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."
