mightychurch.com

Yep Kevin, I would!
As the story gets out there I think the world will be judging Commissioner Browns decision and reflecting on the type of democracy it sprung from.
.

Err.. Kevin it wasn’t like there was any ambiguity about the xenophobia and racism on display throughout the process, regardless of the final decision or who made it. That’s what people (rightly) objected to.

It was deeply embarrassing seeing such ignorance, fear mongering and xenophobia from Protestant ministers—including one Sydney Anglican minister—of all people. Shame, shame.

I guess they’ll be glad they’ve defeated Al Qaeda’s plans to use Camden as a base for global jihad and world domination, because you know, that’s what Muslims are all secretly up to.

It was actually a double-victory for our rich, hard won (fat?) way of life - a McDonalds has finally been approved for Camden’s main street!

I can see the letters of protest now:

“McDonalds is not simply a private restaurant. It is driven by a powerful political agenda, it is an ideology with a plan for world domination.
Mr McDonald’s application to establish a McDonalds restaurant in Camden is typical of a regularly repeated pattern to form a beachhead in an area for the development of a sub-culture, which, for the most part, regards its own profits as superior to the current Australian health standards.
The McDonalds community will seek to dominate public space in Camden as we have seen in Mosman, Cronulla, Ryde and more recently St Ives.”

lol :)

I have been following the activities of this debate fairly closely…and if you take away the racism and other comments / arguements…the local council actually took the case to court on clear cut legal grounds and won on those same grounds…. Its been my experience in fighting against an illegal adult shop in campbelltown that the Land and Environment Court will not listen to any thing based on a religious, racist etc arguement….only that all submissions have to be based on the law and regulations of the day.

An interesting thing about the Islamic schools org is that during the hearing it was found that they had not filed their yearly corporate paperwork for the previous 7 years ...something that I dare say those involved in the administration of the sydney anglican schools would realise the ramifications of that under corporate law.

The proposers for the school also could not provide any paper work providing evidence of sufficient funds for the building and upkeep of the school and where the monies would come from….

So yes while it might be true that indeed there was a vocal element against the school that was racist and even bigoted we need to cut through the hype and media misrepresentation on both sides and allow that the Land and Environment Court made its decision twice on clear cut legal grounds as presented by the Camden Council.

That’s just crap Craig .....everyone knows what drove this!

.....and please don’t mention the ‘corporate’ carp again as that is the exact way that the biggest religious group in this country avoid their responsibilities .........they AREN"T incorporated in Australia at all…....nor any of their Orders.
Not being incorporated was Pells defense in the supreme court last year .....I’m sure there is a proverb about a goose and a gander that applies there ......although something about sheep would be more fitting in the Camden case.

This is purely about bigotry and is ingrained and needs sanding out ;)

Anglo-Christian tribalism
......Maybe it’s time for all Australians to come to terms with multiculturalism, and to accept Muslim-Australians, who have been in Australia for many generations,  and also other minorities, as real Aussies and give them “a fair go”.

I also see the Islamic media seem to be able to conduct themselves with accuracy and control ........good lesson for some.
Aussie Muslim School Gets Fatal Blow

Hi Michael.

I was fellowshipping in a church in Camden at the time that wouldn’t sign the letter saying as the leadership publically spoke about it saying, “Lets welcome them here, and lets pray that they will be saved here and a revival starts among them.”

One of the camden councillor is a member of the same church and the vocal prostesters actually made the councils job much harder…yes some / a lot of the prostesters were from the church, while the actual vast majority were non church going people.

Simply put the site where they wanted to situate the school was not suitable, nor was the road / transport facilities either…the road past the site was basically a narrow country lane not suitable for the carriage of 1200 students….

I do find it interesting though, that there were other viable and suitable sites that were already within the zoning areas, yet for some reason they were not interested in pursuing as alternative venues.

Michael its very easy for someone to make a judgement when they don’t live in the area and the media unfortuantly have not done a good job in its reporting… yet the first case was dissmissed and so was the appeal soley on the laws of the land and nothing more…and any one who has had dealings with the land and environment court will tell you that ALL evidence presented has to do with legalities and not based on emotion.,

In the case of Camden, the point everyone seems to be missing, is that the school was not for people in the area. They were going to bus/transport 900/1200 students in from OUTSIDE the local area. It was part of a development that does not serve the people who live IN the Camden area, and would negatively impact the area ( eg increased road transport and infrastructure costs would be needed ). 

A Camden local has posted the following comment on the Macarthur Chronicle website :

What happens when a unknown religous group buys a cheap flood affected block of land in Camden and wants to build a large school for its Lakemba based followers?
The Council rejects the school as unsuitable for the site.
What happens when the unknown religous group appeals the decision to the L.& E. C. ?
The Court rejects the school as unsuitable for the site.
There is a lesson here for all amateurs ....

1.  Don’t expect to get community approval if you don’t present yourself and your credentials for scrutiny.
2.  Don’t buy flood affected and odour affected rural land and expect to build whatever you like.
3.  Always check with Council to see the land you wish to purchase is suitable for what you want to build.
4.  Don’t rely on on your minority status to play the victim and insult those who don’t agree with you with racists slurs.

I expect the upcoming Catholic School at Mater Dei to do none of the above as the organisation, the Catholic Church knows what the rules are and abides by them.

This was a victory by Camden against bad development. 

Sure looks like sound judgement to most reasonable thinking folk.

I agree Kevin, but those considerations were not the driving force behind most people’s objection to the school, certainly not the 4 ministers anyway.

By sheer coincidence, as of last week I am attending Camden Presbyterian church, and I’m happy to say that while I don’t agree with the way the 4 ministers, including Warren Hicks, conducted themselves in this matter, it frankly is not an issue that would prevent me from having fellowship with people in those churches or submitting to their leadership. I look forward to talking to Warren about the matter at some stage and perhaps getting a better insight into his perspective of things.

I remain neutral in relation to the presence or non-presence of Muslims in the area and remain convinced that the oft-exalted “Australian way of life” is a far bigger threat to Christianity.

Craig so many things wrong and twisted in this whole affair and we loose sight of where this all started with the attitude of the community in camden .......even the bit about the swamp land is just snow!.
Wake up most schools are built of reclaimed land ........look around! Xavier in melb is built on a swamp ......half the buildings have needed underpinning over the years.
the Camben site has nothing on the yarra flats of melb…..it’s all a swamp.
Using arable land should be seen as sinful anyway .........and is a GOOD reason to stop a building permit these days…...not the other. (If you want a few hundred examples just ask)

and Nick and Kevins comments are self explanatory .......they’re just bigots.
I’m sorry but from where I stand their comments are extreme.

“australian way of life is a far bigger threat to christianity”

.....love to see that explained in detail.

think I best go away and leave you guys to your own little world.

I’m sorry but being ‘special’ like yourselves is beyond me.  I was thinking ‘special’ people would be wise and thoughtful .........but I find the same clowns here as in council and govt and business.
Just self serving everywhere and all the very same.

Maybe take a page out of Baracks book at the moment ........he seems to be asking everybody to have understanding and tolerance ........while this thread just shows where some of the problems actually lay.
I’m with Barack on this one and i think even Kevs having a catchup.  Best you guys do too!

Some may remember that I have an Anglican church on my property .........built in 1890 and of the same timber construction and built at the same time as our home.
No religious service has been held in it since the 70’s when they had one service a mth….locked up for nearly 30 yrs in the centre of town opposite the matching hall that we have renovated and carrys heritage listing now.
We offered to buy it in 1980 to use as a youth centre and womens workshop/community centre point. But we were unknown having just arrived here and so we didn’t push it.
My wife went ahead and renovated the PO and that is has become a womens workshop and the lights burn late there most nights….....but the church still stands derelict.
The anglican community over these years and up til the present have changed the buildings titles over to a local ‘corp’ of a few local Anglicans that manage the building now.
We approached them in ‘86, ‘90 and 2001 and about to again. I reason they rejected our purchase is because of our plans and their concern that we will attract riffraff with an open door approach.
an official reason given to the diocese in ‘80s was that a biker gang would get hold of the building somehow ......I remember trying to explain that biker gangs don’t buy wooden buildings beside the fact we didn’t intend to sell on to a third party and we were prepared to put that in writing….....but nothing would console them and they wouldn’t sell.
I am not at all exaggerating about this ........leaving lots out .....granted, but still basically how it went.

We have our solicitors approaching the group again ....we even have promised money from the shire if they will come across.  The self proclaimed gentry of this country have a lot to answer for in my opinion.
StMarysAnglican
Do you like the fence in the pic?? .....I rebuilt it in’85 exactly as it was originally…..local hardwood posts and rail and used the original gates and wire.  Needs doing again as obviously my timber choice was a bit wrong :( ....learnt lots since then.
Fences stopped people/tourists walking in and around pulling and pushing at the building and generally being a nuisance.  the plaque in front explains the buildings history and was put there by the hall committee ....but we asked permission of course.

I see so many parallels with our little church and the camden story .... I wonder if it isn’t the seniors/elders/ heirarchy that aren’t the ignorant ones in all this?

michael scull - 06 June 2009 07:08 AM

and Nick and Kevins comments are self explanatory .......they’re just bigots.
I’m sorry but from where I stand their comments are extreme.

Oh I see how it is now Michael -  we all have to agree with YOUR point of view - whatever that is. Or else you just bring out negative words like ‘bigot’  and ‘rascist’ etc to shoot us down - completely misreading our contributions and ( after saying that my comments are self explanatory ) failing to understand what council building codes and proper planning standards are all about.  I find your language inflammatory and possibly defamatory.

michael scull - 06 June 2009 07:08 AM

and Nick and Kevins comments are self explanatory .......they’re just bigots.

I beg your pardon? How so?

michael scull - 06 June 2009 07:08 AM

“australian way of life is a far bigger threat to christianity”

.....love to see that explained in detail.

Meaning that Christians are at far greater risk of being absorbed into the Australian culture of post-modernism, materialism and self-centred lifestyle than they are of having their faith destroyed by Muslims. It’s like the old frog-in-boiling-water analogy. Christianity thrives under persecution and opposition.

If it helps, this is what I was referring to when I said I agreed with Kevin:

the school was not for people in the area. They were going to bus/transport 900/1200 students in from OUTSIDE the local area. It was part of a development that does not serve the people who live IN the Camden area, and would negatively impact the area ( eg increased road transport and infrastructure costs would be needed ).

To me that is a perfectly reasonable objection to the building of the school.

You assume a lot Kevin. I’m deeply into modern building design and what holds them up ..........you see as my brother is a qualified civil engineer whos done such stuff in the past like the thompson tunnel etc and at the same time my sons business encompasses dropping a lot of these ‘modern’ buildings you speak of….....and adding to that the fact that I’ve been involved as the liase between these two guys and many councils in approvals to do the same. ......blahblah blah why do I defend myself I dfon’t know heheheee3e
Building office crap is second nature to me….....and my understanding of the same is also not too bad.

sorry if my language offends but I do think it accurate in this case .........you guys can’t understand unless it’s possible to convert them .......I hear it all the time here and wonder who gives you the right to only accept into your society those that you can convert. What’s with that??

Nick what you say about the roads etc wouldn’t be an issue if it was another St Stanislaus like bathurst nsw….....or another Rupertswood like in sunbury victoria.

.......anyway, got to go! .....the kids are hastling to launch some rockets…......and it’s raining again ;)

michael scull - 06 June 2009 09:41 AM

sorry if my language offends but I do think it accurate in this case .........you guys can’t understand unless it’s possible to convert them .......I hear it all the time here and wonder who gives you the right to only accept into your society those that you can convert. What’s with that??

Hi Michael, can I also just say that “you assume a lot”. I have never ever referred to what you are trying to allude to in the above. So please remember that these forums have dozens of contributors expressing their own individual views. Whilst some points may be held by many ( or a few ) - please remember that one shouldn’t tar everybody with the same brush. I guess that just means - please don’t over generalise and put words into other people’s mouths. We are all individuals ( as Monty Python reminded us ).

Cheers ;)

michael scull - 06 June 2009 09:45 AM

Nick what you say about the roads etc wouldn’t be an issue if it was another St Stanislaus like bathurst nsw….....or another Rupertswood like in sunbury victoria.

I don’t really know about the background of those schools. As I say, I’m neutral on the issue (increased traffic is hardly the end of the world to me) but I would have thought that the citizens of Camden would have a reasonable right to object on the basis of environmental issues.

Michael you are really showing your ignorance about the flood issues….about 12 years ago (going from memory) the state government declared some areas across the state as being flood zoned and took the matters out of local councils hands.
Many have tried to have the area re-zoned and failed… and one developer is sitting on 2000 acres of land which he wanted to subdivide and failed….though he fought it 3 times in the courts and each time failed for exactly the same reasons this school app failed.

Simply put, before the local protesters had even vocalised about it… the council had already rejected the application on the same basis as it had the other applications….they had no choice to reject it..as it was a state law making them have to reject it.

You can make it out to be something else all you like…but your talking utter nonsense.

That’s me .....always talking nonsense.
But also seems that no one can ever find a win/win in this stuff ......but maybe in this case it’s about the lack of “Want to!”
Of course using a plain that floods every 50 years for a school is something that has been done many many times over in australia and is sensible use of flood plains and incorporates flood control with surge areas to remove as much energy as posible from the flood.
Rupertswoods ovals and also all the schools on the yarra flood plain do the same…...it’s been a govt planning policy that was first instigated back when the MMBW was in full swing.
All through the burbs you can see this ......middleborough rd blackburn is a soccor ground that is a flood surge catchment and is how it’s done. Schools lend themselves to maintaining open areas of ovals and short cropped grass with no erosion to take these surges of water .......much better than inundating land that will subside. The community maybe could have grasped this opportunity to do something about their apparent flood problem and stop using it as an excuse to keep the development away.

It’s all about if a community ‘wants to!’  .....or not!

Hi michael… yes in some cases there are good uses for flood plains. Again your being pig headed and stubborn and wanting to read into something that just is not there.

The area in question is not under council rule for development as it came under the then Bob Carr’s leadership among other areas to be classified as a non development area full stop….therefore the local council had no other option but to refuse it, according to the legal requirements it is under.

Part of the state governments reasoning is the non development rural buffer also between sydney and country areas, partly because of the 50 / 100 year flood as well as being a native buffer strip that has part of the endangered cumberland forest through it.

The media has done a great job of not reporting the full facts about the issues at hand, rather wanting to make a emotional issue out of it.

I don’t think the media reporting were that bad - there was plenty of emotion to report on! Fred Nile and the CDP’s involvement (for one) was particularly appalling, as were the protestant ministers lining up against Muslims etc etc.

That said, I agree with others that the council is free to make whatever decision they like on planning grounds, and I don’t think there’s any conspiracy there. It was just unfortunate the issues between race and religion vs planning issues was so muddied, with the latter being hijacked for the former.