How Aboriginal Christians are Challenging Australian Spiritually
Tanya RichesABC Religion and Ethics25 Jan 2016
The annual Australia Day festivities are upon us once again. And, once again, it is corporate Australia that dominates the public conversation.
This year it began with a particularly controversialadvertisement from Meat and Livestock Australia, presented by SBS's Lee Lin Chin - proving that lamb is still the easiest way of getting Australians to talk about national identity.
And then there was Woolworth's unfortunate omission of Tasmania from an Australian map; andAussieBum's insensitive range of Australia Day themed underwear.
Each year seems to produce some new faux pas, some new way for corporate Australia to get things wrong. But the frequently overlooked question is why should corporate Australia set the tone in the first place?
Recently, television station NITV did something striking by providing a guide to the differing perspectives regarding Australia Day. It outlines three competing ways of commemorating the date, representing the divisions in our national narrative:
Who is Kenneth Bae, and why is he in a North Korean prison camp?
By Chelsea J. Carter, CNN
Who is Kenneth Bae? And why is he being held by North Korea?
Those are the questions for many following the combative exchange Tuesday between Dennis Rodman and Chris Cuomo on CNN's "New Day," who asked whether the former NBA player was planning to inquire about Bae, a U.S. citizen sentenced to 15 years in a North Korean labor camp.
In response, Rodman, who is in North Korea with a team of fellow former NBA players, suggested the Korean-American had done something wrong, but did not specify what.
A Christian employee of British Airways was on Tuesday awarded 2,000 euros as compensation for being prevented from wearing a cross at work, in a case that will have wider implications on the right to display religious symbols at work in the United Kingdom.Nadia Eweida had taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg to fight for her right to express Christian faith.In a majority judgement, the court ruled that “the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the applicant’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under Article 9 (of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion).”