Rev Dr Margaret Court has been nominated as a National Living Treasure by the National Trust of Australia. 
Women’s Day website has a short-list of 100 nominees where you can vote for her.
Margaret Court is Australia’s most successful and celebrated tennis player of all time. No player in tennis history has ever surpassed her incredible record of 62 grand slam titles, in both singles and doubles. Margaret became a Christian while she was still the world’s best. In 1991 Margaret was officially ordained to ministry and a year later established her own outreach ministry Margaret Court Ministries Inc.
The National Trust of Australia (NSW) CEO Brian Scarsbrick, AM says“The title National Living Treasure is conferred when someone accomplishes an outstanding achievement, swelling the country’s consciousness with admiration, pride and acknowledgement.”
You can read more about Rev Dr Margaret Court at Victory Life Centre and Margaret Court Television.
Well done Margaret not only was she a sporting icon but also a prolific Australian in Public Life. She is certainly an outstanding Australian in this generation.
Shouldn’t a National Icon represent and be supportive of All Australians?
Quite right!
No, because, sadly, not all Australians advocate values and motives that are pure and by which the God’s name is upheld and our nation advanced. Those whose causes are destructive should not be supported.
Supportive doesn’t mean you have to agree about everything. You can care about someone enough to say “Please don’t drive without a seat belt.” or “Please don’t jump off the cliff”.
Definitely the most deserving of all the contenders. Seems to be the only high profile sportswoman and ‘celebrity’ who sticks her neck out for an extremely important moral issue. If one is to accept the figures given by the homosexual lobby that 60 % of Australians are for gay marriage (which I actually do not believe, and I am sure they do not either or they would be prepared to take this issue to an election) where are the 40% of other high profile people agreeing with Mrs Courts position?
Regardless of the outcome of the above poll, Mrs Court is a woman of extraordinary courage and conviction and deserves our support and prayers.
Under what circumstances should a National Living Treasure, defined as “someone swelling the country’s consciousness with admiration, pride and acknowledgement” be nominated based on for her prejudiced views on love, compassion and human equality:
In December 2011 Court publicly spoke out against same-sex marriage, stating that “Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take”.
While I am in awe of Ms. Court’s athletic accomplishments, it saddens me as an Australian that she is presented as a living treasure. Ms. Court perhaps the greatest accomplishment in one’s life is acceptance of EVERYONE!
Matt H, your own views and perspectives are made very clear here. You support the (approximately) 1.5% of Australians who engage in a gay lifestyle. Perhaps if you remove your blinkers and undertake some serious research you will discover that “gay” is realy a very poor description. Compared to others in society, homosexuals are statistically more likely to be much more promiscuous and therefore less faithful to the ‘partners’, more likely to conduct a variety of STD’s, more likely to be abused, have higher rates of depression and suicide, more likely to face social challenges such as violence and crime and others. Also very disturbingly, the more recent trend of some gays and gay rights groups to resort to overt vilification, as you have implied here, and in some cases, direct and serious crime and violence, in order to silence critics and promote their agendas. And we have not even mentioned moral issues yet.
Your implication that Dr. Court, or any other Christian person, should not be speaking their mind on issues such as homosexualty (among many others) is fundamentally incorrect for one profound reason – it is not their mind. What it is: is the word of God as contained in the inspired writings of Scripture. Dr. Court is saying nothing more than what God has said in the Bible, His word which has guided nations such as ours and others in the Western world to prosperous existances for hundreds of years. And very rightly so. And before you poo-poo that, have a look at other countries that have existed without Gods word for that time, then ask yourself where you would realy like to live. Do you seriously think you would have the freedom to express gay views or lifestyles in, for example, Saudi Arabia, a fundamentally islamic country (among many others)? Only in foundationaly Christian (Western) countrys do you have the freedoms to express these views, because true Christianity does not persicute.
Be thankful to God for what He has given to you, and seek to follow His teachings.
Matt, there is a difference between accepting everyone and accepting their sins. Anyone who holds God’s word dear will welcome homosexuals into their church and at the same time speak out against same sex marriage. If the Rev Dr Court had advocated that all homosexuals be rounded up into concentration camps then your concerns would be valid. If she simply disagrees with formally accepting their sins by recognising same sex marriage then you are clearly incorrect. I dare say you will find she also opposes marital infidelity and heterosexual couples engaging in sex before marriage because this is the example God’s word sets for us. You can rail against it all you like but that will not change something that is sinful to something that is right.
Fully agree. Well stated ONG.
I presume Ricki and Matt H your desire for acceptance of ‘EVERYONE’ includes your acceptance of those demanding polygamous marriages. Are there any limits to your ‘acceptance’ ? Is there any behaviour about which you have reservations ? Do you ‘draw any lines’ ? If so, on what basis ?
In response to Sam’s question to me:
The article above says that: “The title National Living Treasure is conferred when someone accomplishes an outstanding achievement, swelling the country’s consciousness with admiration, pride and acknowledgement.”
I agree wholeheartedly that she has accomplished an outstanding achievement with her tennis many years ago but she does not fulful the other parts of this definition in that she does not swell the country’s consciousness with admiration, pride and acknowledgement.” This isn’t my judgement of her these are her own words that preclude her from being a National Living Treasure. I wholeheartedly wish that she was someone that ALL Australians could feel a sense of admiration, pride and acknowledgement for her but that just isn’t the case. I sincerely hope that someday she truly is and then I too would wholeheartedly support her nomination.
My comment and concerns are in relation to the effect Margaret Court’s numerous comments in the media have had on the young people of Australia.
. [ACL MODERATOR : Your verballing of Margaret Court has been deleted]
These are not the words of someone who is a Natiional Living Trreasure that all Australians can look up to.
The point I am making is that someone who is a National Living Treasure should be someone that All Australians can identify with in some way and be inspired by and sadly that is not the case with Margaret Court…I wish it was, believe me.
My concerns stem from my background in counselling and youth work and seeing first hand the devastating effects that harmful words like those put about my Margaret Court in the media has on young people who are just discovering who they are and embracing their own unique individuality whatever that is.
@Sam – Frankly, I am baffled about why you even mention polygamous marriages or what that has to do with any of this as I have made no such reference in my comment so I simply don’t understand your presumption. Are you saying that Margaret Court is for polygamous marriages or something like that because of her religious beliefs…if so, then I did not know that but nevertheless that has no bearing on this discussion? I accept Margaret Court as a person and whatever her own personal circumstances are in life, they are of no concern to me.
I admire Margaret Court’s sporting prowess as a Tennis player and if this National Treasure nomination was based solely on that, I could understand it but in light of her own comments in the media…sadly, her own words show that she by definition is not a National Living Treasure because she does not respresent or identify with on some level..ALL Australians by her own choosing. Sadly, it is her own words that negate her from being a National Living Treasure and not anything I think or say can change that.
Sorry Ricki, Sam has made a fair point. Both Matt H and yourself say Margaret Court should accept ‘everyone’. With Australian gay rights activists advocating an expansion of the “definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models” http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44576.html and the polygamous supporters now demanding their relationships be accepted http://polyoz.net.au/ Sam is entitled to ask, “Are there any limits to your ‘acceptance’ ? Is there any behaviour about which you have reservations ? Do you ‘draw any lines’ ? If so, on what basis ?”
Many Australians are legitimately concerned about where this is going. Somewhere children seem to have fallen through the cracks in this proposed new world.
Saying you are ‘baffled’ by the mention of this, proves my point.
Margaret is not rejecting anyone. Let’s get this straight. She is saying we do not have the right to give rights that are not ours to give. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman – ordained by God at creation. To accept homosexual relationships as equal is an anathema to our very existance as male and female. Let them do as they will but don’t call it marriage.
I’m so over Christians thinking they have a moral “monopoly”. They don’t!.
Who you decide to worship is your business… and it’s a free country and everyone’s right to do so.
However, when you have a certain “group” of people telling others what is wrong or right according to their belief, we start to run into problems.
We all have the right to a happy life. As long as no one is hurting anyone, who really cares.
I understand Christians believe that they are doing what their god wants, but you need to understand without being offended, that I simply do not care for what your god says or what’s. I feel the same way about all gods.
If I can see it, If I can hear it, then I will believe it. Until that day, please tell your god to mind his own business.
Tell me you wouldn’t tell a neighbour the same thing that was continually telling you what to do on your own property.
We Share this world and need to start learning to live with one another. Let’s start by saying we all have equal rights, Christians and non-believers alike.
Jen, would you be so kind as to inform us as to exactly where you obtained the information that Christians have a “moral Monopoly”? True church attending Christians in Australia presently comprise approximately 6% of the population, hardly what you would call a monopoly.
As for deciding who to worship, you are quite correct. You can choose between worshipping God or, in many forms, worshipping the devil. Ultimately you will reap the rewards or the consequences of your choice, so choose wisely.
Now, as to your suggestion of a certain “group” of people telling others what is right and wrong, isn’t that exactly what you are doing in your writing above? Does that not make you equally guilty as those you are accusing?
Perhaps you would like to advise us of the manner in which you respond when gay rights groups, polygamist groups or other similar groups of people advocate their political and social agendas to you. Do you also tell them not to inflict their views upon you? Or is that a response that you reserve exclusively for groups who are trying to maintain levels of moral decency in this country, so as to maintain our and our childrens’ quality of life in the future?
You are saying that we all have the right to a happy life as long as no one else is hurting anyone. However you make a profoundly incorrect assumption. It is well established that the political activities and agendas of certain groups have the capacity to change society in a way that can seriously hurt many people. Consider, for example, the recently repealed Victorian racial vilification act. While it may have been introduced with good intentions, it was very effectively used by certain groups to silence their critics in ways which should never have been seen in this country. Consider the activities of the abortion lobby, and the thousands of unborn children who will never get a chance to see life through no fault of their own. And there are many other examples which demonstrates amply that the activities of minority groups have a profound capacity to affect, often in adverse ways, the majority. It has been often and correctly been said that those who do not oppose wrong are on the side of wrong. There is no middle ground. Silence implies consent. If we do not speak out against what we see as wrong and we’re equally as guilty of it is those who commit the wrong. This needs to be clearly understood. So by saying what you are saying above, are you suggesting that when one sees wrong, one should simply turn their head and look the other way? What sort of country do you think we would live in if everybody did that?
The results of these campaigns by different groups will affect the quality of life of every Australian in the future — including yours. If it is your choice to take an atheistic outlook on life and eternity, then that is your choice. However the consequences of the unchallenged activities of many groups seeking their own agendas, inconsistent with the moral and biblical securities that we have all grown up with, will affect your life and that of your children. You must understand that and ask yourself, “What sort of Australia do i want to leave for my children?” No, it is not just about you.
Because a person carries out an action which is unethical, immoral, against natural law or even contrary to the law of the land, does not mean that are not accepted or acknowledged as a person. It is their actions that are at fault. A murderer is still a human and given the rights in a court of law, but their actions are still wrong. A murderer has no right to do what they wish to another human, nor to push their beliefs onto the general public. The homosexual act is contrary to nature and should not be publicly accepted nor preached in human society even though it may be carried out in private. It is acts like this which has destroyed previous civilisations and this will do the same to ours unless we stop it.
excellent comment chris, thank God for Margaret court, it seems the political parties are ducking for cover along with most church leaders but as in history past there are always people with the courage to be true to their convictions and speek out against things that are evil and or damaging to the community, may Margarets courage inspire all of us to speek out for what is good and Godly, this country is based on christian principles, they have served us well these years, where else would you like to live that is better than Australia
What is she a doctor of?
See http://www.margaretcourt.org.au/profile.html
Re “[gays are] more likely to be abused, have higher rates of depression and suicide, more likely to face social challenges such as violence and crime and others.”
I wonder why…
U make a difference to many peoples lives & the community