Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 704 ..

Mr Cornwell: Continue.

MR MOORE: Mr Cornwell interjects, “Continue”. I will continue because the Reverend Mr Vosgerau shares some of his concerns about the community. I do not think they are particularly relevant here, but I would not like to misrepresent his opinion. He continued:

However, may I in closing share a concern.

Even though we live in a diverse culture which necessitates tolerance, nevertheless, I am concerned about the erosion of our societies sense of values and faith. Pluralism has also brought with it a lack of certainty. One could even call it an escape from responsibility in the embrace of relativism. Though we may value other views this does not mean all views are valuable. There seems to be danger that we want to please everyone, but at what and whose expense? Does a culture not have the right to express its predominant ethos and faith? There is no easy answer to this question. And it’s certainly not always found in disassembling past traditions and values.

So, he qualifies it. There is no doubt that he qualifies his answer in terms of his view and takes the opportunity to raise some issues of concern. His final paragraph reads:

Though our ACT Assembly may no longer be able to pray, please rest assured that we as a church continue to pray for it.

I think that that final paragraph is particularly important because it says, “We recognise that it is our responsibility as Christians to pray for the Assembly”. What the author of this letter, the regional chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia, failed to recognise is that we are allowing people here to pray.

Mr Berry: We are encouraging it.

MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects that we are encouraging people to pray. How are we encouraging people to pray? The daily program, where the word “Prayer” appears, will not say just “Prayer”. It will say “Prayer or reflection”. It will still recognise, first, prayer. Probably the majority of people in this Assembly, for some years to come, I suggest, will pray during that time. But it will also recognise tolerance for those who do not wish to pray, who wish to use the time for reflection. They will include people who do not believe in a single god, for example, and people who do not believe in a god at all, but people who do believe in reflecting upon the deliberations for the true welfare of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. They will no longer be excluded in the way they have been excluded for the last six years in this parliament.

Mr Humphries made the point that we ought not do away with a tradition because we have a tradition. His logic was confused in some ways, which was why I interjected about the concept of the Litany, because in some ways we move on from that. I referred to the Litany because we are aware that in the House of Commons back in, I think, the 1600s it was the role of the Clerk, I believe, to lead the Litany. The Litany is a prayer with a series

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .