Ben – that was a brilliant post – doesn’t matter what side you are on, you have made a profound comment.

Every person has a slightly different political position and therefore cannot be boxed.

I like Labour because there are sooooooooo many different shades of political opinion with a good gender and ethnic mix and they have to act as a team in order to progress, and team work produces the best results that everyone can accept.

Are you there???????????????

SEAN

It happened after the second world war, with women having proved themselves well able to work at any job for pay being shamed and marketed back into the home, it happened after the 70s equality seeking movement and it’s happening again in New Zealand, today through religious movements.

When are men going to accept that women are individuals just as they are and that when women are free to choose their lifestyle, men will be FREE to do so.

Children are more important than women or men and both genders need to work together to achieve a win-win life for girls and boys, who grow into women and men who fit together and enjoy their full potential as New Zealanders.

Susan Faludi wrote two particular books you should read – Backlash which tells about women struggling to be treated as equal human beings and the forces ranged against them to keep control. Stiffed is the book about men who are just as trapped in roles that may or may not suit them.

You lost any chance of credibility when you generalised about any man saying no about having the final decison – try looking at the domestic violence statistics. It is all about control and the means to do so.

To qualify the two books I mentioned; they were written in the 90s. Hardly a time long gone, wouldn’t you say.

Can’t Dennis answer for himself. Perhaps I need to tell you that the marriage I referred to happened around 2002.

I don’t blame any religion for my lifestyle, because thank goodness my parents sent me off to Sunday school to get the basic religious instruction and then to make up my own mind. I have always been individual in making my personal decisions unlike many ‘whatever each religion calls its followers’ people who seem to need someone else to tell them what to do.

Interestingly, the Greek church advocates people resolving their own problems, with advice from the church, if asked.

In Islam, women (and men) ARE, not just were, instructed how to dress, how to think, et cetera and in the Catholic Church, women don’t even have autonomy over their own bodies. They’re just breeding machines.

I should qualify my post in that women should have a choice in their lifestyle and be able to exercise this. They cannot do that if brought up in a particular religion that controls their choices. Also, there are many women who enjoy religion, enjoy the agenda, shall we say, of their place in life. That’s great.

No Sean, in case you haven’t noticed (possibly being a man) women are not treated as equal human beings. Until men rid themselves of the idea that women were invented just to wait upon them, to be raped, to be battered, to be murdered, to have their babies, to stay at home, cook, clean, sew and wipe men’s fevered brows, I will retain my feminist goal, which is for every woman to resist being treated as a doormat or a punching bag.

We are slowly but inexorably (hopefully) moving towards a middle ground where the extremes of men’s and women’s agendas will be refined to something both genders can accept and where men will actually take responsibility for such things as rape, (assuming they have control over their own bodies and if they don’t they should never be allowed out!) since they say they are so much stronger than women.

If we start reversing the process as Family First, Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church and any number of media (Ian Wishart), political and religious groups are trying to do now, then we will again unleash resentment and anger from the women who are being socially engineered yet again.

It’s interesting you blame Christianity for your ills…that’s where your first problem lies. Try to see beyond your bigotry, and try to understand what you accuse before spouting your drivel.

This is the best bit though: “So you are telling me that the man does not have the final decision in a family.” Haha. Ask any man that question…you will receive a resounding “NO!”

So you are telling me that the man does not have the final decision in a family. ie that he alone does not have the ear of his God and passes on the message to his wife. Why then when ……… was married in a Christian church, she became Mrs (his Christian name) and surname? In other words she as a person ceased to exist; she came under his name and his jurisdiction.

Why then, and I assume that Catholicism is Christianity but with different rituals, is the Pope always a man (except for Pope Joan and that was a mistake)?

I have a very good understanding of religion, and no I actually said religion because I meant every belief that says men can be leaders but women cannot, not just Christianity.

You also need to check your facts, especially the biological ones. Men and men are different, women and women are different, men and women are different. No two people are the same; they have different strengths and different weaknesses. We can probably agree that generally women have certain strengths and generally men have certain strengths, which ties in with my ‘general’ assumptions about women’s abilities, but how much of that is due to nature and how much is due to nurture – that is the question. With my own children, I observed them being treated differently, one cradled delicately, the other tossed in the air. Pink clothes for the girl, blue clothes for the boy – funnily enough, Mr Dennis, I read recently that boy babies were once the only babies dressed in pink!

I direct you to read London Observer columnist David Aaronovitch’s article, reprinted in the Otago Daily Times Wed, 27 October 2004, which explains my view of religions better than I can.

Jum:
You have a poor understanding of “Religion”, by which I expect you mainly mean Christianity. Women and men are completely equal in Christianity. They have different roles and specialities of course, which is only logical – men and women are different. But they are completely equal. Check your facts.

When we have two adults sharing equal power and making the decisons in line with their individual expertise, and remembering that the children of that family are more important than the adults, then maybe the family is worth conserving.

If religion cannot work towards that, and we know it cannot because its whole belief is that women are secondary to men, then religion should be canned and the family should draw from its own belief in itself.

Simple choice…..so make it.

Obviously not all conservatives are Christian, but I would also point out that Christianity and Classical Liberalism actually have more in common than many would realise. Note that I cannot speak for all Christians here, but only for myself.

Christianity teaches that certain things are right and wrong. It is from the Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Not Murder, Steal etc) that our laws were formed originally. However it does not teach that it is the government’s job to enforce religion. In fact, Christianity is very strong on the separation of Church and State – ie the State should be concerned with economic issues, common law etc. and leave religion and related issues to the Church. If the State’s role is limited in this way, the government need not be large either.

Because Christianity is a free choice, NOT something that can be forced on anyone, there will be some people who will choose to follow it and some that will not. That is guaranteed. If a Christian politician was to pass laws to force people to follow Christianity that would be completely wrong, they must have the freedom to choose. And this freedom to choose could be seen as very similar to classical liberalism.

A Christian can be a politician. And a Christian believes certain things are right and wrong. A Christian politician will therefore end up supporting legislation they believe is right, just as any politician will support legislation they agree with. This is how people work, you can’t criticise someone for voting according to their convictions.

As a Christian, I would like to see more tolerance extended towards Christian values. I would like the right to educate my children how I like, discipline them how I believe is appropriate, and teach them to know and follow God. These rights are slowly being eroded by the left as their dogma is forced through the education system and the state even legislates how I am supposed to discipline. This is not right.

Although I as a Christian believe certain things are wrong (such as homosexuality), I am happy to allow people to choose these things SO LONG as I too am able to choose to live how I feel is appropriate, and have the freedom to openly state my disapproval of certain activities. This is again classical liberalism.

But if my freedoms are being restricted, why should I at the same time support the freedom of others to be increased? This is the current situation, under the current government.

Great post DF, good topic to discuss.

In NZ, Britain, the USA and Australia the term “Right” has been misused by journalists and even by political scientists. The “Right” stands for a return to tradition, to values such as family and nation that are beyond fleeting trends. The Free Trade doctrine arose in the 19th Century and was called in the English speaking countries Whig Liberalism. It was in opposition to the Conservative Right. Marx, father of communism, SUPPORTED Free Trade because he said it would destroy traditional nations and patriotism and lead to a world economic system. We see this happening now under what is today called “globalistaion”. Marx opposed ‘protectionist’ economic policies as “conservative”. Hence, the genuine “Right” opposes both communism and Free Trade as harmful to our traditions. Unfortunately, in the English-speaking countries the onetime conservative parties have been taken over from within by Whig Liberals; hence the need for a new party that is genuinely Conservative.

Apparently DPF is a Marxist since he likes free trade;)

That is not what I said. I said you criticise small government Conservatives for attempting to apply Conservative principles (just leave people alone) when in gummint, but you’re prepared to give the big government left a pass when they use government much more than any other political group to pursue their political objectives.

Socialists want to “socialize”. (using the word outside its normal context) Their whole reason for being in government is to force conformity to their religion. You give them a pass on this at the same time as you harshly criticise small government Conservatives for supporting extremely minor references to Christianity. I’m criticising your inconsistency, not your failure to criticise.

So you’re not, because by your own expressed logic, you support the government enacting laws that reinforce the Chrsitian commandment “thou shalt not steal” and the morality that underpins that law/ commandment.

“The government that governs best governs least.”

I agree, that is why I am a Conservative, and why I do all I can to prevent the left from governing us. What good is your opposition to Conservatism if all it results in is more power to the socialists? You need to forget the confusing Libertarian doctrine and research some history. Ever read “Not Yours to Give” ???? This is Conservative thinking at its best, and the text was written long before Libertarians were even a sparkle in anyone’s eye.

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

Each one of us is entitled to our own moral code. Each one of us is entitled to decide what is good and what is bad (or evil, to use Mr. Farrar’s word). That we have such moral codes is what is important.

I actually agree. What you don’t specify is the relationship between morality and government. If you’re happy to live and express your morality without imposing it on others, then congratulations, you’re a classic liberal. If you seek to regulate the private behavior of others, or retain outdated legislation that regulates the private and social behavior of others, then you’re a conservative with basically the same desire for control that you accuse socialists of. You just want to control different things. You’re welcome to the bizarre and bigoted aspects of your morality, I just don’t want to see them reflected in the law.

As for the rest of your post, in your efforts to insult, you seem to have lost the plot, as usual. Socialists aren’t immune from criticism, not from me, anyway, because I’m not a socialist, not even close. I’m for the maximization of individual economic and personal liberty. Anyone who threatens either, socialist or conservative, through new legislation or retaining old legislation, is fair game. In saying that, I think conservatives (the sane ones) and classic liberals make better allies for the reasons DPF posted.

In the final analysis, I want to see a “gummint” “pursue” as little as possible. The government that governs best governs least.

KISS indeed.

A common misapprehension. Each one of us is entitled to our own moral code. Each one of us is entitled to decide what is good and what is bad (or evil, to use Mr. Farrar’s word). That we have such moral codes is what is important.

The left of course disagree. Because without morality, we become much easier to control, and much less resistant to their doctrine. Right now, the issue is not whether certain moralities are reinforced by government or not. The issue is their very existence. Conservatives attempt to retain traditional values and moralities. The left are attempting to destroy them, because they see such destruction as one of the best strategies to bring them the control they seek.

As an aside, it always amuses me to see confused liberal whining about Christians using gummint to further their own political case, or their own moral position, or whatever, yet socialists are somehow immune from similar criticism.

Socialists use gummint all the time to pursue the cause of socialism, but you never hear a whimper from brainwashed socialist bozos (like Glen) on this issue. They are so blinded by left wing/ pseudo liberal thinking patterns/ propaganda they cannot even see the similarity or make the comparison. Or even recognize the inconsistency of their position. A complete absence of the ability to think critically and logically. (Its why we need to start educating students and stop force feeding them socialist dogma.)

Here’s a question for you Glen. If a conservative gummint cannot pursue Conservatism, can a Socialist gummint pursue Socialism?