Adani mine brings bank withdrawal

Sadly I am forced to withdraw my savings from the Commonwealth Bank in Warragul. The staff have always been so friendly and helpful.

However I feel I have to register my despair that the bank is going to financially support the destructive Adani Coal mine in Queensland. Set to be the biggest ( and dirtiest) mine in the world.

Our government has promised Adani a billion dollars of our taxpayers money to prop up the mine, millions of gallons of precious water (while Queensland farmers are in drought) and a vast expanse of farming land.

Scientists say the water table and Barrier Reef are set for destruction. But what do scientists know? Our government is hell bent on a quick buck and willing to sacrifice our beautiful land to get it.

No matter that coal is losing currency on the international market. A billion of our dollars could be invested in clean energy alternatives and long term future jobs. Just as they should have invested in some alternative industry in Morwell 15 years ago when they knew the mine had to close. Burning up the country's future.

Penny Moody, Warragul

Look at home first

To Bob Katter, I read about your displeasure of Chanel selling so called boomerangs, what a hypocritical reaction on your part.

I don’t see you attacking the souvenir industry for selling Chinese made Australian artefacts including boomerangs and other Australian iconic items.

I believe that the Aus tralian Government should bring in a law which makes it illegal to sell Australian souvenirs that are not made in Australia.

You could even make that law to read that only Aboriginal people are allowed to make them. That will give them a very profitable industry.

No country should be allowed to sell souvenirs that are not made in their own country.

I can tell you from self-experience that I would never buy a souvenir that is not made in the country that I am visiting, and certainly not some cheap Chinese made rubbish.

I think you should really have a look what goes on in your own country before you start attacking others. Ben Bey, Warragul

Money grubbing

No doubt that the Baw Baw Shire is a money grubbing hater of the poor.

The Reserve Bank interest rate is 1.5 per cent. If you are financially stressed or just poor the shire allows you to pay your rates by monthly installments.

If that is the only way you can pay, the shire very kindly charges you an extra 9.5 per cent making in even more difficult for you to get out of financial difficulty.

Or, if you are poor, we will make sure you get poorer by the time we have finished with you. The council can waive any interest charge if the person is in difficulty but my experience is they would rather see you suffer if it means your needs are taken care of and their income is affected in any way.

I have raised the matter with councillors but they don't want to know. Roger Marks, Drouin

A mum and a dad

No one is desperate to redefine a car as a truck.

A car is a vehicle for carrying a small number of people comfortably; a truck is a vehicle for carrying goods of various types with no need to consider comfort. “Goods” and “people” are different, so different means of transportation is appropriate.

People do not have difficulty with the difference between trains and buses either. Both carry people, but the former runs on fixed tracks to predetermined locations, while the second has the capacity to alter its journey, being independent of rails.

Then we have trolley buses, distinct from buses. The latter can go wherever the driver decides because the power source is within the vehicle, whether a diesel, or an electric, batteryoperated motor; the former is restricted because of the connections to overhead wires, its source of power.

It is simple to distinguish between cars and trucks, trains and buses, buses and trolley buses.

Why are we having such difficulty with the concept of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, most often to produce children.

It has to be a man and a woman because just one of each is required to make children. Humans can be involved in other friendships – two blokes can be mates, two or three women can be best buddies, but if any of these relationships becomes sexual, we do not have a marriage.

Those who cry out for equality, that undeniable right, please understand that every human on the planet has an equal right to be married – there is no discrimination – it is just that marriage requires one male and one female.

If we ever get the chance in a plebiscite to decide as a nation what constitutes marriage, remember what differentiates a car from a truck. Just as people require the comfort of a car to travel in – not the discomfort and compromised safety of a flat-bed truck, children require and deserve both a mum and a dad.

Geoffrey Dethlefs, Drouin

Biblical values

I would like to thank Kat Swift for her letter to the Gazette(2/5).

I would like to challenge the criticism she has received, in the following editions.

Our western civilisation has been built on 'Judeo-Christian' values, based on the 10 commandments' and 'the Beatitudes'. Without them social Darwinism and the polarisation of society, will become a real possibility.

Atheists, can and do have values, but everything becomes a matter of opinion.

Promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, no fault divorce, recreational drugs, the list could go on, and could be dismissed as no big deal, it's your choice.

All choices have consequences. To reject biblical values, can only lead to the destruction of the civilisation it created.

Hank Schellekens, Neerim South

Be aware of danger

In reading the responses to Kat Smith’s recent letter I have been concerned, not by the disagreements (we are all entitled to our own con- clusions on moral and spiritual matters), but by the blinkered and distorted view of the Bible presented by Ian Smith and Ann Humphries.

Those of us who value and study the Bible certainly do not share their responses. Like all great literature it must be read with an open and disciplined mind. So we will continue to be inspired and challenged by it, and we would encourage others to do the same.

My greater concern is the assertion of “science” in opposition to, or as a replacement for, “religion”.

This is view often taken by both religious and atheistic fundamentalists. Historian David Bentley Hart has identified the rise of fundamentalism in the twentieth century as great threat to us all.

We all now how exclusive and destructive religious fundamentalism can be, but he is also concerned about the latter which he describes as, “an illogical, inflexible and fideistic certainty that empirical science be regarded as an arbiter of values and moral truths”.

We should all value science and be grateful for the benefits and gains that have come from the increase in scientific knowledge. I do agree with correspondents that religious faith is not in itself a guarantee of high moral standards, but let us be aware of the danger of promoting science to the exclusion of religious and philosophical pursuits.

The danger comes when, (to quote Hart again), “the advance of science is its own justification, and all moral values become, in some sense, corrigible and elective.”

Lloyd George, Warragul

Aggressive

To Kat Swift I wonder how many atheists you have spoken to as your letter is very aggressive?

I am an atheist and an everyday ordinary Australian who lives a quiet life. I would love to talk to you to see if you think I am one of those nasty, evil filled, conscienceless individuals.

I believe you are entitled to your belief as I am entitled to my non-belief, but you sound threatened when you should be confident.

Atheists are not evil, hateful people just as you aren't, and we now live in an age in Australia, at least, where we are expressing those opinions more openly.

It was not always like this. I might add that most of my friends and family are also atheist. It simply means we believe in one less god than you. Judith Bush, Yarragon

Democracy at work?

The old Yarragon School site has been vacant for years. Many community requests to the Education Department for information about site disposal were met with letters along the lines of "all in good time and be patient".

As buildings were vandalised and the grass grew long, it looked as if the site was unloved and unwanted. However, there were many hopeful conversations between Yarragon residents about what could be done with the site if the community was allowed to have a say.

We thought we had a good case. The land had originally been crown land, an easement, and a gift from the Rollo family, who owned adjoining land. During the school's long life, the town recognised it would become too small, and combined their personal funds to purchase land in Loch St, where the new school now stands. Of course the Education Department had to build and maintain the buildings, but we think we made a significant contribution, and now we want the land they no longer need back!

Baw Baw Shire agreed with us, and made lengthy efforts to secure the site for community use. However, the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) decided that because council could not at that stage, within a 60 day deadline, identify a specific use, we couldn't have it. So the community and the organisation that speaks on behalf of our community, were told by bureaucrats in the city that our plans for our land do not meet with their approval.

Is this how our democracy is supposed to work? The residents of Yarragon and District have started a campaign to convince the government to pause their fast-track rezoning process, so they can properly consult with the community. We invite all residents of all communities to join us. In our towns, we who know and love them the best should be the ones making the decisions about their futures. Judith Conway president Yarragon & District Community Association