Bye Bye Brethren
Definitely a case of better (slightly) late than never, Don Brash has ruled out further meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, saying they crossed a line in their use of a private detective.
Yay!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: National
September 26th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Don Brash is meant to be the leader of the National party and a leader is meant to do just that, lead. Looks like Don was the last to come to the conclusion that is was time for National to break ties with the Brethren. What does that say about Don’s ability as a leader?
September 26th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Indeed. What a wally though. My heart sank as he said on Agenda that he’ll continue to meet with the Brethren. Otherwise, I thought it was a pretty good interview against a clearly biased host.
Still, he is National’s version of Minister BooBoo…
September 26th, 2006 at 8:15 am
“Yay!”
That’s pathetic. This whole anti-Brethren campaign is most definitely something out of the primary school playground. About time you, the media, and all the idiots who got sucked into the Media & Labour party spin, grew up and started picking on someone your own size.
In one breath you call our government corrupt, then in the next you condemn a group who not only agree with you, but actually do something about it.
This will come back to bite the liberal wing of the National party hard in the arse. You cannot stop someone from liking you, not matter how much you try and disassociate yourself from them. Especially Christians, with their virtues of grace and forgiveness.
This disassociation will not stop the Brethren from campaigning against Labour and supporting National, and as long as they do the media will accuse Brash of accommodating them and meeting with them.
The Brethren have pledged to do more of the same at the next election.
And frankly, I couldn’t care less if The Brethren cost National the election. For it was not The Brethren who cost them, but rather the prejudices, and gullibility to media influence, of potential voters.
If only our politicians were first of all principled human beings, and then politicians. If only populism and political pragmatism were always secondary to ethics, rather than being worshipped by yourself and the other Nats who are anti-Brethren.
Do you actually know what the Brethren are campainging for? They not campaigning that all women wear headscarves, and no men wear ties. They’re campaigning for economic decentralisation, they’re campaigning against abuse of the welfare state, and social engineering. Their policies are more classic National Party than yours Mr Farrar.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:23 am
The Brethren are welcome to campaign for whatever they want. However they should do it openly and they should do it without hiring private detectives.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:33 am
According to Marion Maddox (“God Under Howard” and NatRadio this morning) Exclusive Brethren aren’t going away — they will bide there time until the Second Coming occurs.
They will latch on to another political party as a front — and I pick that United Future will get tainted.
Re their “investments” in political agenda, think how a certain commercial property owner ousted
Rob Muldoon.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Chesswas is only partly right. I doubt that the Brethren’s cost National the election. There are so many factors as to why National got pipped at the post that you can’t single out one incident. National was so far behind in 2002 that it may simply have just not looked like it was ready for government – that’s my pick for why the final 5% didn’t come over to National for a new government.
But let’s get one thing right, the Brethren didn’t campaign FOR anything, they campaigned AGAINST something – Labour and the Greens. They went out with pamphlets that were negative towards the Green policies for the most part. Chesswas couldn’t be more incorrect in his above statement.
David Farrar has it right in that the Brethrens went from being an interest group with a right to campaign against the left on policy and the country’s direction to a group that engaged in underhand activity to find out information of a personal matter through private investigators.
I found myself nodding in agreement with the old saying “I don’t like what you say, but will defend your right to say it” when thinking about the Brethrens initial activity. But the use of investigators to find out personal information to use against political figures simply confirms the worst prejudices that are held about the EBs. And how unchristian it looks to hire spies to find out about the personal behaviours of politicians and their spies – I see little of Chesswas’ grace in their actions there.
Brash was quite right to draw the line – I only wish he had done it a week earlier.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:41 am
About time, perhaps we can now get back to discussing real issues.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Brash should have smelled this clandestine outfit were trouble right from the start. This might well have stuffed things for him. I would not be stunned if Don gets replaced today but if and only if there is a consensus developed around John Key.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:47 am
“Dunedin private eye Wayne Idour revealed on Friday Mr Parker was one of four cabinet ministers targeted by him and another investigator hired by the Brethren.
The detectives were instructed to find any instances of illegal behaviour.”
http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11981-6348256,00.html
1) Who here agrees with Don Brash that something smells corrupt about the Labour Party?
2) Who here has noticed that almost every member at the top of the Labour Party list has done something illegal or close to it in their time in power?
3) Who would agree it is undesirable to entertain criminals as politicians?
4) Who would agree that if there is reason to believe a politician is corrupt and involved in illegal behaviour it would be wise to investigate them?
5) Who realises our police are too corrupt to do this?
I thank God for the Exclusive Brethren. What they are doing is not immoral. They are endeavouring to expose corruption and injustice.
Jesus and the Old Testament prophets would be proud.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:54 am
That was Jesus alright, who can forget the famous passage in the gospels when he publishes pamphlets under a false name attacking the Romans and the time he went through Pontius Pilate’s dustbins looking for dirt.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Weak and hopeless, demonstrating the intellectual slackness, the lack of intuition regarding political strategy and in the end, just plain gutlessness and inarticulateness of the National Party. This is a strategic victory for Labour. As for Brash’s apologies concerning his comments on Maori and Muslims.. JEZUZZZ thats it. Apologize apologize apologize..!!! Can he do anything else??? For fuck’s sake fire the useless bastard. Such a weak dissembling media cowed apologist can whistle for my vote. When you say something, you stick by it, and if you want to be some kind of weak vacillating left wing media toady Don, bending in the slightest breeze, then go and join some other party. You’d be a good mate for that simpering sanctimonious panty waisted blowhard Dunne..
September 26th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Sonic is right (you could have knocked me down with a bulldozer).
PAY IT BACK!
And people think Don took too long.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Sonic
“That was Jesus alright, who can forget the famous passage in the gospels when he publishes pamphlets under a false name attacking the Romans and the time he went through Pontius Pilate’s dustbins looking for dirt”
LOL. That is very good. Biblical references are to be encouraged.
Brash did well on Morning Report and provided some clarity on the relationship between the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party. Likewise the Exclusive Brethren Elder who while not interviewed on air was quoted extensively.
They were naïve in seeking the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer on the affect of their activities on National’s obligations. The Ministry of Justice is terrified of any new developments like the activities Exclusive Brethren because it results in pressure to change the Electoral Act. Thus they are likely to be very broad in the way they interpret the Act.
On the evidence of what was said by Brash and the Exclusive Brethren Elder they were unlikely to be acting with the authority of National and therefore an agent of National for the purposes of the Electoral Act in terms of their spending. We will of course never know for certain as the timeframe for legally testing this is past.
The bottomline is that the Exclusive Brethren like anyone else can disagree with the Government of the day and advocate for lawful political change. They were probably unwise to deploy private investigators, but that does not alter the fact that they can exercise their basic right of the freedom of expression.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:13 am
AJ, if you think what the Brethren did is OK, perhaps you won’t mind if in the next election anonymous influence groups spend millions dissing National, lying about who they are, and hiring PIs to sift through National member’s private lives?
That you don’t care if they did lose National the election is a fascinating statement. For you, it’s more important that the Brethren have a right to their smear job and their dirty tricks than that they actually get what they want. Or what the millions that voted National would want either.
Is this a martyr thing? You’d like to see National crucified at the polls, so they can rise to heaven and save us all from our political sin of being a percentage point or two left of Brash.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 am
“AJ, if you think what the Brethren did is OK, perhaps you won’t mind if in the next election anonymous influence groups spend millions dissing National, lying about who they are, and hiring PIs to sift through National member’s private lives?”
Am I meant to disagree with this assertion. You are quite right. If there is dirt to be dug on the MPs representing me then dig it. I don’t want to be represented by the types of corrupt representatives Labour supporters seem to be happy with. The only reason people like Farrar feel uncomfortable with this sort of scrutiny is because they are equally scared of being “found out” for their corrupt motives. And if people want to lie and smear MPs it will be plain as day to the thinking citizen, as they won’t have proof for their allegations. I will do all I can to help my fellow citizens take a more critical approach to news media and spin doctors.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Dr Don took his time …. yes. I think I know why.
There are two reasons why you change tack in politics —- either you are found out telling lies, or you are found out for witholding information from your colleagues. Brash is guilty of the latter.
I have strange misgivings about his decision to cut himself off from extra funding, even if strings were attached. He could (as he did) take the money and run with it. Then ignore the reasons for the donation.
Or is the real reason the disclosure (as yet not verified) that private investigators were hired by the Exclusive Brethren? So what? Conspiracy Theories 101 teaches that mud sticks and stays around for a very long time.
Bob Jones didn’t make this tactical mistake — he was completely up front as to his intentions to get rid of Muldoon, and succeeded.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:35 am
As much as I’m happy that by denouncing the EB National has cut off an avenue of attack from Labour, I do feel this was a victory too Labour.
The entire EB issue has been a beat-up by the media & Labour from the outset.
The only thing the National Party & the EB have in common is a desire to get rid of Labour. Other than that there is no connection. So Don Brash ruling out any formal contact with the EB is neither here nor there because the EB are still going to campaign to get rid of the Labour govt. Nothings changed.
The only difference being that National can no longer accept EB volunteer help.
Ok, let me put it this way; how could the EB have spent $500,000 to get rid of the Labour govt. without appearing to support National? The consequence of campaigning against Labour is that it inevitably supports National.
So given that the EB are going to do exactly the same next election, I ask again, what’s changed? – Nothing.
This is a victory to Labour spin.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:45 am
You’re right, NX, those hearts and minds Brash wins for excluding the Brethren will be lost again next time the EB campaign and the media rekindle the connection with National. And they don’t need facts for this to effectively win the hearts and minds of a paranoid and religiously prejudiced constituency.
So while National may have picked up in the estimations of gullible and prejudiced anti-Christians, they have certainly dropped in the estimations of conservatives such as myself who are, like The Brethren, concerned about the corruption that appears inherent to our current government. He has only shown just how full of fear and corruption his own party is, and how necessary it is for principled and conservative National supporters to raise their voice.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
So while National may have picked up in the estimations of gullible and prejudiced anti-Christians, they have certainly dropped in the estimations of conservatives such as myself who are, like The Brethren, concerned about the corruption that appears inherent to our current government.
AJ, perhaps you should visit the ABC Four Corners website and read the transcript of last night’s programme and view the interviews.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1746895.htm
The Exclusive Brethren is a malign organisation which has brutalised families, driven ex-members to suicide and, by the account of former members, covered up child sexual abuse and engaged in money-laundering.
If you believe objecting to that is “anti-Christian prejudice” then it is your own values that are sorely astray.
I don’t doubt DPF’s relief at Brash being finally forced to stop playing with these people, nor that of his caucus, but I think his conduct with respect to the Brethren speaks of the most appalling judgement.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I’m aware of Ngaire Thompson’s testimony, and as I have said I don’t agree with the degree to which they take separatism. But that is a whole other issue to their support of good (National’s) policies, and their hiring of a private detective to try and pinpoint the corruption of our current government.
Now while I’m aware of the likes of Mrs Thompson, the majority of New Zealanders seeing all this in the media probably aren’t, and are prejudiced against the EBs because, like Mr Mallard, they see them as a “wierd sect of cninless scarfwearers”, and are both afraid of and scornful of their apparent religiosity.
If their church practices are abusive and exploitative then this does need to be exposed and dealt with. However if they can help to promote good policy, and to expose corrupt government practices, then that should be applauded.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Russell Brown continues in standard left wing media mode. Anyone who openly opposes socialism must be smeared. Even being so out of touch with public sentiment he still thinks the ABC and Four Corners in particular have any credibility with the public. These are allegations right? Where’s the proof? Secondly, Brash has not acknowledged these allegations as his reasons for issuing the statements but (as far as I know) specified the reason as the Brethren’s secretive political strategy, which to me seems like a pretty weak excuse.
I agree with the posters above who say this whole Exclusive Brethren thing was a leftist beat up to distract from the stolen money scandal and the Nats and Brash have handled it like political novices. When are they going to get some nous?? …and grow a spine?? I say the problem with the Nats is the front bench. They have to be replaced.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Yes Russell Brown attacks the Exclusive Brethren in torrid terms. The are the bogeyman of world politics causing alarm from the left worldwide. They are a danger to public health.
Get a grip.
The basic point Mr Brown is that I can judge for myself the worth of their public policy ideas just like I judge yours.
I do not need you or the Labour Party to determine what information I consider and what weight I put on it when making up my mind about whom to vote for.
That is it in a nutshell. I support a civil society where many voices (some of whom I strongly disagree with) can be heard. The virtue flows not necessarily from the ideas expressed or the people concerned but rather the freedom to express them.
I am strongly object to beating up on any group because one doesn’t like their views. But keep doing it because attacking the Exclusive Brethren seems to be rebounding on Labour.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“If their church practices are abusive and exploitative then this does need to be exposed and dealt with.”
But it seems only this particular Christian sect would be thusly exposed and dealt with. What about other religious sects that make their women wear head and/or total body coverings, make arranged marriages and keep to themselves? Should they not also be exposed? Or is it really only attacking Labour that is the crime here?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
AJ, perhaps you’d like to post where it is you live and what you do for a living so Labour can hire some PIs to stake you out too? Just in case you’re up to something ‘corrupt’. By your reasoning that would be a valiant action, totally moral, because if you had something to hide then everyone should know about it.
Also, following your reasoning, Brash’s affair should have been public knowledge from day one, so that people who might have voted for him on family values could make a more informed decision about his true committment to said principles?
Once again your touch with reality is shaky. Your crusade against premarital sex, which broke all thread records on this site, is agreed with by very few, and your apparent relish in character politics, so long as it’s not against anyone you support, is quite frankly sanctimonious and hypocritical.
If this results from your ‘religiosity’, and I put it to you that it does, then it is small wonder that the majority of NZers have no time for your kind of thinking.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
September 26th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
“The Exclusive Brethren is a malign organisation which has brutalised families, driven ex-members to suicide and, by the account of former members, covered up child sexual abuse and engaged in money-laundering.”
Really?
Some credible evidence would be nice. I know its kind of annoying having to prove allegations, but some of us prefer to make up our own minds based on that stuff called evidence.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Here you go PDQ, site written by ex-members of the EB.
http://peebs.net/
September 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
PDQ
I’m all for the idea of credible evidence of the EB engaging in money laundering and covering up child sexual abuse as well!.
I’m curious to understand your credibility test though, I would have thought that first-hand testimony of former members, including former leaders, would stand up in most peoples eyes as reasonably credible.
Certainly under most western judicial systems this sort of first hand testimonial evidence would at least see a day in court.
Didn’t watch the interviews, eh?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
What was it about the material RB linked to that you didn’t find credible?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Some credible evidence would be nice. I know its kind of annoying having to prove allegations, but some of us prefer to make up our own minds based on that stuff called evidence.
The money-running allegation comes in some detail from the former head of the Australian branch of the Brethren, who says he carried out such jobs on multiple occasions. That would seem to me to be fairly strong witnessing.
The other stories, and they are heartbreaking, come from former sect members, who in most cases grew up with the church.
As I said, perhaps you should visit the website, read the transcript and view the interviews and make up your own mind whether these people – and the many others who have given similar accounts – are inventing their entire life stories, or whether, in fact, they are telling the truth. It would seem a more productive use of your time than simply ranting on the basis of your own prejudice.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
For a discussion by supposedly intelligent but opposing views I find a rather disturbing consensus forming. That is that the EB’s are bad, bad, bad because of their religious practices, their secrecy, their treatment of women, their treatment of children, their ability to generate wealth, their employment of PIs, a whole host of reasons have recently been discovered to vilify them and generate a whole lot more heat than light over them.
What is missing however is the reason why the campaign against them actually started – they opposed Labour in the last election.
Now by all means boys and girls lets have a session on why we dislike the Bretheren but fundamentally do not mix it up with a cynical and viscious campaign by Labour to use them as a political weapon to try and beat National about the head with.
The public in general will not perceive that the sentiment “EB’s are bad” was coined long before the reasons were found to justify it
September 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
OOOPS, they actually opposed the Greens but that was taken to be support of National anyway .. well you know what I mean (I hope)
September 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Andrei: First They Came for the Jews …
Andrei, I respect your belief and the way you express it, but if I read you right, you are saying that no one can criticise a church without heading down the road to tyranny.
The people giving these disturbing accounts are, by and large, still Christian believers. They’re just free of a nasty organisation, and free to talk about what was done to them. Where do their rights fit in your scheme?
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Now by all means boys and girls lets have a session on why we dislike the Bretheren but fundamentally do not mix it up with a cynical and viscious campaign by Labour to use them as a political weapon to try and beat National about the head with.
$1.2m
September 26th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
What is missing however is the reason why the campaign against them actually started – they opposed Labour in the last election.
Well, hardly. Unless you believe that Helengrad is directing the Australian media too. If the EB’s actions conformed to the image it projects, there would be no story. But its actions should be disturbing to anyone with a sense of decency.
Yep, Labour raising the Brethren issue in the first place was an attempt at spin by distraction. But there’s a real story here, and I’m disturbed by the willingness of some people to just look the other way.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“What was it about the material RB linked to that you didn’t find credible?”
What parallel universe do you leftys live in? Are you seriously saying you have no knowledge whatsoever of the ABC’s left wing bias and this programs bias in particular? Good grief, nobody but a bloody fool or an unaware leftist drongo would accept anything from the ABC as worth more than a pinch of goat shit..
I’m prepared to accept that there could be a few dubious issues in respect of what goes on in these kind of extreme religious groups, but there’s no way I’m ever going to accept as credible anything on such an issue from the religion hating Marxists running the ABC.
Mr. Brown and his hard left ilk need to accept the fact that those dark days when they enjoyed an undeserved level of credibility amongst the public are long over. You can only fool some of the people some of the time, and now, RB and his partisan colleagues (such as the ABC) are suffering the backlash they deserve for decades of left wing bullshit disguised as objective reporting.
The Museum of Broadcast Communications- “Four Corners has consistently been accused of political bias, particularly of a left-wing orientation, and for failing to abide by the ABC’s charter which requires “balance” in the coverage of news and current affairs.”
September 26th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I’m sorry Russell, but allegations and hearsay are not evidence.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
“religion hating Marxists running the ABC’
Quite insane.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I’m sorry Russell, but allegations and hearsay are not evidence.
IANAL, but I think you’ll find that first-hand accounts by credible witnesses have been known to carry some weight in the courts.
But I’m a loss as to what you would consider “evidence” in cases like this. Go on, have a look at the interviews. Then come back and tell me they’re all lying.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
RB
Yes, there are good reasons to dislike EB’s but what I was trying to get at is thhe way the spin has morphed into another whole story that deserves airing in its own right. When the nastiness started, most of what we would call “good reasons to dislike” were not known or public, there was just a general “anti” feeling around. I would have to say that if you put the same level of focus on pretty much any church organisation or secret society you would find some matters coming out of the woodwork as the hysteria built up. Where is this going? I’m not sure but I would still maintain that we have all been played like a fiddle by the PM spin machine on this one.
Cretean
Who spent $1.2m?
Who am I (or you for that matter) to tell anyone how to spend their own money or is the concept of private wealth abhorrent to you?
You should possibly be grateful that they spent whatever they spent so ineptly, it could have been so much more damaging.
Pledge Card?
$800K?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Now I’m really curious. Which part of the interviews – almost all of which are first-hand eye-witness accounts – do you consider ‘hearsay’?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
ChesswasBut that is a whole other issue to their support of good (National’s) policies, and their hiring of a private detective to try and pinpoint the corruption of our current government.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The United Kingdom was allied to the USSR during WWII to fight a common foe. That didn’t mean the UK approved of the Gulag or was responsible for any of the ghastly things that went on in the USSR. Nor is National responsible for the EB hiring the PI & the EBs other faults.
The fact is the EB are going to keep on campaigning against Labour, the difference now being that National & the EB have to look the other way while they do it.
Ridiculous – score one to Labour.
RedbaiterNats and Brash have handled it like political novices. When are they going to get some nous?? …
What….. like the sort of nous that Helen Clark has? Please no.
The reason why Dr. Brash is in this mess is because he openly admits to saying ‘go for it’ when the EB announced they wanted to attack Labour. Now that’s being honest. I’d hate to think what Clark would’ve done.
Dr. Bash shouldn’t have needed to renounce the EB because he has NO responsibility over what they do, but by doing so Labour have succeed in tying the EB politically to National when they are really two separate groups who both hate Labour.
Dr. Brash has succumbed to the political pressure from his own team to renounce a group that attacks Labour which he was no control of. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it. & for that reason for the first time Brash has lowered in my expectation.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Danyl, the accounts appear on a website and therefore the website is hearsay evidence of third party accounts and allegations.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Er,have I missed something? P.I. Wayne Idour says he was hired by the E.B.’s, indirectly. The only members of the E.B’s I’ve seen quoted in the media so far, actually deny that they would have done such a thing. Who’s got the evidence on which these people are being disbelieved and implied to be not telling the truth? What if the P.I. is mistaken?
And whatever one or some members of a religious group might have done, should M.P.’s have a list of them all and check it every time they’re asked for an audience by any unidentified member of the public, and decline to see anyone who appears on the E.B. list?
What’s the right name for this?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Tell me pdq – where do you get your news from? Is there any kind of mass medium in which information can be transfered that does not change an eye-witness account into ‘hearsay’ under your definition?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Im waiting for someone to offer a pile of cash to the Mongrel Mob to campaign for the Socialists at the next election. I can just see the billboards now.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
BEN;
“AJ, perhaps you’d like to post where it is you live and what you do for a living so Labour can hire some PIs to stake you out too? Just in case you’re up to something ‘corrupt’. By your reasoning that would be a valiant action, totally moral, because if you had something to hide then everyone should know about it.”
Again, am I supposed to disagree with this? If I was wielding the sort of power that MPs wield I would totally welcome anyone to come along and be my lackie for a week or two to make sure I was straight. It’s called a clean conscience. Surely the expectation for MPs to have a clear conscience is not untreasonable.
“Also, following your reasoning, Brash’s affair should have been public knowledge from day one, so that people who might have voted for him on family values could make a more informed decision about his true committment to said principles?”
Absolutely. You’re reading me like a book!
“Once again your touch with reality is shaky. Your crusade against premarital sex, which broke all thread records on this site, is agreed with by very few,”
Prove it
“and your apparent relish in character politics, so long as it’s not against anyone you support, is quite frankly sanctimonious and hypocritical.”
Show me where I have double-standards when it comes to the character of people I support vs people I oppose. See Sir Humphrey’s for my disdain of Brash’s recent actions. And as I said, I would even subject myself to scrutiny if necessary. It’s called transparency and accountability, two of the key virtues the reforms of the 4th Labour government were meant to bring about.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Russell
“It would seem a more productive use of your time than simply ranting on the basis of your own prejudice.”
I do not hold prejudices and I was not ranting.
Had you predicated your original comments with the words “In my opinion …” you wouldn’t find me taking issue with those comments. Instead you allege serious criminal activity based on allegations and hearsay. I would have thought your Investigate magazine printer issue would have caused more caution.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Er,have I missed something? P.I. Wayne Idour says he was hired by the E.B.’s, indirectly. The only members of the E.B’s I’ve seen quoted in the media so far, actually deny that they would have done such a thing. Who’s got the evidence on which these people are being disbelieved and implied to be not telling the truth? What if the P.I. is mistaken?
You’ve missed heaps. Idour only stopped lying about it after an EB leader confirmed the story when pressed by TVNZ:
“A senior member of the religious sect, Phil Win, has confirmed in a taped conversation with One News that Private Investigator Wayne Idour, and another detective, were hired to delve into the affairs of key figures in the Labour Party.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/834547
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Had you predicated your original comments with the words “In my opinion …” you wouldn’t find me taking issue with those comments. Instead you allege serious criminal activity based on allegations and hearsay.
What I actually said was that the sect has “by the account of former members, covered up child sexual abuse and engaged in money-laundering.”
As I said, I’m not sure what you do consider evidence, given that you now seem to believe that any account printed or communicated by electronic means is automatically hearsay.
Now, perhaps we could get back to the original point, which was that being suspicious of this sect is not a matter of “anti-Christian prejudice”. For goodness sake, the people who have been hurt by this organisation are Christians themselves.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Russell Brown:
“By the account of former members [The Exclusive Brethren], covered up child sexual abuse and engaged in money-laundering.”
Then these individuals should lay a complaint with the Police. Alternatively the Police can investigate.
What is even more suspicious than the nature of the Exclusive Brethren is why figures of the left would be using this stuff NOW. My my I wonder what is going on in New Zealand that would warrant the leftwing focusing on the behaviour of the Exclusive Brethren?. And in Australia of all places!!!!
What would warrant changes to Industrial Law? What would warrant public enquiries? What would warrant changes to the Electoral Act. What warrants a full government focus on the activities of this particular religious group.
The Exclusive Brethren here appear to be the representatives or responsible for the Exclusive Brethren in Australia or the activities of the Plymonth Brethren in Sweden.
What if I said that Mr Brown is responsible for Hugh Chevez or the lying Socialist Premier of Hungary? They are after all his ideological fellow travellers. There is a connection between them. Deny it.
Of course what looks like an orchestrated campaign to demonise them is in fact just that. When Politicians and political classes do this it is always a very bad sign.
The bottomline is that however bad the New Zealand Exclusive Brethren may or may not be (or the Australian Brethren or British Plymouth Brethren) they are free to advocate for lawful political change.
If Mr Brown has any evidence of a crime being committed in New Zealand by the Exclusive Brethren he should go to the Police. If indeed there is a crime committed in Australia then that does not make members of the Exclusive Brethren Church in New Zealand responsible.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Russell
Ignore pdq’s comments. His/her accounts appear on a website and therefore are hearsay
September 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
What is even more suspicious than the nature of the Exclusive Brethren is why figures of the left would be using this stuff NOW.
Er, because it was on TV last night?
The Exclusive Brethren here appear to be the representatives or responsible for the Exclusive Brethren in Australia or the activities of the Plymonth Brethren in Sweden.
No, they all answer to the same sect leader, the Sydney-based “Elect Vessel”.
And because you clearly haven’t bothered to view the programme material, I feel bound to point out the one of the most moving interviews on the programme was with Selwyn Wallace, a man who grew up under the yoke of the Brethren leadership here, in New Zealand. His observation on leaving the fold:
“They’ll destroy you spiritually, emotionally, financially until there’s nothing left.”
What if I said that Mr Brown is responsible for Hugh Chevez or the lying Socialist Premier of Hungary? They are after all his ideological fellow travellers. There is a connection between them. Deny it.
Oh yes. Perhaps I should have said that while I may previously have given the impression that I regard Mr Chavez as a populist with dangerously dictorial tendencies, I in fact regard him as God’s personal messenger on Earth and do everything he says.
Anyway, this has become yet another pointless and circular Kiwiblog thread. So I’ll state my point one last time: to be deeply suspicious of the EB leadership is not “anti-Christian prejudice”, it is a rational response to the evidence.
Cheers,
RB
September 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Russell Brown
Following a rant which defends collective responsibility and the capability of this Protestant Sect (on Mr Brown’s theological expertise on who speaks for God) he gets to the nub:
“I’ll state my point one last time: to be deeply suspicious of the EB leadership is not “anti-Christian prejudice”, it is a rational response to the evidence.”
And I’ll state my point one last time be even more suspicious that the political left are pre occupied with all things Exclusive Brethren at the moment – it is an attempt to demonise this group because the had they audacity to involve themselves in politics.
Rather than taking issue with what they said it is easier to attack those who say it. Not are they now guilty of a lack of judgement on deployment PI’s they are actually part of the worldwide criminal conspiracy.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
And to be deeply suspicious of EB leadership does not preclude one from defending their right to free speech, to reading their pamphlets with an open mind, and to defending their right to investigate a government we all suspect is corrupt.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
And AJ, it does not also does not preclude us from asking the important questions about this group.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
AJ, if you don’t ‘disagree with this’, then post your address, picture, employment details and CV right here, right now on this thread. I dare you to show us how clean as a whistle you are, and unafraid of people stalking you for dirt.
Not that I’m offering to stalk you, nothing would bore me more. But I’m hoping you will get the point that people have private lives for a reason.
You may be a lost cause on this point though, being quite literally a person without any colour in their life of any kind at all, who expects everyone else to be the same. I personally doubt it, I bet you have some secret you’re embarrassed about, either past or present.
I’m glad to hear you’re at least consistent if you slammed Brash one twentieth as hard as you tried to slam the boob parade. But you ain’t getting me to Sir Humphrey’s, no sir. This site is more than wingnut enough for my liking. Slam him here, if that’s really your bag. And I’ll tell you you’re a sanctimonious so-and-so for that too.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
No Russell what you said was:
“The Exclusive Brethren is a malign organisation which has brutalised families, driven ex-members to suicide”. Then you went on to say “and, by account … blah blah, this is all third hand stuff not about NZ EB but I’ll say it anyway”
Which is why your first statement should have been predicated it with “In my opinion …”.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no defender of the EB, I just don’t like seeing any minority being demonised for political purposes.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
I totally understand why you wouldn’t want to go near Sir Humphreys. If I spouted half the crap you spout I certainly wouldn’t try fotting it on a blog where thought, reason, principles and morality are actually valued.
As for my personal details, you could pick them up in 5 minutes if you ventured out from the liberosphere, onto my blog, and followed the right links. Oldfriends.com is essentially a CV.
Sure, there are things in my past I’m ashamed of but I’d admit to them to anyone. It’s called being human, and having faith that other people can handle you being human. However right now in my life there is nothing I am ashamed of other than before God. It’s called repentance.
Been having a personal revival of Calvinism and realising just how foreign and impossible such a virtue can sound to the unregenerate. But surely we cannot expect anything less from people in positions of power, especially in a democracy.
“I dare you to show us how clean as a whistle you are, and unafraid of people stalking you for dirt”
“people have private lives for a reason”
“You may be a lost cause on this point though, being quite literally a person without any colour in their life of any kind at all”
Essentially what you’re saying is that unless you are doing something corrupt, then you don’t have a private life, and you lack colour. You expect everyone, including politicians, to be corrupt for the sake of having a private life and having some colour.
Seriously, go try out that logic at Sir Humphreys and see how far you get.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
No, AJ, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that you have no right to know about a lot of things that I wish to keep private. It’s a pretty simple point, but you are incredibly obtuse, so it has to be made. Go on, tell me something about yourself that you’re ‘ashamed’ about. No, really make your point and tell me ten.
Sure, there are some things that ought to come out even if I wish they didn’t, such as breaking serious laws. But short of that, digging into people’s private lives is simply a sick form of power, that you seek to wield. It is a way of intimidating people, particularly when it is done in secret, and for that purpose. No good comes in societies where people wield that kind of power.
Your self-confessed virtue does sound nearly impossible. But more importantly, it sounds *pointless*. Since democracy is about representing humans, not just un-unregenerate people (who, like the EB, often refuse to be represented anyway), then unregenerate people probably make quite good representatives. Within reason – if they’re unregenerate for sins that surpass the average person, perhaps they shouldn’t be leading us. But if they’re just normal people who don’t huddle together stoking their loneliness with ancient belief systems, that’s qualification enough for leading other normal people.
That’s why I don’t care if Brash is unregenerate for coveting another man’s wife, or whatever the sin is you’d like to have a go at him about. That is not a sin I find relevant to anything he is responsible for, with the sole exception of preaching to others about that kind of virtue – he has totally squandered that right.
Not that I ever accepted that he had that right in the first place, and not just because he had already confessed to the same sin before. I don’t like people preaching, period, because I know that mostly they are hypocrites.
And that is why I don’t like his preaching about corruption, either. It is hypocritical.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:48 am
“I’m saying that you have no right to know about a lot of things that I wish to keep private.”
I certainly agree with you on this point Ben. But what I’m saying is that if you are making decisions on billions of taxpayer dollars then we have a right to know whether you are moral, fair and trustworthy in character, or whether you are indeed corrupt. In the case of democratic leadership, a thorough study of a person’s social life and connection can reveal a lot about whether they are truly representing their country, or rather pushing a minority agenda – something many of us suspect Labour are doing and which the Brethren are clearly trying to confirm.
“Sure, there are some things that ought to come out even if I wish they didn’t, such as breaking serious laws. But short of that, digging into people’s private lives is simply a sick form of power, that you seek to wield.”
Breaking serious laws, but also evidence of untrustwirthiness in general. It is not illegal to lie. It is not illegal to cheat on your wife. It is not illegal to push a political agenda that doesn’t truly represent your people. It is not illegal to hire an PI when you suspect a politician is guilty of all of the above.
“It is a way of intimidating people, particularly when it is done in secret, and for that purpose.”
If you suspect a person of corruption, it is unlikely you will uncover the facts by investigating them “in the open”.
“Your self-confessed virtue does sound nearly impossible. But more importantly, it sounds *pointless*. Since democracy is about representing humans, not just un-unregenerate people (who, like the EB, often refuse to be represented anyway), then unregenerate people probably make quite good representatives. Within reason – if they’re unregenerate for sins that surpass the average person, perhaps they shouldn’t be leading us. But if they’re just normal people who don’t huddle together stoking their loneliness with ancient belief systems, that’s qualification enough for leading other normal people.”
This isn’t about electing and honouring politicians who “stoke their loneliness with ancient belief systems”. This is about having politicians who are trustworth, moral and beyond reproach. If you consider those views as merely an “ancient belief system” then I don’t want a part of your treacherous, immoral and contemptuous modernity.
Marriage: the keeping of vowels; honesty, faithfulness, diligence.
Politics: the keeping of vowels; honesty, faithfulness, diligence.
And you say; “That’s why I don’t care if Brash is unregenerate for coveting another man’s wife, or whatever the sin is you’d like to have a go at him about. That is not a sin I find relevant to anything he is responsible for”
September 27th, 2006 at 9:08 am
I’d like to buy a vowel; how much for honesty?
September 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
lol woops….
ok, the keeping of vows…
Nice
September 27th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Anon, the vowels of marriage are O, O, O. The vowels of politics are I, I, I.
AJ, once again we are likely to reach an impasse where we simply cannot agree on the most basic principles.
I do not accept that politicians should also have to be priests. The european world experimented with that during a period of history known as the Dark Ages, and they were called Dark for a reason. The clergy who involved themselves in politics wielded immense power from their close affiliation with God, but were not the slightest bit godly in their behaviour. Sure, they accepted various norms that you seem to find appealing, like never getting any sex, praying a lot and constantly putting their relationship with God on public display. But their actions were no less despicable than the kings of the time, and to me, mostly less admirable. At least the kings knew what life was about. At least aristocracy lived lives that could be envied, rather than laughed at, like the lives of dirty priests.
Politicians in a secular representative democracy represent the people. They do not represent God. It is because they represent people *by being people* that they are trusted by the people. And people have private lives. People are fallible. People have foibles. People have minority opinions. People have little dirty secrets. Many of these things are what make people people. If you are not one of these people, you can’t hope to understand them, nor can you credibly represent them. That is why no one but the stupidest idiot would think of taking advice from you about sex.
The right understands this every bit as much as the left. One of the often recurring themes of attack on Clark has been that she doesn’t seem to have some of the more common vices amongst politicians, such as heavy drinking, philandering, or the standard NZ against-all-reason love of rugby. Her sport of choice is mountain climbing, a gruelling task that many think reflects a puritanical character. I personally think her sport is merely an interesting thing that sets her apart, her lack of drunkenness a sensible choice, and her sex life is something I don’t even *want* to think about. If her husband is gay, and she is a lesbian, I couldn’t care less, just as I don’t care if Brash likes more diversity in his sex life than is probably approved of by his constituency.
Character is only a factor if it is *grossly bad*. People who have committed relevant crimes, and continue to do so, for example.
I think people who appear to have unimpeachable character are actually the most dangerous characters of all, because they feel that it puts them beyond reproach in their exercise of what *is* relevant to everyone else, their political power. Are you aware that the most famous modern politician who shared your against-all-reason aversion to sex was Adolf Hitler? That there are very few stories of his sexual antics because everyone involved even on the fringes of them ended up dead? If I have invoked Godwin’s Law, I don’t give a shit. It is highly relevant that people who set themselves up as being different from the people, more noble, more highminded, more strong, more pure, very often turn out to be the worst bastards of all time. It is no guarantee *at all* of good behaviour. We can speculate about the reasons for that, but the fact remains.
I now expect the straw man from you of saying that I’m saying that you have to be ‘immoral’ to be a good leader. I’m NOT saying that, I’m saying that being ‘highly moral’ is no guarantee that you are fit to be a leader. In general I think there are some activities which are simply not relevant to one’s position as a leader. That especially includes what you do with you private parts.
And there are some activities that are highly relevant, like hiring people to spy on enemies’ personal lives. That smacks strongly of a complete disregard for democracy, something that is not the least bit surprising in the Exclusive Brethren. If they don’t like Clark, they can vote for the other guy. That’s how our system works – not spending millions of dollars on secret campaigns, stalking, and personal slander.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Ben,
Just to explode one myth that you are trying to perpetuate.
The dark ages were the period from the fall of the Roman empire to approx 1066, which is the start of the Middle Ages.
The reason the dark ages were called the dark ages is 1. Much of the learning & education that had been discovered during & prior to the Roman empire was lost.
2. Few written records exist from the period of the dark ages (making the era dark or relatively unknown).
3. The invasions of the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Vandals, Saxons, Normans (Norse Men) & later the Vikings almost extinguished the Christian Church.
The last point is the one that had the most weight in the naming of the dark ages. They were dark times for the Church. They were also the golden era for the Vikings, but the ultimate victor got naming rights.
Your use of the term is modern revisonism, and not historically accurate. The period you are refering to is the Medieval Period, which led into the Reformation.
Sorry to everyone else for being off thread. Just that if we are going to use history, we might as well get it accurate.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Peter S, there are quite a few definitions. See the Wikipedia article. Personally I don’t care to quibble about it. The time I’m referring to could perhaps be called ‘Shit Ages’ instead of dark ages, if you prefer, and it refers to a time when clerical power was at it’s apex, and being used for such wonders as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the denial of science, etc. We’re talking a really long period in which people who claimed to be next to God made decisions as arbitrary as any despot. The Great Schism and the Renaissance were both reactions against how shit this time was, one from a religious perspective, the other from a general intellectual freedom perspective. Thank Rationality (my God) that we don’t live in those times any more, except in small pockets.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Ben,
Unfortunately your new age name might also apply equally to the current age.
And, of course, we now have a PM who has gone one stage further, and is actually playing God.
)
(At least in a stage play
September 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Yeah – when you think about it, life nowadays is kind of similar to back in the dark ages – what with all the bubonic plague, universal illiteracy, serfdom, famines, regular Viking invasions and all.
Nice work injecting some perspective into the debate.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Peter S, if you’d like to go back to a time when clergy rule and make pronouncements about the minutia of life and science that they really have no clue about, there are plenty of countries in the world today where that is still practiced. Send us a few posts (if it’s allowed) telling us what’s better about that than NZ.
But I get that you’re joking around, my comment is really for the determinedly obtuse AJ, whose Calvinist confessions hearken back to the Shit Age with all the nostalgia of an Arthurian legend, and all of the realism too.
He sees himself as some chaste Knight of the Round Table, charging around for good king Don, slaying gay rogues, refusing maiden kisses, and demonifying the evil witch Morgana le Clark, in preparation for the final Battle of all Shit Hitting the Fan. Oh, and of course he is the knight who actually finds the Grail, because he’s never touched a woman or himself. God is impressed by that, you see, and turns a blind eye to murdering people for such offenses as ‘foul language to a woman’ or ‘witchcraft’ or ‘being unregenerate’.
In reality it was a time when everyone was a bastard, and there was nothing good about it for anyone. Apocalyptic battles may appeal to the romantic or the childish, but for most folks, we’d rather just see the government levying fair taxes for fair services, and would prefer it if our knights didn’t even have Tasers, much less swords, for using on the peasantry. And ex-knights should definitely not be peeping in people’s windows at night, no matter what monastic sect told them to do it. If the King’s not giving his Mrs the good stuff, and it takes a dashing Lancelot to get her there, it’s really not the stuff over which kingdoms should fall, and a truly ‘good’ king would know that.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Me:
“This isn’t about electing and honouring politicians who “stoke their loneliness with ancient belief systems”. This is about having politicians who are trustworthy, moral and beyond reproach”
Ben:
“The clergy who involved themselves in politics [in the “Shit Ages”] wielded immense power from their close affiliation with God, but were not the slightest bit godly in their behaviour. Sure, they accepted various norms that you seem to find appealing, like never getting any sex, praying a lot and constantly putting their relationship with God on public display”
What I want in a politician: Trustworthiness, morality, beyond reproach
What Ben says I want in a polician: Never getting any sex, praying a lot, showcasing their relationship with God
Ben:
“I now expect the straw man from you of saying that I’m saying that you have to be ‘immoral’ to be a good leader.”
Who is guilty of the Straw Man here?
Ben:
“In general I think there are some activities which are simply not relevant to one’s position as a leader. That especially includes what you do with you private parts.”
Marriage: the keeping of vows; honesty, faithfulness, diligence.
Politics: the keeping of vows; honesty, faithfulness, diligence.
Unfaithfulness in marriage involves the violation of honesty, faithfulness and diligence, and the use of one’s private parts to do so. Vows should in no wise mean any less when private parts are involved. I would think that where vows relate to the use of private parts those vows should actually be of the greatest significance. If you cannot honour a marriage vow with the mother of your children, how much less are you likely to honour a political vow with a collective and anonymous group of, at best, acquaintences?
Ben:
“In general I think there are some activities which are simply not relevant to one’s position as a leader. That especially includes what you do with you private parts.”
I don’t need Straw Man Ben. Real en is much more quotable and convincing.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
“Unfaithfulness in marriage involves the violation of honesty, faithfulness and diligence, and the use of one’s private parts to do so”
Comedy gold.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I’ve often alluded to the fact that John Howard is more attuned to right wing policies and better able to articulate them than Dr. Brash. Mr. Howard’s comments on the Exclusive Brethren in Australia are a good example of this-
_____________________________________
The Exclusive Brethren as an organisation within the law, a Christian sect, is entitled to put its view,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio.
“I did make the observation that I’ve met a lot more fanatical people in my life than the Exclusive Brethren.
“They have a different, a more disciplined, perhaps some would say a more narrow interpretation of the Christian religion than others, but I respect their right to have (this interpretation).”
Mr Howard, who yesterday said he had met with the group, said the more unorthodox views of the sect, such as not voting, did not means its members should be vilified.
“I have to say that strikes me as what you might call an unorthodox Christian … it strikes me as a little unusual, but that is their right and it should be respected,” he said.
“It shouldn’t be the subject of some vilification campaign against them.”
September 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Danyl & Ben,
I wonder if it was the comment about the PM that ruffled your feathers the most?
I’m not one for nostalgia, or rose tinted spectacles. However, each time period has had its positives and its negatives.
I suspect that a pretty good case might be made that the current state of society in general in NZ is NOT the best that it has ever been.
A valid case could be made for some aspects, but as a whole? I think not.
Take the world as a whole. Are things better post or pre 9/11 ?
So, Danyl, no we don’t have viking invasions & bubonic plague, but we do have Al Quaeda, terrorist bombings world wide, global warming, the potential of bird flu, war in Afganhistan & Iraq etc. So not everything is golden & rosy.
Also, given the mud slinging over the last few weeks, I thought the s**t age ironically appropriate.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Ben Wilson is not very interested in the truth of the last 2000 years – he’s more interested in flinging around myths as weapons against the ignorant.
Science was not suppressed by religion, it actively fostered in the middle ages. It floundered once it got to the Renaissance. I have an article on the Renaissance Myth for anyone else that is interested.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
AJ, it’s pretty clear from your hundreds of comments on this site what you mean by “Trustworthiness, morality, beyond reproach”. You mean yourself, which I don’t feel the slightest compunction in caricaturing as “Never getting any sex, praying a lot, showcasing their relationship with God”.
Your idea of marriage (which you are not in, and the way you carry on, you will never be in) is *your* idea. You have no idea what ‘vows’ other people make to each other. You have no credibility to lecture on the matter.
And your analogy that politicians are ‘married to the people’ is extremely weak. Quite aside from it being, by design, the most polygamous relationship imaginable, there are no mutual vows, there is no understanding that it’s ‘for life’, there are no children, it can’t annulled because one side won’t put out, and it’s definitely NOT for better or worse, richer or poorer.
It’s much more like an employer-employee relationship, where the politician is the employee. They do have a right to privacy, they don’t need to disclose to their boss if they’re homosexual, cheating on their wife, or how big their dick is and how often it gets used. In fact they are protected from even having such questions raised by the employer, at least in decent societies.
Questions that bear directly on their work are fair game though, so if they have competing interests, or got sacked for stealing or incompetence, are relevant questions, and can be asked in an ongoing way. If it turns out they have secret deals with people in the company to make their employment process less open, then that is also of relevance, although not in itself a reason for dismissal.
And by far the most relevant question, the question that National have utterly failed to articulate for years, is what the hell are they going to do when they are in power? As an employer, I may very well distrust my current manager, but if that’s the only CV the next guy has, and he has no credible ideas, or demonstration of competence, then I’d actually rather stick with the devil I know, sometimes.
This is quite literally why there is a Labour faithful – because those people are faithful to what Labour continues to promise to deliver. If National could make any credible promises to those people, they really could erode Labour’s base. But National’s promises are devoid of content, and involve constant wand-waving, that the magic power of having been the Reserve Bank Governor a decade ago somehow makes any understanding that mere mortals have of economics or basic accounting or morality completely irrelevant. And it just doesn’t wash with enough people.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Lucynas essay article is as reliably hilarious as ever. The thesis is that there was no significant scientific progress (or indeed, much intellectual progress at all) made between 1350 and 1600 – I wonder if Lucyna thinks that Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Vesalius and Bacon weren’t significant scientists, or if she just hasn’t heard of any of them.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
EB as a name is a marketing triumph.
It hints at a club that may just let you in so you too can become ‘exclusive’. Talk about selling a dream… eat your heart out Coke™.
Mix that with the secret authority vibes of ‘brethren’and you’ve got a followers dream.
Dunno how the leaders promotions work…is it like Amway?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Ah, Lucyna, I was wondering if you’d ever be game enough to cross swords with me again.
You say:
“Science was not suppressed by religion, it actively fostered in the middle ages.”
and supplied one of the world’s most boring articles to read. Well I read it, and it was very light-on, I must say. The notable absence of any actual examples of scientific discoveries during the middle ages leapt off the pages at me. What progress the author does point to was made by church scholars translating ancient greek and medieval arabic works. Which does very little to convince me of your, or the boring author’s, points. Oh, and some painters discovered perspective, during those several hundred years of painting yet another picture of something out of the bible. Great. That’s going to blow all ‘popular’ perceptions of the middle ages right out of the water now?
The author seems to confuse the fact that there was a great deal of religious suppression of science during the Renaissance with an absence of scientific progress. But the truth is that is what the Renaissance was all about – the clash of truth with dogma. Scientific discoveries were made *anyway*, regardless of how viciously the church wanted to suppress anything that didn’t fit. And it made the church look like a horse’s arse, a ‘popular’ perception that persists to this very day, wherein various churches still insist on looking like a horses arse by denying modern science.
Naturally the churches don’t oppose *all* science. If a scripture or ancient church source that contradicts a discovery can’t readily be found, then it’s considered harmless, and naturally science can proceed in a crippled way. But anything that directly challenged dogma in a head on way struggled immensely. So making better pictures of the crucifixion is fine. But wanting to paint a picture of Jesus looking like a middle easterner, an outrage.
The fact that the Renaissance was a period in which a lot of thoroughly debunked science occurred is also claimed as negative against the period. Alchemy, for example, is mostly known to be incorrect. Naturally this misses one of the most vital aspects of science, which would be readily apparent to anyone that knew shit about it, that in order to make discoveries you have to make mistakes. Alchemy was a vital piece in the evolution of modern chemistry, if only to show that that whole avenue was fruitless, or, as Edison would put it, “yet another one of thousands of ways NOT to make a light bulb”. That the church insists on being right because of it’s claims to divine links, is one of the most important reasons why church science was super lame. They were just too scared make outrageous hypotheses. Darwin would almost certainly have died a cruel and disgusting death during that time.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
DIM, Copernicus was a Polish Roman Catholic Priest. Galileo based his works on what Copernicus figured out. Galileo ran into trouble when he tried to teach his findings as fact rather than theory. Galileo is often used as proof of the persecution of religion against science, when it fact it’s more about teaching truth.
If you’d actually read the article, you’d have noticed that Copernicus is the exception during this period and is mentioned.
As for the others, Kepler comes after the period of stagnation. Interestingly enough he was also an astrologer, a reader of signs, which the article goes into as a major problem on the stagnation of thought prior to 1600.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
“Galileo ran into trouble when he tried to teach his findings as fact rather than theory”
Still battling against those crazy “Round Earthers” are we Lucyna?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
“AJ, it’s pretty clear from your hundreds of comments on this site what you mean by “Trustworthiness, morality, beyond reproach”. You mean yourself, which I don’t feel the slightest compunction in caricaturing as “Never getting any sex, praying a lot, showcasing their relationship with God”.”
And if I was to use the same logic to judge you, I would have to consider you believe that unless you are doing something corrupt, preferably committing adultery while in a marital relationship with your wife, then you are boring, colourless, and don’t have a private life.
“Your idea of marriage (which you are not in, and the way you carry on, you will never be in) is *your* idea.”
My idea, the church’s idea, the idea of my people even before they became Christian, the idea of countless tribes, peoples and persons across the planet. Not just my idea; God’s idea. Not just an idea; THE Superior Idea.
“And your analogy that politicians are ‘married to the people’ is extremely weak. Quite aside from it being, by design, the most polygamous relationship imaginable, there are no mutual vows, there is no understanding that it’s ‘for life’, there are no children, it can’t annulled because one side won’t put out, and it’s definitely NOT for better or worse, richer or poorer.”
I wasn’t saying democratic politics and marriage are exactly the same. What is exactly the same though is the making of promises and vows that each party is covenanted to keep because they have given THEIR WORD. You know very well employers care as much about a person’s character and trustworthiness as they do about their skill level.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Wow. So because Gallileo mistook the observations he made from looking through a telescope – sunspots, mountains on the moon, the moons of Jupiter ect – as facts, ie, things that he had seen – rather than theory then it was acceptable for the Catholic Church to torture and execute one of the most profound genius’s in human history? Is that REALLY what you meant to say?
I read the article. It was really fucking boring. Oh, I just realised – it also missed out Gutenbergs development of movable type – possibly the most important invention of all time.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Duh. Should read: ‘it was acceptable for the Catholic Church to torture and threaten to execute one of the most profound genius’s in human history?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
DIM, Galileo was NOT tortured or executed. And one of his “facts” that he was teaching was that the sun revolved around the earth. The Church at the time did not want anything taught as fact unless it could be proved. Most of his work was based on Copernicus – who was not censured because he accepted that his work was theory at the time. There was no way of being able to prove it until much later.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Why, if I may ask Lucyna, do you put the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun in quotation marks?
Still awaiting proof of that are you? hoping that some new information might pop up?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Read closer Sonic… Galileo, like The Pope, was actually wrong about some things…
Very interesting Lucyna, never heard the story from that perspective. Amazing how much one can take Anti-Catholic spin for granted…
September 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Whoops, I made a mistake. Something to do with trying to remember what was wrong about the theory. Galileo thought the sun was fixed, and everything revolved around it, including the stars.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
So that’s why they spent the previous thousand years teaching that the Earth was created in seven days and that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe?
No it wasn’t. That’s what the Church was teaching. Galileo championed the ‘heliocentric model’ put forward by Copernicus.
Copernicus wasn’t censured for his discovery because he – very wisely – waited until he was on his deathbed to publish his book.
Don’t you feel the slightest obligation to research things before you write about them Lucyna? (Don’t bother to answer – if you did then you wouldn’t be such a constant source of mirth to the rest of the New Zealand blogging community)? The whole reason the Church had a problem with Galileo is because he was able to PROVE – through observations of Venus made through his telescope – that the Churches geocentric model of the Universe was horseshit.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Lucyna’s views appear to represent Catholic thinking on this issue –
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html
and
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html –
“His [Galileo] position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further proof could be adduced.”
I’m surprised a little since this is not quite what I thought of as the Chucrh’s position at the time. This may just be self-serving revisionism but if it’s true then it does paint a more complex picture than Religion vs Science.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
OK Danyl do your own research and prove the following statement, which you just made;
“So that’s why they spent the previous thousand years teaching that the Earth was created in seven days and that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe?”
If you could particularly quote Augustine’s view on the creation account that would be good, given that Augustine is commonly known as the “Father of Catholic theology” (and Protestant theology for that matter)…
September 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”
(Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]).
Who could argue with a 6000 year history of the earth?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Owch!! Nice work. Got me good. I’m sure I remember seeing a quote from him that Genesis 1 & 2 is does not have to be interpreted literally. Onus is on me now to back this up I suppose!
Not that I’m anti-young-Earthism…
Hey but you still have to show me where any Catholic of Christian propagated the idea that the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe…
September 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
There you go
esp.
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation”
Augustine; (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
September 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
iirc correctly AJ he argued that god created the world an everything in it in one fell swoop, not over 7 days.
The idea that Earth was at the centre of the universe came from Aristotle and Ptolemy and was pretty much the accepted wisdom. One interesting fact about Ptolemy’s system was that it worked.
If I may quote
“By the Middle Ages, such ideas took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle’s universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.
Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well.”
September 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I wouldn’t be quite so hard of Lucyna’s views Danyl. The Church was after all teaching the cosmological views of Aristotle and they didn’t teach that the earth was flat.
I’m not sure that Galileo did have evidence for the Copernican theory. He certianly observed, via the newly invented telescope, that Jupiter’s moons revolved around Jupiter so therefore he discovered evidence that not all heavenly bodies revloved around the earth.
As for the age of the earth, it took modern science to finally settle that. I’m not sure that at the time of Galileo it wasn’t unreasonable to think that the time scale of the Bible was right.
(disclaimer – yes I think that the Catholic Church has been “anti-science” at times).
September 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
DIM, just go up a bit and you’ll see the comment directly above yours to me, is where I admit I made a mistake about what Galileo was teaching and correct it.
If I were to do research like yours (do googles on subjects I know nothing about and then pretend to post authoritively on them), then yes, I would do more research.
Maybe you should take your own advice, huh?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Galileo also deduced that venus had to revolve around the sun – not the earth. But it doesn’t appear that he had any evidence for the earth revolving around the sun. I am surpried since I thought he had.
From what I have read, Cardinal Bellarmine was quite happy to consider the heliocentric model as a valid hypothesis and if there was conclusive evidence then the interpretation of the scriptures would have to revisted. So the Church did make a bad judgement call but it’s not quite true that they were completely anti-scince in this instance.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Neil,
It’s my understanding that Galileo – through observations made through his telescope – was able to prove Copernicus’s hypothesis that the planets orbitted the Sun by observing that Venus passed through a full series of phases as it passed around the solar system.
I’m quoting from Peter Atkins book ‘Galileos Finger’.
Modern science may have been able to settle it a lot faster if Europe hadn’t been ruled by religious fanatics for over a thousand years. If the Church was willing to accept Copernicus’ model as a ‘hypothesis’ then why did they place his works on their list of forbidden books for several centuries?
Lucyna:
So we’re at the stage of the debate in which you sulk about being made a fool of? That happened fast.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
AJ
““Your idea of marriage (which you are not in, and the way you carry on, you will never be in) is *your* idea.”
My idea, the church’s idea, the idea of my people even before they became Christian, the idea of countless tribes, peoples and persons across the planet. Not just my idea; God’s idea. Not just an idea; THE Superior Idea.”
which was, I quote:
“Marriage: the keeping of vows; honesty, faithfulness, diligence.”
Is still AN idea. You claim it to be THE Superior Idea, but from what I can tell, its something about which you have NO idea.
Many marriages survive the failure of all of your criteria except diligence, and still have happy long-lived participants and happy well adjusted offspring. The reason is obvious – marriages are between humans, not gods.
The vows given to us by churches are not bought into by the participants even though, like me, they may for sentimental reasons accept getting married in a church by a priest. The sentiment was that my wife wanted to get married in a church. Personally I wouldn’t have chosen it, but weddings are all about the woman, as you’d understand if you had one.
Our own personal vows are the only ones that count, and believe me they were far more comprehensive and appropriate than any religious formula before a God I don’t believe in.
Faithfulness to my wife is expedient – why would I have bothered marrying her otherwise? But I don’t think it’s sacred, or anywhere near as important as you think. Sexual problems can enter into relationships as long as a marriage, and a disaffected party can cheat. It is entirely between the participants whether that is something that can be forgiven. Not your call. There is often a lot more at stake than your petty morals, such as the happiness of the children.
Some marriages are sexually open. Not my bag, but if both people agreed, again it’s nobody else’s call but their’s. Then there are polygamous marriages, probably a much older concept than your christian one, if the behaviour of other primates is anything to go on. I can see no reason that such a thing should be disallowed, even if I don’t especially want one.
As for honesty, that’s really, really easy to preach about in a position of ignorance, like you constantly do. But minor dishonesty between married couples is legion, from failures to acknowledge minor expenditures, to pretending to like something that your partner likes in order not to rock the boat, to faking orgasms. Both partners will constantly pretend to have no interest at all in other men/women, but that’s almost without exception bs. You only have to watch people’s eyes when beauty enters the room. Major dishonesty is a different matter.
So the only thing I agree with you about is diligence. A real marriage take work, and compromise. Which is part of the reason I think you are a lost cause, because your attitude towards sin is uncompromising. Until the day you get busted doing something you shouldn’t, of course.
So sorry, I don’t buy your god-given Superior Idea one little bit. I choose to have a marriage because that’s my bag, but how other people live their lives in this respect is not my concern, unless they ask for my help.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Current interpretations (which are not so prone to the Church/Science polarity) suggest that the Church did not want to confront Galileo because they could see it would open a can of worms and preferred to let things develop slowly to give everyone time to adapt and “get used to it.” But surprise suprise it was Galileo’s academic colleagues who wanted him persecuted, not for challenging the Christian doctrine, but for challenging the consensus view that whatever Aristotle said was right. He was the climate skeptic of the time.
The Church reluctantly gave way and allowed Galileo’s academic colleagues to vent their spleens and force the issue.
Galileo like Darwin had no real taste for the fight. Galileo’s daughter was a nun and they remained good friends and family throughout.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Current interpretations (which are not so prone to the Church/Science polarity) suggest that the Church did not want to confront Galileo because they could see it would open a can of worms and preferred to let things develop slowly to give everyone time to adapt and “get used to it.” But surprise suprise it was Galileo’s academic colleagues who wanted him persecuted, not for challenging the Christian doctrine, but for challenging the consensus view that whatever Aristotle said was right. He was the climate skeptic of the time.
The Church reluctantly gave way and allowed Galileo’s academic colleagues to vent their spleens and force the issue.
Galileo like Darwin had no real taste for the fight. Galileo’s daughter was a nun and they remained good friends and family throughout.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Lucyna,
If you really think the Church was serious about refusing to teach anything but ‘fact’, as their reason for persecuting Galileo, perhaps you’d like to explain why they were teaching Ptolemaic astronomy at the time? Or would you like to say that is established fact?
It is of no relevance *at all* that Galileo was wrong with his theories too. As was Newton. As, quite probably, are most modern scientists. Science moves from hypothesis to hypothesis, seeking better and better explanations via experimentation and observation. What was objected to was not that the Church got science wrong, but that they persecuted people for disagreeing about it.
This happened because they set themselves up as the conduit to God, and God couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything. Therefore nor could his divine servants, including those who wrote the bible, or any number of boring works studying it, arguing about it, etc. And for some reason, Aristotle, despite him being a heathen and all. I guess they were impressed that someone had actually done some scientific research, and traded on that for over a thousand years. Their very position made their ability to accept what science is really about very shaky indeed.
This stupidity continues to the modern day, where people will refuse to accept the evidence of their very eyes, in favour of some scripture or other. Any number of stupid arguments have been advanced to explain 100 million year old dinosaur skeletons, just because the guys who wrote the Old Testament *got it wrong*.
So no, I don’t buy the ‘Renaissance Myth’ theory *at all*. It’s the lamest attempt at historical revisionism I’ve read in a long time, clearly biased towards making excuses for the inexcusable, a habit that the Renaissance did a lot to counter.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
DIM,
Modern science may have been able to settle it a lot faster if Europe hadn’t been ruled by religious fanatics for over a thousand years. If the Church was willing to accept Copernicus’ model as a ‘hypothesis’ then why did they place his works on their list of forbidden books for several centuries?
Riiight. So, we can look to other continents where modern science developed in tandem, or accelerated past European science, can we? No, wait – we can’t.
Do you really want to know why to understand why, DIM? I doubt it. You’re just trying to make a point. I’ve not really seen anywhere where you are actually interested in exploring subjects that don’t match your view of the world. You actually have a lot more in common with those who would suppress free-thinking and scientific exploration than you realise.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Sure we can. India. China. The Islamic Caliphate. Seven hundred years ago these places were much more advanced than Europe by any criteria you care to name. It wasn’t until people started questioning the (very very silly) doctrines of the Church that progress was made.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Danyl, the evidence of Venus’s phases was evidence that Venus revolved around the sun, not that the Earth did. So there is some merit in the argument that the Church at the time thought Galileo was going too far, by claiming the theory fact when it was not proven, and that they should wait for evidence and then re-interpret the scriptures.
I’m trying to defend the Church just that in this instance I’m not sure if it can be seen as the Church vs. Science. I’m totally surprised, I searched for Pope John Paul II’s views on Galileo expecting to find evidence to refute Lucyna. But what I found was that the stand-off between the Church and Galileo was more complex and nuanced.
I can’t help thinking that there’s a bit of hindsight going on, that we are not taking into account how things were at the time. It is easy for us now to see the Church as being un-scientific in not accepting what we now know to be fact. But a the majority of scientist were very reluctant to accept plate tectonics, that does not mean they were unscientific – rather that entrenched ideas are hard to shift even without religious influence.
“Modern science may have been able to settle it a lot faster if Europe hadn’t been ruled by religious fanatics for over a thousand years.”
Maybe, but that’s a thesis that needs proof and I don’t find the Galileo issue convincing. I also doubt that the Catholic Church had much to do with hindering the science that ultimately led to obtaining the age of the Earth.
Evolution is another matter – there there was more clearly a conflict of Church vs. Science. Interestingly the Church now accepts evolution, as long as it stops at the neck – a position not that dissimilar to many social science academics.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:40 am
that should be “I’m NOT trying to defend the Church”
September 28th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Neil, if Galileo wanted to say the moon was made of green cheese, what right did the churh have to persecute him about it? He spent the latter part of his life under house arrest for daring to say he believed his hypothesis, and his and Copernicus’ books remained banned for over a century. If you think that kind of behaviour is not damaging to science consider what affect it would have now.
Sure, there are plenty of apologists for the Church’s behaviour now, pointing out a number of ways in which they showed clemency. Galileo was not executed or imprisoned or tortured (although he was credibly threatened with all of them). The church did not say he couldn’t advance the theory, just that he couldn’t advocate it. And they did eventually unban his works.
There are also plenty of attacks on Galileo’s character and theories. He seems definitely to have been a proud, headstrong man, and quite prone to making some claims in excess of reality. His theory is clearly known to be false in many aspects now.
But both of these comebacks are pure spin against the idea that the church slowed down scientific progress. They show ignorance of the scientific process almost as bad as at the time. To credibly threaten a scientist with death (and such threats coming from a Pope were *highly* credible) is obviously going to hamper research of all but the most headstrong of characters.
The suggestion that he couldn’t ‘advocate’ his theory being benign is pure spin. He even tried to follow this rule, but since he *clearly* didn’t believe the competing theories, his treatment of them was held to be advocacy anyway. Why it should have been Galileo’s job to talk up opposition to his theory, just to satisfy the church? These days the job of the scientist would be considered to be quite the opposite – to come up with bold theories and strong arguments why they are true, along with discussion of some crucial experiments which have the potential to destroy both theories, thus settling the matter of which theory is better.
And attacks on Galileo’s character are the worst spin of all. It’s utterly irrelevant to science if Galileo was an arrogant fool. The only thing that matters is the theories. It seems likely to me that if Galileo had not been who he was, then science would have been even more hampered. If he had quietly been intimidated away from his research (as no doubt many scientist were when they saw what happened to Galileo), or if he’d continued but only published on his deathbed when he himself was not around to answer any questions about it, it is clear that both scenarios hurt science and knowledge.
It is in the nature of a scientist to be arrogant. They are trying to alter the perceptions of mankind, and powerful institutions. They are daring to think that they can acheive their goal. And Galileo succeeded, despite the church’s threats. His discoveries entered the scientific world and would not go away. Furthermore, his defiance was an inspiration to people, and a (yet another) clear exposition of the arbitrary power and dogmatic stupidity of the Church. In many ways, this was his most important contribution. Naturally, the battle continued, and continues to this day. But ever since Galileo, the Churches have been fighting a rearguard action.
That they choose to fight a rearguard action in such stupid battle, one that they have been losing for half a millenia, speaks volumes for their own arrogance and foolishness. It should be patently clear to anyone now that what clerics of ancient Israel thought about science is now only of historical interest. If it really is the word of God, so much the worse for God.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Not that I agree, but the Church did have a right to pass judgment on Galileo since he was a Catholic and was advocating a particular view of the scriptures – on that the Church eventually accepted. So he did put himself in dispute with the Church and the Church responded.
The first conclusive evidence that the earth revolved around the sun was in 1728 when James Bradley discovered the aberration of starlight which could only be explained by the movement of the Earth. The Catholic Church allowed the publication of Galileo’s complete work in 1741.
Was the Church such a major brake scientific development? I think this might be overstated a bit. Franis Bacon and Newton were both deeply religious.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:17 am
“Franis Bacon and Newton were both deeply religious”
Weren’t both of these scientists studying in England? The CoE doesn’t have the reputation for suppressing science that the Catholic Church does. If I remember my history right, but wasn’t the CoE at this time was having problems with the fact that its nominal head was quite secular and interested in science?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am
They were both Protestant (as are the EBs!). I don’t know that at the time there was any difference between the two churhes on matters of science. But on the general subject of Science vs Religion it’s relevant that they were at least deeply religious if not Catholic.
But for other exmples – Mendel was Catholic as was Georges Lemaître who first came up with the Big Bang Theory.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:39 am
You’ve hit upon my other big gripe with societies based on fundamentalist religions. The opportunity cost.
Newton was one of the greatest intellects our species has ever produced, but because he was born into a religious society he wasted a huge proportion of his life trying to look for secret codes in the scriptures (mostly the OT). Imagine where we could be today if Newton had spent that time on scientific study instead of trying to dredge up meaning from an incomprehensible collection of garbled, mistranslated bronze age superstitions.
Presumably the same thing is happening today in Islamic cultures. Who knows how many Einsteins there are around the world spending their time memorizing the Koran and quibbling over obscure interpretations of Haditha.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:46 am
This is SO off topic, but so cool.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/
September 28th, 2006 at 11:56 am
“quibbling over obscure interpretations of Haditha”
Not much to quibble over, US marines massacred 20+ civilians. Who knows how many potential Einsteins died that day.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Bacon was part of the English Renaissance – that historical period that Lucyna insists no scientific development occurred. Newton was later, at the apex of the scientific revolution.
Neal Stephenson has written a bunch of cool books about this period – The Baroque Cycle. (And if you like those you’ll love Crypotonomicon.)
September 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Sorry – I meanth Hadith
September 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Oh look, I stop by Kiwiblog and see yet another incredibly mind-numbingly stupid comment from dim. What a surprise.
Newton pushed the boundaries in terms of human understanding and mathematics from a starting position of 17th Century concepts about the world, human existence and God. Such an effort required supreme creativity, dedication and concentration. He did this without being persecuted by his fellow Christians. Far from it, he enjoyed the support of numerous nobleman and was appointed to several positions of public prominence, such as warden of the Royal Mint.
Keep on bashing, dim.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Didnt Newton also waste a big chunk of his life trying to turn lead into gold?
September 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Danyl has a point about Newton and I had second thoughts about using him as an example for that reason. He did spend the second half of his life worrying obsessively over the finer details of religious dogma and without coming up with anything of value about the relationship between science and religion that Aquinas managed. So definetly an opportunity cost.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Yep. Like a lot of scientists back then he was an alchemist and an occultist. His views on Christianity were also very odd – he was a very very strange man.
Antarctic Lemur:
What would these little debates be without my very own online stalker dropping by to contribute a clutch of widely known facts that aren’t in dispute or even relevent to the debate? Thanks for sharing little fella.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Yep. Like a lot of scientists back then he was an alchemist and an occultist. His views on Christianity were also very odd – he was a very very strange man.
Antarctic Lemur:
What would these little debates be without my very own online stalker dropping by to contribute a clutch of widely known facts that aren’t in dispute or even relevent to the debate? Thanks for sharing little fella.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Danyl, the Maps of War was fun. Nice,.I think one of the aspects on this discussion we can all agree on is that despite their stuff ups, “most” religions in the west actually brought themselves up to date with the modern envirionment (yes, that is debateable) whereas we see Islam stuck with having to accept the Koran as the absolute word of god. In fact my taxi driver yesterday told me , Mohhammed is not a man but a god. Such blind beleif without question is truly dangerous.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
That’s a pretty weird thing for a muslim to say, since the core tenet of their belief is that: There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.
It’s kind of like a Christian deciding that they worship St Paul, and that Paul is a God.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Danyl,ok, maybe I misheard him. He was busy slagging Jesus off for only being a prophet and not the son of god. He may have meant that Mohammad’s word was the word of God and hence they are the same, but I bow to your better knowledge in this area.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
forgot to add, the thing which disturbed me, was the way in which he got totally wound up about it. I swear there was foam coming from his mouth when he was talking about the status of Jesus.Scary. As per my point above, will Islam ever have a “reformation”? The world will not survive unless they do.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Yeah the map is great. To me it illustrates the problem with historical arguments – how far back do you need to go to find the “cause”?
Political arguments about the Middle East are bedeviled by this. One side will argue that if you start from such and such a date then history supports their view. The other side goes back one year and says the same.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Neil, I think you dont go back.The map shows its too hard. I think you look to go forward and how to acheive that. Palestine, Israel etc are not going away and each needs to accept that.
“cut me , do I not bleed” “The sins of the father should not be visited on the sons etc” Homilies for sure, but the point is , we are all human beings. Surely the benefit of being human is that we have the ability to improve ourselves throughout our lives. Enrichen our lives and our families. You cant do that if you are looking back.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Neil, *everything* advocates a certain view of the scriptures. Every single way in which mankinds knowledge has grown has done it’s little bit to show how the scriptures don’t know everything. Was there anything in the scriptures about America? Or the healing possibilities of penicillin? Or the existence of dinosaurs? Or the observable fact of parallax?
Not unless you twist it completely, which begs the question: Why are you bothering?
And the answer is obvious: When you set yourself up as a conduit to ultimate power, knowledge, and morality, on the basis of ancient works, then you really need those ancient works NOT to be contradicted by inconvenient reality, or your position as a conduit comes into question.
This is what was not acceptable to the powerful Church, and why they sought to control reality for as long as it contradicted their position. Ultimately they fail, because they can’t control reality by wishing it so, because the ancients didn’t know everything, and because arbitrary power is something people ultimately don’t like being under the yoke of.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
David, this thread has strayed way off the original point. I agree with A.J. Chesswas in some of the earliest posts. I raised the question 2 days ago, about what is the correct name for politicians having lists of people of minority religious groupings.
It seems one member of the E.B.’s said something in an interview that sounded like he knew too much about the Private Investigator, but in spite of every other E.B. interviewed saying they did not have anything to do with this, we hear “The Exclusive Brethren” this and “The Exclusive Brethren” that, from the P.M. and her attack team, from the media, and now after pressure from the spineless National Party Caucus and people like YOU, David Farrar, from The Don himself.
In the 1930′s it was “The Jews” this and “The Jews” that.
Our media has showed up to be only too willing to play the “aversion to Christian fundamentalists” card in favour of President Helen. So the “Secret seven” shouldn’t have tried to do what they did anonymously? Why hasn’t anyone asked the question, if the famous leaflets had been done by people with some connection other than being members of this group, mightn’t they have succeeded in remaining anonymous? Why isn’t it a grave breach of these people’s privacy, that politicians have a list of members of their church?
Only highly partisan supporters of the status quo would have ignored the valid questions raised by the leaflets, and ignored their essential legality, all cleared through the chief electoral officer and so on, and described them as a “smear campaign”. Pointing out to people who well-meaningly vote Green because of environmental warm-fuzzies, that they’re actually supporting a raft of policies remniscent of the uglier, discredited side of Socialism, isn’t a “smear campaign”, it’s a valuable public service. Having an M.P. like Keith Locke in our Parliament is a disgrace to a liberal democracy like N.Z.
All the “smearing” in this episode, has been done by our erstwhile media, TO the Exclusive Brethren.
And what has the National Caucus and so called true-blues like D Farrar done? Rolled over and let their political opponents and a media playing to a program of bigotry, define the debate. It’s acceptable, it seems, that “The Exclusive Brethren” are to be denied any point of contact in this nation’s Parliament whereby they can voice their particular concerns about any issue. And more disturbingly, this would seem to imply the use of a “list” by M.P.’s to avoid the possibility that they might inadvertently end up being tainted by contact with any of these now-designated pariahs.
And some of their ideas are quite good. Just because they don’t vote, doesn’t mean they don’t bring a point of view of valuable uniqueness to the table. Veteran Political commentator Colin James claims not to vote, deliberately so as to avoid any semblance of partisanship, and no-one suggests that this actually disqualifies him from his job.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
David, this thread has strayed way off the original point. I agree with A.J. Chesswas in some of the earliest posts. I raised the question 2 days ago, about what is the correct name for politicians having lists of people of minority religious groupings.
It seems one member of the E.B.’s said something in an interview that sounded like he knew too much about the Private Investigator, but in spite of every other E.B. interviewed saying they did not have anything to do with this, we hear “The Exclusive Brethren” this and “The Exclusive Brethren” that, from the P.M. and her attack team, from the media, and now after pressure from the spineless National Party Caucus and people like YOU, David Farrar, from The Don himself.
In the 1930′s it was “The Jews” this and “The Jews” that.
Our media has showed up to be only too willing to play the “aversion to Christian fundamentalists” card in favour of President Helen. So the “Secret seven” shouldn’t have tried to do what they did anonymously? Why hasn’t anyone asked the question, if the famous leaflets had been done by people with some connection other than being members of this group, mightn’t they have succeeded in remaining anonymous? Why isn’t it a grave breach of these people’s privacy, that politicians have a list of members of their church?
Only highly partisan supporters of the status quo would have ignored the valid questions raised by the leaflets, and ignored their essential legality, all cleared through the chief electoral officer and so on, and described them as a “smear campaign”. Pointing out to people who well-meaningly vote Green because of environmental warm-fuzzies, that they’re actually supporting a raft of policies remniscent of the uglier, discredited side of Socialism, isn’t a “smear campaign”, it’s a valuable public service. Having an M.P. like Keith Locke in our Parliament is a disgrace to a liberal democracy like N.Z.
All the “smearing” in this episode, has been done by our erstwhile media, TO the Exclusive Brethren.
And what has the National Caucus and so called true-blues like D Farrar done? Rolled over and let their political opponents and a media playing to a program of bigotry, define the debate. It’s acceptable, it seems, that “The Exclusive Brethren” are to be denied any point of contact in this nation’s Parliament whereby they can voice their particular concerns about any issue. And more disturbingly, this would seem to imply the use of a “list” by M.P.’s to avoid the possibility that they might inadvertently end up being tainted by contact with any of these now-designated pariahs.
And some of their ideas are quite good. Just because they don’t vote, doesn’t mean they don’t bring a point of view of valuable uniqueness to the table. Veteran Political commentator Colin James claims not to vote, deliberately so as to avoid any semblance of partisanship, and no-one suggests that this actually disqualifies him from his job.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
David, this thread has strayed way off the original point. A.J. Chesswas was right. I asked, a couple of days ago, what is the right name for politicians having a list of all members of a minority religious group. Someone answered my other question, pointing me to a TV “taped interview” in which a prominent member of the E.B.’s is said to have admitted something to do with the P.I.
Every other prominent E.B. interviewed seems to have denied any involvement, yet we’re now hearing “The Exclusive Brethren” this, and “The Exclusive Brethren” that, not just from the P.M. and her attack troops, not just from the media playing their favourite Christian fundamentalist phobia card, but from The Don himself. Why? Because a spineless National Party caucus and so-called true-blue supporters like YOU, David Farrar, have rolled over and let your political opponents, including those who stack the media, define the debate in terms that should be repugnant to everything you thought you stood for. In the 1930′s, it was “The Jews”, this and “The Jews”, that.
If Catholics went by the Pope’s pre-election comments, they’d have done something like the “secret seven”. If anyone other than these Exclusive Brethren members had sought to remain anonymous, but fully legal, authorised by the Electoral Office, etc., they might have succeeded. But because some politicians have a list of all members of the Exclusive Brethren, fingers were pointed, and we all know what followed.
But where were the protests over THIS breach of a group of citizens privacy? On the contrary, our media went into overdrive the moment they got the chance to indulge their Christian-fundamentalist-bashing tendencies. Who was doing the smearing of who? The “secret seven” leaflets actually don’t meet any criteria for such a term, merely presenting arguments about publicly-available information.
Pointing out to innocent people who might vote Green because of environmental warm-fuzzies, that they’re also voting for a whole lot of policy, (and an M.P. like Keith Locke), that we thought we’d got quit of when the Iron Curtain collapsed, isn’t a “smear campaign”, it’s a valuable public service.
Now, not only do the P.M. and her cronies obviously have a list of E.B.’s, but it seems that every M.P. should have one too, so as to avoid inadvertently granting any of these people an interview. David, why do our media get away with wagging the dog to this extent? It’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Americans” and now it’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Exclusive Brethren” as well? Aren’t there any principles at stake here that should be put up a fight for?
Don’t members of the Exclusive Brethren have a unique point of view that might be of value on many issues? Quite a few people have pointed out that they find some of the E.B.’s ideas quite good. Veteran political commentator Colin James claims not to vote, so as to maintain a visible impartiality, but by some people’s logic, the reverse is the truth – he shouldn’t have a newspaper column at all.
For shame, David.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
David, this thread has strayed way off the original point. A.J. Chesswas was right. I asked, a couple of days ago, what is the right name for politicians having a list of all members of a minority religious group. Someone answered my other question, pointing me to a TV “taped interview” in which a prominent member of the E.B.’s is said to have admitted something to do with the P.I.
Every other prominent E.B. interviewed seems to have denied any involvement, yet we’re now hearing “The Exclusive Brethren” this, and “The Exclusive Brethren” that, not just from the P.M. and her attack troops, not just from the media playing their favourite Christian fundamentalist phobia card, but from The Don himself. Why? Because a spineless National Party caucus and so-called true-blue supporters like YOU, David Farrar, have rolled over and let your political opponents, including those who stack the media, define the debate in terms that should be repugnant to everything you thought you stood for. In the 1930′s, it was “The Jews”, this and “The Jews”, that.
If Catholics went by the Pope’s pre-election comments, they’d have done something like the “secret seven”. If anyone other than these Exclusive Brethren members had sought to remain anonymous, but fully legal, authorised by the Electoral Office, etc., they might have succeeded. But because some politicians have a list of all members of the Exclusive Brethren, fingers were pointed, and we all know what followed.
But where were the protests over THIS breach of a group of citizens privacy? On the contrary, our media went into overdrive the moment they got the chance to indulge their Christian-fundamentalist-bashing tendencies. Who was doing the smearing of who? The “secret seven” leaflets actually don’t meet any criteria for such a term, merely presenting arguments about publicly-available information.
Pointing out to innocent people who might vote Green because of environmental warm-fuzzies, that they’re also voting for a whole lot of policy, (and an M.P. like Keith Locke), that we thought we’d got quit of when the Iron Curtain collapsed, isn’t a “smear campaign”, it’s a valuable public service.
Now, not only do the P.M. and her cronies obviously have a list of E.B.’s, but it seems that every M.P. should have one too, so as to avoid inadvertently granting any of these people an interview. David, why do our media get away with wagging the dog to this extent? It’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Americans” and now it’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Exclusive Brethren” as well? Aren’t there any principles at stake here that should be put up a fight for?
Don’t members of the Exclusive Brethren have a unique point of view that might be of value on many issues? Quite a few people have pointed out that they find some of the E.B.’s ideas quite good. Veteran political commentator Colin James claims not to vote, so as to maintain a visible impartiality, but by some people’s logic, the reverse is the truth – he shouldn’t have a newspaper column at all.
For shame, David.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
David, this thread has strayed way off the original point. A.J. Chesswas was right. I asked, a couple of days ago, what is the right name for politicians having a list of all members of a minority religious group. I haven’t noticed any response, although someone answered my other question, pointing me to a TV “taped interview” in which a prominent member of the E.B.’s is said to have admitted something to do with the P.I.
Every other prominent E.B. interviewed seems to have denied any involvement, yet we’re now hearing “The Exclusive Brethren” this, and “The Exclusive Brethren” that, not just from the P.M. and her attack troops, not just from the media playing their favourite Christian fundamentalist phobia card, but from The Don himself. Why? Because a spineless National Party caucus and so-called true-blue supporters like YOU, David Farrar, have rolled over and let your political opponents, including those who stack the media, define the debate in terms that should be repugnant to everything you thought you stood for. In the 1930′s, it was “The Jews”, this and “The Jews”, that.
If Catholics went by the Pope’s pre-election comments, they’d have done something like the “secret seven”. If anyone other than these Exclusive Brethren members had sought to remain anonymous, but fully legal, authorised by the Electoral Office, etc., they might have succeeded. But because some politicians have a list of all members of the Exclusive Brethren, fingers were pointed, and we all know what followed.
But where were the protests over THIS breach of a group of citizens privacy? On the contrary, our media went into overdrive the moment they got the chance to indulge their Christian-fundamentalist-bashing tendencies. Who was doing the smearing of who? The “secret seven” leaflets actually don’t meet any criteria for such a term, merely presenting arguments about publicly-available information.
Pointing out to innocent people who might vote Green because of environmental warm-fuzzies, that they’re also voting for a whole lot of policy, (and an M.P. like Keith Locke), that we thought we’d got quit of when the Iron Curtain collapsed, isn’t a “smear campaign”, it’s a valuable public service.
Now, not only do the P.M. and her cronies obviously have a list of E.B.’s, but it seems that every M.P. should have one too, so as to avoid inadvertently granting any of these people an interview. David, why do our media get away with wagging the dog to this extent? It’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Americans” and now it’s political suicide to be seen “talking to the Exclusive Brethren” as well? Aren’t there any principles at stake here that should be put up a fight for?
Don’t members of the Exclusive Brethren have a unique point of view that might be of value on many issues? Quite a few people have pointed out that they find some of the E.B.’s ideas quite good. Veteran political commentator Colin James claims not to vote, so as to maintain a visible impartiality, but by some people’s logic, the reverse is the truth – he shouldn’t have a newspaper column at all.
For shame, David.
September 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
PhilBest, every political party is free to distance themself from whatever bunch of fruitloops they choose to. If the EB actually are a group whose influence is greatly appreciated by NZers, then parties could actually GAIN by association with them. And that is the point – the EB have brought this entirely on their own backs with their antics. Now, every political party wants to distance themselves, out of sheer self preservation.
This is not the fault of the political parties, it is the fault of those in the EB who seem to have an inverse midas touch, when it comes to politics – everything they touch turns to shit. Which is why they hide themselves, poke their noses into private lives, and generally prefer to stay out of the limelight. This time they pushed it too far.
Helen Clark did not *create* a distaste for the EB. She merely exploited it. The distaste was already there, weakly held by people with only distant acquaintance with such cults, and very strongly held by those who have had direct contact, or been unlucky enough to be born into one and then transgressed one of their multitude of stupid rules.
A cult that is self-righteous enough to try to tail the PM is more than nasty enough to utterly destroy anyone of lesser power. There are countless testimonials of exactly that happening to people who fell foul of them.
I don’t buy that they are a ‘grand conspiracy’ the way anti-semites pursue Jews. They are a ‘lame conspiracy’ that has delusions of grandeur. That doesn’t mean they don’t ruin people’s lives, mostly their own people, whenever they can, and it doesn’t mean anyone has to respect them.
There is nothing wrong with exploiting a general distaste. That is not fascism. Nats do it all the time – they’re constantly deriding ‘socialists’ or ‘communists’ (and you did it in this very thread) or ‘childless lesbians’ or ‘lazy maoris’ or whatever group they think might push public buttons. It would be fascism if these groups were actually persecuted in some way, prevented from exercising their civic rights. But not seeking to court a demographic, or even deriding a demographic, are constant features of democratic life. The NZF party has always made no bones of seeing immigrants as a grave peril. National has always favoured farmers. Labour has traditionally been at war with capitalists. The Greens see anyone who wastes anything of any kind as a selfish evil.
So there is deep hypocrisy in your criticism of DPF, and you are the one who should feel shame for it.
September 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Ben Wilson still doesn’t address my question: what is the correct name for politicians who hold lists of citizens based on their membership of a church that they dislike, no matter how valid their reasons might be. If George. W. Bush had a list of all members of a church that openly supported the Democrats, and in tandem with a media beat-up, succeeded in getting the Democrats to categorically deny any member of that church an audience, what would you call it?
But of course, its all right when a leftwing government does it. Or of course, no induvidual member of any grouping of citizens that supports a leftwing political party, would ever stoop to any dodgy or secretive tactics, and if they did, the guaranteed, vigourous, ongoing media scrutiny of such organisations would ensure that it would backfire on them. Yeah right.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
PhilBest, do you have the slightest evidence that such a list is held? Or that George W Bush doesn’t have one, for that matter?
And in answer to your question, I can only offer suggestions: Listholder? Church Lister? Listophile? I’m sure there’s plenty of lists out there – your buddies seem to have a list of possible prominent poofs, which you typically hypocritically think is a great idea. But of course it’s all right when a secretive cult does it to blackmail politicians whose politics they don’t like.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Funny, but certain politicians can point to the name of a person who authorised a leaflet, and say, oooo, he’s a member of the Exclusive Brethren. And one particular politician has been quoted in news reports regarding how this happened – they just, fortuitously, came into possession of just such a list at just the right time to “out” the instigators of the leaflets.
Are members of our Government being blackmailed? Where’s YOUR proof? They don’t appear to me to be behaving like people who’re being blackmailed. They’re all pretty proud of themselves just as they are, thank you.
You must keep talking about “The Exclusive Brethren” and “a secretive cult” who do this or that. Just like “the Jews” assassinated Vom Rath before Kristallnacht.
You still don’t say what YOU’D call George W. Bush if you thought he had such a list.Or a National Prime Minister. Or what you might have called Rob Muldoon if you were around in those days. (Trade Unions, the Socialist Unity Party, links with the Russkies, etc).
And who stole Don Brash’s e-mails? Say we find out it was a Catholic, or a trade union member, should Helen be forced by a media beat-up, to refuse to see any members of these groups again?
September 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
PhilBest, the whole attempted outing of Peter Davis is a form of attempted blackmail. The only reason it isn’t real blackmail is because most people couldn’t care less if he was gay. That doesn’t mean the intention wasn’t the same.
The exclusive Brethren *are* a secretive cult. The Jews are not.
I did make a few suggestions for your word, but I suspect you didn’t read my post very carefully. Why don’t you just say what you think it is, because playing 20 questions isn’t my bag.
I was around in Muldoon’s day, and I called him Piggy, like everyone else. I wasn’t old enough to vote, but if I was, that would have been how I would have helped to get rid of him, which distinguishes him from ‘fascist’, or whatever word you are digging for.
I don’t know who ‘stole’ Brash’s emails, or even if they were stolen. Do you?
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Here’s Karl du Fresne in the Dompost today Tue Oct3.
“Isn’t the fixation with the Exclusive Brethren getting just a little hysterical? Television’s One News breathlessly reported last week that the proprietors of EB-owned businesses around the country are in contact with each other and even (gasp!) do deals together. How sinister is that?
I don’t feel threatened by these people. In terms of their ability to influence events, the EB’s can’t begin to match the political firepower of the social engineers and miscellaneous political activists with whom the Government has surrounded itself. It’s a case of a few clumsy amateurs with odd ideas going up against a well-organised force of highly-paid professionals whose ideas, in many cases,are every bit as creepy. for all the paranoia about the EB’s, I’m not sure it’s them we should be watching.”
HEAR, HEAR!!!!!!
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Tell you what, organise a church group and spy on the personal business of George Bush and Laura and see how long it is before you are not only on a list, but doing hard federal time.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Just speaking out against the war in Iraq is enough for a church to lose it’s tax-exempt status.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0916-01.htm
October 5th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
That’s an EXCELLENT illustration of the disturbing tendency for too many people to confuse the actions of a few INDUVIDUALS/businessmen, with those of “the church” which they happen to be members of.
Yes, if the “Exclusive Brethren church” had used its TAX-EXEMPT money to lobby politically, there would be a problem, just like in your Pasadena example. But George W. Bush, or any U.S administration, are all about freedom of ANY INDUVIDUAL, no matter what their religious beliefs, to use THEIR OWN TAX PAID MONEY how they want, including to do political advertising. AND WITHOUT TIT FOR TAT measures through the legislative chamber, against all members of any church on the basis of the actions of some of its members. N.Z.’s drift away from these sorts of ideals is a disturbing phenomenon.
We’re now getting onto the subject of Farrar’s latest thread:”EVEN ENEMIES HAVE RIGHTS”. See you guys over there.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
PhilBest, do you have a special account for your ‘tax-exempt’ money? Personally I just have money.
And if you think the outing of Valerie Plame was anything but tit-for-tat, you have a different idea about what that means.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Ben,
The church can have a tax exempt status, and that is inconsistent with the church using church funds for political activity.
Members of a church have no tax exemption themselves, so there is no restriction on them being politically active as long as they use their own money and not any of the church funds.
Since the members of the EBs were at pains to point out that they were acting on their own offices, then there is no legal problem. Since it is well documented that EB members associate with, and do business with each other outside of church meetings it is impossible to argue that they can only be acting as representatives of the church and not a separate group of private citizens that share an association with the church AMONGST OTHER legitimate associations.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Peter S, was there some censure of the members clearly engaging in political activity that led to their church coming into disrepute? Does the church distance itself from these individuals?
October 12th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Ben Wilson: After all these years of Bush being slandered over the famous “Valerie Plame leak”, it’s finally come out WHO ACTUALLY DID IT. Where have you been? But of course, our leftwing, anti-Bush media haven’t covered THIS part of the story.
Richard Armitage did the leak. An opponent of the Iraq war. Reason: carelessness. No sinister motives. Bush administration exonerated. And guess what? Some filthy leftist journos who knew all this time that it was Armitage who did the leak, have kept mum, allowing the fallout to land on an innocent President Bush.
There’s a lot more to all this Iraq invasion/ intelligence manipulation/ lies/ thang. Basically all the lies are coming from the lefty media. Take you on. But perhaps this blog isn’t the right place.