About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 19, 2007 10:24pm by David Farrar

Life in Iran

An interesting piece over at the NZ Centre for Political Debate from Dr Daniel Shayesteh, who was born in Iran.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment64

Uncategorised
Middle East

Related Stories

Lunch with Daniel Pipes
Iran duping the West
Smart Iran

Comments (64)

Login to comment or vote

Andrew Davies

Fascinating. Now wait for the Jesus no, Allah yes freaks to start spinning.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 19, 2007 10:49pm
masked_sean

“Daniel is married to Mary and they have three daughters. He is Director of the inter-denominational organisation “Exodus from Darkness” and a National Evangelist for the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Australia.”

He has swopped one set of invisible friends for another. His newer set of invisible friends probably helped to claim refugee status and gain a far more affluent lifestyle in the west.

Good for him. Nothing like a bit of personal initiative.

But as far as analysis of Islam or Iran goes it is so poor, so flimsy and so lack-lustre that I really wonder about the intellectual calibre of anyone who could recommend it for a moment.

I could find you a dozen ex-Muslims who have turned Christian and write a whole lot of garbage about Islam and a dozen ex-Christians who have turned Muslim and write a whole lot of garbage about Christianity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 7:40am
David Farrar

Really Sean. Please do post some links to the latter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 7:57am
masked_sean

How many would you like?

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/christian_convert_1.asp
http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/

Actually the last one is interesting because it starts of with the Koranic quotation about Jesus not being crucified.

Now if only Mohammed had the good sense to throw Mary Magadalene and a couple of sprogs into the mix he would have had a bestseller.

I visited Iran some years ago, I wouldnt claim to be an expert on the place but if you just leave them alone they and their relationship to religion will evolve far faster than if “Truth” is imposed from the outside.

Case in point: Iraq.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 8:11am
mad mike

Sorry Sean, your “I visited Iran some years ago…” is trumped by Daniel Shayesteh’s life experience regarding Islam etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 8:52am
bernard

Masked Sean do you like the part in the Koran ( 28 :86 ) that states;

“Never be a helper to the disbelievers .”

So much for co-opertion and the sooner the deadly dragonfly does it’s stuff in Iran the better ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:16am
David Farrar

But Sean neither of those links have ex-Christians talking about how they were raised to hate non Christians.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:47am
Andrew W

What I find fascinating is this obsession some people have with others religions. Building up an image in our minds to convince ourselves that we are the goodies and they are the baddies is instinctive, whether “they” is Muslims, or an Australian sports team, fortunately most of us, but not all of us (some British football fans) keep the sport in perspective.

I found the first link interesting Sean, plenty of Christians have converted to Islam, Cat Stevens and Casseus Clay spring to mind, both of them I think are admirable people.

Bernard, What does “the deadly dragonfly” refer to? Are you hoping to see lots of Iranians dying?

Generally speaking Islam is certainly at least 100 years behind the Christian west in becoming more liberal, bare in mind though that Chistian practices in the middle ages included burning witches, and forms of torture like; the press, the rack, hang drawing and quartering (drawing is where the internal organs are drawn out in front of the still live, and conscious subject, the subject was only hung as an appitiser for the crowd, and cut down while still alive) the iron maiden as the maiden is closed spikes on the inside are driven into the subjects body, some spikes are located at the eyes, groin), and the wheel (the subject was tied to a wagon wheel which was made to rotate through the force of the bone breaking blows to the body of the subject).

Such nice people those Christians of the middle ages.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:50am
The Perfect Man

Sean,

Having personally met and heard Daniel speaking about these issues and his own history within Islam I would vouch for his sincerity.
He knows Islam, he was once immersed in it and he has suffered very greatly under it. Yes he might enjoy more material affluence now than he did in Iran, however by no means is it his driving passion or purpose in life. He speaks against Islam the world over and as such is putting himself and his family at great risk.
He also has a great mind (he ties religious and philisophical debating opponents in knots) and a very engaging sense of humour to go with his big balls.

The fact that you deride his warnings shows how arrogant you are towards anyone opposing your own worldview. Put your head back in the sand if you like but remember that your arse will still be waving in the air and will one day get the crap kicked out of it by your so-called friends.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:51am
Andrew W

“But Sean neither of those links have ex-Christians talking about how they were raised to hate non Christians.”

Isn’t that the purpose of this post David? Giving people a reason to hate Muslims?

[DPF: Only if you are a moron]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:55am
Max

All a part of the media spin in the lead up to the war against Iran.

Gotta soften up the gullible public. Make it easier for the gullible public to take in the reports of thousands of children murdered by the US invaders when the war eventually happens.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:56am
bernard

Andrew W, please ask Boeing about the dargon flys and it is nice to see the launch of six operational Russian bombers last weekend !!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:17am
bernard

Sorry Andrew I meant dragon fly and its lovely to see China and Russia playing war games !!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:19am
sapper

Hey bernard , herd when the B52’s are playing bro ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:21am
gd

What makes me laugh is the way the PM fawns all over the Muzzies given how they treat their wimmin and their appalling human rights record. She doesnt appear to be able to join up the dots.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:38am
Chuck Bird

What makes me laugh is how Chris Carter bends over backwards for Muslims. What would his chances be of returning intact if him and his partners went there for a holiday? I would like to see him try.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:05am
krazykiwi

“bare in mind though that Christian practices in the middle ages included burning witches, and forms of torture like …”

All sorts of barbaric acts have been committed in the name of various religions over the centuries. My view (and I’m not a scholar here) is that these were mostly state or feudalistic powers exercising their expansion of influence using religion as a crowbar, as justification for their otherwise unjustifiable inhumane behaviour.

It’s easy to attribute blame to a religion based past human behaviour. Perhaps a more accurate measure might be to look at the sacred texts which describe religious pursuit. On that score the Bible and Koran have pretty different views on how their respective messages should be promulgated. One certainly appears more peaceable than the other.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:19am
brian_smaller

The thing to remmeber about Christianity and the Middle Ages was that it was a thousand years ago. About the time Islam is now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:24am
gd

brian smaller makes the point That was then and this is now. the apologists for the muzzies conviently overlook that we Christians dont indulge in the middle age practises whereas the Muzzies still do and dont look likely to change their ways any time soon.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 12:10pm
AGJ

He sounds very similar to this guy. Interesting read if you ever get the chance.

Mark Gabriel
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 12:37pm
AGJ

Doh…try this link http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Jews-Mark-Ph-D-Gabriel/dp/0884199568
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 12:38pm
Andrew W

“Isn’t that the purpose of this post David? Giving people a reason to hate Muslims?”

“[DPF: Only if you are a moron]”

Well in that case it’s good to see this thread hasn’t attracted to many morons who want to use it in that way then.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 12:42pm
Andrew W

I think most Muslims are well past the cultural stage of medieval Europe, My point is that Islam today is evolving as Christianity has.

Many of the practises continued till about 300 years ago, the witch burnings of Salem were in 1692and Public executions were common far more recently.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 12:58pm
Matthew Flannagan

Andrew

First, the period of Witch-burnings began in the Renaissance and continued into the time of the enlightenment. They did not occur during middle ages. Second no witches were burnt in Salem 20 people were hanged.

Third, the practices you refer to were common in secular courts. They were not common in Ecclesiastical courts. In fact Church courts, like the Inquisition for example, opposed witch burnings which is one of the reasons it never took off in Spain. Moreover the tortures you mention are all pretty much limited to secular courts. Ecclesiastical courts rarely used torture and when they did it was not of the savage type you mention above.

Third, the practice of torture originates in the pre-Christian period with Roman law and was not a Christian innovation. Torture was allowed under Roman law to gain a confession when (a) there was adequate circumstantial evidence that a capital crime had been committed and (b) no eyewitness to the crime was available. This was because one needed eyewitness testimony to gain a conviction.

The evidence suggests that the Churches stance on torture was actually very progressive. In an age where brutality was the norm and had been for centuries the Church limited it severely.

I suggest you get your facts correct before you write.

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 1:23pm
Andrew W

Matthew, thank you for your correction regarding Salem, most of the witches were hung, one was pressed to death.

I found this paragraph on wiki: “The patriarchal beliefs that Puritans held in the community added further stresses. Women, they believed, should be totally subservient to men. By nature, a woman was more likely to enlist in the Devil’s service than was a man, and women were considered lustful by nature. In addition, the small-town atmosphere made secrets difficult to keep and people’s opinions about their neighbors were generally accepted as fact. In an age where the philosophy “children should be seen and not heard” was taken at face value, children were at the bottom of the social ladder. Toys and games were seen as idle and playing was discouraged. Girls had additional restrictions heaped upon them. Boys were able to go hunting, fishing, exploring in the forest, and often became apprentices to carpenters and smiths, while girls were trained from a tender age to spin yarn, cook, sew, weave, and be servants to their husbands, mothers, and children.

Sounds pretty close to some of Islam today.

Thank you for acknowledging witch burning as a practice by Christians.

“Moreover the tortures you mention are all pretty much limited to secular courts.”

This is an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Torture_in_the_past

“Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted, not upon stubborn prisoners by governments, but upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. For example, the Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely creative torturers in medieval Spain. Many of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition did not know (and were not informed) that, had they just confessed as required, they might have faced penalties no more severe than mild penance, confiscation of property, even, perhaps, a few strokes of the whip.[citation needed] They thus ended up exposing themselves to torture. Many conceivably clung to “the principle of the thing”, however noble (or foolhardy) that torture victims may face.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:06pm
Andrew W

This is lovely stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged%2C_drawn_and_quartered

This bit seems almost inocuous:

“Women found guilty of treason in England were burnt at the stake, a punishment abolished in 1790.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:12pm
Andrew W

Matthew, I find it strange how you seem to be trying to blame the torture in Europe in medieval times of the long past Roman occupation. Perhaps murderers who happen to be Maori could use pre-European tribal warfare as a defence, do you think that would get much traction in todays courts?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:23pm
Andrew W

Matthew, perhaps you should draw on wider sources of information rather than just religious teachings.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:25pm
roger nome

David:

“But Sean neither of those links have ex-Christians talking about how they were raised to hate non Christians.”

Have you seen the documentary “Jesus camp”? Really recommend it. It’s about the Christian evangelist movement in the US. Basically they send 5-6 year old kids to these religious indoctrination camps. They have pictures of George Bush hanging on the walls. They aren’t so much taught to hate non-Christians as to fear them – which is essentially the same thing. Fear leading to hate etc ….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:27pm
roger nome

BTW in the doco it reports that 25% of Americans identify as evangelical Christians – scary hey?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:39pm
vto

bloody religion. when will it become clear there is no such thing as god? dolly the cloned sheep proved that once and for all – a ‘soul’ created by man! the spiritual world is proved to be a subset of the physical world – rather than the physical world a subset of the spiritual world as always assumed. i.e. the spiritual is physical.

done and dusted.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:40pm
roger nome

Here’s a quote about the movie from a wikipedia article.

“At the camp, Fischer stresses the need for children to purify themselves in order to be part of the “army of God.” She strongly believes that children need to be in the forefront of turning America toward conservative Christian values. She also feels that Christians need to focus on training kids since “the enemy” (meaning muslims) are focused on training theirs.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 2:44pm
JamesE

I find it very ironic that people try to compare the Judeo-Christian religion favorably to that of Islam as upon careful examination, rather than the typical careful examination, you’d see that many texts within the “Holy Bible” condone slavery (including the Apostle Paul), gang rape of a minor (Lot who was the only “good man” in Gomorrah, was being besieged in his house by a mob of fellow citizens who demanded that he give them his daughter or else they would kill him so he did), capital punishment for crossdressing, prostitution, “occult practices”, adultary, heresy, WORKING ON THE SABBATH!, and many other very minor “sins”, it also condones genocide/ethnic cleansing (“God” demanded the Israelites to cleanse the Promised Land of all worshippers of “false gods” down to the last man, women, child and even animal).

Christians who took those scriptures very literally aren’t a particularly ancient phenomen either. “Bloody Mary” the Catholic daughter of Henry VIII earned her epithet by having 300 “heretics’, burnt at the stake. Another good example are the Anabaptists who were considered heretics by both Catholics and Protestants and harshly persecuted by them both including beheading, drowning in a cruel mockery of the tradition of baptism, hanging, and burning at the stake. I’m just glad that I was born after universal education has destroyed the credibility of such narrowminded dogma as I would have been persecuted two reasons being an adherent of a “heretical” sect of Christianity during my childhood and youth, and now for being an apostate (former believer).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 3:25pm
JamesE

I meant

…as upon careful examination, rather than the typical selective quoting…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 3:27pm
Matthew Flannagan

I see Wikipeda says I am wrong…that settles it. Not

First, I note you do not dispute my comments about the date of the witch trials ages or Salem these were basic facts known to anyone who has studied the topic. The fact that you posted this suggests you have read almost nothing on the topic.

Second, Durants views are well out of date an discredited. I based my findings on the more study of the Inquisition by Henry Kamen, a world expert on the Spanish Inquisition. See his Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Revisionist History (New Haven Conn : Yale University Press, 1998) He documents from numerous sources that what I say is correct. Edward Peters, Inquisition, (London: Collier Macmillan, 1981) work is also quite good he actually has a section comparing ecclesiastical courts with secular courts. You could also examine Canon law and you’ll find that the rules clergy under prevented Church courts from using many of the methods you describe. A summary of some recent research by a professional historian is here http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
In his latest monograph God Reason and the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Edward Grant notes that the picture of the middle ages as extremely violent barbaric dark ages is now discredited.

Third you are mistaken on the Puritans as well again I suggest for starters you examine Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Were (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990). I could suggest the some other peer reviewed surveys of the primary sources if I can dig them out from my files. I note you fail to cite a single primary source in your post. I could note that some of the people killed in Salem were men and the accusers were women. Interestingly, Rodney Starks recent work For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004). Has a good critique of the notion that witch craze was the result of sexism; he points out the demographics don’t support it.

Finally I did not, blame the Romans. I simply believe that one when one makes a moral judgement about another’s behaviour you need to judge take into account what they could be reasonably expected to know in their situation. For example I don’t consider Aristotle a stupid moron because he believed in geo-centricism, he was a genius who simply didn’t have the information we have today. On the other hand a person who today believed in geo-centricism would be an ignoramus. Similarly, in NZ where people grow up in a society where torture is not practised and its injustice is viewed as self evident opposing torture is hardly a sign of exceptional moral discernment or courage. However if I grew up however I grew up in a context where it was widely used practised and taken for granted and brutally imposed. And I refused to follow this custom uncritically but rather used torture very sparingly and adopted far more humane methods would require much more moral discernment and sensitivity. And yes I would apply this to murderers today, if a person cannot reasonably be expected to know murder is wrong we should acquit him. (The McNaughton rule agrees with me here btw)

Oh and a final thing Andrew. The fact that you believe what ever you hear on TV an uncritically accept whatever you read on Wiki does not mean that religious believers never read anything. Some of us actually have several years’ education; we may even have post graduate degrees or even a PhD. Some of us read a bit more widely than you think.

Kind regards.
Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 4:59pm
Andrew W

Matt, given your obvious belief in the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam, apparently based on your view that Christians are more benevolent, I find these comments, supporting capital punishment based on Christian beliefs bizarre: “Texas is about to perform it’s 400th execution since capital punishment was reinstated in 1982. Stuff has an interesting article on this entitled “Religion, Culture Behind, Texas Execution Tally”

The article suggests that outsiders find it puzzling that evangelical Christians support capital punishment. This surprise, I suggest, reflects the theological and historical ignorance of these outsiders. Historically most Christian Theologians supported capital punishment as does mainstream historical Christian tradition.”

Matt, I also found this comment of yours interesting: “I simply believe that one when one makes a moral judgement about another’s behaviour you need to judge take into account what they could be reasonably expected to know in their situation.”

Now I agree entirely, but do you apply this understanding attitude consistently, or only when it suits you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 5:27pm
Andrew W

The first quote above, starting “Texas…” is from Matt’s site.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 5:29pm
Matthew Flannagan

Yes of course James us only opponents of Christianity have ever read the scriptures. Us evangelical theologians never have.

What you say is for the most part false.

First, to say Paul condoned slavery is not entirely accurate; he called slave traders sinners in the book of Timothy. In Philemon he subtly encouraged a man to emancipate his slave. And in first Corinthians he uses a common Jewish line of slavery to argue that it Christians should not keep other Christians as slaves. As to the Old Testament the word is not the English word “slave” but the Hebrew word “ebed” which means worker, it’s a term applied to God sometimes. If you read the regulations relating to an “ebed” you’ll see it’s very different to slavery.

Second the scriptures do not condone pack rape they condemn it. The story you mention merely *records* an attempted pack rape recording something is not prescribing it. Moreover if you read the rest of the story Sodom is destroyed because its inhabitants do this. Moreover Lot’s actions are also tacitly condemned in the next chapter when his daughters rape him this is a common near eastern literary use of irony or poetic justice to display a point. The Torah which follows goes on to forbid this sort of practice. Reading the passage carefully in context suggests a very different conclusion to the one you propose.

Third your comments on the Torah are mistaken no penalty is specified for cross dressing in the Torah nor is heresy condemned as a capital offence in the Torah.

Moreover you seem to misunderstand the mention of capital offenses in these texts. As several scholars have noted the torah in terms of its Genre is an ancient near eastern legal treaty. According to Raymond Westbrook,[ “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol. 1, ed. Raymond Westbrook (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003),] the use of capital sanctions in such documents do not function to prescribe a literal legal rule. They serve more as an admonitory function to express moral outrage at a given practices and were not intended to be enforced literally. Jewish rabbis have recognized this fact for centuries and interpreted the torah in a similar light. In fact a careful glance at the torah and latter OT writings also show this.

Fourth, your suggestion that bloody Mary condemned heresy because she interpreted the scriptures literally shows a lack of understanding. The reformers stressed the literal sense of scripture not Catholics. Moreover the theological justification of suppressing heresy is far more complex than you suggest it certainly was not based on merely literal proof texting of the torah. It actually goes back to some reflections of Augustine of Hippo. I suggest you read Joseph Lecler Toleration and the Reformation, trans. by TL Weslow (New York: Association Press, 1960), for a survey of the history.

Finally, your comments about heresy and education are naive. The Inquisitors were highly educated people such as the Dominican order. Not ignorant uneducated people and they received a more thorough education than most New Zealanders would have. Moreover the number of people executed for heresy is comparatively small compared to say the millions of people murdered this century by secular regimes in the 20th century or even when compared with the terror of the French revolution. Yet we never hear these things bandied about as evidence that atheism is evil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 5:42pm
Andrew W

Tell me Matt, have evangelical Christians supported capital punishment only since the lethal injection or did they also support and practice it when it was a little more brutish?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 5:48pm
Matthew Flannagan

Andrew I never said Islam was morally superior to Islam. I said your comments about history were inaccurate. Thats not the same thing.

I fail to see any contradiction here Andrew. I believe that when condemning a person one should take into account what they can be reasonably expected to believe and I also think that Christians have historically supported the death penalty ( as I believe have Muslims). Wheres the contradiction?

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 5:52pm
masked sean

“But Sean neither of those links have ex-Christians talking about how they were raised to hate non Christians.”

It appears that they dont need to be taught to hate non-Christians. It just seems to come naturally to them.

Sorry, but ignorance of iran here is squat. There are long standing communities of christians and other religions there too. They have guaranteed seats in parliaments and are their rights are protected – with the exception of proslytising. It is the inheritence of the Ottoman vilayet system.

I visited Iraq in 2004 and Iran in 2000. And it was like the difference between heaven and hell.

What is always breath taking is the ignorance (which barely hides the bigotry that lies beneath) of the Western chattering classes regarding this region.

You guys have destroyed one country and one generation’s hopes in Iraq. Iran is far better functioning country than Iraq was, please don’t do the same there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 6:42pm
Andrew W

Im happy these two articles are reasonably accurate, you agree Matt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

I never claimed that the church was directly responsible for the majority of tortures and executions in Europe during the middle ages, My point was that Christians in Christian nations were, and as being a heretic was not acceptable to the church, very few of Europes population were not Christians.

The Madden article you link to has the comment “As one headline read “Vatican Downsizes Inquisition.””

The sources you use seem to have a Catholic foundation so you can probably understand my scepticism if you are trying to claim that Christianity can be absolved of responsibility in the torture of the time, though I agree that moral judgements across culture and time are silly. And that is the crux of the point I have been making, and that you seem to agree with when you state “I never said Islam(sic) was morally superior to Islam.

There is no point in demonising Islam, unless you expect a religious war in the future or think genocide is a practical option. The vast majority of muslims are happy to live and do business with non-muslims, those on both sides who preach hate advocate a future of violence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 7:34pm
krazykiwi

Matthew Flannagan: good post.

Andrew W said: “…apparently based on your view that Christians are more benevolent”.

I don’t think Matt said this at all. However I would be interested to hear your views on, what appears to me, to be the disproportionate number of Christian charities that stretch across geographic, racial and social boundaries vs the Islamic charities with the same dimensions. If there is equal representation perhaps we might assume equal benevolence?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 8:33pm
Andrew W

“If there is equal representation perhaps we might assume equal benevolence?”

That probably has more to do with wealth, if Samoa (a Christian nation) donates less the the US per head in aid, is that because they are less wealthy or less benevolent?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:17pm
sean

“Second the scriptures do not condone pack rape they condemn it. The story you mention merely *records* an attempted pack rape recording something is not prescribing it. Moreover if you read the rest of the story Sodom is destroyed because its inhabitants do this. Moreover Lot’s actions are also tacitly condemned in the next chapter when his daughters rape him this is a common near eastern literary use of irony or poetic justice to display a point. The Torah which follows goes on to forbid this sort of practice. Reading the passage carefully in context suggests a very different conclusion to the one you propose. ”

Does one laugh or cry?
Matthew, since you seem so interested in the use of irony in religious texts I am sure you will enjoy this read

http://www.strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=5

A small quote

“The possibility that rape would result in pregnancy was the central concern. What should be done if the victim was too young to be impregnated or was menstruating at the time of her rape? What if pregnancy was precluded because the victim was infertile, or because she was anally raped but not vaginally raped? What if she was anally raped by one man before being vaginally raped by another? And the other way around? Few stones were left unturned by the Sages of the Talmud.”

Enjoy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:19pm
krazykiwi

Andrew W: I was interested in the numbers of charities, not the wealth that they tap into for their giving.

Benevolence would seem to be more defined by attitude of the people involved than by the raw cash committed to worthy causes.

So, in your opinion, does Christianity demonstrate more or less benevolence that Islam?

[ Ha – Security code IRAN 🙂 ]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:33pm
Andrew W

You seem to be looking for some justification to rank one religion ahead of another, what you expect to achieve and how you are going about it is just wierd, please rank the following in order of benevolence.

Hinduism
Buddhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Islam
Judaism
Christianity

Now, how did you arrive at that ranking, and what does it prove?

Answer: Nothing!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 9:56pm
krazykiwi

No Andrew, you made an unjustified assertion about another posters beliefs. I was simply offering you the opportunity to voice your view on the same topic. It would seem that I have not succeeded.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:04pm
Andrew W

“I was simply offering you the opportunity to voice your view on the same topic.”

No meaning full conclusion is possible, there are too many unquantifiable factors.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 10:30pm
JamesE

Mathew,

I did not make my comment to denigrate the beliefs of Christians, but was merely narrowminded to a judge an entire religion and all of its adherents, beause of dispicable acts committed by people who seek to justify them by using a very literal interpretation of their scriptures when you could say the same about your own religion.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Mathew 7:3

Men are flawed, both good and bad. Capable of the greatest acts of personal sacrifice and conversly acts of the most despicable savagary. Its made all the worst when they can use religious texts to justify his actions no matter how grosteque. There is no more of a dangerous man than one who is convinced of the justice and righteousness of his cause. That is true of any dogma, secular or religious.

Its been awhile since I read my Bible, so I forgive me for not answering your objections just yet.

“Fourth, your suggestion that bloody Mary condemned heresy because she interpreted the scriptures literally shows a lack of understanding. The reformers stressed the literal sense of scripture not Catholics.”

I did not say that she persecuted “heretics”, because she was literally interpreting scriptures, but literally reading those particular texts that I cited would have allowed her to justify doing those unspeakable acts as she would have considered them righteous and just.

“Her major goal was the re-establishment of Catholicism in England, a goal to which she was totally committed. Persecution came more from a desire for purity in faith than from vengeance, yet the fact remains that nearly 300 people (including former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer and many of the most prominent members of society) were burned at the stake for heresy, earning Mary the nickname, “Bloody Mary.”
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon44.html

“They serve more as an admonitory function to express moral outrage at a given practices and were not intended to be enforced literally. Jewish rabbis have recognized this fact for centuries and interpreted the torah in a similar light. In fact a careful glance at the torah and latter OT writings also show this.”

Many Muslims have done the same for centuries as well, which is why its important not to paint all the adherents of Islam with the same brush and thus alienate the very people who you should be engaging with to fight the more extremist fringe groups.

“Finally, your comments about heresy and education are naive. The Inquisitors were highly educated people such as the Dominican order. Not ignorant uneducated people and they received a more thorough education than most New Zealanders would have.”

Not really. I wouldn’t think that the education would have been particularly liberal in the Catholic seminaries. No Voltaire, Rousseau, etc back then. Many Muslim terrorists are no doubt highly educated as well, particularly thanks to the Saudi government funding Wahabi madrassas throughout the world with their oil money courtesy of the West’s dependance on its oil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:01pm
Matthew Flannagan

Sean

I note you provide no rebuttal to my post except to assert its laughable and note that an Anesthesiologist asserts otherwise in a webblog. Funny my examiners for my PhD in Theology did not find my work as obviously flawed. But then I guess they are only theologians and not bloggers who specialise in Anesthesiology so they would now nothing about the topic. Perhaps we should only refer to their judgement when we are seeking pain medication.

Actually the site you refer me to relies on an error of interpretation. It interprets Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as requiring a rapist to marry his victim. The text however states.

“If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he *tapas* her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has *anah* her; he may not put her away all his days.”

The word *tapas* simply means to grap hold of, or to handle, it does not entail violence or force. If this were the sense then the word chazak (grap violently or forcefully ) would be used. In fact chazak is used only three versus earlier to refer to a rape. So if anything the context is against interpreting this passage as referring to a rape. The text contrasts this case with the previous one. Similarly the word *anah* simply means to dishonour it does not necessitate rape at all.

This is made clearer from the broader context, I notice you fail to mention that the very same law is refered to elsewhere in the torah particularly in Exodus 22:16-17 I will quote the repitition in full

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.” there is nothing ambigious here in this rendition of the law it’s pretty clear that the redactor understood the law to refer to seduction not rape.

Nor is this news numerous commentators have made this very point.

Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).

In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

I might be mistaken but I think these guys might be a tad more authoritative than a blog.

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:41pm
JamesE

“So, in your opinion, does Christianity demonstrate more or less benevolence that Islam?”

You’re comparing apples and oranges KK. First Christianity has had a legacy of four hundred years of exposure to liberalism, universal education and comparative wealth, whilst is the Islamic civilization is suffering its own Dark Ages and its progress has been shunted back a thousand years thanks to the interference of the colonial powers.

a) the Treaty of Jeddah between the British and King Abdul Aziz officially recognised his control of what is now Saudi Arabia and its oil wealth. The problem is that the House of Saud, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia has historically close ties with the Wahabi sect of Islam, who have a very strict and literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith.

“The history of the Al Saud has been marked by a desire to unify the Arabian Peninsula and to spread what it promotes as a more purified and simple, though often criticized as less tolerant, view of Islam embodied by Wahhabism which has gained international controversy since the events of 9/11. The House of Saud is also linked with Wahhabism (Saudis deprecate the term, preferring the term Salafi) through the marriage of the son of Muhammad bin Saud with the daughter of Muhammad Abd al Wahhab in 1744.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud

b) the British and American cooperative intelligence operation to depose the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power, and replaced it with a monarchy, after the attempted nationalisation the Anglo Iranian Oil Company and their support of the despotic Shah alienated many progressive, secular Iranians who were then thrust into the arms of the fundamentalist mullahs during the Iranian Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

For an alternative source of opinions held by Iranians about their country read the article below and then the attached comments.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=30fb483e534a69e297a79006b0fd3f21
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:50pm
Matthew Flannagan

James

Thanks for the clarification, a couple of points.

First as I stated there are no texts in the torah which even if interpreted literally endorse executing people for heresy.

Second, your comments about medieval education are inaccurate. The Dominicans dominated the great liberal arts Universities of the high middle ages which were centres of classical liberal education. Defenders of the Inquisition such as Thomas Aquinas (who held the chair at the University of Paris) were not stupid ignorant morons. In fact I daresay he was much brighter and better educated in the liberal arts than many New Zealanders are to day. The same can be said about Augustine who provided the first defence of religious persecution and had been a professor of Latin rhetoric. Nor was Locke who was educated at Oxford, one of the greatest thinkers of his age and who advocated the state suppression of atheists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2007 11:52pm
masked sean

Matthew

“I note you provide no rebuttal to my post except to assert its laughable and note that an Anesthesiologist asserts otherwise in a webblog.”

As your post had no substance beyond the assertion that the offer of Lots daughter’s to be raped was ironical with absolutely nothing to back up that assertion there was nothing to rebut.

“But then I guess they are only theologians and not bloggers who specialise in Anesthesiology so they would now nothing about the topic”

actually he has a PhD in Anthropology as well as writing on various subjects regarding evolution and evolutionary psychology so I am guessing he probably has publication list rather longer than you and your examiners put together and in a far wider range of material.

One of his interests is how religion can be seen to be a reflection of evolutionary principles regarding in-group and out-group selection stratagies.

“I might be mistaken but I think these guys might be a tad more authoritative than a blog. ”

You are indeed mistaken as Dr Hartung makes quite clear in his reference to the Talmud interpretations and to Malmonides exactly how these verses were understood within medieval and premedieval Jewish culture.

Your quotes (all modern, and mostly post enlightenment with the exception of Calvin) are simply indications of the intellectual contortions Christian minds will go to in order to rationalise away or reinterprete ethics that while highly suitable to tribal Canaan or Upper Highlands Papua New Guinea are plainly unacceptable in modern culture.

Incidently I dont know where you did your PhD but when I was studying at Otago we were taught about intellectual honesty, plagairism and the importance of sourcing where you get your material from – especially when it is cut and pasted.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe152.htm

Clearly plagiarism is not a concern for you but I believe you may have also fallen foul of the Commandment against bearing False Witness.

Which as a theologian ought to concern you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 2:10am
Andrew W

“Dr Matthew Flannagan is an ignorant, stupid, illogical, irrational, backwards fundamentalist, moronic bigot….”

http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/search/label/Dr%20Matthew%20Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 6:51am
krazykiwi

KK: “So, in your opinion, does Christianity demonstrate more or less benevolence that Islam?”

JamesE: “You’re comparing apples and oranges KK. First Christianity has had a legacy of four hundred years of exposure to liberalism, universal education and comparative wealth, whilst is the Islamic civilization is suffering its own Dark Ages and its progress has been shunted back a thousand years thanks to the interference of the colonial powers. ”

Think you may be stretching things a bit to claim that colonial influence is holding Islam back from liberal enlightenment. Still – each to their own.

Also not sure about the apples / oranges comment. Benevolence is a human trait, one that is exhibited across all the worlds’ cultures. Blog discussion on religious matters so often becomes a tooth-and-claw comparison between which religion is the least humane, with predictable reliance on present day atrocities attributed to Islam and past atrocities attributed to Christianity.

But what of the ‘good’ encouraged by any given religion? Surely kindness towards other humans is (or should be) one of the greatest goals of civilization.

I don’t know how other religious groups organize their global humanitarian efforts but I can see plenty of evidence of Christian groups in this space.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 9:11am
Andrew W

I think a reasonable analogy can be drawn between measuring benevolence and measuring intellegence.

There is no objective measure of intellegence, While some groups score higher than others eg. men higher than women, whites higher than blacks etc. on standard tests those tests measure an arbitrary weighting of various traits associated with intellegence, change that weighting and you’ll change the results.

There has been a lot of study of intellegence and trying to measure it, little on benevolence, though there have been attemps to measure empathy, which is probably the same thing.

Benevolence or empathy towards who? strangers, friends or family? This is an important point, people have empathy towards those they identify with. In the west we see the rest of the world on TV regularly and this leads us to identify with other poeoples around the world, if others don’t have TV they won’t have identify with others around the globe, the world is only getting smaller to those in the West because of the technology we have.

The most imortant point in the battle of the benevolence though is that like intellegence it is a person triat, men might test as being more intellegent that women but that doesn’t make any particular men brighter than a particular woman, rying to lump people together rather than recognise their individuality is very socialist 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 10:01am
Matthew Flannagan

Masked Sean

I stand by my comments

I gave an argument for my interpretation I noted (a) what certain Hebrew words mean and (b) how the same law is cited elsewhere in the torah. You did not respond to that. I then showed that numerous other scholars have argued the same conclusion. Your response is simply to (i) accuse me of plagiarism and (ii) say these scholars are modern thinkers offering contortions.

Regarding (i) I think it’s a stretch to suggest that copying a list of books and authors of another site constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when you take another persons work and make it your own without acknowledgement, I did not do this. I would not call copying a list of references to quotations from third parties all of which were acknowledged to be plagiarism.However, even if I did act unacceptably, your comments still do not address my point, pointing out I have a character flaw does not show my arguments are flawed.

Regarding (ii) simply asserting that an author is engaging in modern contortions is hardly a rebuttal. But to address your point medieval writers utilised a wider definition of rape than modern people do they understood it to include “seduction” where a man seduces a virgin with here consent. Isidore De Serville for example stated “seduction [stuprum], or rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a seducer.” Similarly, Aquinas in writes

“They [rape and seduction] coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father’s house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents’ house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed.” {ST II-II 154, 7 the quote from Isdiore is cited in this passage as well) Hence its not entirely accurate to read the word rape in Medeival commentaries as “rape” as we understand it today.

Interestingly my copy of Maimodes suggests he had a similar understanding of the passage. In 218 of his Sefer Ha Mitzvoth where he interprets the passage under discussion to require a rapist to marry the women he has violated he add note where he states that consent of the women is necessary for this law to apply understood the passage to apply in cases where the women consented . (Maimodes: the Positive Commandments; translated by Charles B Chavel- p 233). Moreover when he addresses the same law in 220 he refers to it as the law of the *Seducer* (p 234)

Finally as to the publications issue, I suspect that many of the commentators I cite have quite an impressive publication record on Old Testament scholarship. Meredith Kline and Kaiser certainly do we can cite authorities all day. The facts are that this passage refers to a seduction, it’s only because medieval people considered a case where a virgin and her lover eloped without parental consent to be a form of rape that the confusion arises.

Have a nice day

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 11:18am
Matthew Flannagan

Andrew

When the only response you can muster is “you’re a moron” you have clearly lost the argument.

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 11:27am
Andrew W

It must be my sense of humour, I thought I could kill 4 birds with 1 stone:

1. illustrate how things could be taken out of context, which is the theme in the theological debate on this thread.

2. Answer Sean’s query regarding which university your PhD was from- Otago, same Uni as him.

3. Get people to look at your site – you have some interesting stuff there.

4. Do it all in a humourous manner – they are your words.

I certainly wouldn’t call you ignorant – at least not on Christian history, I might however call you arrogant.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 12:13pm
Matthew Flannagan

Andrew W

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I struggle with arrogance. If I perceive people are trying to call be stupid I tend to get my back up and try and put them in their place. Its stupid and immature. I detest the kind of “All Christians are thick morons I know I read a website and heard it on the news” phenomena I frequently run into.
I consider it be a fashionable form of ignorant bigotry.

Glad you find my site interesting. Though my wife posts there too and we are not always the same in what we think or in our style.

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 12:34pm
Andrew W

Slight correction, they are your wifes words (she was also being humourous).

I found this bit interesting, especially the last sentence:

Examiners of his thesis spoke of his “remorseless logic,” “his substantial contribution to his field,” “[his thesis being] one of the finest I have had the privilege of examining.” Matt was commended for his fairness in presenting and critiquing opposing views, the thoroughness of his work and substantial encouragement was given to seek its publication. Yet not one examiner shared his philosophical views.

Does that mean that your examiners would have agreed with Sean and James rather than you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 12:35pm
Matthew Flannagan

I think the examiner was refering to the fact that he was a Roman Catholic and a Thomist and hence had a very different way of answering the question than I did.

I think he thought I was too liberal and lax in places 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 1:10pm
Matthew Flannagan

Sean

I noticed some typos in my post that may make it hard to understand particularly the stuff on Maimonides (Sorry, but my keyboard skills suck.) Here is what I meant to write.

*My copy of Maimonides suggests he had a similar understanding of the passage. In Sefer Ha Mitzvoth 218 where he states that the torah requires a rapist to marry the women he raped he adds a note (which you omitted to mention). The note states this law to applies only in cases where the women consents. (Maimonides: the Positive Commandments; translated by Charles B Chavel- p 233). Moreover when he addresses the exact same law in 220 he refers to it as the law of the *Seducer* (p 234). He apparently understood the word *rape* to cover cases of consensual seduction.

Matthew Flannagan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 21, 2007 3:18pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Parliamentary Wikipedia edits

Rudd’s strip club visit »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 11 June 2026
Best fisking ever
All you need to know re Labour's fare cap
General Debate 12 June 2026
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers
Maybe there will be a Little accountability
Renewable energy - the truth
General Debate 10 June 2026
Two good Green MPs
Do as I say, not as I do

Recent Posts

General Debate 12 June 2026 12 June 2026
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers 12 June 2026
All you need to know re Labour’s fare cap 11 June 2026
General Debate 11 June 2026 11 June 2026
Best fisking ever 11 June 2026
Maybe there will be a Little accountability 10 June 2026
Renewable energy – the truth 10 June 2026
General Debate 10 June 2026 10 June 2026
Two good Green MPs 10 June 2026
Do as I say, not as I do 9 June 2026
A good summary 9 June 2026
Labour conspired to keep candidacy from Police 9 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 12 June 2026
RoboRob
General Debate 12 June 2026
RoboRob
General Debate 12 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 12 June 2026
RoboRob
General Debate 12 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 12 June 2026
Yvette
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers
burt
General Debate 12 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers
Local Miller
General Debate 12 June 2026
RoboRob
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers
Local Miller
General Debate 12 June 2026
artemisia
General Debate 12 June 2026
RoboRob
General Debate 12 June 2026
Cassandra
Labour gets a triple fisking over its dodgy fare numbers
RoboRob

Links

Authoritarian regimes actively target personal autonomy
Not PC
Levies as end-runs around the Generic Tax Policy Process
Offsetting Behaviour
The Enigma That Is Rawiri Waititi
No Minister
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Why Everything Feels More Expensive (hedonic adaptation)
Utopia
The Role of Regulation in Building Fairer Online Casino Experiences
The Daily Blog
Open Mike 12/06/2026
The Standard
Out of touch
No Right Turn
Surgical equipment should be well sterilised, but Health NZ wants hospital staff to be savvy about the Treaty, too
Point of Order
A Read Of “The Far-Right Playbook”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Systemic Change, Institutional Lag and Societal Resilience.
Kiwipolitico
United Rugby Championship Predictions for the Final
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d