Australia Ethics Politics Sex and sexuality Videos

Kitchen Table 25 – Who is the General Public?

This weeks Kitchen Table asks ‘Who is the General Public?’…and comments on the Lord Mayor of Perth, Basil, being hunted down by ‘the general public’ (ie. the mob)….

 

 

The Dining Table with Melvin Tinker: Understanding Church

Kitchen Table 24 – Brave New World or 1984?

 

 

 

4 comments

  1. Is it only the general public that have common sense?
    There is a distinction between being a representive “of” and a representative “from”.
    Am I representative of all humanity? Yes and no, speaking biblically. Am I a representative from all humanity? No.
    Am I a representative of all Christianity? No.
    Am I a representative of the Lord Jesus Christ…? Mmm. A definite maybe. I hope so, but hope not!
    While not exactly tangential, nor central, here is a pertinent podcast from John Piper addressing the question of the outlawing of Biblical perspective.
    Under the title of Critical Race theory, a tributary of Critical Theory it demonstrates how Biblical belief is being attacked, subverted, by competing and hostile group claims to will to power, while showing that general definitions of CT could properly be subscribed to, with biblical adherence and coherence, when drilled down to specific defitions, the are hostile to and seek to outlaw God (rebellion and hatred of God) and biblical authority and belief. Followed through, to logical conclusions irradiation, extinction is at the core of serving their own purpose, will to purpose, activism.
    https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/critical-race-theory-part-2

    1. Irradication, not irradiation. There’s a need to be alert to this phone’s text replacement. It must have been programmed by a liberal theologian.

  2. Thanks for the Basil Fawlty comment David. This kind of thing does seem somewhat farcical. It is a comedy with yet another public “apology” with a figure apologising for what he believes. It reminds me of this video of the allegedly “not inclusive” view to there being two genders made by a pupil in class. “You are choosing to make an issue of this – that was your opportunity to keep quiet” is what the teacher claims in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmxFw1LAbo

    OK not dissimilarly “if you have got a penis, mate, you’re a bloke. If you have got a vagina you’re a woman” said by Basil. Or how about this icon of 1960s feminism Germain Greer saying “post-operative transgender women are not women” and Cardiff University replying with “we in no way condone discriminatory comments of any kind” and her response with saying that is “as weak as piss”. By the way if anyone is offended at the word “piss”, it appears in the KJV of the Bible – look it up!

    So, he is not expressing a view that is not uncommon. And it this were a diverse culture there would be an “inclusive” approach to a differing view to the prevailing thought about there being more than two genders and sex and gender being different. So what this shows is that there is not diversity in this.

    OK since there is not diversity then what is a wise approach? Surely it would be not to argue with all that is happening being quarrels that just lead to energy being taken up that could be used more fruitfully for everyone.

    What doesn’t seem to come up here in discussions is what of folks who are transgender, just want to get on with their lives and could be suffering through this issue being used as a political football. Lets make not being about it, this is what is happening here. What is being implied in silencing the allegedly “offensive” view that there are two genders, sex and gender is the same and that is determined by genitalia and whether there is XX chromosome or XY chromosome is that the transgender community is so fragile that it cannot cope with this view existing and needs some kind of protection by silencing anyone who expresses this view, or making them apologise, and be sent for retraining or expelled from class etc.

    Within my circles there are two transgender folks. Both of whom I served with in the Royal Air Force. And we have had discussions of this kind where different views have been expressed without a problem. The problem arises when a so-called ” trans advocate” enters into the conversation and loses it with rhetoric that’s so ridiculous as to be laughable.

    Yes – there is a need for sensitivity for folks who are trans. I can’t imagine what it must be like to feel to are a different gender to what you are physically, or to go through transitioning. The high rate of suicides within the community suggest that this is a very difficult thing to live with. I’m not convinced by the argument made by some activists that it is because of transphobia that these suicides occur, or that transitioning is necessary and that this couldn’t be treated as a mental health condition. It seems there are some testimonies with folks that had transitioned sharing that it was a mistake. So it seems within the transgender community there are differing views.

    Given this, then isn’t it a bit strange that we have to exclude one view in order not to be “offensive”.

    And I thank anyone in advance, for any comment that they wish to make in response to this one with a false accusation explicitly or implicitly being made of it being offensive or transphobic. Doing that will have proven my point above that there is not diversity or inclusiveness of views in this.

    At a human level I guess all any of us can do is stick to the golden rule, treat someone the way you would like to be treated and leave those who want to fight over this issue to get on with it while we find better things to do.

Leave a Reply to Geoff Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: