australian’s aversion to religion and politics but also the fact they care more about hip pocket issues rather than whether Abbott can say the ‘Hail Mary’ in Pig Latin.

One of the more interesting findings of The Punch survey was that Liberal voters were more keenly aware of Abbott’s biographical history. Details like the fact “he was once a seminarian” or “he thought about becoming a priest” were brought up continually by Liberal supporters.

But it is the undecided voters who are unaware of Tony Abbott – the man. Thus we have a plethora of biographical TV profile both positive – i.e. 60 minutes and well not so positive i.e. Four Corners.

As Australia heads towards a Federal Election it is these narratives and his response to “real issues” like maternity leave that will define Tony Abbott in the minds of swinging voters.

That said, there will always be voters who simply don’t care which party governs Australia. William from Chipping Norton sums up this attitude, “I don’t ‘vote’. I write nasty limericks on the ballot paper…”

The Punch survey was conducted across Sydney during the week of the 1-5 March. Summarised it found the following:

  • 62% of voters said that Tony Abbott’s religious views had no impact on how they would vote at the 2010 Federal election. With respondents typically indicating that their voter preference was more often influenced by party loyalty or other issues such as economic factors.
  • 24% said Mr Abbott religious and social views may some impact but would not be a deciding factor.
  • Only 6 people said Mr Abbott’s religious views would be the deciding factor in the election. Of those only 2 of these people classed themselves as undecided voters.

This left 8% of respondents unsure of what impact religion would have. All of these respondents said they knew little about Mr Abbott’s religious views.

The Punch conducted the poll across Sydney approaching voters in safe Labor and Liberal suburbs: Cabramatta, Liverpool, Fairfield, Sydney CBD, Castle Hill and Baulkham Hills. It also polled in more marginal suburbs such North Ryde (Macquarie University) and Parramatta.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

333 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acker says:

      06:05am | 18/03/10

      Look very hard at who Tony Abbott’s personality, style and religous persuasion resembles in Australian Politics and you will see Paul Keating’s finger prints all over him. Look at Kevin Rudd’s and you will probably see Billy McMahon’s.

    • Frankie V. says:

      07:05am | 18/03/10

      Keating was a pretend Catholic, like Rudd is a pretend Anglican.  Keating sent his kids to Anglican school and worshiped the dark lord Baal.

    • acker says:

      07:50am | 18/03/10

      Kevin renounced his Catholicism to marry Therese. Showing about as much loyalty as Anthony Albanese to his former colleague and leader Mark Latham, who he now trash talks frequently, if Kev gets his dream job at the UN I suppose Australia might cop a spray.

    • Politically incorrect Formersnag says:

      08:03am | 18/03/10

      True acker, but what about B A Santamaria & the DLP? i here they are making a comeback or resurrection?

      Get all “Polly” staff, stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

      BTW, did you see my answer to your comment on the senate article yesterday?

    • Peter says:

      12:08pm | 18/03/10

      Abbott is the most extreme religious fundamentalist politician in recent Australian history.When he was health Minister he tried to impose his extreme Catholic religious beliefs to stop women having access to the most modern abortion drugs.Australians do not want a religious fanatic running the country.

    • Andrew says:

      12:31pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, he championed a conscience vote in parliament against easy abortion. I don’t think abortion should be easy, but hey I may be in the minority. If what you have written is your only evidence of religious “extremism” you are on very shaky ground.

      Your argument is not only flawed it is silly. Real religious extremism can be found all over the world but to lump Abbott in that basket is, well, just plain dumb. It is grasping and shows a genuine fear of the chances TA now has of getting rid of the shamelessly hopeless, promise everything do nothing Rudd Labor quasi-government.

    • Pete says:

      01:39pm | 18/03/10

      Say what you like about Tony Abbott but it is Kevin Rudd who every weekend holds press conferences outside church- who is using the religion card more?

      Rudd or the Labour party can not criticise Abbott at all…

    • Peter says:

      03:52pm | 18/03/10

      Andrew ,some people may not see Abbott as a religious fundamentalist as i am sure some may not see the Pope as an ex Hitler youth.The facts are that Abbott has extreme Catholic belefs that he has let effect his political judgements.Australian voters do not want religious fundamentalist politiicians who let their personal religious belefs dominate their political decisions.Abbott should have stayed in the trainee priesthood.

    • Andrew says:

      06:58pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, you must be a politician. I love it when people say “The Australian people want/don’t want”. You must really have your finger on the pulse. It must be so good to know what everyone wants.

    • Bennymac says:

      07:42pm | 18/03/10

      @peter, I am a atheist, and i feel very uneasy about the idea of drive through abortions. The ending of a life vs a womans freedom to choose is a very serious topic to debate. Pro choice supporters such as yourself constantly draging the old religious fundamentalist line out, only serves to muddy that debate. In my opinion you would have a much better chance of getting RU486 more widely available through inteligent debate. Tony Abbot has never claimed to not support RU486 for religious reasons. Is he not allowed a opinion as a father of two daughters and a human being?

    • Voxpop says:

      03:44pm | 20/03/10

      Abbott abused his position of power as minister for health by misrepresenting advice from the TGA (that is he lied) so that he could force a ban on RU486.  The Govt copped so much flak over this that Howard had to step in to allow a conscience vote on the matter which ended with overwhelming support to allow RU486 in. (95 vs 50)

      Those of you going on ad nauseum about Rudd being a churchie have no basis to believe that Rudd would allow his personal beliefs to cloud his judgement (in fact he takes a step back and clearly knows such a stance would not benefit the majority) whereas Abbott has form.  In the conscience vote Rudd voted for allowing RU486 along with such ALP figures as Julie Bishop, Peter Costello, Joe Hockey, Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull and many others who will have more than this to disagree with Abbott on (climate change and maternity leave for example).

      This isn’t about debating for or against abortion we already know the overwhelming majority support pro-choice just as we know the majority of the population don’t want religion promoted over secularism.  Only 20% of the population identify as religious with only 8% going to church regularly.  RU486 is the safest method for women needing abortion and I was disgusted with Abbotts manipulation and overall nasty, outdated and ultra conservative views on womens health. 

      That wasn’t the only way he let his religious belief override his duty in his job - he made it mandatory for women to go through religious organisations for councelling (as well as giving them massive funding-where others received none) so that no matter how desperate a woman was she would get no referral or advice on how to seek an abortion but instead be manipulated while vulnerable.

      Tony Abbott as PM is a dangerous prospect indeed.

      The RU486 conscience vote stats -
      http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=138

    • Sherlock says:

      06:38am | 18/03/10

      From these results it appears that committed Laborites are simply looking for any excuse to disparage Abbott.

      It only shows their hypocrisy once more as the don’t seem to mind the PM giving interviews outside churches every Sunday morning. Even when it’s the ALP spin department briefing journos on what church we will be attending each Sunday so they can get out their and show the electorate what a pious man Kevin Rudd is.

      Of course you don’t see the right whining that Kevin Rudd is a churchie. Apart from the fact that the PM already supplies us with enough material, the right, like most intelligent Australians, realise that a man is entitled to his faith.

      I’m not religious myself but I can think of far worse traits to have in our PM than catholicism. Our parliamentary system is robust enough to keep any extreme religious views in check

    • Seano says:

      07:33am | 18/03/10

      Fairly typical of you Sherlock, to dismiss genuine concerns about Abbott’s more extreme religious views as merely “disparaging” “laborites” having a go at “churchies”.

    • Macca says:

      08:30am | 18/03/10

      @Seano, and what Extreme views would these be?

    • Sherlock says:

      09:16am | 18/03/10

      Don’t worry Macca this is a typical cryptic reply from Seano. When he reads something he interprets it completely differently to the rest of the world so his replies seldom make sense.

      This latest missive is no different. As you can see he makes no reference to my point which was the different way the left treats the respective leaders as to their faith.

      I usually just have a chuckle at his replies then simply forget them and move onto something more relevant.

    • Jane says:

      10:21am | 18/03/10

      Spot on Sherlock…it’s pathetic they can only use the ‘religo’ angle whilst conveniently ignoring ( or blindly oblivious to)  Herr Rudd’s exploitation of his very own ‘religo’ angle when it suits him.

      I find it strange that ‘christianity’, the basis of our very own culture, is being used as somehow derogatory. I guess it’s in the same vein that Abbott’s ‘budgie smugglers’, the uniform of lifesavers of which he is one, is being also used that way too. It’s insulting really…to all others within the parameter. The notion of being selective in insult for political pointscore is pretty pathetic… and weak.

      Too funny really….but encouraging because it means they ARE really rattled and desperate…..and don’t have a lot to criticise. smile

    • Peter says:

      10:40am | 18/03/10

      Jane, I respect your right to believe in whatever you like. But if you want to see who’s been derogatory to whom, perhaps you should read the posts by Dawkings fans on a forum a couple of days ago. These people expect everyone to believe that we were fish, they teach it in science classes as fact even though there in no evidence of that whatsoever. I think aethists should so some respect also… As religious people should show them respect as well..

    • Chris L says:

      11:30am | 18/03/10

      Oddly enough the only two examples of people saying they wouldn’t vote for Tony due to his perceived religious extremism were Greens supporters. The article also said 62% don’t care about his religion. Sherlock, you are as one-eyed as the Laborites you so detest. I myself am planning to give the LDP a try next election as I’ve come to detest bother of the major parties.

    • Hunter says:

      12:18pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, are you talking about the same death dealing respect that religious people have showed to atheists for the last 1500 years?

      If people are not showing you over sensitive religious types the respect you think you deserve, it might well be an understandable reaction to the persecution that christians have shown , and continue to show to those who don’t share their beliefs 100%.

      You only have to look at the schisms within christianity to see the divisiveness of religion in general.

    • Peter says:

      12:42pm | 18/03/10

      People have been perfect Hunter, its wrong just to blame religion. Living in a free society, i would fight for you right to not believe in god, we should all fight for those freedoms, and what happend 1500 years ago was probably sad. But I would expect you also to defend my right not to believe that I was once a fish…

    • Hunter says:

      01:26pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, not just 1500 years ago, but FOR 1500 years, consistently.

      The religious elite have had it their way for far to long, and their grip on power is slipping. This is the real issue that faces religion.

      Your claim that atheists demand you believe you came from a “fish” is just as disrespectful and disingenuous of atheists views.

      No atheists demands that you “believe that I was once a fish”, and no atheist would start a holly war if you chose not to believe, or torture you or burn you at the stake or even deny you your civil rights or the right to marry whom so ever you please.

      Atheists do not want to control your life or thoughts, just to open your mind to other possibilities, and above all, to think for yourself, and not according to what some vengeful fascist deity might want you to believe, according to his self appointed emissaries on earth.

    • Tom says:

      01:48pm | 18/03/10

      “death dealing”, Hunter? Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were all atheists and all socialists. They killed a lot more than any religious group. I would prefer to take my my chances in a Christian country and so do millions of refugees.

    • Peter says:

      01:48pm | 18/03/10

      Hunter, i don’t think this vengeful deity you refer to has done anything to anyone and to suggest aethiest are above war and would never go to war with anybody is a bit of a stretch. Wars are fought over resources, and i suppose its more palatable for a leader to say were doing this in the name of God as opposed to “lets go steal their food”.. Maybe that is why religion is used.. I’ll make a deal with you.. I’ll open my mind, if you open yours? And if some religous nut came along and insisted you believe in his God, I will fight with you. Aethiests are Australian citizens as well, so i hope we all fight for eachothers freedoms..

    • Ally says:

      01:56pm | 18/03/10

      Well said Hunter… I couldn’t agree more smile

    • Peter says:

      02:33pm | 18/03/10

      @ Tom. Men of all political persuations and religous beliefs have been guilty of such things. I know Fox News likes to scare the bejeezus out of Americans because universal healthcare will lead to some socialist nut taking over the country and killing them all, but lets be fair…

    • Seano says:

      07:37pm | 18/03/10

      Fairly typical of Sherlock to pretend you have no point rather than address the issue. I would have thought you’d have grown out of that old game by now Sherls.

      The point remains (drawing the picture) that the concerns about Abbott, his religious views and a return to the divisiveness of the Howard era are not just the preserve or “Laborites”.
       
      I’m surprised you didn’t just trot out and update the “Howard Hate” line in your transparent little rant.

    • David says:

      09:21pm | 18/03/10

      The Intelligent right ! Seriously do you actually believe that ? come on I am not a lefty but the right wing are the last bunch of people I would ever credit with being on the north side of intelligent.

      Maybe aggressive, narrow minded and belligerent with a knack for simplifying nearly anything of complexity down a single point of self interest or if that fails attacking anything for the good of all with uneducated fear based rantings!

      The rights track record to date surely can not be ignored (example: FOX news in the US is totally right wing and a news show tailored for the dumbest of all people).

      Besides that anyone who still believes in a deity, who judges you and requires your worship shouldn’t really be in a position of power.

    • Peter says:

      01:44pm | 19/03/10

      No one should ask you to do anything David. You can believe God or not believe him. But don’t believe LIES that we were fish. Even aethist scientist question this. Should our children be told they were fish when there is ZERO evidence to back it up??

    • Dean says:

      02:48pm | 19/03/10

      Peter I think you should check your facts. The idea that we came from fish is a THEORY. No one is telling the kids ‘this is the truth and you must believe it. There are many theories of evolution & Darwinian evolution is obviously the most accepted form. But naturally there are many holes in it, just like religion which has many more holes in it. Weird how there’s so many religions but they all proclaim to be the ‘right’ one.
      Religion is also taught in many schools and you can choose to send your kids there if you so wish. But I think we can safely say the world is not 6000 years old and there’s a lot more to it then this idea of creationism.

      But it does become a problem when a person in power makes decisions based on their beliefs rather than simple liberties, such as homosexual relationships, which I personally can’t understand why it’s such an issue. 

      It’s these things that create such divisveness in society and unfortunately, religion, with it’s ancient traditions and it’s inflexibility is often a major cause of this.

    • Peter says:

      03:11pm | 19/03/10

      Fair enough Dean, religion has created divisions, i accept that 100%. But this is where the LIE that is evolution is going, they ARE telling us we were fish, you can listen to it here in our science rooms, and they say when you finished listening to the facts about us being fish, you can go off to your fanciful religous classes where they teach you fairytales. That is what is happening. If they teach lies in science rooms, why not teach creation, they are both fairytales afterall?? I don’t care if you homosexual, heterosexual, or any other sexual you can think of. If some religious nut came to our country and tried to force you to believe in his God, i will fight for your right not to believe it. I think we should all be fighting for each other so we can believe whatever we like…

    • Phil says:

      11:01am | 20/03/10

      Peter, what evolutionists are saying is we have a common ancestor that originally came from the ocean. Do not try and dumb it down by saying we once were fish. As for saying there is no evidence for this, that just sounds like total ignorance and narrow mindedness on your behalf. There is a plethora of evidence in any museum you care to stick your head into.
      Dean- Macquarie Dictionary- THEORY 1-. a coherent group of propositions used to explain something.

    • Seano says:

      07:39am | 18/03/10

      You’re right with Abbott people either love him or hate him.

      Fortunately for the future of this country Abbott is not that smart. A classic example of this was his Parental Leave policy. Policy on the run without consultation with his shadow cabinent, proposing a tax for social welfare on big business has “non-core” promise all over it.

      And all in the name of wooing voters he’s already alienated. Abbott will continue to shoot himself in the foot.

    • Phil says:

      08:12am | 18/03/10

      Seano

      The main difference with Abbott and Rudd is that if Abbott makes a mistake say with Parental Leave Scheme, he will admit it down the track and make a change.

      Rudd will not and will spin and manipulate to get his own agenda through.

      Notice how ETS has gone to ground lately. Was it not the greatest moral challange in our time not long ago?

      Whilst Abbott may make the odd gaff, Rudd has given plenty of ammunition to the opposition to hound him and make him out to be the milky bar kid come election time.

      After the farce that was the Insulation fiasco, we now have school buildings being built at many times the amount required by normal tradesmen. This will bite and show that this was really a way to pay back the unions for getting them into power.

      Then just watch as Julia sharpens her knives. You watch my words, if the polls continue to go lower to where the libs could (according to results) win the election based on say 51% combines vote the ALP machine will kick in. They have no loyalty.

      As for Abbotts views on religion, I am more than happy to have a Real Christian at the helm of Australia, which is a far cry from the one that currently is in the lodge.

      Not sure if I heard right, but is Kevin Rudd a Freemason?

    • Macca says:

      08:39am | 18/03/10

      “You’re right with Abbott people either love him or hate him”

      @Seano, fairly certain that was the opinion everyone had with John Howard too. In fact, I reckon you could say the same about Keating and Hawke too while we’re at it.

      Being divisive is actually a highly ideal characteristic in potential PMs because it allows voters to make a conscious decision. Rudd does not do this and he’ll end up on the backbench or out of parliment all together before 2015 when Gillard takes over, or more unlikely, Abbott does win the election.

      Also, Your comments are so biased to the left that I have stopped taking anything you say seriously. Like Piers Akerman, if you lose your balance no-one pays attention anymore. Even Alan Jones, Sydney’s Liberal empathiser, gives Labor Politicians a pat on the back every now and then

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:55pm | 18/03/10

      TA’s Parental Leave policy was documented in his book which was released about 2 years ago. Not sure you can call it “policy on the run”.  Sure he didn’t consult, but he admitted it and apologised.  TA ain’t Robinson Crusoe particularly when compared to the sitting PM, somehow I think the PM’s “not consulted” list is very long and distinguished. Future KR exposés should make for interesting reading….

    • Greg says:

      05:34pm | 18/03/10

      @Seano,

      Gee mate, you reckon Tony Abbott isn’t smart. He was a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford. What university did you attend which qualifies you to be able to make judgements on Abbott’s intelligence. Harvard maybe?

      By the way Rudd is the master of policy on the run. Just have a look at his health “reform” rolled out in the middle of the insulation debacle.

    • Seano says:

      07:26pm | 18/03/10

      @Greg, don’t believe I questioned TA academic credentials. I questioned his tactic of alienating voters and then trying to woo them back. A dumb tactic for a so well educated and experienced pollie. A little comprehension goes a long way. PS. How are my academic creditable relevant? Oh they’re not.

      @Carl: Perhaps we should call it policy aimed at pulling his arse out of the fire? Apologises aside it’s a fairly major policy to not check with his cabinet, isn’t this the sort of behaviour that saw them sack Turnbull?

      @Macca: Not every issue is black or white. There are few pollies as polarising as Abbott. I thought Turnbull was ok; he just stuffed too many times. As for my comments being bias to the left, so? I’m just a bloke on a blog with an opinion. I doubt you’re concerned a jot by the number of biased to the right responses I’ve received. Unlike Jones et al I don’t maintain pretence of being unbiased. Personally I consider myself slightly left economically and far left socially (believe it or not I couldn’t give a toss). But like I said, I’m a bloke on a blog with an opinion, if you don’t agree then either challenge my opinions or don’t read them but don’t whinge about me having them. PS. If you actually knew anything about me you know I’ve been widely critical of the NSW Labor since the Iemma govt and am quite looking forward to those incompetents being voted out (tempered somewhat by concerns about the incompetents we voting in). I’ve also been highly critical of the Rudd government on a number of issues particularly the NBN (Conroy must be sacked) and the way the stimulus was spent.

      @Phil: I’m not interested in your right wing diatribe.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:23pm | 18/03/10

      Let’s not talk about the Nuclear storage facility these guys will be overseeing… god helps us if it turns out to be another insulation fiasco. We will all be dead, maybe that’s KR plan!!!

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:47pm | 19/03/10

      Phil how long down the track do we have to wait? I’m still waiting for my apology on the “Rock solid , iron clad guarantee” on the medicare safety net.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:48pm | 19/03/10

      Phil how long down the track do we have to wait? I’m still waiting for my apology on the “Rock solid , iron clad guarantee” on the medicare safety net.

    • bec says:

      07:53am | 18/03/10

      Nothing makes my heart sink quite so much as “I vote this way because my parents do”, regardless of political affiliation or standpoint. Way to go with the independent thinking, tiger.

    • acker says:

      09:28am | 18/03/10

      @Phil ...I think Rudd’s daughter is married

    • Mr Pastry says:

      10:15am | 18/03/10

      Bec - yes it is something that causes me to shake my head, you wonder if they are a separate species.  Politicians are fully aware of this behaviour and hence safe seats for mates and all the corruption that brings. It is also sad that it means there will never be any new parties with new ideas that could gain government.  We are doomed to be ruled by university debating societies and their mates.

    • Peter says:

      10:47am | 18/03/10

      Agree guys. Let’s all vote independant for some real change. No more elections about buying votes. Things have to change..

    • Macon Paine says:

      12:04pm | 18/03/10

      @ bec
      Agreed it is terrible for democracy when this happens, infact it kind of defeats the purpose. A lot of people who vote like this are probably not interested in voting anyway and only do it because they dont want to be fined. We really need to look at abolishing compulsary voting in Australia but in the mean time as Peter said we can always vote independant or LDP.

    • Bruce says:

      03:22pm | 18/03/10

      Agree Bec. Nothing more sickening to hear “I voted the same way mummy and daddy” Oh, god ! Hopefully, I have reasonably succeeded with my children, I challenge them not to think politically like me. I would rather them have their own belief values and stand by them. One of my daughters thinks very different to me, and I am very proud of her. The other thinks all politicians are wankers. I could not think of anything more “jelly legged” than for my children to suck up to me by accepting my view of politics.

    • Jamers Hunter says:

      08:11am | 18/03/10

      His views on women would be enough to stop me voting for him and I’m a man. nuf said?

    • acker says:

      08:18am | 18/03/10

      @Jamers Hunter ..show me an incident where Tony Abbott was as rude to a woman as Kevin Rudd was to NSW Premier Kristina Kenneally on TV last week….get real !

    • Phil says:

      09:20am | 18/03/10

      James

      Did not Kevin Rudd as mentioned above snob off and was rude to Kenneally.

      What about the RAAF flight attendant.

      And the real Kev, easily led after a night on the turps, went in and purved on women young enough to be his daughters in Scores NY.

      But hey as Abbott has views on women which most fathers would show to their daughters, he is the big bad wolf. Come on.

      Rudd would not tell his daughter to go out and become the town bike. I bet Therese sat her down went over the birds and the bees and offered some good advice which most parents do.

      For abortions, I dont agree with them in the main, but they should be safely available to women in need, but a limit must be put on tax payer funded ones, and they should also be a rarety. The statistics should remove what they medically term missed abortions (read miscarriages) but that does not suit the polititions who use stats.

    • Steve says:

      10:16am | 18/03/10

      @acker and Phil you are both correct perfect gentleman so long as he is not late for a meeting. lol

    • Jane says:

      10:36am | 18/03/10

      What views on women?
      He hopes his DAUGHTERS remain virgins till marriage when asked about them….something, and an ideal that most fathers would want. His views on abortion?...you’d better not vote for any other Labor Catholic either then..

      Better be careful..Rudd was a Catholic and still values the religion highly apparantly   ( even though he’s now an Anglican - which is on a par anyway)..taking communion and an interest in McKillop’s sainthood.  It’s was either deep attachment to Catholicism still…or cynical, manipulative deceit for political expedience. Which is worse do you think?

      is your beef with Catholics…or just a lame, ignorant excuse for Abbott bashing?....because it’s a common ‘anti-Abbott’ catchcry you’ve lazily latched onto?

      Not ‘nuf said’ at all because that’s just a pathetic, ignorant cop out from you.

      Get a grip. THIS woman (me) has no problem with him or his personal ‘views’ ...so maybe your all encompassing ‘end of discussion’ attitude isn’t an ‘ended’ definitive at all..

    • Macon Paine says:

      12:26pm | 18/03/10

      @ Acker
      C’mon Acker be honest, the puppet premier Kristina Keneally deserves nothing but contempt from the PM and the voters.
      I was impressed by Rudd’s cold shoulder antics, he knows what a disgracefull government she is parading over and I think he is legitimately concerned their staggering buffoonery could bring him unstuck in NSW. The best thing for Rudd when it comes to NSW Labor is to put as much distance between them and himself as possible.
      Like he did when he met Nathan “rocketman” Rees.
      @ James Hunter
      What exactly are Abbotts views on women that you find so repugnant?

    • Peter says:

      12:46pm | 18/03/10

      Fair enough Jamers, but ive never heard Tony Abbott say anything about doing harm to women. I heard him say housewife once, so lets crucify him and give $3billion to rich feminists to make up for it. Maybe you should read the next blog on this site, about how water is a feminist issue and with it or sanitation, your gonna start beating up on you wife.. You should read it and tell me who is extreme?

    • The Shoe says:

      08:13am | 18/03/10

      Being believer of the Catholic faith and Christ’s teaching, I find that it must be hard to be a Catholic and a ruthless politician. This is probably Abbott’s (and any catholic person’s) political weakness, I fail to see how he can be a caring catholic man and yet seriously condemn and and scorn those who oppose him in a parliament - more so when he is the opposition figurehead and has to lead the pressure. Most bemusing.

    • acker says:

      08:54am | 18/03/10

      @The Shoe ....obviously the name John F Kennedy flew straight over your head before you let fly with the following dribble….“I find that it must be hard to be a Catholic and a ruthless politician. This is probably Abbott’s (and any catholic person’s) political weakness”

    • Sam Chowder says:

      08:59am | 18/03/10

      “Being believer of the Catholic faith and Christ’s teaching, I find that it must be hard to be a Catholic and a ruthless politician.”
      I used to live on planet earth and most have woken up on some other world where catholics are nice - can someone fill me in….

    • Politically incorrect Formersnag says:

      09:34am | 18/03/10

      The Shoe @ 8:13am, another one who also, apparently has not heard of the DLP, Democratic Labour Party or B A Santamaria?

    • The Shoe says:

      09:49am | 18/03/10

      Yes, you are likely right, Acker. I did forget JFK and probably a host of others - being holy inside church and rogues when they alight. Perhaps the ideal bench, politically-wise, is a row of Bob Hawkes.

    • acker says:

      11:14am | 18/03/10

      @The Shoe ...Hawkey is compromised, prior to saying he’s an athiest, his dad was an Anglican Preist and he met Hazel at a youth christian fellowship group and NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has a Masters in Religous Studies and is also Catholic and Labor smile

    • WayneT says:

      08:15pm | 18/03/10

      No matter what Abbott’s beliefs he alone cannot impose them on the Australian people without a majority of the Senate passing any Legislation or laws.  Why are we so hung up with a politician with morals anyway?  I dare say there are a few of us that could do with an improved moral compass.

    • chris says:

      12:58am | 19/03/10

      “Being a believer of the Catholic faith and Christ’s teaching”

      Sorry? I’ll have to really think about that! Isn’t that almost the ultimate
      oxymoron. Can you actually do both?

    • steve says:

      08:16am | 18/03/10

      The only people trying to make an issue of religion is the labour party and some elements of the Meejaa
      KRudd gives door stops at the gates of his church
      The meejaa prattle on about the mad monk
      Abbot was once in a seminary
      He is Catholic he must mad
      Strange that we have hardly heard anything about the Catholics in the Labour party?
      Are they about to be deregistered? They will no doubt loose their preselection for the next election.
      Hypocricy

    • MK says:

      09:56am | 18/03/10

      Abbott’s religion is an issue (as opposed to Rudd’s) because he has constantly shown that he is unable to keep it separate from his job. Separation of Church and State is very important considering the majority of the population does not even believe in the same things he does.

    • Macca says:

      10:23am | 18/03/10

      @MK, new members of parliament swear an oath on the Bible….

    • Macca says:

      10:20am | 18/03/10

      @MK, when has this happened?

      The only policy I can ever think of was RU-486, which the Howard Government left to a conscious vote.

      Happy to hear any evidence where Abbott’s religious views have actually contributed to his policy positions, but at the moment I think you are just spurting Labor lies

    • JR says:

      10:27am | 18/03/10

      MK
      You don’t believe Rudds stance on Gay Marriage is due to his religion?

    • iansand says:

      08:13am | 18/03/10

      At least his religion is out there, so, if it matters to you, you can factor that into the decision of whether to vote for him.  It is a lot better than the smarmy machine men and women who adjust what passes for their personalities to what they think is acceptable to the electorate.

    • Phil says:

      09:35am | 18/03/10

      iansand, as someone who usually punches left, it is a welcome sight to see you at least play the issue not the man or party.

      Well done.

      I agree, for some it will turn them off Abbott, but these same ones may vote for Rudd, who it at least appears uses Church door stop interviews far more than Abbott.

    • iansand says:

      10:23am | 18/03/10

      I don’t “punch for the left”.  I “punch” for honesty and openness in government. I “punch” for rationality.  I “punch” against ignorant scare campaigns.  Unfortunately the last often pits me against the Coalition who have refined the scare campaign to an art form.

    • Cly says:

      08:27am | 18/03/10

      I feel extremely uncomfortable that people holding such positions of power have beliefs in supernatural deities. Their sanity should be called into question.

    • shabangabang says:

      08:37am | 18/03/10

      Seconded. When they start putting personal beliefs ahead of public needs, we are all screwed.

    • steve says:

      08:35am | 18/03/10

      you would include Kevin 747 in that definition?

    • George says:

      09:23am | 18/03/10

      @steve - Spot on! Spot on!  KRudd never gets put on the spot light by the media about his religious beliefs even when he asked to be ‘door stopped ’ coming out of his church.  I bet you had Tony Abbott preferred to have been ‘door stopped’ at church Kingdom KRudd and the Tony Abbott haters will seize and squeeze that and for all its worth.

    • Peter says:

      10:10am | 18/03/10

      I don’t have supernatural believes… I recall in a past life, i was in a cesspool of amino acids and god knows what else. Not content just being an acid, i thought i would turn my attention into becoming a microbe. After a few million years of contemplation, i thought I could do better than this and evolved into some sort of fish and went to live in the ocean. Obviously being the smart arse human beings that we are, the dolphins just had enough of us and banished us from the sea. One problem though, I needed a genetic mutation to take place and grow some legs, because if I stuck around for to long, those darn dolphins might get angry. Not believing that a genetic mutation is a good thing, i called my friend Dr Frankenstein and he sowed them on for me, and there I was crawling from the sea, after my friends banished me. Now, its too far back to remember what I was back then, but I think Dr Frankenstein turned me into a lizard. Somehow through another genetic mutation (because we all know how good it is to be genetically mutated), i grew a tail and i became a monkey and started climbing trees. Obviously being the humans that we are, we managed to piss off the gorillas and they didn’t want anything to do with us anymore. I thought here we go, i think we need another genetic mutation so we could live on the ground and become cave men, low and behold there I was another victim of genetic mutation, but my mutations so far have been really good that i have been evolving into something better all the time. Anyway as time went on, i live as a human being, typing this rubbish on to a blog site, in the hope that someone might banish me so I can have another positive mutation and morph into the X-men.. This whole thing about creation and a higher being, that’s just nuts. We were all fish.

    • Chris L says:

      11:46am | 18/03/10

      Funny how religious people complain about being ridiculed, then proceed to ridicule evolution. BTW Peter evolution is the only current theory that fits all the evidence. Much of this evidence has been uncovered since the theory was formed and yet continues to support rather than contradict the idea. Your idea, on the other hand, of the universe being created by a magical being has no evidence whatsoever, nor does it go anywhere towards explaining how it was done or where this invisible friend came from. (Yes I know that last sentence counts as ridicule. An eye for an eye and all that.)

    • Andrew says:

      12:03pm | 18/03/10

      Chris L,

      What worries me about both sides in religious vs science debates is that they seem so eager to convert the other to their way of thinking.

      Why do you care so much? If you think religious people who believe an “invisible friend” made the planet and it’s less than 10,000 years old, are idiots then why do you bother arguing with them?

      You may believe religion to be a man made tool to control how people basis. But so what. What gives you the right to ridicule people or to question their faith.

      I am not a religious person, I do not believe that texts written by men reveal a higher truth. But I am certain of one thing, science is not a god either.

      To quote the bard: “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio”.

    • Peter says:

      12:00pm | 18/03/10

      Chris L, i respect your right to riducule my beliefs after ive just done that to yours. What you are reading is an extention of a debate I was having with aethiests on another forum with this news site where they were just down right disrespectful to others on that site by calling them stupid.  I can easily tell you this fanciful tale that about 4 billion years ago (20 years ago scientist were telling us it was 2 billion years ago, so the universe has aged 2 billion years in a pretty short time), the universe was the size of a tennis ball. Now I know it’s pretty fanciful to suggest that the earth could be compacted down to the size of a tennis ball, but add in the sun, mercury, venus, mars, saturn, uranus, neptune, pluto, another 400 billion solar systems (hold on, i have left our galaxy yet), and 400 billion galaxies, and its pretty easy to accept that it was once the size of a tennis. It’s been penciled on someone’s blackboard, so it must be true.. Aethists want science classes just to teach facts, but are we not, with our very limited understanding of the universe and the creation of life itself, are we not teaching a different religion to our kids?

    • Patrick says:

      01:03pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, for one, it’s 13.7 billion years that we KNOW of for a fact, because that is the extent of the cosmological horizon, that is, stars and other objects which have had an effect on us by the light emanated from them reaching earth.

      And science is not teaching a different religion, it is teaching cold, hard fact, based on hundreds of years of evidence. Science does not rely on a book that is thousands of years old, written by people, it relies on mathematics for the most part. Every single thing that has been proven has a mathematical equation to PROVE it, whereas your religion is circular, that is, it always comes back to God, not proof.

    • Chris L says:

      01:03pm | 18/03/10

      Granted, Peter, our scientific knowledge of existence is miniscule. This is why true science remains humble and does not upgrade an idea from theory to law until it is irrefutably proven (which is not a regular event). I will admit that my mind boggles with the idea of infinate space and the thought of our universe starting as a compact mass, but thus far observation and mathematics bears these ideas out.

      Andrew, I don’t care about converting people to athiesm, but I do want to be free from religion myself. Laws regarding abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, euthenasia, prostitution and pornography are religiously driven. While not all of these affect me I see them as errosions of freedom that continue to pile up. Many of our current notions of morality make no sense except for being decreed indecent by the church. I have yet to hear anyone give me an effective reason why any of the above examples are immoral without referring to god or by lying (for example saying prostitution wrecks marriages when obviously two people who love and respect each other will not stray). I might accept the argument against abortion when it is simply for lifestyle choice when adoption would be a reasonable alternative, but I would never want to deny it to rape victims or when the child will have debilitating deformities.

    • Peter says:

      01:22pm | 18/03/10

      Patrick, like you said the cosmological horizon, they have no idea. They don’t even know what shape the universe is, and they are insisting they know how old it is. They don’t. It will be a different figure next week. Im just waiting the next great archaeological find, which will be a 3cm piece of bone, which science will tell him, is 100 million years old, evidence he once stood on his feet and had a wife and children, liked his veggies only 3 times a week, but was predominately a meat eater. There is not a shred of evidence that one thing evolved into something else. It will be like scientist in 10,000 years looking at a skeleton of a Human and a Human Gorillas and deciding what evolved into what. There is no evidence that anything ever evolved into anything, and if you think a series of genetic mutations is the reason why we are what we are, then you are telling me genetic mutations are a good thing and jeez, i hope when i have my next child he is genetically mutated, because he will be the answer to life itself…

    • Chris L says:

      03:39pm | 18/03/10

      So the incredible numbers of fosils showing transitional forms, the multitude of carbon dating methods and the rigorous demands of the scientific method don’t count. A two thousand year old book written in the days when the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe and disease was caused by demons is the real answer.
      BTW before Jesus there was the immaculate conception of Horus, and there was Vishna who was nailed to a tree, stabbed with a spear then resurrected three days later (and had twelve deciples). Most legends from Judeo/Christianity can be traced back to earlier polytheistic legends.

    • Peter says:

      03:54pm | 18/03/10

      Chris L, i quoted no religious text, other than tell you I believe in God. I am making myself the smallest target possible, just like Dawkins, so I can come across really smart and condencending, because I will leave not avenue for people to attack me. I am playing his games. I know some people think he is an intellectual giant, but his is just a little little target, hiding behind today’s percieved truths. I would not listen to that man. If you want to know if God exists or not, listen to no one, and make up your own mind…

    • Peter says:

      04:08pm | 18/03/10

      Ps… @ Chris L.  The fossil record just shows different bones, no evidence one evolved in the other. If today’s fish were all fossils and we went in with the view that we believe in evolution (like today’s scientists), then yes you can look at one and say that resembles the other. No evidence morphing going on though..

    • the apologist says:

      04:35pm | 18/03/10

      perhaps we are an insane race then - given that such a vast number of us are consistently ‘searching for god’

    • Jeff says:

      06:06pm | 18/03/10

      I feel very comfortable that K Rudd and T Abbott base their values on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness and self control. Not perfectly, but a great place to start.

    • antman says:

      06:45pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, you present a dumbed-down version of evolution in order to ridicule it. All you do is show that you do not understand the theory at all. For example, mutations may result in a characteristic which endows an advantage, just as they may result in a disadvantage (typically, we are more familiar with these) - obviously, the disadvantaged have less likelihood of reproducing and the mutation disappears from the gene pool, until it happens again, while the advantageous mutation has a better chance of being passed on and becoming widespread. Single mutations of the advantageous type rarely result in anything dramatic, such as flippers changing to legs and feet. Evolution is a process of small, often imperceptible changes over very significant periods of time, not a series of enormous one-off changes.

      If you are going to so conclusively dismiss a theory supported by most of the world’s scientists, at least make sure you understand it first.

      I’ll be a lot more tolerant of organised religions (and religion in general) when scientists are extended tax exempt status. Otherwise, there is absolutely no justification for the invisible friend believers to be afforded the privilege.

    • antman says:

      06:51pm | 18/03/10

      Also, Peter, if you insist on repeating your unsubstantiated assertion that evolution has never been observed, take a look here for starters:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

      In Particular:

      ““Evolution has never been observed.”

      Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

      The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, “Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory.” Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

      Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

      What hasn’t been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.”

      Just because YOU are incapable of imagining or understanding a particular phenomenon, such as hyper-dense matter, the constant conversion between matter and energy, and the big bang, doesn’t mean it can’t, or didn’t, happen.

    • acker says:

      07:04pm | 18/03/10

      @Jeff 6.06pm…I totally agree with you, what is so good about Atheism which is the belief in nothing and absolute oblivion after death, that it deserves to have people with a more optimistic religous belief (basicaly anything) to join them ?

    • Leah says:

      09:12pm | 18/03/10

      Are you serious? A majority of the world believes in a god/gods of some description. This includes some of the most intelligent thinkers, authors, scientists, scholars and politicians of the last century or two. You think their sanity should be called into question? How about you educate yourself a bit more; both on what particular religions teach and why people choose to believe them. Just because you get some nutjobs (eg. muslim terrorists, westboro baptist) doesn’t mean all muslims or christians are insane.

    • chris (another one) says:

      01:00am | 19/03/10

      I see the evolutionists are out in force again! I’m surprised Iansand hasn’t joined in on this one, he’s usually out and about punching for lost causes like evolution, climate change and Richard Dawkins.

    • Peter says:

      09:46am | 19/03/10

      @ antman. There are scientist so determined to prove evolution correct they are looking at anything they think supports their theory, just like Mr Salamander the scientist below. I saw Australias Chief Scientist on ABC last night and she said there is no shortage of Astrophysists and Biologist who believe in God. There are alot of other scientists as well. There are also aethist scientist who dispute evolution. I call these people independent thinkers. Just as a scientist should, he should investigate something without any preconceived notions about God or no God. All i see is some aethiest scientist determined to prove Darwin right (and hence by some silly notion, they think they’ll disprove God). I don’t need to read lies about evolution, because that is exactly what they are. I have never known genetic mutation to be a good thing, no one has, that’s just like another little unabstantiated lie that science is peddling on us. Why don’t you just accept that Dolphins had fins, and they didn’t genetically mutate to get them. You guys are peddling lies, and I cant tell you right now, I am going after Richard Dawkins, he will be sorry he ever heard my name. How dare this guy who believes nothing, nothing, come to Australia to belittle a politition who has made it his lifes work to serve his people. It’s really easy to do if you believe nothing. It’s time Dawkins tells us what he believes, not what he doesn’t. It’s easy to tease if you don’t leave an avenue for people to question your beliefs. You people are being CONNED!

    • Chris L says:

      01:44pm | 20/03/10

      Peter, you may be surprised to learn that dolphins still maintain vestigal leg structure, also there are fosils of dophin-like creatures that do have more leg like appendages and toes rather than simple fins. Of course we cannot have every mutation and stage of development preserved as a fossil, only those rare examples that became buried in mud or magma or whatever other “lucky” occurance caused them to be preserved. I don’t mind the fact that you don’t agree with the theory of evolution and no doubt have your own theory to account for how some species vanished and others appeared over the history of the world, but don’t denounce it as lies unless you have a convincing argument to back it up.

      I denounce the religions based on the Torah, Bible and Koran as lies because their legends have already been traced back to earlier polytheistic religions (which counters the “one god” idea) and due to the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within them.

    • John says:

      08:29am | 18/03/10

      As it’s a choice between the god botherers of Abbott and Rudd the issue is cancelled out. What is of more concern is how many of their team suffers from the same form of God delusion.

      Seeing what an embarrassment Burke and Bishop were on Q&A recently, maybe both would do we well to have an Atheist or two on their side to help with some rational thinking.

    • Macca says:

      08:42am | 18/03/10

      @John, agreed with Burke and Bishop’s poor performance. I think both have lost touch with the electorate and it is a shame they both hold such safe seats.

    • Peter says:

      11:15am | 18/03/10

      God delusion hey? We were once fish, we have absolutely no evidence of this, but we were fish, if anyone disagrees you will be ridiculed as a religious nut ok? we were fish and i won’t here anything. Now teach it in our science classes as fact to our kids because we don’t want to lie to them about the existance of God. We were fish i tells ya, and i wont hear anything else because anything else is just a delusion…

    • John in Alice says:

      11:19am | 18/03/10

      Now which delusion do you suppose voters would find preferrable, those who believe God is always right or the arrogant athiest who imagines he is always right?

    • Peter says:

      11:28am | 18/03/10

      I believe in God and i think those who believe in God, simply believe just that. I do not put words in this mouth, i wouldn’t even dare. So for me to tell you God is right or wrong about something, well i wouldn’t know because he hasn’t told me anything. Now i think the same should apply to an aethist that believes in the Darwin and Dawkins theory. These guys talk alot about how im wrong, but they have no evidence to prove otherwise. I can easily fly around the world and look down on people for daring to have a religion and nit pick at little details in their religous texts to make them look stupid, i can do that, and im sure you can too. But i reckon i can make a scientist look pretty stupid as well if he insisted that i was a fish…

    • Patrick says:

      11:54am | 18/03/10

      The problem, Peter, is they DO have evidence to prove your 2000-year-old HUMAN-written-and-edited book as completely devoid of facts as to how this Earth came about. And I love seeing debates between actual pursuers of knowledge (your average scientist), and someone who just “believes” in a God because they were brought up to believe it.

      Just imagine, if religion was only able to put forward a case to people once they were an adult. .  Instead of indoctrinating these crackpot beliefs from birth. . Just how many intelligent people do YOU think would believe in a magical friend in the sky who made everything you can see in 7 days.

    • John says:

      12:15pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, I been wrong about many things. My path to being a free thinker has been from philosophy not science, but I do agreed with Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

      Here a thought, remember one of the early symbols for Christianity was a fish!

    • Peter says:

      12:54pm | 18/03/10

      True about those symbols John, but that doesn’t mean we were fish. There are gargoyles on church buildings as well, do you think you are a gargoyle? Patrick, you’ve made the mistake of believing im christian, i quoted no religious text to you. If you asked me to decide, if I were a fish, or believe in the story of creation in the old testament, i’d go with the old testament, because it seems more logical to me…

    • John says:

      02:26pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, well you logic sounds like a religious person. Gargoyles are pagan the’re said to scare off and protect from any evil or harmful spirits. Strange that they should be on churches. Why would that be?

    • Gregory says:

      02:36pm | 18/03/10

      Im with Peter on this one. Evolution is a disgusting lie. I know for a FACT that the almighty flying spaghetti monster is the way and the truth of everything. You can’t disprove my religion, and your so called masses of evidence of evolution is either A) a big conspiracy of lies by scientists or B) was put there by his noodley holiness himself to test my faith. Ramen.

    • Peter says:

      02:46pm | 18/03/10

      @ John, you know why I think they are there? It’s because they are real and they live on a different plane/dimension/universe or something like that. They are protectors and not to be feared. So if you ever get a chance to meet one, stick around around and say hello. Unfortunately when i saw them, i ran for the hills…

    • Peter says:

      02:51pm | 18/03/10

      @ Gregory. I don’t recall talking about flying speghetti monsters, but if that is what you want to believe, that’s fine by me.  If you want to believe some scientist who just examined a 3cm piece of bone, deduced it was 100 million years old, probably had feet, a wife and 3 kids, ate vegitables 3 times a week, and just liked standing around fires, you welcome to believe that too..

    • Hayley says:

      03:57pm | 18/03/10

      Gregory - hilarious! I personally think the flying spaghetti monster is over-rated, I get my spirituality from the purple ravioli god.
      Peter - its called carbon dating. Once you’re educated enough on the issue of bone age determination to make an argument based on the facts and evidence, then the scientists might talk to you and consider your point of view. That’s how they do their jobs - science is a an evidence based process - people just don’t make stuff up in science, and if they did it would be fraud and they would be humiliated (I am scientist so I should know!).

    • Peter says:

      04:13pm | 18/03/10

      @ Hayley. Scientist don’t make things up, no, unheard off. They just use things in adventure magazines to prove global warming. Mate, i have a book at home (a collection of 50 essays from scientist around the world), and they question the accuracy of carbon dating…

    • Peter says:

      09:54am | 19/03/10

      @ Hayley. Saw Australias Chief Scientist of ABC last night. She told viewers that alot of Astrophysists believe in God as do alot of Biologists and other scientist. I also heard there are alot of aethist scientist who question evolution. I call these people independent thinkers, they probably dont eat too much ravioli. Yes a salamader has stumps, it proves ZERO, i don’t know what kind of science your peddling. You just think “oh this fish has stumps that look like legs”, i can fit that into Darwins theory. You evolutionist LIE. Your lying to everyone and they are teaching it in our schools. Go fish… I do recall on thing i read in a text somewhere and it said “beware the teachers who claim they teach you knowledge”. On these matter my friend, you clearly now nothing. You are just determined to prove someone else right and you have lost all objectivity…

    • Stats says:

      08:40am | 18/03/10

      A ‘poll’ of n=100? This leaves a sampling error of about +/-10% (leaving out any bias), meaning that the percentages contained herein are a little difficult to take seriously. Also, it looks like this was a qualitative rather than quantitative exercise. Although it’s certainly OK to report this, greater care should be taken to ensure the readers know about the limitations of this… well… limited research.

    • Elbowgrease says:

      09:09am | 18/03/10

      Tony Abbott for PM?
      JUST SAY NO!!!

    • steve says:

      09:17am | 18/03/10

      Vote KRudd in for another term of debt and destruction
      OH GOD NO!!!

    • George says:

      09:30am | 18/03/10

      -Elbowgrease for PM woohoooo!
      -Julia Gillard for PM - clean up the Buidling and Education Revolution  
      rorts first then maybe!
      -Anthony Albanese for PM - Eeeeeeeewwwgh!
      I know Mike Rann for PM seeing that he might lose the SA elections this weekend, he’ll be good with Kristina Keneally by his side. Just don’t allow them to share offices, he can channel the great Tiger Woods and teh sublime Bill Clinton all day long.

    • Martin G says:

      09:21am | 18/03/10

      I don’t understand all the focus on Tony Abbott’s religion. KRUDD is also a Catholic when it suits him - every second press conference he holds is on the church doorstep.

      It wouldn’t be that the press enjoy pushing this opinion of Abbott, would it?

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:02pm | 19/03/10

      Rudd doesn’t wear it on his sleeve like Abbott does. Rudd doesn’t let religion influence policy like Abbott does. Rudd might get photographed on the doorstep of a church but he doesn’t ban an abortion pill because it goes against his personnel religious beliefs. You have to remember that on any given Sunday 92% of Australians do not attend church. We do not and will tolerate religious views dictating political policy, no matter what your political bias.

    • Bob H says:

      09:26am | 18/03/10

      I am liking Mr Abbott and would like to move my floating vote over to him but his catholic doctrine worries me and I will have to look at Greens/independants unless he can categorically keep his catholic tendencies in his trousers.

    • Simon the pieman says:

      10:19am | 18/03/10

      I don’t think Mr Abbott has ever been a choirmaster

    • Amy says:

      10:37am | 18/03/10

      Just don’t forget about preferences.  A vote Green is a vote Labor…

    • acker says:

      11:29am | 18/03/10

      @Amy 10.37am….I think Bob Brown is in the process of changing that a bit. It was a good ploy in attracting the young and student vote to the Greens when they started, but many of those original members are getting older and starting families and small businesses.

    • Gen X says:

      09:33am | 18/03/10

      Hang about, Who is the politician who always has a media conference out side a church? RUDD. Who was the politician who changed denominations for the day for a photo shoot in another Church? RUDD.

      Why is there not the same questions put about rudd?

    • julain thomas says:

      09:31am | 18/03/10

      “Then just watch as Julia sharpens her knives. You watch my words, if the polls continue to go lower to where the libs could (according to results) win the election based on say 51% combines vote the ALP machine will kick in. They have no loyalty.

      Thats funny from a party, whos PM was only the 2nd (another conservative) to be kicked out of his own election area, and has destroyed the entree, mains and dessert of the new liberals, cup of joe anyone??

    • Martin G says:

      09:52am | 18/03/10

      Nothing compared to the embarrassment of holding record satisfaction ratings, only to become a one-term PM.

      Rudd has no friends within the party. He is only there because he is still slightly ahead in the polls. But when the TPP poll tips the Coalition’s way, the knives will definitely out. And Joooolia will be wielding a big one, don’t you worry.

    • Macca says:

      10:15am | 18/03/10

      @Martin G, Mediocre Opposition breeds a mediocre government, and that is exactly what we have had.

      Australia deserves better, and you can thank T.Abott for that. Simply because Rudd didn’t need to (and simply didn’t) perform whilst Turnbull and Nelson were in Opposition.

    • JR says:

      10:46am | 18/03/10

      julain
      Pretty sure Howard only lost that on preferences for starters and was actually the most popular candidate in Bennelong. He was the Mp there for 30 years. and by the looks of it Maxine will only be there for 3. Just another Rudd media spectacle to put here there just for her to be given her marching orders next election, but he doesn’t care he got elected. Oh and the last time we had a sitting PM lose his seat, the next government was a one termer. Now that is encouraging.

    • Martin G says:

      11:15am | 18/03/10

      @Macca. I agree wholeheartedly.

      Coming from SA I have seen how arrogant a Government can be when not consistently held to account. Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond appears to have united the Liberals (Abbott), and the focus has now turned to what Mike Rann (Rudd) has actually done for the state in his 8 years in power, apart from deny FOI requests, refuse to answer questions in parliament, and use a large amount of media spin.

      On that last point of spin, he has earned nicknames here along the lines of ‘Media Mike’, ‘Good News Mike’, etc, for only appearing at positive announcements and leaving the rest to his ministers.

      Rann might survive yet, but he knows he will seriously need to lift his game from now after the election if he wins, and if Redmond stays as Liberal leader.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:48am | 18/03/10

      I am amazed at the negative attention being directed to politicians who have any connnection with religion , Christianity in particular .  There was a time when any association was well respected & accepted . To announce one’s religious affiliation , faith or belief now , risks being observed as a leper , covered in warts , dressed in rags , dripping blood and pus.
      Nic & Tena , i realise you are simply doing your job but this script is simply
      a waste of your time.  What you WILL achieve is a contribution towards bigotry , bias , hate & intolerance.  The Punch’s time & money would be far better spent dealing with political issues that affect our lives rather than the private religious lives of those who have political careers. Whether you accept it or not , they are separate , one public , one private.  If a politician’s religious beliefs or faith shapes his political views and actions , the politician is then judged at the ballot box , either for or against. There is no
      criteria in politics for an individual’s religion to be subject to public scrutiny or
      ridicule.

    • John says:

      10:22am | 18/03/10

      This would be fine if the believers in our governments did not hand out buckets of taxpayer money to the various religions such as Hill song, Exclusive Brethren, Judaism, Islam, Scientology and too many more to list.

    • Sydney tom says:

      10:47am | 18/03/10

      Nonsense! As Richard Dawkins pointed out to Stephen Fielding on Q&A, if you are a parlimentarian elected in this country, then the electorate has the right to know if you believe, for example that the world is less than 10,000 years old. It has been proven beyond doubt that that is not possibly the case and to believe anything else is absolute fantasy - and if a polititian is basing his policies on fantasy then it is only right and fitting that he be open to scrutiny and yes, if needs be, ridicule.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:13pm | 18/03/10

      JOHN , A valid church or religious group receive tax breaks from the A.T.O. , hardly buckets of money from believers in Parliament.

      SYDNEY tom , Do you set your life by the Q & A TV show ?
      Is Richard Dawkins Australia’s guiding Light. ?

      Time you guys learnt to think for yourselves.  In your private lives , it may be assumed you are a member of Rotary , Masonry , Apex , Hells Angels , Sydney Horse Racing Club ,  etc etc etc .  Would that exclude you from being a M.P.  ?  And if you were a member of the aforementioned , do you base your thinking on that membership or affiliation. ?  Something in your replies indicates you are easily led.

    • Andrew says:

      12:33pm | 18/03/10

      Wayne, I reckon being a member of the Hell’s Angels should probably exclude you from being an M.P.

      Just my view though.

    • John says:

      12:45pm | 18/03/10

      Well Wayne, Bumby in Victoria last year give $2 million to a religious conference, The Parliament of the World’s Religions. He also launched it.

      The Atheist Foundation of Australia says it approached all three levels of government for a total of $270,000 for its conference, to be held at the same venue early next year, but has received no funding.

      I would say that discrimination.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:50pm | 18/03/10

      ANDREW , heh heh heh   good one.  Yes , might be a bit difficult gaining pre-selection.
      Probably was not a good example to put up.
      Best wishes Andrew.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      01:49pm | 18/03/10

      JOHN , the case you have cited , the meeting of the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Melbourne , isn’t , strictly speaking , a religion. It is a forum within which representatives from the world’s various religionsbring awareness to such things as :
      Environmental concerns & caring for the Earth.
      Reconciling with the world’s Indigenous peoples.
      Overcoming poverty in the world.
      Securing food & water for ALL the world’s peoples.
      Building peace in pursuit of justice.
      Creating social cohesion in country & cities.
      Sharing wisdom in the search for peace.
      In short , a version of the United Nations.  The reason that Victorian Premier would have made funds available to W.P.R. is obviously because Melbourne was the venue for the meeting.  Millions of dollars would have been spent in Melbourne as there was a huge number of people involved.
      The Athiest Foundation believes in nothing and I can understand all three levels of govt. giving them nothing.

    • Brad Coward says:

      02:52pm | 18/03/10

      Perhaps if Abbott declared himself to be a follower of Islam or another non-Christian faith, he may be more palatable to the left ?

    • Sydney Tom says:

      02:51pm | 18/03/10

      Wayne, I’m going to make a small but significant leap myself here and assume you are the follower of some organised religion. And yet you DARE to tell me to think for myself.  If Irony were a religion Wayne you would be veritable messiah.

    • John says:

      03:09pm | 18/03/10

      Wayne, if as you say the Parliament of the World’s Religions forum isn’t strictly speaking a religion that makes it worse! Bumby showed favor by preferring to fund one non-religious forum, to another non-religious forum.

      The 2010 Global Atheist Convention was held in Melbourne last week and sold out with 2,500 attendees.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      03:41pm | 18/03/10

      SYDNEY tom , your assumption is incorrect tom . when i was young , i attended Church regularly ( Anglican ) but tapered off later in life. My wife is Catholic & we occasionally go to Mass but not on a regular basis. I am a Christian and i respect the Faith of all religions.
      My suggestion that you think for yourself is hardly daring as it was based on your deference to Richard Dawkins on Q & A .  You are prepared to accept his assertion that an M.P’s religion automatically labels the M.P. as basing his policies on fantasy and should be subject to ridicule simply because he goes to Church.
      tom , bigotry is based on ignorance . Learn for yourself , don’t be led.

    • John says:

      04:05pm | 18/03/10

      Wayne, I guess you have lots of respect for you fellow religion of Scientology. But I do agreed learn for yourself , don’t be led.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      04:35pm | 18/03/10

      John , i note that two of the Presenters to the Global Athiest Convention were , Richard Dawkins and Phillip Adams. The Convention on the beliefs in nothing would certainly suit Adams and i’m sure Dawkins is in good company after his discussion with Stephen Fielding on Q & A .
      Premier John Brumby , was hardly likely to hand taxpayers money to the Convention on NOTHING.  I think Brumby was right to refuse not that i have any truck with Labor.

    • antman says:

      07:09pm | 18/03/10

      So, Wayne, you’re saying that a belief in something that could be a pile of made-up lies trumps a belief in nothing? In any case, you are incorrect to say that Atheists believe in nothing, it’s just a supernatural deity that they don’t believe in.

      When you misrepresent and exaggerate, you only succeed in looking foolish and diminishing your own argument.

    • John says:

      08:21pm | 18/03/10

      Wayne, I think in the rational universe that we inhabit for something to exist we need to have empirical evidence of it. Therefore if no empirical evidence exists of your God and there are other gods, many. I’m not sure which one is yours? Then you too believe in NOTHING. Welcome!

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:07am | 19/03/10

      ANTMAN , Clever reply but you can hardly apply rules of debate to FAITH.
      The basic missing element from Atheism is FAITH , and that is what i mean when i say they believe in NOTHING.  Don’t confuse the issue with exaggeration & misrepresentation , that is not the intent of the content of my debate.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:23am | 19/03/10

      John :  Quote : ” .......and there are other Gods , many.  No John , there
      is ONE God , the differrent religions all see Him through differrent eyes.
      Quote :  ” .......we need to have empirical evidence of it. ”  No John , all you need is faith. I believein God . I have FAITH. You are searching for something tangible John ,  look inside yourself.
      I am not a religious man or a Bible thumper and how we got to this level of debate is amazing , particularly as i was posting on a political point of view.

    • Vic says:

      09:54am | 18/03/10

      If you think the Internet Filter is a key issue now, just wait until a religious zealot is in charge of what you can and can’t see on the internet…....
      Anyone who thinks there will be less restrictions or the plan will be scrapped under Abbott is crazier than him.

    • Sherlock says:

      10:11am | 18/03/10

      Regardless of who brings in what filter I will be able to see whatever I want on the internet. Like most people with a modicum of understanding of computers and the internet, it would take me about ten seconds to bypass any filter.

    • TC says:

      04:34pm | 18/03/10

      You’d condemn someone on what you “think” they might do in favour of a group who is actively doing it?

    • Moggy says:

      09:59am | 18/03/10

      Friggin’ heck…...Abbott sure as hell has a lot of people rattled!!

    • Norma says:

      10:54am | 18/03/10

      Glad someone else has noticed! And so we are left to wonder why. Fear he may win (Labor pollies, committed-forever Labor voters)? Jealousy (Turnbull and Costello)?

    • Frankie says:

      09:57am | 18/03/10

      We are a christian country so bring it on.

    • JR says:

      10:52am | 18/03/10

      Not sure what you are basing that on Frankie. The 7% church attendance or the highest level of youth secularism in the world?

    • Ras Putin says:

      12:17pm | 18/03/10

      Rubbish Frankie!!!                                                            From my observations the vast majority of Australians don’t give 2 hoots for religion of any kind. That is why nutters of the religious kind must be watched most carefully..

    • the apologist says:

      04:45pm | 18/03/10

      Frankie has a point, according to the constitution (foundational document of the whole nation) we are a nation established under God.
      Have a read.
      But yep, we’ve been steadily sliding for decades.

    • antman says:

      07:14pm | 18/03/10

      The Constitution doesn’t specify any particular God. Granted, the people who founded the modern Australian society are more likely to have been Christians because that was the fashion of the time in England and, as is usually the case regarding religion, it’s what their parents were.

    • Macca says:

      09:58am | 18/03/10

      If you think Abott is unelectable than you are too far left and out of touch.

      If you think Abott will win the next election you are too far right and out of touch.

    • TC says:

      04:37pm | 18/03/10

      And if you vote for Rudd you’re sitting fair and square in the middle of the road about to be run over

    • Null says:

      09:59am | 18/03/10

      Its funny that the isuue of religion in politics is raised regularly when discussing Abbott, leading toa full dissection of the influence of his beliefs in his capcity to lead the country.
      Meanwhile the PM uses his Church backdrop every weekend for his press grabs and yet no detaileed dissection from commentators about Rudds beliefs and their impact on being PM (Tjough as some respondendts here have poointed out his belief mught be that such a backdrop is better to maximise votes.

    • Saskia says:

      10:01am | 18/03/10

      All this story goes to show is that the media is obsessed with trying to do a hatchet job on Abbott when Rudd does media doorsteps almost each week outside a church, does not believe in abortion or gay marriage, and even pulled a bible out and gave a sermon to Steve Fielding when Fielding was first elected.

      Why is there no scrutiny of Rudd’s religious beliefs when he is the PM????

      And you wonder why the public believe the media to be left wing.

      Good to see that the Labor and Greens despise Abbott’s religion.  Nothing like mindless hate against a good person who has made a good contribution to society.  Sums up the IQ of ALP and Green voters perfectly.

    • Grant says:

      10:06am | 18/03/10

      I am very concerned about Tony Abbotts deep religious convictions affecting his ability to govern properly for everyone in Australia. 

      However.

      I am willing to take the hit on that issue because Rudd is terribad and the internet censorship regime through Stephen Conroy needs to be stopped ASAP, Labor are already pandering to the religious right anyway with FIelding and religious organisations like the Australian Christian Lobby ... 

      Plus, the Liberal party has stated that they oppose the filter previously on record in Parliament, so that’s where my vote is going !!!

    • Susan says:

      10:43am | 18/03/10

      They’ve only stated that they oppose it because it “won’t work” though, Grant, not because they oppose filtering per se. There are clear inferences to be drawn from Coalition statements that they do not oppose the notion of restricting access to so-called inappropriate content on the internet.

      The Greens have stated they oppose it on censorship grounds. If you’re looking to vote for someone interested in STOPPING the thing for good, I suggest you look there.

    • Peter says:

      11:55am | 18/03/10

      Mate, as much as i hate censorship, i think we should do all we can to keep child porn out of reach of anybody. No i don’t respect a persons right to view it. If Government goes too far with cencorship, im sure we’ll all find out, these things are hard to keep secret, even the Chinese are aware of their cencorship. Conroy has a lot to answer for, but not on censorship..

    • Patrick says:

      01:49pm | 18/03/10

      Peter have you even seen what Labors proposal is for censorship? It’s not about child porn. They KNOW it won’t stop that, because those sick individuals who share that use Peer to Peer networks (think Napster or Limewire-style), they do not set up internet webpages. Labor wishes to block all content that is “refused classification”, and that is NOT illegal material. That is COMPLETELY legal, but these moral crusaders on their high horse feel that nobody should be able to look up abortion, euthanasia, or anything else they just don’t feel like classifying, therefore making a loophole for censorship of whatever THEY do not want US to see.

      Also, don’t vote Greens if you want Labor out, Vote Liberal.. Stick with the devil we knew rather than the one who pretends to be your hip, funky, new-age friend and then screws you the same in my opinion.

    • Peter says:

      02:38pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Patrick, if you read what Grant wrote to me in another post, you guys have converted me. We still have to be vigulant against things that harm our children..

    • cybacaT says:

      10:08am | 18/03/10

      The way I look at it, we all have our own “religion” or set of beliefs - as does any politician.  The only difference with Abbott is his views are put under the magnifying glass by those who oppose his views.  I’m not Catholic, but I’m happy to see moral politicians in Parliament.

    • Macca says:

      10:15am | 18/03/10

      @Cybaca T, not sure Politicians need to be religious to be moral… otherwise its a fair point

    • antman says:

      07:21pm | 18/03/10

      cybacaT, morality is not the preserve of the religious. I’d wager that most atheists subscribe to a moral code that you would be quite happy to live by. By the same token, many religious people, including Christians, past and present, have ascribed to moral codes that would be abhorent to you. Just as you can’t simply blame some of history’s worst atrocities on atheism (let’s get the Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot furphies out of the way), you can’t expect religion to be squeaky clean (did someone mention the Spanish inquisition or witch burnings?).

    • Henry says:

      10:11am | 18/03/10

      Abbott has really put the wind up the ALP and their stooges.  When the Punch, The Drum, ABC, and Kochie are all running anti-Abbott/Liberal articles/stories etc non-stop you know that KRudd is knackered.

      How about an expose on Julia Gillard’s membership of communist and socialist youth movements?

      Yeah thought not!

    • Macca says:

      10:31am | 18/03/10

      @Henry, I don’t think this article is anti-Abbot at all, re-read it mate, I think its fairly balanced.

      Basically, Labor votes will site Abbott’s religion as a concern. Liberal Voters believe it is endearing to him as a politician. Swinging Voters couldn’t care less about his religion and want to focus on more meaningful talking points.

      That seems about right to me

    • Politically incorrect Formersnag says:

      10:53am | 18/03/10

      Henry @ 10:11am, you read my mind. What are the 4 scariest words in the English language? Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

      Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

    • Glen says:

      10:43am | 18/03/10

      Religion should be kept completely out of politics.  It’s corrupts the governing of the country by pandering to a select minority of religious extremists.  Why do you think we continue to have our rights infringed upon?  Because religious extremists live in fear and scream out for protection and government intervention the second something goes array.  We need logic in the position of power, not a religious “do gooder”.

    • Patrick says:

      12:04pm | 18/03/10

      But the problem with your argument is that in a democracy, we need every groups interests to be represented. If they discover a “Christian gene” or some such that actually shows them to be unsound of mind, then sure, kick ‘em to the curb, but until they are proven to be anything other than functioning human beings with just a little bit of a silly belief that they have an invisible friend, they are not insane. They were merely brought up that way for the most part.

      In my opinion, a person who is convicted in their beliefs is better than one who will say and do ANYthing to get in power, and then spend all his time trying to get a job at the UN, instead of y’know, governing.

    • matt stewart says:

      01:36pm | 18/03/10

      So you endorse genetic profiling to decide who can vote?  WOW.

    • JJ says:

      10:44am | 18/03/10

      Abbott is a religious nutter through and through. I wish there would be a free-thinking, rational, non-religious person in parliament, but it will never happen as they have to appeal to the majority of Australians (who are sheep and believe whatever they are told in Church). So sad. Even if someone was spiritual, as long as it doesn’t influence their policies (i.e. Abbott has some pretty old-fashioned views about women and gays which come through in his policy ideas) then that is alright with me. I would never vote for Abbott, but I also regret voting for Rudd - he was the lesser of two evils but he did not live up to my expectations. Sigh. I will probably go for Greens or Independent (but not the crazy religious Family First party).

    • Andrew says:

      11:44am | 18/03/10

      Do you know Tony Abbott? How is it you know he is a religious nutter? Is it because of what you have been told? Where is the evidence that Tony Abbott has allowed religion to govern his politics? The only occasion I have ever seen is when he opposed the abortion pill, and that was a conscience vote in parliament.

      Frankly, I believe that “easy” abortions are not ideal, but hey that’s just my opinion and not at all based on any faith I hold.

      I am not a religious person but I recognise that this nation was founded on religious morals. It is part of our identity and in many ways the basis of our common law legal system.

      I have friends who are religious and in many ways I envy their faith. It would be nice to believe in something as strongly as they do. I would never ridicule them or Tony Abbott or indeed Kevin Rudd for being religious and I am damn sure they would not ridicule me for not being religious.

      When did being religious become a sin?

      I think what you have written is short sighted, uninformed, intolerant and without basis in fact.

      Oh, and by the way, a vote for the greens IS a vote for labor.

    • JJ says:

      12:34pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Andrew. No I don’t know Tony Abbott personally, do you? From the times I have seen him interviewed on abc tv he usually has pretty weak arguments, and his stance on abortion/gays/women (in my opinion as a modern, free thinking individual) are pretty old fashioned. Let’s face it - the Catholic church has similar views - not too hard to draw a link there. I don’t envy people who have blind faith, but I can see you have an inner conflict with the fact that you don’t - your defensive tone about it is pretty apparant . Good point about the Greens - was ignorant on their preference votes with Labour. Will have to re-think my vote. Have a nice day.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      03:12pm | 18/03/10

      JJ , what IS sad is that you have attatched a tag to a man about whom you obviously know nothing.
      Quote : ” the majority of Australians ( who are sheep and believe whatever they are told in Church ) ”  : Unquote
      Something you are yet to find , JJ , it is called FAITH.
      Yes , you would select the Greens , they betray their own principles , i.e.
      they preferenced the Labor Party which was committed to building the Traveston Crossing Dam . Ironically , the Greens main election theme was to stop the Mary Valley being flooded by the dams construction.
      Yes , you stick with them JJ , they will suit you well.

    • the apologist says:

      04:43pm | 18/03/10

      @JJ:
      the majority of Australians (who are sheep and believe whatever they are told in Church).
      According to statistics, 7% of Australian’s apparently go to church regularly. Your statement is ridiculous.
      Do you even know what people are told in church? much less whether they accept it blindly.

    • JJ says:

      05:59pm | 18/03/10

      The apologist, yes I used to go to church (20+ years). I knew many who did not question what they were told. A church attendance rate of 7% is lower than I expected, thanks for pointing that out. Not suprising though. Is this enough for you to accept my opinion? I’m not stating facts - just my opinion based on my life experience.

    • iansand says:

      10:12pm | 18/03/10

      I do know Mr Abbott, personally (although not to the extent that he would remember me).  I would never vote for him.  He is a university debater, concerned with winning debates by smartarse points regardless of the real life consequences of those points.  He is incompetent to govern.

      Politics reaches a different level of fun if you know the players.  Unfortunately it also scares the crap out of you.

    • Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

      11:40pm | 18/03/10

      JJ do you have one original idae that is truly yours or do you just spout the ALP mantra like all the other Labor minions? ?

    • BW says:

      11:13am | 18/03/10

      Abbott’s religion is only an issue for those people who had a prior issue with Abbott. It makes a neat excuse without having to think too deeply about things though!

    • Democrat says:

      11:18am | 18/03/10

      ‘Tony Abbott is not member of Opus Dei’ Really! How do we know? After all it is a secret organisation.  As for Abbott denying it , well one can only say ‘he would say that wouldn’t he? Which brings us to the most important point.  The suggestion that he is a conviction politician.  What a croc…...  Has he displayed conviction on climate change?  After all along with his mate Howard he did everything to oppose any action in this regard until the 2007 election when he supported Liberal Party policy to introduce an ETS and then supported the passing the current governments ETS.  Or was it when he opposed it, in order to do in his leader and claim the job for himself? Or was it when he, as Leader,  proposed giving 3 billion dollars a year to polluters in order to change something he believes to be ‘crap’?
      Maybe it was when he promised there would be no new taxes to fund Liberal policies and then proposed a ‘Great Big New Tax’ to fun a parental leave scheme. Or maybe it was when he said that parental leave would be introduced ‘over this government’s body’ but now proposes one by implementing a new tax that will increase the cost of everything.
      Perhaps it was the man who as Minister for Health went to the 2004 election with rolled gold guarantees on the Medicare Safety Net only to dramatically increase the thresholds immediately after the election.
      A man of conviction?  Hardly!

    • Andrew says:

      11:53am | 18/03/10

      Wow! He’s really got under your skin, hasn’t he.

      Apart from the fact that almost everything you’ve written above speculation and your opinion, I really love the “he would say that wouldn’t he” line in relation to being a member of a religious sect. Pretty flawed logic.

      By that logic thread I could say (INSERT PROMINENT PERSON’S NAME HERE) is a member of, well, lets say,,... the Klu Klux Klan. That person then denies it. But I just say “well he would say that wouldn’t he”.

      Pfft, you’re a dope.

    • JR says:

      12:21pm | 18/03/10

      Opus Dei is not a secret organisation. The Da Vinci Code is a piece of fiction. Just to you know. And no he is not a member, as if that would even mean a thing.

    • H of SA says:

      03:12pm | 19/03/10

      Opus Dei is a secret organisation? Doing our research in the popular fiction section of the bookstore are we?

    • Ian Matthews says:

      11:37am | 18/03/10

      Read the reports of the abuse heaped on believers heads by speakers at the Global Atheists Conference and then tell me about Abbott’s shortcomings regarding his religion. He’s honest and says what he thinks - more than can be said for the Boy Who Lived In A Car.

    • Saskia says:

      11:55am | 18/03/10

      You forgot:

      I didn’t meet Brian Burke
      I didn’t see anything at Scores
      My father died from hospital incompetence
      I ate a dodgy dagwood dog
      I saw Colin Cowdrey at the GABBA as a 17 year old
      I didn’t crack up when I didn’t have hairdryer/diet food
      I wasn’t rude to a female PHD student
      I was not going to Vietnam for ANZAC day
      I drive a Ford Territory coz Priuses are not on govt plan
      I don’t rent a Canberra property from my wife
      I didn’t eat my ear wax

      etc etc etc

    • Willy K says:

      11:38am | 18/03/10

      Sums up the mindless bigotry of the ALP/Green voters.

      Rudd is a religious socialist bureaucrat therefore I love him.

      Abbott is a religious free market, Rhodes scholar, ex journalist, business manager and boxer therefore I hate him.

      Its nothing to do with the religion is all about rusted-on Labor voters who have been brought up to hate their betters.

    • Macca says:

      02:58pm | 18/03/10

      Abbott a Rhodes Scholar?

    • Macca says:

      02:54pm | 18/03/10

      Abbott a Rhodes Scholar?

    • JR says:

      03:45pm | 18/03/10

      Yes Macca that is fairly well documented.

    • Grant says:

      11:51am | 18/03/10

      @ Susan says:

      There is two reasons why the Greens are completely unsuitable for me personally.

      1. They send their preferences to Labor.

      2. The Greens nominated Clive Hamilton from the Australia Institute to run for Higgins by-election in December 2009.  Clive Hamilton ‘was’ an extremely passionate pro internet censorship, he has only recently softened his tone slightly to tow the party line once he joined up with the Greens.

      So no no… no Greens for me.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      01:25pm | 18/03/10

      “There is [sic] two reasons why the Greens are completely unsuitable for me personally.

      1. They send their preferences to Labor.”

      That’s not really true.  The Greens (and everyone else) will give you a how-to-vote card listing how they would like you to allocate your preferences, but it’s entirely up to you.  If you want to put Greens 1, Liberal 2, Labor 3, there’s nothing stopping you.  There’s not even anything discouraging you.  I would encourage all people not to blindly follow a how-to-vote card, but to ensure that the preferences on the ballot are a reflection of their actual preferences.

      For the lower house, this is easy.  For the upper house, it means voting below the line, which is a bit of a pain.  But again, I encourage people to be informed.  If you are afraid that making one small error (like skipping a number) will make your vote invalid, it won’t.  When you vote below the line, you can have a 10 percent error rate and your vote will still be valid, so long as your intentions are clear.

      We are lucky, we get to vote.  Everyone should undertand the system so they can make the most of it.

    • H of SA says:

      12:34pm | 18/03/10

      I wonder how many of those who label Tony Abbott a member of Opus Dei - which of course he is not - have any idea what that means.

      They are either repeating a lazy throw away line, or - and tragically this is far more likely - they think they know what it means because they read the Da Vinci code.

      Its like saying you understand how the CIA operated because you watched Mission Impossible.

      Just how many misinformed people are out there having their votes influenced by this Dan Brown’s successful piece of fiction for the bogan?

    • dancan says:

      12:37pm | 18/03/10

      Religion needs to be completely removed from politics especially in a modern multicultural society.  Government is put in place to best manage society for the benefit of everyone living within it; religion is often discriminatory against people of other cultures and even people worshipping within it.

      A person within a position of leadership such as prime minster, a person who holds such power to affect the lives of so many should only ever make decisions with the interests of the WHOLE populace in mind and not be swayed by whatever sky fairy they personally believe in.

      Give me an atheist intellectual over a religious intellectual any day. 

      In short I don’t want the person who determines the laws which dictate my life to be in anyway influenced by what they personally believe.

      What does that mean for the upcoming election?  Well I’m screwed either way.

    • Davy says:

      12:53pm | 18/03/10

      “In short I don’t want the person who determines the laws which dictate my life to be in anyway influenced by what they personally believe.”

      So dancan why exactly would anybody make a law that was not influenced by whatever it happens to be that they believe.
      I think in short that what you are saying is that you want somebody who thinks the same as you.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      01:17pm | 18/03/10

      Perhaps dancan just takes the word “representative” seriously, when he sees it in the phrase “representative democracy”.  Or maybe he thinks politicians should try very hard to ignore their individual biases and use all available information to try and decide what it best for the community. 

      Both of those options are very different from him wanting a politician who thinks the same as he does.

    • dancan says:

      04:38pm | 18/03/10

      Davy - “So dancan why exactly would anybody make a law that was not influenced by whatever it happens to be that they believe.” 

      Australia has a population of over 21 million people.  This population is a mix of races, religions, sexes and lots of other stuff that I won’t go into.  An elected official is there to serve the community and act as their representative in government.  Regardless of who voted for them their responsibility extends to everyone in that community.

      To fulfil that position our representative should be prepared to put aside their personal opinions and beliefs to make informed and well researched decisions, to introduce laws or abolish laws for the benefit of the community.

      If this ultimately means a politician must go against their personal religion and beliefs then that is what I expect them to do.  This is the sacrifice an elected representative must make; this is what they should expect when entering politics.

      Why exactly would anybody make a law that was not influenced by whatever it happens to be that they believe?  Because it is their job to do so.

    • pc says:

      12:39pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Nic and Tina, Hi Punchmates

      I think the polarisation on Tony Abbotts religion, perhaps like the polls on climate change, perhaps also like the polls on issues such as idigenous and migrant rights reflect distrust not evil intent.

      For example I distrust Tony Abbotts religion. I worry that its an effort on his part to control womens bodies, or demonise homosexuals and asylum seekers. People who do trust Tony on these issues. People such as Miranda Devine think that efforts to take action on climate change are also efforts to ‘wreck the economy.’ Not save the world, or build a future but ‘wreck the economy.’ I think Tony Abbott probably agrees.

      Just because I disagree doesnt mean I dont listen to those concerns. Its good to listen to your neighbour, even if you dont like what they say, even if what they say , is in your view, absurd or racist or reverse racist.

      So there is a lot of talk about poll numbers. Tony Abbotts are up and Kevin Rudds are down. Christianity apparently is only an issue for ‘THE LEFT’. Well fortunately not all the left think the same just as not all the right think the same. Who they hell are the left and right anyway? I know Waleed Aly is taking this on, amongst other issues, in Quarterly Essay, and its going to be fun reading what he thinks

      A carbon tax would be better than an ets. But an ets is better than nothing and nothing is probably better than the plan Tony Abbott calls Direct Action. Just like I like a lot more of religion than what Tony Abbott calls religion.
      Direct action is a slogan of people power - used by groups as such as GetUp, Rising TIde, Climate Change Action Network, Socialist Alternative and when they say it, Direct Action, means something very different. Why did Tony Abbott adopt their slogan if it wasnt to deliberaltely dissimulate? (If i was at the centre for indpendent studies I would call it a brand but Im not so I wont.)

      The result of all this dissumulation and distrust is mutual suspicion. John Howard and Miranda Devine think the climate change debates, expressed in polls, expressed in obstructionism in the senate, have shifted conclusively. People doubt the science. I dont think so. The resistance to the science has been expressed as “We dont want to pay.” Its an expression of the doubt of our ability to trust each other. “Would we pay more than China?” “Why shouldnt so and so pay more than whosa ma call em?” It has created doubt in us for our neighbour. And they for us. Christians, it seems to me, have a practice of trusting that we could all learn from. If only they could teach us.

    • ETS = SCAM says:

      01:55pm | 18/03/10

      The ETS is a tax based on fraudulent science.
      I won’t pay for a non existent problem so some people in society can pretend they are making a difference.
      Rudd is a UN stooge and is selling us down the river with his moralistic ramblings about the ETS. OH and by the way where’s Penny WRong these days?

      Forget religion - vote out Labor because they are an inept, wasteful party who want to cripple this country with a tax on EVERYTHING that will do zip for the climate.

    • Davy says:

      12:45pm | 18/03/10

      Interestingly enough the very basic ideals and laws we hold as a society, had their beginnings in the christian religion. To judge somebody as unsuitable to lead our government based on the fact they are christian (and not afraid to say so ), would reek not only of bigotry, but also a rejection of the values that our law endeavours to uphold.

    • JR says:

      01:53pm | 18/03/10

      Which ideals and laws were they Davy?

    • antman says:

      07:55pm | 18/03/10

      Davy, I think that it is more correct to say that they have parallels in the Christian religion, just as they do in many other religions. They are not unique to, and therefore derived from, the Christian religion.

    • Ryan says:

      12:59pm | 18/03/10

      Who gives a rats about Abbotts religious beliefs, what I care about is getting rid of a bunch of incompetents who are spending our taxpayer money like drunk uncles.. take a look at the education revolution school buildings debacle.
      Gillard thinks money grows on trees and is laughing off anyone who takes her to task, even their old mates, the teachers union.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      12:58pm | 18/03/10

      “A Punch poll of 100 voters across Sydney found that Labor and Green voters despise the way Abbott injects religion into his political campaign and policy. On the other hand, Liberal voters respect Abbott as a ‘conviction politician’ who is firm on his beliefs”

      Great, but I’m guessing the following would also be true:

      A Punch poll of 100 voters across Sydney found that LIBERAL and Green voters despise the way RUDD injects religion into his political campaign and policy. On the other hand, LABOR voters respect RUDD as a ‘conviction politician’ who is firm on his beliefs

      When you don’t like someone for one reason, it’s easy to dislike them for others.

    • Joe Rossi of RPData says:

      01:06pm | 18/03/10

      I don’t care about Abbot’s religious beliefs, what really makes me upset is the national debt increasing by billions per day with no end in sight.

    • Paul says:

      01:11pm | 18/03/10

      Can we have a non-religious choice of candidates in this election?  Who cares what voters think of religious freaks A. The Monk B .The Ruddster. C White Families First. At least the comedians are having some fun with this stuff and making all their serious fake-moral posturing palatable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOOEPfEKw0

    • Grant says:

      01:12pm | 18/03/10

      @ Peter,

      Yeah nahhh.

      The debate has moved past the tactic of labelling anyone who is anti censorship a child-Pornographer.  What has now been established by the debate is:

      - Originally when Stephen Conroy was stating that people who are against internet censorship are pro child porn it was agreed that, this is both offensive, incorrect and unhelpful for the debate.  No one who is against the regime has indicated that they should have the right to view child porn.

      - The internet censorship regime is a secret ‘blacklist’ and cannot be viewed or vetted by the public so you will just have to trust the government to only add child porn to the list.

      - The scope of the regime includes all ‘Refused Classification’ RC material which isn’t just child pornography.

      It can include some traditionally R rated material, X rated material.  More worryingly includes things like fetish porn like spanking or foot fetish. 

      Anything that is remotely deemed as ‘Instruction on crime’ such as euthanasia sites or a site that has material for drug education.

      Some images from an educational site for people with anorexia are considered RC.

      Educational sexual health website for gay and lesbians that only has written material can be considered RC if it is explicit (for example, explaining difficult experiences on a forum). 

      It can also in scope include a swingers personal site where people exchange images of consensual sex between the ‘swingers’.

      So that’s the issue here Peter is that the scope of RC is so extensive it will capture a lot more material than just child pornography.

    • Anti-Censorship says:

      01:32pm | 18/03/10

      Nicely said Grant, but I want to expand on one point a little. 

      Drug education material can include information on how to take drugs safely.  As an example, some people are going to inject drugs regardless of what information is available, but it would be nice for them to know how to inject drugs safely so they don’t get something like Hep or HIV.  Or, for people who take a slightly harder line, so they don’t get HIV and require tax payer funded health care for the rest of their life.

    • Peter says:

      01:40pm | 18/03/10

      Fair enough Grant, i accept what you say. Maybe we should insist on more oversight (you can sit on the committee, i will vote for you). As i said, taking child porn out of the equation, i probably wouldn’t like censorship (these people at the herald sun have given my extreme views a voice). If you were in charge of a group solely dedicated to removing child porn, im sure you wouldn’t object to that. Your right though, this does have the potential of going further than that. I don’t understand how people posting these things on there in the first place don’t get caught. Maybe its because i don’t understand the technicalities of the cyberworld…

    • ETS = SCAM says:

      01:50pm | 18/03/10

      Tony Abbott can pray to the flying spaghetti monster for all I care - as long as he never introduces an ETS - he has my vote. He may pray to a non existent god but I won’t pay tax for a non existent climate problem.

    • Peter says:

      02:07pm | 18/03/10

      I thought science was the absolute truth? It’s scientist telling me this and i believed it. Oh well, maybe we should turn our attention to the God botherers..

    • Brian Connor says:

      02:02pm | 18/03/10

      Authentic is soooooooo refreshing - Tony Abbott is real whereas I can not say the same for any ALP politican. No wonder Bob Brown from the Greens engages with TA as both are “conviction’ politicans without the spin.

      If religion matters to voters, they are bigots. Full stop.

    • Kim says:

      02:06pm | 18/03/10

      Nic and Tina, looks like you’ve let the cat out of the bag and turned this into a religion vs athiest war.

      Personally, I don’t care about anyone’s religion.  I DO care however about where our tax payers money goes and on what it is spent.  As for those that say they’re going to vote for the LDP rather than either of the major parties, well….  I just went to their site and quite frankly, I do like some of the policies stated, but I also disagree with a lot of it as well.  Wanting to privatise transport, Australia Post, the ABC etc - I don’t think this is a good idea.  Also even though I agree with the free international trade in goods and services, I also think that there should be some restrictions so that we’re not importing goods that do not meet our Australian Standards.

      As for the Independents, a lot of their sites seem to be *fluffy* with no hard core facts as to how they intend to achieve what they want to achieve.  For example, from the democarts site: 
      “We should care for the world around us to sustain our resources, our economy and the well-being of future generations.  We have a duty to care for our world so that all may benefit from it. We must protect and nurture our natural environment.  We must work to restore health to our waterways, our forests and other natural assets.”

      This is all well and good but how are they going to achieve it?  Where is the substance?  Where is the planning?  They have objectives but no real problem solving seems to have been achieved even though they’ve been around for over 30 years.

      I intend to vote for Abbott regardless of his religious beliefs.  Why?  Not because I’d like him as a PM, but because he can at least admit to making mistakes and will attempt to fix them.  The Labor party (KRudd) yells “Mea Culpa” and “The buck stops with me”, but won’t admit to doing anything wrong - that’s when he actually does something.  I’m sorry if I’ve upset anyone with this statement, but it looks to me that the only party I can really vote for is the Liberal party.

    • Kate says:

      02:03pm | 18/03/10

      Most of you have hit the nail on the head - these people are religious “fakers”.  True religion is about caring for people and providing people with information so that they can make informed choices - If I tell someone what I believe, its not to “convert” them, its to share my opinion…  Unfortunately in this case, religion and politics can never truly be separated because your belief system defines who you are and shapes the decisions you make

    • Sceptic says:

      04:06am | 22/03/10

      Exactly Kate that is why I won’t vote for an atheist. Their religion and politics don’t mix.  Actually I lie. I would vote for anyone whose policies make sense and who are people of integrity. My point is that everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) functions out of a belief system of some kind. They may not do son consciously but they do it none the less. So why the vitriol about Christians. What about those of other long standing world religions. (I won’t name anyone in particular as that would become a distraction) It seems to me that many who have posted here are anti christian with a religious zeal.

      Let’s get real here. THis is a democracy in which only 7% others have said go to church. How can such a minority be such a threat as some seem to think. Any views they may have have to get through two houses of parliment and I can’t see someone like Bob Brown letting them push through legislation that would entrench religious views with out him banging a very large drum.

      The other point is that there are members of most parties who are members of organisations (not necessarily recognise as religious) who sit in parliment. Do we make assumption because someone is a Jew or an Arab or Aboriginal.

      This debate is getting tiresome. I just wish that we could see some reall independent thinking here. That doesn’t mean a person cannot follow a religious persuasion but that we can think critically about it and not swallow it just because our family or a friend believes it.

      Thanks Kate for pointing us to the fact that this is a beat up of the worst kind (I know you were not trying to say that but your last paragraph points that way).

      What bothers me most is how many on all side seem to have such trenchant views that they cannot see the absurdity of much that they write and are so scathing of others points of view.

    • stephen says:

      02:15pm | 18/03/10

      Liberal Party : buying something for 30 bucks, and selling it for 60.
      Labor Party : idea, concept, research, development, production, marketing, distribution then retail.
      Nothing wrong with a mark-up (only wish i could do it meself ),but only Labor trusts new technologies.

    • Henry says:

      02:43pm | 18/03/10

      Liberal Party : buying something for 30 bucks, value add, and selling it for 60.

      Labor Party : red tape, committee, bureaucracy, unions, middle men, strikes, wages blowout, company shifts off-shore, jobs lost.

      Labor and innovation/business world are polar opposites.

      Anyone who has ever had a snippet of business experience would not vote Labor in a million years.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:09pm | 19/03/10

      Yes Henry they must love the Liberal party dumping them with a great big new tax to fund parental leave. And I know a lot of small business owners who refuse to vote Liberal because of quarterly BAS statements and their lack of support towards small business reforms during the Howard years.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:22pm | 18/03/10

      Your comment:The photo just reminded me, Tony Abbott and Joseph Stalin have a lot in common.

      Anti facist and seminary trained, these people have a tendency to worship a God, but despise their fellow man.

      Why do we see the Rudds and the abbotts of our world as leaders?

      Rudd, Abbott and Stalin all have one thing in common, all three lack sincerity.

    • Batgirl says:

      02:23pm | 18/03/10

      The separation of church and state is a massive issue and one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
      I don’t think a sensible person could vote for someone who believes in Adam and Eve, but thinks all the science about climate change is ‘crap’. I like my leaders to have a higher burden of proof that that.
      I’m actually a former young Liberal member but I’m also an intelligent, independant working woman so there’s not a hope in hell (excuse pun) I’d vote for Abbott. Although I acknowledge that Rudd’s stuffed up almost every election promise he made (the ones he’s bothered to try to action at all, that is), Abbott will force me to vote ALP. As the old saying goes, a women is either a feminist or a masochist, and only the latter would elect this man.

    • Brian says:

      02:41pm | 18/03/10

      sure persphone hahaha nice cover

    • Ryan says:

      12:44am | 19/03/10

      I am with Brian on this, persphone how is it in the Labor offices today?

    • Batgirl says:

      11:23am | 19/03/10

      Huh? Who’s Persephone? You’re really wrong gents, you’ve actually stumbled across a genuine first time non-affiliated poster, and you’re too self opinionated and wracked with conspiracy theories to realise it. I feel sorry for you.

    • Ryan says:

      01:50pm | 19/03/10

      Persephone, you didn’t really think we expect you to admit to it now do we?

    • Batgirl says:

      02:50pm | 19/03/10

      Sorry Ryan, I’m not the Messiah - really. But I can tell you that till I’m blue in the face, and I’m not about to waste my time showing you ID. Do you really believe that everyone who doesn’t think the same as you must be an ALP plant? Open your mind. You’re reinforcing all sorts of nasty stereotypes about conservative people.

    • Saskia says:

      02:31pm | 18/03/10

      Half the pollies are religious in some way - big deal.

      Do you want a career public servant with no achievements to lead us or a Rhodes Scholar, athlete and business man to lead us?

      Australians seem to prefer to have career public servants and Union hacks to run the country.  You wouldn’t let them near a company in a fit but you want them to be in charge of the biggest company of all - Australia.

      No wonder the ALP always butcher the economy and nanny state us.

      Just another backward looking, nasty little ALP government with no value add to society.

      We get what we deserve and what reflects us as a people.  Dull, grey sheep.

    • Kate says:

      02:53pm | 18/03/10

      Australians seem to prefer to have career public servants and Union hacks to run the country.  You wouldn’t let them near a company in a fit but you want them to be in charge of the biggest company of all - Australia.

      Never said better.

      KRudd - career bureaucrat.
      WSwan - in and out of ALP.
      JGillard - “Ambulance chasing” Lawyer, then ALP.
      LTanner - graphic design artist, then ALP staffer.
      Albanese - married to ALP in many ways.
      Garrett and McKew - high profile sideshows for left-leaning media love-in.

      NO Private sector experience. NONE.

      But hey, here is a Trillion Dollar Economy, go for it !!!! Spend away.

    • Dave says:

      02:43pm | 18/03/10

      Who gives a toss about his religious beliefs. I am far more concerned that this election Australians vote for someone who is experienced and competant in running the economy and the country. Krudd the Dudd has shown himslef to be a complete and utter failure.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:51pm | 18/03/10

      Saskia,

      Just why do you think a “Rhodes Scholar, athlete and business man” would want to go into politcs?

      Because they love power, to some, like Joseph, power is the ultimate, life and death decisons the greatest aphrodisiac of all time.

      Down through the ages there has always been a connection between the church, power and sex, all three are a turn on.

      Religion has killed more than it has ever saved and that’s a fact.

    • Saskia says:

      03:03pm | 18/03/10

      Because Tony Abbott has been a community volunteer for almost all of his life.  He seriously cares about people.  He is a rare breed.

      Name one PM that wasn’t religious in some way?  It is just a complete red herring with Abbott because the left wingers are so afraid of him and the fact that he is intelligent, brave and authentic.

      Don’t tar everyone with the brush of cynicism that Rudd and his ilk are coated in.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:19pm | 18/03/10

      Saskia,

      I would suggest just about ALL PM’s have been non religious, they might mouth the words, but their action prove the opposite.

      I don’t need to list the actions of past PM’s, you must know them yourself.  Pants less, girl friends, come on Saskia you cannot be that stupid.

      They are all tared with the same brush, the pusuit of power.

    • acker says:

      07:15pm | 18/03/10

      @John A Neve 2.51pm ...well Bob Hawke fooled you son smile ... he was a Rhodes Scholar and Athlete prior to his political life then became a horse ownwer businessman after politics.. and he is probably now worth squilions.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:02am | 20/03/10

      Acker,

      While I don’t fully understand the relevance of your post!!  It would appear to support what I’ve said.

      Please explain?

    • maggie says:

      02:55pm | 18/03/10

      It’s actually almost the FIRST question asked of Tony Abbott by sarcastic , left leaning hypocrits like yourselves , that necessitate him mentioning his religion at all and you will all milk this line of questioning for all it’s worth because you realise that you have in your midst a man of substance who will NOT take the easy options and lie , evade or do whatever it takes to elude an answer but rather will answer TRUTHFULLY .....

      NOW , this is obviously a novelty to most of you journos because for the last two and a half years you have been complicit in the Labor governments atrocious behaviour on two fronts : not asking the government hard questions to get at the guts of the problems , thus allowing them free rein in the decimation of our economy and PLEASE do NOT trot out the GFC because the HOWARD coalitions’  excellent management of our economy shielded us from that dilemma and then your inability to stop yourselves
      from reporting , in full , the abysmal state of every Labor governed state ......
      There is very little unbiased press in this country but thankfully just enough men and women of good character , who refuse to fudge their reporting of details ....

      I bow to their integrity .....

    • Willy K says:

      03:07pm | 18/03/10

      I’m with you Maggie!  So sick of the left wingers that dominate the Australian media and their endless attacks on Libs on behalf of the ALP.

      We need a new internet news site and fresh unbiased TV/Cable news programs.

      Our commercial stations are so dumbed down they are beyond salvage, and the ABC is simply the media arm of the ALP.

      It’s only in these blogs you realise that the statements made in the press are on the whole utter garbage and at least half of us do not agree with their lines.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:25pm | 18/03/10

      Maggie,

      To put Howard and integrity in the same post is sacrilege.
      This man sent Australians to war based on a lie !!
      This man won an election based on a lie (children overboard).
      Integrity, he would not know the meaning of the word.

    • Ryan says:

      12:49am | 19/03/10

      John A Neve: didn’t Rudd promise to have the troops home by Christmas then went over there just before to have a laugh at them and rub it in that he will be spending Christmas at home with his family? Was that before or after he spat his dummy yet again, this time for not having a hairdryer available to him in the desert. Yes a real class act!

    • John A Neve says:

      07:12am | 20/03/10

      Ryan,

      Do you really put having a whinge about food or a hair dryer in the same class as sending Australians to war?

      If you do?  I feel really sorry for you,

    • rachel says:

      03:04pm | 18/03/10

      RELIGION IS FOR IDIOTS and why a person in such great power believes such tripe is amazing. All the places you polled are deeply religious areas full of non-australian citizens !!!!!!!!

    • Willy K says:

      03:14pm | 18/03/10

      So you think Kevin Rudd is an idiot yet you vote for him?

      Bob Brown is a raving nutter but not religious so it cuts across all walks of life.

      Tolerance is the main thing something you seem to lack going by your bigoted rant.

    • the apologist says:

      04:45pm | 18/03/10

      everyone’s religious. Most just don’t realise/acknowledge what their god is.

    • athiest plus says:

      03:10pm | 18/03/10

      keep religious views out of politics.. full stop…

      Religion is personal, politics is public…. stop making rules and dictating my life based on your ideals.. as we do not share the same smile

    • Peter says:

      03:32pm | 18/03/10

      Isn’t aethism a religious view? You have no scientific evidence to believe what you believe. So I would say, your religious also..

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      06:47am | 19/03/10

      Peter says: 03:32pm | 18/03/10; your arguement dies a bit more with every new day. It’s over a hundred and fifty years since Darwin release his book The Origin Of Species. It has held up to science in every way they have tried. Actually science agrees with it. You cant say the same for religeon and that is just fact. Aethism isn’t about proving the existance of a god, the question is simply irrelevant in the mind of aethism. And so it should be aethism didn’t propose the idea of a supernatural all empowering being, so it should have to prove it. Religeon has been trying to prove it for the last 2000+ years have we seen any real proof??? please point us to the hard evidence it you have some. Aethism is a religeon is the latest throw up from religeous corner, by an aethist myself it makes me giggle. why!!! because they are trying ever so hard to stay in the argument.

    • Peter says:

      10:01am | 19/03/10

      No it hasn’t Rob, that is completely untrue. This THEORY has not been proven. There are many aeithist scientist who are questioning it now. There is ZERO evidence, other than just a bunch of old bones that some clowns are using and describing things that fit in with Darwin. These are not independant thinker, these are people who are scared to question the norms, or to stupid to. Evolution is a LIE, and this is not one bit of evidence to back it up. This should not be taught as facts. These scientist are so smart, surely it must be easy to explain it to the lay person. There are LYING they have no facts… Just theories..

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      03:07pm | 19/03/10

      Peter sorry to burst your bubble I didn’t say anything about a proven theory other than to say Darwin book and theory has held up to science for the last 150 years. The same CANT be said for religion. What we’ve had from the religious sector on the so called facts as they are in religious literature, is concession after concession as facts become stretched truth. For instance you still believe the Earth is 6000-12000 years old? PROVEN not to be true by science! And lets look at DNA it’s doing a wonderful job of tracing our evolutionary steps. It’s hard to prove God doesn’t exist that is true! just like it is hard for me to prove to my 4 yrs old son the boogie man doesn’t really reside under his bed. Please tell me how you go about proving an imaginary thing. We have more proof of evolution than we do of imaginary friends. And imaginary friends have had a long turn at the lectern, some 2000 years plus. Perhaps you should spend some time with your nose in a real book and not just the good book. By the way the good book isn’t even original. It steals from preceding sects, for instance the split of bread and fish to feed the masses, walking on water, the separation of the seas, the great flood were all stories from sects that were around up to 4500 yrs before Christ came along. The 12 apostles thing was also a rip off. It dates back to when we worshiped the sun. We called it the Sun God and the 12 constellations we used to guide our year this is all PROVEN fact! The Sun God was changed to the Son of God and he was given 12 apostles. Religion was an early way to control the masses through mostly fear. They wrote it in Latin so most of the masses couldn’t read the literature for them selves reinforcing the control it had. You can argue your point all you like, but it’s your argument and irrelevant one to me.

    • Peter says:

      04:13pm | 19/03/10

      Rob, i quoted no religious text to you other than say i believe in God. You presuming I am christian. I simply believe in God. That’s all. Now you can denigrate me and talk about boogie men, your welcome to do that, as your a welcome to believe you were a fish (believe me science will prove me right one day, or maybe I should say, science will prove evolution to be BS one day)., i don’t pretend to know it all. Anyway, must stop, have no more time left, must run to the pub and forget everything I said. Cheers my friend and thanks for taking time to denigrate me and my belief in the boogie man. Ps. the real boogie men are alot scarier than what you think, and i am talking about the nice guys as well!!

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:28pm | 19/03/10

      Just one more thing, Peter! the recent earthquake in Haiti. I was so sadden to see people who obviously deeply religious being strengthen in their beliefs that there local church had been obliterated by the earthquake, but luckily no one was inside. This was reported in front of a Pub directly across the road, which was still standing and appeared to be open for business. God works in mysterious ways, arrrrh it was a good chuckle all the same.

    • Rob r Chareris says:

      11:15am | 20/03/10

      Peter if your going to open your mouth and spert BS about aethism from your god believing view. People will respond to that. I dont claim to be a religious scholar, so dont be an arm chair expert on aethism. In your view is it only people who believe in a god can have or put to text their point of view??? is that what your god tells you??? I can now see how dangerous Abbott will truly be to this great country.

    • pc says:

      03:18pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Sasskia,

      Why is Tony Abbott so competent? On what particular evidence would this be? His rejection of the stimulus. Which worked. A price on carbon - a small one - but perhaps all we can extract of Tony Abbotts Cato like mission.  The Catos of the coalition will have years of fun counting how much it cost and then haranguing the government about exactly how much it bloody cost.

      The government is prepared to take on the debt fear campaign on climate change and hospitals and jobs. It is possible for them to confront the realities of the challenges. The coalition wants to pretend these problems arent there Theres a cheaper way. Sure its not really cheaper its just crazy but they think that will work. Religion is another issue Tony Abbott wants to polarise Australians on. Stoke our distrust of each other.

    • Peter A says:

      03:27pm | 18/03/10

      What no comparison to our church door stopping PM, passing comment with his bible under his arm each and every Sunday. Get over Abbots religious beliefs. But at least he follows the comandment ‘thou shalt not lie’ unlike the lamestream medias pin up KRudd .

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:27pm | 19/03/10

      Just like your evidence of creationism and it’s proof, where is an image of Kev super 2010 walking out of his church to a supposedly press confrence with a bible under his arm…. still talking BS Peter?

    • Hayley says:

      03:44pm | 18/03/10

      Has anyone ever noticed (and this blog is a prime example) that athiests/agnostics generally don’t give a damn what anyone thinks, yet religious people get extremely defensive and angry if any one dare poke a little hole in any argument about their beliefs? I’m sure even now there will heaps of comments about this comment. Religious people can often be the least accepting. Oh and by the way there is evidence that we have a fish as a very distant ancestor - ever seen a salamander? That’s a fish with legs. Although we are more closely related to whales and dolphins. However, this might be all a bit too much evidence and not enough faith, but since you brought it up…

    • Peter says:

      04:29pm | 18/03/10

      Yes I am related to a salamander because it has legs, im also related to kangaroos, and spiders because they have legs to, so surely that is evidence we were once insects. I have 4 ingredients, i can make lots of things with them, does it mean they are related? Maybe, there are made of the same ingredients after all, but did one thing evolve from the next, i don’t think so… Not sure how many people ive seen that look like dolphins, ive seen people who look like apes and roosters, maybe the rooster is our distant relative?

    • Peter says:

      04:53pm | 18/03/10

      Mate, while you are on the topic of religious people getting defensive, perhaps you should look at the Dawkins forum on this website and see how they let fly, but calling everyone under the sun stupid. They get it from you guys insisting that we were fish. Now i know the salamander blows you away, but just because you have a white coat im not any more inclined to believe you. I work with many people with degrees, im hardly blown away by their intellect.. So because you went to uni my friend and they told you to accept nothing else other than evolution, because you’ll be branded stupid for believing otherwise, then i can’t help you..

    • Hayley says:

      06:09pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, I can’t even begin to fathom how little you know about the theory of evolution but if you think about how dogs are breed to look a certain way, that is an artificial form of sped up evolution. It is also a theory - in science this means it is not the absolute answer, but its null hypothesis (ie that evolution does not exist) has been tested for 100’s of years and it cannot be disproved. Doesn’t mean its fact - just means it can’t be disproved. Just like gravity can’t be disproved. As to you not believing anyone who has been trained at uni (and their lack of intellect), well I guess if you doctor tells you you’ve got cancer you can tell him he’s wrong just because he’s got a white coat. Good luck in life with this attitude!

    • Peter says:

      10:09am | 19/03/10

      Run Hayley Run, i thought the science was in mate. Now your just telling me it can’t be disproved, not that it can be proved. Yes be condesending, so you call look intelligent as you run the other way. Im not saying science hasn’t served us well, it has, it has also done harm. Religion has done both also. I saw Australian Chief Scientist on ABC last night, and she told the viewers, that alot of scientists, from Astrophysists to Biologists etc all believe in God. There are alot of aethiest scientists who question evolution. I call these independant thinkers. Now you just telling me evolution can’t be disproved. I thought science proves thing, that’s it job, especially when it is being taught in Schools as well.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:11pm | 19/03/10

      Peter please tell us who all these Astrophysists to Biologists athiests who dont believe in evolution are??? got any names???

    • Jill says:

      03:49pm | 18/03/10

      So it obviously wasn’t an anonymous poll then? Did the people questioned know they were going to be quoted? Wouldn’t that affect how many people would take part, and the type of people?

      Not a very big sample size either.

    • smarty says:

      04:19pm | 18/03/10

      my fake god is better than your fake god

    • Brad Coward says:

      04:26pm | 18/03/10

      Personally, I wouldn’t care if Tony Abbott was a Callathumpian Jew !  If I lived in his electorate I would vote for him.  As he isn’t running for the electorate that I live in, my vote goes to his representative.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:18pm | 19/03/10

      Yes brad but you would vote for anyone with little intellect. No policies, no direction just more middle class welfare. That’s you to a tee.

    • pc says:

      04:44pm | 18/03/10

      Hi Peter A

      Peter A - “What no comparison to our church door stopping PM, passing comment with his bible under his arm each and every Sunday. Get over Abbots religious beliefs”

      Who are you talking to? I’ve said that I am afraid of his beliefs because I dont know what they are; Is it the Tony Abbott of paid leave for women that earn $150 000 a year. Not that I think theres anything wrong with that of course. But I’d like to know how women in part time or casual work did? Is it the Tony Abbott that attacks women who may have had abortions? I dont know. The Prime Minister is probably like you say closer to Tony Abbotts position on some of these issues. But I know Kevin Rudd isnt going to attack citizens for cheap political points.

    • :( says:

      04:52pm | 18/03/10

      Wow, me thinks this forum need to have a big long cup of calm the hell down…

      Is there really that much hatred for people who profess beliefs.  There has been some very ugly things said about people’s personal beliefs in this forum..  Sorry I thought I lived in Australia and I get to be an Atheist and have free speech or Christian and have free speech.  You wouldn’t believe that if you read this forum.

      I am really disappointed at the school yard antics that are passing for informed debate. 

      As to the article my only comment is : - very small sample size therefore hard to draw sweeping conclusions from this.

    • Venise says: says:

      05:11pm | 18/03/10

      Andrew, being a man you should have no opinion about abortion. It is a woman’s body and life which is at threat. It is a woman’s right to decide whether or not she has an abortion.

      You criticise Peter’s syntax, but you ignore his point. No religious fundamentalist has the right to attempt to undo our secularism. Most especially a catholic fundamentalist.

      The lovely outrage and Politically Correct people have a nervous break-down when the rest of the community say nasty things about Tony Abbott but it is only fair to remember the behaviour of Church leaders in adverse circumstances. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was but one of the many faithful who, when the Muslims were rioting throughout Europe about a few (disrespectful?) cartoons in a Danish newspaper, came down on the side of the Muslims. Perhaps Andrew you could research your history before commenting. The name Torquemada mean anything? Fra Savanorola? The inquisition?

      Should Tony Abbott become prime minister he will be under tremendous pressure from the Catholic Church to re-form Oz life. His fellow Catholic parliamentarians on the coalition side will be goading him.

      Even if Tony Abbott could put aside his religiousness people like Christopher Pyne, Peter Ryan,  Julian McGuran, Kevin Andrews (anti-euthanasia activitist) Barnaby Joyce (rabid anti-abortionist) will be leaning on him to pursue their goals, there are many parliamentarians who are Catholic, not just these few.

      As we all know, Tony Abbott wears his faith like a bull-bar. And all gains made by the non-Catholics will be wiped out. Just the same as when John Howard got into power. Knowing that the electorate in the Northern Territory had voted in favour of euthanasia, John Howard, urged on by the Catholics in his party promptly over-ruled this new law. Result no more euthanasia. And Oz is a democracy? Not while Kevin Andrews is around.

      In Victoria the right for women to have an abortion was so fiercely fought that it was decided to have a conscience vote. The Ayes won the day and the women of Victoria have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

      Barnaby Joyce, being a rabid anti-abortionist, will pressure Abbott to overturn this law. And Tony Abbott-a rabid Catholic fundamentalist-will jump to attention. Even if I liked the man I would still say he has no business putting Australia second to his duty to the pope.

      Look up this law, Peter;  you will see how the Catholics in Victoria constituted nearly all the Nay votes.

      Please believe me, Australia does not deserve to be set back five centuries.

    • antman says:

      08:26pm | 18/03/10

      Sorry Venise, can you tell me exactly how the Federal parliament would overturn a Victorian law? The Federal Parliament has full Constitutional power to legislate in respect of one of the Territories but not in respect of the States unless s.51 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides it with a power to legislate on that matter and the Federal Parliament enacts a law pursuant to that express power that is intended to overrule all other inconsistent laws within the Commonwealth. There’s nothing in s.51 of the Constitution that would permit the Federal Parliament to enact legislation in relation to abortion, certainly not in a manner that would over-rule State laws (unless the Federal Government signed an international treaty outlawing abortion and used the External Affairs power in paragraph (xxix) - can’t see that happening). It’s the same reasion why the Federal Government cannot just take over responsibility for public hospitals; it does not have the Constitutional power to make laws with respect to them.

      Financial power is a different matter.

    • TC says:

      01:08am | 19/03/10

      Abortion is progress?

    • Dan says:

      02:59am | 19/03/10

      I’m pro-choice, but to say that ‘being a man you should have no opinion about abortion’ is nonsence. Men have every right to have an opinion. It doesn’t mean that we will be listened to, but we do have the right to an opinion. However, if you don’t think we have no right to an opinion, then you shouldn’t expect our support, including when it comes to overturning abortion laws. You can’t have it both ways.

    • Venise says: says:

      05:15pm | 18/03/10

      PETER, @ 3.32pm has to be kidding when he says atheists cannot prove there is no God.

      Do tell!!!! You can prove there is a God? I don’t think so.

    • Peter says:

      03:00pm | 19/03/10

      Wouldn’t even try Venise. You believe what you want, and i’ll believe what i want. Im not here to convince you one way or another. But I guarantee you one thing, you were not once a fish… Even some aethiests scientist question this…

    • Dan says:

      10:21pm | 19/03/10

      Religious people may not be able to prove that there is a God, but Athiests certainly can not believe there is no God.

    • Venise Alstergren says:

      05:22pm | 18/03/10

      Peter, I apologise. It was not you who uttered this pro-religious cr/ap, it was Andrew. I’m very sorry.

      Cheers

      Venise

    • Peter says:

      11:48am | 19/03/10

      That’s ok Venise. I’ve done that myself. I believe in God, i am not saying that in believe 100% what religions tell me. There are people in religions as there are in Science who sometimes distort things for their advantage. I respect your right not to believe in God and I will never try to convince you otherwise. No one should interfere with what a person believes. This are personal things. I am concerned that lies are being taught in class rooms, because Evolution is a Lie. Im not saying bring God back into science rooms, but i don’t want aethists eithers spruiking unsubstatiated theories as facts either.. Venise there are even aethiest scientists who don’t care if you believe in god or not, who doubt the theory of evolution. Science should be based on facts only, not theories, especially when our kids are being taugh lies about being fish…

    • VinceOZ says:

      05:28pm | 18/03/10

      Tony Abbott is a real man, with feelings, beliefs, and humility. Rudd is pale

    • Ross says:

      05:42pm | 18/03/10

      The only thing holding Rudd back from being a great prime minister is his religious beliefs . Same goes for Abbot they are both to quick to draw the religious card instead of sound reason . .

    • Jane says:

      05:48pm | 18/03/10

      Most of Abbott’s supporters don’t care about his views on religion, women, abortion etc - I could have told you that even before the survey was done! So why do the media keep bleating on and on about it and keep highlighting it as a negative - it does nothing! Ironically - it just keeps feeding the support for Abbott.  All Abbott’s supporters care about is that he keeps sticking it into Kevin (who Abbott supporters hate - for the like of me I can’t see why - he is just a nerd -I just get the feeling some Australians just like to be angry about something and poor Kevin cops it).

      Abbott is the master on the sound bite and sounds tough which his supporters love.  But have you ever heard him in interviews? - he bluffs around and dodges questions like a masterful boxer and uses spin just as much as Rudd does - he is almost the jock version of Rudd.  Actually it is vert painful to listen to Abbott being interviewed at times with all the ums and arrs - but I can assure you now most of Abbott’s supporters would have probably never have listened to him in a full on tough interview.  Or if his supporters had bothered to listen they would not have cared about his painful dodging because again Abbott sounds tough in his soundbites.

      Abbott is the male version of Pauline Hanson.  His supporters will continue to love him as long as he provides the tough soundbites and provides middle-class welfare handouts like Howard did.  The only way Abbott will lose support if he reneges on his handouts or starts to sound really silly and stupid.  I feel Barnaby will actually be Abbott’s downfall if Abbott’s supporters start to feel they won’t be able to trust Barnaby with the Australian finances.

    • Mr Right says:

      06:44pm | 18/03/10

      Anyone who supports the separation of the Church (and I mean the real Church) and state ignores the demonstrable fact that the only human values of any worth are those CREATED BY the Church. You can’t govern without values, and you can’t have values unless you’re a believer in the Church.

    • Scott says:

      06:48pm | 18/03/10

      Peter as a non-believer I for one will allow you to end your obsession with people and fish. Furthermore as a non-believer I may subscribe to science as theory, but not gospel. See you’re interpretation is basic and flawed. Not everybody who is a non-believer is an atheist, not every atheist commits faithfully to science and nor do they have to subscribe to the fact we were once fish. This is your one and only construction to build your one and only defence…and finally yes I will be voting Rudd whom I think is a religious pragmatist using the church to buy votes because I think as PM he will be less of a dogmatic religious conservative than Tony Abbott. This said I feel there is little choice as the electoral system is as binary and basic as your view on believers and non-believers. Delve a bit deeper into the subject matter and you may very well see the light!

    • Peter says:

      10:48am | 19/03/10

      Scott, i don’t need believers or non-believers to dictate to me when to end my obsession with fish. God has been taken out of the science room, fair enough, i don’t think you’ve heard me saying that we should put him back there either. But lies and i mean unproven lies, that we were fish, should not be taught in science either. There is ZERO proof. You might try to denigrate me by saying i have an obsession with fish, but it is the evolutionist who have an obsession with fish, not me. These are unproven LIES and scientists themselves will eventually prove me right…

    • Gorey says:

      11:28am | 19/03/10

      I don’t think it’s worth even arguing with Peter about evolution. He doesn’t even know the difference between the way the word “theory” is used in a scientific sense (ie. as a framework for a set of facts and principles that allows something to work) and in a secular (no pun intended. Oh, wait a minute…) sense (ie. a bunch of ideas that may or may not work). Similar to the way some posters here completely ignore the findings of 80+% of the world’s experts in the related fields that prove man-made climate change is occuring because some pollie or columnist with no expert knowledge says it isn’t because it was cold yesterday and also the day before, so climate change must be “bunk”, Peter believes evolution doesn’t occur because the fly he saw yesterday didn’t become an elephant today.

    • Peter says:

      02:05pm | 19/03/10

      Gorey, I heard of a Swinbourne Physics mathematical equation that this is a 79% chance that “a god” exists. But don’t argue with me, just dismiss me and run the other way, because you have ZERO facts to back up what you say. Im not asking you to believe in God, but don’t simply believe you were a fish, because it is convenient for some non-believer. You scientists are so smart, you have degrees, you should very easily make me look stupid. Im an open target mate, so come after me! You want to teach these as FACTS in schools, i should be an easy target. I challenge you, make me look stupid!!!

    • Bob H says:

      02:59pm | 19/03/10

      @Peter - theres something somewhere that you heard about you think,  well why didn’t you say so before - it the proof we’ve all been looking for.

    • Peter says:

      03:29pm | 19/03/10

      Bob H, i don’t even know if that was true, just something I heard, so perhaps we ask Swinbourne. If you want to use science to disprove God, im sure there is no shortage of scientists who would use their own knowledge to prove otherwise. Aethiests are on the path of converting people, and people should just be left alone on these matters. My best mate is an aethiests, he wouldn’t dare try to convert me and I wouldn’t try to do it to him either. We have great conversations though…

    • Leah says:

      09:02pm | 18/03/10

      If a politician adheres to a certain religion, I would expect his religion to influence his policies. I would dismiss any religious politician who made policies in contravention to his personal beliefs for the sake of garnering votes. Of course, this is within reason - a Christian politician might believe that Christians should not work on Sunday without trying to legislate that nobody works on Sundays, whereas he might believe that abortion is flat out wrong, and so tries to legislate against that.

      That said, we must not make the mistake of suggesting that a politician’s policies are in contravention of his personal beliefs without knowing specifically what his beliefs are. The article said “(Abbott’s) support for WorkChoices and contraception seemed to contradict his Catholic beliefs”. Actually, a lot of Catholics do not oppose contraception. I could go into the whys and wherefores, but suffice to say, I think you’d find many, if not most, Australian Catholics probably don’t believe the Bible forbids contraception.

      I also think Venise is very, very wrong in saying men do not deserve an opinion on abortion. That’s draconian. Those babies still have fathers, and the father has as much say in the child’s life as the mother. Not to mention, she tries to play the dramatic emotion card by saying it’s “It is a woman’s body and life which is at threat”. Sorry, but less than 10% of Australian pregnancies that result in abortion have pose no threat to the mother’s life at all, and an even smaller percentage pose a serious threat.

    • Jasonb84 says:

      09:39pm | 18/03/10

      Im a gay person and Im worried Tony Abbott is going to use his religious beliefs to discriminate against me, thats why I cant vote for him.

    • mr pastry says:

      09:42pm | 18/03/10

      If Rudd and Abbott are so useless why are they the only choice we have of choosing a government.  A bit like choosing to be hit over the head with a rock or a baseball bat.

    • Brad says:

      10:25pm | 18/03/10

      Perhaps Richard Dawkins would describe Mr Abbott as stupid as a slug and just as slimy.

      He definitely makes my skin crawl.

    • Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

      11:31pm | 18/03/10

      So let me get this right, a man with high ethical standards(whether you support them or not) is a bad thing but a bloke who gets drunk & loses control of his faculties in a sleazy strip & pick up joint like little Kevvy is the ideal prime minister? ? ? ? ?

    • John says:

      09:13am | 19/03/10

      Robert, are you saying that only the religious have high ethical standards. Well the evidence is contrary to that assumption. What do Pedophile priests and suicide bombers have in common?

    • jed says:

      11:48pm | 18/03/10

      good to see a few people mentioning the ldp in here. in reality they’re our only hope for any real freedom.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      06:25am | 19/03/10

      I think it’s a bit stupid for people to be comparing… Rudd’s photo op’s on a Sunday morning as he is leaving church to Abbott’s dictating of his religous beliefs to certain sections of the electrate. They are two totally different things. It is why you wont ever see Rudd dictating to women about their virginity. And Abbott calls Rudd a control freak…. no Tony Baloney the only freak is YOU!

    • riley says:

      07:18am | 19/03/10

      Religion has no place in politics, in fact it has no place in a civilised community.
      “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
      it” John Adams.
      Ban the Bible!!! and the Koran, and whatever other fantasy books people believe in.

    • Heather says:

      09:15am | 19/03/10

      I quite agree. I’m with the two people who said that they WOULDN’T vote for a person because of their religion. Now, whilst an atheist myself, I’m quite happy for other people to believe in whatever medieval myth they choose, wise old men in the sky, flying spaghetti monsters, whatever, that’s their problem, not mine; but I totally disagree with politicians foisting ultra conservative, misogynistic policies on the public because of their belief system. However, if we have to have such people in positions of power, I only wish they’d stop obsessing so much about sex, which pretty much every adult engages in; and use their religious beliefs for anti violence, and that includes engaging in unecesssary international conflicts.

    • Peter says:

      03:33pm | 19/03/10

      That’s ok Heather, you can believe in unsubstaniated LIES about evolution and believe you were a fish. I know humans don’t think much of themselves, that’s why maybe some of these conartists have been able to get away with telling people they were fish…

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:44pm | 19/03/10

      Peter…. its a lot more believable than we men were made/created from sand, and women from the rib of man. How sexist is that last bit!!! (I think science have proved those two thing wrong!!!!)  it forever (in religious perspective) relegated women to be inferior to man. And women have been persecuted for it ever since. If I were to worship a god it would be MY GIRL!!!!! hey and guess what she ain’t imaginary, she is REAL!!!!

    • carmen watt says:

      09:14am | 19/03/10

      My partner knows from first hand what a foul mouthed, vicious, vindictive phoney Rudd is when he had to see him whilst Rudd was known as doctor death in Queensland govt when her was working for Goss.

      At least Abbot has the courage of his convictions & is not a phoney christian like Rudd.

      Most of the negativaty about Abbot is the left jounalism in this country who are mainly responsible in getting the little Hitler elected in the first place.

      Daisy

    • Willy K says:

      10:48am | 19/03/10

      Spot on.

      How about journalists compile a list of rude incidents involving Rudd vs Abbott.  I have heard nothing but praise for Abbott as a person and dozens of horror stories about Rudd.

      What makes me laugh as an atheist is all the hostile fascist type comments screaming for religion to be banned.  Closed minded fools are everywhere religious or atheist.

      Manners cost nothing.  The issue should be the authenticity of the two men.  For Rudd to claim he is Christian and and economic conservative given his vicious sly spite and his unfettered waste as PM is just stone-cold lies.

      Do us a favour and analyse KEVIN RUDD!!!!

      Sick of the obssession with the Libs - they are not in govt anymore!

    • trance says:

      09:17am | 19/03/10

      You only need to look as far as people like Michael Atkinson to see that politics and religion don’t mix, you can’t run a campaign based on your beliefs when all your constituents aren’t held to the same set of beliefs.
      keep it real and objective, none of this Man in the sky BS…

    • Henry says:

      11:04am | 19/03/10

      Tony Abbott is the most authentic politician since Bob Hawke.

      Both of these men were Rhodes Scholars and athletes.  Both are plain speaking, fit and tough.  Both relate to the ‘typical Australian’ far more than lily-white, fat, mealy mouthed, PC, public servant twits like Rudd.

      I disagreed with 90% of Hawke’s politics but respected him as a politician.  Respect is something that fakes and lairs like Rudd will never have in 1000 lifetimes.

      It was great that Abbott won his Oxford University Boxing title by pretending his opponent was Bob Hawke!

      Imagine what Abbott would do to Rudd in a ring or better still and Octogon!

    • Luke says:

      11:14am | 19/03/10

      I was A Labor supporter for many years but the NSW state Labor and Kevin Rudds has turned me of for life all they do is F the states and the countries they are bringing us into a 3rd world country now we in nsw are going to be slugged 60% for power claim that it is the ETS Making them do it so in effect RUDD is a snake an evil very evil snake can not get the ETS through the Frontdoor so has made deals with the companies to slug us anyway for it through the backdoor it is wrong it is criminal. As for Abbotts Religion I do not care he will lead this country properly and do the right thing by Australians

    • Willy K says:

      11:38am | 19/03/10

      Good on you Luke.  Quite honestly I think that the ALP have been hijacked by the latte left/chardonnay socialists and don’t do a thing for the average person on the street anymore.

      Abbot will be glad to have you and your ilk joining him and I’m confident that he is not the sort of bloke to let us down.

    • Ange says:

      11:32am | 19/03/10

      My goodness, I just took a look on the comments on here and they are certainly viscous. So much ignorance and no respect. The question was - does Abbott’s religion influence your choice in voting for him? It’s a simple yes or no, and here’s why I think this way about it, etc. No need to tear apart other people for their views. Take a chill pill everyone. For me, his religious views do make me consider my vote more, because his attitudes (some based in religious doctrine) do seem to influence his policies. This is just my point of view - there is no need to attack my opinion with venom from all angles just because you disagree. I am not going to say how I’m voting though - it will be like being thrown to the lions on this forum!!

    • heather says:

      01:44pm | 19/03/10

      yes, the comments are a bit glutinous, though not very honeyed; lol

    • James says:

      11:32am | 19/03/10

      I think the most important fact about Tony Abbott is that he is nuttier than walnut cake.  His religion simply allows himself to think he is right under all circumstances.  I would no sooner vote for Tony Abbott than I would vote for Osama Bin Laden

    • Henry says:

      01:46pm | 19/03/10

      Nice disguise Kevin…

      You haven’t got time to waste on these blogs!

    • Sandi says:

      11:42am | 19/03/10

      I am a dedicated Liberal supporter, but there is no way I will ever support my party whilst Abbott is at the helm. His political and personal view points (in particular his attitude to women’s issues) do not belong in the political sphere and it will be a massive step backwards for all Australian’s if this man is chosen to run our country.

    • Saskia says:

      12:31pm | 19/03/10

      I’m a woman and I think Tony is great.  He respects women and is a strong man with strong views.  He has my vote with bells on!

      Better than the wimp Rudd - now he is a nasty little drip with women issues.

    • Brian says:

      02:03pm | 19/03/10

      yeah sure you are ......T.Chong

    • wue sung says:

      12:07pm | 19/03/10

      I vote for Kevin. He is the chinese vote. He looks after foreigners!

    • Angie says:

      02:05pm | 19/03/10

      Yeah he really looks after foreigners? Like letting illegals in before legal migrants who ohave gone through the appropriate channels…....the Mandarin thing is another political ploy for votes and you fell for it…....who is the fool here?

    • Steve says:

      12:41pm | 19/03/10

      Politicians are just as entitled to their own personal beliefs as the rest of us, as long as they support the electorate that voted them rather than pushing their own agenda. Whether they do that or not, there will always be those who will be looking for any link to their beliefs to belittle them.
      Look at the US elections as an example. Mitt Romney came very close to being the republican candidate (and I personally think he would have fared better against Obama than McCain did, though probably still wouldn’t have won). One thing that often came up often was his religion. Was america ready to elect a mormon? Obviously america was ready to elect a black man. Seems the US, and perhaps Australia too, is having a much harder time getting over religous bigotry than racist bigotry. Political correctness doesn’t allow for racism but religious bigotry? No problem!

    • James says:

      01:11pm | 19/03/10

      Tony Abbott is Australia’s leading example of a religious bigot

    • Muttley says:

      01:23pm | 19/03/10

      Steve, if you are comparing not voting for someone because of a religious affiliation to not voting for someone because of their skin colour i would suggest you have missed the point dramatically. There is no problem with disagreeing with an individuals religious convictions, but there is something drastically wrong with disapproving of someone due to skin colour. Or do you not get that?

    • Peter says:

      02:10pm | 19/03/10

      To the people at the herald sun, please do not print this if you can. Just a request: Can you please get an independant journo, with no preconceived ideas about God or no God, to investigate the theory of evolution, question scientists (believers and non believers), religious people who have agree with evolution, and non-religous scientist who don’t believe in evolution. I think this is worth investigating. My opinion is evolution is a unsubstantiated LIE and our kids are being told they were fish.. Please use your own people, question independant scientists (believers and non-believers), because these people are still peddling LIES as facts….. Im not a God botherer who wants science classes to teach God, but i don’t want them teaching theories as facts either. Even non-believers question evolution…

    • Craigles says:

      04:51pm | 19/03/10

      Peter

      What was Charles Darwins “Theory of Evolution” in 1859 has been verified by the subsequent elaborate studies into genetics starting with Gregor Mendel in 1870, thru to the discovery and elucidation of DNA (first by Miescher in 1868; then by Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin in the 1950s), and beyond.  Paeleontology has since made a lot of findings supporting his work, too.  It is not Fact.

    • antman says:

      05:39pm | 19/03/10

      And even some believers question creationism and accept evolution. Do you now accept that creationists are peddling LIES as facts too? It seems to be entirely consistent with the incoherent ramblings that you are presenting as an argument. Honestly, if you could actually construct a rational argument, I might just take youseriously. As it is, your arguments are hollow and unsubstantialted; making you look like a total whacko. You bring to mind the child with its fingers in its ears repeating over and over again “I can’t hear you” whenever you are preented with anything that might oppose your view of reality..

      Humans are fallible, so I’m sure that there have been instances of evolutionists stretching the truth on occassions, but I am equally sure that the vast majority of evidence in support of evolution is genuine. Now, if we were to consider the lies peddled by many creationists (yourself included) as facts, then we’d be here all week.

    • Matt says:

      06:14pm | 19/03/10

      I’m afraid you have a severe case of the ‘ignorant’.

      A scientific theory is different from your preconcieved notion of ‘theory’. A scientific theory has been put under countless amounts of scrutiny, and has a great deal of evidence to support itself.  This is what evolution is. You actually give it support when you call it a ‘theory’.

      And just as another point to make, the notion of Gravity is also a theory. We were not ‘fish’, our very, very, very distant ancestors were something resembling aquatic fish, some went onto land.

      I fail to see what’s so bad about that. We evolved into a more complicated organism over hundreds of millions of years.

      Evolution HAS been observed, a recent experiment with many generations of the E.coli bacterium showed that it eventually changed to adapt to different conditions in order to survive more easily.

      Evolution is not ‘questioned’ , it is put under constant scrutiny to ensure that any postulates are supported by the evidence provided. People don’t just come up with random things, it takes YEARS of research.

      Though it is quite clear you are incapable of understanding the most basic things of biology, so my explanations are wasted on something like you.

    • Adam says:

      07:21pm | 19/03/10

      sigh. If you aren’t convinced by evolution, that’s a personal problem. You are more than welcome to educate yourself on the past 150 odd years of scientific thought on the matter.
      You say that you don’t want theories being taught in school. How do you feel about the theory of gravity? Electromagnetism? These, and pretty much all scientific ‘facts’ are also nothing more than theories. Should they not be taught in schools as well, using your logic?

      If we want to get pedantic on the matter, evolution isn’t a theory any longer, but has crossed the floor to become a paradigm. There is such a weight of evidence (even observational evidence - i’m not kidding, look it up if you really feel the need) behind the ‘theory’ of evolution that there is NO serious scientific discourse about its validity. That however doesn’t mean that evolution is a static theory, it is being constantly added to and refined as our technology and understanding increases. Exactly the same as the theories of gravity, or electromagnetism.

      Remember; you can NEVER prove that a theory is correct, only incorrect. You can gather evidence that supports a theory, but you cannot prove it to be beyond a doubt ‘correct.
      On the same note, and this is what makes evolution a proper theory (unlike some we could mention), evolution is entirely disprovable. If evidence existed that could completely invalidate evolutionary theory, it would have exactly that effect (although more likely it would simply cause a rethought on the matter, as has happened many times in the past to accomodate new data).

      So please, go and start reading. I advise starting with the wiki page on evolution as a starting point to get your head around the idea. Then maybe get your hands on some high shool level text books, before moving onto some uni level stuff. Eventually you’ll be ready to get into the meat of it, which is to start reading some peer reviewed journals, and (just for fun) you should definitely read Darwins original ‘On The Origin Of Species’

      Once you’re up to speed, then you can try picking holes in evolution. But until then… Start learning mate.

    • John says:

      08:27am | 20/03/10

      Peter, what’s wrong with once being a fish? are racist against fish?

    • Ritchie says:

      08:59am | 20/03/10

      Peter, 1. a lie is a deliberate mistruth; 2. a journo would be hard put finding a “non-religious scientist” who doesn’t believe in evolution because, apart from people pushing a religious agenda, evolution is almost universally accepted as the best theory of how the species of today arose; 3. the fact that religious beliefs are not part of science and therefore should not compete in the science classroom has been well and truly explored (do some research and do some reading on the philosophy of science); 4. you seem to have a particular hostility to the notion that “you” were once a fish (seemingly the notion that you were moulded from clay is less offensive).

    • Front row says:

      10:38pm | 21/03/10

      Come on Peter.
      Independant?
      Hell.

    • Martin Kennedy says:

      07:24pm | 19/03/10

      I wont vote for any group that uses religion in there politics, just look at George Bush and his bunch of religous looneys who managed to cause the biggest train wreck of any administration in the history of the world. Both the liberals and labor are run by unions, lobbyists and narrow minded religous biggots all of which are swimming in there own self important micro managed worlds none of which care for or are willing to help humaity as a whole. We gave a token 5 million to Haiti but want to spend 45 Billion thats 4500 Million on a broadband sceme that is a complete waste of tax payer money, then on top of that it will be controlled and filtered and be out of date by the time google brings its 1 Gig connection to homes. We need to boot the likes of Rudd & Stephen Conroy out of parliment and start putting in people that LISTEN to the people instead of a few religous fanatics. And for the record Rudd and Conroy changing your hair colour to grey doesnt make either of you look more respectful or intelligent it just makes you both look like old crusty hasbeens, If we wanted headmasters as pollies we’d vote them in. I for one of many thousands are sorry I gave you my vote, go buy a one way ticket to china or iran because thats where the both of you belong.

    • Lee Mazengarb says:

      07:46pm | 19/03/10

      Can we have someone else to vote for please….
      How do I get to propose myself for the top job,
      I’m sure I’d do a better job of it…:)

    • Anthony says:

      01:55am | 20/03/10

      Abbott and the Pope: Two men with inverse life stories.

    • Glenn says:

      05:36pm | 20/03/10

      We currently have a PM that holds his Sunday press conferences outside a church. Is this okay because it is the Church of England? In the 50’s it was common for newspaper advertisements for jobs to have the abbreviation ‘C.N.N.A’ down the bottom. Catholics Need Not Apply. Does this still hold for a potential PM? We live in a political system in which even the wishes of the PM can still be overturned by the masses. Stop being so scared of someone with strong views - it leads to healthy debates. And finally, at least he shows his colours, not-unlike KR who seems to wear whatever he likes when it suits him.

    • Ann says:

      10:41pm | 20/03/10

      In the 1950’s some women were fed a line that they can marry Jesus, today some women are fed a line that they can marry each other.

      Same nonsense, different Religion.

      In every generation there are those gullible enough to swallow anything, especially if it is wrapped up in some self proclaimed moral high ground.

      It is the usual line, ...‘follow us (the current flavor of madness…) and, ‘you will be one of the enlightened/progressive/pious/blessed….’, what ever, and as a result,  ‘you are saving the world/universe’, prattle.

      The West finally managed to rid itself the madness of the Christian Religion in the 1970’s.

      Today, the West finds itself fending off the new madness of the new religion, Political Correctness, with some Dark Age Islam through into the mix. The former of course is vigorously promoting the latter, which rather funnily, will destroy the former given any chance.

      The seminaries and the churches of the Christian religion now stand empty. It is now time for the West to rid itself of the madness of Political Correctness.

      The first thing that needs to be done is to repeal the absurdity of the so called, Anti Discrimination Act. What was once decent piece of legislation has been twisted beyond recognition by an unelected activist judiciary running its own political agenda.

      The other immediate need is to starve the entire Politically Correct Complex of its taxpayer funded cash flow. Cut off the whimsically termed ‘Social Science’ departments in the universities, then cut off the ABC and SBS.

    • John says:

      04:07pm | 21/03/10

      Also can we get rid of the Cultural Relativism BS that all the political parties have been infected with.

    • Brian says:

      02:22am | 21/03/10

      I consider myself a natural Liberal voter, and I’d like to show my dissatisfaction with the current government’s poor record of delivering on their promises.  However, the Libs keep electing leaders that make it very hard for me to vote for them.  I despised Howard for his narrow-mindedness and was ashamed to have him as our coutry’s leader.  In Malcolm Turnbull, the Libs finally elected a leader that I felt I could vote for, but then they go and replace him with Howard Mark II.  So, it looks like I’ll be voting for Rudd as the lesser of two evils, because while I’m afraid of the damage Abbott will do this country, I know that Rudd will merely do nothing.

    • Jacob says:

      06:27pm | 21/03/10

      I don’t exactly know who Mr Abott’s voters are. The anti-immigration/populist right don’t like him because he led the charge against Pauline Hanson, the capitalists don’t like him because he’s borderline Catholic socialist, and the Anglo-Left don’t like him because he’s a traditionalist.

      His politics are more suited to a conservative South American electorate.

    • Tim says:

      09:10pm | 21/03/10

      Thanks for an objective, non biased article based on facts.

    • acotrel says:

      08:53am | 22/03/10

      Tony Abbott is an atypical catholic and an anachronism.  Most catholics these days have moved on from 1950s politics and have forgotten Mr B.A. Santamaria and Doc Mannix.  Due to their religion and it’s emphasis on empathy, most catholics naturally tend to prefer politics which embrace social justice. Abbott seems intent on dragging Australia back to an era of sectarianism when ‘reds under the beds’ was used to thwart every attempt to achieve social justice!

    • Voxpop says:

      09:32am | 29/03/10

      Abbott abused his position of power as minister for health by misrepresenting advice from the TGA (that is he lied) so that he could force a ban on RU486.  The Govt copped so much flak over this that Howard had to step in to allow a conscience vote on the matter which ended with overwhelming support to allow RU486 in. (95 vs 50)

      Those of you going on ad nauseum about Rudd being a churchie have no basis to believe that Rudd would allow his personal beliefs to cloud his judgement (in fact he takes a step back and clearly knows such a stance would not benefit the majority) whereas Abbott has proved he will.  In the conscience vote Rudd voted for allowing RU486 along with such Liberal figures as Julie Bishop, Peter Costello, Joe Hockey, Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull and many others who will have more than this to disagree with Abbott on (climate change and maternity leave for example).

      This isn’t about debating for or against abortion we already know the overwhelming majority support pro-choice just as we know the majority of the population don’t want religion promoted over secularism.  Only 20% of the population identify as religious with only 8% going to church regularly.  RU486 is the safest method for women needing abortion and I was disgusted with Abbotts manipulation and overall nasty, outdated and ultra conservative views on womens health. 

      That wasn’t the only way he let his religious belief override his duty in his job - he made it mandatory for women to go through religious organisations for councelling (as well as giving them massive funding-where others received none) so that no matter how desperate a woman was she would get no referral or advice on how to seek an abortion but instead be manipulated while vulnerable.

      Tony Abbott as PM is a dangerous prospect indeed.

      The RU486 conscience vote stats -
      http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=138

    • Dave Paul Saunders says:

      03:22pm | 24/03/11

      Religion is dangerously hypocritical & worship is most certainly dangerously oppressive. What it has to do with politics in this day an age of proven science with just happens to debunk religious views around the world is beyond me. It needs to be dropped from politics as not everyone is religions. Keep it in church, its not proven and mentioned in New Scientist or NASA articles or taken seriously if it is.

    • Sarah Sewing says:

      03:44pm | 15/08/11

      This post is very useful for me, much appreciated! smile

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@awelder The flaw in your statement is the premise.

Paul Colgan

RT @mumbletwits: Our judgement is that ANZ will lift interest rates despite the RBA announcement, but only by about 0.06 per cent. #hindsightbrokers

Paul Colgan

Loving this photo of Arnie and Sly Stallone together in hospital for treatment. Great shot http://t.co/BD7FkF5e

Malcolm Farr

@GhostofSirJoh When are you not serious???

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter