Every time Tony Abbott goes to Mass, does he not make the same invocations and acknowledgments week after week, month after month, year after year (''Welcome to country 'tokenistic' for Labor'', March 16)? And for what purpose? To deepen his understanding of the debt he owes to his God. The church understands the need to repeat the messages in the Mass so that ordinary mortals will not forget to take them into account in their conduct towards one another. In a similar way, this is the point of the acknowledgement of indigenous owners at public functions. It's so we don't forget our relationship with them and the debt we owe indigenous Australians, even when we can't necessarily see them around us. Advertisement: Story continues below So why is Mr Abbott really saying the acknowledgment of indigenous ownership amounts to formalism and tokenism and should not be ''overused''? He, who of all people you would expect to understand the significance of rituals, is showing us he will say and do anything to garner votes from whatever disreputable source to win this year's federal election. Justin Holmwood Asquith Designating something ''politically correct'' is an easy excuse for not doing what you didn't want to do in the first place. The question is: why not? To acknowledge the traditional owners of the land is to confirm a matter of historical fact in a polite and respectful manner. Politeness and respect are evidenced in our society with numerous traditional greetings and statements that could just as readily be denigrated as tokenism. Does Tony Abbott refuse to say ''How're you going, mate?'' or ''That was a lovely meal'' because it has been said so often that it could be perceived as insincere and tokenistic? I think not. So what is his real objection? He cannot deny the fact of prior Aboriginal possession. Is he not comfortable with speakers showing respect to Aboriginal people on formal occasions? Tamsin Clarke Bundeena Tony Abbott has long held the view that he should disrespect traditional landowners by not Rosetta Stone Arabic acknowledging them at official events. During the last federal election campaign, he started his speech at Ryde TAFE, in the electorate of Bennelong, by saying, ''I'd like to acknowledge John Howard as the traditional owner of this land.'' Let's hope he joins Mr Howard on the political scrapheap. Teresa Russell Putney Tony, don't stop at Welcome to Country. There are also the tokenistic Lord's Prayer at the beginning of Parliament and the national anthem at sporting events. John Truman Chatswood There are few times I agree with anything Wilson Tuckey says but his views on the so-called indigenous ''welcome ceremonies'' are spot on. I have seen a number of these ceremonies and every time I get the distinct impression I need to feel guilty for being in my own country. Well, guess what? I don't. Norman Arnott Forestville When Wilson Tuckey was making his comment about overweight Aborigines, the camera panned back so that we could see him - it was not a pretty picture. John Moseley Newcastle Reasoned debate needs the patience of a saint In his call for reasoned debate, Neil Ormerod (Letters, March 16) seems to have overlooked the fact that his entire field is based on faith which, by definition, disregards evidence. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is an eminent practitioner in science, where reasoned debate is the standard mode of discourse and demonstrable truth the highest value. When reasoned debate is confronted by unreasonable faith, it is hardly surprising that the standard of the discussion is lowered. But to blame the reasoned debater for that outcome is surely unfair. Laurie McGinness Mona Vale Neil Ormerod says ridicule does not pass for reasoned argument when it comes to considering candidates for sainthood, yet considers a reasoned argument to be: ''If medicine can't yet account for it, it must have been God.'' Ridicule is exactly what he should expect.
