'yep spoke to one Christian guy today who wore no pants to church about 20 years ago. He was unaware of any spiritual connection. Oh well here we go again.

JBSH

you certainly hang around with some creeps.

John Perkins has refused to acknowledge any of the criticisms against his biased view, judging by his response.
Those criticisms of his superficial view, are on the most part in strong support of the Aboriginal stand, based on their legitimate cultural beliefs.

Here is the atypical screaming match thrown at objectors of gay abandon mad secular fanatics-society, becoming significantly more obvious daily, and robbing their opposition with the theft of free speech.

Dan

Closed today. Well done to the Anangu.

Great article John. Yes Anangu own the land and have a right to decide how it is run. From 1985 they signed a lease agreement to run their land as a National Park. National Parks belong to the nation and as is set out in the lease agreement section 17-2, cultural heritage is to be managed, preserved and protected. The clause does not just apply to Anangu culture but applies to White Australian culture and history. The Climb is important to both cultures and Parks Australia failed in their obligations to manage it properly. It has always been a risk issue for them. National Parks are secular places that do not enforce the religious views of one particular group. If the owners do not want to enjoy the Climb or share it with their children that is their choice. Those extremist views should not be forced onto other visitors who do not believe them. If they want to enforce their own rules then they should run their land as a private park without the support of the tax payer, much like any other religious institution. With the Climb banned it is no longer a National Park.

Climbing Mt Connor would be a wonderful addition to activities in the area. It is a relatively straightforward climb from the southern side. The current lease owners do not want people climbing due to their perception that they would be sued if someone has an accident. Unlike Ayers Rock though it is not being managed as a National Park, it's a pastoral lease run without gov support. If the Anangu want to ban the climb and enforce their religious on visitors they may do so but it then ceases to be a National Park and like Curtin Springs must be run privately without government support.

Dear MarcH,

If you had listened to the ceremony yesterday one of the primary reasons given by an Anangu elder was around people hurting themselves or dying by climbing Uluru. He said it wasn't in their culture to be facilitating that on their land where they held a duty of care.

In a way the owner of Mt Connor has taken a similar stance albeit expressed in a desire not to be sued.

Why is one more legitimate than the other?