Megan, I don't have time right now to do your epistle justice with a reply but may I
say Welcome!
Feel free to 'talk too much' as much as you like. You raise many points that require
discussion
and I hope many will be spurred on to do so. Even those who are hanging back, just
lurking. ;-)
Trudy
Megan Morgan wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> This is my first foray into any discussion on this list - which may
> or may not be a good sign (I tend to talk too much). Still, I've
> been listening for a while now and I'm starting to feel a bit like a
> 'voyeur', just reading your comments, and not giving of myself.
>
> As a single (complex-ly) 'white' person I have looked to this list as
> a means of hearing about Aboriginal/non-Aborginal issues from outside
> of the 'mainstream' media.
>
> For one, I really enjoyed reading Trudy's "No" case on the preamble
> and, lately, I've found the discussion, to and fro, over reference to
> "Almighty God" really engaging - and funny too! It's been light and
> playful as well as teasing out some of the complexity involved -
> though I must admit that I find it rather disappointing that the
> "God" issue has taken the focus (at this point, at least) away from
> the way in which reference to Aboriginal peoples will be made in the
> preamble.
>
> Again, as a 'white' person, I really wanted to hear what Aboriginal
> people had to say on things like "occupation" versus "ownership"
> (still a colonising word) or the myriad of other ways in which the
> unique relationship of Aboriginal people to this land / country could
> be expressed. Perhaps I should show my hand here and say that I
> don't think it should be up to John Howard, or the 'us' for which he
> speaks, to specify the terms of that relationship.
>
> When the debate began in the media just recently, I already knew I'd
> vote for including a reference to Aboriginal peoples in the preamble
> - provided it was done in a way which satisfied Aboriginal people
> (though I acknowledge that not all Aboriginal people will feel the
> same way - I guess in that case I have to admit to generally
> supporting a more radical view than a conservative one).
>
> What surprised me was the strength - the passion - of my own
> reaction against reference to God - unless it was done by recognising
> everyone's right to determine and follow their own beliefs.
>
> I don't mean to offend anyone but I don't believe in "Almighty God"
> and I resent being excluded from the "we" that the preamble is meant
> to represent.
>
> I'm sorry I don't find it "fair enough" - as Peter Yager suggests -
> "to include a reference to a belief held by the overwhelming majority
> of Australians" on the assumption that "a form of words can be
> found that incorporates the diversity of that belief".
>
> I don't think that this is a case where the "majority rules" should
> apply. It's not a case of how few of us atheists, agnostics,
> Buddhists, pantheists (whatever) there are - just as issues affecting
> Aboriginal people shouldn't be determined on numbers. It's a matter
> of respect for each and every one of us.
>
> Just as Aboriginal people were historically excluded from the "we" of
> Australians, we can't now decide that the "we" of the next phase of
> our country only includes some - even if the majority - of us.
>
> Now imagine that we were able to draft a wording to the preamble
> which acknowledged Aboriginal peoples - in a way consistent with
> Aboriginal sentiments - and acknowledged everyone's right to
> follow their own beliefs, sexuality, etc. What about those who vote
> against? Are they excluded from the "we"? Do we have to find a
> wording that includes racists and bigots (even John Howard) too?
>
> Well it seems to me, and I'm thinking as I'm writing (and I'm no
> philosopher), that the minimum requirement for inclusion in the "we"
> must be "respect for each and every one of us". How can those who
> fail to give respect to "each and every one" expect to receive it?
>
> I'm sorry that my "solution" has such obvious Christian connotations
> (is this just a re-run of "do unto others as you would have them do
> unto you"?) but at least there's no reference to God - which suits
> me.
>
> Of course, this can't happen - because the rules already state that
> there has to be a reference to "God". Remember the Con.Con.
> (a real "con") decided this. Well, a majority of them did - which
> just illustrates the point about how "majority rules" without a more
> basic commitment to respect for others and equality, doesn't work
> (that's assuming we needed more examples of this type of thing after
> Wik).
>
> Okay, so I'm not going to get my way on keeping "Almighty God" out of
> the preamble. Does this mean that I should vote no? Should I vote
> for my own exclusion from the "we"? Maybe so.
>
> Or, perhaps, at the very least, we should aim - as Peter suggests -
> to separate reference to god from reference to Aboriginal people
> (though this could be a tricky task in itself!).
>
> Maybe its better to harness the yes vote for God to the yes vote for
> reconciliation? In which case, I'll vote myself out.
>
> Or, maybe its better to get it right first time? (Trudy's "no" case)
> I don't think we'll be visiting this debate again in the near future.
> Once the constitution's changed, I think we'll be stuck with it for a
> long time to come. Have a think about America and the "right to bear
> arms". At least we have the advantage of the momentum of the
> republican movement behind us. It's almost unthinkable that we won't
> become a republic at least sometime in the next century (millenium?).
>
> So I guess at this stage I'm tending toward "no" but still open to
> being convinced either way.
>
> Okay, enough! I told you I talked too much. If I find the courage
> to venture on again I'll try to keep it short, sweet and funny!
> But maybe there's room for both....
>
> Cheers,
> Megan Morgan
> Sociology, Flinders Uni
> South Australia
> -------------------------------------------------------
> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
>from the
> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
>the "fair
> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
>without
> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
