Wednesday, November 20, 2013

"The fact that she is a woman ought to be way down your list of complaints" says David Ould...when speaking about the appointment of a woman bishop who is the first female to lead an Anglican diocese in Australia

And if I'd have said...of David Ould... when speaking about him being the head of a parish... in an area where women are some of the most disadvantaged in the community...The fact that he is a man ought to be way down your lists of complaints...would Sydney Anglicans have branded me a man hating lesbian feminist? 

It seems like women who aspire to lead anti-apartheid parishes....would become trapped by their bodies under Sydney Anglicanism...a bit like transgendered people... Now doesn't that Liberty Christian Ministries do something about the addiction of women... who want to lead parishes and dioceses...or is that the role of those from Equal but Different ...who promote Matthias Media ËQUIP materials ...fashioned to have women behave like female gorillas.

Ah ha ha ha ha...John you make me laugh! Sydney Anglicans thrive on segregation when women and men are in mixed company... women must remain silent... Say John...would  JC have written to his mother's press officer...and put to him some serious questions about how his mother could claim to  conceive a Godly baby without a man's sperm?

Yep sure gets you thinking Calam... David Ould has no trouble understanding the concept of God choosing Noah to build an ark ...that housed two of every kind of animal.... or believing the story of Adam and Eve...but he can't get that some women might be inspired to lead mixed congregations...and that I just might fall in love with a man.
I hope all those women at Macquarie Fields are remaining silent and submitting to their husbands... because you wouldn't want a woman in a disadvantaged area start seeking any form of liberation or control over her life. They say...welfare dependency is generational I hope David is doing his best to keep women generationally disadvantaged ... what with all those Genesis Sermons ... Oooooh the power and control.

Say Roseanne...let's not forget the special Sodom and Gommorah sermon...sounds like a typical Sydney Anglican favourite to me...a pack of rapists turn up ...and God hates homosexuality more than a father offers the rapists his daughters to please God...because then the sexual act is of heterosexual orientation . I mean when we're talking about rape...then make sure women are deserving  victims for God's sake
Yeah Angelina...and don't forget how women need to be trained in breeding so the narrow minded gene pool continues. Don't you just love Sydney Anglicans ?
 Isn't it any wonder Calamity got a comment like this from a reader...

This blog is important. I am an lawyer in London also outraged at Sydney Anglicanism's fundamentalism and repression of women and gays. I had the misfortune of growing up at St Clements Jannali when Bruce Ballantine-Jones was minister. Fundamentalism is a cult and it prevents people, especially women and young people, from realising their potential, wrongly preaching that it is more 'Godly' to be married, married young, have a big family, submit to your husband. It is dangerous stuff and I am actively opposed. I am glad to have found your blog. From London, I have been wondering if there are other women actively opposing Sydney fundamentalism,


  1. Is this the same David Ould "as seen on TV"? It's important to know the people of Macquarie Fields have the genuine bigot as minister and not some fake rip-off. As a hater of gays and women, Ould must be pleased he's been placed in an insignificant job where he can do little harm. The ordinary folks of Macquarie Fields know he's a joke who can be safely ignored - whether seen on TV or not!

  2. I was thankful to finally see a woman chosen for this position. David Ould's comments show me she has possibly taken a principled stand on gay inclusiveness in the church and is willing to openly debate the concept of "penal substitution". This has just increased my joy and thanks for Dr Mcneil.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Sorry - made an error last time around.

    I have made several postings on David Ould's website critiquing his methodology.

    Unfortunately he has deleted my last posting. Ironicially my posting was a response to his claims to support freedom of speech. He claimed I had called him a "liar" and a "tyrant".

    I will attach the deleted posting here (complete with spelling errors). Not once do I refer to him as a "liar" or a "tyrant" although perhaps he has taken a message on board....

    The deleted post was as follows:

    Not sure what happened to my last post where I replied to your assertion re. Freedom of speech, but will try again.

    With such freedom (and it is a very powerful freedom in this age of the internet) comes responsibilities. We still (at the moment at last) have some legal restrictions to this freedom. For instance it is no at the moment legal to use this freedom to incite racial vilification.

    You have represented your views as the views of the Anglican Church, and you keep arguing about the “facts” of the case when as we finally established here a couple of posts ago, you have but one interpretation. Others HAVE posited alternate interpretations on your blog and in other places. You simply will not accept their arguments. That’s fine - but please be honest and don’t keep insisting that no one has offered an alternative view. It’s just they haven’t offered an alternate view that satisfies you. And as I keep having to point out - fortunately, you are not the person appointed to make decisions about Dr McNeil’s appointment.

    Your flawed approach is clearly demonstrated in the way you have leapt to the erroneous conclusion that I have an alliance with Dr MacNeil. You cannot assume this simply on the basis that I once attended a church where Dr MacNeil currently serves. I went to university with and was once briefly acquainted with Tony Abbot but it would be a huge step for you to claim to know my political allegiances on this basis.

    In my humble view (and I acknowledge this is bit a personal view) it is highly mischievous to attempt to sabotage the legal process by which Dr MacNeil has been elected bishop and cast dispersions on the reputation of a highly respected and distinguished Minister of the Church simply because of your interpretation of part of one sermon that you found somewhere on the web. I’m sure if I read your sermons I would find lots of things I didn’t agree with to which you would rightly respond “so what”!

    You will no doubt have a different view and continue your campaign. You may fool some but ultimately it is all a bluff.

    People used similar tactics to hold up the ordination of women that were hurtful and distressing to many of those involved. But they were ultimately unsuccessful. Many people (including some of those who formerly opposed women's ordination) now benefit and thank God for the ministry of women.

    You will also be unsuccessful ultimately but it is such a shame you try to hold back the church because of your own insular outlook on these issues. This has a very negative impact on the church’s reputation and alienates many people including me.

    I find it very difficult to see the church I once loved being absorbed by very unsavory disputes such as this. I have sat by in silence through much of it, but believe there is truth in Edmund Burke’s words "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” I therefore cannot remain silent.