Letters to the editor: June

Jeremy Halcrow | 28 May 2007

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

E-ministry for over 60s

I loved all the articles in the May issue regarding Christians on the net. Just to let you know there is at least one 68-year-old who spends a minimum of four hours a day on the net, mostly on Christian websites. I have about 30 in my favourites in several languages. Does anyone know if there is a Christian website for older people or even an e-ministry designed for that age group?

Kathryn Broughton
Petersham, NSW

Nile needs world view

I was most disappointed that as a Christian politician Fred Nile advocates that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to Australia (SC May p3). Does he not realise that discrimination on the basis of religion sets a dangerous precedent - one day Muslims are disallowed, next day it could be Christians? Laws prohibiting a certain religion are also ineffective - how can any enforcement agency ever know what someone believes? The Bible tells us to love the alien, and we should want many to come to our land so that they may have a chance to hear and respond to Christ. Fred Nile’s policy would have disallowed Amir Mesrinejad who was once a nominal muslim, and is our Christian brother.

Polly Seidler
Darlinghurst, NSW

More to internet’s dark side

As a former computer systems technician, I would like to comment on ‘Future church’ (SC, May). To my mind the contemporary church has never adequately addressed the whole issue of modern technology, and where it is leading us. There is a general tendency by Christians to assume technology is in itself ‘neutral’ and its place is often defined in overly simplistic ways such as, ‘it can be used either for good or evil’.

Most Australian Christians tend to be middle-class supporters of conservative political and economic values. It is little wonder then that technology, as a vital component of our western lifestyle, should also be blindly accepted.

The only Christian I have read who dared question the above assumptions was pofoundly prophetic Jacque Ellul who wrote The Technological Bluff updateding the work just before his death in 1989.

Greg McLaughlin summarises Ellul’s position on technology ‘as a system with no regulation’:
“One of the problems that an unregulated system presents, is that it is impossible to predict the future patterns of growth or outcomes. Technological growth in other words represents the growth of chaos. Technology is symbolic of a cancer which as it grows increases the fundamental danger to its host, in this case society.”

Robert Johnson
Illawarra, NSW

In May’s ‘Generation Wired’ the statement is made about the abandonment of Gen Y where they have experienced unprecedented high divorce rates. A level of abandonment is true for many in broken family situations but certainly not all, and there are many young people in ‘together’ families who have been abandoned by career and wealth hungry parents.

Remember Christians fall into both these categories so be careful not to generalise. If we don’t want our young people influenced by available online culture, we have to make real plans for an alternative - maybe parents raising their own children.

Julie Lake
Carlingford, NSW

Church video excerpts do break law

As a lecturer in law, formerly teacher of Intellectual Property, I thoroughly support churches complying with Australian copyright law. But the task is made harder if those who report on the issue are not precise in their comments.

The second sentence of the article on “Screening licences” is unfortunately wrong, and in a way which will suggest that some have been breaching copyright law when they have not. The problem lies in the suggestion that churches are breaking the law by “screening any part of a pre-recorded film in church without permission”. The suggestion is repeated later in the article when reference is made to “segments of films”.

Under s 14(1)(a) of the Act copyright will only be breached where that is done “in relation to a substantial part” of the film. Of course what amounts to ‘substantial’ can be a matter for debate, but I would have thought showing even up to 5 minutes of a normal-length feature film would not amount to showing a ‘substantial part’.

If churches are in the habit of showing full movies then a screening licence would be desirable, and the introduction of such a licence is a good step forward in ensuring that we are obeying the Bible’s injunction to be subject to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1). But let’s not put the burden of guilt over law-breaking on God’s people when it is not justified.

Neil Foster
Faculty of Business & Law
University of Newcastle

It is not SC’s usual policy to respond to letters. However in this case we thought it important that churches had immediate clarity about the law. Following is the advice we have received from Christian copyright lawyer Karen Gettens: “If Mr Foster wants to know the latest law on ‘substantial part’, he needs to read TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (The Panel case) - in which I acted for Network Ten. We lost on substantiality on 6 excerpts - all were under 1 minute in length. The Courts are looking at quality not quantity in relation to substantial part - whatever is recognisable or ‘memorable’ from the original will be substantial.”

In other words a ‘substantial part’ of a video should be understood as any important, essential or distinctive part of the work regardless of length, says Karen.

Recently, the Australian courts have found an 8 second excerpt of the Rugby League Grand Final of a footballer cartwheeling was a substantial part of the Grand Final Broadcast!

Therefore, even small excerpts of films or other works can be substantial.

Click here to comment on this article for the next edition of Southern Cross