http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-and-improved-novus-ordo-mass.html
On the authority of the Bible, and 'arriving at one's own response' thereto
A Herald letter which hints (presumably unwittingly) at why private interpretation of the Bible (Protestantism's first principle) will end up meaning as many Christianities as there are Christians:
No wonder church's future is at stake
[...]
Anyone who still wonders why the church is in decline need only read the Reverend Kevin Murray's letter (August 25). Requiring men (women are not ordained into the Presbyterian church as ministers) to sign a statement saying they recognise the authority of the Bible, but not allowing them to arrive at their own responses to this authority, says it all. I respect and revere the Bible, but I worship the God of the Bible, not the Bible itself.
Pam Connor Mollymook Beach
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/yet-another-victim-in-a-war-without-reason-20100825-13s36.html?skin=text-only]
The second sentence of the second paragraph mentions how it would work (not that I have formed an opinion one way or another on the merits of such a proposal, though):
Law of unintended consequences
[...]
I agree with the thrust of Alex Stitt's letter (August 26) about the inability or unwillingness of folk to number to 84 on the Senate ballot paper. It is quite a daunting task, and can easily lead to errors, thus resulting in an informal vote. But the "above-the-line" system is inherently undemocratic as it allows political parties to control preference flows.
So why can't we number all the boxes above the line? That way the voter controls the preference flow and the parties control only the order of their candidates.
Bill Young Greenwich
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/whatever-independents-do-will-upset-someone-20100826-13u35.html?skin=text-only]
One which I had not considered before reading this, the first letter in the "short & sharp" column in the Sydney Daily Telegraph's "your say" section last Wednesday, p. 33 (and, again, with which I don't necessarily agree, but find interesting):
IT SEEMS to me that a far better system than people not knowing where their preferences are going would be if each voter was allowed to mark two Xs for the Upper House and two Xs for the Lower House. Whoever gets the most Xs wins. Even if that person is your second choice, if they have the most Xs then clearly they are supported by most of the community in that area.
Chris Roberts Engadine
Feast of St. Joseph Calasanctius, Confessor, A.D. 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment