2018 AA Club - Week 22

[scout]

Just over 2 weeks left until the big day! Keep pumping out those AAs people 

Background: The Government plans to legally allow schools to reject students on religious grounds.

Blind faith: The faulty part of Morrison’s view on religious freedom

Why is our prime minister so poor on matters of gender and sexuality? Why won’t he clearly state that no institution in Australia, including schools, should be able to discriminate against children on the basis of their sexuality? Why won’t he condemn gay conversion therapy, despite widespread agreement within the medical community that it has no therapeutic value and is likely to harm?

This week, Morrison has hidden behind the phrase “it’s existing law” to defend religious schools’ right to discriminate against LGBT+ students.

As a Pentecostal Christian, Morrison’s faith has already received much commentary. ...

The key issue, as always, is how the Pentecostal church understands and interprets the Bible (hermeneutics). On this matter, the Pentecostal church sits within a wider strand of Christianity that reads the Bible in a “plain sense” or rather literalistic way.

Take, for example, the very first chapter of the Bible, which is often a basis for Christian conceptions of gender. Genesis 1 famously describes six “days”
of creation and one day of divine rest.

Many Christians have and do interpret Genesis 1 in a more literalistic way: as actual action over six days that decrees the way God intended things to be or, worse still, as a scientific description of creation. So when they read “so God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” they interpret it to mean God intended only two genders. It seems pretty straightforward, right?

Well, no. Genesis 1 is full of poetic binaries: light and dark, day and night, land and sea, male and female. Just because we have light and dark does not mean we don’t have dusk and dawn. These are not absolute categories, but rather a shorthand for the breadth of creation.

By extension, then, just because humans are created male and female, does not mean we don’t have diverse gender expressions that lie somewhere in between, nor that these diversities are not also part of the creation God declared to be good.

Morrison’s conservatism about gender and sexuality implies a worldview shaped by a conservative approach to the Bible where “biblical truth” is viewed as at odds with medical and scientific knowledge.

The dichotomy does not need to be there. One can hold a belief in biblical authority and give credence to scientific knowledge on matters of gender, sexuality, or even climate change if one understands what the Bible does and does not claim to do. It is simply a matter of better interpretation.


Letter 1

The proposal to legislate for religious schools to have the power (or more powers) to turn away students based on their sexual orientation is solving the wrong problem.

In 1633 the Roman inquisition tried Galileo Galilei and sentenced him to imprisonment for supporting heliocentrism, that is, the view that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun. The church was wrong. Dead wrong. And, to its credit, issued an apology – albeit 350 years later.

It is time for the church not to make the same mistake. The evidence quite clearly shows that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice but a function of a person's genetics. No matter how hard it may seem to some, the solution to this problem is for the church to update its teachings, and in so doing, recognise the normality of all persons regardless of sexual orientation.
-Dr Peter Kent, Doncaster


Letter 2

Special Minister of State Alex Hawke says "you have a choice of schooling" to justify his stance that it is "absolutely" acceptable for religious schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ students. However, he misses the point. More often than not, parents choose their child's school. Furthermore, the school years are when, for most young people, their sexuality becomes clear.

I was fortunate to attend a private school, chosen by my parents, that was relatively accommodating of my coming out as gay in year 12. However, I had friends at religious schools, and a boyfriend in a Catholic school, who were less fortunate. They experienced discrimination and felt pressured to suppress their sexuality for the good of the school's image.

To Alex Hawke and other ministers who support the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ students: You are giving priority to large, powerful religious institutions over under-age, ,highly vulnerable and pressured LGBTIQ Australians who often do not have a choice when it comes to their education.

-James Simondson, Fitzroy

[Anonymous]

Here is a body paragraph that I attempted.I've been struggling with language analysis for a while now.

From the commencement of the first article, the anonymous author argues that the prime minister is not taking any actions on issues of gender and sexuality. Through the use of questioning such as “why is our…”,the writer encourages readers to question the government's decisions. By questioning the government's inaction, it incites readers to be annoyed or angry at the governments as they are ignoring making important decisions that will affect the “LGBQT+ students” and the community. Furthermore the repeated use of “Why” places emphasis on the importance of the issue and create a sense of urgency, thus the writer positions readers to be critical of the government and pity those affected by it.

[Anonymous]

Wow first timer up here! Here's just an introduction and first body that I attempted

The rise of global inclusion of sexuality erupts contentious debate as Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison advocates the freedom of schools in their choice to reject homosexuality. However, unlike the Pentecostal Christian, an anonymous writer illustrates his disapproval to the claim in his article titled “blind faith” as he ardently aims to subdue the traditional values of conservative christianity as a reason behind blatant discrimination. Similarly, both Dr Peter Kent and James Simondson castigate the perception of Morrison as they bolster the imperativeness for churches to modernise and become accepting of LGBTIQ spectrum.

From the outset of the article, the writer questions the outlook of Pentecostal christians in power and their belligerence towards homosexuals. The writer highlights Morrisons “poor” perception on the matters regarding homosexuality including institutions such as “gay conversion therapy.” Here, the writer aims to attack the prime minister with such horrific concepts that propels readers particularly those who are pro LGBTQ to be more liable in rejecting the Minister’s proposition. Certainly, lacing the article with sympathetic tones when addressing the “harm” bestowed upon gay communities which is proven to be validated by the “medical community” emphasises on the lack of care towards the homosexual body, further placing stress towards the issue that is left unconcerned. Given that it is the prime minister, the writer employs the prime minister as the embodiment of the pentecostal church to pronounce its inherent values through him. It is through the credible title of “prime minister” that undermines a disturbing issue; for Australians have a man who perpetuates division within the country when in reality is supposed to propose unity and strength in Australia. On the same fashion, Simondson also targets Special Minister of State, Alex Hawke, as he avers that these ministers are “miss[ing] the point” when stating that schooling a students choice. Here, Simondson brings in his experiences of “coming out” in his senior year and starkly compares it to his friends who feel “pressured to suppress their sexuality” in an attempt to maintaining the “school’s image.” Admittedly, the writer employs a despondent tone as the anecdotal reference illuminates the disparities within Australian schooling system and their inability to issue acceptance to homosexuals. Underscoring words like “pressure” and “suppress”, emulates the implications of concealing emotions that brings about a sense of suffocation to the readership. It is clear that Simondson attempts to accentuate the realities of being a gay within Australia, positing the readership to experience a sliver of fear that gays are subjected to by these people in power.

[scout]

Here is a body paragraph that I attempted.I've been struggling with language analysis for a while now.

From the commencement of the first article, the anonymous author argues that the prime minister is not taking any actions on issues of gender and sexuality <-- he is taking actions, just the wrong actions, some people think. Through the use of questioning such as “why is our…” keep the quote going - not enough context as it is,the writer encourages readers to question the government's decisions question the decision in what way? What questions do they ask? (this is why more info about the quote is needed so that you can then launch from it when doing your analysis). By questioning the government's inaction, it incites readers to be annoyed or angry at the governments as they are ignoring making important decisions that will affect the “LGBQT+ students” and the community. Furthermore the repeated use of “Why” places emphasis on the importance of the issue and create a sense of urgency <-- pick another, more significant quote for deeper analysis, thus the writer positions readers to be critical of the government and pity those affected by it.

[scout]

Wow first timer up here! Here's just an introduction and first body that I attempted

The rise of global inclusion of sexuality erupts contentious debate as Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, advocates the freedom of schools in their choice to reject homosexuality. However, unlike the Pentecostal Christian, an anonymous writer illustrates his disapproval to of the claim in his article titled “blind faith” as he ardently aims to subdue the traditional values of conservative christianity not exactly christianity itself but the errors in the intepretation of the bible for that religion as a reason behind blatant discrimination. Similarly, both Dr Peter Kent and James Simondson castigate the perception of Morrison as they bolster the imperativeness for churches to modernise and become accepting of LGBTIQ spectrum.

From the outset of the article, the writer questions the outlook of Pentecostal christians in on power and their belligerence towards homosexuals. The writer highlights Morrison's “poor” perception on the matters regarding homosexuality including institutions such as “gay conversion therapy.” Here, the writer aims to attack the prime minister with such horrific concepts that propels readers particularly those who are pro LGBTQ to be more liable in rejecting liable to reject the Minister’s proposition. Certainly, lacing the article with sympathetic tones when addressing the “harm” bestowed inflictedupon gay communities, which is proven to be validated by the “medical community”, emphasises on the lack of care towards the homosexual body, further placing stress towards the issue that is left unconcerned. Given that it is the prime minister, the writer employs the prime minister as the embodiment of the pentecostal church to pronounce its inherent values through him. It is through the credible although this is highly questionable now (!) the status does bring with it certain responsibilities to the public title of “prime minister” that undermines a disturbing issue; for Australians have a man who perpetuates division within the country when in reality he is supposed to propose promoteunity and strength in Australia - hear, hear!. On the same fashion awkward --> in the same manner, Simondson also targets Special Minister of State, Alex Hawke, as he avers that these ministers are “miss[ing] the point” when stating that schooling is a students choice. Here, Simondson brings in his experiences of “coming out” in his senior year and starkly compares it to his friends who feel “pressured to suppress their sexuality” in an attempt to maintaining the “school’s image.” Admittedly, the writer employs a despondent tone as the anecdotal reference illuminates the disparities within Australian schooling system and their inability to issue acceptance to homosexuals. Underscoring words like “pressure” and “suppress”, emulates the implications of concealing emotions that brings about a sense of suffocation to the readership. It is clear that Simondson attempts to accentuate the realities of being a gay within Australia, positing positioning the readership to experience a sliver of fear that gays are subjected to by these people in power.

[Anonymous]

Please ignore the incorrect quoting as I couldn't be bothered to add the square brackets. Would anyone also be kind enough to give me a score out of 10?

The legislation that would allow schools to bar LGBT members based on religious grounds has stirred much debate within the community. In an article, the author usurps the biblical interpretation to vehemently contend that the root cause of this legislation lies with Morrison's religious viewpoints. To this, Dr Kent responds via a letter detailing in an even mannerism the assertion that it's the church who should take actions to align with the modern day approach to sexual orientation. In a similar manner, while in support of the general statement made by the article, Simondson also critiques the approach to it, offering up the idea that the situation wouldn't be solved as decisions would be made on the parent's part.

From the onset, the author bombards readers with a volley of questions designed to stir doubt within readers of the credibility of Morrison, using phrasing of a highly contentious nature, through "discriminated", "condemn gay conversion therapy", to rile up the audience, both those who are against and in support of him. Coupled with negatively connoted words such as "poor" and "harm", this cumulates to propel Morisson in a bad lighting, irregardless of their stance on the actual issue. From there, the author attacks as Morrison's religion as being the "key issue", which as "already received much commentary", to create a parallel within readers' minds between the prime minister and the values that he stands for. Using the Bible for reference, he makes interpretations that "many christians" accept to be the truth and then juxtaposes this with the minority group that holds the same religious views as Morrison. This appeal to  be of the same mindset as the majority forces readers into a position to denounce Morrison's plans as not being for the good of the people. Further condemning Morrison, the author outlines that his "biblical truth" prevents him from accepting "medical and scientific knowledge" to be credible, which would encourage those of the scientific community to be "at odds" with Morrison's "conservatism". Twofold to this argument s the author's further laconic assertion that despite the incongruity between personal beliefs and science, the crux of the matter is simplified to a "matter of better interpretation", an easy solution that would be well received by audiences, but also further embed within them the fact that Morrison hasn't taken this opportunity to heart to change his worldview.

While Dr Kent is offers a similar viewpoint of the faulty nature of Morrison's plans, he claims that it's inherently "solving the wrong problem". The mathematical nature of the phrasing asserts his dominance in the field of scientific knowledge as a doctor, cementing his credibility within readers' minds. By referring to the famous death of Galileo at the hands of the church, which was "wrong, dead wrong" in "imprisoning" galileo. The repetition of an amoral judgement crucifies the church in the eyes of the modern audience, who're against death sentences, and as such sways them into a stance backed up by facts. From there, he denounces the faith that we put into the church, as explicated by the "350 years late" apology, showing how steadfast the church is in their incorrect beliefs, and so leading readers to place their beliefs in another institution, science.  Using this as the basis, Dr Kent alludes the current situation to that of Galileo, and thereby reflects on the false nature of the church's biblical interpretations, which readers are encouraged to adopt as their own. His use of evidence that sexual orientation is due to genetics further implicates the church's wrongdoing.  Implying that the church is hardheaded, through the phrasing, "no matter how hard it may seem to some", Dr Kent proposes a solution for the church to not adhere to their archaic methodology and accept modern "normality". So while Dr Kent vilifies the church, his solution could potentially absolve them of their injustice ways, and this portrays himself as being not of an extreme mindset, which would bring comfort to many.

In a similar vein, Simondson's letter also imitates the former two text, but instead critiques Hawke, deeming that he's "missing the point" in justifying Morrison's plans. Fraught with empathy, owing to him being of the LGBTIQ community, in offering his own anecdotal experiences, draws in the support from readers. Even in the little things, such as spelling LGBTIQ correctly, would garner him the respect of those from the community as well as cement his own respect for that community. His assertion that there is no "choice", forces readers to reject the restrictive mindset.  In providing the stories of what the discrimination from religious schools detail, he presents himself as being more knowledgeable than the "ministers who support the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ students", while still deferring to those who've actually experienced it, having only had secondhand knowledge since he went to a private school. His acknowledgement of his shortcomings should also ring within the hearts of readers and open their eyes to the "less fortunate", which connotes the need for external support from readers, and cold represent multitudinous minority communities which makes it easier for audiences to relate to. He creates a dichotomy between "feeling pressured to suppress their sexuality for the good of the school's image", places the religious schools in a position of contempt, as they hold value of image over a student's emotional wellbeing due to discrimination. As such, the pressure is then placed onto readers to choose a side in the debate, and as LGBTIQ students are portrayed as victims of discrimination, they're more likely to favour them. The victimisation is further elucidated upon in his direct message to the ministers, in which the religious schools are described as "large, powerful" to imply their oppressive nature, while the imagery of LGBTIQ students as being "underage, highly vulnerable" would elicit sympathy from any and all. Simondson's vocalisation for the protection of the underrepresented being directed to the government level thereby indicates at the severity and necessity in taking action to protect those who're "less fortunate".

All with the same stem idea in mind, but varying in their approach and solutions, the article and the ensuring letters by Dr Kent and Simondson offer passionate viewpoints tinted with scientific knowledge expose Morrison's legislation as being irrevocably faulty in thinking.

[scout]

The legislation that would allow schools to bar LGBT members based on religious grounds has stirred much debate within the community. In an article, the author usurps the biblical interpretation to vehemently contend that the root cause of this legislation lies with Morrison's religious viewpoints. To this , Dr Kent responds via a letter detailing in an even mannerism the assertion that it's the church who should take actions to align with the modern day approach to sexual orientation. In a similar manner, while in support of the general statement made by the article, Simondson also critiques the approach to it, offering up the idea that the situation wouldn't be solved as decisions would be made on the parent's part.

From the onset outset, the author bombards readers with a volley of questions designed to stir doubt within readers of the credibility of Morrison, using phrasing of a highly contentious nature, through "discriminated", "condemn gay conversion therapy", to rile up the audience, both those who are against and in support of him what's the argument you're going to talk about, though. Coupled with negatively connoted words such as "poor" and "harm" mm yes but not particularly loaded words, this accumulates to propel place Morisson in a bad lighting, irregardless regardless of their stance on the actual issue. From there, the author attacks Morrison's religion as being calling it the "key issue", which has "already received much commentary", to create a parallel within readers' minds between the prime minister and the values that he stands for - how did you get to this conclusion?. Using the Bible for reference, he makes interpretations that "many christians" accept to be the truth and then juxtaposes this with the minority group that holds the same religious views as Morrison - it's the majority - the 'many Christians' - whose views align with Morrison's and whose views are being criticised by the writer. Have another read of the opinion piece. This appeal to  be of the same mindset as the majority forces readers into a position to denounce Morrison's plans as not being for the good of the people. Further condemning Morrison, the author outlines that his "biblical truth" prevents him from accepting "medical and scientific knowledge" to be credible, which would encourage those of the scientific community to be "at odds" with Morrison's "conservatism". Twofold to this argument awkward phrasing is the author's further laconic assertion that despite the incongruity between personal beliefs and science, the crux of the matter is simplified to a "matter of better interpretation", an easy solution that would be well received by audiences, but also further embed within them the fact that Morrison hasn't taken this opportunity to heart to change his worldview.

While Dr Kent offers a similar viewpoint of the faulty nature of Morrison's plans, he claims that it's inherently "solving the wrong problem". The mathematical nature of the phrasing asserts his dominance in the field of scientific knowledge as a doctor, cementing his credibility within readers' minds. By referring to the famous death of Galileo at the hands of the church, which was "wrong, dead wrong" in "imprisoning" galileo... unfinished sentence. The repetition of an amoral judgement crucifies the church in the eyes of the modern audience, who're against death sentences, and as such sways them into a stance backed up by facts. From there, he denounces the faith that we put into the church, as explicated by the "350 years late" apology, showing how steadfast the church is in their incorrect beliefs, and so leading readers to place their beliefs in another institution, science.  Using this as the basis, Dr Kent alludes analogises the current situation to that of Galileo, and thereby reflects on the false nature of the church's biblical interpretations, which readers are encouraged to adopt as their own. His use of evidence that sexual orientation is due to genetics further implicates the church's wrongdoing.  Implying that the church is hardheaded, through the phrasing, "no matter how hard it may seem to some", Dr Kent proposes a solution for the church to not adhere to their archaic methodology and accept modern "normality". So while Dr Kent vilifies the church, his solution could potentially absolve them of their injustice ways, and this portrays himself as being not of an extreme mindset, which would bring comfort to many.

In a similar vein, Simondson's letter also imitates the former two text, but instead critiques Hawke, deeming that claiming that he's "missing the point" in justifying Morrison's plans. Fraught with empathy, owing to him being of the LGBTIQ community, in offering his own anecdotal experiences, draws in the support from readers. Even in the little things, such as spelling LGBTIQ correctly, would garner him the respect of those from the community as well as cement his own respect for that community. His assertion that there is no "choice", forces readers to reject the restrictive mindset.  In providing the stories of what the discrimination from religious schools detail, he presents himself as being more knowledgeable than the "ministers who support the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ students", while still deferring referring to those who've actually experienced it, having only had secondhand knowledge since he went to a private school. His acknowledgement of his shortcomings should also ring within the hearts of readers and open their eyes to the "less fortunate" - how?, which connotes the need for external support from readers, and could represent multitudinous minority communities which makes it easier for audiences to relate to. He creates a dichotomy between "feeling pressured to suppress their sexuality for the good of the school's image" and what else? Dichotomy = division of 2 things, places the religious schools in a position of contempt, as they hold place value of on image over a student's emotional wellbeing due to discrimination - avoid using the words of the quote when analysing. As such, the pressure is then placed onto readers to choose a side in the debate, and as LGBTIQ students are portrayed as victims of discrimination, they're more likely to favour them. The victimisation is further elucidated upon in his direct message to the ministers, in which the religious schools are described as "large, powerful" to imply their oppressive nature, while the imagery of LGBTIQ students as being "underage, highly vulnerable" would elicit sympathy from any and all. Simondson's vocalisation for the protection of the underrepresented being directed to the government level thereby indicates at the severity and necessity in taking action to protect those who're "less fortunate".

All with the same stem idea in mind, but varying in their approach and solutions, the article and the ensuring letters by Dr Kent and Simondson offer passionate viewpoints tinted with scientific knowledge expose Morrison's legislation as being irrevocably faulty in thinking - reread this last sentence.