It's nice that you can write Julia in a more Lispy way, but if you did that you'd probably be one of the only Julia users did so, and your code would not be readily understandable or accpetable to the rest of Julia's users and if you wanted to integrate other Julia code in to your own you'd be stuck with having to use the more Python-like syntax that the vast majority of Julia code is written in.
In short, the Julia ecosystem is not a Lisp ecosystem.
If you wanted Lisp, you'd be far better off using a real Lisp to begin with, so you can unreservedly participate in an entire Lisp ecosystem, instead of using a language that hides its Lispyness behind a Python-like syntax.
Having a language that hides it's lispness behind a python-like syntax can be good for the lisp community though, even if they don't use them. People do have prejudice against those parenthesis, so having an entry point that is "Python-like" (the most popular language for beginners and non programmers) that can still teach the core features of Lisp (everything is an expression, sort of easy AST manipulation, macros, parts of CLOS like multiple dispatch) will only help people appreciate the languages it was inspired on. And possibly they'll also feel the limitations of non sexp macros and decide to actually move to racket or common lisp to free themselves from those restrictions once they become aware of them.
Possibly those people will even do something like Clojure for the Julia compiler (a mature version of [1]), with an entire community around it so you don't have to worry about doing "unacceptably lispy" code (and it will certainly interop much better than Clojure and Java).
In short, the Julia ecosystem is not a Lisp ecosystem.
If you wanted Lisp, you'd be far better off using a real Lisp to begin with, so you can unreservedly participate in an entire Lisp ecosystem, instead of using a language that hides its Lispyness behind a Python-like syntax.