The cone of silence

It is interesting to watch the ongoing building, which now seems to be going on apace. We had wondered why activity seemed to cease before the section at the northern end of the building (our new office) had been added. Then a big pink wall was added and work continued.











And so it seems that there is a "separation of powers", or at least (we hope) a sound proof wal.
Today it's a bit rainy so work has slowed a bit.
Roll on completion day.

You've got to be joking

I suppose it's one of those curious 30 second sound-bites but Treasurer Costello is quoted as saying today that "Australia will be a republic in 100 years".
Crikey, I hope we never see CharlesIII and Queen Camilla of Australia. And you might imagine that even the UK will be republic by then!!

How harassing!

I went to a seminar last week on bullying, harassment and abuse. Yes learnt quite a few good tricks! (only joking).
I came away realising how much more harassment there is in life than I had realised. And there are of course realisations of acts perpetrated in the past of which one is deeply ashamed. Mea culpa!
I also recognise how much I have also been the victim of harassment. Something, I think, I have been reluctant to recognise. Thinking maybe that it goes with the territory and that I should grin and bear it...as a man, as a Christian, as a priest...well as a human being. I think one thing I learnt was that that position is unsustainable.
Writing a blog and allowing comments leaves one open to harassment! I have just read today's email and responded to a couple of vitriolic comments, deleted a couple of stupid ones and given thanks for a couple of supportive ones.
What gets me about harassment of this form is the sheer cowardice of so much of it. Various respondents writing pseudonymously (that's "under an assumed name" for those who think I'm too smart for my own good) they make wild accusations and expect to be taken seriously, or expectto me to welcome this sort of crap.
For my part, attempting to not harass others I commit myself to not write anonymously and to not write what I do not believe. In not being complicit with harassment I commit myself to not publish stuff about me which I consider to be more hurtful than fair comment, and to remind any readers that I am not harassing you with my weblog...you are choosing to read it and you can choose not to!!

Getting there

The building marches on.
It may not be remarkable to all. But I am quite impressed, for example, that most of this quite elaborate and extensive frame seems to have been erected by one or two people.
Day by day working slowly and just getting the job done.

Looking the other way gives us plenty to think about . Who is being fenced in or out?
When all is finished the divisions will be quite different and everything much more open, with shared car park and better landscaping.
What you can only just see in tyhe first picture is the extended soundproof fence to keep the noise of children out!

Marriage terminology

About the previous post a respondent writes:

Pedant said...

To whom is it important to use the word "marriage" with respect to a particular commitment between two "gay" people - and why is it so?

I think this is a good question we are not just confused about the application of the term "marriage" to same sex couples, but also about the non-application of the term 'marriage' to thousands of relationships which seem to be remarkably marriage-like. We call these euphemistically "defacto" relationships and increasingly the law affords to these relationships the same rights as people who have gone through a ceremony and got a piece of paper.

I actually think this is much more sinister and even deceitful. We systematically regularise situations which seem set to avoid certain responsibilities afforded with marriage, whilst wanting the benefits.

It would seem to me that this has come about because the regulation of marriage is a mess, and that what ever else we understand about "marriage" it is not the same widely shared understanding as it was 50 and 100 years ago.

With regard to our own marriage, Sue and I have a fairly conservative understanding about what it is..(this is something of what I was trying to convey to the couple I referred to in my previous post). We see each other as the person God has given us to enable us to become the person God wants us to be. (What the poor woman did to deserve me I don't know). This has been at times wonderful and fulfilling, at other times it has been tortuous. It has always been right.

With regard to same-sex couples, it is quite clear that not all of them want to be married...just as that is quite clear about opposite-sex couples, a lot of them don't want to get married.

Some same-sex couples do want to marry! Not a lot I think but that might change.

One of my points is that we should be trying to encourage people to live in committed intimate relationships rather than uncommitted ones ("intimate" here does not only include sex but also "relationship"). This is for me, as a Christian, an important dimension of learning what it means to live a life of love. As a human being. irrespective of my particular beliefs, I think that commitment rather than uncommitment in relationships is best for society.

On one level it doesn't matter whether the word "marriage" is used for committed same sex relationships or not. Though for the life of me I can't see why two people of the same sex can't commit themselves to have and to hold, to love and to cherish etc. etc and to be faithful for the whole of their lives.

Some will have difficulty with the notion that such couples provide a safe, good and growing place for the nurture and care of children. At the very least the committed relationship is better than the uncommitted.

At this point I have to blandly use the "quack like a duck" argument, though I don't really care (other than from the point of view of social justice and equal rights...a pretty big "iff") if same sex relationships are called by some other name. But why should they be?

I don't think this contravenes Christian doctrine. I don't think this is against the Bible, which is remarkably silent on definitions. It is I think in accordance with the idea that we are invited as our understandings change and our world develops to be challenged to hear how God speaks to us afresh.

,

Trusting Abbott

There is no doubt that Tony Abbott has got a point about Aboriginal communities needing some drastic action to straighten them out. His patronising solution to "put someone in charge"...a receiver or what ever... is one solution. The problem I have is while someone might need to be in charge do you trust smarmy Tony to be that person?

Marriage needs work

There are lots of marriage issues floating around at the moment. Whether it be get tough with dads who don't pay adequate family support for their children, same sex unions, or simply issues to do with supporting the institution of marriage itself, there is plenty of food for thought.
I believe marriage is a good thing, but I don't believe everyone needs to or should get married. I do believe that our society would be in peril without it. This morning I was talking to two young members of my extended family who are preparing to get married, I always have delight in telling them that Christians believe that it is not only their decision to get married but also that it is God's way of ordering the world. We should at least see that God is doing smething here as well as the couple themselves.
To my mind this elevates the whole nature of the exercise. It gives it a quality that it previously lacked because it is something that God thinks is important too!! Not everyone will understand this. And for some it will not be true, or will have ceased to be true.
It is nevertheless my experience. It doesn't mean that every day of our marriage has been bliss. Quite the reverse. It does mean that it has been worthwhile, even if sometimes that has been difficult to bear.
I don't think this is terribly extraordinary. I rather think that this is what life is like. It doesn't make it any less marvellous.

Vilification

Thank goodness we lost the soccer! We have enough sport to brag about don't you think?
A parishioner asks me to write about part of an article she sent me concerning the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria.
There was much talk about it at the time I seem to remember.
As usual the religious right had plenty to say about it at the time. I guess few people bothered to actually read it. I did take the time, and as far as I could tell it was all fairly innocent. (what would I know I am not a lawyer) the religious right were of course paranoid.
Indeed they appear to be the main ones to have been dealt with by the legislation. Apparently they don't like not being able to call a Muslim a spade. If you get my drift.
The article, by a curious Brazilian, Augusto Zimmerman (see here) makes fairly bold statements about what the act might develop into...which is what the religious right were always worried about. They might not be able to say that all Muslims are women-hating shariahites who want to hack off the hands of thieves, and thus frighten everyone into becoming Christian.
Personally I don't want to say that for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that it is not true!
But Zimmerman's paper (which reads rather like a brief tutorial) also suggests that the Act states that "truth is not relevant and cannbot be used as a legal defence"
I don't get this, this doesn't seem to me to be what the Act says at all (download it here if you want). It does suggest that it is no defence that you have made incorrect assumptions about people's ethnicity or religious affiliation...that is if you make offensive remarks about them and then find out that they are not Albanian or Hindu or what ever. In that sense I think the act is correct. It also says that your intention does not essentially affect the offence (that is if you call someone something they find offensive it is not a defence to say you did not intend to cause offence ) I agree with that too.That is rather like expecting to be let off when you have just killed or maimed someone because you say you din't intend to do it. While that might influence the process or the outcome it doesn't essentially mollify the offence only the degree of offence. And that is for the court to work out.
I just don't get this. Surely any right thinking person wants to lessen offensiveness to anyone.
However you may find the picture of the Argentinian penalty defence line (above) to be offensive. If so, I apologise I didn't intend to offend.

Been away

Flew back from Bali this mornign. So I am now wilting with tiredness. Had a fabulous too short week with my lovely wife.
The people of Bali are really nice people. It is unsettling to hear them thank us so profoundly for coming to Bali. They know how easily frightened we get and they really think we are doing them a favour, when in reality the sort of tourism that goes on there has often been deeply disrespectful of culture and tradition. They work in awful jobs from 7 a.m. till 11 p.m. often 7 days a week. One good chap I was speaking to asked how many hours the average Australian worked.
"48?" he asked. And without going into the subtleties of what's happening with deregulated hours etc he thought 48 hours was small...and was rather shocked to hear that there was an expectation of 38-40 for many/most people. He looked incredulous.
There will me more pictures when I wake up.
For heavens sake! The plane left at 2.30 a.m. (SA time) and arrived in Adelaide at 7.10 a.m. It took about 15 mins to collect bags and get through customs we were home ny 8.30. It's now 11.46 and I got have an hours sleep.
More later

The building goes on

Things go on apace. I wonder what it will be like this time next week.
It's got fairly quiet since they stopped pouring concrete, and now one solitary man goes about his business sawing up the wood that makes the frame around which the building will be constructed. Simple work it seems but effective.
It must pay well.
I noticed the manager here last week. He seemed to drive a Porsche!

Fire in the belly

Curious things are happening with regard to issues of sexuality. The Federal Government says it will not allow the Australian Capital Territory proclaim the law which will allow same sex unions. (The Feds can do this because the ACT is a "territory" rather than a state...they will instruct the Governor General to not proclaim the law. They couldn't do this if it was a State.)
A colleague today invites us to pray for the US Episcopal Convention with the implication that they may see the error of their ways and return to the scriptures. And I wonder how he knows that it is his view of scripture that should prevail.
And a document floats around our church which clearly has gay people in its sights. I don't wish to be paranoid about it but with a statement that "sexuality is a gift from God" followed lines later by "you are not to engage in sex outside of marriage" what else are we to construe other than the fact the if your sexuality is "same-sex oriented" you are not allowed to exercise it?
Presumably it means that this gift from God is not allowed to be exercised. Or alternatively that it is a different sort of gift from God. Or alternatively that we are confused in our thinking.

Let me say I find it strange that we will not do everything we can both civilly and in the community of faith to encourage people, gay or straight, to lead committed lives. I am sad that our governments will not move to ensure that prejudice of what ever sort is stamped out.
I am really, really sad that when it comes to prejudice against homosexual people, the Church so often seems to be standing at the front of the queue waiting to throw stones. Ohh there is a teaching about that isn't there?

Bashing the living daylights out of a d***head

At the end of one radio talk back yesterday one listener sms'ed in to say "Is this what Adelaide is really interested in?"
She was referring to the fact that 90% of the calls had been about the incident where Port Power player Dean Brogan had allegedly 'king hit' an idiot heckler at Adelaide airport and allegedly broken his alleged nose.
Well it makes the front page of the 'Tiser again today (latest)
We had an interesting conversation with two nephews (7&5) about it on Sunday. They too looked puzzled about what all the fuss was about. Mummy explained that we retaliate with words and not with fists. Good point Mum!
There are all sorts of imbalances here aren't there. Brogan should not have allegedly hit the alleged heckler. Although the heckler was allegedly offensive and rude you don't punch (allegedly or otherwise) someone for calling you a d***head. Had it not been that Brogan was an alleged Port player we would not even be discussing it now. The heckler gets a broken nose, Brogan gets a ruined career (possibly).
In the meantime radio talkback and letters to the editor are swamped.
At the same time there is chaos in Dili and the Javan earthquake ( a huge disaster by all counts) sinks off the radar of alleged consciousness.
Ahhh. "panem et circenses" Bread and Circuses!

Who moved my cheese?

One of the current phenomena is the book "Who moved my cheese?"I just found out about it today. (see here). It' s about two mice and two little folk who lose their cheese and find their lives thrown into disarray. As one of them says: All of my plans are dependent on the cheese being in place!
So it's about change and what we discover as we embrace it, or otherwise! Little discoveries take place like: we discover new cheese when we leave the place where we think the cheese ought to be.

So it goes on

One of my colleagues keeps asking me what's it like living next to a building site.
Well, apart from having had no phone for 7 weeks as a result of the big thumper tearing the phone line down. And apart from having our water pipes broken twice when a little thumper (two different ones) dug up pipes they didn't bother to check on.
And apart from having to spend hours on the phone to Telstra...and the builder...and all those people who never return phone calls when they say they will.
And apart from the trench across the front garden undergrounding the phone line. Yes well, apart form all that, it's not too bad!
I find building quite exciting. What boy doesn't! But it's different watching other people's building and being caught up in it yourself.
Like's like that then!!

Why is enough never enough?

This intriguing question goes to the heart of much human dilemma.
The Carclew Youth Arts Centre have been working this question through in various forms (see here)with an impressive array of talent and young thinkers.
It is the sort of question that will inevitably drive such as me insane for the next few months.
Observation 1:I am thinking at the moment that "enough is never enough" is actually a key evolutionary response of the human species that has caused us to advantage ourselves and to find that we are at the top of certain trees (debatable)
If this is so, then when we begin to get it through our thick heads that this grasping will also sow the seeds of our destruction as a species then maybe evolution will occasion a change in attitude too. But evolution takes a long time.
Observation 2: Is blogging also a manifestation of the enough is never enough phenomenon...bloggers do carry on don't you think.
Observation 3: Religion, a much scoffed-at mechanism these days, maybe is one of the few mechanisms that can confront this suicidal principle. Can you get enough religion?

War and other things

American poet Wyatt Prunty gave a stunning reading of his poem The Returning Dead the other night on the Lehrer News Hour.
I was quite bowled over. Each night they superimpose pictures of the dead. Prunty's poem was a sort of 'right of reply'. Truly powerful stuff. See it if you can (here)

He reads almost as badly as Eliot or Frost...but it has a power nevertheless.
The subsequent honour roll-pictures of the recetly dead- showed once again what the 1st World War Poets discovered. War is a thing that old men do to their sons!!

The Returning Dead Each night I make a drink and wait for them They have become the day's concluding news, Installments from a world without anthems Or children, unfocusing eyes A question that repeatedly rejects My easy terms. They are ones who believed And acted in the narrow and select Ways handed them, while ordinary lives Ran on without interruption Or bad pictures, as though nothing had changed Change is the one unanswerable question Of these faces. The world can rearrange Itself repeatedly, but these remain The same, silent in everything they lack; That's what they've come to, in places with names Like Afghanistan, Iraq, And this is the way it happens: the words Are old - mother, father, home - and will catch Surrounding currents in the slow absurd Descending will of any river etched Out of a landscape history refines To myth. The TV blanks between Segments, but every static face defines Itself, holds stubbornly its private scene… Fixed, publicly, as we are led Back to that little negative whose lack Is each of us, staring the staring dead, Leaning, sometimes like grief itself; then straightening back.