Menu lock

Media

Aug 28, 2017

Greg Sheridan says God is dead, confusing God with his journalistic integrity

Greg Sheridan's turned the Oz into his own personal pulpit, but what he's preaching isn't news.

It’s only taken The Australian 50 years to catch up. “Is God Dead?” asks the headline on the cover story of its Inquirer section this weekend. In 1966, Time magazine used those same words — “Is God Dead?” — as the cover of its famous April 8 edition.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

13 comments

Leave a comment

13 thoughts on “Greg Sheridan says God is dead, confusing God with his journalistic integrity

  1. Barbara Haan

    Poor Gregorian Chant, life as he and his bestie, Tiny Atrocity know it is ending. Boo hoo!

  2. Decorum

    “Greg Sheridan says God is dead, confusing God with his journalistic integrity”. The big difference, though, is that plenty of people believe in the former.

    Actually, I think he’s quite right in some of the quotes extracted here, in particular in the notion that, “[a] culture without God will create different human beings.” That’s a good thing, but.

  3. John Newton

    David thank you for reading it, I zizzed off after one par

    1. Robert Smith

      Me too. You are a better man than me, Mr Salter.
      The Oz is conducting their campaign about “The War On Christianity” so it appears Sheridan has been delegated to produce this screed.
      You can say that Christianity has produced many good things in the world, but it has also been used to justify many bad things eg slavery, apartheid, expelling Jews from Spain etc. It is only some comfort to know the Christians opposed to slavery eventually overcame the Christians who supported it.

  4. klewso

    And what about the way Rupert and his Muppets eclipse the news?
    …… Won’t it be funny of St Peter’s wearing a “David Jones” keffiyeh?

  5. Nudiefish

    One of the greatest benefits of abandoning the Murdoch rags several years ago is that I am spared from the thoughts of one Greg Sheridan. I used to read his purple prose about the then current geopolitical situation and wonder if he was writing as a hostage of Kim Jong-il (yes, I stopped reading the Australian under the father’s rein).

    However, every so often I read something about Sheridan’s prose, like this, and I’m reminded of a video footage of a giraffe giving birth. There is something about that final, awkward, messy push at the end that makes me hope that the delivery was a safe one given the tremendous height of the birth canal.

  6. Tabot Retemt

    “Slaves became souls under the influence of Christianity.”
    Sometimes burning at the stake is the only means of saving the slaves of Satan.

  7. klewso

    It’s sort of quaint – their (Abbott, Sheridan, Shelton, Blot et al) monopoly on Christianity?

  8. Paul Trunoff

    Glanced at the article in the Oz this weekend. I cannot believe you have wasted time and space writing about it. Some years ago I used to read the Oz on weekends to get a view of sensible commentary on conservative politic thought in Australia. What a disappointment this weekend Inquirer was, the only article with any merit or erudition was Geoffrey Blainey’s.

  9. AR

    It wouldn’t be a problem if GogMagog stuck to the sectarian silliness and the earlier bits of the NT but unfortunately he has an almost pornographic predilection for the more blood curdling predictions in Revelations.

  10. klewso

    Last Wednesday he was on The Dum – imagine him arguing Labor’s right to ignore experts (Anglicare, St Vincent’s Hospital, Tas health, the Director of St Vincent’s Melbourne, the 2013 Government Senate Committee on Drugs – that this isn’t lekly to work), further stigmatise, scapegoat and experiment, to implement a policy that impugned the unemployed in certain areas, to drug tests to qualify for welfare??????
    Because that’s just what he did there – except, of course, it was his Limited News Party government’s right to do it …… even though it’s not his “policy area”?
    Then, after Trump’s last horror week, which included his “reply” to what happened in Charlottesville, when he was buried under that avalanche backlash to his choice of sentiment : when he announced his “policy” on Afghanistan, that’s all about “what’s changed markedly about Trump”?
    Couldn’t possibly be about Trump’s form :- for opening a diversionary front when he’s in the shit?
    Because, the day after, Trump had “markedly changed” back to old Donald – dumping on his GOP comrades Ryan and McConnell?

    1. klewso

      My mistake, twas last Tuesday (Aug; 22) of course (2:30 am replay).