Saturday, 3 March 2012

Acroamaticus Under Surveillance?

From today's The Australian newspaper:
"PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

The historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press.

The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled "seriously dopey" by one site operator." [italics mine]

Incredibly, even the virtual old manse and yours truly could be under "direct government oversight" (i.e. subject to censorship of views deemed politically incorrect) under these proposed laws. Why, if the bureaucracy were efficient, we might be worried! Still, discretion being the better part of valour, it might soon be prudent to resurrect my nom de plume.

Read all about it here.


Lvka said...

A little something... :-)

Pr Mark Henderson said...

Yes, as if we didn't have enough to worry about without the government being on our backs as well, Lucian.

Mind you, there are no man-eating koalas; they can give you a nasty bite and scratch, though.

Lvka said...

A beautiful comment about the value of FAITH and the worthlessness of our own ASCETIC efforts:

"Neither going about naked, nor matted locks, nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal who has not overcome doubt". (Buddha, The Dhammapada).

Pr Mark Henderson said...

But the OBJECT of faith is crucial, Lucian:
"No one else can save us. Indeed, we can be saved only by the power of the one named Jesus and not by any other person." Acts 4:12, ('God's Word' translation)

Lvka said...

You're the one searching for ``Lutherans before Luther``, Father... :-)

After all, the early Christians were all Lutheran, of course, AND they were very keen of seeing in pre-Christian religions, whether OT Judaism or ancient paganism, prefigurations of Christianity, so WHY should you -a Lutheran pastor- object to what those early, second and third century Lutheran Fathers would have seen as a confirmation of their faith? :-)

Pr Mark Henderson said...

You've not been paying attention, Lucian.

Firstly, the Lutheran faith is not faith in "faith", it is faith in Christ. The Buddha's comment is quite interesting, I grant you, and there is a stream of Buddhism which develops it, but it is a long way from faith in Christ.

Secondly, I've written numerous times that it would be anachronistic to call any of the Fathers "Lutherans". What I do say is that some of them found the same doctrines in Holy Scripture that Luther later found there. Luther, however, gave greater clarity of expression to those doctrines because he was liberated from some of the philosophical pre-conceptions of the Fathers (like belief in free will).

Now, Lucian, put the dunce's hat on and go to the corner of the classroom.

Lvka said...

Just messin' with you, Father... :-)

Lvka said...

..but just so you don't think that ALL I ever do is a joke, and to show you my serious side, I just thought I'd share this deeply-theological hymn on Orthodox soteriology with you..