A Christian Nation?
I’ve previously blogged my disagreement with Archbishop Tamaki’s assertion that Christianity is NZ’s state religion. Specifically I disagree with his assertion that the parliamentary prayer should continue to refer to “the Christian god Jesus Christ”, when we have MPs of other faiths in Parliament.
But is there a middle ground between Tamaki claiming NZ’s official religion should be Christianity, and the declaration that “New Zealand has no official or established religion”.
What I am thinking is some sort of acknowledgement about the role of Christianity in our history, because there is no doubt for many years we were very much a “Christian nation” even if we are not today.
I recall this debate when the EU was writing the proposed Constitution for the EU. There was significant criticism of the fact that it didn’t even mention the role of Christianity in the history of Europe. And it was ridiculous to not make mention of that, as it was probably the biggest influence of the last 2,000 years. I mean my God we even had Holy Roman Emperors up until 1806.
I can understand the concerns many Christians have that over time we may lose Christian traditions such as Christmas and Easter. I agree they are very much a part of NZ, even if they do not have the religious significance they once did.
So while not supporting any concept of Christianity being an official or state religion, some recognition of its special status or heritage would not be a bad thing.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:18 am
NZ now worships the false gods of gross domestic product and the doctrine of moral relativism. There is no such thing as a non-religious person or nation. We have exchanged the truth for a lie.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I would have thought having public holidays on religious holidays a fairly significant recognition of Christianities’ unique status in our history.
I’m not sure of the mechanics for a legislative body to “acknowledge a special status or heritage” of Christians – it sounds like you want the government to set up a special “Christian history in NZ display” in Te Papa or something.
Or are you suggesting something much more substantive David?
May 29th, 2007 at 8:30 am
New Zealand is a sick nation spurning the medicine that can heal it. We are rejecting the truth and embracing falsehood which is evidenced in every sphere of our national life. However, God will retain a remnant of the faithful who in the end will redeem the nation. The truth is indestructible and the unbelievers are like the chaff before the storm – here today, gone tomorrow. Christ lives, Christ reigns. Peace be with you all.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:49 am
What about some special acknowledgement of the role of land clearance in our history? The axe, match, rabbit & rat have truly made this country what it is today.
And mentioning Christianity in the context of a unified Europe, oh jolly good the pogroms, the wars, the violence between Catholics and Protestants, very unifying!
Some things are better left unsaid, lest they be revealed as whatever is the opposite of a truism.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Chris B: I’m a non-religious person. Do I exist?
Ragged Glory: The faithful will redeem the nation? What tablets are you on?
May 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“the Christian god Jesus Christ”
I thought Christianity taught that Jesus was the “son of god.”
May 29th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I get very worried when any country choses to define itself within the confines of a religion. Down that path lies ruin.
Obviously religion is an important part of many lives and many people feel strongly that it should be better reflected in the state. But which religion do you suggest ChrisB or Ragged Glory?
I much prefer to live in a secular TOLERANT society where ALL religions are tolerated, provided they accept that ALL religions are to tolerated. I feel that bishop Tamaki and his ilk fail to understand this simple concept.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Ragged Glory, how did you become a Catholic? Were your parents Christian maybe? Let’s say for a moment that you were actually brought up as a Muslim or a Jew, do you think you would have seen the truth, rejected the falsehoods your parents taught you and embraced Christ in time?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am
As I understand it, the son of God is himself God.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Touche Mr Farrar:-)
May 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Such a difficult subject to get ones head around, given the emotion invloved. I believe that those of us who love the Lord really want others to know what that feels like. However, faith cannot be forced. We all come to our beliefs through varied paths and I don’t think Christ ever invisaged his teaching being forced upon people. He clearly worked on the educational approach, hoping to convince people to follow him.
He also loved and worked with the enemy’s of the Jews, as well as the poor & the sick. In other words, his actions spoke for him and anyone was able to benefit from those actions regardless of their beliefs.
Do I need the state to recognise Christ to enable me to live by my faith? No.
Would I fight to ensure that the way of life Christ promoted is allowed to be taught freely in my country? yes.
My beliefs tell me there is but one God and I love him dearly. I think that right now, he will be crying, as yet one more nation of his people move to marginalise him. At a time in our country when we should be looking for guidance and hope, our leaders are taking us further away.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
What socialists try to conceal is the truth that nations that were founded upon Christian principles (NZ for example) developed political systems that were respectful of political ideals such as individualism, independence from the state, and self reliance. These are all concepts that are anathema to your average socialist.
Don’t think that this declaration is anything more than another attack on a rival (and far superior) religion by the socialists, whose only ambition is to see their sick depraved ideas become even more ascendant in this fast collapsing country.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“As I understand it, the son of God is himself God.”
Thanks for clarifying that. Just off the top of your head, just how many angels is it that can dance on the head of a pin?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:41 am
If NZ was ever a christian nation, it was only for a VERY short time. Maori were not christian at all until the missionaries came.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:42 am
It is the Greeks…not the Christians who we should thank for the basis of the Western society we live in today.It is Liberalism,in the classic sense,not Christianity, that stops us from tearing ourselves apart over dogma.Religion is a private sector affair and no legitimate concern of the State.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Christianity is definitely influential, but ‘officially recognizing’ that? Why bother? For starters, everyone already knows. And why especially Christianity, out of the many things that are also influential?
For instance, Monarchy has a special place in European history, being the main system for even longer than Christianity. Feudalism could get a special mention. ‘Constant violence’ has probably been even more influential than all of them. How about science, is that not worthy of official mention?
If we’re talking about NZ, Rugby is more widely worshipped than Jesus, and the Automobile more so than both.
I guess it depends what kind of mention we’re talking about. Official mention in the constitution? Why bother? Official mention in many other ways? Already happens.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:56 am
slightlyrightly – “I feel that bishop Tamaki and his ilk fail to understand this simple concept.”
Whilst not disagreeing with you, I would like to help you understand what you are asking…maybe.
Leaving Tamaki out of the discussion for a second, I think you underestimate the defining concept of religion. Complete faith in ones beliefs. To ask anyone of any true faith, to tolerate another faith, would in turn mean that their faith was not strong or perhaps misplaced.. for example, If I even consider that the Lord God shares eternal power with another, then my faith is baseless.
That is what you are expecting, when you ask for tolerance. It’s a tough ask. Tolerant is also what Jesus asked us to be. He never said it would be easy.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Bearhunter said: I’m a non-religious person. Do I exist?
Yes of course you exist. What I mean is you are NOT non-religious. You have a religion – a belief system. Even atheism is a religion – it claims to be just as all knowing as any fundamentalist belief.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Another good post David — I think you do a great job providing a forum for discussion of these weighty issues.
I would like the government to be a lot more humble. There is a limit on the power of government and the power of the State.
For example the government should be very careful about intruding into family life. Unfortunately they have decided to do just that by imposing one view of parenting on everybody — the anti-smacking Bill.
Now they are intruding into another area where they should stay clear — namely the free exercise of religion. The statement on religious diversity appears to me to be an ill-advised attempt by the State to regulate our religious life. For example under the draft guidelines (also the human rights act) an employer must employ a Muslim if they have the best qualifications and experience for the job. Now the employer would have to allow the Muslim to pray during work time and provide a room for that purpose.
While bending over backwards for Muslims the statement on religious diversity wants to sideline Christianity. There seems to be a not so subtle anti-Christian bias that comes from our current government. The declaration that New Zealand has no official religion appears to be paving the way to declaring New Zealand a secular state.
I wish we believed in God more. Values such as “tolerance”, “diversity” and “multiculturalism” do not appear to be strong enough to hold our society together. What do we really believe in? If we do not believe in God then what do we have in common? The Christian faith has laid the framework for the Liberal freedoms that we enjoy. In societies where the dominant religion is Islam, or even atheism, the freedom that we enjoy is not possible. In Islam Allah is a strong man and you have to spend your life following Allah’s strict rules to try to get to heaven. Under atheism there are no real rules — there is only the reality of power. Only under Christianity do we have the God of love and grace, who would sacrifice his only son, Jesus Christ, for us. So I believe Christianity is true.
However I also believe that a Christian can only expect the State to allow for the free exercise of religion. In the same way that the State shouldn’t proscribe one view of parenting, they also should not proscribe religious faith. So for example a Christian does not expect the State to tell parents to send their kids to Sunday school. But neither should the State discourage parents from sending their kids to Sunday school. The State should realise this is an area they should stay out of. They should “render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”.
So I would like the government to provide for the defence of the country, provide a safety net of welfare, collect taxes and enforce the rule of law. In trying to regulate religion they are making the same mistake that communist governments do. Instead the government should allow the free exercise of religion and not try to impose its own religious agenda on the people. As far as possible they should stay out of realms that are not their proper domain.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Europe also had monarchy, feudalism and the bubonic plague for most of it’s history, I don’t see any of them getting enshrined in it’s constitution.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I notice that the meeting is of “moderate religions/faiths” and is not open to all people, of all faiths.
Just as a point of order, who decided what is ‘moderate’? Does moderate mean that they don;t really believe in their faith strongly enough to fight for it? What great role models.
Why is our agnostic PM even attending? And I don’t buy the ’she’s agnostic so she’s neutral” arguement.
Oh wait, I get it. She does have a faith. It’s called socialism and it is more indoctrinated than any religious beliefs. Whew, thought we were in trouble there for moment.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Scott siad…
“I wish we believed in God more. Values such as “tolerance”, “diversity” and “multiculturalism” do not appear to be strong enough to hold our society together. What do we really believe in? If we do not believe in God then what do we have in common?”
Our human nature as set by objective reality….the universe about us.We are all human by virtue of the law of identity.
“The Christian faith has laid the framework for the Liberal freedoms that we enjoy.”
No it hasn’t…those liberal (classic sense) freedoms were won by fighting against Christian religious tryanny and beating it back with reason and genuine morality.
” In societies where the dominant religion is Islam, or even atheism, the freedom that we enjoy is not possible.”
Atheism is not a religion….it is a non belife….a negative.There is nothing in A-theism to use a s a base for any action or system of belife.
“In Islam Allah is a strong man and you have to spend your life following Allah’s strict rules to try to get to heaven. Under atheism there are no real rules — there is only the reality of power.”
There is no “under atheism” as its simply a negative.You can be an atheist and still have morality,humanity,spirituality,love,respect,etc…God is not required for any of those things,only absolutes which the reality about us provides.
“Only under Christianity do we have the God of love and grace, who would sacrifice his only son, Jesus Christ, for us. So I believe Christianity is true.”
Based on faith….meaning a lack of natural evidence or objective proof.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:21 am
“Yes of course you exist. What I mean is you are NOT non-religious. You have a religion – a belief system. Even atheism is a religion – it claims to be just as all knowing as any fundamentalist belief.”
Sorry but very wrong.Atheism is a negative so is the basis for nothing.It is simply the LACK of a belief in a God….nothing else.There is no faith involved so is not religious in any sense…
May 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Je suis contre l’eglise.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
These are the stats from the last census
According to the 2006 Census 55.6 percent of people in New Zealand are affiliated with a Christian Religion.
Just over 8 in 10 Pacific peoples (or 80.2 percent ) who answered the religious affiliation question identified with Christian religions.
Christianity is also the main religious affiliation for the Māori ethnic group population.
Nearly all of the Māori population who stated a religious affiliation said they were Christian (99.9 percent). Anglican, Catholic and Ratana were the main Christian denominations among the Māori ethnic group population.
In the same way we have a Labour government because 41 percent of the people voted for Labour during the last election, (with National at 39.6 per cent)
we are a Christian Country because 55.6 percent of New Zealanders according to the last census, identify with a Christian Religion.
This fact may not reflect Helen Clark’s personal point of view but like the last election result it is a fact. And “saying so does not make it so”
May 29th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I just came here to point out that denying New Zealand does not have an official or established religion is tantamount to antidisestablishmentarianism.
That is all.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:45 am
While it is true that NZ has no OFFICIAL religion, it can be argued that NZ has an ESTABLISHED religion.
53% of the population declared an allegience to Chrsitianity in the census. (It does matter whether they go to church every week, that is still their declared allegience). Also, more people go to church on Sundays than play sport on Saturdays.
We are not as secular as Clark would like to pretend we are.
Christianity was just as significant in the formation of our nation as the treaty of Waitangi.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Okay, one more thing. We might all benefit from a moment considering that the Catholic and Anglican bishops support the statement.
I would point out that ‘established’ is probably to be understood in the technical sense that makes it about equivalent to ’state’.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Just because the Catholic and Anglican bishops support the statement doesn’t make it right.
They are only one member of the church and can be as political correct as the rest of us.
The were out of step with their congregations over the smacking bill as well.
I am an Anglican but I have to say Brian Tamaki is the only Christian leader to be showing any leadership on this issue.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
DPF,
Tamaki is commenting on just one main thread on who and what we are. Our story starts back with Abraham and his revelation that there were not a series of little gods but one Primal Force who orders the cosmos. Jesus moved the story a lot more and his ideas were taken up by the Greeks. It’s they who married Christianity to the world and thinking of ancient Greece, and it’s from them we get the start of the Bible. “In the beginning was the logos”, the reason, word, logic that brought the cosmos into being in a logical way.
The Germans and Europe in general moved our history/story along through the centuries, as did the Eastern Church. So when we talk about downplaying Christianity today we are talking about breaking a chain from Abraham’s initial revelation of an ordered universe to the logic and thought of Christ and the Greeks to the Europeans through Augustine and Aquinas and on to the present day.
It’s this chain of revelation and logic kept alive over thousands of years that makes us who and what we are. Forget, if you will, the trappings of religion, the priests, the vestments, communion, churches and what have you, but we owe it to ourselves to maintain the core of pure thought and reason that this religion has given us and made us what we are. Too often we blind ourselves with the irrelevances of which Brian Tamaki may be one, when we should think instead of Abraham, Christ, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas.. a mix of Eastern mysticism and true revelation, Greek thought and European logos that is the undepinning of the scientific achievements of today.
JC
May 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
In the case of the Anglican Bishops, that pretty much confirms the statement is dodgy.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Destiny have set up a very good website on this issue, well worth a read, Christian and non-Christian
http://www.christiannation.org.nz/index.html
May 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Can some Klark fan out there tell me-
Why is this declaration necessary??
May 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
James- “You can be an atheist and still have morality,humanity,spirituality,love,respect,etc…God is not required for any of those things,only absolutes which the reality about us provides.”
I think I understand where you are coming from but I do have a couple of comments.
How can you include spirituality in that list and still be consistent? What is spirituality for an athiest? How does an athiest believe in something for which there is no evidence or objective proof?
“God is not required for any of those things,”
What you are saying is that athiests do not recognize God as a requirement for those things. A person of faith believes that all things come from God. Does either viewpoint make one a better person than the other..of course not. The only difference is the acknowledgement, or lack of such, as to the source of those things that make us human.
“only absolutes which the reality about us provides.”
So to follow your thought, as the reality around us changes, as it does constantly, so does your idea of what is acceptable, morally, for humanity etc….that is where the difference lies. For a person who believes in God, nothing changes, there are no shortcuts, no convenient ability to say society has changed so I can too….God’s word is constant, never changing. Love and respect anchored for all time, not floating around on the whim of mankind. That is what makes faith such a difficult road to follow. But He intended that.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am
‘but we owe it to ourselves to maintain the core of pure thought and reason that this religion has given us and made us what we are’
I would argue the exact opposite, the sun revolves around the earth, God created the Universe in 6 days, dinosaurs and man lived at the same time and on and on it goes….all complete nonsense.
Yes acknowledge our Christian heritage as a nation but New Zealand is rapidly moving toward the majority of the population not being Christian so clearly we are becoming a secular society (and a good thing that is too).
May 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am
PaulM- “In the case of the Anglican Bishops, that pretty much confirms the statement is dodgy”
Sadly yes. Yet again organised religion turns to political expediancy over their faith. Great role models aren’t they. The entire statement is an exercise in contradiction.
RB- “Why is this declaration necessary??”
I doubt you will get an answer, at least not one that means anything. It’s not like the Christians in NZ have been exerting undue control over the populace and need to be reigned in.
The more cynical amongst us (me) might think that it is yet another step in the direction of well, being directionless. Follow the red brick road to socialist paradise…..
The fundamentalist Muslims must have a huge smile…they just took a huge step towards conquering another nation and it cost them nothing.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am
GraigM said ‘God’s word is constant, never changing.’
How is God on his constant never changing attitude to slavery??
May 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Rocket Boy – If I had all the answers, well, I’d be God. And I’m not.
Believing in God means accepting that there is a whole lot of stuff that you don’t understand and in fact, cannot comprehend let alone accept.
Thats why it is called FAITH.
I’ve tried very hard not to ridicule or belittle the athiests thoughts & comments on this thread, no matter how offensive I may find them personally. How about a little courtesay or respect in return.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
CraigM “Leaving Tamaki out of the discussion for a second, I think you underestimate the defining concept of religion. Complete faith in ones beliefs. To ask anyone of any true faith, to tolerate another faith, would in turn mean that their faith was not strong or perhaps misplaced.. for example, If I even consider that the Lord God shares eternal power with another, then my faith is baseless.”
I do not for one second underestimate the defining concept of religion, and the absolute faith in ones belief. The problem with that is when you define a country by those beliefs, what happens to those who choose not to believe as you do, or have no belief at all?
And what happens when a political system suppresses ALL beliefs eg Communism.
How does this relate to my own beliefs? I beleive in tolerance, and that is why I am glad for this statement that NZ not be defined by ANY religion, but be defined as a country that welcomes all religions, providing they play by those rules.
Or would you rather live in Iran, Yemen, Libya, Israel, North Korea, Cuba, Serbia, Montenegro, Sudan, China, The former Soviet Union or 1980’s Northern Ireland?
May 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“Just because the Catholic and Anglican bishops support the statement doesn’t make it right.
They are only one member of the church and can be as political correct as the rest of us. ”
So which is the “real” Christianity then, Tracy? When you can decide that amongst yourselves (and stop calling each other heretic in the process) then perhaps you could put your heads together and come up with a reasoned argument as to why this country should have an “established” religion.
And thank you James for pointing out the fallacy in Chris B’s argument that I am somehow religious.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Religion – The opiate of the masses. Basic crowd and social control mechanism designed by meddling politicians a few thousand years ago, written down as the word of God and enforced on the masses through fear of being struck dead.
Just how many people have been struck dead for not believing ? We have been told it will happen. I’m still waiting.
It’s basic crime and punishment stuff. If there were no God humans would feel the need to invent one – which we have done a such a good job of – actually we invented dozens. Each is the only true one…
Move on!
May 29th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
CraigM, sorry I find it hard to respect a belief system that teaches a baby is born with sin and will go to hell unless christened.
Believe what you want and hide behind your FAITH if it suits but I choose to believe in the stuff I do understand, that is fact and what I can comprehend. It is also about having an inquiring mind and wanting to know the really answers to some of the big questions rather than just accepting that GOD did it.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
It is a belief, and it has a doctrine.
An atheist has faith in the truth that there is no God.
Their life is lived out according to this premise. Certain ‘rituals’ (for want of a better word) are practiced that strengthen ones faith that there is no God.
Most of the atheists I know are more religious that most of the Christians I know.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Dan
“Most of the atheists I know are more religious that most of the Christians I know.”
I think the reality is that most of the atheists you know are less biggoted than most of the Christians you know.
It’s that big Christian thing about not being judgemental, they just don’t get that bit !
May 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Dan, what are these rituals??
And how is Atheism a religion? An Atheism does not believe in a deity and a deity is central to all religious belief.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian it doesn’t matter they are all just branding.
I used to believe that Religion was “The Opiate of The Masses” To be honest I use to think that Christians didn’t think very much about anything.
But a year ago I did an Alpha Course, and intellectually I have never been so challenged in my life. Now I live with my eyes open and I would never have guessed that being a Christian could be so intellectually satisfying.
As a Christian we are the church. The bishops can have their say but they are just one voice among many
May 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Slightlyrightly – You seem to have missed my intent on that post, or drawn conclusions from it based on things that were not written. Nowhere did I say that any country should be ruled by religous beliefs. The entire post was about personal choice and understanding.
Practice your comrehension skills.
By the way, China & the former Soviet Union…not so much religious definition going on there. They were/are an example of what can happen when a country has NO religion. Spoils you arguement.
RocketBoy & Slightlyrightly – you both preach tolerance yet neither of you can live up to it. Where is your tolerance for my viewpoint. I have argued for my opinion in a polite manner, you guys/girls are just rude and nasty in response.
Wonderful examples of what athiests call tolerance, well done.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Dan -
atheism is not a religion it is a lack of religion. It is not based on faith; faith is the antithesis of reason, demanding belief without evidence. An atheist sees no valid evidence that there is a god or other object of worship and so does not worship any.
check your defination of religion, or how about lets check Webster’s: “A religion is defined as a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to the supernatural” – atheists do not believe in the supernatural, not in anything above us that ought to be worshipped.
Burt-
Nice Marx reference. You know, his solutions might have been fatally flawed but his critiques were pretty spot on.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Tracy:
“I would never have guessed that being a Christian could be so intellectually satisfying.”
yeah, there are plenty of clever Christians out there – the mind boggles when you think that these seemingly rational people will just accept, as fact, this two thousand year old ghost story. I was brought up Christian but pretty much had it picked apart by the time i was 7 years old, couldn’t help it – no matter how many times i was dragged off to church to sing “how great thow art”, the question kept on presenting itself – “but why should I believe this god is real?”
May 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
It’s true that we atheists have a doctrine. And we’re tightly linked in with the over 5 million american atheist troops visciously attacking Christianity by making mistakes at the US mint.
The faithful should check what Chuck Norris says on the subject and prepare.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“It’s true that we atheists have a doctrine”
Yeah, why atheism? Agnosticism is more reasonable.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Craigm said…
“How can you include spirituality in that list “and still be consistent? What is spirituality for an atheist? How does an atheist believe in something for which there is no evidence or objective proof?”
By spirituality I mean that which touches us at the core of our humanity…recognition of concepts like character,justice,love,integrity,honesty and why those things are so important to all of us as human beings.Personally I feel a moving of my spirit when I watch movies like V for Vendetta and see the climatic end scene when the people take back their liberty from oppression…or 300 where human beings stand up proudly and unapologetically for their right to exist and live free from tryanny….or Schindlers List where basic humanity triumphs over evil but that does not come from my being an atheist…it can’t,it comes from my being human.
“God is not required for any of those things,”
“What you are saying is that athiests do not recognize God as a requirement for those things. A person of faith believes that all things come from God.”
Just as I said….God is not required for any of those things.You may think God is ,I don’t, so he isn’t even if you cannot accept that for yourself.
“Does either viewpoint make one a better person than the other..of course not. The only difference is the acknowledgement, or lack of such, as to the source of those things that make us human.”
My concern is with where that belief can lead.Religious belief is a positive and so can be the base for subsequent actions…which may be threatening or dangerous to others.Theres an old saying that goes….”Those who believe absurdities commit atrocities”….that’s what worries me regardless of whether the absurdity is Religion,Socialism,Communism,Facisim,Environmentalism etc
“only absolutes which the reality about us provides.”
“So to follow your thought, as the reality around us changes, as it does constantly, so does your idea of what is acceptable, morally, for humanity etc….that is where the difference lies.”
No…objective reality,meaning the universe and its laws pertaining to absolutes and our nature as man does not change….its a constant.In other words the big box about us doesn’t change even if the little things within human influence can and do.I was accused of having faith in objective reality and morality on another thread here by moral subjectivists who do think morality is fluid and changeable depending on time and place..
” For a person who believes in God, nothing changes, there are no shortcuts, no convenient ability to say society has changed so I can too….God’s word is constant, never changing.”
I agree up to the point of having a God as the cause….you can’t prove it or offer evidence for it.But you can if you start at the only place that’s possible to us as natural beings…the universe itself.This is the first cause and our starting point for morality and all other thought…You may say…”But what caused the universe?” to which I will say “But what caused that cause? and so on…
“Love and respect anchored for all time, not floating around on the whim of mankind. That is what makes faith such a difficult road to follow. But He intended that.”
What is “love”? please define your meaning.
I say to love is to value,meaning that love is a value estimation of another and what values they posses that you regard as important.Love is selfish….meaning its subjective to the person expressing it.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
ChrisB, Dan, et al.
I get a little tired of people trying to label atheism, evolution, agnosticism and the like “religions”. That is really an attempt to skew the definition of a commonly understood word.
I think you are getting a little confused. Perhaps the term you are looking for is “world view”.
As to what a religion is, I will defer to Wikipedia:
“A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.”
“Religion”, as reflected in this definition, includes Christianity, Islam and Judaism but clearly excludes Atheism.
And if NZ is a Christian nation I guess we can expect to see Richard Lewis, Gordon Copeland, and Philip Field form a government after the next election.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Sam
I don’t believe in blind faith for a moment.
And I didn’t believe the religion I was taught 25 years ago at school. It was so boring, and I soon picked holes in it.
But many churches have changed and you have to shop around for one that is a good fit for you In my church there are many scientific types and we challenge and question everything!
And that is an Anglican Church in Wellington.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
ChrisB, Dan, et al.
I get a little tired of people trying to label atheism, evolution, agnosticism and the like “religions”. That is really an attempt to skew the definition of a commonly understood word.
I think you are getting a little confused. Perhaps the term you are looking for is “world view”.
As to what a religion is, I will defer to Wikipedia:
“A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.”
“Religion”, as reflected in this definition, includes Christianity, Islam and Judaism but clearly excludes Atheism.
And if NZ is a Christian nation I guess we can expect to see Richard Lewis, Gordon Copeland, and Philip Field form a government after the next election.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
The old canard that atheism is a belief system. On that basis do I need to define my politics as a-communist and my hobbies as “not collecting stamps”? And what about Odin and Zeus and the FSM (bless his noodly appendages)? If you are atheist about them, then you too are an atheist – some of us just go one god more.
And CraigM don’t get so offended. I think this stems from a regard of faith as a virtue or explanatory. Some of us just don’t see virtue in believing in the unbelievable.
Which is why (back on topic) offical statements on religion are a bad idea.
And acknowldegement statements are as bad as “we built this city on rock and roll” I was so pleased that it recently won a worst song/lyrics award.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
There are a couple of reasons why Christianity should not be New Zealand’s state religion.
Christianity is very divided – it’s not far off saying we should be a “nation that has an official faith represented by an omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being whose properties we cannot determine” – let the Jews, Christians and Muslims fight over what the real religion of the country is then..
Whils NZ is not entirely secular, popular support trends towards it. Religion has no place in legislation – shops should be allowed to open on public holidays, homosexual relationships should have the same legal basis at heterosexual, etc
May 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Craig M et al, I suggest you read this for a good summary of what aetheism is:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/
May 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The epitome of evil is religion itself.
More conflict, death and destruction has been caused by this backward madness than any other
thing in the history of man. “Moderate” religion is an oxymoron. A “meeting of faiths” – when each proclaims its own special knowledge of a God thst is the only and correct one is complete stupidity.
How many suicide bombers would there be if there was no religion?
There is no God. There is no heaven. Get over it! Look at the evidence. Look at your own Earth.
Does this mean that I cannot celebrate Christmas or Easter etc? No. I can take time to enjoy the rich cultural past (some of it Christian) that makes up this Nation and remamber to share the good things in my life with others I care for or who are less fortunate.
I thought Klark was an atheist by the way.
If so, she is surely a hypocrite.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”
Again no….A-theism is a LACK of a belief in a God.All humans are born atheists and are introduced to the concept of God by other humans.Even if you have never encounter the idea of God you are still an atheist by virtue “of LACKING a belief.
“It is a belief, and it has a doctrine.”
No it ain’t and it doesn’t.There are atheists who do make attacks on religion but that is done from positive factors those people hold, not the negative lack of belief that is the single identifying characteristic of all atheists.It may be from reason,science,etc but those are positive things.
“An atheist has faith in the truth that there is no God.”
Wrong…as explained above.
“Their life is lived out according to this premise. Certain ‘rituals’ (for want of a better word) are practised that strengthen ones faith that there is no God.”
Whatever these rituals are they come from some other base than a lack of belief.I practice no rituals…nor do other atheists I know.
“Most of the atheists I know are more religious that most of the Christians I know.”
Every atheist is an individual….all they share is a lack of a belief…..everything else they believe/do is from other values they each hold.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
“It’s true that we atheists have a doctrine”
Yeah, why atheism? Agnosticism is more reasonable.”
Agnosticism is not a third way as some like to think.All agnostics are by default atheists as they can’t be said to have a “belief” in a God which is the crux of the matter.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
pkiwi/thehawk – totally agree.
You may like the above link (if you haven’t already read it).
May 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
While many of the Christians on here are happy to bleat that they are being marginalised by some apparent social pogrom being conducted by the lefties, could I say that I respect everyone’s right to their own beliefs. Why don’t Christians respect my right to my beliefs? Christian preachers get up on the altar/stage/pulpit each sunday (and often on street corners during the week) to shout to the heavens that by virtue of my beliefs and my lifestyle that I am a sinner, a lesser being and inevitably bound for eternal punishment in some fiery lake. They attack my life and the way I live it each week and yet I am expected to respect their views?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
According to some creationists I saw on TV last night the world and all in it was created 6,000 years ago. At that time dinosaurs and humans ran around together…. Yeah Right !
May 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Oh dear. I was kidding when I ‘admitted’ that we atheists had a doctrine. Sorry to get people excited.
On agnosticism being ‘more reasonable’ than atheism. Bunch of arse. Atheism is entirely reasonable.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Skeptics like to paint Christians as people who believe whatever they are told by the church.
But in reality the bible encourages Christians to think. There are many famous scientists who were Christians, Copernicus, Kelvin, Newton, and Einstein to name just a few
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:21)
The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
(Proverbs 18:15)
Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD
(Isaiah 1:18
May 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
lol
pull the plug on this one David, it’s all predictable dribble.
lol
May 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Wasn’t Einstein Jewish?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
James,
thank you for the thoughtful post. I am really enjoying this thread but sadly duty calls and I am off for the rest of the week travelling the country.
I am sure we will all have the opportunity to discuss this again. Not that it will change anyone’s viewpoint, that is very obvious.
In parting, just want to say that thank the Lord I live in NZ. We have the ability to be so far apart from each other in some very strongly held views and yet we don’t go around killing each other over it. That is a blessing.
DPF: thanks for the post.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Pah, you’re only saying that because it’s what your church tells you.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Cheers CraigM.For the interest of people here is a great piece on athesim and what it is and isn’t.Sorry for the lenght but theres no link.
A long row of zeros still adds up to nothing.
“My main point is that atheism is a void. It is an intellectual zero, nothingness. What complicates the matter is that what this means is not likely to be what the Christian will take it to mean. They will give this a meaning that fits the believing mind and thus entirely distorts what I’m saying.
What I mean is actually not too hard to understand if they take is slowly. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of a belief. To know that one is an atheist only means that you know he does not hold to the claims that a deity exists, nothing more.
This is not to say that the atheist has no beliefs, only that those beliefs are not derived from atheism. Since atheism is a lack of a belief in something (in this case a deity) you can not get positive principles out of a negative concept. Not believing in a god doesn’t tell you how to live, what to value, what sort of society to yearn for, etc. By itself it gives no directions, values or beliefs. How could it? It is the lack of a belief.
The error the believer makes it to then assume that if one doesn’t believe in a deity then one can’t hold positive beliefs at all. One can hold very specific beliefs about morality, decency, ethics, virtues, etc. But they are not rooted in one’s atheism because they can’t be rooted in a void.
That one invents a deity and announces that all beliefs are rooted in that invention doesn’t mean the beliefs are true, accurate or even good. Theists themselves prove that by constantly fighting with one another over those very beliefs. And the true believers actually dismiss the idea of there being any such thing as object good and objective morality. The good and the moral, they say, is merely that which God commands. If God commanded genocide then genocide is good. It is the ultimate moral relativism. Provided one is deluded enough to think God is speaking to them one has a moral license, nay, a moral requirement, to obey that voice and do all those horrific things the God is whispering. Throughout history sincere believers have done just that and the soil was fertilized deep with the blood of their victims.
The Christian, in one sense, seems to almost grasp that atheism is merely a lack of a belief. But they still miss it entirely. They almost get it when they start to argue that an atheist by virtue of being atheist has no morality. True, the morality he holds is not derived from the atheism. But that doesn’t mean it is not derived in no other natural, non-theistic way.
Too often believers are unthinking people. They merely accept social convention as moral or what the social convention of their church tells them is moral. They attribute all of that to God. You will get some absurd claims out of this. It is not God that gives them rules to live by; they are merely looking for an authority of some sort to tell them how to live. They can’t think for themselves.
And so they seek out authorities in one form or another offering them rules. Not ideas, but rules. There is a difference between learning how to think and being told what to think. Many believers have never figured that out.
The reality is that on a huge number of issues atheists do not differ from Christians regarding what they believe about life. Atheists do value life, perhaps more so since they believe this is the only life they have. They value love and friendship and human decency. In most respects the average atheist is more moral than the average Christian. Certainly the evidence bears it out in the US. They are less likely to go to jail, less likely to commit a crime, less likely to divorce, etc. But their living this way is not rooted in being an atheist. Having no belief in a deity does not tell you anything about how to treat other people. It does not inspire you to act in any particular way.
That most atheists live moral lives is not because they are atheists. If anything it is because they think things through rationally and the moral life they live is one that makes sense to them.
You can see how the Christian almost gets it when he says the atheist has no foundation for morality. He has no foundation for morality in atheism but that does not mean he has no foundation derived from rational thought and reality.
We don’t act on a lack of a belief. We act on beliefs. A large chunk of nothing can’t serve as the foundation for something. You can add all the zeros you want together and they still add up to zero. So the moral beliefs, of those who lack a belief in a deity, do not come from that lack of a belief, but come from someplace else. And by definition it comes from a non-theistic source.
The end result is that nothing an atheist does or actually believes is rooted in his or her atheism. It can’t be.
But once that is understood it destroys one of the big bugaboos the Christians invent about atheism. They often blame atheism for the actions of any atheist. That is absurd. Since an atheist can’t act on the basis of his lack of beliefs when he does act it is founded on something else. Atheism per se never causes one to act or not act. It is merely a description of a state of not believing in one kind of thing.
The good that atheists do is not rooted in atheism per se. The bad an atheist may do is not rooted in atheism per se. There is no set of beliefs that one can define as “atheism”. There is only the void, the lack of a belief. So atheism can neither take the credit for the good, nor the blame for the evil done by any specific atheist.”
May 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Tracy: “According to the 2006 Census 55.6 percent of people in New Zealand are affiliated with a Christian Religion.”
I am afraid the Census figures need a little closer reading. Unless I am mistaken, it is of those who gave an answer to the Religion question who are 55.6% Christian. As I figure it, because the Census website doesn’t as far as I see spell it out, 443,227 didn’t answer the question.
Also the figures are rendered a bit meaningless by adults answering for children – or not answering as may be the case.
In some cases these will be valid, in others it is just parents filling out a bloody form.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Consider the array of forces of every kind and description battling for your mind , soul and body , I mean sexists, communists, feminists, humanists , psychologists, cultists, religionists,hedonists,geneticists,satanists, pacifists and all other kinds of “ists “.No wonder Mr & Mrs average are confused – talk about dulling their sensibilities, seducing their spirits, and hampering them mentally , physically , culturally and spiritually. Look at what you’ve been up against ??
Instead of the government continuously tearing the family apart I like to think that faith would provide the glue to keep it together .
May 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Phlipjohn -
should we all be teapot agnostics as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot
in my closed hand you can not, and I cannot, be sure there is not a fairy but we are not fairy agnostics. Noone can be sure there is not a teaport in orbit between Mars and Earth but we do not go around saying ‘I can not say anything on the nature of the Teapot, including whether it exits or not’
while its true, from the standpoint that we do not have objective realisties, only subjective ones, and, therefore, anything may be or happen in this infinite universe, that we cannot objectively deny the existance of anything including God (which atheism does and agnosticism does not) it is a stupid position to base one’s worldview…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Is atheism a religion? Atheists insist it is not but a few years ago a court ruled otherwise — “Court rules atheism a religion.Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group.© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com.A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. ”
Certainly to be an atheist you have to accept a number of things that are unprovable. You have to have faith that –
there is no God
there is no ultimate meaning
natural forces created everything
the theory of evolution is true
beauty, goodness and truth are meaningless
random forces brought everything into existence
everything is futile — you’re born, you live a few years and then you die — what was the point?
We are just chemicals or at another level merely matter in motion
we just exist to propagate the species
life is just a sad and cruel accident — this is probably not so much a matter of faith but is a natural outworking of atheism.
According to a current article in Christianity today, at the heart of true atheism is two fundamental beliefs — 1) there is no God 2) I hate him.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Atheists have faith.
They have faith in the truth of their own senses. Faith in the scientific investigation and knowledge of others, tested through argument and experiment.
They believe what the universe instructs them.
Their faith is unwavering.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Actually Scott change the word faith to ‘on the balance of probability it seems likely’ and you are someway to understanding how the atheist mind works.
However I wouldn’t agree with ‘no ultimate meaning’, ‘beauty, goodness and truth are meaningless’ or ‘life is just a sad and cruel accident’, there is much to wonder at in the universe we live in and my life is very rich and full without yours or any God.
As for hating God, hard to hate something you don’t think exists, do you hate the tooth fairy?
May 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I don’t hate god, I pity him.
There’re a lot more demands made on the guy than your average imaginary friend.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Scott
The whole point of Atheism is that you don’t have to have “faith” that god does not exist. You merely have to believe that science ultimately disproves it. When you look at the evidence, you can make such a decustion without resorting to faith – facts do nicely.
God is not required for an ultimate meaning – isn’t life itself worth it for the pure pleasure of existance. You don’t need ‘faith’ for that.
Natural forces and evolution – yup score two for science.
Beauty, goodness and truth have meaning – why do you have to believe in a god to enjoy these? From the simple elegance of maths in primary school, to admiring the beauty of good artworks when you’re old enough to think art galleries aren’t punishment – what’s god got to do with it? If they create a positive reaction within individual, they can have meaning without requiring a form of trancendance.
What we can achieve during a lifetime is not erased when we pass – why consider life’s achievements are futile when those left behind can enjoy them? To say nothing of procreation – score another one for science – biological instincts have a lot to answer for…
Not surprising that Christians have to draw a paradox to explain what it cannot understand though.
Atheists, perhaps, hate the idea of a God that has caused/allowed/ignored so much misery, while so much misery is spawned in god’s name.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Sam, all fair points – just that when it comes to the origins of existence our knowledge is so poorly developed that I don’t think it’s valid say that we can be sure of any explanation. Therefore to believe that no religion is possibly true is to be irrational -your claiming to know something that you can’t have the slightest proof of. Having said this, I have more respect for atheism than any religion – atheists are at least able to acknowledge that human problems have human causes – so at least there’s some hope in solving them!
May 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Rocket Boy, Sam Dixon, et. al.
Perhaps our understanding of the term ‘religion’ differs.
The first online dictionary reference I found defines religion as:
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
…and that indeed is what an atheist has.
I wish to contend with your argument that atheism is the absence of ‘belief’.
Sure, an atheist’s belief may not be in the God of the Bible (or in any god, for that matter), but everyone has a belief, or set of beliefs.
An atheist has a set of beliefs. One of those beliefs, by definition, is the belief that there is not a God.
In the same way that a Christian cannot empirically prove that the God of the Bible exists, and atheist cannot empirically prove that He doesn’t exist.
That is why Christianity is called a ‘faith’ – a Christian has faith that the God of the Bible exists.
An atheist has faith that He doesn’t exist.
In the same way that a Christian goes about his life, living it as if his God exists, an atheist goes about his life as if that God does not exist.
Both Christianity and atheism are faiths, and the more one professes and practices one of these, the more religious he is considered to be.
This may be a bit simplistic, but Christianity and atheism are just two sides of the coin of belief in God.
Sorry James, I started writing this before I saw the quote you commented.
The distinction is made between those who have never been presented with the concept of God before, and those who have, yet given evaluation, have chosen to not believe. Those who have never been presented with the concept of God cannot be called atheists, but then they cannot be called Christians either.
Atheism, as I think we all here understand it, is the active decision to choose not to believe in God. That in itself is as much a belief as is the active decision to choose to believe in a God.
And I cannot imagine how one could remove the belief that there is no God from the things they do, from the way they act/live their life.
Belief in God, per se, does not cause one to act or not act. It is merely a description of a state of believing in a particular thing.
Plenty of people have a belief in God, but, as the article states, commit adultery, murder, get divorced, etc.
Belief in God is no guarantee of any standard or quality of morality.
The writer of this article expects us to believe that this (atheism is merely a description of a state) is the case for them, yet are seemingly surprised, and often critical when one who believes in God does something that they consider to be morally wrong.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“I would argue the exact opposite, the sun revolves around the earth, God created the Universe in 6 days, dinosaurs and man lived at the same time and on and on it goes….all complete nonsense.”
As I said, ignore the trappings and look at the heritage of reasoning we get from Christianity. Even Ayn Rand drew the links by saying that Aristotle was the greatest philosopher of all and Thomas Aquinas the second.
The Bible is an invaluable work but it isn’t inerrant.. as the early Catholics stated, religion could not be at odds with science on matters of the natural world (although they didn’t practice what they preached for long periods).
“Yes acknowledge our Christian heritage”
I think it’s dangerous to unhook Christianity from it’s roots in Roman and Grecian thought. You need another word or phrase that recognizes the totality of Western experience, which is many centuries of Christianity.
as a nation but New Zealand is rapidly moving toward the majority of the population not being Christian so clearly we are becoming a secular society (and a good thing that is too).
Secular is fine. That’s what we’ve basically always had in our institutions. Whether it’s a good thing for a population in general is something else.
JC
May 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Dan -
I don’t believe anything – except on the basic level that my senses are informing me of a real universe, and I only bleive that becuase there is no way to check other than using those senses (a logic loop).
I don’t have faith that God doesn’t exist any more than I don’t have faith that there is not a monst behind me right now. I think there is not a God, I think there is not a monster, and that is a product of the lack of evidence that there is a God or a monster. Faith exists seperate of evidence, in fact faith based on evidence is not faith at all it is rational, scientific thought.
The greatest treasure humanity has is its ability to reason and from that to lear, discover, and undertake scientific inquiry to understand more about the world we find ourselves in so that we can make our lives better and just for the shear joy of aquiring new understanding. Faith is a denial of that, it would have us blind, unquestioning, compliant, afraid of the dark and invisible giants in the sky.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
This is a mistake many religious people make – that you can either believe in their particular faith or be an atheist. There is, of course, an almost infinite amount of superstitions people can choose to have faith in: Jesus, Siva, Allah, Zeus, Odin ect ect. The atheist finds all of these various superstitions profoundly unlikely, not just Christianity. All religious faith is on one side of the coin, atheism is on the other.
If you wonder why people don’t believe in the divine nature of Jesus ask yourself why you don’t believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, or Odin and Thor. There’s your answer.
The choice is not between the Christian God and Atheism but between atheism and all superstitious belief.
Now, I’m an atheist but I don’t actively disbelieve in God – I just consider him very, very improbable especially in the form he’s presented in most of the worlds faiths. Just as the notion that Santa Claus would give me presents if I was a good boy and did what my parents told me to do presently became a rather obvious and transparent lie, the notion that a magical creator will reward me with an eternity of joy if I give some church a lot of money and live my life they way they’d like me to also seems – to me – to be an embarrasingly obvious snow job.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Philipjohn -
I think its important not to assume that atheism means saying ‘i know all there is to know and science understands everything’, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means ‘if you’re going to claim something is true, show me some evidence, without evidence I will not assume anything is true’. An atheist can never say anything is impossible but does not presume things to exist without evidence… I suspect that’s quite close to what you’re calling agnosticism.
Btw – I’m finding saying ‘an atheist thinks X’ difficult because, of course, atheism is the lack of a doctrine of spiritual thought, so its a bit of a generalisation to then come and say anything specific about how an individual with no religion views the world.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
It seems that some people here who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics -defining two terms could be useful:
Atheist: Someone who believes that god doesn’t exist.
Agnostic: Someone who doesn’t believe that god exists – period.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Sam,
It seems to me that evidence can only take us so far.
How is it that a believer in God can take in all the physical, empirical, scientific evidence around him, and come to the conclusion that God exists, and yet an atheist can examine the same evidence and believe that there is not a God?
Sam, I consider myself a rational person, with a reasonably firm grasp of common-sense and. Probably much like your good self.
You are right, in that there is no logical, empirical, scientific way to prove that God exists. Just like you can’t prove outright that there isn’t a monster behind you who simply moves faster than you can turn your head to check.
So having observed and measured and tested and recognised that I can’t outright prove the existence of God, I can see enough in all this physical, provable stuff to then take a step of faith and believe that there is a God and that He’s the God of the Bible.
And while I interpret anything new in the light of what I already know (who doesn’t?), I’ve not closed my eyes or mind to any new evidence. I’m more than happy to read any journal or article that comes along. I’m more than happy at any given time to question anything that the church may mandate.
I know there are some who are close-minded, but I think you’ll find an equal number of these on either side of the fence.
Danyl, I would say that someone who considers God to be improbable is in fact an agnostic. You’d have to outright deny or disbelieve the existence of God to call yourself an atheist.
I, as an obvious and obviously biased (but who here isn’t biased?) believer in God, have considered all the same evidence as you and without anything to outright prove He exists, have faith and hence a firm belief that he does exist.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
An atheist: from the greek ‘without god’, does not think there is a god.
An agnostic – from the greek ‘without knowledge’, claims no knowledge of a deity, including its existance or non-existance.
not much differnce in practice.
from wkipedia:
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence. A strong agnostic would say “I don’t know, and neither do you.”
Weak agnosticism (also called mild agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of god(s), but since any god(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of “God” must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism, on the grounds that they accept “God exists” as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity’s existence.
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of god(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[5]
May 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Dan,
Taking a pragmatic stance seems to disprove that you believe in God. The god of the bible is believeable purely taken upon faith. In my mind, there is evidence, close on incontrovertible, that contradicts the bible. I’m sure you are party to this, given that you have investigated what you can in an attempt to reconcile what you see with the notion of a supreme being.
Whatever your conclusions in this matter the fact that you has to undertake such research implies that your decision to believe was more pragmatic than faith based – anyone looking for proof does not meet the traditional idea of having ‘faith’.
I say this because the idea of having to engage in research, or scientific questioning, seems contadictory to the core Christian belief; yet many on this thread have stated that this is what they do in re-affirming their faith.
Given that absolute belief that Jesus is the Son of God and our saviour – how does a Christian keep an open mind – these seem irreconcilable ideas.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Dan-
Are you actually saying that if I had faith there was a monster behind my back but I couldn’t see him, you would find that a respectable position? Wouldn’t you try to dissuade me from that absurd notion?
How did you choose to take that leap of faith towards God rather than, I don’t know, say, Thor?
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
—Stephen F. Roberts
May 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Hey Matt,
I guess it’s like I said before, pragmatism can only get you so far. After that it becomes a matter of faith.
I don’t really feel that I have to undertake research or ask questions; I guess it’s just in my nature. I was your typical ‘maths and sciences’ student through school.
But I guess that it was encouraging that, after all my years of mathing and sciencing, I discovered that the Bible does say we should test everything, and apply discernment.
I guess a belief in God is one step, but it is going a bit further down the ‘faith-only path’ to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and our Saviour.
I guess I’ve tested the teachings of Christ in my life, and found them to be true in practice. It’s a self-proving thing, really. If Christ has proven true in some things, then can we take him at His word in everything else He says?
If we can’t, then are the things we thought to be true really true?
If we can, then everything else He says must also be true.
Do you get what I mean?
It’s that old chestnut – He was either exactly who He said He was, or He was a madman and a liar. He can’t be anything else.
I’ve not yet proven the latter to be the case, so I will continue to put all my trust in Him.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Lord, liar or lunatic?
Nice alliteration, what’s a ‘L’ word for mistaken?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Sam,
I’d certainly encourage you to test that position. Not being able to see the monster yourself means you’d most likely have to rely on someone else’s word that there was (or wasn’t) one.
I’d expect that if the other person was someone you could trust, your belief in the monster may be broken, or at least thrown into serious doubt, if they told you there wasn’t one.
I found that the evidence before me supported a belief in God over a belief in Thor.
And there was quite possibly some cultural conditioning in there too.
With regard to Roberts’ quote; I can understand why an atheist can dismiss belief in God.
I respect that position, but of course would graciously encourage an athiest to see otherwise.
I certainly don’t want to force my beliefs on others, and to move slightly close to the topic of this post, I don’t support the idea that New Zealand should be a Christian nation. Of course, that would be great, but I simply cannot force or reasonably expect people who don’t believe in God to change their mind on my or anyone else’s say-so.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Heh, the atheists act so sure of themselves. Like communism it is crumbling behind its iron facade.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
In light of this are you an agnostic or an atheist as regards the monster behind you that cannot be seen?
This seems like a pretty easy thing to demonstrate. Here’s one of Jesus’s most famous teachings:
And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.
I’m gonna knock of work early today and walk home – it takes me about an hour. So if the people who believe the teachings of Jesus to be true just pray for me to convert to Christianity on my walk we’ll be able to settle this once and for all by the time I get home tonight!
May 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Dan,the scariest monsters are not only very quick but get to go invisible when they want (cf Monster Inc).
May 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
SCOTT you present the thoughts of us Christians very well and John Cawston also summarises the evolution of Christianity well…As for the ‘Bishops’ well they display their lack of conviction and leadership. I suppose the Catholic one was Judas Randerson displaying gratitude for the high honour accorded him by Klark. The arrogance of that woman and her acolytes and fellow travellers in trying to impose this nonsense on the historic fabric of our nation is dispicable. She might have a right to make such a declaration after Saudi Arabia and Iran make a similar one.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“But many churches have changed and you have to shop around for one that is a good fit for you In my church there are many scientific types and we challenge and question everything!”
Do youask the question ‘if God is the creator who created God?’ and has he given you an answer?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Dan said…
“Certainly to be an atheist you have to accept a number of things that are unprovable.”
Nope….only lack a belife in a God/Gods.
” You have to have faith that –
there is no God”
“It is not faith ie: a belief without requiring evidence…its the lack of evidence for such a thing, meaning the use of reason.The backer of the positive assertion that “There IS a God” has the onus on him to prove it…not the person in the negative position.You can’t prove a negative.
“there is no ultimate meaning”
natural forces created everything”
There may be an ultimate meaning…personally I think its to live and enjoy life as a human being, by the application of reason,man’s survival mechanism, to reality.But you can be an atheist either way.
“the theory of evolution is true”
No….being an atheist is not tied to being an evolutionist.Nor is secularism and atheism inseparable either.Plenty of religious people are secularists because they know the danger of a union of the state with any Church.
“beauty, goodness and truth are meaningless
random forces brought everything into existence
everything is futile — you’re born, you live a few years and then you die — what was the point?”
Life…and to live and enjoy it, its all we have.
“We are just chemicals or at another level merely matter in motion
we just exist to propagate the species
life is just a sad and cruel accident — this is probably not so much a matter of faith but is a natural outworking of atheism.”
You are making the old mistake of extrapolating positives from a negative….no can do.”We don’t act on a lack of a belief. We act on beliefs. A large chunk of nothing can’t serve as the foundation for something. You can add all the zeros you want together and they still add up to zero. So the moral beliefs, of those who lack a belief in a deity, do not come from that lack of a belief, but come from someplace else. And by definition it comes from a non-theistic source.”
“The distinction is made between those who have never been presented with the concept of God before, and those who have, yet given evaluation, have chosen to not believe. Those who have never been presented with the concept of God cannot be called atheists, but then they cannot be called Christians either.”
They are not Christians no….but they certainly are atheists.They lack a belief…which is the definition of atheism.WHY they lack a belief is another matter.
“Atheism, as I think we all here understand it, is the active decision to choose not to believe in God. That in itself is as much a belief as is the active decision to choose to believe in a God.”
As explained before there need be nothing active about it….I have no active disbelief in the green cookie monster of Saturn minor either…..because I have never even thought of the idea.I do have an active disbelief in God but that’s because I’ve thought about it and reasoned that its extremely unlikely based on all natural evidence and therefore not true.Not faith but reason.Up till I was about 8 I had not active disbelief in God because I had never heard of the idea up until then so was oblivious to it but I was by definition an atheist all the same.
“And I cannot imagine how one could remove the belief that there is no God from the things they do, from the way they act/live their life.”
Re-read the quote.Lack of a belief in God does not lead to any logical conclusions apart from “there is no God”, nothing else.There are atheists who are Capitalists and there are those who are Communists,gay and straight,male and female,black and white,moral and immoral,genrous and mean,pleasant and nasty,happy and sad,etc etc…knowing someone is an atheist tells you nothing about any other aspect of that persons life or activities.
“Belief in God, per se, does not cause one to act or not act. It is merely a description of a state of believing in a particular thing.”
But its still a positive belief and therefore able to serve as a basis for positive actions derived from that belief.
“Plenty of people have a belief in God, but, as the article states, commit adultery, murder, get divorced, etc.
Belief in God is no guarantee of any standard or quality of morality.”
So a lack of a belief isn’t either mmmm….?
“The writer of this article expects us to believe that this (atheism is merely a description of a state) is the case for them, yet are seemingly surprised, and often critical when one who believes in God does something that they consider to be morally wrong.”
But its from the positive belief in a God and what this God allegedly wants,desires,commands etc as thought by the believer that can cause many immoral acts and atrocities to be committed….not so for the void that is a-theism.If a believer thinks that God hates gays that can act as a positive motivation for killing homosexuals as its what God wants.Ditto women being repressed,other faiths slaughtered,sexual/social acts banned….and so on.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Slightlyrightly – You seem to have missed my intent on that post, or drawn conclusions from it based on things that were not written. Nowhere did I say that any country should be ruled by religous beliefs. The entire post was about personal choice and understanding.
Practice your comrehension skills.
By the way, China & the former Soviet Union…not so much religious definition going on there. They were/are an example of what can happen when a country has NO religion. Spoils you arguement.
CraigM. You stated that I underestimate the defining concept of religion. I only sought to explain myself. My reasoning was that when you attempt to define a country using a beleif system that has no tolerance for other beleif systems, be they religiously OR Politically based, then the result is illustrated by the countries listed earlier.
I tolerate your viewpoint, as I receive comfort from my own spirituality, and wish no more than that to others. My moral compass is guided by christian ideals, especially that part about “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I take this to mean mutual respect for others, and I would wish no less in return.
I have respect for Islam as it is a great religion with much to admire. That it has been hijacked by extremists for political ends is a global tragedy and we should be careful that we do not condemn all muslims for the actions of a minority of extremists.
We should also be mindful of extremist viewpoints in our own midst. This is why I feel discomfort when Brian Tamaki claims that we should be a christian country. This is a disservice to the large percentage of the country, who are a minority, who do not share these views and would become second class citizens as a result.
We have a Christian heritage, and it should be recognised and honoured. It is a way we define ourselves as individuals, even a majority of individuals. It is not how we should define ourselves as a country.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
We should go one step further. make NZ a Catholic nation. Then we can all do whatever we bloody well like 6 days a week, repent on Sunday and do it all again. Pesky moral issues will be a thing of the past… bring me another choir boy will you – this one is split.
All is good in the supermarket of religion, just pay you 10% and the kingdom of god is yours forever and ever amen.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Burt the country is already fill of weekend Christians , like the mob , Church Sunday , bullet in the head for some poor bastard come Monday !
May 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hell-en KKKlarKKK’s speech is here:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00741.htm
She clearly is a ‘useful idiot’ for Moslem extremism.
‘It emphasises:
- that all faiths and beliefs should be treated equally before the law
- the right to freedom of expression of faith and belief
- the right to safety and security for those of all faiths and beliefs’
- the need for our public services and workplaces to accommodate diverse beliefs and practices; and
- the importance of education in promoting understanding.’
Oh really Helen?
Are our public hospitals going to perform state-sponsored cliterectomys? (lttle girls who’s ancestry is in the Horn of Africa)
Is the state going to permit marriage before birth and sati (burning widows alive on their husbands funeral pyres, a terrible waste of womanhood) (Hindu)
Child marriage? (Islam)
Absolute control (life and death) over wives and children (Islam)
Circumcision of boys (Islam)
Etc
Stupid.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I am waiting for someone to explain how the “Christian God” is “Jesus Christ”. Does this mean that he is his own father and his own son and his own holy ghost?
Perhaps someone who was actually ordained a minister by a real Bishop could comment. Or someone who has graduated from a theology course from a recognised academic institution.
Why does anyone take lay preachers seriously, espcially those who give themselves titles so they can lord it over their own hired underlings.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
And she sets a great example with her treatment of the EB’s.
However I’m sure they will have the last laugh.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
We have been a secular society since 1840.
It essentially means “the church”/organised religion has played no part in our political government.
This has had little to do with the faith/beliefs of individuals of the political society.
Such a secular society can exist where 90% are devout of a religious faith or only 20% are of any religious faith and only 40% are of any religious faith.
It is of course of a consensus reached after earlier religious persecutions and struggles amongst Christian denominations. While the UK had retained it’s heritage of a state church religion of the Crown it was otherwise evolving towards a more inclusive secular polity. Here we chose to not continue their heritage (still nominally in place even today despite being in breach of the European Union standards) and move to a fully secular position from the beginning. The USA made a similar decision.
Of course one can cite the obvious aberration in our secular system – the prayer in parliament. Presumably given those who were religious were Christian, it was something in common for many of the MP’s. It can be argued that we have marginalised those “few” without faith long enough with this prayer of a declining majority. If we now change it to reflect the diversity of Godfaith amongst MP’s now, what about those who will still have no Godfaith to be so reflected?
As for an acknowledgement that a lot of dead people were Christians but today we have become more diverse – why… culture/society is a living thing.
We have always been secular in our polity and this should and can continue without any of the we want heritage/protected species status so we can make claims for government support to evangelise the next generation with the religious indoctrination – which make no mistake is what this really about.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The principle of secular society is that of equal political citizenship (equality before the law – regardless of race, religion, creed, etc). It is of the culmination of civil liberties and the beginning of human rights struggle (their convergence).
May 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The whole question of whether someone is an atheist or an agnostic, or whatever is quite boring semantics, and doesn’t take us any closer to any answers to the questions of which position is correct. It might simplify the clarification of a person’s position, if everyone can agree on those definitions. But even if no one can agree, everyone still has their position.
I’m constantly amazed at how many people think arguing about the existence of God boils down to clarifying which box you fit in. At the end of the day most people’s thoughts about the subject are slightly different even when they are in the same bloody box, and the argument would have been simpler without the labels, just saying what your position was in a bit more detail. Arguing about the labels on the box doesn’t tell us jack shit about God.
Also amazing are the number of people who think that even if Theism were proved correct that would mean *all* the nonsense God-believers spout is also true. There could very well be a God just like what the Christians say and he could still have done absolutely nothing that it says in the Bible or the Koran or any number of other folklores. It’s a massive jump from claiming God exists and claiming to know its will.
Similarly with non-believers, if God’s failure to exist could be clearly demonstrated (I’m not hopeful), that doesn’t negate all those views either. There might still be universal morality, for instance. It could be that eating pork or figs is morally wrong. Maybe Jesus did walk on water by some completely other power than being a living god.
My main gripe with believers is this second misconception. Whether God exists is somewhat irrelevant to most of what they’re trying to push. How they can show that they have a feed into his wisdom is the real question that they all just can’t answer worth a damn.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
“we are a Christian Country because 55.6 percent of New Zealanders according to the last census, identify with a Christian Religion.”
By the logic a slim majority (perhaps not even that due to children/non-answering) of Christians makes New Zealand a “Christian country”, a slim majority of females makes New Zealand a “Female Country.” Should this become New Zealand’s official sex?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
There is only one god and her name is helen c ne davis ,she who bases her image on what suits her poll rating at the time, or what she can get away with,BULLSHIT and good oldfashioned lies
May 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I like drinking grog in bars. Last month the local bar owner told me that he could not open on Christmas Day, Good Friday or Easter Day. The other 361 and 1/2 days he could.
He told me that N.Z. was a Hindu nation as those three days mentioned were all sacred Hindu days.
I had another drink and thought he was talking crap. Then the Vietnam veteran at the bar told me what the half day was for.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
As some wit once observed, calling atheism a religion is like calling ‘bald’ a hair colour.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I never thought I’d hear myself say it, but I think Mr Tamaki is right in this instance. Whether you like it or not, the fact remains, New Zealand as it is today was founded on a Christian heritage, warts and all. Those who seek to focus on the wearts and ignore all the positive contributions are as much traitors as are those who seek to kill off our kids with methamphetamine.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
How can someone be right, when they are so wrong? We have never been a nation with a state church and never a nation with a state religion.
Thus New Zealand as a state and a nation has never had a Christian heritage.
That the UK did and has does not define New Zealand, anymore than it does the USA.
Those who imply that the heritage of the UK is the heritage of New Zealand as if they are one and the same are guilty of treason against our Queen. I have never been a subject of a foreign Queen and her church.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“we are a Christian Country because 55.6 percent of New Zealanders according to the last census, identify with a Christian Religion.”
Nichlemn correctly points out this is a bogus argument.
Its bogus for another reason. Religion is a personal choice and there is no reason to impose it in any way from the top down. Either you have freedom of religion or you don’t, and demanding Parliamentarians swear an oath on one particular text, in spite of the view of the parliamentarian or her constituency or about half the population, is not helpful.
I haven’t read the thread, but I assume the usual arguments about religion being the source of moral virtue have been brought out. Religion isn’t the source of moral virtue. It can’t be, because a) Christians plainly pick and choose which virtues they take from the bible (and thankfully so) i.e. there is a moral filter that overrides parts of their faith, and b) athiests are perfectly capable of believing in “do unto others”. Jesus wasn’t the first to express this universal ideal.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
” Those who seek to focus on the wearts and ignore all the positive contributions are as much traitors as are those who seek to kill off our kids with methamphetamine”
Well as a Christian I’m sure you will forgive us.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
If Helen and co decide that we’re not a Christian nation, or even a nation whose founders adhered to Christian principles, does that mean an end to all the Karakia that many government departments feel is a necessary part of any meeting?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Oh good grief …
THE CHRISTIAN FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION FOUNDED A SECULAR ONE.
They did this deliberatley.
Only a secular society gurantees the equality of all people.
The Maori were generally not Christian AND the only way all New Zealanders could be equal political citizens was in a secular society.
So given the Treaty of Waitangi was the actual founding doucment …
May 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The missionaries led the charge for spreading the word of Christianity, not the Govt. Same as today, why do we have such romantic notions that historic Govt’s delivered Christianity to the nation?
Nichlemn nails it nicely.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The existence of the Divine is cannot be either proved nor disproved by the means of the human intellect.
Our finite, created minds cannot encompass, nor imagine directly the nature of the Uncreated. If for a tiny moment we were directly exposed to the actual Being that we call God, all in the Heavens and all in the Earth would be instantly consumed and pass away as nothing.
In order that this world can exist, and that we might function independently within it, the essential logical requirement is that God sets aside the direct exercise of power in this realm.
Those of us who live in a world of wealth, power and confidence in our own merits, usually make the mistake of looking for God in all the wrong places. We look for incontrovertible evidence of His power, His Glory and Light….and when we find it not, we often conclude that like the teapot, God cannot be.
We are given, within the limits of time and space, the whole of this Universe to have dominion over…except that God reserves for His throne just one place within it….the seat of the human heart. And it is among the poorest, the weakest, the least famous, that His Light can be seen if you have the courage, sincerity and humility to look.
I love you all. (Even Mr Redbaiter who has the fire of his passion and a wonderous vision of a new race of men so virtuous they have no need of regulation and governments to rule them.)
May 29th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Thou shall not criticize christianity.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
“(Even Mr Redbaiter who has the fire of his passion and a wonderous vision of a new race of men so virtuous they have no need of regulation and governments to rule them.)”
Rag, I don’t need a commie galah like you telling other people what I believe. Speak for yourself you cheap loser.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
“I don’t need a commie galah like you…”
What NZer would call someone a galah?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
“What NZer would call someone a galah?’
Perhaps one who had actually spent sometime living outside of NZ. Actually, I think my response was perhaps a little intemperate. IMHO, it was quite a surprisingly good post from Rag, I dunno why he couldn’t have just left it without the reference to Redbaiter.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:41 am
It’s funny how, with all the criticism of the “Godless” socialists on this site, they are just as prone to fall for religious indoctrination as the conservative right, no surprise really.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Any chance of someone coming up with a term other than “our Christian heritage”? It’s attached to all kinds of connotations that I doubt the users intend to raise.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Red, Ozzie, I assume? Not still there?
May 30th, 2007 at 10:10 am
We had free-thinking, non-religious prime ministers (Vogel and Stout) in the 19th century. We have never been a Christian nation. The alliance between Maori and Pakeha was founded upon guns, beer and prostitution; only later did the missionaries come along. And since there is no universal definition of Christian values (some Christians are in to forgiveness, some are not; some non-Christians and anti-Christians are in to forgiveness too), it is pointless to say that we live lives influenced by Christian values.
Besides, the Race Relations Commissioner stated that his declaration of religious diversity does not deny the importance of Christianity within our nation’s history, so what is the issue here? Doesn’t this address your concern?
May 30th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Vogel wasn’t non-religious, he was non-Christian, a practising Jew. Can we get over the ridiculous conflation of Christian and Religious, please?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Labour’s Statement on Religious Diversity
========================================
1. There is only one State, and Helen is its Prophet
2. The people shall respect no power or authority other than the edicts of Helen and her Great Bureaucracy
3. The people shall hold no “fact”, “truth claim” or “belief” to be propositionally true, ultimately true, verifiable, or legitimate — other than the statements in this document
4. The people shall hold no values, mores, or cultural standards higher than the Eternal Secular Principles of “tolerance, diversity, and inclusion”.
5. Any person who contravenes (3) by publishing any kind of “fact, truth claim, or belief” shall be deemed a bigoted violator of (4); subject to public vilification; proclaimed a public nuisance; and investigated by the People’s Police Force
6. The people shall respect the values of the Green Party and the illustrious Susan Bradford, whose research has found that 80% of New Zealanders are criminally violent to children
7. In light of (6), and some disturbing references to a primitive Judaic belief system in the history books, an extensive re-education programme shall be implemented. All references to “Israel”, “the Holocaust”, “Jesus Christ”, “Christianity” shall be expunged.
8. You shall not covet your neighbour’s property, unless you happen to work for the IRD.
9. You _shall_ covet your neighbour’s ass. Especially if thy name is David Benson-Pope
10. Thou shalt enlarge the power and glory of the Prophet Helen, her almighty State, and its many-splendoured Departments, at every PR opportunity
May 30th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“Any chance of someone coming up with a term other than “our Christian heritage”? It’s attached to all kinds of connotations that I doubt the users intend to raise.”
We dont have a perfect match to cover the time periods because we start back 4000 years with Abraham, move forward 1000 years to the Ancient Greeks who give us so much of what we are, on to Christ and the Greeks/Romans and then into Europe proper.
I was going to suggest “Western Heritage”, but that’s hardly fair to the roots of our civilization.. in Judaism, and I’m not sure I’d like to explain to my grandchildren that their heritage is Judeo-Greek-Romano-Christian-European.. well, not as a catch phrase, so maybe “Western Civilization” heritage. After all, Judaism, the Classical Periods and Christianity have much more appeal in the West than the east.
JC
May 31st, 2007 at 9:55 am
I’ve tried to stick with Western/ Christian…
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 am
A christian nation equals paedophilia by the right wing on our kids ….no?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:48 am
“Vogel wasn’t non-religious, he was non-Christian, a practising Jew. Can we get over the ridiculous conflation of Christian and Religious, please?”
No, Vogel was a non-practising, secular Jew.