Have you ever written a letter to the editor of the SMH or another newspaper without success? Well, since you’ve gone to the effort to write it, you may as well post it somewhere to benefit an only-slightly-smaller readership.
Here’s the rule. Don’t post it here until you know it’s missed out (i.e. usually the next day.) And, try and include the URL of the original article to which you are referring, if applicable.
To kick us off, here’s a letter I wrote to the SMH last week which didn’t make the grade:
As a youth minister and a parent I continue to be disappointed and distressed at the ease of access to pornography available through the Internet (See SMH article ‘ Porn, peer pressure corrupting young: MP.’ )
Before the World Wide Web, the only way a teenager could view pornography was to steal a men’s magazine from a newsagency. Today, they view the equivalent of hard-core restricted material from the privacy of their own bedroom computer.
My ISP blocks SPAM and scans emails for viruses, but still does not offer server-based content filtering software. We are told by the vocal minority that this filtering technology is a restriction of our freedom of speech and a form of clandestine censorship. Others tell us that to run such software is resource-heavy, placing strain on the servers leading to reductions in performance.
Yet, if we viewed this pornography problem as the social horror it really is, then we would invest the resources and research needed into implementing such a system that protects our children from this distorted view of sexuality. Adults could choose ‘opt out’ of content-filtering censorship, but it is ludicrous to think that the current practice gives our children unfettered access to pornography by default.
It is our responsibility to protect the children from the corrupting harm of pornography. If we can put a man on the moon in 1969, then we can stop our kids downloading porn in 2007.
Not current, but just to bump this thread up - I wrote a letter to the SMH about a year and a half ago that didn’t make it.
I agree with Francesca Beddie (“Blind Faith is the new power base”, SMH 29/9/05) – religion is an awful, damaging thing. Men and women acting out their own feeble attempts to reach up to their god, to please or to appease, are bound to fail. Desperate to prove themselves worthy and superior to non-believers, they so often deliver outcomes that create over again the very fears and spiritual isolation that have driven them to be so desperate.
I include the religion of secular humanism in that judgment, for the passion of humanists to declare their way superior is cut from the same cloth. If “my way’s better than your way” is all that commentators like Ms Beddie have to offer, then what hope have we? As someone once said, “vanity, vanity, all is vanity. There is nothing new under the sun.”
On the other hand, a great teacher of non-religion once said, “come to me all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” An inclusive invitation like this one from Jesus Christ doesn’t sound like religion to me, it sounds like redemption and hope.
It’s not the SMH or Daily Tele, but this one (below) I wrote yesterday didn’t get into the Age today. Probably too long:
Where do we start with Catherine Deveney’s column “I’m Sort of an Atheist for Jesus” (Opinion 21/2)? Perhaps with, ‘I’m bitter’? Passing off ignorance as argument is a long-standing tradition when it comes to commenting on Christianity and the Bible. In Deveney’s rush to find some juicy biblical quote to support her lack of understanding and research (“No man who has any defect may come near (the altar of God): no man who is blind or lame,… who has any eye defect ... or damaged testicles. (Leviticus 21:19-21). Take note short-sighted priests”), she misses the fuller picture: for example, “Here is my Servant...I will make you to be a covenant for the people...to open the eyes that are blind” (Isaiah 49:1-7); or this, “For this is what the Lord says, ‘To eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths...to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters” (Isaiah 56:4-5). Given that Christ is presented in the New Testament as the one who fulfills these promises, perhaps Deveney would do well to broaden her reading horizons. Oh, and by the way, Christ not only believed in God, but knew himself to be the unique Son of God – so I guess following the example of Christ and being an atheist is actually mutually exclusive. No luck there either Catherine.
Hope you don’t mind some constructive criticism Jason :)
You letter is quite complex and the long Bible quotes are just going to make the editos glaze over… and put in the too hard basket.
A Golden rule is one idea and KISS…
Here is my edit:
Where do we start with Catherine Deveney’s column I’m Sort of an Atheist for Jesus’ (Opinion 21/2)?
Passing off ignorance as argument is a long-standing tradition when it comes to commenting on Christianity and the Bible. Deveney has taken a few choice quotes out of context. Some research always helps. Given that Christ is presented in the New Testament as the one who fulfills these promises, perhaps Deveney would do well to broaden her reading horizons. Christ not only believed in God, but knew himself to be the unique Son of God. No luck there either Catherine.
Hope you don’t mind some constructive criticism Jason :)
You letter is quite complex and the long Bible quotes are just going to make the editos glaze over… and put in the too hard basket.
A Golden rule is one idea and KISS…
Craig Schwarze -
Paragraphs are your friend…
Both good points. Taken on board if I write another. Kind of fired it off in a short period of time due to other commitments. Perhaps a bit more time spent would give a greater chance of hitting the press. Not a total loss, though. I suspect someone had to read it?
Both my published letters have been 2-3 (half-)sentences long.
When I write a letter, I let it sit open on my desktop for an hour or two before hitting send, during that time I rewrite it and rip anything non-essential out.
(Incidentally, perhaps this thread should go into the media watch forum. Just a thought.)
I know we’re often told that the media often report things badly. For instance for a case study from the cathedral, see Learning not to trust.
But often it’s not the facts as much as the tone in which the facts are reported that colours the reader’s opinion. So I thought I’d have my own until-now-unpublished rant.
I’m not particularly expecting this to be published, but I thought the phrasing in the article on water saving ("It’s business as usual”, July 24) was interesting. It says “The biggest user by far [of water] is BlueScope Steel’s plant at Port Kembla… But BlueScope says more than half the water it buys from Sydney Water is recycled, not drinking water.”
It is true that BlueScope is the biggest user by far, and so this phrasing is fine. However it’s equally true that half of that is recycled, though the phrasing “BlueScope says” makes it sound not nearly as true, dodgy even.
I suppose this means that not only should I not believe everything I read in the paper, but now I have to also be careful not to buy the tone of it too.
Derek Cheng
Wollongong
Disclaimer: The author works for an engineering services company of which BlueScope Steel is a client.
For what it’s worth, I actually think that the steelworks use a lot more water than they should (let alone power). However being the only steelmaker in the state (of that scale) they will probably always be the biggest user of water.
I sent a letter in to the mX, the free paper they hand out at the train stations, in response to this letter:
Science and God don’t mix
All challenges to evolution come from scientific mavericks outside the discipline of biology – or are religious.
The European Council is acting quite correctly in discouraging the introduction of matter that, while proper for classes on religion or the history of ideas, has no place in a science curriculum.
The introduction of creationism in science classes is not the innocuous thing that Kamal (mX, Thurs) pretends it is.
Firstly, the proponents of such views are commonly associated with extremist religious groups with very reactionary views.
It is only a small step from creationism to anti-Semitism and other racist views.
I think it is more than a coincidence that Europe has so far been resistant to creationism and has made substantial progress towards building a more humane society, while on the other hand the US, where creationism is stronger, has suffered great reversals in human rights.
Furthermore, evolution is a unifying and great explanatory principle in the life sciences, and therefore medicine. Its depreciation can only ultimately harm the quality of health care.
Ron, Guildford
Here’s what I sent in in response:
Creationism may be bad science (Ron, mX, 2/10/07) but you need to put up evidence to back up the hysterical claims you make about those who believe it.
As an evangelical Christian with several Creationist friends, I find Ron’s claims laughable. “Commonly associated with extremist religious groups” - they’re Anglicans. “With reactionary views” - they mostly vote Labor, not One Nation.
“It is only a small step from creationism to anti-Semitism and other racist views”. Where is the evidence for this assertion? I’ve never encountered either anti-Semitism or racism from my Creationist friends. One of the most outspoken Creationists in my year at Bible College was a Pom married to a Singaporean girl.
There are extremist Creationists (for e.g. there’s a blog site devoted to calling Archbishop Peter Jensen a heretic because he accepts evolution) just as there are extremist environmentalists, animal liberationists, and football fans. But most are ordinary people (except for their Christian faith), with professional jobs, spouses, mortgages and kids. They’re not the enemies of civilisation that Ron suggests.
Here’s the letter that was published in response to the Big Questions question that Tia posted on the SA writers in the papers forum:
Jesus was morally conservative in his observation of the Jewish Torah (giving support for the right-wingers) but he also radically challenged the hypocrisy of the staid and self-serving religious and political establishment.
Nonetheless, Jesus ultimately defies our attempts to define him by our own political categories. In his dangerous claim to be king (Christ or Messiah), he assets his priority over all our agendas, social and individual.
Dr Anthony Petterson (Moring College), Macquarie Park
And here’s my answer. It deliberately attacked the left, because I felt that those on the left needed to understand that their actions have contributed towards the rise of the ‘religious right”.
1) Aggressive secularists are more generally found on the left than the right.
2) It has been the left who’ve pushed for social policy changes over the last 50 years, (e.g. easy divorce, abortion, the sexual revolution, etc.) that “fundamentalist” Christians felt were counter to the Bible’s teaching. When they failed to adopt the changes the left championed, the left savaged them.
3) The left has supported Liberal Christianity, which adopted the left’s progressive social agenda and replaced Jesus Christ Saviour, Redeemer & Judge with Jesus the socially progressive social worker. The friend of your enemy becomes your enemy.
The first was ignored. The second I decided not to send:
Perspective Please?
If my Grandfather (who was an avid cricket fan) was still alive, he would have reacted to this monkey business with the cricket by saying “Strike me pink”! He would have been right! What sort of blokes equate being called a monkey with racial vilification? I call my 7 year old son a monkey all the time as he is always climbing up the tree in our front yard. Does he feel abused? Does he feel that I am using racial vilification in my parenting? Does he pick up the phone and call DOCS? No. He just laughs, carries on climbing and says “that’s right Dad, I am Monkey Boy!” Here is today’s lesson - there are worse things in life than being called a monkey.
Anti-cloning poster boy
People should not be so quick to write off Corey Worthington. He has a valuable contribution to make to our society, he would be great at promoting birth control or the continuation of the ban on human cloning. Rest easy Corey, your future looks bright!
Seeing what is happening to the Kurds, I want to know why they are not allowed to have their own country?
There are 20 million of them, they are a distinct racial group, they have suffered at the hands of both the Iraqis (under Saddam) and the Turks. If the Kosovo Albanians can have a state of their own then why not the Kurds?
The answer probably lies in what the US laughingly calls foreign policy. Kosovo is a territory that will not be allied to Russia, whilst Kurdistan lies partly in Turkey, an ally of the US. Considering how the US used the Kurds against Saddam and then left them in the lurch, it would seem that at the least the US owes them something. As both the Iraqis and the Turks continue to oppress them, why would they not fight? Turkey is only sending in 10,000 troops because the Kurds won’t accept such treatment.
Surely the Americans can recognise parallels with their own country.
and one before that…
To: SMH
Robert MacGregor is suffering from a delusion. We do have separation of church and state in this country.
However, when a believer enters public office he or she does not leave beliefs at the door. Nor should they. All politicians, those who speak for interest groups, and Robert himself have beliefs that they live by and by which they make decisions. Is he telling us that because some of us have faith-based beliefs that we have to abandon ours?
The ACL’s position on “gay” marriage is not bigotry; it does use some research to support it’s point of view. But to define religion as “ these inane mythological anachronisms” is bigotry.
Robert, like others, seems to assume that these beliefs have no place in modern society because to him they belong to some other time when people were simpler. We do however live in a democracy where each person has a right to view. This does not mean I accept that that they are right, but I must make my argument why and not treat them with contempt.
If Robert had his way, all beliefs that did not accord to his would be forbidden, which puts him the same camp as people like the Taliban.
and one about East Timor..
To: SMH
How do you measure the value of freedom, Robert Pallister? How do you value stability when you have no right to determine the future of your own country? When the invader keeps the violence of the streets but exploits your country for themselves?
Have you made the same remarks about the nations once under the control of communist Russia? All of them have had difficulties in renewing democracy. None of them would wish to return to the rule of abusive administrations.
Would you ask the people of West Papua to stop resisting the oppression they experience daily from their Indonesian rulers? They soon will be dispossessed by Indonesia, as it moves Indonesian nationals in to populate the country for themselves.
What have you done to help the East Timorese?
I can’t include the url as they are largely replies to other letters.
I tried for a double today. Looks like neither of them got up.
Strike One was in reply to this letter in today’s (28/5/08) Herald:
The quote from the 39 Articles, “the Church of Rome hath erred”, gives Phillip Jensen an aura of pomposity equal to anything coming from a Pope. Be that as it may, would he please point out the text in the Bible which claims that scripture is the sole rule of faith? Reverend Denis Alexander Campsie
To which I replied:
The Rev. Denis Alexander (Letters, 28/5/08), asks where in the Bible does it say that scripture is the sole rule of faith. I’d suggest that he read Matthew 15:1-9 & Mark 7:1-13, where Jesus rails against the Pharisees for obeying human traditions & teachings instead of the Word of God.
The second one was in response to those defending Bill Henson:
When I read the comments of people like Elizabeth Farrelly & Cate Blanchett (28/5/08 – “Adults overboard in the frenzy to sniff out smut”) regarding the Bill Henson affair, I keep feeling that I’ve uncovered an inviobiliity spell that Harry Potter should know about. Simply utter the magic words “it’s ART!” and no-one can criticise you or your work, except for other Artworlders who know the appropriate counter-spells (“lack of artistic merit”, “populist” and “middle of the road”). The “it’s ART” inviobility spell renders you immune from the law, and in fact you will be declared “moral” even if you’ve done something that would see a non-Artworld muggle (also known as “Philistines”) jailed. It should also affect politicians, who should be compelled to do 2 things: (a) always laud Artworlders and their creations; and (b) hand the entire contents of the treasury over to Artworlders and the causes that they support.
I like your first one because it’s short, but I am guessing that the letters editor would have dropped it to the bottom of the list the moment he saw the Bible reference.
I am always trying to get a Bible reference in, but I realize it’s like walking onto the field with a shot-put down your underpants.
I didn’t feel that I had much choice. Given that Denis Alexander had asked for Bible verses to support “Scripture Alone”, I felt that a reply that didn’t include them would just prove his point that Sola Scriptura wasn’t a biblical doctrine.
Leadership tensions within political parties and tales of schism within the Anglican Church are to a broadsheet what supposed baby bumps and relationship breakdowns are to a gossip magazine, and all carry the same level of credibility.
The second was a response to the only letter in today’s SMH re GAFCON:
Let’s go to the video
Only time will tell if Peter Jensen and his followers become the VHS or Betamax of the Anglican world. But I feel I should warn him, where we early-adopting gays and lesbians lead, the rest usually follow.
Chris Aronsten Potts Point
Given the fact that the numbers of the Sydney Diocese and other pro-GAFCON Anglican Churches are growing, whilst numbers in the liberal dioceses they’re opposing are decreasing, I’d say that Peter Jensen and Co are definitely the VHS of the Anglican world (Chris Aronstein, Letters, 1/7/08).
Here’s my slightly older one from the Sunday Herald a couple of weeks ago:
I am writing in reference to the article “Glorifying Gangsters a Crime, say Critics”, published in the Sun Herald today (1/06).
It is interesting that Maree O’Halloran, representing the teaching profession, should protest at the glorification of criminals. My memories of school history lessons include many discussions of the “poor convicts” who were transported to Australia through no fault of their own, not to mention the glowing descriptions of Ned Kelly’s exploits as a misunderstood bushranger. In all these lessons it was the authorities who were depicted as the villains, not the individuals who broke the law. We even had school excursions to the shrine of Ned Kelly’s last stand against the “evil” police force in Glenrowan.
The education sector can hardly complain when society finds a new Ned Kelly to glorify. Perhaps before condemning this “new” development we should re-evaluate how our history curriculums play into this kind of atmosphere. Would it be too much to ask that we teach children about the good achievements of pioneering citizens like Benjamin Short (who founded the Sydney City Mission)? I guess it might be: good citizens don’t make quite as good TV.
This was in response to the glorification of Underbelly at the beginning of June
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Sylvia Tong speaks on young people and GAFCON and her experience in Jerusalem.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
