IN THE abortion debate, it appears “conscience” has become code for “compliance”. In the first place, Premier Brumby called for a conscience vote, while clearly saying the bill should be voted through. It is now evident that under the proposed legislation, doctors who have a moral objection to abortion must refer any woman seeking an abortion to another medical practitioner. This bill reeks with a moral suppressant that I thought our society had done away with.
Murray Campbell, Mentone
Murray trained at Moore College and now pastors Mentone Baptist in Melbourne.
If you have time, this is worth a letter today. See the other letters to the Age here.
In the SMH the editor writes a little piece about the letters they received that week. This week he wrote:
Jane Caro’s opinion piece sparked a furious debate on religious education classes, in which the secularists had the weight of numbers.
I reckon the secularists are a very small vocal minority - and I reckon Anglicans have a bigger minority.
So it should be an encouragement to write. It’s certainly a weight of numbers thing - so even if your letter isn’t published - it helped a similar letter be published.
So it should be an encouragement to write. It’s certainly a weight of numbers thing - so even if your letter isn’t published - it helped a similar letter be published.
Mike
Completely true, Mike. I once got a call from an aggrieved SMH letters editor when I suggested in an (unpublished) letter that this practice hadn’t been followed.
The current letters editors may take a different view of what letters get in, and how, but if so I haven’t heard anything. The best response to an unpublished letter is not to think ‘Oh, they’re censoring Christians again’, but to write another letter.
When I was keeping track of these things, I managed to write 20 letters straight without a single one getting in. I’m sure I’ve beaten that record since.
When I was keeping track of these things, I managed to write 20 letters straight without a single one getting in. I’m sure I’ve beaten that record since.
Thank you, Paul Sheehan. You have confirmed what I have thought for some time - that Malcolm Turnbull is not fit to lead anything. He is interested in one thing above all others - Malcolm Turnbull.
David Ashton Orange
and here’s what i wrote....
Thank you, Paul Sheehan. You have confirmed something I have thought for some time - that Malcolm Turnbull was not fit to lead anything. He is interested in one thing above all others - Malcolm Turnbull.
It seems to go beyond that. Accusing a political opponent of trying to destroy his career is a sign of an unhealthy mindset. He is not above users his own colleagues to achieve his personal desires, and was obviously intent on destroying Nelson’s career. It indicates a narcissistic personality. This type of personality can be very charming when things go their way but can be savage when confronted and will feel threatened by opposition. Some of the changes to his front bench were obviously payback. Not the sort of person to be put in charge of anything.
Hopefully he either self-destructs or is his party dumps him before he gets anywhere near being Prime Minister.
I am not pleased by the editing, especially as they didn’t ask me!
Own trumpet warning: in that august journal, The Illawarra Mercury the following…
Like many, the global economic shenanigans makes me a little anxious about my superannuation.
Solomon’s proverb could be right: “Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle”!
But I also recall what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. He noticed that God dressed the flowers of the field more splendidly than even King Solomon. And so he concludes that God knows our needs and can look after us too.
Instead of stressing out about possessions, Jesus suggest we should seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness. Worrying will not add a single hour to our lifespan, nor a single dollar to our bank account.
Rev Sandy Grant
St Michael’s Cathedral, Wollongong
Shows you what you can get in to a regional paper - they printed exactly as I sent it - leaving my error in the verb in the second last sentence in place for all to see!
Political correctness of a leftist kind is very much alive at universities (Letters, October 13). The University of New England instructs that students should use so-called gender-inclusive language in essays. In correspondence on the matter a professor seriously suggested that instead of “mankind” I use “personkind”. I replied that if there actually were such a word I might consider using it.
IT WOULD be fair to say that Christianity has been reported to death, even if sometimes inaccurately or prejudiciously. The world views of other religions, whether on private or public affairs of the day, continue to be under-reported by the secular media. Then again, taking lessons from how Christianity is often pilloried, adherents of other faiths may be relieved to stay under the radar.
If the public is to know anything about the views across various religions, then those views need to be publicly articulated. The media can assist by giving space for their articulation and by reporting more widely on religion.
ABC Radio National’s The Religion Report was so obsessed with the Judeo-Christian tradition that the program should have been more appropriately titled Christianity Watch. The ABC’s cancellation of the program is no loss to our greater understanding of religion in Australian society.
The hand-wringing over the axing of Radio National’s The Religion Report (Letters, October 17-24) is unjustified. The program had a dogged focus on Christianity and the goings-on of the church. This is understandable because Christians frequently find themselves in the public arena when they comment on private and public affairs. Adherents of other spiritualities and religions might or might not have publicly volunteered their views on various issues. The Religion Report could and should have sought these out. It failed to provide insight into the relig-ious mind of Australian society.
As a practising Christian I naturally have no issue with the Lord’s Prayer, and believe non-Christian politicians could simply remain silent, as I do when attending services or events I cannot “amen” to. However, I would rather see professed Christian politicians attempt to emulate the ethical, humanitarian and loving behaviour Christ exemplified.
Own trumpet warning… Illawarra Mercury 29/10/08...
I can understand the predicament of non-Christian parliamentarians in only being given the Lord’s Prayer as an option at the start of each day of sitting (Mercury, October 27). But politicians are not forced to say it.
And this tradition rightly acknowledges the key part played by Christian beliefs in Australia’s heritage. Further it affirms the importance of “relying humbly on Almighty God” as our constitution says.
However, a word to those who want to keep praying it. The Lord’s Prayer requests that the Heavenly Father would establish his rule on earth ("Your kingdom come"). Presumably this means judgment on all those who do not do his will “on earth as it is in heaven”.
So although I have often prayed it myself, and will do so again, the Lord’s Prayer is a very dangerous thing to pray if we are not fair dinkum about God’s name being “hallowed” (ie honoured) in our own lives.
Fortunately for our parliamentarians (and for everyone else who are so quick to judge them), Jesus also included a request to “forgive us our sins” when we fail the test of loving God or our neighbour.
Rev Sandy Grant
St Michael’s Cathedral, Wollongong
Many thanks to Gordo for the inspiration and some phrasing!
The rejection of Dr Bernard Moeller’s application fro permanent residency because he has a son with Downs Syndrome smacks of all that is worst about economic rationalism. While reason might dictate that there will have to be some cost constraints on immigration, here is a situation where a man who is providing much needed services to our country is not treated with any sort of reciprocity. I have no idea whether this is a callous decision on the part of bureaucrats, or whether there is a fault in the rules which they are obliged to apply. But the Minister for Immigration needs not just to attend to this particular case but to the prevention of further such incidences.
If you want to read more about it you can do so here.
Bit slow down here but in response to this rejoinder to my first letter
Thank you Reverend Sandy Grant, for that most insightful letter (Mercury, Oct 29) on the Lord’s Prayer.
However, all this prayer does is reinforce to me how much mankind is being held back through the continuing belief of Stone Age myths and delusions.
Will mankind ever take the leap forward and rid ourselves of such stupendous nonsense?
Tony Dutton,
Balgownie
... they finally got around to publishing my surrejoinder (always wanted to try that word out)
It amazes me that people feel they can sweep away a belief system adhered to by upwards of a billion people around the globe simply by asserting it’s primitive delusion (Mercury, October 30).
It was particularly amusing to hear Tony Dutton describe the Lord’s Prayer as “Stone Age myths”. History classes taught me that the transition out of the Stone Age occurred between 6000 BC and 2500 BC for most of humanity.
On the other hand, Jesus’ delivered his justly famous teachings around 30 AD, well after such great ones as Socrates (d. 399 BC), Plato (d. 348/47 BC), and Cicero (d. 43 BC). I’ve never heard their philosophies and beliefs derided as Stone Age!
Importantly, there is considerably more documentary evidence, also dating closer to the time of delivery, for recording the teachings of Jesus than for these other great men.
Lastly, I am saddened that people consider matters such as human accountability and the need for forgiveness raised by the Lord’s Prayer as “stupendous nonsense”.
Jesus’ enduring teachings continue to be quoted widely today and deserve more serious engagement than that!
David Morrison in yesterday’s (10/11/08) SMH. Not directly related to Christianity, but still a good one:
Miranda Devine seems to be a bit muddled about motorists’ behaviour. Speed limits and penalties are no excuse for lying under oath. The fact most cars on a particular stretch are speeding does not mean that no one should be fined. The fact that some drivers can’t control their rage does not mean the rest of us should speed to accommodate their feelings. Losing a licence can be very hard on drivers, but I suspect that is the idea. The authorities are encouraging us to obey the law.
David Morrison Springwood
Are you looking for a specific resource but can’t find it? Do you have a resource or an idea that you’d like to share? Connect09 would like to hear from you.
You may be already using a tool, program or outreach event that could be of use to other Christians. Or maybe you have thought of something new and would like to get some feedback.
Use these fields to post your suggestion on our Ideas Page, view current ideas.
