Chaser jumping the shark in Canberra?

BerraBoy68 said :

Jim Jones said :

Pelican Lini said :

The teachings of Jesus provide me with great ideals to try to live by and in my view they are diametrically opposed to the actions and conduct of all major religious institutions.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

Except, of course, Jesus beleived himself to be Jewish.

and muslims believe him to be another prophet, in a long line of prophets including moses. Their founder of their church is another prophet. and there will be another one, ad infinitum. the beliefs of the muslims and the jews and the christians are pretty similar in many ways.

The scourge of the religious persecution of all faiths bar one wasn’t islam, the conversion to one faith wasn’t jewish. The biggest acts of cruelty, torture and murder were committed for the christian church. And we persecute islam?

Jim Jones said :

Pelican Lini said :

The teachings of Jesus provide me with great ideals to try to live by and in my view they are diametrically opposed to the actions and conduct of all major religious institutions.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

Except, of course, Jesus beleived himself to be Jewish.

Pelican Lini said :

The teachings of Jesus provide me with great ideals to try to live by and in my view they are diametrically opposed to the actions and conduct of all major religious institutions.

To paraphrase Nietzsche: There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

Pelican Lini said :

I should add that I find it interesting that people who are quick to jump on the Indigenous cultural/ religious belief are quick to dismiss the christian belief.

Luckily for me I’m agnostic otherwise I’d have to suspect double standards.

Interesting that a person who does not have the faith to believe in a Christian deity automatically rates said “unknowable” deity higher than someone else’s religious beliefs.
The deity may not exist but he/she is still the best because he/she is “our deity”.
It can be argued that Christian churches do good for the community but it can equally be argued that said churches and other major religions have an appalling long history of mass slaughters, abuse of power, exploitation and corruption.
The teachings of Jesus provide me with great ideals to try to live by and in my view they are diametrically opposed to the actions and conduct of all major religious institutions.

Interesting last point, PL. If you are saying that the administrators of the Catholic church (including the old german bloke that gets around in fancy white robes and lives in multi-billion dollar accomodation) don’t live by their own teachings, then I’d have to sincerely agree.

I should add that I find it interesting that people who are quick to jump on the Indigenous cultural/ religious belief are quick to dismiss the christian belief.

Luckily for me I’m agnostic otherwise I’d have to suspect double standards.

Interesting that a person who does not have the faith to believe in a Christian deity automatically rates said “unknowable” deity higher than someone else’s religious beliefs.
The deity may not exist but he/she is still the best because he/she is “our deity”.
It can be argued that Christian churches do good for the community but it can equally be argued that said churches and other major religions have an appalling long history of mass slaughters, abuse of power, exploitation and corruption.
The teachings of Jesus provide me with great ideals to try to live by and in my view they are diametrically opposed to the actions and conduct of all major religious institutions.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot said :

I’m all for drowning the Catholics and Atheists in the same pond…….

Catholics: Believe in a god
Athiests: Do not believe in a god

There is no alternative to these two positions, so how do you propose that anyone would escape your watery wrath?

Can’t believe Rudd. What a tosser.

I think Johnboy jumped the shark when he used the phrase for the 27th time in one week.

Pommy bastard said :

at St John’s Anglican Church in full mountaineering gear and attempted to scale the spire during the regular Sunday service — a reference to the recent row over climbing Uluru.

Excellent analogy, kudos Chaser guy.

Agree. They drew a very short, straight line and got it dead on target. That is why they are such very good satirists. Sadly, too many people think Satire means Slapstick.

Okay smartyman, I can tell you’re one of those sensitive new-age people. If I go to ANZAC Cove and piss all over the shoreline, you’ll be fine with that too?

Because climbing a natural feature and urinating on it are exactly the same thing! Moron.

VY, I’m sure 50-80,000 years of spiritual development is a little more important than you wanting to climb a rock.

I’m glad you take others’ spiritual beliefs so seriously that you voluntarily censor your own behaviour. I look forward to hearing how you’ve stopped eating beef, as the cow is a sacred animal to about one billion people. That has to be a little more important than you wanting a sausage sandwich.

what about alll the good the church does? feeding the poor, helping those with drug problems, community services, etc?

like thumper says we’re quick to support aboriginals but fast to dismiss other religions.

mrnamjama said :

Deadmandrinking said :

VY, I’m sure 50-80,000 years of spiritual development is a little more important than you wanting to climb a rock.

Oh yes, incredibly important. We must RESPECT the religious masses’ capacity to make up and stick to their stories.

Oh so very important indeed – god forbid they focus their creative energies on something useful, no no…

I’m all for drowning the Catholics and Atheists in the same pond…….

Setting aside the issue at hand, the chaser jumped the shark long ago, probably inevitably so after the result of the last election. I’m of the view that the conservatives are the natural target of the satirist. It’s hard to convincingly lampoon Mr Rudd (who thoroughly deserves it, being an empty shirt of the first order) when you consider the alternatives that you are effectively promoting.

Deadmandrinking said :

VY, I’m sure 50-80,000 years of spiritual development is a little more important than you wanting to climb a rock.

Oh yes, incredibly important. We must RESPECT the religious masses’ capacity to make up and stick to their stories.

Oh so very important indeed – god forbid they focus their creative energies on something useful, no no…

Granny said :

If you have not read Hitchhiker’s you must go straight to the local library! Do not pass go! Do not collect $200!

*lol*

make sure you read all 5 books. otherwise you just won’t understand.

Pelican lini,
The problem that we have is that the chaser team is looking for ratings. they don’t care about the plight of anyone else but themselves. How does this benefit the custodians of uluru, people living in poverty or the homeless? It doesn’t. And to describe their antics as humor is taking a pretty long stretch. I stopped watching after the terminally ill children sketch. They may have apologised, but they are now no more than public nuisances.

Although a harsh thing to say, the aboriginal people were invaded and beaten by the english. Not a positive start to our history, but so it goes. The people who were dispossessed are long since gone. the problem that we face as a nation is that there are special treatments for different members in society. I agree that the peoples who are the custodians of uluru have nothing, and suffer terribly. I agree that the peoples in the NT and QLD are suffering from disease and drugs and terrible conditions.

But there are people on our streets here and the other cities who live out of cardboard boxes. there are children who a mistreated every single day in fithly living conditions. The “parents” aren’t indigenous, they are just bad parents. There is crime, poverty, disease, homelessness in canberra. It isn’t caused by one particular skin colour, but many, many factors.

There are people living on the fat of the land, and they stick up their hands every time that they can for us to impart our taxes to them. The people who really need our help won’t ask.

If you have not read Hitchhiker’s you must go straight to the local library! Do not pass go! Do not collect $200!

*lol*

I think the funniest skit The Chaser ever did was the one where Craig(?) was trying to offer Howard protection from a leadership challenge by Costello, and was filmed trying to hold back a bus with a huge picture of Costello on the side of it while Howard was out jogging.

Mike Crowther said:

1. The analogy is spot on, though you cant blame the congregation at St. Johns for what people do at the rock.

2. The PM should be able to go to his church in peace, outside he’s fair game.

3. A pox on the media for trying to somehow link this with the death of a digger. Grubs

+1

Granny,
I take your point about land ownership, but outside of Aboriginal communities, I doubt it happens without individual compensation being made.
And let’s not forget that Aboriginal people were dispossessed of an entire country without proper compensation.
Yes, I’ve watched The Castle, it’s a classic.
No I haven’t seen The Hitchhikers Guide or read the book but you are the third person in a week to ask me that, so seems like I better investigate.

Minus one of those seasons above please, make it winter, can’t stand it

Great shows those for sure Mr Evil..

Sad to hear it’s the last year season, it’s been funnier this season I thought. Probably run it’s course then, a few gold moments and lots of laughs. Issues are only issues for the telly sometimes.

Mr Evil said :

HB_74, I haven’t watched The Chaser at all this year – simply because they’re just not that funny anymore. I couldn’t give a rats arse if they choose to climb on a church or not.

Anyway, do you seriously think The Chaser give a flying truck about all these “issues” that they like to spend so much time highlighting? In my personal opinion it’s all about the “publicity” these stunts gain for The Chaser – nothing more, nothing less.

That is why it bugs me that the ABC wastes money giving these knobs airtime that could be dedicated to something worthwhile, like extra episodes of “The Gruen Transfer” or “Spicks and Specks”.

You took the words right out of my mouth! Bring back Gruen.

This from GREY Canberra’s Eye on Media newsletter.

The war is over
The Chaser have confirmed that the current
series of The Chaser’s War on Everything will
be its last. The program has attracted plenty
of controversy this year following the airing
of an inappropriate sketch about sick children
which saw the ABC suspend the show for
two weeks.

The creators have confirmed that they will
look to pursue other ventures with the network
following the conclusion of the current series
which has two episodes remaining.

Did it not happen in our own city when Lake Burley Griffin was built?

Pelican Lini said :

The Anangu people, who are traditional owners of Uluru, may technically “own” the rock but there’s precious little evidence they are getting a fair share, or any, of the economic benefits one might normally associate with such ownership.
The last I heard, there are no Aboriginal people employed among the approximately 600 workers in the area while the Anangu people living in the shadow of the rock at the Mutitjulu community languish in poverty, joblessness, lack of education and substance abuses.

This is appalling and absolutely intolerable if true.

Pelican Lini said :

… Aboriginal land ownership can be taken away merely with the stoke of a legislative pen and a politician’s whim. Seriously, would any of these blinkered Australians tolerate such a form of “ownership” for their own land?

This is actually true for all of us. Have you never watched ‘The Castle’, let alone ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’?

harvyk1 said :

As for the chaser, well to the people dissing it, don’t watch it. It’s not like it’s going to be on TV for much longer anyway (last season). Also As for the comments about “we’re paying them” no, your taxes are in the same way your last happy meal kept masterchef on the air (a show I didn’t watch).

They are in the public arena, I’m part of said public and have just as much right to comment on them, surely that’s why they do what they do, to get a reaction wether it’s good or bad. You’ve got to be able to take it if you’re dishing it out, I think even the Chaser guys would understand that.

Who pay’s my taxes? Me and I haven’t bought a happy meal since I was six.

HB_74, I haven’t watched The Chaser at all this year – simply because they’re just not that funny anymore. I couldn’t give a rats arse if they choose to climb on a church or not.

Anyway, do you seriously think The Chaser give a flying truck about all these “issues” that they like to spend so much time highlighting? In my personal opinion it’s all about the “publicity” these stunts gain for The Chaser – nothing more, nothing less.

That is why it bugs me that the ABC wastes money giving these knobs airtime that could be dedicated to something worthwhile, like extra episodes of “The Gruen Transfer” or “Spicks and Specks”.

Pelican Lini has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The local aboriginal people do not get the finanical benefit of Uluru, their contribution to tourism in the area is a cultural centre. It’s not exactly a big money spinner, not compared to the resort a few km down the road.

As for the chaser, well to the people dissing it, don’t watch it. It’s not like it’s going to be on TV for much longer anyway (last season). Also As for the comments about “we’re paying them” no, your taxes are in the same way your last happy meal kept masterchef on the air (a show I didn’t watch).

nice photo of the church

<<

Sorry that was for MR Evil. But not my problem if ya bitch about them doing the wrong thing, cause they do sometimes and you are always entitled to your opinion.

Just don’t watch it. People shouldn’t speak for what makes me laugh or not and whether I can watch it or not.

I get so sick of the number of Australians who blithely disrespect Aboriginal people and their culture and insist that they are somehow getting a better deal than all other Australians.
Turn it up. Open your eyes.
The Anangu people, who are traditional owners of Uluru, may technically “own” the rock but there’s precious little evidence they are getting a fair share, or any, of the economic benefits one might normally associate with such ownership.
The last I heard, there are no Aboriginal people employed among the approximately 600 workers in the area while the Anangu people living in the shadow of the rock at the Mutitjulu community languish in poverty, joblessness, lack of education and substance abuses.
And as most recently demonstrated, the infamous Northern Territory Intervention, Aboriginal land ownership can be taken away merely with the stoke of a legislative pen and a politician’s whim.
Seriously, would any of these blinkered Australians tolerate such a form of “ownership” for their own land?
Why are their “pretend friends” any better, or more valid than Aboriginal spiritual beliefs?
If not for the Aboriginal people’s culture, this country would barely have anything to show to the world to identify itself as having it’s own unique culture (‘cept for Aussie rules).
That’s why Aboriginal culture played such a dominant role in the 2000 Olympics ceremonies and why Aboriginal people are so regularly trotted out to perform at overseas and local expos.
I can’t understand why so many Australians are so damn disinterested in the people who are so integral to the history of this land we call our own.
Instead, far too many of us seem to absolutely revel in promoting pure BS, insults, and let’s get real, racism, against our First Australians.
Fair dinkum, if you really think they’re getting a better deal, or a free ride, just swap places with them.

The Chaser team used to be very funny – now they’re just plain tedious.

ABC, please kill them off.

“If I go to ANZAC Cove and piss all over the shoreline, you’ll be fine with that too?”

That’d be no different from what happens every ANZAC Day at ANZAC Cove anyway……

I think it would be great for our leaders to be able to have lives as private citizens, out of the gaze of the media, pranksters and weirdos. However, Rudd does not allow this for his staff, and by having or allowing a media conference at church, he has forfeited the “private citizen” agreement for himself as well.

Independent of:

* comparison of Uluru with a church
* judgements about the comedic value of the Chaser
* judgements about fans of the ABC or of the chaser;

if Rudd chooses to speak as Prime Minister using his religion as a backdrop, then:

a) we’ve got a problem of separation of church and state
b) protesters and random drongoes can also use the occasion to push their views
c) he is no longer being a private citizen when at church

Australians dying is news, especially if they die overseas – but the PM has complete choice as to when to comment.

Attempts by the news media (including riotact, sadly) to create a ‘story’ out of ‘evil pranksters fail to respect media’ is just crass. But not surprising. Certainly not higher ground than the Chaser (and that’s pretty low).

Clown Killer said :

The Anagu people have never climbed the Uluru. They have never encouraged others to climb, although about 38% of visitors believe that their own over-inflated sense of self-entitlement justifies their ascent.

And your over-inflated sense of self-entitlement justifies you thinking it is ok for your kids to climb all over the tomb of the unknown soldier at the War Memorial. Come on now CK!

The chaser guys have to learn to respect the privacy of others. I don’t care that the PM was there, but there were people there to worship. It isn’t all about the PM. The guys might well be upset if somthing that they actually cared about was splashed across the media – perhaps their private lives, including families, was the focus.

To remove the ability to climb uluru by tourists, that is up to the land holders. But at the same time, they cannot expect people to visit uluru, to only view it, when every australian believes that it is a part of their land, not just one group, but all of us.

The comment that JB has made is the most pertinent.

“That the Prime Minister could do something as mundane as go to church without being molested was something I really liked about Canberra. The fear is that now the genie’s out of the bottle every ratbag nutjob convinced their cause is paramount to all other considerations will be out on a Sunday morning making pratts of themselves.”

(good pun btw, JB, wonder if others saw it?)

I really don’t want every ratbag nutjob forcing the AFP to clamp down canberra whilst the PM is out and about. That is a bit too prohibitive and paranoiac for me.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

The point of this story is that ‘sacred’ means different things to different people, and that respect is a two way street.

That I can wholeheartedly agree with; it’s the reason why I’m more inclined not to climb Uluru. If that site is sacred to the Pitjantjatjara, and what they ask of me is that I don’t climb, I can respect that. I don’t think sacred really means different things to different peoples, but it does imply different behaviours for different peoples, as Clown Killer says. Like the kid with the stick in your story, I need to know what’s not accepted (although I don’t think shouting about it is helpful). If I know what’s not appropriate in that sacred place, I can probably refrain from doing it, but if I don’t know, then I can’t. I know that people of that belief system want me to refrain from climbing the rock; so why would I climb it?

BTW, I have climbed the rock, when I was 7 years old, two years before it was returned to the Pitjantjatjara. I wish I could give my children that experience without feeling like I’m being disrespectful of the Pitjantjatjara, but the thing is I’d rather teach my children to be respectful than have that experience. And I do understand where those who haven’t climbed Uluru are coming from: it was an awesome experience, even as a 7 year old! I wouldn’t begrudge anyone wanting to go up, but I won’t go again, and when I finally take my children, we won’t be climbing.

Deadmandrinking said :

VY, I’m sure 50-80,000 years of spiritual development is a little more important than you wanting to climb a rock.

Why? Because your values system says so? Sloppy thinking, buddy.

I look forward to the day that Morrow, or one of his ilk, gets a punch in the mouth as a result of one of their ‘witticisms’. The fact that members of their own community tried to talk them out of it speaks volumes

In fact I would have drawn great joy from one of them being poleaxed after their ‘hilarious’ wearing a balaclava into a convenience store trick a few years ago.

They were funny, now they just smack of try hards trying to recapture their youth

Re: The War Memorial & The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier:

Australians might not be the most religiously observant people on earth, but they do hold some locations to be more venerated than others.
Having been in the Hall of Rememberance and watch some kids start playing in the Pool (and others start singing pop songs in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier), the staff there will quickly set kids straight as it was clear that the parents weren’t about to tell them to stop.
The kids who went fishing for coins in the Pool walked away in tears, but the staff were vastly nicer than most other visitors would be.

For people happily advocating climbing up Uluru, despite it being what is clearly a sacred site to the locals:

1) “There is no law against it!”
That attitude is fairly ingrained in Australian Anglo-whitey culture.
But fairly ingrained in Aboriginal culture would be fairly evasive but respectful responses of “We don’t really like\encourage\want visitors to do it”.

2) “There isn’t a lot to do in Central Australia except visit the rock. I have just driven five hours out of Alice Springs, paid my park entry fee, and I came here to see Uluru.”
Not a lot is going to stop you, and unless you’re given a direct “No” either by the locals or enshrined in law you probably won’t stop.

The local aboriginals also think its a spectacular rock formation, but having deep respect for the land, think there’s something fairly venerable about a gigantic granite rock in the middle of a sandy plain. They hold it sacred in that the rock clearly predates all of their culture and the entirety of human history and prehistory.
Human activity actually on the rock both erodes and pollutes the site itself.

3) “Their sacred isn’t the same as my sacred, therefore they can go and shut right up while I march all over it. Its my country and that rock is part of it.”

Would you march into a Buddhist temple in shorts and hiking boots because the monks hadn’t pressured you to? Would you walk up to the altar rail in an Anglican cathedral to take a flash photo of the prayerful because the vergers hadn’t asked you not to?
Way to sudently announce that indigenous Australians are unworthy of respect.

4)Its just a natural rock formation, there is nothing sacred about it.
Okay smartyman, I can tell you’re one of those sensitive new-age people. If I go to ANZAC Cove and piss all over the shoreline, you’ll be fine with that too?

So..what I’m gathering here is that it’s not okay for the Aboriginals to have areas of spiritual significance because they don’t build things on them?

VY, I’m sure 50-80,000 years of spiritual development is a little more important than you wanting to climb a rock.

Pommy bastard said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I climbed the rock. It was awesome, as far as rocks go.

Barking Toad, should people be able to climb all over Stonehenge? Avebury? The dome of the Rock? The Pyramids? Petra? Machu Picchu? O Cristo Redentor?

Are those things natural features?

No, but most of them are no current places of worship. Stonehenge and Avebury are great for bouldering, (trust me on this), but some things, whether of spiritual significance, or not, shouldn’t they be protected from the wear and tear of the quite unnecessary erosion by man?

Which a separate argument altogether.

The point remains that, for some, the rock is the remains of a mountain range and a fascinating geological formation that significantly pre-dates homo sapiens and ‘spirituality’ in any form by about a fuzzy 300 to 500 million years. Whereas the above examples are all purpose built spiritual structures erected in the last few thousand years. It’s a pretty fundamental difference and arguably a flawed analogy.

“We’d prefer it if you didn’t climb Uluru. For us, it’s a sacred site, and it’s disrespectful to climb it.”

“You’re a lying lazy money-grabbing bludger. The law says I can climb it. Your religion is really dumb. Screw you I’ll do what I want.”

Nice attitude.

How about you try arguing against climbing a rock on its merits rather than by analogy to grossly dissimilar situations?

WMC I’d really love to hear how you could argue that the analogy is in any way dissimilar. Are you suggesting that both are not sacred places? Do you believe that both places do not have established expectations about the appropriate way to behave when visiting them?

The Anagu people have never climbed the Uluru. They have never encouraged others to climb, although about 38% of visitors believe that their own over-inflated sense of self-entitlement justifies their ascent.

Woody, Ayers rock is a soft sand stone, it forms erosion gullies very easily.

VYBerlinaV8_the_on; why not climb something a bit more challenging. It’s hardly mountaineering, is it?

WITHOUT compromising, that is…

trevar said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should the rock be a place of cultural and spiritual significance to only one group?

It may be significant to more than one group, but the only group with an established spiritual tradition is the local Aboriginal group. There is, beyond that, an established symbolic tradition, but I’m a little in two minds as to whether the latter trumps the former, and tend to think not. I might be a Christian, but I’m not in the habit of disrespecting the sacredness of Islamic mosques or Buddhist temples, so why would I climb Uluru?

The only flaw in the Chaser’s analogy is that there is no teaching in the Christian religion that it is wrong to climb church spires. It may be slightly disruptive to do it on Sunday morning, but it’s not like there’s a commandment about it, or even an established doctrine against it. Heck, I recall a story in the Bible about Jesus encouraging people who climbed on the roof of the place he was teaching in!

Still, the Chasers are making a valid and relevant point. Shame about the news of the day, but what can you do?

Some good points, but I would argue that it is indeed possible for a Christian to enter a mosque with compromising their own beliefs or being disrespectful to the Muslims therein. The difficulty lies on the fact that the locals have decided they don’t want people climbing it.

There is a place in the mountains near Tathra on the South Coast where there is a natural waterslide formed by a creek that has washed over solid stone for many, many years. You can also jump off the rock into the same deep pool. It is apparently a sacred place for the local Aboriginals. I was there once when a teenager dropped a small stick into the flow and watched it go down the waterslide and drop into the deep pool, where it quickly floated away. A couple of Aboriginal elders were sitting nearby, and went nuts at this kid. The kid was confused and a bit upset. I asked them if swimming was ok, to which they replied ‘of course’. The point of this story is that ‘sacred’ means different things to different people, and that respect is a two way street.

If it’s not illegal to climb Ayres Rock, I am going to do so at the first opportunity. I’m not doing so to be disrespectful, but rather because it is something special to me.

shouldn’t they be protected from the wear and tear of the quite unnecessary erosion by man

You’re seriously worried that people climbing Ayers Rock will erode it? Are there any other mountain-sized natural features you’re worried about people stepping on in case they fall down?

I love how a simple thing like recognition of the things that are important to the people of another culture can bring out so much ignorance.

My culture loves climbing to the top of natural features. Sometimes we put flags there. Other times, restaurants. Who are you to decide that gibberish about ghosts outweighs my desire to enjoy all that nature has to offer?

By way of an analogy, my kids love a visit to the War Memorial

How about you try arguing against climbing a rock on its merits rather than by analogy to grossly dissimilar situations?

I love how a simple thing like recognition of the things that are important to the people of another culture can bring out so much ignorance.

By way of an analogy, my kids love a visit to the War Memorial. They particularly love running around and climbing on the tomb of the unknown soldier. Sure it probably makes a few of the other visitors uncomfortable, but it would be hypocritical of me to stop them given that I’m not personally affected in any way and there sh!t all anyone could do about it anyway.

BarkingToad,

I can agree with you in regards to your opinions on the Chaser but I fail to see a connection between ‘sit down money’ (govt payments) and the religious signifcance of Uluru to Indigenous Australians. You are effectively tarring them all with the same brush and that is a really backwards way of thinking.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I climbed the rock. It was awesome, as far as rocks go.

Barking Toad, should people be able to climb all over Stonehenge? Avebury? The dome of the Rock? The Pyramids? Petra? Machu Picchu? O Cristo Redentor?

Are those things natural features?

No, but most of them are no current places of worship. Stonehenge and Avebury are great for bouldering, (trust me on this), but some things, whether of spiritual significance, or not, shouldn’t they be protected from the wear and tear of the quite unnecessary erosion by man?

Well, when the Commonwealth Government hands over ownership of Mount Taylor to you then you can ban us all from climbing it.

And when it’s illegal to climb Ayers Rock I’ll stop. Until then, you’re comparing a legal activity with illegal activities. Invisible spirits don’t enter into it.

I will be amused when the Chaser guys decide to climb the Opera House, because they will probably be shot for doing it………..

That would be worth watching now.

Well here goes:

– #22 – the ‘owners’ don’t go to Ayers Rock as a Sunday day of worship. They camp for sit-down money
– #24 – I’m happy to tolerate beliefs that don’t involve cutting peoples heads off or suicide vests. An affinity with a rock doesn’t excite me
– #26 – affinity and sit-down money is not a religion and moral equivalence doesn’t work in this case
– #29 – I may be wrong, but I understood the lease allowed climbing of Ayers Rock
– – #32 – businesses arose to service tourists, sit-down money is different and doesn’t need tourists
– #33 – some places need protection because they’ll be damaged by numbers. Ayers Rock doesn’t yet. Or Mt Everest. Or Black Mountain. Don’t confuse issues

#34 & 35 – I’m sstill of the view that the lease of the rock to the aboriginal community (which swelled when the money was invloved) still allowed for climbing – happy to be corrected on this view.

But regardless of all of the above discussions, the point of the chaser stunt was nothing more than to provide shock/outrage (in their view cleverness) so that the luvvies can applaud how they ‘push the envelope’

The student style humour has run its race and they are now pathetic.

“Incidentally, I have decided that Mount Taylor is of particular spiritual importance to me. An invisible space fairy told me it’s the resting place of the last invisible unicorn. I’d prefer you all stop climbing it.”

Well, when the Commonwealth Government hands over ownership of Mount Taylor to you then you can ban us all from climbing it.

(Incidentally, I have decided that Mount Taylor is of particular spiritual importance to me. An invisible space fairy told me it’s the resting place of the last invisible unicorn. I’d prefer you all stop climbing it.)

I climbed the rock. It was awesome, as far as rocks go.

Barking Toad, should people be able to climb all over Stonehenge? Avebury? The dome of the Rock? The Pyramids? Petra? Machu Picchu? O Cristo Redentor?

Are those things natural features?

I think when KR came out and made a blunt populist judgement, and showed no respect for the sensitivities of the issue (and stomped all over Peter Garrett yet again BTW), he made his own belief system fair game in reply.

I might add that last week’s Chaser was a total crack up, with only one spot falling a bit flat – probably the best episode I’ve seen from them. As for people caught up in it, some seen the irony and have a chuckle, others getting caught in a sense of humour vacuum tend to make themselves look silly.

I say this as one who has climbed the rock when I was in grade 10, and as a rockclimber would be torn if I was out there again nowadays…

God bless the Chaser.

I’m surprised at how many people are “dissing” the Chaser team, religious icons apart, it’s not as if we’re over burdened by good local comedy shows is it?

I mean, does anyone want a diet of “2 1/2 men” or the like instead?

Yep, well, I disagree with the PM on lots of things.

But his one chance a week to be a normal member of the wider community and get some quiet contemplation is one of those things that’s probably good for us all as long as he’s PM.

johnboy said :

Plenty of cathedrals let visitors climb their spires and domes.

BUT, it’s not a comparable belief system.

The rock belongs to the local indigenous community, as far as I’m concerned if they want to tear up the National Parks lease and ban climbing that’s their business.

The point is that the PM said that it wasn’t, which was the point the chaser was making

Plenty of cathedrals let visitors climb their spires and domes.

BUT, it’s not a comparable belief system.

The rock belongs to the local indigenous community, as far as I’m concerned if they want to tear up the National Parks lease and ban climbing that’s their business.

Barking Toad, should people be able to climb all over Stonehenge? Avebury? The dome of the Rock? The Pyramids? Petra? Machu Picchu? O Cristo Redentor?

barking toad said :

The analogy is spot off!
But the awareness of any spiritual signifance of natural features usually only arises when there’s money involved.

Have you actually been to Uluru? If so you’d know that there have been people travelling there for many years before Aboriginal people where given back control (azaria chamberlan anyone?) and furthermore the resort and shops appear to be owned and staffed by white people (just an observation). Infact the only real aboriginal run place (which I saw) is the Aboriginal centre on the road to Uluru, and from memory it was either free or very cheap. (I don’t remember, it was 11 years ago since I went there), furthermore by removing peoples ability to climb the rock it will drive tourist numbers down, thus if this was truely a money grab they are going about it the wrong way.

Now had the local aboriginal people installed a chairlift to get to the top…….

Its not like watching a man gasp his last breath or anything, but there is a “Even though we have been following Ellen\Mehmet\David for three weeks and telling you about how much help the surgery is likely to be, Ellen\David\Mehmet survived for only three weeks after his surgery, as their body rejected the new liver. (cue cut to ad break, then introduce new person with life-threatening illness)” fairly regulary.

But for the most part people leave the hospital alive.

PS: Watching paint dry? There’s probably a show like “Home made” for people like you…

Skidbladnir said :

Trevar:
RPA is on WIN from 2030 – 2130, conveniently ticking both the “Not watching the Chaser” and “Watching surgery instead” boxes.

I never watch anything on WIN. They’re over-hyped, off-target, lame, and I’d rather be watching paint dry… 😛

I’ll give it a go, but I don’t hold out much hope of something on WIN being worth watching. Do they show them dying?

Ownership of Uluru was returned to the Pitjantjatjara Aborigines by the Commonwealth Government in 1985 and enshrined this under Commonwealth law. The Pitjantjatjara have freehold title to the lands.

One of the conditions of return was that Uluru would be leased back to National Parks for 99 years.

As the Pitjantjatjara Aborigines are the owners of Uluru it is well within their rights as owners to ban climbing.

The same would apply to any private property, such as a shopping mall, where some behavior is not tolerated, such as skating, drinking alcohol or playing loud music.

What has amazed me about the debate raging in the media (mainstream and internet) is the lack of respect to Aboriginal wishes by some parts of society. If the private property in question was owned by a white fella much of the derogatory commentary would be absent. I really thought we as a nation had grown up a bit and would treat Aboriginal people with some respect.

You don’t even have to acknowledge or agree with their reasons for not wanting climbing to occur, which are more complex than Uluru having spiritual significance, but look at it as private property and the due respect any of us would wish when people are visitors on our property.

Personally I think it is quite disgraceful that Rudd came out as he did, but not surprising, he is a shallow little man.

Good on the Chaser boys for highlighting the issue in this way.

Trevar:
RPA is on WIN from 2030 – 2130, conveniently ticking both the “Not watching the Chaser” and “Watching surgery instead” boxes.

I think the analogy would be a little more appealling to me if the congregation at St John’s charged a fee for people to come and look at their church that included the option to climb it (having installed an accessible climbing route, or at least not removed one someone else had installed) and then muttered a few words about sanctity while counting the cash.

barking toad said :

And what exactly is chaser’s “valid and relevant” point?

I would expect that their point is that if we are going to tolerate disrespect for one religion, then we should tolerate disrespect for them all. Duh.

Like I said earlier, I’m not entirely sure I agree with them, but it’s not exactly rocket science to interpret their sarcasm.

Skidbladnir said :

These days they’re tired, over-hyped, off-target, lame, and frankly I’d rather be watching surgery.

I have heard recently that the War on Everything is in it’s last season, and they will be working on a new format. So maybe they agree with you.

Personally, I would love to watch surgery; it has dramatic tension, plenty of variables, and there’s a very real chance that someone could die. So, although I like the Chaser, I may also prefer surgery. If someone would let me watch…

I usually find I like less then half the chasers stuff, but the stuff I do like, I think is damn funny!

I really like the concept of the church vs ularu stunt. By dragging the PM into it (by their choice of Church and day) they make sure it isn’t just a OHS issue but a political one.

Does anyone consider when voting if they care that the candidates have imaginary friends?

Barking toad, given that you’ve stated that “the awareness of any spiritual signifance of [Uluru] only arises when there’s money involved” and – in another thread – called Islam “The 7th century blood cult”, am I to take it that you are opposed to all religions/spiritual beliefs? Or is it just the ones that don’t happen to be Christian?

Chaser’s APEC stunt was an unexpected high-water mark in what had been a receding flow for quite some time.
These days they’re tired, over-hyped, off-target, lame, and frankly I’d rather be watching surgery.

barking toad said :

A rock is not a church.

Well surely that depends on what culture you come from doesn’t it?

A church isn’t so much the building and more the people who congregate in it isn’t it?

Haven’t the fun police taken over in this thread, haha.

I think it’s great when the Chaser go straight to the source and go after the politicians. Their APEC stunt was also quite awesome.

But I think it sucks when some poor sod at the front counter of, for example, a McDonalds gets pulled into one of their more stupid candid camera-style stunts. That’s just like shooting fish in a barrel, they are soft targets and there really isn’t anything clever, witty or remotely funny about it.

Overall they are just a bunch of smug little wankers if you ask me.

barking toad said :

And what exactly is chaser’s “valid and relevant” point?

I hope this is it:

“You should be allowed to climb Uluru, in the same way that we should be allowed to climb THIS inanimate object without incurring the wrath of people who think it’s significant in some way!”

I suspect that wasn’t their intent though – it could just be my wishful thinking…

They lack one. There is very little that is valid about the Chaser people. They are pathetic and the only support for them that my taxes should fund is their dole payments.

The story at hand is really neither here nor there to me – who cares… it is pretty amusing though to see people up in arms over what amounts to a big rock and a big building. The human capacity to worship inanimate objects is just fantastic!

It’d be nice to have a prime minister who doesn’t feel the need to go to church, however. This whole issue would have been nicely avoided if he’d stayed away from the religious game!

And what exactly is chaser’s “valid and relevant” point?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should the rock be a place of cultural and spiritual significance to only one group?

It may be significant to more than one group, but the only group with an established spiritual tradition is the local Aboriginal group. There is, beyond that, an established symbolic tradition, but I’m a little in two minds as to whether the latter trumps the former, and tend to think not. I might be a Christian, but I’m not in the habit of disrespecting the sacredness of Islamic mosques or Buddhist temples, so why would I climb Uluru?

The only flaw in the Chaser’s analogy is that there is no teaching in the Christian religion that it is wrong to climb church spires. It may be slightly disruptive to do it on Sunday morning, but it’s not like there’s a commandment about it, or even an established doctrine against it. Heck, I recall a story in the Bible about Jesus encouraging people who climbed on the roof of the place he was teaching in!

Still, the Chasers are making a valid and relevant point. Shame about the news of the day, but what can you do?

The analogy is spot off!

A rock is not a church.

I don’t doubt tourists leave a mess and that’s not acceptable be it on top of Ayers Rock or round lake Burley Griffin.

But the awareness of any spiritual signifance of natural features usually only arises when there’s money involved. Mining leases come to mind. Next we’ll be stopping Sydney harbour bridge climbs because some Redfern activist discovers a spiritual connection with the area.

And the chaser children wouldn’t have connected Krudd’s church attendance with respect to a soldier’s death. That’s beyond them.

Why should the rock be a place of cultural and spiritual significance to only one group? I think it’s a very Australian thing to do, making the pilgrimage to see the rock. I’ve never been there, but fully intend to climb it when I do. Whilst I respect the Aboriginal people who have lived in and around there, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some respect in return.

If people want to climb a church spire, let them climb the ladders that are usually inside. Why wouldn’t the church want to reveal itself to interested people anyway?

Two cannibals capture, kill and cook up comedian, Julian Morrow, and as they begin eating him, one cannibal says to the other: “Does this taste funny to you?”

1. The analogy is spot on, though you cant blame the congregation at St. Johns for what people do at the rock.

2. The PM should be able to go to his church in peace, outside he’s fair game.

3. A pox on the media for trying to somehow link this with the death of a digger. Grubs.

I was wondering if the chasers where ever going to do something like this. Barking Toad, I think you missed the point entirely. For quite some time the local aboriginal people have asked people not to climb Uluru, and the comparison given is it would be like them climbing your local church.

Now I’m not going to weigh into the debate about closing it vs leaving the climb open as I myself have climbed it. However the chaser are simply testing two things, both of which can be seen in a similar vein, except one is taboo whilst the other is acceptable.

As for the PM making comments about the death overseas, well don’t get me wrong, I’m not cold and heartless, however I fail to see why this is anything more special than a normal church service, as the intent of the gathering was exactly that.

(I’d feel differently if it was the guys actual funeral)

I take my hat off to the chaser team. The analogy is spot on.

I was at Uluru recently and decided not to climb out of respect. I later found out from a friend who did climb, that the top is cover is rubbish from the numerous climbers.

So not only do we disrecpt the spiritual signifance of the site, but whilst we are there we exacerbate the issue by rubbishing the site.

Expect a hearty round of pre-recorded laughter when it goes to air.

I don’t think the analogy itself is the issue here, more the timing of the gag given the expected comments Rudd was going to make in respect of the Australian deaths overseas.

But I guess the Chaser has deadlines to meet like everyone else.

What has a church in Canberra (or anywhere for that matter)to do with a rock in central Australia?

Moral equivalence at it’s worst.

The number of “cultural owners” of Ayers Rock has bloomed over the years from the easy access to sit-down money.

The Chaser mob are using their usual shock tactics to pander to the ABC luvvies who think it’s soooo clever.

Ah, so that’s what they were up to. I saw Morrow in the Canberra Centre yesterday when I was grabbing lunch.

The PM attending St Johns is hardly a well kept secret. It was only a matter of time until something along these lines happened. And agreed with the other posters, fantastic analogy. Why should a church be considered sacred if Uluru can’t be?

+1 – kudos Chaser guy.

Agreed.

at St John’s Anglican Church in full mountaineering gear and attempted to scale the spire during the regular Sunday service — a reference to the recent row over climbing Uluru.

Excellent analogy, kudos Chaser guy.