Divorced already
I thought God didn’t approve of divorce, yet the speed of the marriage and divorce between Future NZ and Destiny NZ can only be compared to a Vegas wedding. We won’t even inquire iinto whether it was consumated.
NZPA reports:
Independent MP Gordon Copeland says he cannot work with Richard Lewis from the former Destiny party, just two days after it was announced the two could co-lead a new pan-Christian political party.
Mr Copeland said he still planned to set up a new Christian party and while Mr Lewis could still be involved, the two could not be co-leaders as they were not on the “same page politically”.
Mr Copeland said he been consulting others who had advised him not to go ahead with the pairing of Mr Lewis and Destiny.
There had been a “breakdown of trust, not just with myself but for all the others involved in this process”.
He had been told that he “had no choice” but to cut ties “since Bishop Brian Tamaki and Richard did not adhere to the plan”.
I think we can now safely predict no religious party will be making 5% come the next election.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Safe prediction DPF. My vote will go where it’s useful.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:53 am
And on the third day……..
nope, nothing happened then either!
September 20th, 2007 at 8:55 am
“I thought God didn’t approve of divorce”
There is no evidence God was ever behind the marriage.
In fact considering the un-Christian like behaviour of all concerned there is no surprise that this party is gone so shortly after launch-time.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 am
The problem with a Christian party is that each sect thinks that only it represents the true word of god.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am
not sure i agree sonic.
yes there are differences of option, but then there’s lots of common ground too.
the latter, of course, doesn’t offer an Christian-bashing opportunities
September 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’m glad it died so fast. Whatever else you might think of christianity, Destiny smells like scam and Tamaki comes across as a pretty slippery character.
Christian political parties are an embarassment to both politics and christianity.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
copeland is a complete dill. a perfect example of the reason the power should be divested more directly to the people rather than sitting so heavily in the hands of the dills.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I don’t think a Christian party is a goer. Christianity is based on supernatural beliefs and principles for living. Apart from applying Christian principles it has little to do with everyday administration of the country. It would be better if anything to have a Christian wing of Labour and National. The members would probably be more sensible than Destiny anyway.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I thought God didn’t approve of divorce
Only according to Catholics. Anglicanism is founded on it.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Since when was Christianity defined as ‘Catholicism’ or ‘Anglicanism’ IdiotSavant? God doesn’t approve of divorce (except in certain circumstances) according to Jesus.
Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to [Jesus] to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
September 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
rfh – oh yeah, principles have nothing to do with the administration of a country. That is why the current incumbents are doing such a swell job for us and we find it so easy to trust them with our money, power, children etc etc. Its so refreshing knowing that principles for living aren’t affecting the governing of NZ. We have heaps of proof that things are going well on that front – good to be able to rest easy knowing pesky principles aren’t bugging anybody.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:34 am
But did they Consumate the Marrage!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Christianity is based on supernatural beliefs and principles for living.
It would be more accurate to say that Christianity is founded on a belief in the supernatural, but the principles and values people are called to live by are not. They have been claimed by Christian and non-Christian alike, so it seems strange to denigrate them in this way.
And Dave – The above alliance would hardly count as a marriage. No vows were spoken, and no commitments made before God. It was more a blind date that didn’t turn out so well
September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 am
About time that the EB cult formed a political
party.
Males standing only of course, keep the women
where they normally are with the EBs.
I am sure Key would talk to the EBs about a
coalition.
How soon until we hear that Key is a godly
leader.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:42 am
“The problem with a Christian party is that each sect thinks that only it represents the true word of god.”
Replace ‘Christian’ with ‘Socialist’ and ‘god’ with ‘Marx’, and you’ve just about got it.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Between Dunne and Tamiki lies a trail of destruction for Christian politics.
If Christians really want to have an effective voice they need to support Christian MP’s within the major parties and put this dickhead MMP inspired “we can have our own party” nonsense to bed.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I am not looking at these groups for their religious beliefs. I am looking at them for the size of their balls. I am sick of politicians being pussy whipped.
The state is so feminised and it seems that the men in there are afraid of women. And at the same time the Human Rights Commission is asking women to vote for women.
Check out our site: http://www.singleparents.org.nz
We are supposed to be the least likely to be standing up against the feminists. And if we can do it, I am sure men can do it.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:25 am
To Perfect Man: I stick by what I say. I didn’t say principles have nothing to do with running the country. Christian principles don’t tell you how to programme computers or how to pick suitable staff. They can however give government a basis of morality. We have social welfare to look after people unable to look after themselves. That is Christian principle. The arguments are mainly how to go about administering social welfare.
Before replying to other posters please read what they really say.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
The section from Matthew quoted by JesusCrux always struck me as one of the more enigmatic bits of the Bible. What it seems ot mean is if you’re a swine, you’re allowed to divorce: if you’re a good person, you’re not.
Which doesn’t seem all that helpful, really.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:43 am
“And if we can do it, I am sure men can do it.”
Men? Too many of them have been cowed for too long by the oppressive onslaught of Marxist/ Feminist/ Socialist doctrine. The hunter gatherers have been replaced by a generation or two of suckholing little sensitive new age guys, too frightened to assert themselves because of the threat of social ostracization or being sent to re-education camps. Its what the socialists want most of all. Compliant politically correct jelly backs.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I think it was consumated but Copeland decided the experience was too hideous to allow the marriage to continue with the destiny church. Copeland will never get votes, so the party will be still-born, ha ha ha Helen Clark. John Key is still walking on water and long may that continue.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
DPF said:
And as a self proclaimed atheist- what would you know?
Here’s an idea David, can you separate your disdain for Tamaki from Christianity. They’re not one in the same.
In my humble opinion Gordon Copeland has done the right thing by cutting off Lewis. The goal is to have a single christian party @ the next election & Lewis’n Tamaki were trying to muscle in on that.
Tamaki might have the money, but Copeland would get more votes without him.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
” re-education camps”
Which as far as I am aware only exist in Ratbiter’s fevered imagination.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
==>”I think we can now safely predict no religious party will be making 5% come the next election.”
The Labour-Green liberal-humanist-communist-gaia party is not religious???
September 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am
re: Sonic
I’ve heard he’s “Camp Mother”!
September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
“Which as far as I am aware only exist in Ratbiter’s fevered imagination.”
You know they exist. Racial sensitivity training, Cultural sensitivity training, TOW education campaigns are all socialist indoctrination tools. I know it, you know it, and more and more of the population as they awake from the welfare induced slumber will eventually know it. Your poisonous thought control campaigns only have a limited shelf life. You can tell your rabbits to bank on that.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Copeland bestrides NZ politics like a…. like a… like a creation of a particularly gifted satirist.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I have never proclaimed myself to be an atheist. And I don’t have disdain for Christianity – I just have a disdain for some of the churches within it.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I wonder how the real victims of Stalinist terror in the Gulags would feel about Ratbiter comparing the horrors they suffered from to him having to spend the odd dull afternoon in a training session.
He really is a drama queen.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“I wonder how the real victims of Stalinist terror in the Gulags would feel about Ratbiter comparing the horrors they suffered from to him having to spend the odd dull afternoon in a training session.”
They would probably say- “same totalitarians, more sophisticated methods”
September 20th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Somehow I doubt it Ratbiter, somehow I doubt it.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Future NZ Press Statement
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00273.htm
It would be nice if the MSM could take note of the above extract from the press statement. It would be better still if Brian Tamaki read it. I am a member of Future NZ. There is no way I would be a member of a party with some fundamentalist Christian who considers himself a visionary pulling the strings.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Redbaiter, you say the truth. People blind themselves to it. And they don’t really mean to but that they just prefer to not be accountable. It is as if people seriously believe this day is different from the last day. It isn’t and it never shall be. It is in human nature to control and it is human nature to care for yourselves. And by yourselves, I mean their family and their own life.
Sadly, people only come to the realisation of the system when they have been targeted by it themselves. Then they turn for help and wonder why no-one cares. No-one cares because they have the same nature as the one asking for help. What’s in it for me? Why should I care? Or they may say, “It is not my problem.”
Sure, I too would like to knock some sense into them but all through history these people are the crowd that are just sheep. No wonder the top of the pyramid thinks people are just numbers and stupid. That is all that people want to be. To the very few men left from the war time,. we are a laugh. In fact older people believe we need a war to come to our senses.
Unfortunately while they are so socialised and feminised, they couldn’t figure out how to fight if they tried. I hope you personally are not afraid of the radical Muslims taking over.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I agree. We need more war.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Its called boiling frogs- or if you like, the Gramscian revolutionary theory. Modern communists/ socialists (Helen Klark, her parliamentary acolytes, her party mechanism, and the Labour Party almost as a whole, and many of the contributors to this blog) have turned away from violent revolution as a means of achieving their objectives-
Courtesy of http://www.lewrockwell.com
————————–
…But there are other ways of changing one kind of socioeconomic system to a fundamentally different kind of system that minimize or localize abrupt, destabilizing change.
Gramscian “revolutionaries” have learned this lesson well – although they do not speak the vocabulary of systems theory, of course. They have learned to get what they want by pursuing their goals gradually, one step at a time, through infiltrating and modifying existing institutions and other systems rather than overthrowing them and trying to create new ones from scratch.
Clearly, a central-government initiative calling for abolishing the U.S. Constitution would have provoked an armed upheaval at any time in U.S. history, and it is at least possible that anything this abrupt still would. U.S. citizens, that is, would jump out immediately if thrown into that pot of boiling water. But if the haters of Constitutional government proceed in small increments, they eventually gut the Constitution almost unnoticed – particularly if they carry out their initiatives in multiple components of U.S. society (so-called public schools, the banking system, the major news media, the legal system, etc.).
Moreover, Gramscians have found that the road to centralization is much easier if “paved with good intentions,” expressed in pseudo-moral language and portrayed as a source of stability to come. Myriad small disruptions in the lives of individuals and local communities can be rationalized as the price to be paid for the utopia just over the horizon. “You can’t make an omelet,” so the saying goes, “without breaking a few eggs.”
So systems accommodate and incorporate these small steps, absorbing the disruptions as best they can and not allowing them to threaten the system’s overall stability. But when a system absorbs these small steps instead of repelling them, it incorporates them into its basic functioning and its transformation to a different kind of system with entirely different arrangements between its components has begun. Or in terms of the Boiling Frog Syndrome, the frog is in the pot, and the temperature of the water has begun, very slowly, to rise.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
God really does move in a mysterious way.
I’m glad this party is stillborn.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Oh My god the, er, godless commies are everywhere undermining our whole society.
Thank goodness for Ratbiter, his new campaign poster is here
September 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
sonic, that’s 3 pussies pics in a day. fetish?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“sonic, that’s 3 pussies pics in a day. fetish?”
Maybe his rabbits aren’t talking to him..
September 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Maybe baiter is a ginga? would explain the ‘red’, the misery and the uncontrollable rage at almost everything?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
llew – thanks for a coffee-out-the-nostrils moment.
bwakile commented:
I’d agree. Isn’t it interesting how we were all sold MMP as this tremendous reform which would bring about a shining new era of accountability and what we got were:
- a bunch of lickspittle List MPs – some of whom are also lazy and/or stupid – accountable only to their respective leaders and rated solely on how well they crawl to party powerbrokers.
- people with “radical” ideas (whether it’s Act’s economics or the Greens’ environmentalism or politics according to Christian principles) confined to fringe parties whose only hope of any influence is if the cards accidentally fall in such as way as to hand them the balance of power – and thus too much influence.
- No real Parliamentary reform, which was what people were led to believe somehow they were getting along with electoral reform.
I’m thinking of having a bumper sticker made – “Don’t blame me, I promoted STV”.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
helmet – I don’t think it’s fair to tar the ginga community with the rabidbleater brush. I’ve posited that he’s actually Bill O’reilly – i.e. instead of sleeping Bill Oreilly takes P and stays up all night ranting on the internet (this would also explain why rabidbleater is always linking loony far-right American blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4xiv6EyMsk&mode=related&search=
September 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I dont know why Krazy Kiwi, it’s just that whenever I read Ratbiter’s stuff I always think of a cute, little, kitty Kat.
Don’t you?
(I’m worried about his rabbit obsession though, I don’t even own a rabbit)
September 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
(I’m worried about his rabbit obsession though, I don’t even own a rabbit)
Typical. Someone else’s rabbits. Can’t even supply your own fucken rabbits to practice your fucken dopey socialist monologues on.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
No problem. He’s definitely my favourite “politician” at the moment.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I don’t even know anyone with a Rabbit Ratbiter, where did you get the rather odd idea I did?
I know odd ideas are your speciality but I am intrigued to know where Rabbits fit into the worldwide Communist/Hippy/Female/Gay/Islamic plot to take over the world?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Perhaps from rabbits those lot mentioned learnt to swallow their own shit?!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“I don’t even know anyone with a Rabbit Ratbiter, where did you get the rather odd idea I did?”
Didn’t you say the other day you talked to them? It would have to be the usual half baked off topic misconstrued commie crap right? Poor little bunnies. You should be done for cruelty to animals.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Thanks Rex for your support
I think that Christians have a great deal to offer the governence of this country but they need to bright young people work up through the ranks of National and Labour over a generation, much the same as helen and her cronies slowly hijacked the labour party.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
bwalkile, I comlpetely agree but sadly IMHO politics has a tendency to turn bright young people with vision into dull old parliamentarians with myopia. seems the most self-serving and nasty survive the best.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
kk yes you are right as bright young people in ths world have every opportunity to succeed. Maybe if we reduced the number of MPs but paid them more so as to make it more attractive .
September 20th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
DPF said…
I have never proclaimed myself to be an atheist.
There is nothing wrong with being atheist David. I don’t know of any other islander who is atheist apart from me, but people who have met me told me that I am the first polynesian person who is an atheist they have encountered. I have been casted out by the island community, even my own brothers & sisters for not following the norm, ie, being christian. I reject God based on my understanding of Physics, which is a subject that I did study.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:11 am
“Didn’t you say the other day you talked to them?”
I think you must be getting me mixed up with the voices in your head ratbiter/
September 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Reprinted without permission, this is a reply to an e-mail I sent (which was sent before he issued his press release at 1pm). What a penis I say, considering they had already come to an agreement that they were to be co-leaders. It just looks like Gordon had his panties in a twist because of the technical timing of the annoucement. Ironic considering the manner in which notice was given to Dunne when he left UF:
Date Sent: Friday, 21 September 2007 9:28 a.m.
From: Gordon Copeland
To: Chi Hsu
Subject: RE: oi
Future NZ Press Statement
For Immediate release Thursday, 20 September 2007
The following press release is from Gordon Copeland and Larry Baldock co-leaders of Future NZ.
It has now been a few days since the shock announcements by Bishop Brian Tamaki at his Deregistration press conference of Destiny NZ. We feel it is important to release information on the background facts in order to clarify our position prior to and post the unauthorised announcements.
On July 10th at a meeting of various church and Christian leaders, Bishop Brian Tamaki offered to deregister the Destiny political party immediately in order to pave the way for one single vehicle to represent many values voters in the 2008 elections. He also proposed that Richard Lewis should be considered as co-leader of the single vehicle. In his written proposal he said this would include “the end to Bishop Tamaki’s ability to speak to political issues on behalf of a Christian political vehicle.”
The National Advisory Council members present accepted both proposals. In accepting their recommendation, Larry Baldock proposed that this would need some time to work through and it was agreed that the political representatives were left to sort out the details of how this would take place.
As co-leader of Future NZ, Larry Baldock was asked if he would be prepared to lay down his leadership to make way for Richard Lewis and Gordon Copeland was similarly asked if he would be prepared to accept Richard as the new co-leader. We both responded affirmatively and also agreed to delay the registration of Future NZ while all the details of timing was worked through.
At the last meeting of the National Advisory Council held in mid August, Bishop Tamaki reaffirmed his commitment to deregister.
Also, further to the request for FNZ to put its registration on hold, the National Advisory Council recommended that all party meetings of FNZ cease from Aug 29th. This was complied with by FNZ.
At that same meeting decisions were made to make the deregistration announcement along with the Bishops own personal statements about his withdrawing from formal political involvement separate from any announcements about the registration of the single vehicle and its leadership and its new name for a number of well accepted reasons.
Bishop Brian Tamaki and Richard Lewis had no authorisation to make any announcements on Sept 17th except the matter of the deregistration of the Destiny Political party and the Bishops withdrawal from political involvement which they had sole responsibility for. All other announcements are invalid. Richard Lewis is not co-leader of anything at this point in time.
Gordon Copeland and Larry Baldock remain co-leaders of Future NZ political vehicle that is currently on hold at the recommendation of the National Advisory Council pending their further advice and recommendations.
The party that will ultimately be registered to contest the 2008
elections will not define itself as a Christian political party but
rather a party with a constitutional commitment to Judeo-Christian values with an open and inclusive philosophy. This is consistent with the recommendations already agreed to by the National Advisory Council.
We wish to emphasise our commitment to working with the National Advisory Council to achieve the objective of a single political vehicle to represent values based voters and achieve electoral success in 2008.
Gordon Copeland MP and Larry Baldock.
Co-leaders Future NZ.
—–Original Message—–
From: Chi Hsu [xxxxx@student.canterbury.ac.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2007 12:48 p.m.
To: Gordon Copeland
Subject: oi
stop taking the Lord’s Name in vain and all this talk about a Christian party. you can represent yourself as a Christian but not the rest of us who have not given you the consent to speak on our behalf
September 21st, 2007 at 10:48 am
“I think you must be getting me mixed up with the voices in your head ratbiter/”
Sonic, here’s some news- other people don’t hear voices, and you definitley implied you talked to rabbits. Look, I fully understand. Nothing you say makes any sense to humans (rational ones that is) anyway, so its understandable you’d enjoy talking to little soft furry things. The big question of course is- do the rabbits talk back??
September 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Halucinating again Ratbiter? so sad in one so young.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Halucinating again Ratbiter? so sad in one so young.”
Wow, real sharp….
September 24th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
David Farrar Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I have never proclaimed myself to be an atheist. And I don’t have disdain for Christianity – I just have a disdain for some of the churches within it.
And these would all just happen to be conservative churches, would they? Do you stand for the liberal wing of the National Party? How does that fit with Bill English, a conservative Catholic, as the deputy leader, not to mention National’s more longstanding support in the churches?
You see, there’s just a little problem here for National. Any resurgence of a Christian party on the right would take votes off National. Supposing a party did get going that managed to get say 4% in an election. They would lose, of course, but they might just damage National enough that Labour could still steal a fourth win. Copeland and Co do have a lot of support in the evangelical churches on the back of the Child Discipline Bill campaign that National so foolishly dissed so quickly. Perhaps Key was not actually that clever at all doing the deal with Clark on that one.
Just as the left wing of Labour is busy swallowing swords in their efforts to get the party re-elected through the Electoral Finance Bill, the liberal wing of National has gone to great lengths to drag National leftward, ignoring that Brash on a more rightist platform almost won the 2005 election. It would not hurt National at all at this time to keep more on that right-wing track. Just as in Labour there will be an over-correction to the right if Clark loses next year, National will do the same if their liberals drag them too far left to the point of losing in a future campaign.