Clearly you are an empathiv and compassinate citizen However the recognition that evil things were done in the past does not mean we have an obligation to accept a racist division of the nation by the Trojan Horse The Voice. Our indigenous brothers and sisters in Christ deserve an honest recounting of the events of the past and an honest assessment of their own cultural practices No culture is sacred There are times in every culture when human beings rationalise their own wants and claim it as spirit-led The real saints of any culture are those who rise above and beyond the limitations of their particular cultural background because their close union with the Divine Creator of all things as represented by the Triune Father Son and Holy Spirit via a life of reflective prayer and fulfillment of the Beatitudes leads them to be able to reject cultural practices which go against the Spirit The indigenous people already have a voice via Parliament and various bodies set up to represent them The Voice being proposed is inherently racist setting one group apart from all others The fruits of the Holy Spirit are gentle and peaceful There is nothing gentle or peaceful about the push for The Voice.

Modern Australians cannot "remember" anything about colonialism. They weren't there. They have only historians' word for what it was like, and a lot of those types are continually rewriting history. They are ideologues more than historians.

History written at the time of colonialism, and not long after it, is not what is being preached today by a manipulative, Leftist academia. The few historians left to tell the truth based on original documents have been cancelled.

There is a lot of gobbledygook in this piece, with a vague reference to the Uluru Statement from the Heart at the end.

Jesus, memory, spirit, have nothing to do with the Statement, which is a concocted, political grab for power based on a similar confidence trick out of South Africa.

Christian thinking will have a place in the thinking of some people when they vote on the race-based Voice referendum. But, the organised, lefty church bureaucracy propaganda should be ignored: it went loony left long ago.

Well, I’ve long ago given up hope for Democracies hollow promises.

We need only look to the current state of the US for a future view of our own.

Over there, blacks may freely roam in gangs under the rainbow flag of equality, looting and burning at will, and then…reparations for past sins committed by slave traders (Democrats),

Over here, and in Melbourne, the same black gangs from the Horn of Africa, roam the streets unmolested by police committing the same atrocities.

Soon it will be reparations for Aboriginals, the Voice is simply a less than disguised further step towards the ultimate aim of placating the Black Gods of Secularism!

I for one, take no personal responsibility for what the crown did 200 years ago in Australia. Or what politicians did in our name since then.

Preferential voting meant that I had little say in those outcomes.

So, what is it the I and almost every other Australian must repent.

The PM said sorry, and it was written in the sky by skywriters, and we marched in solidarity on sorry day.

Moreover, the interpretation of the words in the BOOK leave much to be desired.

This article is, I believe, out and out black armband history and is economical with the truth. And as such will put peoples' backs up and harm the yes case. And the possible intention. And personally offensive!
Alan B.

Who knows what evil use Albanese has for the Voice, if it gets up. The one thing you can be sure of the whole scheme is not to do anything good for the bush aboriginals.

I wrote this BEFORE I read the other posts.
I did this so I used only my own ideas.
I wrote...
This is a snow job.
The only memory important to us is the one we ourselves generate.
Only living persons have a living memory.
History is interesting, and can provide knowledge we might find useful.
Otherwise, it is of absolutely no consequence.
None of us were there in historical times.
None of us knows for sure what happened or didn't happen.
We can usually learn something from past events we know about, but we live firmly in the here and now.
The concept that I am writhing in agony today, because of some injury or hardship suffered by an ancestor, is absurd.
We are all born with a clean slate.
There are those who instil guilt and anxiety in to people as they grow, in an attempt to control them.
That is reprehensible.
Fortunately, genuine knowledge and education are bringing people out of their stupor.

Thank you, Craig, for a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. The analogy with the spirit is interesting – maybe more John’s version (spirit of truth) than Luke’s Pentecostal fireworks.

I have yet to make up my mind on the Voice referendum – heart says yes, head says no.

I agree that “our identity rests upon recollection of what we have done and what has been done to us”. Our society – the good and the bad – is a product of its history and the evolution of its culture. And while we may not be individually or collectively responsible for the sins or achievements of the past, we must live with and take responsibility for their consequences. The “year zero” inclination to erase uncomfortable history is a totalitarian impulse.

So, I’d strongly support acknowledging Indigenous peoples in the constitution, and the truth-telling component of the Uluru statement. Whether the Voice to parliament will achieve what is hoped for, though, I have my doubts. Similar institutions in the past such as ATSIC have been at best partial successes, and embedding the Voice in the constitution will make it much harder to put right if it also proves a failure.

When I was reading the article, I noticed, amongst the phrasing, instances of uncertainty, of ambivalence.
It occurred to me that the writer might be seeking answers, direction.
My advice to him would be:
The reality we see around us is one we have created.
We have built it on top of natural reality.
Natural reality is harsh and unforgiving.
We have worked to make it more to our liking.
But we should never forget natural reality is still there.
Call it 'mother nature' if you will, but do not neglect it.
The life we live here is all about survival and reproduction.
Start with those things, and use your imagination and reasoning power.
If you can.

Quote: 'And while we may not be individually or collectively responsible for the sins or achievements of the past, we must live with and take responsibility for their consequences.'

Live with yes.
Deal with yes.
That is unavoidable.
But be responsible for?
Feel responsible for?
No.
Not for things which are foist upon us, whether they be good or bad.
Yet another example of when 'NO' is a very good word.

IF

We are not responsible for the actions of people in the past in the sense that we deserve blame or credit for them. But we inherit a society which is shaped by those actions, for better or worse, and we are responsible for managing the consequences. We are not responsible for the introduction of rabbits and other invasive pests to the Australian environment; but we have a responsibility to try to minimise the consequent damage, and to try to prevent it from happening again. We are not responsible for the fact that Australia has one of the most prosperous and free societies on earth; but we have a responsibility to protect and sustain the institutions and values that have made it so.

For organisations and governments, the line gets blurrier, because the individuals who made particular decisions may be long gone, but the consequences of their decisions may last a very long time, and their institutions have an ongoing existence. Germany is still paying compensation to Holocaust survivors. Modern day Germans are not responsible for what Hitler did; but they have accepted responsibility for it consequences.

«the centrality of memory to identity drives countless 'amnesia' plots in films, with the pressing 'Who am I?' question pounding inside the head of the protagonist. Our identity rests upon recollection of what we have done and what has been done to us.»

Memory has nothing to do with identity - I am who I am regardless whether I remember anything or not.

People are born with no memory, then gain memories then lose them over time and especially towards the end of life, yet they never become someone else, but always remain the same one, with or without memories.

True Identity cannot be manufactured, either we are X or we aren't X. Specifically also, nothing we have done (if any) and nothing that has been done to us (if any) can change who we are.

Thus I oppose any such attempt to create and impose a false "identity" and so I will also oppose the coming referendum.

«The purpose of the giving of the Spirit, according to St John, is that the Spirit will 'remind' disciples of the things of Jesus: what he did and what was done to him»

I understand the purpose of the Holy Spirit to remind the devotees of God, thus Christian devotees of Jesus. So far so good, but the addition of "what he (Jesus) did and what was done to him" could at best be some memory-aid which the author uses to remember Jesus: With the gift of the Holy Spirit one doesn't require any such aids, but remembers Jesus Himself at all times, even while sleeping, not through his actions and events, but directly, Jesus Himself!

«Jesus' promised gift of the Spirit to his disciples is a promised gift of memory.»

Yes, the memory of God!
(not of mundane events)

«What is remembered through this Spirit is the human experience of Jesus as a presentation of the rich possibilities of human life, whatever the circumstances.»

That is backward: Remembering the richness of the human experience of Jesus can be used as a tool to remember God whatever the circumstances - not vice-versa.

Albo has been accused of not supplying full information on the form
that the voice will take.
Whether he has or not is totally overridden by the absence of one
crucial piece of information.

The definition of "What is an Aborigine ?"

Because anyone's claim to protection of or help from the Voice will
ultimately be resolved by the courts then it must be crystal clear
in the constitution.
Trying to put it in the legislation is a formulae for disaster

What do I think about those who seek a 'voice'?
Those who call themselves 'first nations' are living in a false reality.
Constructed to make themselves feel better about something?
But it is a false reality, not based on fact and sound principles.
For example:
Many are more European than otherwise.
But they conveniently ignore that fact.
Their insistence that they are different is driving a wedge between us too.
And that is not good.
So they need to re-evaluate what they think is true.

Do I feel sorry for them? No.
Do I think I owe them anything? A thousand times No.
Do I think they already have parliamentary representation just as good as anyone else? Yes.
Do I think some of them are unhappy? Yes.
And why are they like that?
Because the false reality they have created for themselves causes confusion.
And in this case the parliament is not helping.
It is muddying the waters, energetically.

So let me help.
First and foremost, you are Australians.
Time to forget difference, and accept the reality that is multi-cultural Australia.
Time to become Australians in every way.
And stop banging on about ancestors.
We all had them.
Stretching back millions of years.
We are all the end result of endless fornication over that time.
Our ancestors all lived somewhere too.
But I don't own any land here, or in any other part of the world, simply because they once lived on it.

Ancestors can pass knowledge on to us, and also sometimes infrastructure.
But nothing else.
They are not alive.
They cannot do anything at all.
They cannot think or act, or influence how we live.
Only living persons can do that.

The living are the sole arbiters of our progress.
The steady application of sound principles is essential.
And there is no good to be had by letting imagination run riot.
And pretending all sorts of things exist when they don't.
You are here now, and alive and well.
That is all that matters.
So be thankful, and get on with life.
I know most of you do.

Hi Bezza

There is a generally accepted definition of aboriginal person as being someone who is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; who identifies as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin; and who is accepted as such in the communities in which they live or have lived.

My understanding is that Voice members will not (or not necessarily) be elected but will be nominated by regional and local groups which are themselves recognised as authoritative representatives of their local community, and chosen by whatever means those organisations deem appropriate. If so, there will be no need to have a legal definition of aboriginality – each community will decide for itself who can participate and how they will be chosen.

This method may offend those who feel that political representative should be democratically elected; but it respects the decision-making processes of indigenous communities and avoids the problem you seem concerned about in defining who can be in the Voice and who can vote for them.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«Those who call themselves 'first nations' are living in a false reality.»

It is not the aboriginals who call themselves such - it is a form of abuse that some white people hurl at them, claiming that they too were afflicted by their own (the white people's) disease of nationalism. Aboriginals might have suffered all sorts of afflictions, but never that particular one, never a concept of "nation" like the white people have.

So:

«Constructed to make themselves feel better about something?»

Quite the opposite - constructed to lower their self-esteem, telling them that they are no better than and as sick as the white man.

«But it is a false reality, not based on fact and sound principles.»

I am glad you know and recognise it. Let them hear it too, that these accusations (of being a "nation") are false!

«Do I think they already have parliamentary representation just as good as anyone else? Yes.»

Like everyone else? Like who? What a joke!

«Time to become Australians in every way.»

Why should they stoop down?
Should they be drinking alcohol just because the white "Australians" brought it and are addicted to it?

«But I don't own any land here, or in any other part of the world, simply because they once lived on it.»

Yes, good to remember!

It seems that "Australians" think they have a right to determine who may live in this continent and who may not, only because their ancestors conquered this land - well, just as aboriginals have no such right, neither do they!

Hello Rhian, I have heard that definition previously.
It might suit in the case where you "tick a box" and that makes
everyone happy. However we now could be looking at cases that might be
in a court, perhaps the high court, and the argument is over land or
payment of millions of dollars and constitutional definitions will
be at crux of the matter.
Once side might argue that someone who is 1/64th aborigine should
only get 1/64th of the claim.
You think that won't come up ? You can bet on it.
Add a few more generations and they will be arguing about 1/512th !

When I post, I address my remarks to the original article, or to the trend of the comments thereafter.
I avoid addressing any other contributor directly.
To me, that would make it in to a debate, rather than an opinion column.
Were I to comment directly, I fear I would sometimes be obliged to point out the absurdity of some of the things said.
And that might be seen as an attack on that particular contributor.
And I like to play nicely.
Even though I am aware that some of the comments are absurd, discretion always wins the day.
And I curb my natural inclination to say so.

On a different tack...
I fail to see why someone who is predominantly European, but whose great great grand mother was part aboriginal, would, perhaps, be classed as aboriginal today.
We all have a bit of something from somewhere, but don't we all identify as Australian?
And isn't there an Australian culture here?
And social standards, backed up by laws in most instances?
So I agree that we should know for sure just who it is who is claiming aboriginality.
For a start, it must be someone whose ancestry is more than half aboriginal?

My thought for the day?
The splendid thing about those who contribute to opinions is that they are all valuable sources of material.
Even when they are a bit out of focus, their efforts are worthwhile.
Their 'wonky' ideas can trigger useful lines of thought, leading to a new avenue of discussion.
It is important that all ideas are seen as valuable.
And that all contributors feel they are included in this family of thinkers.
It can be a bit 'rough and tumble' sometimes, but it should retain, always, a friendly quality.
There needs to be an undercurrent of acceptance and concern for the opinions of others.
Even as you tear their argument to shreds? ^_^

Do we need another Bureaucratic group to feather their own nest?? NO, NO, NO,
A few with education will get very rich, a few will do well should yes get up, a few families will benefit greatly and the poor old blackfella will still sit under a gum tree with nothing.
Has been happening for the last 50+ years. I have seen it all and the billions of dollars spent have been great for the few that know how to work the system.
NO is the only way to go!

Ithought there were only about 20,000 to 40,000 aborigines in Australia when the BRITISH arrived. Hardly a nation of people. more like 2 or 3tribes in this fast land mass.

They have about a dozen Aboriginal politicians in power already,
Not exactly No Voice. And the media constantly pushes their issues On SBS and AbC. They have 2 TV CHANNELS and plenty of Aboriginal politicians. More than other races have.

Aboriginals have the same opportunities as any race in Australia today. But if they choose to live in remote areas, don't send their kids to school,well that is the cause of their problem. If they refuse to take advantages of the tools other races in this country have to use to gain a decent life, then that is what they are choosing,To lead a stoneage tribal existence. Take responsibility for those choices don't try to gain extra privileges by blaming others for your choices.