“It was a gathering of clergymen worthy of a religious festival: a line of dozens of bearded priests in black robes, with heavy silver crosses hanging on their chests. And yet, you couldn’t imagine a less holy march. The clergymen led a huge mob along the main street of Tbilisi, the capital of the Republic of Georgia, through a police cordon, and toward a small group of visibly nervous young men and women who had set out to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.
Another priest came armed with a stool. Their followers carried rocks, sticks, and crucifixes. “Kill them! Don’t let them leave alive,” they screamed.
They smashed heads, windows of shops, and a minibus in which activists tried to escape. Twelve people, including three policemen, were seriously injured.
“Before the van arrived, about ten girls—gay rights activists—were being taunted by a growing, frothing mob. A stone was thrown and split a girl’s head open.… This mob was the creation of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Georgian government has so far been gutless in standing up to the Church to protect the rights of its citizens. Shame on you, Georgia. Shame on you,” Paul Rimple, a Tbilisi-based journalist, posted on his Facebook page. He later wrote about it for the Moscow Times.
“A Georgian Taliban has been born,” read status updates of other Georgians on Facebook. Some changed their location settings to Iran. But those who opposed the priests and those who cheered them agree that gay rights—an issue, until now, seen as marginal by most Georgians—has become a proxy for a larger conflict.
As I looked through videos and photographs of the attack, I spotted a familiar bearded face in the crowd of angry anti-gay protesters: the excommunicated Orthodox priest Basili Mkalavishvili. A dozen years ago, when I was reporting for the BBC from Georgia, Father Basili, as he is known among his supporters, invited me for a cup of tea in his little church on the outskirts of Tbilisi. He told me he was proud to be cleansing Georgia of “satanic forces.” He wasn’t shy about discussing the techniques he used in his crusade against religious minorities. Hitting Jehovah’s Witnesses with iron crucifixes, he said, was an effective way of fighting them. But, when I asked, he denied raiding their homes.
“That’s not true,” he told me. “We find out where they gather, and then we wait for them outside. When they come out, that’s when we attack them.” He also said that he was thankful to the Georgian police force for their support.
Father Basili may have been a particularly brazen thug but he was not an isolated misfit. At the time, then President Eduard Shevardnadze had lost control of his corrupt family, his ministers, and even parts of the country. In 2003, a peaceful revolution, sparked by a fraudulent election, brought to power a team of young libertarian politicians led by the Columbia-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. He sacked the entire Shevardnadze-era police force. Thousands of people, from mere potheads to former government officials, went to prison for offenses that, a short time before, many Georgians hadn’t even considered crimes. Many of the reforms were dizzying—electricity supplies stabilized, petty crime disappeared, the economy grew, tourists arrived—and, for many, disorienting. That the rest of the country wanted to get off his high-speed modernization train didn’t seem to matter to Saakashvili. But even nontraditionalists began to object to his government’s abuse of power, including a crackdown on the media and on public protests. He dismissed those critics, too.
By 2005, religious minorities in Georgia were far safer, while Father Basili was hiding in his church from the police, who were looking to bring him in on charges of inciting religious hatred and violence. The government had been cautious with the Orthodox Church, and many assumed that arrest of a priest in a temple was a red line that Saakashvili would not dare to cross. They were wrong. Not only did the special forces storm the church and arrested Father Basili but they televised the operation, too. It was typical Saakashvili: teach everyone a lesson.
By 2012, footage of Father Basili’s dramatic arrest was back on television—but this time it was used against Saakashvili. The opposition’s entire campaign in a key parliamentary election was built on the notion that Georgians had paid too high a price for the changes that the government brought.
The opposition coalition, called the Georgian Dream, was united by the money of the billionaire businessman Bidzina Ivanishvili. He promised Georgians they could have it all: a pro-European political course, good relations with Russia, and democracy—all without anyone ever again offending patriarchal values. It was an attractive offer that resonated with conservative, church-going Georgians who said they were fed up with Saakashvili’s arrogant and forceful style. Ivanishvili won.
One of the first things Ivanishvili did when he became Prime Minister was to free some three thousand convicts, including a hundred and ninety that his party considered to be political prisoners. Among them was Giorgi Gabedava, who became a key organizer of the May 17th anti-gay rally. The rally was also where Father Basili made his first public appearance since his arrest. (After his release from prison, in 2008, because of poor health, he’d kept a low profile.) But these days, he’s just one in a growing corps of radical clergy whose intolerance is endorsed by the Orthodox Church. The night before the rally, Patriarch Ilia II, the Church’s leader, called homosexuality “an anomaly and a disease”; he has since failed to condemn behavior of his priests, dismissing it as merely “impolite.”
The U.S. State Department and the E.U. have both condemned the violence. The Georgian government has been more ambiguous. The Prime Minister has said that he supports minority rights but that Asaval Dasavali, an ultra-conservative publication that prints notable examples of hate speech, is his favorite newspaper. It took the Interior Ministry four days to finally arrest four members of the mob, just to release them again after they paid a sixty-dollar fine; two clerics were also charged with illegally impeding the right to assemble a week after the rally.
Incidentally, or perhaps not, the very same day, the government arrested two senior opposition leaders; one was the former Prime Minister Vano Merabishvili, who was known for his defiance of the Church.
In the meantime, there have been reports of random attacks on young men in Tbilisi. On Monday, the gay-rights organization Identoba appealed to the Ministry of Interior to protect them. Seven of their activists, the statement said, have been attacked since May 17th. The government is running out of time to show that it can control the situation, and the country, with something like fairness.”
“On the sixth day of the trial involving six City Harvest Church leaders, several documents came under scrutiny.
One document was the minutes of an investment committee meeting dated 29 July 2008.
The prosecution alleged it was backdated to cover up the misuse of the church’s Building Fund.
Church founder Kong Hee and four others – John Lam, Chew Eng Han, Tan Ye Peng and Serina Wee – allegedly misused S$24 million by channelling it into two companies, Xtron Productions and PT the First National Glassware (Firna), in what was described as “sham bond investments”.
This allegedly took place between January 2007 and October 2008.
A second set of charges involves four of the six accused – Chew Eng Han, Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan – who are said to have misappropriated some S$26 million to cover up the first sum.
The funds were allegedly used to boost the music career of Kong’s wife, Sun Ho.
The prosecution alleged that Serina Wee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam and Sharon Tan conspired to cover up the misuse of the church’s Building Fund. And the prosecution tried to prove this through a chain of emails sent on August 1 up to August 5 in 2008.
On Thursday, it presented emails where the five discussed the agenda for an investment committee meeting to be held on 5 August 2008.
Two points were to be raised – whether the church’s investment complied with its policy, and Xtron’s ability to redeem the bond.
In questioning former Xtron director, Koh Siow Ngea, the prosecution pointed out that these same two points were listed in the minutes of an investment committee meeting on 29 July 2008.
On Wednesday, the defence had sought to show through the July minutes that the committee members had seriously discussed the ability of Xtron to redeem bonds it had issued to the church. It also tried to make the point that the committee had met two banks before appointing accused Chew Eng Han’s company, AMAC Capital Partners, as fund manager.
The court also heard that Serina Wee had said in an email that the church could not record minutes about a S$10.7 million bank loan Xtron had taken. She wrote: “They are not supposed to be aware of this”. Her email was sent only to Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Sharon Tan and Tan Ye Peng. This was unlike earlier emails that included investment committee members Nicholas Goh, Martin Ong and witness Mr Koh.
The prosecution said the five conspired to backdate the minutes to July, so as to hide Xtron’s bank loan and to placate Xtron’s external auditors.
The auditors had sent an email on 1 August 2008 stating they would only finalise Xtron’s audit for 2007, when outstanding issues were resolved.
These issues related to Xtron bonds and the use of the church’s Building Fund for investments.
Another document in question was a personal guarantee signed by Wahju Hanafi indemnifying Xtron against any losses from the Crossover Project.
The Crossover Project aims to use pop music for evangelism and the music career of Sun Ho is part of it.
The other document was another personal guarantee signed by Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Mr Koh. This other guarantee was meant to indemnify Mr Wahju for the earlier-mentioned personal guarantee.
Referring to an email sent by Serina Wee to Chew Eng Han in 2010, the prosecution said drafts of the two personal guarantees were attached.
The prosecution then asked Mr Koh if he recalled signing the guarantee in 2007. Mr Koh could not.
Highlighting the three-year time gap, prosecutor Christopher Ong questioned why Serina Wee only drafted the documents in 2010. Mr Koh said he wasn’t aware.
This prompted Mr Ong to ask: “Does that look like an error to you?”
Mr Koh replied there could have been an “oversight”.
After six days of hearing, the first tranche of the trial has wrapped up. It will resume in late August for a month and Channel NewsAsia understands that the other director of Xtron and the director of Firna are expected to take the stand then.”
“A Philadelphia couple who believe in faith healing over medicine and who were on probation in their son’s pneumonia death were charged with murder Wednesday after a second young child died under what a prosecutor called “eerily similar” circumstances.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible ignored a court order to seek medical care if their children needed it, prosecutors said Wednesday. The requirement was a condition of the probation sentence they received after the death of their toddler son four years ago.
First Assistant District Attorney Ed McCann says the Schaibles are entitled to their religious beliefs – until it endangers their children.
“How many kids have to die before it becomes extreme indifference to human life?” McCann said in announcing the charges. “They killed one kid already.”
The Schaibles are members and former teachers at the fundamentalist First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia.
First Century Gospel pastor Nelson Clark wouldn’t comment to Action News after the charges were announced.
The church’s website quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine and suggests it’s a sin to trust in medicine over faith.
Catherine Schaible declined to comment earlier Wednesday, before the arrest warrants were issued. Defense lawyers call the couple loving parents who did not intend for their sons to die.
A jury had convicted them of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment after the 2009 death of 2-year-old Kent, who had been sick for about two weeks. Brandon Schaible died of pneumonia in April after suffering from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and refusing to eat.
“The circumstances are eerily similar,” said Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who handled the first trial and pushed for prison time because she feared the couple would not follow the court’s order on medical care.
A conviction on the new case could bring seven to 14 years in prison or more, prosecutors said.
About a dozen children a year die in the U.S. when their parents choose prayer over medical care, according to Shawn Francis Peters, a University of Wisconsin lecturer who wrote “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law.”
In a handful of cases, the parents later watch a second child die.
“One of the building blocks of our legal system is the idea that people will be afraid of being punished,” Peters said. But people who trust in faith healing fear “a different kind of punishment,” he said. “It’s not an earthly punishment meted out by the state of Pennsylvania. It’s punishment going to be delivered by the Almighty on Judgment Day. It’s difficult to find a legal regime that can change that.”
The Schaibles, who quit school after ninth grade, have worked as teachers at their church. They are in their mid-40s, and their oldest child will soon turn 18. Their seven surviving children were placed in foster care after a parole violation hearing last month, when a judge rebuked them for failing to seek medical care for Brandon.
“I am sorry for your loss. Deeply sorry,” Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner told the couple. “But in all honesty, I am more sorry for the fact that this innocent little child will not be able to grow up to be what he wanted to be.”
Catherine Schaible’s public defender, Mythri Jayaraman, said Brandon had seen a doctor at least once in his life.
“When he was 10 days old, he had been taken to a doctor for a checkup, and to make sure everything was OK. We don’t know beyond that,” Jayaraman told The Associated Press.
Bobby Hoof, the lawyer who represented Herbert Schaible in the earlier case, described the couple as loving parents who grieved over Kent’s death.
“He’s a father just like the rest of us. He loves his children, wants to see them educated,” said Hoof, who does not know if he will be appointed in the new case. “It’s hard to indict someone for what they believe.”
“The director of operations for an obscure but wealthy Beacon Hill church stood before a federal judge Wednesday, accused of raiding the coffers of the congregation where he said he found redemption and enlightenment.
Federal agents arrested Edward J. MacKenzie, a 54-year-old self-proclaimed henchman for mobster James “Whitey” Bulger, after he was indicted by a grand jury on charges of racketeering, extortion, bribery, and money laundering.
MacKenzie, who lives in Weymouth, started working at the Swedenborgian Church on the Hill in 2003 and immediately began scheming with coconspirators, according to his indictment. Their alleged goal was to “obtain power and influence” and use both to “defraud the church of its considerable financial holdings and profit.”
The church, which sits in the shadow of the State House on Bowdoin Street, owns an adjoining 18-story apartment building. The building is worth about $30 million and generates $1.4 million a year from the 145 rental units.
Instead of arriving at work Wednesday, MacKenzie appeared in court disheveled in shorts and a jacket.
Prosecutors asked that he be held without bail, noting the prison time he faces, up to 20 years on most charges, and his history of violence. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler agreed, scheduling another hearing for next week.
His lawyer, Edward Colbert, would not comment.
The church’s attorney, Nick Carter, said Wednesday that the church terminated MacKenzie “effective immediately.” Carter said MacKenzie was placed on administrative leave three weeks ago after FBI and IRS agents descended on the church and searched it for evidence.
Carter would not say whether MacKenzie had been suspended with or without pay. He received $200,000 a year as director of operations, although the indictment said he harvested nearly half-a-million dollars in kickbacks and stolen cash during his tenure.
The indictment said that MacKenzie used his position to “loot the church . . . through a combination of fraud, deceit, extortion, theft, and bribery.” Companies hoping to do business had to pay a kickback, often 10 percent, authorities said.
Carpenters, plumbers, painters, and floorers inflated their bids to cover the cost of kickbacks, To ensure that people paid, the indictment said, MacKenzie would intimidate them by providing signed copies of his 2003 autobiography, “StreetSoldier: My life as an Enforcer for Whitey Bulger and the Boston Irish Mob.”
A convicted drug dealer with seven children by four women, MacKenzie did not hide his past from fellow parishioners.
In the church’s June 2012 newsletter, he mentions his past while discussing the recent trials and tribulations of the church. “I believe that salvation and redemption come to different people in different ways,” he wrote. “But I know that the support and understanding and enlightenment I have found in this faith, among you, in this house, feel good and right and full of promise.”
The Boston Society of the New Jerusalem runs the Swedenborgian Church, a small Protestant sect that follows the teachings of the 18th-century Swedish scientist and philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg.
Swedenborg believed that Christ has made a second coming, in spirit rather than in person. One of the tenets of the church is that believers, not God, decide their own afterlife.
MacKenzie joined the church in 2002 and, within months, became part of a new leadership circle. The changes caused the national church to file a civil racketeering lawsuit, alleging that MacKenzie and others orchestrated a hostile takeover to cash in on the 195-year-old church’s assets.
A federal judge dismissed the suit in 2004, saying a pattern of racketeering had not gone on long enough. But the church, which eventually seceded from the Swedenborgian national body, was monitored by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office for three years.
Now, federal authorities assert that MacKenzie began conspiring with other newcomers to take over the church in September 2002 and continued exploiting his ill-gotten position until December 2012.
According to the indictment, MacKenzie and the others gained control by maneuvering a voting majority away from mostly elderly members. They recruited friends and family to be church members, amassing the necessary “voting bloc to take control of the church,” the indictment said.
MacKenzie and his associates then began voting to grant themselves hefty financial benefits, according to the indictment. He arranged to have himself elected director of operations, the indictment alleges.
Church money, according to the indictment, was also used to buy four cars for personal use; to provide MacKenzie $50,000 for legal fees; and to pay tuition for a coconspirator.
MacKenzie allegedly tried to cover his tracks by laundering the illegal kickbacks and pilfered money — he is also accused of stealing checks — through sham bank accounts.
While MacKenzie no longer works at the small church tucked between a bar and shoe shop, his picture remains in the lobby, surrounded by photos of fellowship and worship.”
“A virtual war over gay marriage has broken out between key Labor government figures and a powerful Christian lobby group.
Finance Minister Penny Wong has accused the ultra-conservative Australian Christian Lobby of ”peddling prejudice” and engaging in ”bigotry that has no place in a modern Australia”.
The sharp rebuke of an organisation courted by Prime Minister Julia Gillard followed its claim that Kevin Rudd risked creating another stolen generation by changing his mind to back same-sex marriage.
The ACL claimed that by allowing same-sex marriage there were consequences such as same-sex education in schools, and technologically created babies through IVF.
‘The [former] prime minister, who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation, has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another,” the ACL said in a statement.
In a sign of the political implications of the matter, the group’s managing director Lyle Shelton also said Mr Rudd’s revised position would cost him the ”last of his following in the Christian constituency”.
Senator Wong, who is in a same-sex relationship herself and has a daughter, said the ACL was speaking nonsense…..”
“I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith.
One Saturday morning in Canberra, some weeks ago, a former political staffer asked to have a coffee. This bloke, who shall remain nameless, is one of those rare finds among political staffers who combines intelligence, integrity, a prodigious work ethic, and, importantly, an unfailing sense of humour in the various positions he has worked in around Parliament House. Necessary in contemporary politics, otherwise you simply go stark raving mad.
And like myself, this bloke is a bit of a god-botherer (aka Christian). Although a little unlike myself, he is more of a capital G God-Botherer. In fact, he’s long been active in his local Pentecostal Church.
Over coffee, and after the mandatory depressing discussion about the state of politics, he tells me that he’s gay, he’s told his pastor (who he says is pretty cool with it all, although the same cannot be said of the rest of the church leadership team) and he then tells me that one day he’d like to get married to another bloke. And by the way, “had my views on same sex marriage changed?”.
As most folks know, in our family I have long been regarded as the last of the Mohicans on this one. The kids have long thought I’m an unreconstructed dinosaur for not supporting marriage equality legislation. And Thérèse just looks at me with that slightly weary, slightly exasperated, slightly pitying “there, there darling, you’ll get over it one day” sort of look, that wives can be particularly good at giving to their antediluvian husbands.
Very few things surprise me in life and politics anymore. But I must confess the Pentecostal staffer guy threw me a bit. And so the re-think began, once again taking me back to first principles. First, given that I profess to be a Christian (albeit not a particularly virtuous one) and given that this belief informs a number of my basic views; and given that I am given a conscience vote on these issues; then what constitutes for me a credible Christian view of same sex marriage, and is such a view amenable to change? Second, irrespective of what that view might be, do such views have a proper place in a secular state, in a secular definition of marriage, or in a country where the census tells us that while 70% of the population profess a religious belief, some 70% of marriages no longer occur in religious institutions, Christian or otherwise.
The Christian tradition since Aquinas is one based on a combination of faith informed by reason. If the latter is diminished, then we are reduced to varying forms of theocratic terrorisms where the stoning of heretics and the burning of witches would still be commonplace. In fact if we were today to adhere to a literalist rendition of the Christian scriptures, the 21st century would be a deeply troubling place, and the list of legitimized social oppressions would be disturbingly long.
Slavery would still be regarded as normal as political constituencies around the world, like the pre-civil war American South, continued to invoke the New Testament injunction that “slaves be obedient to your masters” as their justification. Not to mention the derivative political theologies that provided ready justifications for bans on inter-racial marriage and, in very recent times, the ethical obscenity that was racial segregation and apartheid.
Similarly with the status of women. Supporters of polygamy would be able to justify their position based on biblical precedent. Advocates of equality would also have difficulty with Paul’s injunction that “wives should be submissive to their husbands” (As a good Anglican, Thérèse has never been a particularly big rap for Saint Paul on this one). The Bible also teaches us that people should be stoned to death for adultery (which would lead to a veritable boom in the quarrying industry were that still the practice today). The same for homosexuals. And the biblical conditions for divorce are so strict that a woman could be beaten within an inch of her life and still not be allowed to legally separate.
The point is that nobody in the mainstream Christian Church today would argue any of these propositions. A hundred years ago, that was not necessarily the case. In other words, the definition of Christian ethics is subject to change, based on analysis of the historical context into which the biblical writers were speaking at the time, and separating historical context from timeless moral principles, such as the injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”.
Against this particular Christian norm, and its secular moral corollary of “do no harm”, and, in particular, “do no harm to others, especially the vulnerable”, we have seen a range of social reforms over the decades where traditional, literalist biblical teachings have been turned on their head, often with the support of the churches. Including relatively recent legislative actions by Australian legislatures to decriminalize homosexuality. And much more recently, under my Prime Ministership, action to remove all legal discriminations against same sex couples in national statutes including in inheritance, taxation, superannuation, veterans affairs, family law, defence housing, Centrelink, child support, health insurance, citizenship and aged care.
Which brings us back to same sex marriage. I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay. The near universal findings of biological and psychological research for most of the post war period is that irrespective of race, religion or culture, a certain proportion of the community is born gay, whether they like it or not. Given this relatively uncontested scientific fact, then the following question that arises is should our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay be fully embraced as full members of our wider society? The answer to that is unequivocally yes, given that the suppression of a person’s sexuality inevitably creates far greater social and behavioural abnormalities, as opposed to its free and lawful expression.
Which brings us to what for some time has been the sole remaining obstacle in my mind on same sex marriage – namely any unforeseen consequences for children who would be brought up by parents in a same sex married relationship, as against those brought up by parents in married or de-facto heterosexual relationships, by single parents, or by adoptive or foster parents, or other legally recognised parent or guardian relationships. The care, nurture and protection of children in loving relationships must be our fundamental concern. And this question cannot be clinically detached from questions of marriage – same sex or opposite sex. The truth is that in modern Australia approximately 43 per cent of marriages end in divorce, 27 per cent of Australian children are raised in one parent, blended or step-family situations, and in 2011-12 nearly 50,000 cases of child abuse were substantiated by the authorities of more than 250,000 notifications registered. In other words, we have a few problems out there.
That does not mean, by some automatic corollary, that children raised in same sex relationships are destined to experience some sort of nirvana by comparison. But scientific surveys offer important indications. One of the most comprehensive surveys of children raised in same sex relationships is the US National Longitudinal Survey conducted since 1986 – 1992 (and still ongoing) on adolescents raised by same sex partners. This survey, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics in 2010, concluded that there were no Child Behaviour Checklist differences for these kids as against the rest of the country. There are a number of other research projects with similar conclusions as well. In fact 30 years of research has seen the Australian Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Paediatrics and the American Psychological Association acknowledge that same sex families do not compromise children’s development. Furthermore, there is the reality of a growing number of Australian children being raised in same sex relationships. Either as a result of previous opposite-sex relationships, or through existing state and territory laws making assisted reproduction, surrogacy, adoption and fostering legally possible for same sex couples or individuals in the majority of Australian states and territories. Furthermore, Commonwealth legislation has already recognised the legal rights of children being brought up in such relationships under the terms of Australian family law. Therefore, the question arises that given the state has already recognised and facilitated children being raised in same sex relationships, why do we not afford such relationships the potential emotional and practical stability offered by the possibility of civil marriage?
Finally, as someone who was raised for the most important part of his childhood by a single mum, I don’t buy the argument that I was somehow developmentally challenged because I didn’t happen to have a father. The loving nurture of children is a more complex business than that.
So where does this leave us in relation to the recent and prospective debates before the Australian Parliament? Many Christians will disagree with the reasoning I have put forward as the basis for changing my position on the secular state having a broader definition of marriage than the church. I respect their views as those of good and considered conscience. I trust they respect mine as being of the same. In my case, they are the product of extensive reflection on Christian teaching, the scientific data and the emerging reality in our communities where a growing number of same sex couples are now asking for marriage equality in order to give public pledge to their private love and for each other, and to provide the sort of long-term relationship commitment that marriage can provide for the emotional stability important for the proper nurture of children.
Further, under no circumstances should marriage equality legislation place any legal requirement on the church or other religious institutions to conduct same sex marriages. The churches should be explicitly exempt. If we truly believe in a separation of church and state, then the church must be absolutely free to conduct marriage ceremonies between a man and a woman only, given the nature of their current established theological and doctrinal positions on the matter. This should be exclusively a matter for the church, the mosque and the synagogue. It is, however, a different matter for a secular state. The Church must be free to perform marriages for Christian heterosexual couples without any threat of interference from the state. Just as the state should be free to perform marriage services for both heterosexual and same sex couples, and whether these couples are of a religious faith or no religious faith.
These issues properly remain matters of conscience for all members of the Parliament. Labor provides a conscience vote. The Liberals and the Nationals do not. They should. If they don’t, then we should consider a national referendum at an appropriate time, and which would also have the added advantage of bringing the Australian community along with us on an important social reform for the nation. And for the guys and girls, like the former staffer who came to see me recently in a state of genuine distress, we may just be able to provide a more dignified and non-discriminatory future for all.
Some will ask why I am saying all this now. For me, this issue has been a difficult personal journey, as I have read much, and talked now with many people, and of late for the first time in a long time I have had the time to do both. I have long resisted going with the growing tide of public opinion just for the sake of it. Those who know me well know that I have tried in good conscience to deal with the ethical fundamentals of the issue and reach an ethical conclusion. My opponents both within and beyond the Labor Party, will read all sorts of political significances into this. That’s a matter for them. There is no such thing as perfect timing to go public on issues such as this.
For the record, I will not be taking any leadership role on this issue nationally. My core interest is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box. That, I believe, is the right thing to do.”
“Melbourne’s most senior Catholic has admitted child sexual abuse was covered up and the church was slow to act against pedophile priests.
Archbishop Denis Hart says a knighted former archbishop kept reports of sexual abuse to himself and that the church was keen to look after itself when addressing complaints, placing its reputation ahead of victims.
‘The question of confidentiality of these matters was probably kept in one sense too much in that the church was too keen to look after herself and her good name and not keen enough to address the terrible anguish of the victims,’ Archbishop Hart told a Victorian parliamentary inquiry on Monday.
He said Archbishop Sir Thomas Francis ‘Frank’ Little had covered up abuse reports.
‘Archbishop Little kept all these things to himself and there were no records,’ Archbishop Hart said.
Pressed on whether there had been a cover-up he said: ‘Well I have to agree with that.’
He added: ‘The only person who’s ultimately responsible is the archbishop at the time.
‘We were too slow to realise what was going on.
‘These awful criminals are secretive and cunning.
‘I’m not making excuses for any of my predecessors.’
Archbishop Hart, who has been the Melbourne archbishop since 2001 and was previously a vicar general from 1996, agreed the crimes should have been dealt with upfront and revealed to the police.
Asked if the church was protecting its treasure – its good name, reputation and money – Archbishop Hart said he believed that was true but that had changed since the early 1990s.
‘Slowly, sometimes with agony, but it has changed,’ he said.
Archbishop Hart also said things have changed since 1996.
‘I would certainly say that the church has been slow to act,’ he said.
‘I would stand by what we’ve done since 1996 by pulling them straight out of ministry.’
Archbishop Hart admitted in the past child sex abuse had been endemic in the Catholic Church in Victoria.
Twelve out of 50 priests identified by the Church were responsible for more than half of the offences committed, Archbishop Hart told the child abuse inquiry.
‘There were priests who did heinous crimes and went on doing it,’ he said.
Archbishop Hart said he was prepared to work with the community to carry the ‘eradication of this awful evil forward’.
But his statements were questioned by inquiry committee members who pointed out the church spent more money on the annual salary of its communications manager than it paid victims.
The Melbourne archdiocese pays its communications manager between $150,000 and $180,000 annually, executive administrative director Francis Moore told the inquiry.
Pressed on how this amount compared with compensation payments made ‘under the best case circumstances’ of $75,000, Archbishop Hart said the church was generous when compared with the state compensation.”
“It looks like even the City Harvest Church (CHC) also doesn’t trust the Singapore’s mainstream media these days. When CHC leaders were arrested last year, some of the members were unhappy at what they perceived as biased reporting by the mainstream media.
CHC currently employs its own media unit to cover the ongoing trial of 6 of their leaders, including pastor Kong Hee.
The CHC media unit, City News, has a core group of about 15 volunteer journalists working for CHC. They are a mix bunch of students and working professionals, some with media experience. They have been taking turns to cover the trial.
CHC aims to give its own perspective on the ongoing trial of their leaders.
The team produces video news segments which are uploaded to its channel on YouTube, as well as writing on the court proceedings. Not surprisingly, the news tend to heavily feature comments from defence lawyers and church pastors. The stories are published on CHC’s portal Citynews.sg.
CHC said, “While we understand the mainstream media’s perspective, we hope to plug possible gaps for our members.”
Following is the news produced by CHC’s City News team for the first day of the trial of their leaders:
City News declined to reveal the budget of its operations.”
