I thought I’d start a new thread that SA readers could use to alert others to issues or articles that could do with a public response, eg a letter to the editor.

eg. Here is an article by Pamela Bone advocating agnosticism in today’s Age. Pamela Bone died earlier this week at the age of 68, and this article is reprinted from 2001.

I liked Pamela Bone’s articles. They were clear, lucid, rational and easy to read. This is more than I can say about many Christian inspired articles. Just look at the homosexuality thread. The only comment that I woul make about her “Age’ article is--only a women could have so many steadfast expectations.  Thank you Pamela for your life.

How about the prayer day idea of George Bush? My guess is people would expect evangelicals to accept it without thought, so showing some thought could be a helpful surprise.

Today’s smh has this:

Better than the Bible

Re “Marriage by the book” (Letters, May 3-4), why is something by the book better than something using our man-made, 21st-century ethical values? “The book” says that you can sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and you shouldn’t be working on Sundays (Exodus 35:2).

If we just apply our logical, compassionate and unbiased reasoning to issues such as this we would eliminate most, if not all, disagreements. But then we might not have much of a Letters page.

Iolanda Grey, Turramurra

Worth mentioning in response the humane provisions of Israel’s law compared to the surrounding nations. Or examine the application of logical, compassionate and unbiased reasoning in atheistic regimes.

There are also several letters favouring euthanasia in today’s Age.

The ‘sell your kidney’ issue is prominent in the SMH today. One line of response might be that the arguments for this are at many points identical to the arguments for euthanasia, only the stakes are considerably lower. So what ethical thinking is underpinning our responses?

On this one about busy-ness from the SMH, I personally would steer clear of things like the Sabbath, and respond with something about what we value and why.

Before midday, means not too late to respond to Peter Jensen in today’s Australian, talking about marriage.

Hi Gordon,

Unfortunately, I read this one too late to start writing a response for tomorrow’s letters page:

Gay Unions accepted but not Symbolism

Christian views on marriage come under attack in today’s SMH letters.

An article attacking the mainline denominations for not being green enough:

There are a number of aspects to this article and this opinion piece that could be responded to, and it is quite likely that a number of anti-Phillip Jensen bigots will write in responding to the Dean’s support of our state government’s welcoming of Roman Catholic World Youth Day.

So it would be worth writing to the SMH (before midday) in support of the Dean’s understanding of genuine secularism, or perhaps highlighting the meaning of genuine tolerance, or offering respectful disagreement with key aspects of Roman Catholic teaching to show why our welcome can’t extend to a welcome of the ideas being taught.

Today in the SMH there’s a debate on faith-based schools, here.

Stephen Doherty’s position is worth writing in support of.

He says:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the arguments against choice in schooling are becoming increasingly divisive and anti-religious?

With the school funding issue taken off the table by the Federal Government, at least for the time being, the anti-choice debate has taken on a much nastier tone.

The old cliches are creeping back in. People with religious faith are increasingly targeted as narrow minded or anti-intellectual. Too often arguments against faith-based schooling adopt the patronising tone of superior knowledge.

Adele Horin’s lament in today SMH that her teenage boys are becoming militant atheists because of World Youth Day (or was it really after reading Richard Dawkins as the article implies)

I guess young atheists don’t see the logic in following Jesus command “to love your neighbour”!!

Adele’s ideological birds are coming home to roost.

Actually, that gives me an idea for a letter…

[the dreaded ellipsis!]

Michale Deal’s already mentioned this over on the SA writers in the papers forum:

SA writers in the papers
but I thought that I’d print Lesie Cannold’s Opinion piece in full. As Michael says, it is quite strident in its tone, and I deliberately chose not to respond immeadiately, to avoid an equally strident response:

Hating gays is a choice, not a biblical dictate
THEIR strength is waning, but there is still a depressingly large number of powerful men in the West, spread across a range of denominations, spewing raw hate and naked prejudice at gay people. All in the name of Christ.

We are talking about the sort of hate that gives rise to claims that homosexual “inclinations” are an “intrinsic moral evil” that, if acted upon, preclude gays from taking communion, occupying any official role within the church and, ultimately, entering the Kingdom of God.

The sort of prejudice that led an Australian Anglican Archbishop to forbid any parish in his archdiocese to welcome the openly gay American Bishop Gene Robinson, and to declare that if Robinson was invited to a crucial meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops in Lambeth, then the Australian Archbishop would not be attending.

I am sorry, but someone seems to have had a fundamental misunderstanding of the core insights of the Gospels, and it isn’t me. It was precisely this sort of attack on the social outcasts of Jesus’ time by the powerful men of the day - the Temple Priests - that inspired Jesus’ mission and the birth of Christianity.

It was this sort of exclusion of vunerable and minority groups from society that saw Jesus enter the Temple to challenge the Priest’s authority to decide who was cast out, and who was included in the circle of God’s concern.

There’s a joke about a pamphlet entitled, What Jesus Said About Homosexuality. When you open it, the pages are blank. As far as I can tell, even the religious right in America admits that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

But even if the Bible did advise us to shun homosexuals or stone them (as it suggests for adulterers), we don’t have to listen. After all, we ignore its command to wed our virginial daughters to their rapists, and refuse its permission to purchase the children of foreigners to serve us as slaves. The point is that even those who claim absolute obedience to Scripture are selective in the Scripture they obey. They know as well as anyone that there is much in the Bible that is irrelevant, outdated or just plain barbaric.

And spare me the Bible-made-me-do-it crap. It didn’t work for the Nazis at Nuremberg and it won’t work here. Acting pursuant to orders by superiors of any sort doesn’t relieve an individual of responsibility if a moral choice is possible. Powerful Christian leaders have a choice. They don’t have to vilify and discriminate against gay people, they choose to, and for this they can - and should - be condemned.

What sort of leader makes this sort of choice? Neither the word “Christian” nor “ethical” spring to mind.

Perhaps one day both our spiritual and politicial leaders will get it through their heads that taking potshots at people because of who they are, not what they do, is stupid, wrong and not very nice. That everyone deserves respect and a fair go no matter what the colour of their skin, their marital status, if and how they worship or who they love. That individuals have a moral right to be judged on nothing more that what Martin Luther King jnr called “the content of their character”.

And one more thing: the powerful men who yearn for the good old days when they could stigmatise and exclude whoever they like while calling themselves holy should have the courage to source this yen to their own dark heart, and not an ancient book.

Apart from that, she’s quite a fan of the Archbishop.

Basically, it’s virulent classic modern-day liberalism. There’s a modified version of the Leviticus attack used by liberals from The West Wing to The Chaser boys; the “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” line (while ignoring Matthew 19:1-12); and the reworking of Jesus’ message to reflect their own liberal beliefs. In the end, it is a rejection of the true gospel because she wants to make the rules up herself - she clearly feels morally superior to anything the Bible says.

Definitely worth writing in to the SMH today, responding to Peter Jensen’s opinion piece.

The more the better. Write early, write often!  ;-)

Unfortunately, I didn’t read this article in the Oz earlier today:
Truant bishops ‘tainted by sin’

Welcome to the wonderful through the looking-glass world of Anglicanism. Don’t believe that Jesus is the only way to Christ? No problem. Don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead? No worries, you’re invited. Cross diocesan boundaries and refuse to attend Lambeth? REPENT!!!

Roger Gallagher - 18 July 2008 04:50 PM

Unfortunately, I didn’t read this article in the Oz earlier today:
Truant bishops ‘tainted by sin’

Welcome to the wonderful through the looking-glass world of Anglicanism. Don’t believe that Jesus is the only way to Christ? No problem. Don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead? No worries, you’re invited. Cross diocesan boundaries and refuse to attend Lambeth? REPENT!!!

Hi Roger,
I thought Tony Payne put it very well in a recent post on www.solapanel.org when he was writing about some of the Anglican 39 Articles:
(not that I’m Anglican of course!)

In these quotes, we see the vital thing about Anglicanism’s approach to flexibility and inflexibility. Doctrine—which includes matters of faith and of morals—is fully contained in Scripture, and must of necessity be taught and believed. On this there can be no flexibility. However, on other matters—such as ceremonies, rights and other issues of ‘discipline’ or ‘order’—there may flexibility and variation, both geographically, culturally and over time.

In other words, Anglican identity (and thus unity) is fundamentally doctrinal and contained in Scripture. We may expect and accept flexibility and variation in the details of how we organize ourselves and conduct our ministries, but there can no flexibility about those things ‘necessary to salvation’. The irony, of course, is that in recent Anglican history, it has all been the other way around—almost limitless flexibility about doctrine, and officious inflexibility about church traditions and canon law.
[My bold]

Grace & peace,
Terry

Terry Gallagher - 18 July 2008 05:29 PM

(not that I’m Anglican of course!)

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Why, says Terry, some of my best friends are Anglicans.

Roger Gallagher - 18 July 2008 04:50 PM

Unfortunately, I didn’t read this article in the Oz earlier today:
Truant bishops ‘tainted by sin’

Welcome to the wonderful through the looking-glass world of Anglicanism. Don’t believe that Jesus is the only way to Christ? No problem. Don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead? No worries, you’re invited. Cross diocesan boundaries and refuse to attend Lambeth? REPENT!!!

What a disappointing start to Lambeth (if not surprising).  If that is the kind of leadership that the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to provide, it is no wonder that many see his office as waning in its significance (which, by the way, is a quite recent thing).  The “collegial responsibility of the bishop” is more important than allegiance to the God of truth?  A sad day for the Anglican Communion.

Mind you, the article headline is yet another example of journalistic irresponsibility.  Archbishop Williams said that ALL bishops are tainted by sin, not just the ‘truant’ bishops.

Folks, this article is well up the dopey end of the spectrum and could do with a few sharp one liners in response.