The below post is from Father Dave in response to TOTO Challenge #1
My passion for social justice has earned me a lot of labels over the years. I’ve been branded unpatriotic (because of my friendships with Muslims). I’ve been called anti-Semitic (because of my commitment to Palestinian human rights). I’ve been told that I’m a disgrace to the church (because I’m too concerned with feeding bodies and not souls). And, of course, I’ve been called a leftist ratbag.
One thing I’ve never been called though is a ‘tree-hugger’ or a ‘greenie’, and there’s a reason for that. In all my writing, speaking and campaigning, I’ve never once focused on the environment. Even the subject of Global Warming has tended to leave me cold (pun intended).
It’s not an oversight on my part, though I must confess that my primary reason for avoiding focusing on the environment is an emotional one. Environmentalism has always struck me as a lazy alternative to real activism.
It’s easy to get worked up about saving baby seals when you’re not remotely dependant on the fur trade to feed your family and it’s easy to join a climate change campaign when you’re at no risk of losing your job if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It’s MacDonald’s activism – low cost, pre-packaged, with questionable long-term value.
Of course that’s not the only reason I’ve been hesitant to get involved in the Climate Change debate. A more obvious concern has been that not everybody agrees on whether climate change is a serious issue
I’ve found a number of attractive conspiracy theories that see the whole ‘global warming scam’ as part of an elaborate plot to form a centralised world government and so rob Americans of their right to carry guns etc. And after all, wasn’t the alert sounded by Al Gore – a politician! Why would a politician make so much noise if he didn’t have a political agenda?!
The problem we have in all of this of course is that most of us struggled to get through high-school science and so we don’t have a clue where to start when it comes to assessing scientific data on climate change. So we have to trust the experts, but which experts should we trust?
Mind you, a little research shows that the number of serious scientists who still reject Global Warming is roughly the same as the number who initially fought to maintain that the earth was flat. It seems now that almost every expert worth his salt has come to support the conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – that the world is definitely warming and that human activity is directly responsible (see Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis).
The Wikipedia summary on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change goes so far as to suggest that “with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
None of this is to say of course that the conspiracy theories aren’t attractive, but at the same time, my guess would be that the most likely people to be hatching conspiracies about global warming would be those with the most to lose if greenhouse emissions are decreased, and that’s not Al Gore!
A third issue that made me suspicious of the Climate Change agenda is the biodiesel controversy.
Biodiesel is a bio-degradable alternative to regular diesel, made from vegetables and animal fats, which makes it sound like a fantastic alternative to fossil fuels until you take into account that every tract of land used for biodiesel production is one less available for the production of food!
There’s a lot of dispute over exactly how much of an impact a major transition to biofuels would have on the world food economy but the current picture looks foreboding. More biodiesel means less food production, meaning higher food prices. And the persons who would be hardest hit by that are, of course, those who are already hungry!
Of course, biofuel technology is still very much in its infancy, and over time, far higher volumes of fuel may be able to be produced from far fewer crops. Further, a lot of research and development is currently being put into so-called ’second-generation biofuels’, made from non-edible crops, residues and waste. In other words, a switch to biodiesel may not always require a trade-off between fuel and food.
So it seems that the Climate Change agenda may not be at odds with the fight against world hunger. On the contrary, the two may be positively linked, since if climate change is going to have an adverse effects on the world’s weather patterns, the first persons who will feel the brunt of those adverse effects will be the poor!
I think of the ‘natural’ disasters. that have hit this region in the last few months – flooding in the Philippines, earthquakes in Indonesia, and the tsunamis that wrought havoc across Samoa and Tonga. Who were the persons who suffered the most in those disasters? The most vulnerable of course – the poor, the hungry and the homeless.
Were these disasters the direct result of climate change? One could argue the point but it shouldn‘t affect our stance on the issue. If the scientists are right we can expect to see an increasing number of disasters like this across the globe, and we know full well that it will be the same group of people bearing the brunt of any environmental collapse.
And so I’ve changed my stance on the Climate Change issue. Call me a leftist-ratbag-tree-hugging-greenie if you will, but don’t tell me that I’ve shifted my priorities away from a concern for the poor and needy. For I’ve come to realise that if you’re going to be committed to the poor, you do need to give a damn about the world they live in.
Why did it take me so long to work that out?
Tags: challenge, climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
-
Hi there Father Dave. I’ve been reading through the blogs for the first Blogger challenge and think it only fair to leave my comments. I was surprised to find that your blog takes a long time in getting to the main point of the matter; I feel that I have read more about you as a person, than about the problem of climate change on people. You have not convinced me to act on climate change, purely on the basis that you present three ‘good reasons for not giving a damn’ ahead of one poorly backed-up reason why people should care. Furthermore, compared to other posts, your reference to the impact of climate change on actual places, people and circumstances is poor. I have not learnt anything new and am not encouraged to care about the environment, which you yourself claim is just a ‘lazy alternative to real activism’.
-
Father Dave,
I’m not sure I’m totally in the same boat as above. I do agree that it takes you a long time to get to the point – perhaps a little too long. However, I think this could be a positive thing if it helps to engage readers who are of the same viewpoint as you once were. It reassures them that you understand where they’re coming from as well as the reasons that you changed your mind. However, you were very brief and vague on how you did change your mind, and with few real facts about the current effects of climate change on the poor.
A perhaps minor aside, if, presumably you are a priest (from the ‘Father’ title), then why is feeding souls not the most important part of your job description? Isn’t it everyone’s greatest need according to your theology, seeing as it affects their eternal and spiritual, rather than temporary, state and destination? -
Hi Dave,
I agree to disagree on some of your points. Information newly ‘acquired’ from the IPCC that a couple of russian hackers released seem to show some serious figure tampering coming from that mob.
While I agree with ‘climate change’ as in – its happening, the man made cause seems thin to me based on prior knowledge and from speaking to a couple of scientists, two geoligists in particular, to be a weak grasp at straws, that and the media’s glossing over on the hacked emails and data.
The climate is changing, as it has numerous times in the past. We can show documented evidence of plant growth in areas where it ‘is impossible’ to grow them now. Geology can show the changes in the earths crust. Theres a lot of science out there that points to ‘mans envolvment’ as fiction. The Cyclic nature of climate change makes a lot more sense both rationally from a scientific point of view.
Unfortunetly the poor will cop the brunt of any ‘change’ be it from the climate change or governmnt laws, this is a consistant thing in history. I will always advocate protection for those that need it, in this case, like most – the poor. Yet supporting something like ‘Man made climate change’ as an advocacy for the poor, needs a lot more looking into in my books.
-
Hi Dave,
I’m placing this one here because I agree with some of the arguments Hannah makesNot so much conspiracy theories as how much money can we make out of what is usual.
We were sent out to fill the earth and subdue it and have done a little too much of both.
Yes the poor and the weak always suffer and will continue to do so.
Do good today, while we still can, continue to feed the starving, to live knowing that we are in God and God, who ordained the length of days, is within the climate!
Yes we can mitigate change, can’t do much to stop it now.
In our ignorance we have affected the natural carbon/oxygen exchange, with logging without replacement, resuming forests for realestate.
The rising and falling water tables,use of irrigation attributes to salinity of fresh water, decreases the volumn of water for Farmers further downstream.
Using bore water tends to lower the water table because, as yet, we are not replenishing the aquifers’ properly.
Climates do Change – the earth has a limited life span because it orbits the sun which will burn out one day, us with it.
There has been a cycle of climate change throughout the history of our planet, i.e past Ice Ages -We panic now, because it is happening in our time and, of course we have contributed to this but we did not cause it. Entire Peoples were affected; the weak died the strong survived.
There are periodic changes to earth’s orbits per example Magnetic North, was once where the Equator is now.
The earth’s Continental plates are always moving and everything is moving away or towards everything else at a rate of about 5 to 10 centimetres per year, depending on the Plate – I’ll need to check my figures for this.
Short story is to do good while we still may. Achieve as sensible a balance between greenness and feedingness as we can.
Andrew
-
-
The only point I agree with the above two is, maybe your article is little too long, apart from that I think you are doing a great job, I do believe extreme climate conditions affecting us are to a large extent man made, and we do need to preserve this Earth for future generations. One can look after the poor and the needy spiritually and be concerned about climate change and do something about it.
-
It is a wonder that there is any debate about the significance of climate change. Though I suppose the real wonder is that it is the ‘norm’ to not know or care what happens to the poor in this world. I liked the reference to ‘scientists’ who defended the flat earth theory. Energy production (biofuels) is a tough question as popopulation (demand) increases and resources (supply) dwindle but the need to treat humans with love and respect stays the same as always. Keep fighting the good fight Father Dave don’t let one anonymous hater slow you down.
-
I agree with you 100%, an inconvenient truth is convenient for a politician who has an agenda especially the likes of Al Gore even though I’m a Democrat.
-
I agree with you 100%, an inconvenient truth is convenient for a politician who has an agenda especially the likes of Al Gore even though I’m a Democrat.I don’t agree with everything he says or does.
-
Father Dave-
I have some support for you and your view on Climate Change:
I was watching an interview with the President of the Maldives. If you don’t know (though I assume you do, so this statement is mostly for the readers) The Maldives is made up of about 1000 islands that are on average 5 feet above sea level. If you believe the scientists, as the President does (as he’s seen the effects of climate change first hand) then climate change is not just about the planet, it is about saving an entire nation with more than 5000 years of recorded history from being washed off the face of the earth. They are facing genocide at the worst, and being nationless and relocated at best, if climate stability continues to deteriorate.
The best way to help them, says the President, is to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE. How’s that for a Humanitarian cause?
-
Hey Pastor Dave, We do need a differant type of fuel, perhaps bio-diesel is not the answer. But the great and educated minds are working on it. As far the greenhouse effect, well, it is 9 degrees outside right now with a high of 18:). We all talk about climate change but very little will actually be done, too much money involved. The emissions we create effect everything that breaths, not just the poor.
-
Wow! Great blog and amazing comments – very thought provoking to say the least. I wish I could say something specific & intellectual but what I do want to comment is something fairly relevant.
Although global warming, the hungry and homeless, the Palestinians etc. may seem far removed from ‘the church’, we as individuals have our certain interests, gifts and directions in life. Collectively it is all ONE as we are, this world is, and our universe is – all that is, was and ever will be.ONE
So Yes! all issues are important and I applaud Father Dave and everyone here for the soulful input they’ve put forth.
David Suzuki (not a politician) is truly a leader in our green movement-check him out. http://beta.davidsuzuki.org/ -
You said, “Call me ‘a leftist-ratbag-tree-hugging-greenie’…”
OK, you’re a ‘a leftist-ratbag-tree-hugging-greenie…’
-
Hi Fr Dave,
By reading your blog, I actually learnt something (always a good thing). I guess its a case of pointing out the bleeding obvious, but I guess its something I never really thought of before.
“Biodiesel is a bio-degradable alternative to regular diesel, made from vegetables and animal fats, which makes it sound like a fantastic alternative to fossil fuels until you take into account that every tract of land used for biodiesel production is one less available for the production of food!”… so I wondered, why can’t we used already available technology and convert used cooking oil into a fuel? The technology exists, it just needs further development.
Anyway, great blog, informative, educational and thought provoking. -
If the description had existed then, Jesus would ahve been called a leftist ratbag, too. So you’re in good company, my son. I don’t believe scientists have all the answers about climate change. But my gut feeling is that it’s better for me to DO SOMETHING about the world we live in today. And I do see your point that the poorest among us suffer most in disasters fueled by climate change. I can’t just sit here and simply hope that, maybe, there is nothing I can do to make a difference for the better. I therefore chose to do something about it. Let the doubting thomases sit by.
-
Jesus was a rebel, it’s true. Against government, against established religion. He called the rabbis hippocrites, empty tombs. He didn’t go to the rabbis and say “You go and give social justice to the people”. He gave us His gifts, with His hands, His healing, His love, His words, His blood. He went to the apostles and called them himself. He said “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations”. He told Peter “Feed my sheep”. We are to do it ourselves, each of us. He damn sure never said “Care for the orphan and the widow by reducing your carbon emissions”. Every dollar that goes to government is a dollar that will never again grow food, start a business, manufacture something, pay a salary, feed a child, or make more money. You want to DO something? The religion of global warming is all about “Don’t”. Jesus says “DO”.Read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin, then read all the red words in the New Testament. How many times do you see the word “Don’t”?
-
I’m very confused by your comment, Diane, and I hope we can discuss it rationally. You say that Jesus never said: “Care for the orphan and the widow by reducing your carbon emissions”; however, I don’t understand why on earth you would have expected Him to offer such an explicit opinion on the subject. Jesus didn’t offer opinions on space travel or colour television either, simply for the reason that in His day these things did not exist. In the modern world, Christians have to interpret the Bible and apply it to their own lives.
If you believe, as I’m sure you do, the importance in being a Christian of compassion for others – feeding the hungry, caring for the sick – then climate change has an inevitable place on your agenda. You only have to look at the predicted impact that it will have on the developing world in terms of the decrease in crop yields and the increase in the spread of disease to see the relevance to the messages of Jesus and the importance of combating it.
Emily French
-
-
-
I’d love to leave you a positive comment based on your headline, but you’ve reached all the wrong conclusions. I read your post because you are following me on Twitter. Not sure why, since I’m one of those gun toting conservative Americans you seem to disdain. But you are spreading the Gospel in Australia so we should be on the same side. I don’t understand how you can have faith in Jesus Christ and faith in government. What has government ever done well? Do you know what government is doing to California, where 25% of the world’s food supply is grown? They are turning us into a dustbowl to save a fish. Thousands of people are standing in food lines in the middle of the richest farmland in the world. Once these farms are gone, once the trees are dead, the land sold, the people who know how to farm it gone, it’s gone forever. The midwest is turning food into ethanol. Not feeding cattle, or dairy cows, or pigs, not feeding people. Ethanol. Where is that food going to come from, Father, when America isn’t growing it? If humans could run the earth God’s way we wouldn’t need a Savior or the power of the Holy Spirit. The earth is to support human life, humans are caretakers of the earth. The greenies believe humans are a virus upon the earth which must be wiped out. God says that every human life is precious, everyone has a purpose, a reason for being, to love and be loved. Al Gore’s agenda is the enemy of God’s and it should be your enemy as well. One last thing, you’re wrong about Al Gore. He has a great deal to GAIN by controlling our energy usage. He owns the companies which buy and sell carbon credits. He is heavily invested in “green” tech companies, and in lobbying firms which get government money for those companies. Convincing us to destroy ourselves by buying and selling air has made him very, very wealthy. And he’s not using it to feed poor kids. Think about it. Your sister in Christ, Diane.
-
Hi Diane,
You’ve raised a lot of issues there, most of which I don’t pretend to be an expert in. I do think though that in the end we’re trying to acheive the same outcome.
Your concern for corruption in government and your perception of the abuse of the ecological system in California demonstrate that you have just as strong a commitment to social justice as I have.
And why shouldn’t you have? Justice is just love on a larger scale. If we’re going to love eachother, we have to pursue justice.
-
Well what a mess of subjects to discuss.
Strange isn’t how world leaders agree with most items. Global warming, man made, But if you even think a little about that. One volcano creates more co2 in a day than man has produced since he has been here. But I hear that Flora couldn’t live without it, Strange that. If the air we breathe is about 21% oxygen than what we put out is good for plants as well, well planned by someone. Not to mention that the co2 of about 7 ships put out more co2 than all other transport ( lets say oil tankers, makes sense ) on the planet.(edited)
-
Right-wing, happy-clappy evangelicals don’t believe in Climate Change. That’s good enough for me. It MUST be true.
-
I’m delighted that you are known as a leftist-ratbag tree hugging greenie and I also think that it is timely and intelligent to draw connections between the climate change
agenda, spirituality and social justice.Having known you for many years and having some insight into your clever debating style, enables me to grasp that which has clearly eluded some of your readers . . .
I know some high school students who are environmental activists who would like to interview you on the subject of climate change, so I’ll be passing on your details.
-
Dave,
It’s interesting how your profession has brought a different dimention to this argument. This issue has highlighted some spiritual thinking and belief systems, which is good for the Australian psyche. To address or not to address climate change is as contentious among Christians as the acceptance of same – sex attracted people within the church. It appears that those who see spirituality as intrinsic (connected to God) transfer this connectedness to the universe and value an interdependent relationship with our the planet. The flip side in my mind, sees God as a saviour, who can only be reached through set Biblical procedures, which are measureable. This seems to transfer to measuring the human relationship with the planet, in terms of productivity.
It’s interesting to read how you have only begun to think about the effects of climate change. I think you are reflective of many of us who listen to what is presented in the media and often which is often presented with a media bias.
At least a blog like this gives us the opportunity to have some dialogue and learn from each other. I suppose the biggest issue is to work out what we personally believe about climate change and then our actions will follow naturally.
I notice that you’ve been privledged enough to have another priest grace your site. A priest who knows his mind and is also a warrior for social justice.
God bless. -
Love your reflections guys. Thanks.
I particularly appreciate the big-picture connections that Toni draws. There’s a lot of wisdom in that – in the way that spirituality and environmentalism connect.
I saw that in Jimmy’s comment too (which unfortunately seems to have been edited by the blog police). For him it’s connected to tensions in the Middle East too!
I’d like to think more about these connections.
-
This religion stuff’s gettin’ outta hand! What’s Jesus got to do with social media and this challenge? Is TOTO religiously affiliated? All slightly disconcerting…
-
To answer your question Joel, ActionAid (and Project TOTO for that matter) is independent from any religious or political affiliation. Our only bias is to take sides with the poor and marginalised
-
Well I think we can all say amen to that.
-
-
-
I would have thought that the idea of a blog dialogue like this was to encourage free speech. People share their religious perspectives because their faith, lifestyle and politics are deeply connected (as is well illustrated by the comments above).
Surely you’re not proposing that we should muzzle people who bring their spiritual insights to bear on issues of poverty and ecology?
-
I’m not religious at all, Joel, but I think for a lot of people who are, religion serves as a guide in their lives for right and moral action. For example, Diane’s post above states that because Jesus never said: “Care for the orphan and the widow by reducing your carbon emissions”, it is not her moral duty to do anything about climate change. It’s important to take religion into account because it is very prominent in a lot of people’s lives.
-
Nice recap, Emily… just wanted clarification on TOTO’s position on such things.
-
What can i say except that greenies can be both born and made. Some simply love the world/ nature for its own sake: some love it for the sake of the poor ( that’s you). I’m so glad because I’ve about given up on the green movement: it’s become a political tool. Actually I smell something foul in the way rich nations are trying to pressurize developing nations to cut their greenhouse gases emissions. You’ve always got a nose for such ferreting out unsavoury actions. Maybe you can smell something too? Welcome tree-hugger. Give you a hug.
-
Having now opened up the question of Action Aid Australia’s religious non-affiliation, I think more needs to be said.
Action Aid Australia has a clear policy of “independence, from any religious or political affiliation” (see http://www.actionaid.org.au/index.php/mission-vision-values.html), yet the organisation also has a proud history of working hand in hand with numerous religious organisations, such as Don Bosco, the Lutheran World Federation, Vietnamese Australian Buddhist Assistance Trust, etc. I assume therefore that Action Aid Australia is repsectful of all major spiritual traditions and would encourage sensitivity to all such religous traditions.
I would assume then that Joel’s rhetorical question, “What’s Jesus got to do with social media …”, which is dismissive of the Christian faith, would be as repugnant to Action Aid Australia as it would be to the average Christian. Am I wrong?
-
You’re right Father Dave, although ActionAid is independent of any religious denomination, we have partnered with a number of local religious organisation where this has been the best way to help the people we work with.
In Cambodia, for example, we are partnering with Buddhist monks to educate communities about HIV & AIDS and building support networks for people living with the disease. Because of the inherent trust most Cambodians place in monks, this makes the work that much more effective.
And you’re right again, ActionAid does believe in the right to religious freedom and the need to respect people’s choice of religion or, for that matter, lack of religion.
Now what’s that old saying about “religion and politics”…
-
-
Dave,
I don’t know how much social media relates to Jesus the man, but it is often culturally sensitive to what is perceived as the Christian values; the Christian values that underpin our society and particularly that of the USA. I find that media coverage is such a powerful tool and holds the key to the consolidation of a given mindset. I think it’s often manipulated (eg talk back radio shows) and inadvertantly condones oppression and reinforces the status quo, when it presents the bias of the powerful, or refrains from covering stories. Christianity does affect social media because when we look at our politicans we find many are Christians who bring those values with them when making decisions and speaking publicly. The powerful often attend church. People like Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott, Mrs Keneally, Mr Della Bosca, Mr Peter Costello etc. These people get media coverage. (Actually I’ve heard some say that church can be a good place to network and I don’t think they they were talking about networking with Jesus!) I really believe that the power brokers of the world control much of what is realesed in the media, especially when it relates to the politics of a country, that is driven by a generic value system. The USA is very powerful and a highly Christianised country. It’s Republican Party was in the past (maybe still is) heavily influenced by the Evangelical right, which proved to care little for those who were not like minded.
However, the thing that I have learnt recently, is that the Evangelical right are not really reflective of many Christians. Many provide unconditional service to others and have for many years. Some of the greatest people are Christians. I believe that Christians are trying to reclaim their religion. A religion stolen by extremists and for personal, political and monetry gain. It’s nice to see a priest who cares for his fellow man regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, socio-economic environment, past misdemeanors etc. Actually that is what Christianity is about isn’t it? And you seem to be one of the few PEOPLE in Australia, who is trying to tell the whole story about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You also have proven through example that Muslims and Christians can live in harmony are respect each other’s faith.
Obviously,that’s the Jesus that needs modelling… if Christianity is to gain the respect that it deserves! -
With regard to that “old saying” concerning ‘religion’ and ‘politics’, there are a few of them circulating:
One is that ‘religion’ and ‘politics’, along with ‘sex’ are inappropriate topics of discussion in genteel gatherings. Another is that religion and politics ‘don’t mix’ – an aphorism that is regularly associated with the dogma ‘religion is a personal thing’.
All three ‘old sayings’ seem equally dubious to me.
Religion and politics have always been deeply intertwined. Sometimes religion has functioned as an ‘opiate of the masses’. At other times it’s been the driving force for justice. Either way, the two have never been seperated.
And as to religion being a ‘personal thing’, historically it’s been a tribal thing, a family thing, a communal thing and national identity thing. Even so, it seems to be the trend nowadays to gloss over history for the sake of bourgeois simplicity.
And as for being inappropriate topics for discussion – surely only if we don’t want to challenge the status quo.
-
**Posted on behalf of Toni Brown**
Dave,
Couldn’t agree more. The lack of debate keeps the mind closed and maintains the status quo, often (perhaps unintentionally) maintaining oppression.Also a lot of problems relating to poverty and oppression centres around religion. How much genocide and displacement of people is a result of religious conflict? How important is dialogue in helping to create understanding and an appreciation of another’s religion and culture?
Diplomacy, compassion and service seem to be good FUNDAMENTAL principles for many religions. However, diplomacy, compassion and service do not always underpin religious motivation.
The introduction of Evangelists (such as Rick Warren) into African countries has seen a rise in the persecution of GLBT people in Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda. Evangelists promoting abstinence from sex and conversion therapy for gays, as a means of controlling the AIDS virus. Groups like EXODUS and NARTH setting up shop, claiming that they can cure gays who are deemed as immoral by these Evangelists. In my mind faith healers!
GLBT people have become scapegoats in these countries. The AIDS virus is prevalent also among heterosexuals, resulting in the infection of many women and children.
Consequently all this has resulted in a bill seeking to criminalise same-sex attracted behaviour in Uganda. Rwanda has just dropped the bill. Punishment ranges from the death penalty and life imprisionment (for those reported to be involved in same-sex behaviour) and 3 years jail for anyone who fails to report same-sex activity and/or anyone who advocates for the human rights of same-sex attracted individuals. The bill in Uganda is being pushed by churches in Uganda.
From my point of view, I find it criminal that it has taken public outcry from many around the world to get someone like Rick Warren (a US evangelist) to speak out against the persecution of this minority group.
Many other western church leaders, who were instrumental in what occurred have still remained silent, whilst GLBT people in these countries live in fear of being outed and persecuted. I’m not sure if Actionaid has a campaign that seeks to address this atrocity.
Also, does Actionaid Australia have a campaign around climate change? If climate change is the prerequisite to aiding the poor, marginalised and disadvantaged, then there is not much light at the end of the tunnel, after what occurred in Copenhagen. Obviously a long term goal.
-
Ok… last comment here. Really sorry I caused offense – totally unintended, and this is a man of faith’s website, so of course there’s gonna be religious discourse – that’s great. Just going on record as someone who has immense respect for all beliefs, from big to small, and would hate to be painted as something I ain’t. These discussion boards are for expressing everything, so keep it up, folks, and enjoy…
-
Nicely put, brother
-
A piece of good news regarding Uganda. This demonstrates how churches can be actively involved in campaigning for the rights of the oppresed. Dave, it would be nice to think that your blog was influential in creating this outcome. You must be proud to be an Australian Anglican.
From Archbishop Aspinall re Uganda
InboxXMoses, Rev GillianToni Brown BY Email Dear Toni I acknowledge receipt of your email of 10 Decem…
Dec 23 (2 days ago)Moses, Rev GillianLoading…Dec 23 (2 days ago)
Reply |Moses, Rev Gillian to me
show details Dec 23 (2 days ago)fromMoses, Rev Gillian
totonimariabrown@gmail.comdateWed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM
subjectFrom Archbishop Aspinall re Ugandahide details Dec 23 (2 days ago)
Toni Brown
BY EmailDear Toni
I acknowledge receipt of your email of 10 December 2009 regarding the proposed Ugandan legislation against homosexuality.
I appreciate your concern for the gay and lesbian people of Uganda and the threat to their welfare from this Bill. I have written to the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd and to the Foreign Minister, the Hon Stephen Smith, voicing the concerns of the Anglican Church regarding the human rights violations entailed were this legislation to be implemented.
Yours sincerely
The Most Rev’d Dr Phillip Aspinall
PrimateThe Rev’d Gillian Moses
Executive-Research Assistant to the Primate
St. Martin’s House,
373 Ann St.
G.P.O. Box 421,
Brisbane, Qld., Australia, 4001Tel. +61 7 3835 2222 +61 7 3835 2222
Fax.+61 7 3832 5030 -
Well said, Toni
Comments are now closed.
Additional comments powered by BackType
ActionAid Website
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
39 comments