Hi David,
Well done! AFAIK, you are encouraged to post your letter here yourself.....
Yes, yes, well done. By all means post the letter here yourself. I am as blind, deaf and arbitrary as a Test Cricket umpire operating without the benefit of Snicko.
It would be more accurate to say that the Archbishop of Sydney is pro-Bible and therefore anti-sex outside of marriage, not “anti-gay”, as the headline suggests.
Stephanie Peatling ("Obama offers hope for the art of speechmaking”, January 21) makes a keen observation that the “functional and administrative” (read dour) use of language by Kevin Rudd is in the footsteps of John Howard’s “no-frills” oratory . However, what is missing is not simply a bard’s flair but the kind of grand ideals that demand their own language. Speeches by those such as Lincoln, Churchill and Martin Luther King were swept along by a tide of conviction that is wanting in our culture of economic pragmatism. Obama’s vision goes further than reduced inflation and better savings, and so his language soars in response.
Heath Ledger is dead. But so are Daniel, Robert and Mavis, all precious souls I have buried in the past few months. Let us not so romanticise Ledger’s death as a tragedy at the expense of those around us who die tragically each day. The value of a life is not found in dollars or human praise, but in who it is lived for and how it is lived.
The “Big Questions” column (Spectrum section) in this weekend’s Herald is worth some responses.
Why do fundamentalist Christians support right-wing politicians when Jesus was obviously a leftie?
Any answers you want to send (max. 100 words) should be sent by 12PM Tuesday, to bigquestions@smh.com.au. I think some of our regular SA writers could come up with something good...you’ll need to state your name and suburb/town as well though.
Our stance against racism in sport is undermined by the hypocrisy of our acceptance of other forms of verbal abuse. If opposition players are to be believed, then under the haven of the innocuous term “sledging”, some of our players pour forth a stream of vindictive swearing, replete with depraved sexual references. Outrage about the term “monkey” cannot reasonably be isolated from other expressions of rampant incivility.
Cathy Byrne’s letter (February 4) is typical of the confusion surrounding religious education in public schools. In NSW, all children are taught comparative religion, ethics, philosophy and values in regular classes. In addition, all children have the opportunity to have special education in a religion of their choosing. Section 32 of the Education Act authorises this and provides Buddhists with the same rights as Christians.
Lots of SAists in the paper today including Pete Denham and Neil Cameron, and some good contributions on Lambeth:
The comment in your editorial ("Absence is no argument”, February 5) that nobody is asking the conservative Anglican bishops to abandon their biblical interpretations, “simply to allow other Anglican communities to abide by theirs”, is really telling Dr Jensen and his ilk to smile while they go along with the liberals’ lack of principles.
Reverend Dr Peter Barnes, Revesby
I am amused by Bishop Aspinall’s statement that the only way this issue can be resolved is to “come together, pray together, study the scriptures and speak openly with each other” ("Bishops condemn Sydney dissent”, February 5). This is exactly what the evangelical Anglican church has been involved in at Lambeth for the past 20 years. And the result? The liberal wing of the American and Canadian churches has steadfastly thumbed its nose at the sensitivities and traditions of the broad church and done exactly as it pleases, even in the face of majority objection. They have not listened to us, talked to us, prayed with us or obeyed scripture (and the authority of scripture is what this is all about).
Wake up and smell the incense, Bishop Aspinall - Anglican unity has been dead for at least 15 years,
and it is your outlook that killed it, not Sydney’s.
Glen Coulton (Letters, February 6), the stories of the Bible don’t simply portray good behaviour. Read on a few verses and you will see that Lot’s daughters have drunken sex with their father and become pregnant. The Bible makes it clear that rape and incest are wrong, and that every human is sinful - apart from one.
Peter Jensen and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney have not changed their position on the ordination of women (Letters, February 7). Dr Jensen has always ordained women as deacons.
However, in keeping with the Bible’s teaching that women and men are equal but have different roles in the church, women are not ordained as priests in this diocese.
Interesting “Postscript” on the letters page in today’s Herald:
BY ABOUT lunchtime on Thursday I was anxiously scanning the office with the nagging feeling that something was missing. Keys? Phone? Colleagues? The CBD? Finally the light dawned: not one outraged reader had written about Miranda Devine’s column. Never let it be said that you can’t stop Sydneysiders talking about renovations.
What did engage them this week were the old faithfuls of education, religion and, indeed, religious education.
Tuesday’s opinion piece by Archbishop Peter Jensen met the ABC’s Jihad Sheilas coming in the opposite direction, resulting in a robust exchange of views on dogmatism or, if you prefer, true faith.
There were equally forthright arguments about the State Government’s plan to give principals the right to choose their teachers. We would have published more of those yesterday, had the wave of support for Greg Lenthen’s suggestions on the future of the Opera House not engulfed them.
Late in the week we were inundated with letters prompted by a campaign from Get Up! on the apology to the stolen generations. This may be organised with the best of intentions, but it produces an awful lot of letters saying much the same thing, and a very familiar thing at that.
Sheer volume is never likely to win our hearts. Give me just one letter comparing Michael Costa to the ancient civilisations of Central America any day.
Mike Ticher, Letters co-editor
Note in particular the acknowledgement of letters regarding Peter Jensen—the letters editors may not be sympathetic to the gospel or to Sydney Anglicanism, but they will still publish letters on the subject. And, although we can reasonably infer from what they say (and from the tone of the SMH generally) that they are sympathetic to the idea of a ‘Sorry’ to stolen generations, they react badly to a campaign where essentially the same letter gets sent in multiple times.
My colleague Bishop Robert Forsyth, speaking on behalf of Sydney Diocese in response to the comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, says: “We are thankful for freedom of religion but would oppose the idea of different systems of law for different people groups.” ("Sharia law ‘unavoidable’: archbishop”, smh.com.au, February 8).
Does this mean the diocese will no longer claim exemption from anti-discrimination laws? The Sydney Diocese discriminates against women by refusing to ordain them as priests. Or is Bishop Forsyth happy for the diocese, but not Muslims, to be accommodated under the law?
Reverend Chris Albany, South Hurstville
Nice to see in-house arguments via the public papers.
Jeff, I disagree vigorously with Chris Albany’s position on the ordination debate, and have done so at Synod and in personal correspondence. I also think his argument in the letters’ page today is flawed (although he feels very deeply the discrimination referenced is illegitimate).
However I think you are being just a tad harsh with the sarcasm of your last post. Both the debate over Rowan Williams’ sharia comments and the debate about women’s ordination have been very public, with Chris Albany prominent in the latter public debate at Synod and through occasional comment in the media. For better or worse that debate has not just been ‘in house’ for a long time. I also think most of those who disagree with him would admit he has been courteous and fair in debate and has tried to avoid personal attack and so on.
Jeff, I disagree vigorously with Chris Albany’s position on the ordination debate, and have done so at Synod and in personal correspondence. I also think his argument in the letters’ page today is flawed (although he feels very deeply the discrimination referenced is illegitimate).
However I think you are being just a tad harsh with the sarcasm of your last post. Both the debate over Rowan Williams’ sharia comments and the debate about women’s ordination have been very public, with Chris Albany prominent in the latter public debate at Synod and through occasional comment in the media. For better or worse that debate has not just been ‘in house’ for a long time. I also think most of those who disagree with him would admit he has been courteous and fair in debate and has tried to avoid personal attack and so on.
I wasn’t acutally aiming for sarcasm, though I can see this in the words I wrote. Disappointment is more my feeling on this.
I don’t disparage Rev Albany’s right to a viewpoint, and I’m pleased he has argued with courtesy and fairness at Synod. I even have some sympathy with his viewpoint, however, just because the debate has spilled into the public arena does not justify it’s ongoing propagation in the same.
Surely the spirit of Matthew 5:25 applies here? In this case it is a trial by media.
Perhaps you are right. I don’t mind public debate. And sometimes that’s a flaw in me - being too quick to rush to argument. And sometimes it’s convenient to use one matter as a chance to score a point on another, when charity might cause us to forebear, or at least ponder its wisdom of how connected the issues really are, or how helpful the connection is. At any rate, I think it was worth saying what I said about Chris.
Perhaps you are right. I don’t mind public debate. And sometimes that’s a flaw in me - being too quick to rush to argument. And sometimes it’s convenient to use one matter as a chance to score a point on another, when charity might cause us to forebear, or at least ponder its wisdom of how connected the issues really are, or how helpful the connection is. At any rate, I think it was worth saying what I said about Chris.
Hi Sandy,
Really thanks. It is helpful to understand a point of view closer to the action.
This was in the paper edition of today’s SMH but not the online version:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Rev. Chris Albany (letters, 11 Feb) is inaccurate and uninformed when he writes that the Diocese of Sydney, but not Muslims, claim an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination laws. The Diocese of Sydney does not claim an exemption. Exemptions are applied for individually and granted on a case-by-case basis (for example, to women’s-only refuges).
Instead, the Diocese of Sydney is one of the many groups which fall under the category of
“general exceptions”. These exceptions apply to the conferral of charitable benefits, religious bodies, voluntary bodies, and others. The general exceptions are not outside the law of the land, but are designed by our own lawmakers to allow freedom of practice and conscience in certain spheres of
life (including, but not limited to, religion). Islamic organisations equally fall under this general exception.
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.
report bugs
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi