Keep the Lord’s Prayer

Sir: Chris Ashton has outlined three reasons why recitation of the Lord’s Prayer should be removed from Australian parliamentary proceedings (‘Lose the Lord’s Prayer’, 1 February). As a non-Christian, allow me to propose three reasons why the recitations should remain.

First, I believe that one important and unifying purpose of religion is to provide some basis for setting the moral compass. In essence, even with our multicultural society, I believe that Australia is still a country with a bedrock of Western, Judeo-Christian values. The recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at the very least is a demonstration of parliament’s intention to adhere to such values, even if a member’s subsequent behaviour is often contrary.

Second, being of a conservative nature, I am with Senator Eric Abetz in his wish to maintain tradition, even if it is for its own sake.

Third, the Greens can always be relied upon to protest anything remotely mainstream, the more so when they can appear to be tolerant, inclusive or any number of other feelgood adjectives. So today they object to the Lord’s Prayer; tomorrow it’ll be something else. Eliminating the prayer would a) only provide very temporary relief from their hectoring, and b) encourage them further in their delusion that anyone outside their circle, cares about anything they say.
David Gerber
East Lindfield, NSW

Leftie Oz

Sir: I found Michael Koziol’s new column (1 February) tedious and puerile. The Australian newspaper cannot be described as ‘an aggressive right-wing publication’. Its regular contributors include ‘progressive’ luminaries such as Phillip Adams, Craig Emerson and Peter Beattie. And why does young Michael not demand that all those journalists who fawned over the previous government step aside? The sycophancy of the national broadcaster and the vast majority of the Canberra press gallery defined the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. The Spectator Australia should not encourage the Left in its long-standing approach that the best response to conservative commentary is ad hominem attack.
Stephen Sasse
Killara, NSW

Archibald worthy

Sir: I was delighted by the portrait of Tony Abbott on the cover of The Spectator Australia (1 February). It reminds me of one of the better covers of Time magazine in bygone days. This is an Archibald-worthy portait; even if it were not of Tony Abbott, it is a terrific painting of a strong, thoughtful, sensitive face, the face of a visionary. I can but hope that Mr Abbott lives up to his portrait as he begins his first term as prime minister. It is by an artist I have never heard of but I hastened to Google Keith Burt and find he lives in Brisbane. He should be better known. There are many in political office, who would greatly benefit from such a flattering portrait.
Jane Allen
Bowral, NSW

Monsieur Bill

Sir: Your editorial (‘Abroad with Monsieur Bill,’ 8 February) is right: that Bill Shorten made his first official overseas visit to Paris comes as no surprise. I’ve spent a lot of time in Paris and have recently returned after four months there. There is a very angry mood amongst those in the private sector and for good reason. For France is now a socialist theme park displaying the outcomes of policies of which the Australian Left is so enamoured. Higher and more taxes. Fixed working hours enforced by government inspectors. Belligerent unions, and a massive, feather-bedded public sector that intervenes into every aspect of the life of the citizenry.

Hollande & Co, Canutelike, deny the existence of market forces, prohibiting activities of which they do not approve, recruiting legions of fonctionnaires to relentlessly enforce laws that serve no purpose other than to restrict competition and consumer choice. The result is the squeezing of the productive private sector minority seeing young multilingual professionals with transferable skills decamping to other parts of the EU inevitably shrinking the tax base further.
Bruce Watson
Mosman, NSW

Save our Scotland

Sir: Matthew Parris is quite right to praise Lord Lang’s speech in the Lords on Scottish independence 9 (‘The End of Britain’, 8 February) and there were other notable contributions, especially from Lord Kerr, on the European dimension, and Lord Robertson, the former secretary-general of Nato. But is anyone listening? The debate got virtually no coverage in the Scottish editions — and I suspect even less in the English ones. Meanwhile the SNP publicity machine rolls on here and is now promising an annual ‘Indy bonus’ of £600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, exceeding the £500 threshold at which (as Alex Massie pointed out in the same issue) surveys suggest the average Scotsman will sell his British soul. The no campaign and the UK government must act soon to counter the tide of SNP half-truths and wild aspirations that is currently making the debate so one-sided in Scotland. Debates and speeches in Parliament are not enough.
Peter Mackay
Kincraig, Kingussie, Inverness-shire

Bottom dollar

Sir: Stephen Marsh’s letter about school fees (Letters, 8 February) reminded me of the prep-school headmaster who dictated a letter to parents informing them of an increase in school fees the following year. His secretary unfortunately transcribed ‘per annum’ with a single ‘n’. Quick as a flash the head received a reply that, if it was OK by him, they would prefer to carry on paying through the nose as usual.
Adrian Lloyd-Edwards
Dartmouth, Devon